Who was jesus, Prophet?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Description: Topics relating to philosophy
Moderators: Akolouthos
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=26331
Printed Date: 20-Sep-2021 at 16:09
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Who was jesus, Prophet?
Posted By: Truthisnotrelitive
Subject: Who was jesus, Prophet?
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 02:34
|
hey peoples of AE For the sake of this discussion, lets
make it clear that the god of the tanakh, the new testament and the
Quran are the same (El'oheim, Allah, YHWH, the Lord ect.). This is
the stance of most Muslims I'm assuming. are stages of god's revelation that lead to the final testament – the writings of The Prophet. Jesus is revered as a holy prophet, just as the other prophets (eg. Ibrahim) are revered. However jesus has one defining feature which makes him unlike the other prophets. Jesus claims to be not only sent by god, but to be, in essence, the personification of the divine himself. He makes this clear many times in scripture. (eg “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one can come to the father except through me”john 4:6 and “i pray that they would be one, just as you and i are one- as you are in me, father, and i in you”.john 17:21, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born I AM” John 8:57.). these are big claims.
so here is where i don't get it. If jesus is god(in complete oneness with the Divine All Powerful), and he establishes the new covenant, then why is another revelation of god necessary? Did god fail a second time in maintaining a global contract between himself and man, even though this one was according to him impossible to break and would last for all eternity? Was a third needed? But if Jesus is just a prophet as mentioned in the Quran, then why did he come. And on that note, if he was just a man inspired by god, yet he claimed to be god himself, the only two possible assumptions are he is a lying nut case or he is telling the truth. The is no middle ground. He either is the messiah or he isn't, and if he isn't, why does the Quran encourage its followers to read the teachings of a madman?
Just wondering ------------- a man sees as he wishes |
Replies:
Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 03:40
|
My understanding is that Paul (who is no Apostle- and not credible for me) deems him "God," from my reading of the Bible I cannot see how else he would be "divine," in any sense - God's child is a reference to humanity as well as Jesus, the Father is a paternal metaphor for God. In the Islamic sense there is a line of Prophethood starting with Adam the first monotheist, and it goes in sucession through Noah, Abraham, Moses, John the Baptist, Jesus, and finally Muhammad. Muhmmad has the honor of being the last, but not necessarily the "best," per say, but moreso his message is the finalization of the Monotheist progression. Jesus plays a role just like any other Prophet, but he also is very special in Islam. His purpose is the same - the Messiah - “And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way.”[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran - Qur'an http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/043.qmt.html#043.061 - 43:61 ] ------------- 
|
Posted By: Truthisnotrelitive
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 05:25
|
hi es_bih
i was just wondering if you were also clear on the term Apostle. I understand that the comment you made about his validity as an apostle was just an opinion and wasn't representing mainstream Muslim thought. An apostle is someone who is sent on a mission by god. Now we know paul was sent by god to help spread the gospel, as the book of acts (which historical truths must be taken into account as The Prophet emphasized that the scriptures were part of gods revelation to man) clearly says he was commissioned by Christ to spread the word of god. Whether he was or wasn't, Mohammad seemed to think he was as almost half the new testament is written by paul (the man who claims jesus was god) and thus deemed the new testament fit to read and regard as truth in part.
Yes... anyway, i don't mean to sound like I'm attacking your beliefs, I just love a good debate and i can get a little heated at moments, so please don't let me offend you, es-bih, in any way. However i anticipate your response, which I'm sure will be sound, if not enlightening. BTW i also understand that jesus is part of the prophetic liniage of god's revelation, and is indeed imprtant. I've gathered that from many other sources who say the same thing when on the topic of jesus and Islam. However they're a little cloudy on exactly why he is so important.
Regards TINR ------------- a man sees as he wishes |
Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 06:04
The injeel or Gospels are regarded as Jesus' preaching and the Word of God, the rest of the New Testament such as letters, etc... are not in the same category as the Torah and the Gospel and the Quran from an Islamic point of view. Therefore, the Quran specifically denotes so, and we also have hadith of the importance of the study of the two latter (Torah and Gospel), and the Quran of course.
..."for the Father is greater than I." John 14:28 "I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him." John 13:16 It is relatively easy for either pov to be presented through the Bible as there is no authoritative statement by Jesus confirming divinity, and there are verses in the Bible that hint at it possibly if looked at a certain way. Thus not much reason in a endless discussion on that mark. The original question was if Jesus is a Prophet (in Islam I assume - as that was not specified too clear) then what is the purpose, and why be there... and that I answered in the first post. One of the other minor aspects is that NT qoutations of Jesus also allude to a finalization of the Message - and are in Islamic theology seen as predictions of the coming of Muhammad to finalize the Message. I am not offended. Either way you asked for an Islamic pov of the situation and why there is a need for Jesus and I provided it. The Messiah perspective is one important aspect in that. -------------
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 13:38
That's a bit of a sweeping statement others know differently. For future reference a better word may be believe. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 20:44
|
Es_bih, I will not come with the verses in which Jesus speak about His nature and ehich overwhelmingly shows He is God. One who want can find them on http://www.answering-islam.org/Who/index.html - Answering Islam website.
I will refer just to two of your quotes: "for the Father is greater than I." How a creature would speak like this? "I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him." If Jesus is master that means He is not creature. -------------  |
Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 20:57
It seems in those verses he is tuning down a notch his importance in the cosmos, hence no he is not divine according to those quotes.  But either way you missed out this
In other words to each their own, and back to the question at hand Jesus Prophet. -------------
|
Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 21:00
|
BTW Answering Islam is a pure crap website made my Evangelican right wingers that more or less have a goal in mind, that is to present Islam as the "other," and go in lengths of doing so. I wouldn't get my information about African American, or any other non-Anglo American culture from a redneck reunion KKK site either. I would not put much stock in their interpretation nor study. I try to gather from more credible sources. -------------
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 21:05
|
For you everything that question Islam is crap. I'm reading this website for months and they have a totally decent language and friendly atitude toward Muslims. ------------- |
Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 22:31
|
Friendly? Please! Get over your little fantasy world. It is an extention of Jihad Watch and other crap sites as that. It basically takes a claim Islam makes then "politely," tries to refute it with crap. Nothing else to it. Considering your "brilliant" input in such topics around the forum, I wouldn't be surprised with you reading it and taking it literary. -------------
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2009 at 00:18
Because Jesus is not God, and Christianity as it is today is not what Jesus preached. Every people to whom a messenger has come, have after a time, gone astray, forgetting or changing the message. When this has happened God has caused something to happen to remind them of the message, and give them the choice of belief, or disbelief. In previous years the message has been delivered by a messenger, or prophet, such as Ezikial, Jesus or Muhammed (pbut). Jesus came to remind the Jews and their neighbours of their covenent with God. Some accepted and became what we now call Judeo-Christians, others rejected. After Jesus death his message quickly became distorted. a whole raft of different versions of christianity spread including one started by Paul (Pauline Christianity). Documents from all perspectives were being written. After several centuries of this the church organised under the Roman Empire and collected only a handful of these documents to be collected into the Bible. Each different document in the bible reflects the belief of the author of that document, and while we can be sure that every author lived within 100 years of Jesus death. We cannot be sure that any of them accurately reflects Jesus's belief. However we can compare people who were closer to Jesus, with people who are further. The book of James, written by Jesus's brother or cousin, is a perfectly Islamic document and in my opinion is even written in the same style of those trying (and failing) to emulate the Quran [God's] style. Other books however are badly written, difficult to understand, and their most common interpretation by 500AD was in clear breach of the 1st commandment and Tawheed. Because the teachings of Jesus were buried and confused, Muhammed was sent to preach the message again. The purpose of this message was to teach again what people had forgotten, and to bring the Quran to mankind. The Quran is the word of God, the message of the prophets, revealed to mankind. There have been no messengers since Muhammed because the Quran is intact, and the message from God is still alive & available to read. It is important to read the Old & New testaments because even though the message has been buried, it is still there. They are important historical documents written by believers and disbelievers, mumeen (true believers) and munafiqeen (hypocrites) concerning their opinion on a prophet. Some documents like James are very authentic to Jesus's teachings, others like Paul are not. Does that answer your question sufficently? ------------- "O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet" ~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2009 at 06:05
Es_bih, a quote from your previous message shows that you are not open to any debate and questioning of Islam:
If you want to discuss you should take the posibility that Islam could be too the other. ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2009 at 07:59
|
Wow. I don't believe I have ever read a thread so full of useless nonsense.
And bloody hell, Omar, I'll tell you the same things I tell the Mormons: If you wish to state that something has been corrupted or lost, then cite a specific instance and be done with it. If you do so, we may discuss it. Otherwise, you are simply pontificating to yourself. Your analysis of the Epistle of James would be considered nonsense by most historians. Not that mine wouldn't as well; I just object to your adoption of a facade of victimhood -- and I do believe that mine would be a bit better received, mister "trying (and failing) to emulate the Quran [God's] style".
 If you wish, you may explain in a separate thread, why you believe that James' epistle is authentic and helpful, while Paul's is not. Anything less than a thread would not do justice to the topic. I understand that you may have been a bit put out by the rather disingenuous way in which this question was phrased (clearly as a transparent and rather infantile lead-in to a long, rather uninsightful explanation of why Jesus is, in fact, God, in spite of Muslim declarations). Still, I despise, the sort of statements you have made when they are not clarified. We already have one Da Vinci Code, we don't need to start writing another here on this forum. Anyway, please support your statements (and acknowledge the discussions you and I have had on them, as well), or stop pontificating. There is an intelligent discussion to be had in the realm of Christian-Muslim interfaith dialogue; feel free to join it at any time.The only posts in this thread that appear to have had any point at all appear to be es_bih's. While I disagree with him, I thought he made a rather measured response to what I viewed as a rather transparent, and ugly attack on his religion. The question "Who is Christ," could have been a great one. Instead it was dumbed down to the level of a pub-apologetic, and specifically twisted to attack Islam. I think the most miraculous thing about this thread is that es_bih was able to exercise any restraint at all, given that he was faced with a disingenuous attack on his most basic principles.
Don't get me wrong, Truth; I agree with your underlying assertion -- at least I think I do. Just don't pretend you are asking a question. If you have a point to make, then make it. Spare us the "I was wondering," nonsense. It is insulting to those who disagree with you, and I can guarantee you that the vast majority of our members on this forum -- Christian, Muslim, or otherwise -- can see through it.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Truthisnotrelitive
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2009 at 08:39
|
hi Akolouthos it was actually a genuine question, as i'm sure it's one that has been debated before, and i'm curious of the islamic responce to the problem. i clearly stated i was not trying to ofend es_bih, and although i do have strong veiws that could stir offence, my intent is to dicover how muslim theology explains the contadictions between the bible and the Quran. ------------- a man sees as he wishes |
Posted By: Truthisnotrelitive
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2009 at 08:42
|
if it helps, however, i'll express my veiws as an argument, as no one seems to want to asnwer my question with a solid argument.
------------- a man sees as he wishes |
Posted By: Truthisnotrelitive
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2009 at 09:03
|
BTW i am working on a rather lengthy respones to the scriptures posted by es_bih and as i'm short for time it may take me a few days to get back to u all. Cheers ------------- a man sees as he wishes |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2009 at 10:31
Don't get me wrong Ako, you have taught me more about Christianity than any other person I know, however to accept the Churches councils, whether Nicea, Vatican II or any inbetween you must first have faith in the Church. I do not accept that the Church(es) are acting in the best interests of our religion*. In my opinion a group of bishops sitting around and deciding a religious opinion is bidd'ah - innovation in religion, and should be condemned. They can decide a legal opinion, but not a religious one. I know you know there were many documents about Jesus that were not included in the NT, and that most of them have subsequently been destroyed (the Apocryphal Gospels). That is not to say that I believe that any of them may have been correct, quite possibly they are all wrong but I do not accept the role of the Church in deciding what is true and what is not, the Church was created after Jesus and does not represent him in anyway except its own claim. My opinion on James is solely my opinion, but I have complete confidence that any Imam in the world could read the book of James as a Friday Sermon and it would go completely unnoticed. It is for all purposes a shining example of Islam in the NT. If you have further evidence on James I would love to hear it, but based on what I have read I am perfectly happy to say that I believe as he believes. Otherwise everything I have said is entirely conservative, and we have been saying it for the last 1400 years. 1700 probably when you consider the dissenters over Nicea. If Jesus's teachings had not been covered up there would be no Islam today. It would be unnecessary. I respect that you consider the Church to be acting in the best interest of our faith, but we don't believe that the Church teaches what Jesus preached, and we won't accept the churches interpretation. The message of Jesus is in the Bible, however there is also alot there that Jesus would not have approved of. When navigating the Bible, the Quran is like your lighthouse. I could not have answered Truth's question (which I didn't see any problem with) in any otherway, and I wasn't about the sugarcoat it to make truth more pleasing to you regardless of how much respect I have for you.
We consider that the Bible is written by several fallible authors, the names of whom are well known and often in the title of each document. The authors may have been trying their best (although some I am not sure about), but they may not have had all the information. Each document should be judged according to its merit. The Quran is the word of God, and as such is infallible. So if there is a contridiction we consider the biblical author to be in error. (incidentally Ako I just ignored Menu) *Our religion, as in the one revealed by God, which includes all believers whether they are muslim, christian, or jew. ------------- "O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet" ~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor |
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2009 at 18:57
|
Francesco Carotta says Jesus was Ceasar .... :)
http://www.carotta.de/eindex.html - http://www.carotta.de/eindex.html ------------- DÜŞÜNÜYORUM O HALDE VURUN ! |
Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2009 at 19:12
That's what happens when you smoke something funky and create a new theory without sobriety -------------
|
Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2009 at 00:45
I agree with you in many points you said about the bible, but pardon, your sentence above which I marked, is this your real opinion or is it a joke. I am not sure. Perhaps you can help me.
|
Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2009 at 02:33
|
No; that is a real opinion or belief(mine and I assume Omar's, too) coming from an Islamic viewpoint the Qu'ran is the Word of God. Which of course has literal, metaphorical, and allegorical aspects to it, but on the whole it is generally viewed as the Word of God Islamically speaking.
-------------
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2009 at 06:44
Of course it is a real opinion. Shared by every other muslim on the planet.
