Is Jesus' Blood the New Covenant [Jeremiah31:31]

​

Hi everyone, I hope you are all fine and happy today and everyday, Amen =)​

​

The above extracted from: Was Jesus a Perfect sacrifice? (Exodus.12:5-7)​

Jeremiah (KJV) 31:37: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— let's keep reading: 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” 35 Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for a light by day, The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, Who disturbs the sea, And its waves roar (The LORD of hosts is His name): 36 “If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the LORD, Then the seed of Israel shall also cease From being a nation before Me forever.” 37 Thus says the LORD: “If heaven above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel For all that they have done, says the LORD.​

I think God already declared the new covenant in verse 33 è I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. He didn't mention anything about the blood of Jesus! Or a sacrifice? I think the (NEW LIVING VERSION) supports my opinion,​

Jeremiah31:31-37(NLV):​

31The days are coming," says the Lord, "when I will make a New Way of Worship for the Jews and those of the family group of Judah. 32The New Way of Worship will not be like the Old Way of Worship I gave to their early fathers. That was when I took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt. But they did not follow the Old Way of Worship, even when I was a husband to them," says the Lord. 33"This is the New Way of Worship that I will give to the Jews. When that day comes," says the Lord, "I will put My Law into their minds. And I will write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be My people.34No one will need to teach his neighbor or his brother to know the Lord. All of them will already know Me from the least to the greatest," says the Lord. "I will forgive their sins. I will remember their sins no more." ​

35The Lord, the Lord of All is His name, Who gives the sun for light during the day, and put the moon and the stars in place to give light during the night, Who causes the waves of the sea to make a loud noise, says, 36"If these lawsè (Paul abolished the law!!!) change before Me, then the children of Israel will stop being a nation before Me forever." 37The Lord says, "If one can find out how wide the heavens are, and look through the deepest places of the earth, then I will send all the children of Israel away from Me for all that they have done," says the Lord.​

If I misunderstood Jeremiah's verses please clarify.​

Peace and love​

​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens​

Note: Silly, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!​

 

CAT, JUST DEBATE FOR ONCE....


Just because I bring up another verse does not mean you have to create another post.... It's like you have an addiction... seriously man... You are debating just to win the argument... I am learning nothing from you.

 

JesusDiedForU​

Click here​

Peace and love​

​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens​

​

Note: Silly, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!​

 

Cat is one of those who is talking his way into hell. His whole faith is based on post and paste. He thinks by talking so much he will convince others of his knowledge.
He would of been a good used car salesman. He wants people to believe Islam is a religion that is all about peace. Yet, most of the terror today is related to this one religion. He doesent really have to think about what he believes, he only has to keep talking. I ask him the question, is Jesus Christ a Liar. I'm still waithing for his answer. He is more smoke and mirrors than anything else. Pay no attention to whats behind the curtain, I dont think were in kansas any more todo.

 

It's odd, I was reading through the Jeremiah passage and nodding away, thinking "yep, yep I can see that in the New Covenant", and waiting for some sort of difficult concept I have missed so far.

Some thoughts on your actual argument, however:

1) The 'blood' of Jesus was the 'how' of the covenant, Jeremiah (appears) to describe the 'what' of the covenant. A covenant was but a contract, and Jeremiah discusses the terms, whilst talking of the blood often refers to the how of signing it.

2) Also, don't assume that the covenant is monotone- indeed, if Christians based their entire covenantal theology on that one passage, then sure you might have a point (that is, if No. [1] didn't apply), but as it happens the doctrine of the grace and the new covenant is derived from multiple places in OT. Thus, to use one to support a point that isn't even present within the text is a bit unrealistic.

3) It is also worth noting that within Christian belief, the judging of a man goes straight to the heart, as does the righteousness of God. Therefore, for Jeremiah to talk of a 'law in the heart' is hardly incorrect when it comes to NT theology.

For these reasons, I don't think your argument is in any way warranted, albeit interesting!

Nathan

 

No, the OT is still significant and important and sacred and so on and so on.

Consider the OT Law, Torah, as a contract. God, the King, signed it between He and His vessels, Israel.

Soon this contract became null and void, and in Christ we are offered a new contract.

God being the owner of said 'deal' in the first place has a right to amend or add or even change the terms of the old, but what He did in Jesus is that a New contract was offered, one that fulfilled the terms of the old.

However, for those who sign onto it, we no longer are bound by the old contract, only by the new. We could try and fulfil the terms of the old, but we would have no right to and it would have no 'effect' on our salvation.

