Print Page | Close Window

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: 23-Jan-2021 at 08:56
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

i had a bit of a question, actually, but i decided to post it in the philosophy/theology section because it could prove to evolve into a good debate. (but if someone answers it strait up then if it gets moved to Q's and A's then that's fine with me)

BTW: if this question has been sufficiently discussed before in another post, just refurr me to the post and archive section where i may find it.Big smile

anyway, here goes.

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.
Now, as we know, the Jewish bible (the Tanakh) was the first revelation/s of the Divine to mankind. In this revelation the Divine establishes a covenant with Abram/ Ibrahim (a blessing of his reproductive abilities), which was later extended through the mosaic law. Then came the revelation of the Christ. This new revelation was possibly prophesied by the prophets of old, as the children of Israel had disobeyed the lord their god, thus breaching the covenant made between god and their ancestor, and were consequently sent into exile in Babylon. Thus god (speaking through the prophets) terminated the old contract, and divorced Israel. But he spoke of a new covenant that he would make with his people and extend that agreement with the other nations of the world. This new covenant was tied in with the messiah. Christ the messiah came, as prohesied. He established the new agreement between god and man. Then, some time later, Mohamed received his revaluation from the angel Gabriel, which introduced a different theology to the new and old testaments. The Quran is the final revelation of god, and the rest of the sacred scriptures (tanakh and new covenant)

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 wonderingSmile



-------------
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 appreciate you quick response, but i still know no more than before your post. you seemed to of side stepped the verses i quoted (and there are many more like them). Perhaps you should reread the whole chapter of John 17 to refresh your memory on jesus' claims. When he spoke of this oneness and of this father as mentioned, it is recorded on numerous that the jews then tried to stone him for making such claims. They understood jesus was saying he was the messiah, and people asked him this and he never denied it. To say he was speaking of something other than his divinity and just reffuring to himself as another son of Abraham(son of god) is taking the verse out of context, as the reactions of the Jewish public clearly prove. When peter responds to jesus' question on his own identity in Matt 16:16 and acknowledges him as the son of the living god, the messiah, jesus commends him and says that peter is blessed because jesus' father in heaven has revealed this to him. So jesus is clearly the messiah. Therefore the question remains- is the messiah god incarnate? Well jesus claims he was there before Abraham was born, and only god could make such a claim, unless jesus was 2000 yrs old at the time he said it, which is impossible as the bible clearly records his birth in quite a bit of detail. John the baptist states in the begining of the book of john ch. 2 “ He(Jesus) is the one i was talking about when i said “a man is coming after me who is far greater than i am, for he existed long before me.” now as John the Baptist is documented to be approximately six months older than his cousin, this seems a little odd too. The chapter goes on to talk about how jesus is anointed with the spirit of god and will go on to baptize with the spirit of god. Now if jesus is a man, why does he now have a measure authority over spirit of God,(a gift never bestowed on any other prophet) and can transform men and women with this spirit (baptizmo= greek for “to change one's image” as in dyeing a garment a different color). It seems a little odd that god would make himself subject to the will of a human prophet? Unless of course he is indeed part god of himself.


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.

(Genealogy of Jesus)..."the son of Seth,
the son of Adam, the son of God."




Luke 3:38

"Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the Lord says:
Israel is my firstborn son."




Exodus 4:22

David


"He is the one who will build a house for my Name,
and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
I will be his father, and he will be my son."




2 Samuel 7:13-4


"You are the children of the Lord your God."

Deuteronomy 14:1


"But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."



Matthew 5:44-5



"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."



Matthew 4:48



"I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty."




2 Corinthians 6:18



...",because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God."



Romans 8:14



"Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God."




Matthew 5:9





..."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
Quote Now, as we know, the Jewish bible (the Tanakh) was the first revelation/s of the Divine to mankind.


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.





-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



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. Embarrassed

But either way you missed out this

Originally posted by es_bih es_bih wrote:


It is relatively easy for either pov (point of view) 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.


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.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



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
Originally posted by Truthisnotrelitive Truthisnotrelitive wrote:


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?

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:

Quote 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.


If you want to discuss you should take the posibility that Islam could be too the other.



-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



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". Wink 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
Originally posted by Ako Ako wrote:

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". Wink 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.


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.

Quote From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.

O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book, -

Wherewith Allah guideth all who seek His good pleasure to ways of peace and safety, and leadeth them out of darkness, by His will, unto the light,- guideth them to a path that is straight.

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things."

(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"
O People of the Book! Now hath come unto you, making (things) clear unto you, Our Messenger, after the break in (the series of) our messengers, lest ye should say: "There came unto us no bringer of glad tidings and no warner (from evil)": But now hath come unto you a bringer of glad tidings and a warner (from evil). And Allah hath power over all things.

Quran [5:14-19]


Originally posted by Truth Truth wrote:

my intent is to dicover how muslim theology explains the contadictions between the bible and the Quran.

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
Originally posted by erkut erkut wrote:

Francesco Carotta says Jesus was Ceasar .... :)
 
http://www.carotta.de/eindex.html - http://www.carotta.de/eindex.html


That's what happens when you smoke something funky and create a new theory without sobriety  Embarrassed





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



Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2009 at 00:45
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

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.
 
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
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

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.
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.

Of course it is a real opinion. Shared by every other muslim on the planet.
Quote This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.[10:37]



-------------
"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
Originally posted by Truthisnotrelitive Truthisnotrelitive wrote:

hi es_bih

i appreciate you quick response, but i still know no more than before your post. you seemed to of side stepped the verses i quoted (and there are many more like them). Perhaps you should reread the whole chapter of John 17 to refresh your memory on jesus' claims. When he spoke of this oneness and of this father as mentioned, it is recorded on numerous that the jews then tried to stone him for making such claims. They understood jesus was saying he was the messiah, and people asked him this and he never denied it. To say he was speaking of something other than his divinity and just reffuring to himself as another son of Abraham(son of god) is taking the verse out of context, as the reactions of the Jewish public clearly prove.