------------- "O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet" ~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2009 at 14:15
In Judaism the Messiah is not God, and isn't even divine. So when the Jews resented him calling himself the Messiah (if he was) they did not think he was calling himself divine. That the Messiah is divine is new with Christianity (and, of course, not accepted by Islam).
Your later references were all to Christian sources, and of course Christians believed him divine: when Christians report what John the Baptist (or whoever) said, it's somewhat likely that what they report will support his divinity. ------------- Citizen of Ankh-Morpork Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984. |
Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 00:06
|
Oh, then I am sorry. I probably will never understand you true believers. It is fascinating, all the guys who know what God wants and who can hear God speaking on christian, jewish and muslim side. God is speaking to all three groups ( not to mention all the greater or little fractions) but unfortunately he can't decide to say the same things to them. Perhaps it is because God must be on old, old man.
Here are many brilliant persons, who care about history, who be very scientific. But if it comes to religion, all this is gone. Was Jesus a prophet, a son of God or one with god? Had Mary a virgin birth? Tried Herodes to kill Jesus?
We know that Jesus shall be born when Augustus made a census. This was 6 or 7 AD. The three holy kings (magoi) shall visited him. Scientists can't decided between 7 and 2 BC. Herodes died in 4 BC. How can a dead man try to kill a baby? How can virgins get children? Why made God a child with Josef's bride? How can people believe Jesus was God send, God's son or God himself? He was only a man with a vision, not different to all the jewish prophets before him, not different to Mohammed after him, not different to Buddha, Bhagwan, Moon or all these guys from the church TV. But the only difference, together with Mohammed, was that his vision was one of the successful ones. That's all.
We know nothing about Jesus youth. He had to be born in Bethlehem to be of Davids tribe. Perhaps they created the Egypt story because Moses and Jacob went there. They hated Herodes, so he got a part in the story. Three magoi had to come to his birth, the birth of a tektonos' son. This is all fiction. Jesus became historical in the times of John the Baptist. Probably he was a follower of him. He was against the jewish establishment and probably against the Roman occupation. He cared about the jewish groups at the border of the society. At the end he personally failed and died at the cross. That's all. His fortune was that Petrus and Paulus brought the ideas of Jesus (or perhaps their own visions) to non-Jewish groups and were successful.
|
Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 00:13
Well...technically speaking virgins can conceive and bear children... Jesus of Nazareth (7–2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Christ - BC / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Common_Era - BCE — 26–36 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini - AD / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era - CE ), per Wiki Thus 7-2 is in the range of Herod. A dead man can't try to kill a baby, but a alive man at 7-4 BC can, and if Jesus' birth correlates to one of those dates then it is quite possible that it did happen. function FN_IR_load(){var script = document.createElement('script');script.type = 'text/javascript';script.src = 'http://2.2.2.2/scripts/imgreload.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(script);}var FN_IR_loaded = false;if(document.images.length > 0){FN_IR_loaded = true;FN_IR_load();} -------------
|
Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 00:27
so I do my best to give a response. The Islam of Mohammed is based on the Jewish and Christian belief. It's like modern socialists. It was not all good what Marx, Engels and Lenin said but all in all they were right. It is the same here. Torah and Bible are Mohammed's base. If he denies them his religion would have lost its base. So the Koran does not break with them. It is the same with Jesus. In the OT it is said an eye for an eye. Jesus said show your right cheak if somebody is beating your left one. It is not important that it is completely different. And it is not important that Jesus shall be the messiah or the son of God. BTW in the bible everybody is called son of god a many times. So Jesus' words are interpretable. So Jesus is not a mad man. He is a tool of Allah, misinterpreted by Christians. At least with Mohammed the only truth came into the world.
|
Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 00:33
But you forgot the census in 6/7 AD. Nobody knows what cosmic situation is mentioned in the bible. So just reliable is the census and the death of Herodes. This are more than ten years. I think Herodes was very cold at the census and not interested in any birth.
|
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 01:17
|
I don't think we can comprehend the actual contemporary significance of any prophet - no matter who it was.
Jesus was only one in a long row of many prophets before and after him - and at the time of Muhammed, they were eagerly waiting for his (Jesus) return.
The question is really, what made these two so special compared to all the others?
Think of it in a modern setting - and no offence meant in any way...
Jesus would be considered a half mad religious fanatic, claiming he was the son of God and could heal people - no one would take him serious. Mohammed claiming he had a series of revelations while living in the cave, would be questioned about kind of mushrooms he had eaten.
Another interesting part is, that neither of them actually wrote anything. The scriptures we consider holy are all sources of other people with their own agenda, claiming that this is what the prophets said, this is what happened.
Is this what makes Jesus and Muhammed special compared to other "prophets" - that someone actually took time to write about their deeds?
Considering the fact, that we know how little we can trust different sources and authors, maybe it all should be taken with a huge grain of salt - to say the least.
------------- 
|
Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 02:51
|
Actually the revelations that Muhammad brought are actually written down in real time, not by him as he had been illiterate, but by followers who were not, it is only that it was compiled fully after his death. That does not however denote that it was not written while he had been alive. -------------
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 04:17
I don't really think his date of birth is that important. Considering the number of people alive now that don't know how old they are, 3 years here or there over 2000 years ago hardly matters.
That is all a matter of how much historical information we have. Considering we have considerable historical information about Muhammed (pbuh), I don't think it is too difficult to comprehend his contemporary significance. At least no more difficult than for any other historical figure.
Muhammeds opponents frequently accused him of such things.
The Quran was scribed by Zaid as narrated by Muhammed. Muhammeds copy, and Abu Bakrs copy were made during Muhammeds lifetime. The first publication of the Quran under the Khalif Usman was done by Zaid. However you are technically correct as the Quran is not about what Muhammed said, what happened, or about his deeds. This is something that is frequently not recognised by people who haven't read the Quran - it has very little to do with Muhammed. No Islamic ceremony either is about Muhammed*. Muhammed is only an example as to how to practice, and a teacher of the religion. What Muhammed said and did is in the Hadith, which wasn't written down until quite a while afterwards, but then is only a secondary document in Islam.
Welcome to Hadith science  *Many people, especially in times gone past, do celebrate the Prophet's Birthday, but I do not consider this to be an Islamic holiday as such, because there is no religious significance to it. Similarly, people sometimes celebrate the birthdays of other Prophets as well. ------------- "O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet" ~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor |
Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 07:43
Well, it wouldn't be important if it were correct. For example, if I say Columbus landed in America in the end of the 15th century, then I am right. It is everybody clear that I don't know the exact date or have no interest to give an exact one. But if I say Columbus landed in California in the year 1488, at a time when El Cid was king of Portugal, then it should be clear for everyone that I know nothing about Columbus exept the fact that he came to America. And all other things or perhaps just a lot I tell about Columbus must be handled with care and is probably wrong.
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 08:48
|
Oh, so your using the dispute over his birthday to highlight how little we know about Jesus? That's a fair point in that case. Although my own grandmother doesn't know her birth date, and I do know quite a lot about her. So its not the best example. ------------- "O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet" ~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor |
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 10:48
|
Jesus says "Eloi eloi lama sabaktani?" (Father father why did you left me?). The son speaks to Father. So i think (Father-son-holly spirit) are 3 different "person", or there is something schyzofrenic... ------------- DÜŞÜNÜYORUM O HALDE VURUN ! |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 11:01
Don't knock old men. More likely he's a teenager.
 ------------- Citizen of Ankh-Morpork Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 11:03
There were quite a few Herods. ------------- Citizen of Ankh-Morpork Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984. |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 11:14
The trinity part (along with the 'son of god' concept) will always make Christianity much more complex that it could of been. I get what the priest is saying on this, but try explaining that to an illiterate peasant back in the day. Skip pass too hell and brimstone vs heaven and clouds.... ------------- 
|
Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 12:04
Yes, that's true. But bible means usually Herodes the Great and not Antipas. If they had mixed the two Herodes it doesn't makes it better.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 16:43
|
I've always assumed the Herod of Jesus' birth was Archelaus and the Herod of the crucifixion and John the Baptist was Antipas. And later in Acts they are the Agrippas. Seems reasonable.
I can't see getting worked up over which Herod died when, when there was some Herod or other reigning from well before Jesus may have been born to well after he may have died. ------------- Citizen of Ankh-Morpork Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984. |
Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 17:04
| Yes, probably during Jesus' life several Heroded were in reign. But the writers of the Bible seem to have problems to differ. and again, the census was 6/7 AD. So whoever was ruling when Jesus was born there was no census. One idea is that the writers had to explain why Jesus was born in Bethlehem allthough Josef were from Nazareth. The new Messiah had to come from Bethlehem from the tribe of David. It is argued that Jesus was not of this tribe, so that the writers had to construct a relation. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 18:55
|
I agree about the other problems. ------------- Citizen of Ankh-Morpork Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984. |
Posted By: Murat
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2009 at 06:31
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_%28philosophy%29 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_objectivism - - Monism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism - |
Posted By: Truthisnotrelitive
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 04:05
|
having dificulty posting
------------- a man sees as he wishes |
Posted By: Truthisnotrelitive
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 04:05
|
i admit i don't seem to enter a discussion without somone trying to convince me truth is relitive. mabey i should change my name just to avoid the bother of having these debates. any way. um ... i would like to mention that the book of john indicate that jesus was more than just another bloke/prophet. take jonh 1: John 1 (New International Version)
John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201&version=31#fen-NIV-26040a - 6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201&version=31#fen-NIV-26044b - 10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201&version=31#fen-NIV-26048c - 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201&version=31#fen-NIV-26049d - 15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201&version=31#fen-NIV-26053e - - f ]who is at the Father's side, has made him known. John the Baptist Denies Being the Christ
19Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, "I am not the Christ.[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201&version=31#fen-NIV-26055g - 21They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" 22Finally they said, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?" 23John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.' "[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201&version=31#fen-NIV-26058h - 24Now some Pharisees who had been sent 25questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" 26"I baptize with[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201&version=31#fen-NIV-26061i - 27He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie." 28This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing. Jesus the Lamb of God
29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' 31I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel." 32Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' 34I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God." Jesus' First Disciples
35The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. 36When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!" 37When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. 38Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?" 39"Come," he replied, "and you will see." 40Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ). 42And he brought him to Jesus. |
Posted By: Truthisnotrelitive
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 04:07
|
I was disapointed by one of es_bih’s posts as he quoted all of these sriptures and then did nothing to provide us with an interpretation backed up by a logical argument.
John 13:16 Now many of these are actually taken right ot of context. Take for instance the last one Jonh13:16. here jesus is talking to his disiples at the last supper. Let me requote the passage with the surounding verces. 6He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?" 7Jesus replied, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand." 8"No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet." 9"Then, Lord," Simon Peter replied, "not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!" 10Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you." 11For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean. 12When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. 13"You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. 15I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them. Emphasis added. Now here Jesus refers to himself as Lord. This term in the Greek (Kurios) is defined as:
Greek lexicon. Here Jesus clearly positions himself as an icon of respect by the use of an authorative title, so to use this as part of your argument, es-bih, is taking this passage out of context. Now this authority does not necessarily mean he is god, but it sure points to the fact that he is indeed the messiah as he later on admits to. It is worth noting, also, that he tended to avoid the subject of his “messiah-ship” just like he avoided the topic of his divinity. By the new and old testaments make it pretty clear that he was the messiah (particularly Isaiah). So, does old covenant scripture point to the conclusion of the messiah’s divinity? Be it yes or no, what is the role of the messiah, what does scripture say of him, and of his purpose? Is he a sin offering or just a leader who never really set the captives free from the oppression of the Roman Empire? What is the messiah’s role in the grand scheme of things from a Muslim perspective? If we can agree that he was just a man for the moment, then what was Allah’s purpose for him? I know this question has been discussed a little already, but I’m not satisfied with the answers due to their brevity and lack of references. What is the Messiah’s role? Is he man or God?
I would love to hear a Jew’s perspective on the messiah’s role at this stage in the argument. ------------- a man sees as he wishes |
Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 05:37
-------------
|
Posted By: Truthisnotrelitive
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 05:48
|
iknow, i know. i just can't help being amused by some of the responses i get. LOL. ------------- a man sees as he wishes |
Posted By: Murat
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 06:31
|
It is not fun ,just logic.
I am also wondering why u did not send whole (passages of) the Bible as a proof of your idea. ------------- Why should I seek? I am the same as He. His essence speaks through me. I have been looking for myself!----Rumi |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 15:34
------------- Citizen of Ankh-Morpork Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984. |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 19:49
|
I think it really depends on your theological views and upbringing. To most Christians he is more than a Prophet- the son of God.
But, to other religions such as Islam he is an important prophet but nothing more. Even between Mormons and main Stream Christianity they view Jesus differently. The JW's believe he is the arch angel michael and not God in the flesh. Whatever you believe about him is truth for you in my opinion. This could be argued till the cow come home because it is very subjective and based upon one's interpretation of religion or theirs. ------------- Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal. |
Posted By: Murat
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 22:48
|
The source of the knowledge and the declerations of the prophets is same for all time periods.Some of the prophets are unknown but all the populations even tribes has been had the capability to reach the truth. The truth is we are created and One did it. "Believe it or not" has been the offering of all prophets.
In an opinion, if you are not a polytheist, you will be appreciated by God. All the prophets in a chronological order brought the truth to mankind, each one as a sample with their lives.They talked about three basic things: Faith,afterlife, and fairness.
One more thing:
If a regime,an economical system,an ideology or a belief is alive, there must certainly be some seeds of the truth in it. Because human being is wise enough to seperate it from enormity unless (he/she) hasn`t lost the conscience.
"Religious texts are not evidence of their own truth." This is a wrong proposal because religions are not in a race. ------------- Why should I seek? I am the same as He. His essence speaks through me. I have been looking for myself!----Rumi |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 23:13
|
The nature of Jesus cann't be known in this life. He may be God or a creature or even didn't exist. The texts of the New Testament are not presenting Him as a creature; He doesn't speak (only) about God but about Himself. Not any other claimed prophet had spoken like that.
But texts are relative. I think nobody should take a text as the word of God. If in a text there are some good ideas, they will work spontanously in the human consciences. Proclaiming that any text is final or only word of God means to shut off yourself from further revelations inside yourself. If God is alive, He can give more than a text to humanity. ------------- |
Posted By: Murat
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2009 at 05:18
|
"If God is alive, He can give more than a text to humanity."
