Anti-Semitism in Religions

[Sculptor]

They cannot hate Jews in the name of Jesus or Christianity.
The terms of contract for a Christian are only in the Gospels i.e. direct from Jesus from God. The OT, Acts, Espistles are not part of the terms of the contract, they merely act as a guide.

As usual you reference some idiot ideal in your head whilst ignoring the fact of reality.
This is your whole problem and why no one agrees with anything you say on the Forum.

I was lead to believe that in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says specifically that the he isn't there to change one word of the law (Old Testament), so this whole "fresh start" thing is a bit fucked anyway?

Indeed.
There are just so many ways to cherry pick the scriptures to forge a religion of choice, just means ignoring other passages.
Isaac Newton spilt a gallon of ink to prove that there was no concept of the trinity in the bible. Yet how many "TRUE CRISTIANS" would regard that has blasphemy? It appears that it was added to the ideological framework to appease older religious notions present in the Roman Empire.

[godelian]

Meanwhile, it is stipulated in the Muslim's contract with Allah

I have looked up if there is a notion of contract or covenant between the believer and Allah.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/248517/ ... the-fitrah

The covenant taken from the sons of Adam is the fitrah

Here we will quote the views of scholars which confirm that the covenant is the fitrah (natural inclination/sound human nature), and the fitrah is present in the individual and is never absent

So, the believer has a biologically programmed inclination to worship Allah. It is not a contract or a contractual obligation but merely an innate inclination.

[godelian]

Isaac Newton spilt a gallon of ink to prove that there was no concept of the trinity in the bible. Yet how many "TRUE CRISTIANS" would regard that has blasphemy?

The notorious "comma johanneum" was an attempt to add the trinity to the bible through forgery:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma

The comma is mainly only attested in the Latin manuscripts of the New Testament, being absent from almost all Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the earliest Greek manuscript being 14th century.[7] It is also totally absent in the Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, Georgian, Arabic and from the early pre-12th century Armenian[8] witnesses to the Greek New Testament.

Erasmus did a lot of research in tracing back when exactly the forgery had been fabricated. In general, attempted forgeries in Latin failed because any bible scholar could still refer to the original Greek texts. Only corruption and forgeries of the Greek text have eventually succeeded. But then again, every time an older Greek manuscript is discovered, it exposes some more forgeries, corruption, and fabrications.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Meanwhile, it is stipulated in the Muslim's contract with Allah

I have looked up if there is a notion of contract or covenant between the believer and Allah.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/248517/ ... the-fitrah

The covenant taken from the sons of Adam is the fitrah

Here we will quote the views of scholars which confirm that the covenant is the fitrah (natural inclination/sound human nature), and the fitrah is present in the individual and is never absent

So, the believer has a biologically programmed inclination to worship Allah. It is not a contract or a contractual obligation but merely an innate inclination.

You picked up the wrong Q&A.

What the above refer to is the original covenant Adam [original Muslim] made with God but was broken thereafter.
The original covenant was between God and humanity [not individuals].
In this case, the God created humans with an original generic covenant but this was broken thus the need for reversion [revert].
As such, to be a Muslim, a believer must enter into a specific individual-basis NEW contract [covenant -Mithaaq] with Allah by taking the Sahada or by other implied means [such as children of Muslim parents].

Here is the related NEW covenant from the same site you linked;
Islam Q&A

• “Those who fulfil the Covenant of Allaah and break not the Mithaaq (bond, treaty, covenant)”
  [al-Ra’d 13:20]
  
  “Those who fulfil the Covenant of Allaah and break not the Mîthâq (bond, treaty, covenant)”
  [al-Baqarah 2:177]
  
  And they hear the words of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “The signs of the hypocrite are three: when he speaks, he lies; when he makes a promise, he breaks it; and when he is entrusted with something he betrays (that trust).” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 33; Muslim, 59.

Here is another re Contract, Covenant, Mithaaq

• link
  In this verse [Maida 5:7] of the Qur’an, Allah is asking us to remember the mithaaq, the covenant or the promise, that He asked us to make to which we responded with, “We hear and we obey.”

There are many instances of the term 'mithaaq' and 'haq' [covenant, contract] in the Quran which is the contract [covenant] a believer must agree and enter into to qualify as a Muslim with a promise of paradise if he complied with the terms of contract.

The terms of contracts are from Allah's words which is only in the Quran.
The Ahadiths and Sunna are merely appendixes as guide to the main contract.

Elsewhere in the Quran [from memory] God stated [a verse to the newly converted Bedouins] that mere acceptance of the contract [take the sahada] do not make a believer a Muslim-Proper and more need to be done, i.e. greater compliance to the terms of the contract.

From your understanding of the above, you are very ignorant of the very critical fundamental elements of your own religion.

Firstly, you are a Muslim by name only [by birth or conversion or revert], are you sure you are a truly compliant and obedient Muslim?

You cannot be a good Muslim unless you know and comply at least with the critical terms of the contract that you need to qualify to go to paradise. [& virgins as a bonus]

According to the Quran, an ignorant Muslim will not receive good rewards on judgment day and is likely to be scolded or even punish by Allah.

So, are you a very true Muslim? How can you justify that?

[Sculptor]

Isaac Newton spilt a gallon of ink to prove that there was no concept of the trinity in the bible. Yet how many "TRUE CRISTIANS" would regard that has blasphemy?

The notorious "comma johanneum" was an attempt to add the trinity to the bible through forgery:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma

The comma is mainly only attested in the Latin manuscripts of the New Testament, being absent from almost all Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the earliest Greek manuscript being 14th century.[7] It is also totally absent in the Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, Georgian, Arabic and from the early pre-12th century Armenian[8] witnesses to the Greek New Testament.

Erasmus did a lot of research in tracing back when exactly the forgery had been fabricated. In general, attempted forgeries in Latin failed because any bible scholar could still refer to the original Greek texts. Only corruption and forgeries of the Greek text have eventually succeeded. But then again, every time an older Greek manuscript is discovered, it exposes some more forgeries, corruption, and fabrications.

2000 years ago the number THREE had huge mystical significance.
In Celtic religions the symbols of Triqueta/Triskelion/Triskele; in Pythogoras, and in the Tripartite soul imported from the East as expressed in Plato.
According to a seminar I attented during my BA in Archaeolgy the idea was that Christianity would be a better fit if they could add something with a THREE in it so as to more easiy peddle the ideaology through the towns and cities of the Roman Empire. Making it more familiar would make it more palatable.

[godelian]

You picked up the wrong Q&A.
Here is the related NEW covenant from the same site you linked;
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/49821/r ... e-marriage

The link is unrelated.

There are many instances of the term 'mithaaq' and 'haq' [covenant, contract] in the Quran which is the contract [covenant] a believer must agree and enter into to qualify as a Muslim with a promise of paradise if he complied with the terms of contract.

It is a pledge of allegiance. It is rather similar to soldiers pledging loyalty to their general. It is not a contract, similar to a civil contract, in which both parties promise the delivery of goods or services in exchange for payment. Therefore, the term "contract" is not correct in this context.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You picked up the wrong Q&A.
Here is the related NEW covenant from the same site you linked;
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/49821/r ... e-marriage

The link is unrelated.

There are many instances of the term 'mithaaq' and 'haq' [covenant, contract] in the Quran which is the contract [covenant] a believer must agree and enter into to qualify as a Muslim with a promise of paradise if he complied with the terms of contract.

It is a pledge of allegiance. It is rather similar to soldiers pledging loyalty to their general. It is not a contract, similar to a civil contract, in which both parties promise the delivery of goods or services in exchange for payment. Therefore, the term "contract" is not correct in this context.

Where did it say it is a pledge of allegiance?

Read again:
“Those who fulfil the Covenant of Allaah and break not the Mithaaq (bond, treaty, covenant)”
[al-Ra’d 13:20]

“Those who fulfil the Covenant of Allaah and break not the Mîthâq (bond, treaty, covenant)”
[al-Baqarah 2:177]

Mithaaq [Haq] is interpreted as bond, treaty, and covenant.
There are many verses with reference to Mîthâq & haq which in the context implied in general a 'contract'.
In theology a 'contract' is termed as 'covenant' but the Principles of Contract are the same, i.e. offer, acceptance, consideration, free consent, terms of contract.
I have used the general term 'contract' and covenant interchangeable as a convenience to convey the essence of the covenant since most believers do not understand the full impact of what is a covenant.

A contract [covenant in theology] can be explicit or implicit.

In Islam the contract [covenant] is Allah's offer [promise] of salvation and other rewards in paradise in exchange if the believers accept comply with the terms of contract as stipulated by Allah in the Quran, the consideration is the believer's surrender and submission of his life to Allah on a basis of free consent.

When you say the sahada explicity or implicitly, you have entered in a covenant [contract] with Allah to be a Muslim officially and your contractual obligation is to comply with the all the terms of the contract stipulated in the Quran [no where else] to the best of your abilities.
For example if one is a quadriplegic, one cannot go to war [sanctions] as commanded but can contribute his effort in other ways.

If you insist you have not entered into a Mîthâq with Allah, then you cannot be a Muslim officially, thus do not qualify for the rewards promised by Allah in the Quran.
Pledging allegiance [which any non-Muslims can also do] to Allah is not enough to be a Muslim [kindi-grade], graduate [high school-college] to be a Mumim then Tawhidi [PhD].

On a basis of rigor, you do not appear to a Muslim officially.

• 49:14. The bedouins say: "We believe." Say: "You believe not but you only say, 'We have surrendered (in Islâm),' for Faith has not yet entered your hearts. But if you obey Allâh and His Messenger (SAW), He will not decrease anything in reward for your deeds.

Because like the Bedouins, faith has not yet entered your hearts until you enter into a Mithaaq with Allah, with strong conviction to comply with the terms of the contract.
'Obey' in this verse means comply with the terms of contract within the Quran [convey to M by Allah] and no where else.

Do you even understand there are grades for believers in Islam, i.e. a Muslim [kindi-grade - 5 basic pillars], graduate [high school-college - 6 pillars of iman] to be a Mumim then 'Tawhidi' [PhD -x pillars of tawhid].

On a basis of rigor, are you a true Muslim?

Btw, I claimed to have understood the Quran thoroughly and reasonably, albeit not on my finger tips at present, but I can refer to them from my findings.

[attofishpi]

2000 years ago the number THREE had huge mystical significance.
In Celtic religions the symbols of Triqueta/Triskelion/Triskele; in Pythogoras, and in the Tripartite soul imported from the East as expressed in Plato.
According to a seminar I attented during my BA in Archaeolgy the idea was that Christianity would be a better fit if they could add something with a THREE in it so as to more easiy peddle the ideaology through the towns and cities of the Roman Empire. Making it more familiar would make it more palatable.

Why did the Roman Empire convert to Christianity?

[attofishpi]

2000 years ago the number THREE had huge mystical significance.
In Celtic religions the symbols of Triqueta/Triskelion/Triskele; in Pythogoras, and in the Tripartite soul imported from the East as expressed in Plato.
According to a seminar I attented during my BA in Archaeolgy the idea was that Christianity would be a better fit if they could add something with a THREE in it so as to more easiy peddle the ideaology through the towns and cities of the Roman Empire. Making it more familiar would make it more palatable.

Why did the Roman Empire convert to Christianity?

[attofishpi]

2000 years ago the number THREE had huge mystical significance.
In Celtic religions the symbols of Triqueta/Triskelion/Triskele; in Pythogoras, and in the Tripartite soul imported from the East as expressed in Plato.
According to a seminar I attented during my BA in Archaeolgy the idea was that Christianity would be a better fit if they could add something with a THREE in it so as to more easiy peddle the ideaology through the towns and cities of the Roman Empire. Making it more familiar would make it more palatable.

Why did the Roman Empire convert to Christianity?

[attofishpi]

2000 years ago the number THREE had huge mystical significance.
In Celtic religions the symbols of Triqueta/Triskelion/Triskele; in Pythogoras, and in the Tripartite soul imported from the East as expressed in Plato.
According to a seminar I attented during my BA in Archaeolgy the idea was that Christianity would be a better fit if they could add something with a THREE in it so as to more easiy peddle the ideaology through the towns and cities of the Roman Empire. Making it more familiar would make it more palatable.

Why did the Roman Empire convert to Christianity?

[attofishpi]

2000 years ago the number THREE had huge mystical significance.
In Celtic religions the symbols of Triqueta/Triskelion/Triskele; in Pythogoras, and in the Tripartite soul imported from the East as expressed in Plato.
According to a seminar I attented during my BA in Archaeolgy the idea was that Christianity would be a better fit if they could add something with a THREE in it so as to more easiy peddle the ideaology through the towns and cities of the Roman Empire. Making it more familiar would make it more palatable.

Why did the Roman Empire convert to Christianity?

[Sculptor]

...

Do you not understand what it means to be on ignore?

No need to reply - I shall not respond to you.
I do not respnd to racists

[attofishpi]

...

Do you not understand what it means to be on ignore?

No need to reply - I shall not respond to you.
I do not respnd to racists

Racist? Prove it COWARD.

Surely U mean U dont respond to WHITE people that are far more intelligent that U.

Hang on a second squire, you said this rather racist comment don't you think?:

I have the eyes to see black and brown people as evil.
THey are subhumans and follow Islam the Devil's religion.
I eat Arabs for breakfast, Negroes for Lunch and Asians for Dinner.
What I cannot consume I feed to my human pet, whoc I keep in the cellar.

[attofishpi]

They cannot hate Jews in the name of Jesus or Christianity.
The terms of contract for a Christian are only in the Gospels i.e. direct from Jesus from God. The OT, Acts, Espistles are not part of the terms of the contract, they merely act as a guide.

As usual you reference some idiot ideal in your head whilst ignoring the fact of reality.
This is your whole problem and why no one agrees with anything you say on the Forum.

I was lead to believe that in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says specifically that the he isn't there to change one word of the law (Old Testament), so this whole "fresh start" thing is a bit fucked anyway?

How is Christ not a "fresh-start" by any statement made on the Mount?

Fulfillment of the Law (Matthew 5:17-20): Jesus emphasizes that he has come not to abolish the Jewish law but to fulfill it. He calls for a righteousness that surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees.