Attack on Quebec Mosque

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What would be your response to a Muslim who says that the Orlando shooter wasn't Muslim, because a true Muslim would have been there to wash feet and not to shoot?

Well first, Muhammad did not wash feet.

The Muhammad of Mecca was compromising and tolerant. He did not have the power of the Medina Muhammad. Then after the conquest of Medina, Muhammad became a military and political leader. That is where we get the conquest and violent texts.

The Mecca texts were abrogated for the Medina texts.

When Muslims use violence in the name of their religion, they are invoking the 'most recent' version of Muhammad's teachings. When they reject the Medina Muhammad, that IS news and we should hear about it.

Unfortunately, the texts of the Quran are not chronological and therefore is confusing for most Westerners. When the texts of the Quran are grouped in chronological order, the fog clears and it becomes evident.

Now, let's look at Christianity. The Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant. The Old Covenant had violence, addressed a specific people, in a specific land in a specific timeframe. Regardless of the pages we could discuss theologically on the commands to destroy, kill and burn cities in Canaan, none of those commands pass through to the New Covenant. A Covenant not only for Jews but all peoples. Not once did Jesus command violence, command an apostolic kingdom or theocracy. Not once is the NT church trying to seized political power or control. When supposed Christians try to do these things in the Name of God, they are disobeying the command of Jesus Christ who said not to do these things. So it is news when a professing Christian uses violence to promote or further Christianity. It's wrong because Jesus NEVER commanded such. To be a Christian one must follow the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ.

I know some of what I wrote above will not resonate with the bumper sticker mentality/political meme culture. So I will put it this way.

Islam went from peaceful to violent....Heading in the wrong direction.

The Bible (two major covenants) went from violent to peaceful.

Two divergent lines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArmenianJohn
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Very true. My Muslim friends are wonderful people who would never consider doing what the Orlando shooter did.

I am glad. Truly I am. Perhaps we are missing a major movement within Islam to reject the Medina Muhammad for the Mecca Muhammad.

That would be newsworthy to explore.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I am glad. Truly I am. Perhaps we are missing a major movement within Islam to reject the Medina Muhammad for the Mecca Muhammad.

That would be newsworthy to explore.

I spoke of my dear friends who are Muslim, not of a "major movement." Perhaps your Muslim friends have a different attitude.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Well first, Muhammad did not wash feet.

I don't think anyone claimed that he did. But many Muslims do wash their feet and hands before prayers.

The Muhammad of Mecca was compromising and tolerant. He did not have the power of the Medina Muhammad. Then after the conquest of Medina, Muhammad became a military and political leader. That is where we get the conquest and violent texts.

The Mecca texts were abrogated for the Medina texts.

When Muslims use violence in the name of their religion, they are invoking the 'most recent' version of Muhammad's teachings. When they reject the Medina Muhammad, that IS news and we should hear about it.

Unfortunately, the texts of the Quran are not chronological and therefore is confusing for most Westerners. When the texts of the Quran are grouped in chronological order, the fog clears and it becomes evident.

Now, let's look at Christianity. The Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant. The Old Covenant had violence, addressed a specific people, in a specific land in a specific timeframe. Regardless of the pages we could discuss theologically on the commands to destroy, kill and burn cities in Canaan, none of those commands pass through to the New Covenant. A Covenant not only for Jews but all peoples. Not once did Jesus command violence, command an apostolic kingdom or theocracy. Not once is the NT church trying to seized political power or control. When supposed Christians try to do these things in the Name of God, they are disobeying the command of Jesus Christ who said not to do these things. So it is news when a professing Christian uses violence to promote or further Christianity. It's wrong because Jesus NEVER commanded such. To be a Christian one must follow the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ.

I know some of what I wrote above will not resonate with the bumper sticker mentality/political meme culture. So I will put it this way.

Islam went from peaceful to violent....Heading in the wrong direction.

The Bible (two major covenants) went from violent to peaceful.

Two divergent lines.

Christianity has its own bloody past. Burning and hanging witches, burning Anabaptists, the Crusades, the Thirty Years' War, the conquest of the Americas. It is easy to dismiss what was done by saying that "Jesus NEVER commanded such." But the fact is that it was all done in His name. Not something of which we can be proud.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I spoke of my dear friends who are Muslim, not of a "major movement." Perhaps your Muslim friends have a different attitude.
Unfortunately, I am saddened to have lost contact with over half of my Muslim friends in Iraq. It is my prayer they are ok and have not been killed or displaced.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Unfortunately, I am saddened to have lost contact with over half of my Muslim friends in Iraq. It is my prayer they are ok and have not been killed or displaced.

