Illegal schools closed

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by techguyone

Quran & Islam could do with a whole New Testament that's for sure, I'm unclear how Christians got their New Testament, and if it's even possibles for Muslims to do the same.

I'll try and give you a condensed version as I had to study it when in training for the priesthood with the Redemptorist fathers.

The 4 gospels were written Mathew, Mark, Luke and John (European names given to them) Acts were written by Luke.

It is generally accepted that John was the only eyewitness of Christ's life due to the perspective he uses. Gospel witten AD 45 (or up to 55) - 70AD

Luke was a convert of Paul. Neither had met nor knew of Christ during his life but learned (Paul and later Luke) about him from the Disciples. Gospel written pre AD 62 -70

Mark it is claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter. Also accepted as the first Gospel written between AD 55 - 70.

That said we get to Mathew, now here we have a problem. There are those who think he was the first writer and was indeed the Apostle Mathew, therefore not only an eyewitness but a part of the life of Christ. Gospel written AD 50 -70

Who really knows if it was John, Mark or Mathew who was first? One glaring thing is that all are accepted to have been written before AD 70. Why?

Simple, not one of them mentions the destruction of the temple as prophesised by Christ. This is recorded to have happened in AD 70.

Add to the above the Epistles of Paul and the others and you have the New Testament in a nutshell.

It's still under debate though.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Oh for the day when the culture, religion and race of someone is far less important then their behaviour as an individual. All religions have their extremists and judging a whole religion by the views and actions of those extremists does the religion and the judge of that religion a disservice. Education should be the way people move past the obstacles of the past and the fact some adults are masquerading ideological centres as schools is disgusting and should be eradicated as quickly as possible.

I'm too old to radically change my beliefs as are most adults past a certain age the hope amongst decent adults is that our children never have beliefs that are detrimental, I will never understand the type of adult that decides to limit and poison the mind of a child.

While so many define themselves by their religion first and everything else, including the things that make them an individual, second what can you do?

In general answer to several posts in this thread:

The Bible tells the story of God's plan to reach out to, and to bring back to himself, the human race. He has done this, down the ages, through a series of covenants (agreements), of which the New Testament (a.k.a. New covenant) and the Old Testament (old covenant) are the best known. In fact the Old Testament is not well named as there are several covenants in it - the Abrahamic Covenant (Abraham became God's man, the father of his people, and was circumcised as a sign of it) is one of them.

What people generally understand to be the "old covenant" is the Mosaic covenant, the one with the Ten Commandments, the rules for temple sacrifices and the civil law by which the nation of Israel was to live.

It is highly problematic to quote random edicts from this law and demand to know what
Christians think of it. The laws handed to Israel via Moses were products of their time, both in terms of human history and development, and in terms of Israel's understanding of and relationship to God. The Old Testament does have lots of useful material in it that Christians can learn from, but to the uninitiated it is far safer to stick with the New Testament. It's safe to say that aspects of Old Covenant life and morality that have persisted, are explicitly reaffirmed in the New Testament. (Which, incidentally, addresses the concept of "equal marriage" which someone mentioned earlier - in religious terms such a concept is not possible. It is perfectly possible to argue that couples should be treated equally under civil law, but the Bible's definition of marriage is male and female joined so that, in Gods eyes, they become one body. Male and male, or female and female, simply isn't marriage, and cannot be, under that definition. And there are warnings against homosexual activity in the New Testament; you don't need to rely on Leviticus to stand up in a pulpit on a Sunday morning and speak against it.)

Muslims consider the Quran to be a further development in God's covenant relationship with his people. If the Bible contains the Old Testament and the New Testament, then the Quran is, in effect, the Last Testament. For this reason, because it claimed to add to the teaching of the Bible rather than founding something new, the Roman Catholic Church for centuries considered Islam to be a cult, much as we consider the Mormons to be a cult (and as first century Jews considered Christians to be a cult) rather than a religion in its own right.