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
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

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.


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
Originally posted by Truthisnotrelitive Truthisnotrelitive wrote:

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?
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
Originally posted by es_bih es_bih wrote:


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.
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
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

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.

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.
Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:

I don't think we can comprehend the actual contemporary significance of any prophet - no matter who it was.

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.
Quote Mohammed claiming he had a series of revelations while living in the cave, would be questioned about kind of mushrooms he had eaten.

Muhammeds opponents frequently accused him of such things.
Quote 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?

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.
Quote 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.

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
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

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.

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.
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
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

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.
Don't knock old men. More likely he's a teenager. Smile
 


-------------
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
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

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.
 
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
Originally posted by erkut erkut wrote:

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...
this quote certainly has tensions with the notion of the trinity as it does infer a greater separation of the parts. IIRC a particular group of Gnostics,  believed that Jesus/Joshua was inspired from his baptism (shown by the dove descending from heaven) until some time before the crucifixion. Explaining the problem so to speak, even if they never accepted  the extreme/Pauline view of Jesus actaully being  god on earth, which eventually became mainstream. I think this is very close to Islam, no?

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
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

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.
 
There were quite a few Herods.
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?"
      He said, "I am not."
      "Are you the Prophet?"
      He answered, "No."

 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?"
      They said, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?"

 39"Come," he replied, "and you will see."
      So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour.

 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.
      Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201&version=31#fen-NIV-26077j -

 
 
now this is an interesting passage as it speaks of the Word (which is God) becoming flesh. than isn't an interpretation, that's just what it says. so here the Word is refurred to as containing life which gave light to the world. it appears that this Flesh/Word exsisted with god in the begining, and was indeed god himself (what ever "he" is). there is a lot to this scripture, and as it was endorsed by the Prophet Mohammed, arguments that state that the scriptures are biased toward the author's own agenda are irrelevent in this context. If the prophet endorsed a sripture that was twisted by his followers, then you question the Prophets authority as a spiritual voice from god to man.  Period.


-------------
a man sees as he wishes


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.

 




"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

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."
      Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."

 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:

  1. He to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord
    1. The possessor and disposer of a thing
      1. The owner; one who has control of the person, the master
      2. In the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor
    2. Is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master
    3. This title is given to: God, the Messiah

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
Originally posted by Truthisnotrelitive Truthisnotrelitive wrote:

i admit i don't seem to enter a discussion without somone trying to convince me truth is

Generally when you make a claim people will disagree and point out their rationale for doing so. That's pretty obvious and a part of discussion.

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



Posted By: Truthisnotrelitive
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 05:48
iknow, i know. Smile 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
Originally posted by Truthisnotrelitive Truthisnotrelitive wrote:

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.

Well, it would do, wouldn't it? The Bhagavad Gita indicates that Krishna was more than just another chariot driver, too. And the Book of Mormon indicates that Mormon was more than just another gold engraver.
 
Religious texts are not evidence of their own truth.

-------------
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.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



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
Originally posted by Murat Murat wrote:


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`) .


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".

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2009 at 08:20
Originally posted by Truthisnotrelitive Truthisnotrelitive wrote:

hey peoples of AE

i had a bit of a question, actually, but i decided to post it in the philosophy/theology section because it could prove to evolve into a good debate. (but if someone answers it strait up then if it gets moved to Q's and A's then that's fine with me)

BTW: if this question has been sufficiently discussed before in another post, just refurr me to the post and archive section where i may find it.Big smile

anyway, here goes.

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.
Now, as we know, the Jewish bible (the Tanakh) was the first revelation/s of the Divine to mankind. In this revelation the Divine establishes a covenant with Abram/ Ibrahim (a blessing of his reproductive abilities), which was later extended through the mosaic law. Then came the revelation of the Christ. This new revelation was possibly prophesied by the prophets of old, as the children of Israel had disobeyed the lord their god, thus breaching the covenant made between god and their ancestor, and were consequently sent into exile in Babylon. Thus god (speaking through the prophets) terminated the old contract, and divorced Israel. But he spoke of a new covenant that he would make with his people and extend that agreement with the other nations of the world. This new covenant was tied in with the messiah. Christ the messiah came, as prohesied. He established the new agreement between god and man. Then, some time later, Mohamed received his revaluation from the angel Gabriel, which introduced a different theology to the new and old testaments. The Quran is the final revelation of god, and the rest of the sacred scriptures (tanakh and new covenant)

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 wonderingSmile

 
 
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
Originally posted by Murat Murat wrote:

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.


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.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



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

for the record, none of the paragraphs are quotes. the red one covers a little pre-messiah history and then out lines what i, in my limited understanding, can conclude to be the general Muslim stance on the importance and chronology of the holy books. i may be wrong, but that info seemed a good foundation and useful background knowledge to the discussion. so for the moment i acknowledged my brothers and friends beliefs, stating some of them clearly and simply, before going on to question some inconsistencies in those beliefs.

the reason i asked the questions was not simply to know that, as you said:
"well  People who think Jesus is one of the Prophet don't believe he is God , and who believe he is God don't believe he is a Prophet. simple."


the purpose of the question was to discover the Islamic explanation for these inconsistencies. you can simply say to me that "Jesus is a prophet" or "jesus is god" with out some biblical proof. that's not academic or logical. I'll need more than an opinion without clear and relevant justification before i can consider a response, let alone accept it.




-------------
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
Originally posted by Truth Truth wrote:

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.