And I'm sure that they, like my Muslim friends, are good and descent people who would never do what the Orlando shooter did.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Christianity has its own bloody past. Burning and hanging witches, burning Anabaptists, the Crusades, the Thirty Years' War, the conquest of the Americas. It is easy to dismiss what was done by saying that "Jesus NEVER commanded such." But the fact is that it was all done in His name. Not something of which we can be proud.

Indeed. All factual. My point, as it has always been, such violence is a violation of Christ's Law of Love and Peace.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Radrook
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And I'm sure that they, like my Muslim friends, are good and descent people who would never do what the Orlando shooter did.
Of course not. The 'problem' with good and decent Muslims in the ME is they either get killed, exploited, or submit to the Jihadists.
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
When Muslims use violence in the name of their religion, they are invoking the 'most recent' version of Muhammad's teachings. .....Unfortunately, the texts of the Quran are not chronological and therefore is confusing for most Westerners. When the texts of the Quran are grouped in chronological order, the fog clears and it becomes evident.

Most people, and most Muslims, are not theologians. I don't think they usually change the order of the texts. They read it, and there are some violent verses, and that's sufficient to encourage violence a small group of extremists, while most others don't see it that way.

Regardless of the pages we could discuss theologically on the commands to destroy, kill and burn cities in Canaan, none of those commands pass through to the New Covenant.....

No? It's easy for one to see Dt 13 as confirmed and continued in John 14:6, or for Lev. 20 in Rom 1. After all, Saint Augustine saw justification for killing and forced conversion in the wedding parable ("force them to enter the kingdom of God", Luke 14. I don't personally agree with St. Augustine on that, but it's not like he's not a real theologian.

Not once did Jesus command violence, command an apostolic kingdom or theocracy. .... So it is news when a professing Christian uses violence to promote or further Christianity. It's wrong because Jesus NEVER commanded such. To be a Christian one must follow the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ.

No?

Luke 22:36: "He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one"."

John 22: "So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts" (other gospels too).

Rev 19: "
The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse (Jesus), and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh. "

Luke 19: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Luke 22:38 shows that the disciples supplies included swords, and that Jesus approved of this.

Luke 14: ""If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple."

Mt 10: Jesus said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."


Not once did Jesus command a ... theocracy.

Jesus said: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."

Christian theocracies are the norm, from Constantine (320 AD) all the way through the Holy Roman Empire to the countries of Europe in the 1700's. It's clear that more people have lived under Christian theocracies than under Muslim theocracies.

****************************

For all of those - I personally don't use a violent interpretation of them. My point, however, is that it's easy to do so. Indeed, these are at least as gruesome, or more so, than anything in the Qu'ran.

Our scripture too has some violent verses, and that's sufficient to encourage violence a small group of extremists, while most others don't see it that way.

I'm just glad that most Muslims, as well as most Christians, don't take a violent interpretation of their scripture. As we both know, there have been plenty of Christians - both today and in the past - who do indeed take a violent path based on their interpretation of their faith.

In Christ-

Papias
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Archivist
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Most people, and most Muslims, are not theologians. I don't think they usually change the order of the texts. They read it, and there are some violent verses, and that's sufficient to encourage violence a small group of extremists, while most others don't see it that way.

An interesting assumption, yet the chronological order of the progression of the religion is still opposite that of Christianity.


No? It's easy for one to see Dt 13 as confirmed and continued in John 14:6, or for Lev. 20 in Rom 1.

John 14:6 has no linkage to Dt 13. Show me the violence commanded be put on those who did not believe in the Christ.

After all, Saint Augustine saw justification for killing and forced conversion in the wedding parable ("force them to enter the kingdom of God", Luke 14. I don't personally agree with St. Augustine on that, but it's not like he's not a real theologian.

Alas, Augustine was a good Bible commentator and Doctor in the Western and Eastern churches, but his interpretation is irrelevant to the discussion. Bad theology usually starts with people using a parable literally when the purpose is to teach a spiritual truth. Given Augustine's penchant for allegorical theology, you may want to go back and read him in context.






