Is Jesus A Prophet According To The Old Testament?

[L Gilbert]

The Golden rule is not the topic of this thread.

:roll: Neither is your comment.
It looks to me like she used it as an example. It's a big surprise you couldn't figure that out. Besides, apparently you can't tell between initiating something off-topic or replying to someone else who went off-topic. You do both frequently.

The OT says nothing about Yeshua being a prophet. There are a couple vague references to prophets and some dood who would eventually show up, though. But, even then, there's no evidence that Yeshua (as Christ) even existed; just some hearsay here and there.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

There is a deep reason why the illusion called the Darwinism has been thought out by someone annoyed by the doctrine of predestination.

And who would that be? It's not properly called Darwinism anymore, it's the neo-Darwinian synthesis, if you want to put a label on it, it's no illusion, and it has exactly nothing to do with predestination, except to coincidentally discredit it.

 

[Cliffy]

The Golden rule is not the topic of this thread.

Interesting that you think everyone should play by your rules. Half the time your comments make no sense and you seem to be always grumpy. You are about as much fun as watching maggots devour a horse.

But on topic, Jesus was a composite mythical being made up from a dozen or so older mythical being so it is really silly to take this topic seriously.

 

[MHz]

Interesting that you think everyone should play by your rules. Half the time your comments make no sense and you seem to be always grumpy. You are about as much fun as watching maggots devour a horse.

But on topic, Jesus was a composite mythical being made up from a dozen or so older mythical being so it is really silly to take this topic seriously.

I doubt very much maggots could even catch a horse, or corner one so he could not escape. lol I hope you are just trying to come up with some witty new saying other than relating something you actually do, that would make you a tad scary to be around, how did your date like watching that take place? Never mind I don't want to know.
Now why would Satan want to do something like that? It's bad enough what he did, why make it worse for everybody?
Take Egypt for example, all those examples of pictures of 'Pharaohs' that are 4-10 times larger than the 'men' in the same picture are put there as a memorial to how the 'ancient' past was.
If you don't like the time-line in the Biblical account simple change the 4500 years to a longer span. It's about 2300BC to the flood and the exodus took place about 1400BC.

All the current monuments in Egypt were in place when the exodus took place, that leaves only 900 years for all the events between the flood and the exodus, that's a pretty short time for all those things listed to happen, how about 9,000 years, that would put the flood at 10,400BC. No use slowing down now so the 2200 years from Adam to the flood do not go back to being 'normal years', ie 12,600) so from the time of the flood to Adam is another 22,000 years, if you find that being too short (32,400BC) then expand that period of time back even further, 220,000 years. (fiddle around with the day for a year or the 1,000 years is 1 day verses)
So those picture of 'giants' in Egypt are about live beings, if it shows 20 men pulling a stone that is how strong the 'giant' was.
So any myth would come from beings that were around between the time there were children of men and fallen angels (more powerful and fearsome that the 'giants' in Egyptian art.

When Noah's clan split off the ones in those groups would have tried to duplicate what the fallen angels and giants had done in the past, at Babel they made a good start so God shut them down, and now you know the rest of the story. lol

 

[big]

it has exactly nothing to do with predestination, except to coincidentally discredit it.

Invoking coincidence is a bit too convenient.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Invoking coincidence is a bit too convenient.

Do you deliberately choose to misunderstand what everybody says and consistently respond with non sequiturs? Discrediting predestination was not one of the things that motivated Darwin, as you'd know if you actually understand anything about what he did, but his results, properly understood, did turn out to be pretty corrosive to certain religious dogmas.

 

[big]

Do you deliberately choose to misunderstand what everybody says and consistently respond with non sequiturs? Discrediting predestination was not one of the things that motivated Darwin, as you'd know if you actually understand anything about what he did, but his results, properly understood, did turn out to be pretty corrosive to certain religious dogmas.

Our medicine has more to do with Jesus than with Darwin since it saves the lives of the weakest and allow them to reproduce.

 

[eanassir]

Are probably just as numerous as your myths and less idolatrous than you are about yours.

I have no myths to believe in, neither I am idolatrous; I believe in God alone without associate or equal, and I reject all idols and idolatry.

From waaaaaay farther back in time than Christianity and Islam:
So both Islam and Christianity took at least some of their tenets from earlier religions.

In the previous reply to SJP in the thread of (Essential features of the apostle of God), I said God sent His apostles to all nations [so that the evidence is established against them, and they cannot say: we were not aware and we did not know about that],
then such messages were distorted into something like idolatry because of the enthusiasm about their religious men.

Therefore, we find the similarities because of the original messages were similar, while the diversity is due to the distortion that occurred in these messages by the passing of time and generations.

This with the exception of the obvious wrong and erring idolatry, the false Bahai doctrine, and beware of the enthusiasm of Christians about Jesus and the patron saints, the enthusiasm of Jews about the shrines of their sages and the shrines of Muslim imams in additon to all other forms of polytheism and atheism.

About the "Aquisition": it started after the decline of the Muslim Andalus: spain; then they started to make such Aquisition; and they were not in need of such theories of the ancient Greek; but only to oppose the Islamic scientist concepts which they considered dangerous, lest their sons should convert to the Islam.

So they went on incessantly in that aquisition and then burning the convicted and the suspects, and Galileo they forgave him and did not burn him and accepted only to imprison him, after he disowned his theories that the earth is not the centre of the universe.

http://www.quran-ayat.com/​

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Our medicine has more to do with Jesus than with Darwin since it saves the lives of the weakest and allow them to reproduce.

Another brillliant non sequitur, and quite wrong, I don't recall Jesus saying anything about the weakest reproducing--which BTW has serious Darwinian consequences--but at least you're consistent.

 

[big]

Another brillliant non sequitur, and quite wrong, I don't recall Jesus saying anything about the weakest reproducing--which BTW has serious Darwinian consequences--but at least you're consistent.

Why do you think Christians are against abortions!?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Why do you think Christians are against abortions!?

Because they think, incorrectly, that their guide book tells them they should be. Actually it says quite the opposite, Scripture clearly does not consider a fetus to be human, and in fact doesn't count anybody less than a month old as a person. That's in the OT, Jesus himself had nothing to say on the subject.

 

[JLM]

Because they think, incorrectly, that their guide book tells them they should be. Actually it says quite the opposite, Scripture clearly does not consider a fetus to be human, and in fact doesn't count anybody less than a month old as a person. That's in the OT, Jesus himself had nothing to say on the subject.

I'm getting a little confused with this "scripture" business........could someone help me out, should we be believing all of it, none of it or just pick it over and accept the parts that suit us?

 

[AnnaG]

I have no myths to believe in, neither I am idolatrous; I believe in God alone without associate or equal, and I reject all idols and idolatry.

roflmao

In the previous reply to SJP in the thread of (Essential features of the apostle of God), I said God sent His apostles to all nations [so that the evidence is established against them, and they cannot say: we were not aware and we did not know about that],
then such messages were distorted into something like idolatry because of the enthusiasm about their religious men.

Well, the one that he sent to my nation (Anishinaabe) didn't arrive until just a few hundred years ago. He must have been sitting in the pub praising and praying for a thousand or so years. One would think that a god could find a speedier messenger.

Therefore, we find the similarities because of the original messages were similar, while the diversity is due to the distortion that occurred in these messages by the passing of time and generations.

Yeah yeah. There's always an excuse about the other guy being wrong when one's head is buried in nonsensical dogma.

This with the exception of the obvious wrong and erring idolatry, the false Bahai doctrine,

Yeah yeah yeah, I've heard the "everyone is wrong except me" nonsense before.

and beware of the enthusiasm of Christians about Jesus and the patron saints, the enthusiasm of Jews about the shrines of their sages and the shrines of Muslim imams in additon to all other forms of polytheism and atheism.