Does this make the OT null and void? No, it just makes the law codes not necessary for the Christian especially if they are a Gentile (true Israel still has a right to that old contract, but it's unlikely it even still exists or could exist). This doesn't make the law codes void of value, or revelation, it just makes it practically subordinate to the New Covenant.

Nathan

 

OH ! this is an old thread =)​

campbell34​

I can't believe this!!!!!!!!!!!​

Campbell thinks by his words , style and repeating he will frustrate Steven (Psychic war =legal war and weapons according to the constitution and law of where he lives but not according to God's constitution)​

There will be a good show behind the curtain Campbell! They say that the wizard can turn a tissue to a dove!!!! maybe you like such things. ​

(= *Peace and love* =)
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

Cat Stevens' latest threads
​

My sig
​

Note: Silly , repeated, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, if I'm not replying to your relevant post maybe because of this , ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim! ​

​

 

FedUpAmerican​

​

​

​

​

(= *Peace and love* =)​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

Note: Silly , repeated, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, if I'm not replying to your relevant post maybe because of this , ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim! ​

 

NathanL​

​

​

​

The verses are so clear, if his Blood was the how, then where is the new covenant (which is a law-ordinances according to Jeremiah 33 and 36) or what it is? !Paul abolished the law!!!!!!!By Jesus' death the law is canceled!​

Jeremiah 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israelafter those days, says the LORD:I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people...36 “If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the LORD, Then the seed of Israel shall also cease From being a nation before Me forever.”​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Was Jesus a Perfect sacrifice? (Exodus.12:5-7) (link)​

​

Jesus cannot die for your sins (link) è Paul made it up =) there is no original sin, accordingly there is no such a covenant (bloody covenant-sacrifice) =)​

​

​

* I read Kamal Sulaibee's opinion regarding the last supper ,he believes that Paul's letters were written before the 4 Gospels and many others do so according to their searches and studies, accordingly the 4 Gospels were colored and influenced by Paul’s beliefs and teachings.​

* John who wrote The Gospel of John (as many believe that he was Jesus' disciple) has described the last supper, Paul wasn't Jesus' disciple and didn't attend the last super, Paul claimed that he received from the Lord what happened in the last supper, he talked about what Jesus did with the bread and the cup, Mr. Sulaibee thinks that the three Gospels except John added these teachings (Lord's supper) to the original story (John's version) because they were influenced by Paul’s vision- Mr. Sulaibee says that there is nothing which points that Jesus' first followers (early Christians) were practicing these teaching (of the last supper), Mr. Sulaibee says what he understands from Paul that these teachings (bread – wine) which are metaphors (Jesus' body and blood) is a teaching which Paul received it from God, and if Jesus' disciples took those teachings from Jesus at the time, Paul will took it from them or refer to them, accordingly he thinks that the 3 Gospels added these things to the story and they all were colored and influenced by Paul's vision or whatever regarding the last supper, John did not mention anything about these teachings! Jesus washed their feet ate with them normally and talked about a betrayal. ​

Mr. Sulaibee wondered: why did Mark, Matthew and Luke took these teachings from Paul and then added it to their Gospels, but John didn't do so but described what Jesus did and said in a different way? Mr. Sulaibee says: John –and his elder brother – was in a disagreement with Peter, perhaps this disagreement turned to an open argument (controversy) when they knew that Jesus' end is near, both of them aspired to be the successors of Jesus, in the beginning the elder brother of John was the successor, then his brother was killed and John wasn't the learder of Jesus' desicples after his brother's death for several years, the leader was Jesus' brother , Peter shred him his leadership and to him was the decisive word (decision), when John wrote his Gospel, he mentioned how Jesus in the last supper who ate with his disciples (the teacher and the leader) washed their feet!!!!!, to give them an example of how to behave with each other, so there is no older or younger, little or big (equality or humbleness) Mr. Sulaibee thinks that this is what happened in the last supper probably, and this is what Luke pointed to when he talked about the argument which happened between Jesus' disciples in that occasion, which compelled Jesus to intervene to put an end to this argument. Luke 22:23: They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this. ​

​

24Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. Mr. Sulaibee continues: Mark's and Matthew's Gospels –the Gospels which support Peter) didn't mention the argument between Peter and (John and his elder brother) which isn't useful and not in Peter's advantage, because of this no one of them (2 Gospels) mentioned that Jesus' washed the disciples' feet to avoid mentioning the dispute about who is the greatest-the younger or the older- and instead of doing so, they added Paul's teachings about the bread and the wine as metaphors (Jesus' body and blood). ​

​

​

​

​

for more click hereread posts # 121 and 122​

(= *Peace and love* =)​

​

Yours Sincerely,​

​

Cat Stevens​

​

​

Note: Silly , repeated, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, if I'm not replying to your relevant post maybe because of this , ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!​

 

Cat I'll respond later, but a quick note of advice, you really need to learn to stay on topic my fingers are gonna bleed, for crying out loud...

