Great stuff ... we are back to irrelevant responses to the points you so nicely set out in your previous post and to which I responded point for point.To: Mr. Andre
I went thru your long post and instead of answering it point by point, I would post a simple reply touching the basic question at stack.
A. Proper Approach:
I think I can trace your dilemma, instead of taking a broader view point, you want to justify your own teachings.
When you become narrow minded, you will not see the full picture.
In such cases, you should start with the Basic Question, Why there are so many religions in the world?
Or rather when the Creator of all human beings is one, how there could be different religions?
B. Why Different Religions?:
If there were different Creators, one who made Indians, another who made Chinese and another for Arabs and Europeans and Jews…. Then it is understandable that all these people have totally different religions.
Or if all the religions were at the result of people's own thinking and imaginations, then also it was understandable if they all were so different from each other.
But when all these religions claim that they are based on revelation which their originators received from the Creator of the universe, there must be some commonality in these religions.
Some differences due to local conditions and state of civilizations of countries / customs are expected, but not so fundamental differences so as to totally incompatible with each other.
My arguments therefore did make a common sense and they were based on reason and logic.
C. Abolish the Law:
On the other hand, you instead of tackling the problem on reason and logic went to quote extensively from Bible and expound the theology of Christianity.
There was no shortcoming in the Law by itself; people did not follow it because they did not want to follow it.
Whatever changes needed due to changing circumstances, might be covered by modifying it, but to abolish the law altogether, so that no one is found guilty of breaking the law, looks very strange.
D. Is "No Law" can work in other fields too?
Why can't the same principle work in other spheres too? Do we not see so many "imperfect" laws on Economy / Taxation / Traffic / Law and Order…. Since no one is able to follow them fully, would it be OK to abolish the entire laws so that no one is every found guilty of breaking any law?
So the Christian principle of abolishing law entirely is based unreasonable, and illogical.
E. No Law for not preached by any Prophet of God:
And more so, this idea was not preached by Jesus Christ, a prophet of God, but by St. Paul, who did not meet Jesus during his life time and did not learn any thing from him.
F. Back to original question:
You have not answered my question as to what was the name of religion of all past prophets? It was not Judaism, it was not Buddhism, it was not Hinduism, it was not Christianity, then what are we left with?
Unfortunately my friend, your totally irrelevant responses make any further reasoned discussion impossible.