... and the fanaticism of Muslims about Muhamad. I know. No need to warn me, but thanks.

About the "Aquisition": it started after the decline of the Muslim Andalus: spain; then they started to make such Aquisition; and they were not in need of such theories of the ancient Greek; but only to oppose the Islamic scientist concepts which they considered dangerous, lest their sons should convert to the Islam.

Of course. You know why? Because they thought that their religion was the only right one, just as you think yours is the only right one and millions of others think their particular religions are the right ones. Pick a religion and you'll find people that swear it's the only true one. And the stupidest of them kill others to prove it.

So they went on incessantly in that aquisition and then burning the convicted and the suspects, and Galileo they forgave him and did not burn him and accepted only to imprison him, after he disowned his theories that the earth is not the centre of the universe.

http://www.quran-ayat.com/​

BTW, it is Inquisition, not Aquisition. They didn't imprison him, the told him to shut up and he published a book about heliocentrism, and then they told him to shut up and confined him to house arrest.

Um, Islam isn't all that nice either:

The Magnitude of Muslim Atrocities

Speaking of science; who could take Islamic science seriously when Muhamad replied to the question of what man is created from with "He is created of both, the semen of the man and the semen of the woman. The man's semen is thick and forms the bones and the tendons. The woman's semen is fine and forms the flesh and blood." :roll:

 

[AnnaG]

I'm getting a little confused with this "scripture" business........could someone help me out, should we be believing all of it, none of it or just pick it over and accept the parts that suit us?

I ditched it a long time ago except to point out the odd discrepancy now and then. I favor the concept behind the golden rule instead. One sentence over a book full of sometimes vague, sometimes ambiguous, sometimes phantasmagorical illusion, and sometimes blatant nonsense.

 

[Cliffy]

And seamen are not allowed to cast their semen upon the sea.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...could someone help me out, should we be believing all of it, none of it or just pick it over and accept the parts that suit us?

Given those options, I'd go for believing none of it. A lot of people believe all of it, which generates the kind of nonsense you can read here and elsewhere about things like evolution, the age of the earth, and what the future holds. A lot of people--in fact I'd venture to suggest most people who use it as guide at all--cherry pick it to suit another agenda, usually to produce a specious argument from authority fallacy in support of a supposed moral position they can't otherwise justify. There's another option: remove belief from the equation and study it on its own terms as a cultural and historical artifact. Read it, read what biblical scholarship has to say about it (I'd recommend Bart Ehrman's works, and Isaac Asimov's two-volume guide if you can find it, it's long out of print), and try to understand it in terms of the historical and cultural contexts it was written in and what the authors were trying to do. Then it makes sense. Mostly.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Why do you think Christians are against abortions!?

Not all Christians are against abortion, big. Some are, some aren’t. Same as some Christians hate homosexuals, some don’t (hate the sin, love the sinner is just a sound bite, nothing more. It usually means hate the sin AND the sinner).

 

[TenPenny]

And seamen are not allowed to cast their semen upon the sea.

That's why camels were called the ships of the desert - they were full of Arab semen.

 

[Cliffy]

The plot clots! None of the biblical patriarchs were real, nullifying the Bible, the Torah and the Koran. All that death and destruction for imaginary beings. It is looking more and more like the Earth is the insane asylum of the Universe.

YouTube - Biblical Patriarchs Abraham & Moses NEVER EXISTED As the Bible Portrays

 

[MHz]

That's why camels were called the ships of the desert - they were full of Arab semen.

Another myth about Arabs.....the way that rumor got started is a Westerner was way out in the desert digging oil-wells and he asked an Arab what they did when they wanted a woman. The Arab replied, "We use the camels." The Westerner eventually decided to try it. When he finished that same Arab came up ans asked what he was doing. The, now puzzled, Westerner replied 'You said that is what to do when you are out in the middle of the desert and you wanted a woman!" The Arab slowly shook his head and said, "Yes we do use the camels, but we ride them to town." To cover their own asses (so to speak) the Westerners started that rumor.