Indeed no, here's why.

Luke 22:36: "He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one"."

Self defense is not commanding violence to spread the Gospel. Jesus did not say "go out now and slay me some pagans." Therefore, this attempt to use this verse is invalid.

John 22: "So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts" (other gospels too).

Do I need to ask you why Jesus did this? Again, Jesus DID NOT command violence or that His disciples do so.

Rev 19: "
The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse (Jesus), and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh."

Where is the command of Christ for His followers to do this. None given. I will also point out Revelation is describing the second coming of Jesus Christ to JUDGE the earth. Notice there are no friendly armies waiting for Him on the ground. Nor is there a command to prepare the world militarily or politically for Him.

We have several commands as Christians. NONE of them involve violence towards others. Our commission is preach the Gospel, not worldly conquest.

Luke 19: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Perhaps you should just link the skeptic site you pasted these from. I seriously doubt, you, as a Roman Catholic would fall for a parable as the commands of Christ. Yes Judgment Day is going to be a right mess. NONE of US are commanded to slay pagans or heathens.

Luke 22:38 shows that the disciples supplies included swords, and that Jesus approved of this.

You already addressed the swords and purses above. I already answered. Is this a cut and paste list.

Luke 14: ""If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple."

Violence? Do the following verses say, before you leave them, conduct an honor killing? No it does not.

Mt 10: Jesus said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Context? Division of families. Not slicing them in half with a sword and not throwing them off the roof.




Jesus said: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."

Baptism is now violent?

Christian theocracies are the norm, from Constantine (320 AD) all the way through the Holy Roman Empire to the countries of Europe in the 1700's. It's clear that more people have lived under Christian theocracies than under Muslim theocracies.

Christian theocracy was absent from the NT church. That is telling isn't it.

You missed the entire point. Jesus Christ NEVER commanded His disciples to use violence, to execute civil crimes, nor establish a theocracy. You cannot find one command where He does so.

****************************

For all of those - I personally don't use a violent interpretation of them. My point, however, is that it's easy to do so.

Maybe for some traditions. But not the NT church. They seemed to take the commands of Christ literally and His parables figuratively.

Indeed, these are at least as gruesome, or more so, than anything in the Qu'ran.

Truly?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
An interesting assumption, yet the chronological order of the progression of the religion is still opposite that of Christianity.

Really? Both start with the violent old testament, and both are less violent than the old testament. Or, if you prefer to use when they started their own separate religions, then Islam went from 600 AD to the Islamic golden age (from moderately violent to less violent), while Christianity went from the Jesus to the Inquisition & the crusades (less violent to very violent).

You can pick and choose the boundaries to make one argument or the other, but you are still picking and choosing.


John 14:6 has no linkage to Dt 13. Show me the violence commanded be put on those who did not believe in the Christ.

Sure it does - they both talk about the status of unbelievers. In the same way, some Americans today have linked Lev. 20 with Rom 1. This isn't hard stuff.

Alas, Augustine was a good Bible commentator and Doctor in the Western and Eastern churches, but his interpretation is irrelevant to the discussion.

You may find it "irrelevant" because it doesn't help your argument, but his words are unchanged, and they show that even the parable of the wedding banquet can be, and has been, interpreted to permit violence.

Self defense is not commanding violence to spread the Gospel. Jesus did not say "go out now and slay me some pagans." Therefore, this attempt to use this verse is invalid.

Unscriptural. Please show me the verse where it says "self defense", or agree that you made up words and pretended they were in there.

Do I need to ask you why Jesus did this?

Why he committed violence doesn't change whether he committed violence. Christians often see themselves as Jesus' hands, doing the work of Jesus on earth - with Jesus being violent, some of them see that as clear instruction to be violent. It's nothing new.

Where is the command of Christ for His followers to do this. None given. I will also point out Revelation is describing the second coming of Jesus Christ to JUDGE the earth.

Same as the above, "Jesus' hands".

Perhaps you should just link the skeptic site you pasted these from. .....NONE of US are commanded to slay pagans or heathens.

I got them from opening my Bible. As I stated, I personally don't take them as reasons to be violent myself - I'm only pointing out that Christians throughout history have traditionally done so, and that some still do so today.

You already addressed the swords and purses above. I already answered.

Yes, and your response was unscriptural.

Violence? Do the following verses say, before you leave them, conduct an honor killing? No it does not.