 

NathanL​

​

(= *Peace and love* =)​

Yours Sincerely,​

​

Cat Stevens​

​

Note: Silly , repeated, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, if I'm not replying to your relevant post maybe because of this , ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!​

 

Excuse me, we know what Cat is saying. We also know what his religion teaches. And his religion does not teach love. And their lies the problem. His religion teaches to strap bombs on yourself, and kill as many jews and christians as u can, so you can then collect your 75 virgins in paradise. Cats message does not square with the Muslim faith. Tell the Muslims around the world who are murdering thousands about GOD IS LOVE, and they will laught in your face. We did not forget anything. We only have to look at the headlines.

 

So quit your blaspheming OTHER religions because when it is done to you, you don't really appreciate it. Right? I KNOW this to be true because I blaspheme Christianity all the time.

And I am the hypocrite ... right?

 

WASHINGTON – What makes Palestinian suicide bombers tick? Not the Koran, media pundits are quick to say.

They maintain they are martyrs for a political, not religious, cause and are only resorting to such violent extremes to defend against an oppressive Israeli military. The media romanticize the heinous bombings as the desperate struggle of the downtrodden.

Given the alarming toll of innocent Israelis (not to mention Americans) recently slaughtered by Islamic suicide attacks, this is a particularly noxious batch of politically correct swill to swallow.

And those in the media who know better should be ashamed of themselves for peddling it. They are nothing but professional liars. Others too lazy to read the Koran to independently verify the spin of "moderate" Muslim scholars are guilty of intellectual malpractice.

If you read the Koran (the Muslim-approved Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation), you discover that martyrdom is the only known ticket to Paradise for Muslims.

But don't take my word for it. Listen to a former radical Shiite Muslim tell it.

"The only way Muslims can have assurance of salvation and eternal life is by becoming a martyr for the cause of Islam," said Reza F. Safa, author of "Inside Islam."

"To a Muslim," he added, "dying and killing for the cause of Islam is not only an honor, but also a way of pleasing Allah."

That explains how a Palestinian grandmother could proudly pose with her beaming teen-age grandson for a final photograph knowing that just hours later he would strap himself with explosives and eviscerate Israeli "infidels" – and himself – in the name of Allah. This adoring old woman was actually celebrating the boy's imminent death, as if he were about to cross the stage at his high-school graduation ceremony. But to her, a death certificate sealed by Allah meant more than any diploma. She said she was happy – overjoyed that her grandson would soon disembowel himself – because she knew he would be instantly transported to a better place.

Where does she get such faith? From the Koran.

Meanwhile, the pubescent grandson dreamed of the carnal pleasures awaiting him in Paradise – "Companions with beautiful, big and lustrous eyes ... virgin-pure and undefiled" – just as the Muslim prophet Muhammad promised in the Koran (Surah 56:22,35-36).

And such Koranic promises explain how the father of another young Palestinian, who set off a bomb on a crowded commuter bus, could gush, "My son will go to heaven" – as if he had just scored the winning touchdown at the homecoming game in front of Ivy League scouts. Most fathers would be bawling their eyes out over such a senseless loss.

Safa says local Muslim clerics recite to such young men the verses from the Koran that promise the reward of Paradise, and all its oddly non-spiritual perks, if they die while fighting the "unbelievers" – Jews and Christians – in the name of Allah.

"'Are you ready for martyrdom?'" the young man is asked. "'Yes, yes,' he repeats," Safa said, explaining the ritual. "He is then given the oath on the Koran."

"These young men leave the meeting with one determination: to kill," he said.

Of course, the same media pundits who like to pretend Palestinians are fighting a political war for freedom and are only using suicide as a "cheap defense weapon," argue that the Koran forbids suicide. They claim clerics twist the meaning of the salient passages in the Koran to imply martyrdom paves the way to Paradise.

But don't be fooled. Typical of Islam's apologists, they are merely cherry picking verses to try to make the Koran seem less violent than it is.

Yes, the Koran tells Muslims not to "kill or destroy yourselves" (Surah 4:29) – but only when doing so is outside the cause of Allah. Dying for Allah is not viewed as a waste of life.

In fact, the Koran encourages it. Consider these verses:

"When ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks," Muhammad commands in Surah 47:4. "Those who are slain in the way of Allah – he will never let their deeds be lost."

"Soon will he guide them and improve their condition," he continues in Surah 47:5, "and admit them to the Garden (of Paradise), which he has announced for them."

And look at Surah 4:74: "To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah – whether he is slain or gets victory – soon shall we give him a reward of great (value)."

And Surah 3:157: "If ye are slain, or die, in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass."

But cultural relativists among the punditry, such as Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman, aren't convinced.

Goodman recently insisted that the Palestinian suicide bombers are merely "desperate" to improve their lot, deluded by the "despair" of their impoverished existence. Some politicians call them "freedom fighters." Over the weekend, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell even compared PLO leader Yasser Arafat to Nelson Mandela.

But if Palestinians are deluded into carrying out such wicked acts, it's not a function of their social or economic condition. It's a function of their faith.

They are deluded, quite simply, by their holy book, which teaches them to "fight unbelievers (Jews) who are near to you" (Surah 9:123) for the cause of Allah.

You never hear of Jewish or Christian suicide bombers for the simple reason the Bible does not encourage murder in the name of God. The Koran does.

Still not convinced?

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria, which according to Safa has helped the Palestinians against the Israelis, has this as its slogan:

"The Koran is our constitution, the prophet is our guide; Death for the glory of Allah is our greatest ambition."

Greater than land or voting rights. Greater than family or love. Above all, death. This is the enemy Ariel Sharon faces. This, sadly, is now our enemy, too.

 

And those are weak bible verses to support your theory... please give me chapter and verse in the new testament where it states that God desires us to kill.... last time I checked it was Jesus that said... those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

 

Cat is a good man. He is sincere and honest and makes no pretence - although I don't agree with him often, he's one of the best on these forums. And he NEVER resorts to silly insults as many here are inclined to do. We could do with more like Cat. May God bless him.

 

Guideline #6
​

Off Topic Postings: Often people post remarks that have nothing to do with the subject of the forum or thread. Occasionally threads are deliberately taken off topic to advance an opposing agenda or disrupt the discussion. These posts will be moved or deleted at the discretion of the moderator, and the user may be banned. We urge all members wishing to discuss a new topic to start a new thread in the appropriate forum. ​

*Peace and love* ​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens
​

Note: Silly , repeated, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, if I'm not replying to your relevant post maybe because of this , ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim! ​

 

BlackBillBlake​

​

May Allah bless me, OH thanks, may Allah bless you MORE, Thank you -Subhanallah - yesterday you were on my mind^^ one of the real peaceful and respected members in these forums, nice to see ya, hope you're fine and enjoying your day =), Amen​

*Peace and love* ​

​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens​

​

​

Note: Silly , repeated, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, if I'm not replying to your relevant post maybe because of this , ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!​

 

Hey Cat,

Some basic principles of response for me before we begin- anything that is off topic from Jeremiah 31:31 denying a blood atonement will either be addressed in summary or not at all. This is not to say that the diversions are unworthy of response, they are, but given the depth and complexity of this topic one needs focus and I can't be going off on theological tangents, so nor should you. If you wish answers, please feel free to add me on MSN or Yahoo or e-mail or PM me or something, but to get sidetracked will help no-one.

So with that in mind, let's begin.

Some thoughts to consider:

1) There is nothing in verses 33 or 36 that deny a blood covenant. Indeed, the New Covenant was an attempt to fulfil the Old, and was in structure and purpose a mirror image of the revelations and covenants of days gone by. In this sense, for Christians to have the "Law in their hearts" is exactly right, for now we are judged by what is in our hearts, not by what we do- the Law was designed to instruct people along the right path, and similarly, the New Covenant puts this instruction in the hearts of believers. I reitorate, then, there is nothing in this verse that supports your argument, and until you can successfully illustrate how a presence of Law and an orientation around the 'heart' is contrary to NT Theology your argument remains unsuccessful.

2) Paul did not abolish the Law- in the strain of Jesus he saw it as being fulfilled in the Cross, where the Wisdom of God is most manifest and, like Torah was a gracious gift from God, he saw Christ's sacrifice and Resurrection in a similar vein. He explicitly says in Romans that the Law is not 'sin', it is not worthless- Israel as a Law-bound nation has not been forgotten. The notion that Paul is the bad guy is often a polemic of the Muslim and Jew alike, but it is woefully unsubstantiated.

3) By Jesus' death and Resurrection, the Law is fulfilled and suddenly we are no longer under the Law of the state, but under the Law of grace- wherein our hearts are judged, and our actions are the consequence of our intentions.

Off-topic, but it's worth mentioning that this is not contradictory to Trinitarian theology. First of all, when Jesus quoted the Shema (the title of this affirmation of monotheism, taken from Deut 6:4), we must at least understand its religious significance. Primarily, it was a ritual, not a personal statement. But even more than this, He is saying it as a response to a question over which commandment is the greatest. Again, it is not so much a personal question but rather a theological 'point'. But even if it was a personal statement (and I have absolutely no problem in saying it was), it wouldn't have been a problem.

The doctrine of monotheism as found in the Shema completely allows for the Trinity, for it does not ascribe separate divinity to the three individual person but rather describes God, this 'Divinity', as one substance, the only Divinity. All the Trinity does is say that the true nature of this Divinity is found or observed in three 'egos', three identities, explicit from the Biblical witness.

With all this about Jewish monotheism in mind, and with questions about how the deity of Jesus fits into that, the cited verse where Jesus cites the Shema would in fact see Him ascribing Divinity, and honour, to the Jewish Deity. None of which, may I add, denies Him Divinity in Himself. To further the point, let's translate this verse using the principles explained above. It would say that the Jewish Deity is sovereign, He is Divine, He is 'God'. More than that, He is 'one' in His Divinity, in His Divine status, there are no separate Divine substances other than YHWH. And the Trinity fits perfectly here, for we don't say that the persons equate different substances, indeed, we affirm that the Father constitutes the single Divine substance- the only differences lie in function and ego. And that line of reasoning is not made redundant by the Shema.

In other words, to get some sort of anti-trinitarian point out of this is severely lacking.

------------------------

The links to your posts about Jesus' sacrifice and atonement are interesting, sure, but again, completely off-topic when it comes to Jeremiah's relation to the blood covenant. I'll take a look at them a bit more, and the situation willing, make responses to them later.

About Kamal Suleibee's bizarre handling of the Gospels (which may I add is completely conspirational and has no historical/documentary evidence whatsoever), it reminds me a lot of Eisenmann's or Hyam Maccoby's take on the whole thing. Suddenly Paul is this bad guy who was far too hellenistic. But that opinion has severely deteriated in scholarly thought, and now all recognise that Paul was thoroughly Jewish, through and through- it can be seen in his affirmation of himself, his track record, his way of speaking and thinking, and his theology. He had contact with the hellenists but it their influence was but aesthetic- e.g. he used motifs to illustrate a point or indeed, refute one. But at all times he stuck completely to a Jewish faith.

Most critics are ignorant of this, or just haven't bothered to read the text, or have, but are severely incompetant in relaying it. As for the Mithras thing, I'd like you to reference a Mithraic scholar (e.g. not Kersey, or Graves, or Freke or Gandy) who agrees with your quotation. In the meantime, take a look at here and take a look at what they actually say.

Until then, I'll leave it there, anything else would be severely off-track. Just on a methodological note, however, I was wondering if in the future you could make more of a response yourself to what I say, as opposed to overly quoting yourself or citing links. I feel like I'm responding to a person that way as opposed to a chunk of texts!

God bless,

Nathan

​

 

NathanL
​

​

There is nothing in verses 33 or 36 that talk about a blood covenant.
​

​

​

Which verse says so? Keep the commandments, if you will steal, wouldn't you be judged?
​

​

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
​

33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel …I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 36 “If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the LORD, Then the seed of Israel shall also cease From being a nation before Me forever.”
​

It is very clear that this is a metaphor!!! When I say: keep in mind that this computer isn't mine so be careful don't visit any unreliable website. What does it mean! When something is in your mind and heart!!! When it is so, you will always be careful when you will use the computer, you won't download any file, because it isn't mine, when it is not in your mind, you won't be careful as if it is in your mind!!! You will pay more attention and will be more careful? 36 “If those ordinances depart From before Me, what's the use if you will follow the law but your heart is far away from the law!!! Matthew15:3-8: But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
​

In other words, I mean what you yourself said: our hearts are judged, and our actions are the consequence of our intentions =) subhanallah, when the law is in your heart and mind, consequently you will follow the law and won't break it =), as I said: it is a beautiful metaphor.
​

​

As you said, he saw it as being fulfilled, me God and many others don't see it so =)
​

​

No, God considers this injustice, Jesus was innocent, and the Lord said:
​

Ezekiel18. 14: Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like…. hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live. …Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Yet ye say, The way of the LORD is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
​

Ezekiel 33:20: O ye house of Israel,I will judge you every one after his ways.
​

​

Here Then read this (2) (3) (4) (5) And this
​

I continue in other post…
​

(= *Peace and love* =)
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

Note: Silly , repeated, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, if I'm not replying to your relevant post maybe because of this , ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!
​