, 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 )

Quote now this is an interesting passage as it speaks of the Word (which is God) becoming flesh. than isn't an interpretation, that's just what it says. so here the Word is refurred to as containing life which gave light to the world. it appears that this Flesh/Word exsisted with god in the begining, and was indeed god himself (what ever "he" is).

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.
Quote there is a lot to this scripture, and as it was endorsed by the Prophet Mohammed, arguments that state that the scriptures are biased toward the author's own agenda are irrelevent in this context. If the prophet endorsed a sripture that was twisted by his followers, then you question the Prophets authority as a spiritual voice from god to man.  Period.

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.
Quote 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?

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.
Quote 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.

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.
Quote O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. [4:171]


Quote
I would love to hear a Jew’s perspective on the messiah’s role at this stage in the argument.

We don't have many Jewish members. Try PMing Hebrewtext and asking him if he wants to get involved in this thread.
Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

Religious texts are not evidence of their own truth.

They can be, depends what they are saying. But I agree with the point you were trying to make.
Originally posted by Menumorut Menumorut wrote:


The same for the God of Olt Testament, there are many passages where God says "I am alive".

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.

Originally posted by Truth Truth wrote:

the purpose of the question was to discover the Islamic explanation for these inconsistencies. you can simply say to me that "Jesus is a prophet" or "jesus is god" with out some biblical proof. that's not academic or logical. I'll need more than an opinion without clear and relevant justification before i can consider a response, let alone accept it.

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
Originally posted by Truthisnotrelitive Truthisnotrelitive wrote:

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.
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
Originally posted by Truthisnotrelitive Truthisnotrelitive wrote:

hi azimuth

for the record, none of the paragraphs are quotes. the red one covers a little pre-messiah history and then out lines what i, in my limited understanding, can conclude to be the general Muslim stance on the importance and chronology of the holy books. i may be wrong, but that info seemed a good foundation and useful background knowledge to the discussion. so for the moment i acknowledged my brothers and friends beliefs, stating some of them clearly and simply, before going on to question some inconsistencies in those beliefs.

the reason i asked the questions was not simply to know that, as you said:
"well  People who think Jesus is one of the Prophet don't believe he is God , and who believe he is God don't believe he is a Prophet. simple."


the purpose of the question was to discover the Islamic explanation for these inconsistencies. you can simply say to me that "Jesus is a prophet" or "jesus is god" with out some biblical proof. that's not academic or logical. I'll need more than an opinion without clear and relevant justification before i can consider a response, let alone accept it.

 
 
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
Originally posted by Murat Murat wrote:

         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.
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.
Quote
         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.
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.
Quote
         "Religious texts are not evidence of their own truth."  This is a wrong proposal because religions are not in a race.
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
Originally posted by Menumorut Menumorut wrote:

By living being I understand self-conscious, rational life, what the animals don't have.
 
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
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by Truth Truth wrote:

this is an interesting passage as it speaks of the Word (which is God) becoming flesh. than isn't an interpretation, that's just what it says. so here the Word is refurred to as containing life which gave light to the world. it appears that this Flesh/Word exsisted with god in the begining, and was indeed god himself (what ever "he" is).

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.
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 -
Quote
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 EnneadsOuch


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


Posted By: Murat
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2009 at 02:46

 

I have been busy for two days.

You misunderstood me :)
It was a kind of satire. How coudn`t you understand.
 


-------------
Why should I seek? I am the same as
He. His essence speaks through me.
I have been looking for myself!----Rumi


Posted By: Murat
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2009 at 03:14
   
 Smile


-------------
Why should I seek? I am the same as
He. His essence speaks through me.
I have been looking for myself!----Rumi


Posted By: Murat
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 03:24
Dear gcle 2003 
Actually if it is a hobby it might be different from a research.   
 You do not have to believe my ideas. Everyone may be wrong, so am I. These here are all subjective things. The belief is something which is not only the result of your logical and scientific evidences. It is in my heart difficult to explain but occupies all of it . The reality of the metaphysical perspectives change when you physically do something for God. We and our surroundings are all composed of apparently matter and energy.What I believe is some other forces without measurements.Because I certainly know the rules of the measurement scientifically.I also know the measurements are relative, and Human being is not capable enough to measure God. WE ARE THE VIEWERS OF THE UNIVERSE,SOME OF US HAVE MAGNIFIER LENSES.We should admire and appreciate these arts.


-------------
Why should I seek? I am the same as
He. His essence speaks through me.
I have been looking for myself!----Rumi


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 04:00
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

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 believe you're thinking of Heraclitus, but my memory may be playing me false.*
 
Quote
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.
  
 
Well stated. I would add that the phrasing in John 1 is a direct reference to the phrasing in Genesis 1. In demonstrating the identity of the pre-existent Logos with the Incarnate Christ, John clarifies the narrative of the beginning of Creation as we know it. The fact that God created with his Word, is also the reason that, contrary to the image of the silver-haired God in many Adam and Eve children's books today, the icons of the Creation depict Christ as we knew him in his incarnate form.
 
Quote 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'.
 
Wouldn't those be interpretations, rather than translations? Not trying to nitpick, over semantics, and I certainly do value interpretation. Still, we would find it a bit problematic to propose these as translations for an English audience. I think that while they serve to elucidate one point which the author was trying to make, they leave aside the key connection between the pre-existent Logos and the Creation, and might undermine the introduction for the connection he draws between the Logos and Jesus/the Son later in the chapter. After all, if the wordplay translates at all, even as inadequately as it has been rendered in English, I would be reluctant to remove the key to the entire verse simply because most English readers have a problem understanding the shades of meaning surrounding the term Logos.
 
-Akolouthos
 
*Incidentally, my dear grammar expert, should that have been "My memory might be playing me false," and what is the difference if any?