With the other verses showing that Jesus can use violent means, being the hands of Jesus is seen by some as endorsing violence.

Context? Division of families. Not slicing them in half with a sword and not throwing them off the roof.

Context doesn't help you. He said "sword", a straightforward and plain reading of the text endorses violence.

Baptism is now violent?

No, the operative word is "make". If you are going to make whole nations into Christians, that's not "asking them nicely to be Christian". It's making them Christian.

Christian theocracy was absent from the NT church.

The Christian church at the time of the NT was a handful of people, so of course they didn't have laws yet. However, a straightforward reading of Acts 5 suggests that Peter killed two people for lying to him.

The story of the king away from his country in Lk 19 is clearly about Jesus. "Bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Maybe for some traditions. But not the NT church. They seemed to take the commands of Christ literally and His parables figuratively.

Christians are all over the map today, and as we saw with Augustine, violent interpretations have been made in the past too.

The point is that claiming that the Qu'ran and Islam are scripturally and categorically more violent than our scripture doesn't survive a simple reading of one's Bible.

In Christ-

Papias
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Archivist
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Really? Both start with the violent old testament, and both are less violent than the old testament. Or, if you prefer to use when they started their own separate religions, then Islam went from 600 AD to the Islamic golden age (from moderately violent to less violent), while Christianity went from the Jesus to the Inquisition & the crusades (less violent to very violent).

You can pick and choose the boundaries to make one argument or the other, but you are still picking and choosing.

Yes we were discussing what each religion's "Book" commanded. Not what follow-on generations did. You obscure above what we were actually talking about.

Book 1 Bible: Has a covenant with violence, yet a superseding covenant which commands peace.

Book 2 Quran: First has a Mecca period of calm and tolerance, yet abrogated by the violent period of Medina.




Sure it does - they both talk about the status of unbelievers. In the same way, some Americans today have linked Lev. 20 with Rom 1. This isn't hard stuff.

Quite irrelevant as already pointed out. Jesus stopped a mob from stoning a woman to death for adultery. Christ neither commanded nor set up a theocracy after His resurrection.

Leviticus 20 describing abominations confirmed by Romans 1 does not help your point. Romans 1 confirms the moral sins which God will judge. I say that again God WILL judge. Nowhere does Jesus, Paul, or any apostle teach to behead, stone, kill etc. a sinner. They were commanded to preach the Gospel of Grace so sinners can be reconciled to God through faith and repentance of sins.



You may find it "irrelevant" because it doesn't help your argument, but his words are unchanged, and they show that even the parable of the wedding banquet can be, and has been, interpreted to permit violence.

Still irrelevant. It was a parable and not a command. Jesus was teaching how when the Son of Man returns He will judge the nations.

Unscriptural? 11 men two swords and Jesus tells them to grab a money bag too? Then Jesus tells Peter to put away the sword he used. That's quite an 'army' Jesus set up with the Apostles.





Why he committed violence doesn't change whether he committed violence. Christians often see themselves as Jesus' hands, doing the work of Jesus on earth - with Jesus being violent, some of them see that as clear instruction to be violent. It's nothing new.

Show me where Jesus was violent? He threw over tables and whisked people away from the money changers. If people want to emulate that, then they should be going into churches and turning the BINGO tables over. Not conquering and subduing nations as Islam did. Which you are correct....they had a golden age once they slew their enemies and looted every city from Persia to the Iberian peninsula. King David and Solomon are blushing at the conquest.

Same as the above, "Jesus' hands".

Jesus' Hands were pierced for our sins. Muhammad chopped off heads and violated little girls. Please stop the madness.

I got them from opening my Bible. As I stated, I personally don't take them as reasons to be violent myself - I'm only pointing out that Christians throughout history have traditionally done so, and that some still do so today.

Yes I noticed the verses. I also noticed you engaged in eisegesis and not exegesis. Here's the difference:

What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?



The remainder of your post follows the same error of eisegesis.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Yes we were discussing what each religion's "Book" commanded.

Um, why do you intentionally ignore scripture?

Bible: Violent OT, which also commands peace - followed by NT with both violence (many examples already given) which also commands peace, ending with Revelation, which is many times more violent than anything found in the Qu'ran.

Qu'ran: Has OT violence, mecca and medina all mixed throughout. Doesn't end with massive bloodbath of Revelation, and never has a leader saying "bring them here and kill them in front of me".