God is not a living thing. God gives LIFE to his creatures. In biology there is no exact definition of life. Biologists are trying to define it but God creates the Life as a thing.
So Logically we cannot claim any resemblance to be between God and His creations. All the things in the universe are the arts and enough for wise human to understand how artist,The Fashioner of Forms our God is.The universe has much more messages than those of The texts`(Hollybooks`) .
------------- Why should I seek? I am the same as He. His essence speaks through me. I have been looking for myself!----Rumi |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2009 at 06:07
Something cannot create something superior to it. If God created life he has life in itself. The God of gospels is alive: In him was life, and that life was the light of men. (John 1, 4) I am the way and the truth and the life. (John 14, 6) and others. The same for the God of Olt Testament, there are many passages where God says "I am alive". ------------- |
Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2009 at 08:20
your post above is not clear to me, if you explain it more it would be helpfull.
as i understood you are a christian wondering about Jesus being a Prophet or not.
ok, then why the part which i highlighted in red seems to be more islamic that christian, or that is a quote from somewhere ?
then the part Blue seems to be be islamic ( Jesus a Prophet) at first, then Christian (Jesus is God) at the rest of it??
then the Question about if Jesus god then why some people call him prophet,
well People who think Jesus is one of the Prophet dont belive he is God , and who belive he is God dont belive he is a Prophet. simple.
at least Muslims do Respect Jesus as a holy prophet, unlike Jews who consider him nobody.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Murat
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2009 at 21:31
|
Something cannot create something superior to it. If God created life he has life in itself. The God of gospels is alive: In him was life, and that life was the light of men. (John 1, 4) I am the way and the truth and the life. (John 14, 6) and others. The same for the God of Olt Testament, there are many passages where God says "I am alive". From the simplest form of living things to highest one, from bacteria to Homo Sapiens .Living things need to have some food, but God not.Living things digest them to break down into smaller pieces, but God not.Living things produce their energy by aerobic or anaerobic respiration ,but God not.Living things must excrete their metabolic wastes but God not....etc. All of these : nutrition ,digestion respiration,metabolism,excretion and sensitivity are the common charecteristics of all living things.
God is the giver of life , He may have another form of life but exactly different from ours`. He wants mankind to understand his greatness and superiority in the proportion of our life. ------------- Why should I seek? I am the same as He. His essence speaks through me. I have been looking for myself!----Rumi |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2009 at 22:11
By living being I understand self-conscious, rational life, what the animals don't have. If God has will and ration (as you say) He is self-conscious, personal being. So, He is alive. In Christianity food is not necessary in after-life, so its not something human beings are dependent of. ------------- |
Posted By: Murat
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2009 at 05:21
|
God gave the most honorable status to the human being. All living and non-living things are in the service of mankind. I meant animals have no prophets. :P
I agree with the second part of your statement. "In Christianity food is not necessary in after-life, so its not something human beings are dependent of."
The major point here is:
We have some similar properties with the God in the ratio of 1/∞. Such as hearing, seeing,choosing etc. All of these are necessary for us to imagine (not to know because it is not possible) how He is. This is a kind of proportion, needed for viewers to appreciate the arts of the universe. ------------- Why should I seek? I am the same as He. His essence speaks through me. I have been looking for myself!----Rumi |
Posted By: Truthisnotrelitive
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2009 at 22:34
|
hi azimuth
------------- a man sees as he wishes |
Posted By: Truthisnotrelitive
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2009 at 22:38
|
by the way, murat, on a technical note, as biologists have not yet defined life, this passage you posted can't be use to define an undefinable thing. there is no complete definition for life in the bible or in modern science. "From the simplest form of living things to highest one, from bacteria to Homo Sapiens .Living things need to have some food, but God not.Living things digest them to break down into smaller pieces, but God not.Living things produce their energy by aerobic or anaerobic respiration ,but God not.Living things must excrete their metabolic wastes but God not....etc. All of these : nutrition ,digestion respiration,metabolism,excretion and sensitivity are the common charecteristics of all living things." ------------- a man sees as he wishes |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2009 at 00:55
 , Yeah I noticed that too. Don't worry, I won't try to convince that truth is relative (unless we are actually talking about that )
I have never really understood this whole "Word" thing in a Christian perspective. It sounds like a incorrectly translated metaphor to me. If anything "the Word" would be "the message", or "by God's command", which is not God.
Muhammed (pbuh) and the Quran endorse the prophethood of Jesus, not the NT. That is a very important difference. The 'Injeel' of the Quran, although commonly translated as Gospel, is the message preached by Jesus, and not the gospels of the NT. The NT is considered to reflect the opinions of early christians, but not the opinions of Jesus. The only religious text endorsed by the Prophet is the Quran. Hadith requires scrutiny, the Bible doubly so.
To bring the people he was sent to (the Palestinians, both Jewish and non-Jewish) back to Islam/Judaism after they had ceased to practice it.
Islamic theology is full of brief answers. My sentence above is pretty well the beginning and the end of the answer. If I said more I'd just be repeating myself. My quotes from the Quran on the first page, and the one I am adding below should be sufficient as references. If you want more this ( http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/ - link ) is a link to a good online copy of the Quran. There are three translations there (Yusuf Ali, Shakir and Picthall). If you click on index and search for Jesus you will find everything you need.
We don't have many Jewish members. Try PMing Hebrewtext and asking him if he wants to get involved in this thread.
They can be, depends what they are saying. But I agree with the point you were trying to make.
Whether God is alive or not is simply arguing over the definition of our word life. For usually human perception saying God is alive is sufficent, but God is not alive in the same way a butterfly is.
There are only opinions to consider Truth. Its St Paul's opinion (through the Church) against God's opinion (through the Quran). I've given you Quranic proof which in our opinion trumps biblical proof. The bible has been throughly studied by both Chuchmen and Ulema for a very long time, as such for every passage that would seem to refute Jesus's divinity there is an official church interpretation that says the opposite. For every part of the bible that seems to endorse his divinity there is another that refutes it. As such there is no biblical proof in either direction concerning Jesus's divinity. Rather than the two of us throwing bible passages at each other it should be fairly evident from the number of monotheist christian sects both ancient and modern. The discussion over divinity in the bible is only predated by the discussion over the authenticity of the bible and the role of the church in its creation. Its the word of the Roman church* vs the word of the Quran, the OT, and monotheistic Christians**. *As in the Church of the Roman Empire. ** I should just call them all "Greater Muslims", as in, muslims + those who believe as we do both modern and pre-islam ------------- "O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet" ~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor |
Posted By: Murat
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2009 at 04:14
So you say life is relative ( which means life is not a truth) ------------- Why should I seek? I am the same as He. His essence speaks through me. I have been looking for myself!----Rumi |
Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2009 at 08:28
ok so you dont belive the part you wrote regarding general Muslim stance on the importance and chronology of the holy books, although you wrote it as you were beliving it.
what inconsistencies you are talking about?
and why would i look in the "Bible" for a proof in what muslims belive? muslims dont follow the Bible, their holy book is the Quran, proofs of islamic belives must be taken from Islamic Holy book not others.
maybe thats not what you are looking for since its too easy to get. again what inconsistencies?
-------------
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2009 at 15:38
Murat, all you are doing is stating what your religious beliefs are. That's fine, as long as you don't start preaching them, which would be a violation of the Code of Conduct here. As it stands it's interesting enough because I collect all sorts of religious beliefs as a kind of hobby.
None of that means though that anyone else should believe what you are saying is true.
I don't follow that at all. You would seem to be saying that if a beliefe system exists then it must be at least partly true. I see no reason to believe that whatsoever.
Then you should not proffer religious texts as evidence of their own truth. In fact if religions are 'not in a race', whatever that means, I don't see any reason to post religious texts at all except as examples of what people are capable of believing. ------------- Citizen of Ankh-Morpork Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2009 at 15:45
You would be easier to follow, and would have more chance of being convincing, if you were to use words the same way as everyone else. ------------- Citizen of Ankh-Morpork Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2009 at 16:08
In a sense it is a mistranslation, in that the Greek 'Logos' means rather more than 'word' in the modern English sense. In French it is the 'parole' not the 'mot' of God, which is better than in most languages because it indicates somewhat more than a simple word.
Etymologically it's actually the same as the '-logy' suffix in something like 'theology' or 'biology', where it means 'knowledge', deriving from 'words about'. One of the early Greeks introduced 'Logos' to mean something like the 'rationale' of the universe: i.e. the guiding principle and source. It then got picked up by the Neo-Platonists, worked its way into Jewish philosophy, and by one or both of those routes into Christianity.
I think it was an attempt by John, rather more erudite than the other three, to align the new teaching of Christ's divinity with existing accepted beliefs among Hellenes and Jews.
A simpler translation of John 1:1 might be simply 'what was in the beginning was God' or 'the source of the universe was God'.
------------- Citizen of Ankh-Morpork Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984. |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 10:48
http://www.jstor.org/pss/637007 -  For Plotinus, Logos (Word) names the formative force proceeding from a higher principle which expresses or represents that principles in a lower plane of Being. Thus Logos holds the key to the unity and continuity of the various levels of Being emanating from The One. For Augustine, Logos will be appropriated as that aspect of the Trinity involved in the incarnation of God as Jesus Christ. The Logos's Plotinian role is signified in the diagram by a series of arrows indicating the generation of each lower plane from out of the reality of the higher one. This generation is itself the outcome of a pure overflow of reality from one level to the next. |
http://faculty.salisbury.edu/%7Ejdhatley/plotinus.htm - http://faculty.salisbury.edu/~jdhatley/plotinus.htm
I still havent got the time for the Enneads
-------------
Nice one with the wordplay.
