@Alphadoti, @Chepkel, @guru267
Given the manner in which you have organized and presented your argument from a post I earlier missed to reply to, it's clear the end justifies the means. For me to actually make a valid point to you, I'd have to take up the same pattern but unfortunately in these circumstances the bigger picture is needed in its entirety. It's not so important how but what you say that matters to you which will make it very difficult for you to see my point. So one may ask then why address you? It's so that others may see what I see in your reasoning and others who seek understanding may also get it. When you take a single verse or paragraph from a story that stretches a couple of chapters, you loose the meaning of it completely since you'll have taken it out of context. When you go to watch a movie (assuming you do), do you start by watching it from the beginning or do you skip to the really juicy section that pleases you to really understand what the movie is about?... maybe that question may shed some light on where am coming from for example:-
Take for instance Numbers 22:22
With a statement like that you'd be critical to state that we (Christians) serve a God of confusion and undue persecution right? Reason being he commands and when you obey he punishes you for it.. Now the bigger picture is explained in 2 Peter 2 : 14 - 16 in its entirety.
================================
1 Corinthians 14:34–35 is one of the two texts from the New Testament often used as a major argument against preaching, teaching, and leadership ministries for women in the church. If one believes that the Bible supports women in ministry, then an adequate, biblical explanation must be offered for this apparent prohibition.
It should be recalled that Paul has already indicated in this letter—1 Corinthians—that women did participate in prayer and prophecy with the authority in the church (1 Corinthians 11:5, 10; 14:3–5). This fact alone shows that 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 cannot be a general, absolute, and timeless prohibition on women speaking in church.
It was common at one time to “dismiss” the evidence of 1 Corinthians 11:5, 10 (and a few would still argue this position). It was suggested that 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 did not refer to a meeting of the church but only to a private non-church gathering. The whole context of 1 Corinthians 11:2–14:40, the argument of 1 Corinthians 11:16, and the parallel between 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 11:17 make such an idea most untenable. Some have even suggested that 1 Corinthians 11:5 was only hypothetical, but such an approach is clearly an argument of desperation.
The silence enjoined in 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 must be a specific, limited silence. Numerous suggestions have been offered, but only the major alternatives can be reviewed here (some scholars, with slight evidence, have also suggested either that 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 was not written by Paul but was inserted by a copyist or that it is a question from Paul’s opponents in Corinth which Paul denounces in 1 Corinthians 14:36). One view is that the speaking prohibited here is mere babbling. There is, however, nothing specific in the context to support this meaning of “speak,” and such nonsense would certainly have been prohibited to all persons in the worship Paul described. Another view suggests that the speaking prohibited is speaking in tongues (glossolalia) since that is frequently mentioned in the preceding context (1 Corinthians 14). However, glossolalia is always referred to as “tongues” or “speaking in tongues” and never simply as speaking.
Probably the most popular view today among those who oppose women speaking with authority in the church is to identify the speaking prohibited with the judgment of the prophets mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14:29. Thus, it is argued that women may prophesy (1 Corinthians 11:5) but may not judge or evaluate prophecy. The evaluation of prophecy is seen as the truly authoritative level of speech in the church from which women are to be excluded.
This view has two major difficulties. First, the word “speak” in 1 Corinthians 14:34 has no implication within the word itself or in its immediate context (14:34–35) to support identifying it with the concept of prophetic evaluation. Second, the idea of two levels of speech in the church—prophecy and the judgment of prophecy—with the understanding that one is higher than the other and is for men only has no clear or implied support elsewhere in Paul. In fact, Paul’s own definition and defense of prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:1–25) implies directly that prophecy itself is authoritative speech of the highest level in the church.
The view that seems best to me is to understand the speaking prohibited here to women to refer only to disruptive questions that wives (usually uneducated in the culture of Paul’s time) were asking their husbands. This corresponds precisely with the resolution Paul offers (1 Corinthians 14:35): “if they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home. . . .” Such disruptive questioning was also considered a disgrace in Paul’s day in which it was widely believed that it was morally indiscreet for any wife to say anything on any subject in public. This view of disruptive questioning also fits well the specific context (1 Corinthians 14:26–40) in which Paul is concerned about appropriateness and order, which permit genuine edification (note that 1 Corinthians 14:26 expects everyone to participate). Thus, there are actually three injunctions to silence (1 Corinthians 14:2, 30, 34), although many Bible translations use “silent” only in 1 Corinthians 14:34.
================================
In regards to Ecclesiasticus 22:3, the Christian bible (KJV, NKJV and NIV) only contains Ecclesiastes 1 - 12, where Ecclesiasticus 22:3 is coming from, I haven't the slightest idea what bible that actually is.
================================
As far as Revelation 14:4 is concerned:-
Have the 144,000 been defiled by women or are they virgins? (Revelation 14:4-5). Have all men and women sinned and have they fallen short of the glory of God? (Romans 3:23).
Note: This defilement is talking about spiritual defilement. Everyone has sinned, but the only way a person can be without fault before God is by the blood of the Lamb and to be forgiven of our sins and to be redeemed by our savior Jesus Christ. If the 144,000 had never sinned then they would have not needed to be redeemed. The 144,000 are undefiled like virgins in that they have been forgiven and their sins wiped out and they could then come before God as if they never had sinned.
================================
In regards to Leviticus 12:2-5
Try and follow this, you know very well that when semi solids or fluids leave the body, they do so because they are being expelled and are not to be re-injested because they have already served their purpose and any more time spent will mean they are now poisonous. If you allow a woman who has just given birth to go back to here regular lifestyle immediately, would you trust her to serve you with her food? Do you think she will have the necessary state of mind to do her tasks appropriately to the best of her ability? I hardly and highly doubt it! Her body will need time to restore itself to being a single individual again, than when she was pregnant. At this point it is very easy to transmit disease via fluid not necessarily from her but even by the ones handling her during the childbirth. She needs time set apart from others, first to restore herself by resting from the very painful and draining experience of childbirth. A cut by the knife on your skin actually takes 7 days to heal completely when you set it apart from dirt, harmful objects and heat, those are the same days mentioned in the Holy bible. The act of childbirth has bloodshed and various injuries are realized. The pregnant woman also has a marked increase of hormones in her blood that even affect her perspiration. All that should tell you something in reference to uncleanliness in its appropriate context in the bible. You can't read a single verse and interpret it in isolation, even the whole Leviticus 15 in the Holy bible is relevant in the term unclean before the Lord in the bible.
================================
As far as Exodus 21:7-8; Numbers 27:8 This is going to be a difficult and probably impossible pill for the Muslims here to swallow because of the difference in what Jesus Christ is perceived to be in both territories (Christians and Muslims). In reference to the old testament and why it is not applied to the present day christian is because it is frequently argued that in Matthew 5:17-18, if Jesus did not “destroy” the law, then it must still be binding. Accordingly, such components as the “sabbath day” requirement must be operative still, along with, perhaps, numerous other elements of the Mosaic regime. This assumption is grounded upon a misunderstanding of the words and intent of this passage.
We may confidently affirm that Christ did not here suggest that the binding nature of the law of Moses would remain perpetually obligatory. Such a view would contradict everything we learn from the balance of the New Testament record. Consider the following points.
Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “destroy.” It translates the Greek term kataluo, literally meaning to “loose down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans (Mt. 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14), and of the dissolving of the human body at death (2 Cor. 5:1). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., to “render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to deprive of force” or to “invalidate.”
It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “destroy” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came "…not to destroy, but to fulfill.
The meaning is this. Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an adversary of the law. His goal was not to frustrate its fulfillment. Rather, he revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding himself (Luke 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience or else imposed a “curse” (see Gal. 3:10,13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given. if, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, as it did before Christ came, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what he came “to do.” On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish what he came to accomplish, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal regime today.
If the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ, and thus remains as an obligatory legal system for today, then it is not a partially binding regime; rather, it is totally compelling system.
Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled. Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose.
“But,” some surmise, “does not the text affirm that the law would last until ‘heaven and earth’ pass away?” No, only that it would be “easier” for the universe to pass away than for the law of God not to fulfill its mission (cf. Luke 16:17).
And so, if one contends, on the basis of Matthew 5:17-18, that Moses’ law is still binding as a legally required regime, he must take all of it — including its bloody sacrifices, annual treks to Jerusalem, purification rituals, etc. As Paul later will argue — if a man receives one portion of the law [as binding for justification], he is a debtor to do all of it (Gal. 5:3). This is the logical consequence of the misguided “sabbatarian” view of this important text.
In addition to the points listed above, Paul clearly argues, in his letter to the Ephesians, that the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” was “abolished” by the death of Jesus upon the cross (2:14-15). The Greek term for “abolished” is katargeo, literally suggesting the idea of reducing something to a state of inactivity.
Paul uses this term twice in Romans 7:2,6 — showing that just as a wife is “discharged” from the law of her husband when he dies, even so, through the death of the body of Christ, men were “discharged” from the obligations of the Mosaic law. That the law here contemplated is the law of Moses, including the ten commandments, is demonstrated by the reference to the tenth commandment in Romans 7:7 (cf. Ex. 20:17).
The harmony between Matthew 5:17-18, and Ephesians 2:15, is this: The purpose of the law of Moses was never to come to naught; its original design would be perpetual. On the other hand, as a legal code, it would be abolished, being cancelled by the Savior’s sacrificial death (cf. Col. 2:14ff.).
================================
Someone tried understanding the trinity by using mathematical reasoning to explain spiritual realms. It's like taking science and trying to explain magic with it. Simple... you will never understand a thing with that kind of approach. God isn't man to be likened to the ways of man hence (1 + 1 + 1 = 1 as so they may have wanted to explain it). You simply cannot understand the spiritual realm with manly reasoning period ( 1 Corinth 3:19)!
The only way a Muslim will understand why Christians refer Jesus as the messiah is if they spared a moment and acquired an objective state of mind and in their own quiet time made a truth seeking inquiry to God (one true living God) to really reveal to them whether Jesus is indeed the messiah without a prejudged state of mind because it would be out of my jurisdiction to prove that Jesus is actually the messiah.