Posted By: Truthisnotrelitive
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 09:02

hi Omar al Hashim


[Quote]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.[quote/?]


well thank you for the Muslim perspective. i understand your reasoning for this, due to Quranic scripture.

but i do think that you would have had a hard time convincing Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel that this was the purpose of the messiah. they all spoke explicitly of Israel and Judah"s sin, and how that the children of Jacob had abandoned the commands layed out by the Lord their God. thus the lord said he was ending the "contact" or Covenant with Isreal. what does that mean? well for starters He exiles them, ending the season of blessing he processed them if they obeyed the commands. He goes on to speak that since the people of Israel have rejected him as god and have worshiped other gods, he is ending the covenant He made with Moses and Abraham. I don't want to sound like I'm preaching at you or anything, but do you see? He is no longer bound to these people as they have broken the terms of the agreement, so he is now free from any obligation, as are the children of Isael. Essentially god divorces Israel. Period. Contract terminated.


But, in the second half old Isaiah, and later on through other prophetic books (Joel, Ezekiel, Jerahmiah ect... ) God reveals he is not completely through with Isreal. he speaks of a new covenant between man isreal and god, one that will be brought about through his messiah, a covenant that will extend to all the nations of the earth. His new contact has different requirements, different rules. (or just a complete lack of them as some would say, though I'm not sure if i agree with that entirely). You don't have to look far into old testement scripture to find evidence of this. I'm not preaching an opinion, thats just what is says. Check it.


So how can the messiah be sent to bring people back to the old covenant that no longer is in place?

Mabey god wanted to restore the old covenant, but if that be the case, then why did he say he was

making a new one with mankind? Are the old testament prophetic books wrong? Is god not able to for fill his promises? I don't think so because that would contradict his nature, making him a liar.


Shall we put god on trial?



-------------
a man sees as he wishes


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 20:35
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

 
I believe you're thinking of Heraclitus, but my memory may be playing me false.*
  
Quote 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'.
 
Wouldn't those be interpretations, rather than translations? Not trying to nitpick, over semantics, and I certainly do value interpretation. Still, we would find it a bit problematic to propose these as translations for an English audience. I think that while they serve to elucidate one point which the author was trying to make, they leave aside the key connection between the pre-existent Logos and the Creation, and might undermine the introduction for the connection he draws between the Logos and Jesus/the Son later in the chapter. After all, if the wordplay translates at all, even as inadequately as it has been rendered in English, I would be reluctant to remove the key to the entire verse simply because most English readers have a problem understanding the shades of meaning surrounding the term Logos.
I was kind of fumbling around. I agree with you. I do find it interesting though that French allows the distinction to be made between 'parole' and 'mot', and chooses 'parole'. But it's as difficult to explain why I feel that as it is to explain what 'Logos' means (and why the word - hah! - 'word' is chosen.
 
I wonder if any other language distinguishes 'word' is the sense of 'something spoken' and 'word' in the sense of a grammatical unit. Russian (slovo) and German (Wort) have the same problem as English.
Quote  
-Akolouthos
 
*Incidentally, my dear grammar expert, should that have been "My memory might be playing me false," and what is the difference if any?
You made a straight assertion, so 'may be playing' is correct. 'Might be playing' demands a conditional - 'it might be playing me false if I'd drunk too much wine' or something similar. 'My mind might be playing me false if it was Tuesday, but never on Sunday' Smile


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2009 at 00:00
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I was kind of fumbling around. I agree with you. I do find it interesting though that French allows the distinction to be made between 'parole' and 'mot', and chooses 'parole'. But it's as difficult to explain why I feel that as it is to explain what 'Logos' means (and why the word - hah! - 'word' is chosen.
 
I wonder if any other language distinguishes 'word' is the sense of 'something spoken' and 'word' in the sense of a grammatical unit. Russian (slovo) and German (Wort) have the same problem as English.
 
LOL Nice one with the wordplay.
 
I wish I read French, but I fear any explanation of the distinction you made would be lost on me. Maybe in a year or so, eh? Wink
 
As for the distinction, the way we get around it in English is to simply use the Greek and teach people as much as we can about what inheres in the term. It would probably just confuse people if placed in the Scriptures, and the use of the word "Word" makes it easier for people to draw the connection with Genesis. Still, whenever I lecture or write, I almost invariably just use Logos. Of course there are still slight variations across disciplines -- Theology vs. Philosophy, for instance -- so there is the possibility of some confusion. Still, if people are submitting themselves to a particular academic discipline, even on the level of a hobby, they might as well learn the basic terminology to be employed.*
 
Quote
You made a straight assertion, so 'may be playing' is correct. 'Might be playing' demands a conditional - 'it might be playing me false if I'd drunk too much wine' or something similar. 'My mind might be playing me false if it was Tuesday, but never on Sunday' Smile
 
Thank you for the answer. I hope you don't mind me pestering you for tips every now and then. After all, I shouldn't really expect proficiency with other languages before I learn my own properly, eh? Tongue
 
-Akolouthos
 
*I got it, didn't I? Smile


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2009 at 00:31

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I wonder if any other language distinguishes 'word' is the sense of 'something spoken' and 'word' in the sense of a grammatical unit. Russian (slovo) and German (Wort) have the same problem as English.

What about vocalization, utterance, or enunciation? 

Or are you looking for something that exclusively refers to a grammatical unit? 



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2009 at 16:51
The French Bible uses 'parole' to translate Logos. The simplest French-English dictionary definition of 'parole' is 'speech'[1]; it is connected after all with the word 'parler' meaning 'speak'. In the basic sense in which English uses 'word' - i.e. to refer to something like 'something' or 'to': a distinguishable collection of phonemes - French has 'mot'. 
 
Latin has 'verbum' and 'dictum' but my Latin isn't good enough to tell how the y are distinguished, if they are. 
 
[1] 'Parole' has developed a specific meaning in English which is something else, though the derivation is fairly obvious.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2009 at 02:20
Hi Truth,
You'll have to forgive me, I haven't read very much of the OT, and don't understand the Jewish perspective about their covenant with God or the role of the Messiah. The Quran speaks alot about the covenant with the Jews and God's perspective of it. Hopefully I'll quote you the right portions of it, but if I don't its because I don't understand the covenants.
Quote So how can the messiah be sent to bring people back to the old covenant that no longer is in place?

The purpose of all the convenants with God, regardless of which messenger started it, is to worship God, do good deeds and believe in the day of judgement. That is what Jesus preached. There is always a covenant between believers and God. If the people cease to believe the covenant is broken. When I say that Jesus was sent to bring people back to the faith, I mean bringing people back to worshipping God. This was a requirement in all covenants, so it doesn't matter whether this is a new covenant or an old one. Probably it was a new one.
Quote And remember We took a covenant from the Children of Israel (to this effect): Worship none but Allah; treat with kindness your parents and kindred, and orphans and those in need; speak fair to the people; be steadfast in prayer; and practise regular charity. Then did ye turn back, except a few among you, and ye backslide (even now). [2:83]

The Jews broke the covenant, they did not hold up their side of the agreement.
Originally posted by Truth Truth wrote:

he speaks of a new covenant between man isreal and god, one that will be brought about through his messiah, a covenant that will extend to all the nations of the earth. His new contact has different requirements, different rules. (or just a complete lack of them as some would say, though I'm not sure if i agree with that entirely). You don't have to look far into old testement scripture to find evidence of this. I'm not preaching an opinion, thats just what is says. Check it.

This did happen though. God did establish a new covenant with the prophethood of Jesus.
Quote From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.[5:14]

So there was a covenant established with the Chrisitans too. Separate from the Jewish covenant, which is what your quote above appears to be talking about. In this case the Christians forgot their covenant, and therefore it was broken. Hence the need for a new messenger to establish a new covenant - Muhammed.

While I understand the purpose of the covenants, I'll have to read alot more of the bible to understand the chronology of them. I've probably made a mistake, so ask me again if it doesn't make sense.

-------------
"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: Truthisnotrelitive
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2009 at 06:32
okay, now i see what u ment when u talked of bring people back to the old way/worshiping god. i think that this foundation of worship is the fudermental doctrinal link between all three religions of monotheism., even if it is a bit different when it comes to ritual/practice. i agree with u.

 this statement raises a few questions; 

So there was a covenant established with the Chrisitans too. Separate from the Jewish covenant, which is what your quote above appears to be talking about. In this case the Christians forgot their covenant, and therefore it was broken. Hence the need for a new messenger to establish a new covenant - Muhammed.

 as i've never had the oppertunity of a freindship with a devout muslim, i've never been able to ask this, but in what way, in your opinion Omar al Hashim, and in the opinion of muslim shcolars, did the church deviate from the teachings of jesus? now i'm like minded and also agree that there are quite a few aspects of roman cathlic doctrine that are not based on sound scripture in eather the Gosples or in the eppistles and revalations. but bare in mind that the cathlic church is not the only strand that was initiated by the early church, there are also the coptic Egyptian Church which still exsists tot his day.
 


-------------
a man sees as he wishes


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 29-Jan-2009 at 03:03
Not only the Catholic and Egyptian Coptic, but also the Ethiopian Coptic, Syrian/Greek/Bulgarian/Serbian/Russian/Albanian Orthodox, Armenian and many other smaller churches are the direct descendants of the early Roman church, but most of what was forgotten was done before the early church was founded. Protestants can't really be put into a single basket, but some of their teachings like rejecting Saints, Icons, and the power of the priesthood we consider to be a great leap forward. (And as such, early protestant groups received support and financial aid from muslim nations like the Ottoman Empire)

The main, and most important deviation is the divinity of Jesus (pbuh), and the trinity. While Jesus was not a normal person, and could do many things that you or I cannot. He is not, in any way shape or form God. If God wishes to create a person that is more blessed than others, that is entirely in his ability to do so. If God wishes to create a virgin birth, he can create it at will. That birth is not God's son, it is his creation.
God is not at all like the ancient Greek Gods, who are merely super human, have many human traits and human flaws. God is the creator and the destroyer, the lord of worlds, the controller of everything both minute and major. God has the power to forgive whomever he pleases, whenever he pleases, for whatever reason he pleases, and similarly can punish. He has does not need to have a son to create, nor does that son need to die to forgive.

Quote Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;

"He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."

She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!

"And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,

"And (appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;

"'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.

"'It is Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.'"

[3:45-51]

(I should point out that in the Quran quotations I've provided the translator has not translated the word for 'God' - Allah)

Other than the divinity of Jesus there is only one other difference worthy of mention, and that is access to sources. There are many Christians who search through the bible to ensure that what they believe is as authentic as possible. The only problem with that is that the Bible itself is subject to the errors and motivations of the authors, we know hardly anything about the authors themselves let alone their motivation. The prophet Muhammed (pbuh) left to the world two important documents.
1) The Hadith collections. They are sayings, actions, history, and work of Muhammed and his companions. You can consider the Hadith to be like the "muslim bible", although its very much larger and has undergone an enourmous amount of scientific scrutiny over the last 1200 odd years (because many Hadiths are subject to the same problems as the bible).
2) The Quran. Which is the revealation to Muhammed from God over the 23 years of his prophet hood. There is nothing in the Christian or Jewish traditions that is similar. It is written by God, from his perspective. It is intended to be read by both a layman and an academic. The advantage of the Quran is that it outlines in many different ways the core of the religion, it is an excellent teacher that makes the religion simple.

I have met christians who don't believe in the trinity, and have read the Quran. While they still call themselves Christians for all effective purposes they are muslim. At least they are the literal meaning of muslim ('one who submits to God'). I'm sure it does not matter in the slightest if they aren't cultural muslims. God will recognise his own. The Quran does not tell you how to say your prayers it just says that you should say them.

-------------
"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: Cryptic
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2009 at 15:56

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

While Jesus was not a normal person, and could do many things that you or I cannot. He is not, in any way shape or form God. 

What extraordinary abilities does the Quran or Islamic tradition describe Jesus as having?
 


Posted By: Truthisnotrelitive
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2009 at 08:30
i see ur point, but you've only used quotations from the Quran to support ur point. 
it also seems a little odd that god would send this magnificent prophet/messiah which his prophets spoke admittedly of through his prophets for over 500 yrs, who was only supposed liberate humanity, only to have his message completely twisted completely out of proportion by his own followers within 50 days of his death. its the biggest flop on god's behalf ever recorded. 


-------------
a man sees as he wishes


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2009 at 10:02
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

What extraordinary abilities does the Quran or Islamic tradition describe Jesus as having?

I don't think I can relate a whole list to you, some are above. Speaking in Infancy, healing the blind, curing the lepers, virgin birth. Islamic tradition usually accepts the biblical account, walking on water etc. Although there will be alot of skepticism about water into wine. As wine is neither Kosher or Halal.
Originally posted by Truth Truth wrote:

i see ur point, but you've only used quotations from the Quran to support ur point.

Well that is where our religion comes from. We don't accept the NT as an authentic religious source, and where there are sections that support us, there is an offical Church interpretation to the opposite.
If I view the bible from an Islamic point of view there is theology to be learnt. If I view the bible from a Christian pov you can also learn things. But you cannot teach the basics of Islam from reading the bible from a christian point of view. If you could then Christians would be muslims.

That's the whole point.

I can direct you to this site: http://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-10-1.htm it may be more what you are looking for, but I don't give any guarentees about its content or intention.
Quote it also seems a little odd that god would send this magnificent prophet/messiah which his prophets spoke admittedly of through his prophets for over 500 yrs, who was only supposed liberate humanity, only to have his message completely twisted completely out of proportion by his own followers within 50 days of his death. its the biggest flop on god's behalf ever recorded.

Aren't you second guessing God's motives there? God doesn't make everybody to be believers, not every prophet to be sucessful. If he wanted everyone to believe, they would.

There are thousands of prophets whose names we haven't even heard of. There are prophets who were killed shortly into their mission, there are prophets who's only job was to prepare for the next one. We are sitting here discussing Jesus 2000 years after he lived, there are still people who based on his example live moral lives. Christianity is undoubtably better for your sole than paganism. He was one of the most successful. He just wasn't last. Probably only Muhammed and Ibrahim were more sucessful

-------------
"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: 31-Jan-2009 at 12:16
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Although there will be alot of skepticism about water into wine. As wine is neither Kosher or Halal.
 
Wine can be kosher.
 
You can buy some from http://www.kosherwine.com/ - http://www.kosherwine.com/  
 
(Not that I'm suggesting you would) Angel


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2009 at 22:29
Oh, I didn't think alcohol was kosher.
http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm - http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm this site says that the grapes have to be grown by Jews though. I suppose that's what Kosher wine is then.


-------------
"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: 01-Feb-2009 at 20:51
I don't know the rules for kosher wine, I just knew it existed. All the Jews I know don't bother about it.
 
I have a Muslim friend or two who go through the odd bottle with dinner, too. Smile


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 02-Feb-2009 at 20:44
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

What extraordinary abilities does the Quran or Islamic tradition describe Jesus as having?

I don't think I can relate a whole list to you, some are above. Speaking in Infancy, healing the blind, curing the lepers, virgin birth. Islamic tradition usually accepts the biblical account, walking on water etc.
Is Mohammad or Abraham described as having similar abilities such as miraculous healings, or walking on water?  Also, by accepting the virgin birth of Jesus, is Islam stating that Jesus did not have a human father? 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Although there will be alot of skepticism about water into wine. As wine is neither Kosher or Halal.
 Wine can be kosher.
Both Kosher and ordinary wine go back along ways in Judaism. The prophet Isaiah and other prophets repeatedly use imagary relating to wine and vineyards to convey religous teachings.  Jesus (culturally Jewish) then continued this tradition where drinking wine was permissable for religious and secular reasons i.e turing water into wine and the use of wine (blood of Christ) in the eucharist.    
 
As a side note, Kosher wine is ordinary wine that has been made by religous law. Therefore, it can be potentially used in Jewish religous ceremonies. If it has not not blessed, it can be drunk normally.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2009 at 22:57
Quote Is Mohammad or Abraham described as having similar abilities such as miraculous healings, or walking on water?

Ibrahim is, but different. The regeneration of the bird, surviving being burnt.
Just to be clear these are miracles from God rather than from the person. They don't illustrate Jesus's power, but Gods.
Quote Also, by accepting the virgin birth of Jesus, is Islam stating that Jesus did not have a human father?

Yes.


-------------
"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: Truthisnotrelitive
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2009 at 08:55

"Aren't you second guessing God's motives there? God doesn't make everybody to be believers, not every prophet to be successful. If he wanted everyone to believe, they would." -Omar

Second guessing god's motives? Really Omar. That is nonsense. of course I'm not second guessing his motives. i don't need to guess guess his motives, nor can i. I'm just comparing what happened (according to you- that jess' message, the message of the great messiah, was twisted to the point of idolitary in less that two months) to what the prophets said would happen. thats the whole point of prophesy. it's so we know what god is going to do and make sure we are working with and in accordance with his will and plan. All I'm saying is that that there is a big difference to what you saying happened and what the prophets said would happen, where as if you say that jesus actually forfiled his task and passed on a message and a covenant that did bring freedom to the Jews and Gentiles then this works with prophetic literature of the old covenant. That's why I'm not second guessing, I'm just looking at what the old testament and the facts on Post-crusifiction doctrine according to Muslims and am trying to reconcile the massive void between the two. The two just don't match, regardless of your interpretation.

and your statement about " God doesn't make everybody to be believers, not every prophet to be successful." isn't that second guessing God's motives. if i am interpreting you correctly and you're saying that god only wants some of us to believe and others to forgo eternal death, and assuming you are right, please explain to me and everyone else who does not come under the banner of thought that qualifies you to become a believer, why god chose you and not us?
Also I'm curious as to what your definition of a "successful prophet" is? isn't any prophet who follows the guidance of the divine successful? the only way it is not sucsessful is if the prophet is disobedient. If God planned for Jesus' message to be distorted and lead Billions of people astray into idolatry. Now god new the effects of this distorted message and that Jesus followers, including his own Brother, would create a theological monster? Is this part of his plan? Mabey it is, though he never one indicated that the messiah would ever bring about such a distorted theological machine. He said quite the opposite, that this messiah would be exulted above all other men to rule the earth from mount Zion, where his throne would be established.


There is another problem, which i would also like to raise, and that is this. If Jesus did do what the prophets said he would do, and establish a new covenant with man, then if he was just the messenger for this errand, why was his manner completely different from moses? Let me explain.


Moses was chosen by god to lead the people and establish the covenant that god promised to Ibrahim, one which would extend to the house of isreal, Ibriham's decendant. He said tot he people of isreal (the entire nation at once) that the ten commandments were sent by god, along with the requirements and laws laid out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and was clear that it was the Lord, God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob by whom this covenant had come from and who it was with.Shocked



-------------
a man sees as he wishes


Posted By: Truthisnotrelitive
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2009 at 08:57

Jesus took a completely different approach. He announced the new covenant over dinner with some friends, and he didn't say that this was God's covenant between God and man (i.e man being Jesus + his disciples + rest of the earth). He said “This cup is the new covenant between god and his people, an agreement confirmed with my blood, which is poured out as a sacrifice for you. [Luke 22:20] emphasis added)


an agreement confirmed with my blood, which is poured out as a sacrifice for you. This is an odd statement. By this it is clear that jesus blood is a sacrifice poured out (that's a lot of blood!) which confirms the new covenant. Now if jesus' blood/life is a sacrifice, and as he has stated earlier on that this new covenant (the establishment of the kingdom of God of which he talks extensively on- bordering on obsessively in all books of the Goslples) then proves problematic. When god made a covenant with Abraham a sacrifice was made. The condition of sacrifice in the law was that it was perfect, and as jesus said “he came to forfill the law, not destroy it”. He said this because it is impossible to destroy a covenant. You can break it and therefore be unable to recive it's benefits but you can't destoy it. If you break it you're a party of a broken covenant, but the only way god could establish the new covenant promised through the prophets was to get rid of the old contract so he could establish the new one. How does one get completely rid of the old contract? As i said earlier on, god divorces Israel, so to speak. But it is a little more complicated that just that, as he promised to be the god over all of isreal and that he would never leave isreal or abandon them. He says he will separate himself from them is they're disobedient, but he can't just pack up and leave. IF he did he would break his oath, and become a liar, thus becoming unholy.


When he “ends” his covenant of favor with isreal, he finds himself in a bit of a pickle. So, inorder to keep his promises in the old covenant about separating himself from isreal if they sinned and yet keep his promises to Abraham about eternal blessing, the only way to do both is end the old covenant. How does he do that? By forfilling his bit so he does not become a liar.


But the only way a covenant can end is if both parties do what they said they would do. If the children of Israel were to forfill the law, then they would have to be perfect, yes? But scripture is clear that this is impossible “the human hear is desperately and deceitfully wicked. Who can know it?”. So how does one still for fill the law and be done with it? By offering a perfect sacrifice as atonement for sin (breach of contract).




So how does this relate to Jesus? In order to be a sacrifice, he had to be perfect. But according to scripture that is impossible for a man. Scripture says “no man is perfect, there is not even one.”Only god is perfect. So if Jesus was a man, How can he be an acceptable offering for the confirmation of a Covenant? And if there is atonement for sin for all through him (I am the door, I am the way, the truth, the life, no one can come to the Father except through me” (even if you offer animal sacrifices you cannot come to the father in the sense which he interpreted coming to the Father meant)) then how is that possible for a human to release man of a covenant made by god? Is Jesus more powerful than god. The only thing that has dominion over god is himself. So if jesus was like a piece of the divine, therefore his comment at the supper table makes sense. Otherwise he is clamming to be as holy as god, but is infact not, thus becoming a hieratic (the only group of people he ever really condemned).



-------------
a man sees as he wishes


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2009 at 04:57
Truth you have read my posts but you haven't understood them. You trying to interpret Islam in a biblical fashion. You will never understand the Islamic concept of Jesus while you hold onto the bible and Jewish national mythology.

God does not have anything to do with Jewish national mythology, or a biblios written by humans. Nor does Islam.

I think I have already answered your last two posts in my previous posts.


-------------
"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: eaglecap
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 19:02
Omar
I respect your right to believe but The Quran is the word of God, and as such is infallible - there are many scholars and even former Muslims who do not agree with this statement; starting with Ibn Warraq a former Muslim.
I also notice he is critical of Orthodox Christianity also.


There are many Christians who believe the same thing and while I do not share either view I would suggest reading "When Critics Ask."
If you believe this then more power to you but I do not agree with you.
It still might be good to read conflicting views, I do all the time.


-------------
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 04:34
?

Well obviously a former Muslim would think or believe that the Quran isn't the Word of God otherwise why bother

That would be like a former atheist believing or thinking that there is still no God




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



Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 05:25
if a muslim believes that the Quran is not God's words then he is not a Muslim anymore, i don't know if that applies to Christianity, but i guess if you don't believe that jesus is God then you are not christian anymore.

Jesus is a Prophet in Islam, its stated in the Quran, therefore he is a Prophet to muslims, and since the Quran and the Hadiths stated clearly that the Christians and Jewish Holy Books were changed and not exactly as they came from God, whatever written in those holy books is considered God's words if they agree with the Quran and questionable if it does not agree with the Quran.



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


Posted By: Nestorian
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2009 at 14:36
Always comes back to the same principle.
 
No one has ever been argued into a faith, unless they have pre-disposed themselves to an argument that is the same vein as their current state of inquiry or situation.
 
A person may simply be looking for something to confirm his opinions, or a person may simply look up the arguments after he has support the viewpoint of the other, but necessarily through argument.
 
Still, an itneresting discussion altogether.
 
 
 
 


-------------
Isa al-Masih, both God and Man, divine and human, flesh and spirit, saviour, servant and sovereign


Posted By: warwolf1969
Date Posted: 29-May-2009 at 23:56
For the arguement that Jesus was just another prophet it would mean he was a man.  Yet the qoran agrees that he was not a man, it accepts the virgin birth.  Thereby stating he was something other than man.  Therefore he can not be just another prophet.
 
The other problem is a misunderstanding of Jesus's message.  His was not a one time mission, he himself states that he will return.  Jesus had two missions for coming to earth.  The first was so that death could be removed.  He needed to die as a sacrifice so that we humans do not need to perform sacrifices.  The whole aim of sacrifice in the OT is to purify the soul from the inherited sin.  This was all part of the covenant between God and Man, however god was ending that covenant.  But man was still born to sin, we have inherited sin from our forefathers.  For that reason there needed to be a sacrifice, a big sacrifice, otherwise we would all be condemed to death.  Jesus was that sacrifice, his death saved us from death.
 
But there is a second task for Jesus, one which will fulfill the Jewish Messiah idea.  One that is told in revelations.  Jesus will return again, to bring a kingdom over all the earth.  God's kingdom that will last for 1000 years.  At the end of that the earth will be destroyed and rebuilt without sin.


Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 30-May-2009 at 03:16
The Quran accepts he was a man, virgin birth or not, I suggest you read up on things you argue a bit more next time. 

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



Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 30-May-2009 at 07:35
Jesus was the prince of peace in all religions, he never claim he was god  only in the unity of God . john 18  let them know we are one I in you and you  in me all be perfected into one.
 
The only problem I see is who got the dibs on what old rules  of the bible man should    follow . fantanic islam seems to treat their women with such disrepect and horror when it is  the women that gives them life.
 
Issa
Woman, mother of the universe,' in her lies the truth of creation. She is the foundation of all that is good and beautiful. She is the source of life and death. Upon her depends the existence of man, because she is the sustenance of his labors. She gives birth to you in travail, she watches over your growth. Bless her. Honor her. Defend her. Love your wives and honor them, because tomorrow they shall be mothers, and later-progenitors of a whole race. Their love ennobles man, soothes the embittered heart and tames the beast. Wife and mother-they are the adornments of the universe."

"As light divides itself from darkness, so does woman possess the gift to divide in man good intent from the thought of evil. Your best thoughts must belong to woman. Gather from them your moral strength, which you must possess to sustain your near ones. Do not humiliate her, for therein you will humiliate yourselves. And all which you will do to mother, to wife, to widow or to another woman in sorrow-that shall you also do for the Spirit."

 
Remember in  luke when asked who`s wife will she be in heaven?  there is no marriage only those that are worthy to be  of the angels, so forget the seven virgins:)


Posted By: warwolf1969
Date Posted: 30-May-2009 at 19:48
But he is not just a man, how can that be when he was created not born.  As a result of that he must be something else, something supernatural.


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 30-May-2009 at 20:57
Originally posted by warwolf1969 warwolf1969 wrote:

But he is not just a man, how can that be when he was created not born.  As a result of that he must be something else, something supernatural.
 
Actually, the traditional Christian line (which is what I think you are trying to get at; please correct me if I am mistaken) is that Christ was begotten, not created. As such, he was born, both from all eternity of the Father, and at a specific point in time of the Virgin in his Incarnation.
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 01:55
Originally posted by warwolf warwolf wrote:

The first was so that death could be removed.  He needed to die as a sacrifice so that we humans do not need to perform sacrifices.  The whole aim of sacrifice in the OT is to purify the soul from the inherited sin.  This was all part of the covenant between God and Man, however god was ending that covenant.  But man was still born to sin, we have inherited sin from our forefathers.  For that reason there needed to be a sacrifice, a big sacrifice, otherwise we would all be condemed to death.  Jesus was that sacrifice, his death saved us from death.

We don't believe sin is inherited. Everyone is responsible only for their own actions. Nor do we believe that God's forgiveness is dependent on something dieing.
Quote But he is not just a man, how can that be when he was created not born.  As a result of that he must be something else, something supernatural.

God created the whole universe, how hard is it for him to create one man?
Quote But there is a second task for Jesus, one which will fulfill the Jewish Messiah idea.  One that is told in revelations.  Jesus will return again, to bring a kingdom over all the earth.  God's kingdom that will last for 1000 years.  At the end of that the earth will be destroyed and rebuilt without sin.

Yep, al-Masih and al-Mahdi will throw everyone a party at the end of time. Lots of muslims believe that too.

-------------
"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: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 12:43
Hmmm...the premise for the whole discussion seems to be that there is a God. But is there really any convincing, unambiguous proof that there is a (or many) God???



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net