35:00 The left behaves like an interfering woman.
40:00 It would make more sense if you think that Man created God.
45:00 The only way to conquer death is to have legitimate children and parent them properly after choosing carefully our spouse. Even if we as individuals die, our societies, nations and civilisations continue, and what we do not know and cannot do now future generations will.
54:00 Destruction is necessary to enable Creation.
56:00 My knowledge of the Koran and other religions is superior to WLL2PWR. What's the point of exploring religion after religion and never making up your mind? Will didn't like me saying I thought his thought processes were disordered. The Torah is said to be given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. A recurring antisemitic trope is that the Jews now are not really Jews or that they are not really God's Chosen People. Will admitted it when I asked if he had been diagnosed with a mental illness.
@Ecce Lux LiveStreams So you think you can just say you are God's Chosen People and that Jews are not? Under what and whose authority?
@Ecce Lux LiveStreams The thing to note is that while the Torah and the Koran are said to actually be from God to the Jews in Hebrew and to the Muslims in Arabic, the New Testament is just mortal men giving conflicting accounts about what Jesus said and did decades after his death.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testamenthttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament
Dates of composition
See individual book articles for more detail.
The earliest works that became part of the New Testament are the letters of the Apostle Paul. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was First Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably in 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing.
In the 1830s German scholars of the Tübingen school tried to date the books as late as the 3rd century, but the discovery of some New Testament manuscripts and fragments from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, one of which dates as early as 125 (Papyrus 52), disproves a 3rd-century date of composition for any book now in the New Testament. Additionally, a letter to the church at Corinth in the name of Clement of Rome in 95 quotes from 10 of the 27 books of the New Testament, and a letter to the church at Philippi in the name of Polycarp in 120 quotes from 16 books. Therefore, some of the books of the New Testament must have been in circulation by the end of the first century.
Scholars hold a wide spectrum of views on exactly when the books of the new testament were written, with non-fundamentalist scholars tending to argue for later dates, and more conservative scholars arguing for an earlier one. Most contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source used by Luke (see Marcan priority).[97] If it is true that Mark was written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70,[98] they theorize that Luke would not have been written before 70. Some who take this view believe that Luke's prediction of the destruction of the temple could not be a result of Jesus predicting the future but with the benefit of hindsight regarding specific details. They believe that the Olivet Discourse in Luke 21:5–30 is specific enough (more specific than Mark's or Matthew's) that a date after 70 seems likely.[99][note 7] These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100.
Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. Differences of chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity had occurred.[101] Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on Jesus's divine nature, the end times, and salvation that are similar to those found in Pastoral epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than the undisputed Pauline Epistles.[102]
Most conservative scholars however, argue that both internal and external evidence strongly points to dates prior to 70 AD for the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline Epistles. They note that there is no mention of the deaths of Paul, Peter, and James, all of which happened between 60–65 AD, in any book of the New Testament. These were all extremely important figures in the early church, writers would have mentioned their deaths if the New Testament had been written later.[103] Furthermore, the Gospels contain numerous attacks on the Sadducees, a sect of Judaism that was wiped out with the destruction of the temple. Why, they ask, would later writers devote so much narrative space to attacking a group that no longer existed?[104]
John Robinson also notes that each book of the New Testament had to be written prior to the destruction of The Temple. Robinson notes that most scholars interpret the Olivet Discourse as a post 70 AD account of the destruction of The Temple, couched in language to make it appear to be a prophecy, culminating in the Second Coming of Jesus to end the world. Robinson notes that the Second Coming did not occur after the destruction of The Temple, leading him to ask, why would a writer in the 80s or 90s forge a prophecy of an event that is proven not to have occurred 20 years earlier?
All that Will is proposing is Supersessionism.
The Islamic tradition views Islam as the final and most authentic expression of Abrahamic prophetic monotheism, superseding both Jewish and Christian teachings. The doctrine of tahrif teaches that earlier monotheistic scriptures or their interpretations have been corrupted, while the Quran presents a pure version of the divine message that they originally contained.
To be supersessionist, one must first believe in God.
If you worship the Abrahamic God, you could do so as a Jew or gentile.
If you wish to remain a gentile while worshipping the Abrahamic God, you can only be Christian or Muslim.
If you wish to avoid idolatry, then Islam is the only moral and rational choice left.
If you don't believe in God, you could still see the point of restoring the patriarchy. If you wish to restore the patriarchy, what else other than Secular Koranism would do the job?
No comments:
Post a Comment