Jesus stopped a mob from stoning a woman to death for adultery.

First, that section (the pericope adulterae) is recognized by Bible scholars as having been added centuries after Jesus. Secondly, even if Jesus had done so, the Qu'ran too has plenty of "peace verses", like "There shall be no compulsion in religion" (2:256) or "Say to the disbelievers [that is, atheists, or polytheists, namely those who reject God] "To you, your beliefs, to me, mine" (109:1-6)" and so on.

Leviticus 20 describing abominations confirmed by Romans 1 does not help your point. Romans 1 confirms the moral sins which God will judge. Nowhere does Jesus, Paul, or any apostle teach to behead, stone, kill etc. a sinner.

Sure they do. I've already pointed out the examples, such as Annaias, Rev, Sapphira, Luke 19, and so on.

It was a parable and not a command.

Parables can be and often are commands. Is not the parable of the good samaritan a command? Or the parable of pearl? Or nearly all of them? Of course they are.

Unscriptural? 11 men two swords and Jesus tells them to grab a money bag too?

That's your eisegesis, not exegesis. I pointed out that you added things that aren't there, and asked where in the verse it says "defense", and you can can't show where, because of course it doesn't. You simply made that up and added it.

Show me where Jesus was violent? He threw over tables and whisked people away from the money changers.

So you deny that verse explicitly says that Jesus made a weapon and drove people out of the temple - so it looks like more denial of scripture from you.

Jesus' Hands were pierced for our sins. Muhammad chopped off heads and violated little girls. Please stop the madness.

A Christian terrorist (like at the Quebec Mosque) can easily point out that his pierced hands are all the more reason for us to be his hands.

FYI- the head chopping is firmly rooting in the OT, such as king David beheading a person - it's not something that Muslims made up themselves.

The remainder of your post follows the same error of eisegesis.

Or, it is your post that is eisegesis, and mine that is exegesis? You are the one who is denying the plain reading of scripture after scripture.

In Christ-

Papias
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Um, why do you intentionally ignore scripture?

Bible: Violent OT, which also commands peace - followed by NT with both violence (many examples already given) which also commands peace, ending with Revelation, which is many times more violent than anything found in the Qu'ran.

Qu'ran: Has OT violence, mecca and medina all mixed throughout. Doesn't end with massive bloodbath of Revelation, and never has a leader saying "bring them here and kill them in front of me".




First, that section (the pericope adulterae) is recognized by Bible scholars as having been added centuries after Jesus. Secondly, even if Jesus had done so, the Qu'ran too has plenty of "peace verses", like "There shall be no compulsion in religion" (2:256) or "Say to the disbelievers [that is, atheists, or polytheists, namely those who reject God] "To you, your beliefs, to me, mine" (109:1-6)" and so on.



Sure they do. I've already pointed out the examples, such as Annaias, Rev, Sapphira, Luke 19, and so on.



Parables can be and often are commands. Is not the parable of the good samaritan a command? Or the parable of pearl? Or nearly all of them? Of course they are.



That's your eisegesis, not exegesis. I pointed out that you added things that aren't there, and asked where in the verse it says "defense", and you can can't show where, because of course it doesn't. You simply made that up and added it.



So you deny that verse explicitly says that Jesus made a weapon and drove people out of the temple - so it looks like more denial of scripture from you.



A Christian terrorist (like at the Quebec Mosque) can easily point out that his pierced hands are all the more reason for us to be his hands.

FYI- the head chopping is firmly rooting in the OT, such as king David beheading a person - it's not something that Muslims made up themselves.



Or, it is your post that is eisegesis, and mine that is exegesis? You are the one who is denying the plain reading of scripture after scripture.

In Christ-

Papias

You did not adequately establish Jesus Christ was setting up a militaristic theocracy.

Until you can establish such, I will not address the remainder of the eisegesis and hyperbole.
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You did not adequately establish Jesus Christ was setting up a militaristic theocracy.

Your original claim from your post #21 was that the respective scriptures are very different wrt violence. I've shown that this is not the case. hence:

59363536.jpg



Until you can establish such, I will not address the remainder of the eisegesis and hyperbole.

It's nice to see that you have tried to move the goalposts and in so doing, admitted that your original claim is false.

In Christ-

Papias
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArmenianJohn
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums