"hurr durr durr Christians are in no place to criticize Islam for the shooting because your religion advocates killing...

Those laws no longer apply to that extent after Jesus. It's not like the Old Testament isn't mostly just disregarded tribal propaganda anyway.

>"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

>“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John 7:19)

>inb4 muh st paul

This is so not entirely right. I say "not entirely" because it's fine, if you choose, to focus the faith on Jesus, and that is arguably the most important part of being "Christian". There's alot more to be gleaned from the OT books, though. I'm not here to be preachy about it. Just sayin.

???
I understand that Catholicism ignores the religion of Jesus. It only uses the OT to suit it's own needs. It highlights prophesy in the Old Testament and ignores the Law. It ignores the Ten Commandments. Jesus did not command his followers to ignore the Law.
>just background on Jesus
What does that even mean?

Then why exactly did Jesus go against the Law several times?

From working on the Sabbath to stopping a lawful execution?

Thank you. I am not always able to find these things fast enough and 5 other people post while you are preparing you own next post.

So... Let me digress. Since the Catholic Church ignores the Law as it sees fit (Paul was an opportunist who usurped Christs legacy), how can you use the Church's Catechism as justification for violence against the LGBT community.

THAT IS THE NATURE OF THIS POST

To be fair, both Protties and Catholics ignore the old and new testament on the verses on usury.

Only Orthodox seem based enough to actually follow those rules.

Everyone else just ignores the Bible to earn more money with usury.

So Christcucks threw away their God's commandments in favor of some man-made bullshit to appease modern-day SJWs?

my sides

Ten Commandments were not covenant law, they were the "10 words". Covenant law was the 613 Mitzvot

jewfaq.org/613.htm

Just as in our day there is a matter of interpretation, there was also in the era of Jesus, with multiple sects, each placing heavier value on one aspect or another. John the Baptist and Jesus were most like the Essene sect, from what we understand of Essenes.

It's not that the laws no longer apply. It's that you don't need to fulfill every one for God's forgiveness. As a matter of fact you can't possibly, and if you can't do it all, the whole thing is forfeit. You should still endeavor to be obedient to God.

Like maybe following the usury rules that Christians did for 1000 years until making money was more important than following the word of God.

Both Islam and Christianity are essentially flawed by adhering to monotheism

Are you referring to which specific laws cannot possibly be followed? The ones involving appropriate actions in and around the temple, because there has not been a temple since the Romans destroyed it in 70ad. Jesus saw this was going to happen and mentioned it more than once.

It's more than this, though. The set of rules is darn near impossible for anyone to follow, and many people, realizing this didn't even try in periods of time. Then, bad things would happen. It's not so much the ideal set of worshiping rituals, or even the degree to which man would inevitably fall astray, but the fact that soon it would become utterly impossible because of destruction of the temple.

>non-biblical source

trash.jpeg

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew 5:18&version=NKJV
>For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Here, Jesus is speaking of Levitical law. Leviticus is very clear about the punishment for homosexuality.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 20:13&version=NKJV
>If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

I don't care what some Romanist or Orthodox priest thinks about it.

You could probably find Imams who don't support the death penalty, and they would be just as Unquranic as your sourceless image is Unbiblical.

No I'm referring to the usury rules that are spelled out in the old and new testament.

For 1000 fucking years usury was outlawed by all Christian nations since 500 AD when Christianity became the lead religion in the Roman Empire. It explicitly says in the new testament not to do usury, so its not an old testament rule which you can conveniently ignore like eating pork.

The Jews got around this during this era because the old testament said not to charge interest on loans to your brother which they interpreted as other Jews. So giving loans to Christians was fine which is why many nobles uses Jews as Bankers to skirt around the usury law.

That said, around the time of the protties in the 1500's they started ignoring the rule and formed their own banks. Eventually the Catholics figured they would get in on the action and started ignoring the rules as well.

Only the Orthodox Church speaks out against usury these days and even instituted their own banking system in Russia.

While most western Christians haven't even been educated on the matter by their religious leaders so they are all ignorant on the matter.

>Leviticus 20:10
>If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
>John 8:7
>When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her

>Romanist
Who do you think put the Bible together you fucking dingdong

I think you're not wrong. Love of money and all that. I don't think this is exactly what Jesus had in mind when discussing "I have not come to abolish the law". You're highlighting ways people have exploited by interpretation and that isn't ever right, but certainly people do, and that's too bad. God isn't anyone's personal army, I think it's supposed to be the other way around.

erm, not to whom you're replying, but who do you think compiled the scripture originally which would form the Vulgate? Please don't say Jerome.

>Who do you think put the Bible together you fucking dingdong
Greeks, you retarded papist fuck.

ooh lad

Basically, there's been a major break in recent times between traditional Islamic urban/village culture and modern Islamic societies due to the rapid political and economic changes the Middle East has gone through. In the vacuum this left behind a number of new religious ideologies have surfaced which reflect the new realities and visions of the modern Arabs.

>Why did it all go downhill?
>How and why did Islam devolve into all this though?

two things:
-oil
-western powers

The first individual to quote directly lines from 21 of the recognized New Testament scriptures was Irenaeus. He was culturally Hellenic, born in Smyrna, which is in Anatolia. You "might" argue he was Roman because Rome occupied that land, but he probably was not a citizen.

So the significance of his works is around his conflict with the Gnostics and how he held many of their scriptures are non-canonical. His citations of the works we view as canon today attest to the fact there was some organization of "what was inspired vs non-inspired" long before the efforts of Jerome.

Irenaeus probably continued that work from Justin Martyr who had Matthew, Mark, Luke, Revelation, and Paul's epistles.

pretty sure being gay doesn't break any of the Commandments m8

>Commandments
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitzvah

many scholars believe the references to Gnosticism were placed in the text latter as Gnostic were not prominent at the time.

Yes it did. He and his followers grew violent and attacked the others within Mecca once they were close to a majority. Then they conquered Yathrib and named it Medina (al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah) in honor of their prophet.

Most people will say Wahabism. I generally think it's with straying away from the Quran and leaning more and more into the Hadiths. Hadiths were mostly used to expand the powers of leaders in the Muslim world, and tied Islam to government and man's law. They've even made it so that Hadith > Quran. They've also done away the personal religion aspect of Islam. It was supposed to be that you were meant to reason and question until you accepted and that philosophical struggle was the Islam part. It's come to the point where Muslims just go to mosques and madrasas funded by Saudis and just accept whatever they're told. The people who are susceptible to being indoctrinated into doing ISIS type shit get groomed and then sent to training camps and shit. Since there is no central authority to shutdown those types I don't know what can be done aside from increasing the literacy rate of those places and trying to delegitimize Hadiths.

>Implying liberals are the only ones who disagree with your bitch ass.

You zion cucked fuckfaces think everyone who disagrees with you is a libtard or leftist something or other.

And get really mad when SJWs call you racist nazis or some shit.

I wonder when you'll learn that you are both the same wingnut cancers corroding western civilization.

>Demonizing being a badass conqueror
Have I been gone from Veeky Forums for that long?