Teritos
Active Member
Of course, because Jesus says so. A yes and a no is enough, I don't have to swear.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Making an "oath" is a 'curse'
From Spiritual point of view
So this makes sense to me
1 word with these 2 meanings
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You might get in trouble for that. You did not explain how you would get out of doing so.
E for effort! C for compassion! A for attitude! I suggest strongly this is not anything about Islam, but good work nevertheless. It doesn't hurt to come up with ideas and try them out.
By forbidding oaths Jesus declares peace between Israel and the Roman occupation, or other occupations. With no oath taken the time has ended when "The LORD will drive out these nations before you..." (Deuteronomy 11:23), because the oath carries with it the promise of driving them out. No oaths allowed means no more will the nations be driven out by the LORD. Jesus followers are not to take this oath. This explains partially the animosity against modern Orthodox Christians who live in modern Israel. No oaths would essentially mean surrendering, and that is kind of annoying for Jews who live in that country surrounded by people who don't understand Jews well. Its a hot seat. If you were in their position you'd probably also not want to just give up reclaiming territory, so you'd not want to end the taking of oaths.
Further explanation:
This comment in Matthew 5:33-37 is likely (almost certainly I suggest) in reference to previous scripture, so we must find this scripture and the relevant Torah portion to which it applies. Otherwise it has no basis, but we know that Jesus always teaches from the Torah and addresses the Torah. Find a passage where Jesus does otherwise, and you win a prize.
The best scripture to consider is where the Jews are caused to take an oath upon Mt. Ebal and Mt. Gerazim. They take the oath, and the LORD will preserve them, give them things and the land. Matthew brings it up in harmony with his main point: Christians don't need circumcision. This, like most things in Matthew, is about allowing gentiles into the church. The book Matthew begins by declaring the time of Israel's purification to be finished by declaring Jesus to be the 42nd generation. He's suggesting they've achieved purification, because Jesus has been born! -- That times of refinement in the furnace of affliction are now over! Therefore there need be no more oaths.
Why no oaths? Uncircumcised cannot take these oaths made on Mr. Garazim and Mt Ebal. It would exclude anyone from joining the church without getting circumcised, not that its required in the law for Jews as far as I can read, but maybe it is. In Christ it is now forbidden according to Matthew, whether they are required or not, I suggest Matthew puts this commandment there to cover one of the questions that he anticipates must come up arising from discussions about circumcision. "Do we take the oath or not?" Through Jesus new commandment Matthew argues the time for oaths is at an end. Christian interpretation of Jeremiah 31:34 --> No circumcision required --> no Garizim/Ebal oath possible.
Teritos
Active Member
I would refer to freedom of religion. But no matter what would come, I would not swear.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Good news! There appears to be an out for you:
Alternative to Swearing-in Oath in Court Struck Down
Suggesting new language for that part of courtroom ceremony still known as the “swearing in” of witnesses when religious objections arise, the 9th Circuit panel said the following phrase would be sufficient:
“I understand that I must accurately state the facts. I agree to testify under penalty of perjury. I understand that if I testify falsely, I may be subject to criminal prosecution.”
firedragon
Veteran Member
Loooool. This is the most hilarious evangelical nonsense I have heard in my life.
You see, the word pin means pin in English, but in another language it means "good deed". The word "bin" in English means a vessel you generally throw rubbish in, but in Arabic it means "Son of". Jesus spoke Aramaic, he would have said "Alaha" to God. That is similar to Allah too mate! How in the world did you miss that?
So in your most pathetic understanding, was Jesus cursing when he said Alaha? After all, Alaha is more similar to Alah than Allah. Lol. In your logic mate, isn't Jesus cursing? So why can't some normal people curse when your God himself has set that example by repeating the word Alaha all the time? And you should read the Aramaic New Testament and see how many times it uses the word Alaha. So many curses in your own Bible (In your own logic) but you are speaking about some normal human beings. Hypocrisy isn't it?
Well. This is a new nonsense so thanks for adding one to the list of other nonsenses.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
Not quite right. You are referring to the word Ilah (elah). Not Allah.
There you go!
See the etymology I gave.
firedragon
Veteran Member
The word for oath in the NT is Horkos right mate?
Sooo, what does that sound like? In another language that sounds like "stolen jack fruit". So is the bible talking about "stolen jackfruit"? Hilarious.
firedragon
Veteran Member
iLah is the arabic word that corresponds with "deity". Allah is a word that means "The Deity"
I understand what you say. Its just not quite right, not that I am saying you were wrong. You are right.
Yes, that's what my second post in this thread says lol. We agree.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Teritos
Active Member
Alaha is syro-aramaic, Jesus didn't speak this language. The aramaic word for God is Elah. See Strong's Hebrew: 426. אֱלָהּ (elah) -- God, god (biblehub.com)
Nouman Farooqui
New Member
The etymology of the word Allāh has been discussed extensively by classical Arab philologists.[18] Grammarians of the Basra school regarded it as either formed "spontaneously" (murtajal) or as the definite form of lāh (from the verbal root lyh with the meaning of "lofty" or "hidden").[18] Others held that it was borrowed from Syriac or Hebrew, but most considered it to be derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- "the" and ilāh "deity, god" to al-lāh meaning "the deity", or "the God".[18] The majority of modern scholars subscribe to the latter theory, and view the loanword hypothesis with skepticism.[19]
Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic.[20] The corresponding Aramaic form is Elah (אלה), but its emphatic state is Elaha (אלהא). It is written as ܐܠܗܐ (ʼĔlāhā) in Biblical Aramaic and ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ (ʼAlâhâ) in Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church, both meaning simply "God".[21] Biblical Hebrew mostly uses the plural (but functional singular) form Elohim (אלהים), but more rarely it also uses the singular form Eloah (אלוהּ).
Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic.[20] The corresponding Aramaic form is Elah (אלה), but its emphatic state is Elaha (אלהא). It is written as ܐܠܗܐ (ʼĔlāhā) in Biblical Aramaic and ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ (ʼAlâhâ) in Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church, both meaning simply "God".[21] Biblical Hebrew mostly uses the plural (but functional singular) form Elohim (אלהים), but more rarely it also uses the singular form Eloah (אלוהּ).
Hebrew is a different language than Aramaic.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
It seems to me that the reasoning is that if someone asks you to swear an oath (to God) to fulfill an obligation, that there is an intention within the hearts of those involved (both the one who swears the oath and the one who demands an oath) that some bad consequence should befall the person who breaks such an oath. That intention is evil (malevolent by its nature) and, therefore, all such oaths hold within them the seed of some ill-intent. No one can be sure to fulfill any oath and, therefore, all such people who swear such oaths risk judgement upon themselves, producing suffering.
"Inshallah" means "God willing". If a person says, "Inshallah, it will happen," it contains no inherent ill-intent should it not happen. Inshallah is not an oath, but, rather is a prayer. It is fundamentally different to use your words to convey a blessing as opposed to using them to convey a curse.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Read "Aramaic English New Testament" - Andrew Gabriel- Yitzkhak bar Raphael. Dont read apologetics of bogus pseudo scholars because you like them, read some scholarship instead.
Anyway, Elah sounds a lot like ilah in arabic. So who is cursing? What a stupid argument is that?
Tell me. In the Aramaic, the pe****a family including codex khaboura in scroll 3, says "Damota d’Alaha". What does that mean? Is it a curse since Alaha sounds very similar to the Hebrew word Alah?
Cmon. Please explain.
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Matthew 5:33
Thou shalt not forswear thyself -
Christ here proceeds to correct another false interpretation of the law. The law respecting oaths is found in Leviticus 19:12, and Deuteronomy 23:23. By those laws people were forbid to perjure themselves, or to forswear, that is, swear falsely.
...
It appears, however, from this passage, as well as from the ancient writings of the Jewish rabbins, that while the Jews professedly adhered to the law, they had introduced a number of oaths in common conversation, and oaths which they by no means considered to be binding. For example, they would swear by the temple, by the head, by heaven, by the earth. So long as they kept from swearing by the name Yahweh, and so long as they observed the oaths publicly taken, they seemed to consider all others as allowable, and allowedly broken. This is the abuse which Christ wished to correct. “It was the practice of swearing in common conversation, and especially swearing by created things.” To do this, he said that they were mistaken in their views of the sacredness of such oaths. They were very closely connected with God; and to trifle with them was a species of trifling with God. Heaven is his throne; the earth his footstool; Jerusalem his special abode; the head was made by him, and was so much under his control that we could not make one hair white or black. To swear by these things, therefore, was to treat irreverently objects created by God, and could not be without guilt. It is remarkable that the sin here condemned by the Saviour prevails still in Palestine in the same form and manner referred to here. Dr. Thomson (The Land and the Book, vol. ii. p. 284) says, “The people now use the very same sort of oaths that are mentioned and condemned by our Lord. They swear by the head, by their life, by heaven, and by the temple, or what is in its place, the church. The forms of cursing and swearing, however, are almost infinite, and fall on the pained ear all day long.”
Our Saviour here evidently had no reference to judicial oaths, or oaths taken in a court of justice. It was merely the foolish and wicked habit of swearing in private conversation; of swearing on every occasion and by everything that he condemned. This he does condemn in a most unqualified manner. He himself, however, did not refuse to take an oath in a court of law, Matthew 26:63-64. So Paul often called God to witness his sincerity, which is all that is meant by an oath.
See Romans 1:9; Romans 9:1; Galatians 1:20; Hebrews 6:16.
Oaths were, moreover, prescribed in the law of Moses, and Christ did not come to repeal those laws. See Exodus 22:11; Leviticus 5:1; Numbers 5:19; Deuteronomy 29:12, Deuteronomy 29:14.
Albert Barne's Notes On The BibleThou shalt not forswear thyself -
Christ here proceeds to correct another false interpretation of the law. The law respecting oaths is found in Leviticus 19:12, and Deuteronomy 23:23. By those laws people were forbid to perjure themselves, or to forswear, that is, swear falsely.
...
It appears, however, from this passage, as well as from the ancient writings of the Jewish rabbins, that while the Jews professedly adhered to the law, they had introduced a number of oaths in common conversation, and oaths which they by no means considered to be binding. For example, they would swear by the temple, by the head, by heaven, by the earth. So long as they kept from swearing by the name Yahweh, and so long as they observed the oaths publicly taken, they seemed to consider all others as allowable, and allowedly broken. This is the abuse which Christ wished to correct. “It was the practice of swearing in common conversation, and especially swearing by created things.” To do this, he said that they were mistaken in their views of the sacredness of such oaths. They were very closely connected with God; and to trifle with them was a species of trifling with God. Heaven is his throne; the earth his footstool; Jerusalem his special abode; the head was made by him, and was so much under his control that we could not make one hair white or black. To swear by these things, therefore, was to treat irreverently objects created by God, and could not be without guilt. It is remarkable that the sin here condemned by the Saviour prevails still in Palestine in the same form and manner referred to here. Dr. Thomson (The Land and the Book, vol. ii. p. 284) says, “The people now use the very same sort of oaths that are mentioned and condemned by our Lord. They swear by the head, by their life, by heaven, and by the temple, or what is in its place, the church. The forms of cursing and swearing, however, are almost infinite, and fall on the pained ear all day long.”
Our Saviour here evidently had no reference to judicial oaths, or oaths taken in a court of justice. It was merely the foolish and wicked habit of swearing in private conversation; of swearing on every occasion and by everything that he condemned. This he does condemn in a most unqualified manner. He himself, however, did not refuse to take an oath in a court of law, Matthew 26:63-64. So Paul often called God to witness his sincerity, which is all that is meant by an oath.
See Romans 1:9; Romans 9:1; Galatians 1:20; Hebrews 6:16.
Oaths were, moreover, prescribed in the law of Moses, and Christ did not come to repeal those laws. See Exodus 22:11; Leviticus 5:1; Numbers 5:19; Deuteronomy 29:12, Deuteronomy 29:14.
But that is often times the case when you cherry pick a verse in support of a nefarious agenda.
Last edited by a moderator: