Is Jesus A Prophet According To The Old Testament?

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
Why did this "merciful" god let them commit suicide and hence commit themselves to hell by going against this god's wishes?
I don't think gods are any smarter than people if they can't design circumstances and things better than they have. If I cared for my people, I would not allow them to do stupid things like Applewhite, Jim Jones, and others did. So apparently this god is no more powerful than this Satan creature. If I was a god and all-powerful and some demon Satan showed up, I'd poof the creature out of existence.

Read the original thread carefully; the last paragraph answers why God leaves them to Satan to confuse them: because they are wrong-doers and transgressors.

http://www.quran-ayat.com/m/index.htm
Then, from the list of contents, click on:
Satan [or Ibliess or Beelzebub]
 
Last edited:

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Read the original thread carefully; the last paragraph answers why God leaves them to Satan to confuse them: because they are wrong-doers and transgressors.

http://www.quran-ayat.com/m/index.htm
Then, from the list of contents, click on:
Satan [or Ibliess or Beelzebub]
Why would any god make devils, wrong-doers, and transgressors in the first place? That seems pretty stupid to me.
 

big

Time Out
Oct 15, 2009
562
4
18
Quebec
You're deliberately confounding two different meanings of the word faith as if they were the same. Your initial claim in context was clearly a reference to religious faith, here you're converting it to mean confidence in a person, which is quite a different thing.

No because father-figures for kids don't have to be persons, they can be and often are comic-strip characters for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_the_Father

 

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
Why would any god make devils, wrong-doers, and transgressors in the first place? That seems pretty stupid to me.


It is pretty stupid that you don't understand.

God does not make devils or wrong-doers in the first or second place.

He created them and left the choice free for them, but they chose to do wrong and transgress, and some of them became devils [: they know the truth but work contrary to it].

So those who do wrong, God dislikes them and will mislead them and leave them to Satan to confuse them and increase their error.

This is in the Quran 107: 1-3

أَرَأَيْتَ الَّذِي يُكَذِّبُ بِالدِّينِ .فَذَلِكَ الَّذِي يَدُعُّ الْيَتِيمَ . وَلَا يَحُضُّ عَلَى طَعَامِ الْمِسْكِينِ

The explanation:
(Have you considered him who denies 'the punishment and the reward' [in the afterlife.]

>> It is he who thrusts the orphan [away from his rights.]

>> And never urges [people] to feed the needy.)

 
Last edited:

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
No because father-figures for kids don't have to be persons, they can be and often are comic-strip characters for example.
And you think that justifies your fallacy of equivocation? :roll: Big difference between real fathers and father figures, and what faith in each kind means in the real world.
 

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
Simple logic seems to escape him.


In fact simple logic [and good fortune] has escaped those who disbelieved in Jesus and Mohammed.

What do they want better than Jesus and Mohammed to follow; but they prefer their devils: their religious leaders and atheists who deceive them.

As in the Quran 5: 60

قُلْ هَلْ أُنَبِّئُكُم بِشَرٍّ مِّن ذَلِكَ مَثُوبَةً عِندَ اللّهِ مَن لَّعَنَهُ اللّهُ وَغَضِبَ عَلَيْهِ وَجَعَلَ مِنْهُمُ الْقِرَدَةَ وَالْخَنَازِيرَ وَعَبَدَ الطَّاغُوتَ أُوْلَئِكَ شَرٌّ مَّكَاناً وَأَضَلُّ عَن سَوَاء السَّبِيلِ

The explanation:
(Say [Mohammed]: "Shall I tell you [Jews] about something worse than that [you mock at, of our religion] – concerning a reward from God [that will be for us?]:

They are those [your ancestors and you] whom God cursed,
and His wrath was kindled against them,
and He made [out] of their [dead bodies] the apes and swines [in Palestine, after the coming of Nabuchodonosor],
and [those who] served the Taghoot: the tyrant [: Nabuchodonosor, and Pharaoh before him.]

Those [who served Baal and Astaroth] are [today] worst in abode and farthest astray from the right way.")

<http://www.quran-ayat.com/conflict/english2.htm#They_Worshiped_the_Idols_>
 
Last edited:

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
In fact simple logic [and good fortune] has escaped those who disbelieved in Jesus and Mohammed.
Simple logic does not support belief in the claims made about those people. Logic doesn't enter into it, it's about belief in the absence of evidence.

What do they want better than Jesus and Mohammed to follow...
I don't want to follow anybody, I want to live the life I choose and be responsible for what I do. I don't believe what I believe because it's comforting, I believe what I believe because it seems to me to be testable and verifiable in terms of the way I understand reality. Your beliefs, and in fact no religious beliefs, are in that category, so I reject them all.
 

In Between Man

The Biblical Position
Sep 11, 2008
4,597
46
48
45
49° 19' N, 123° 4' W
A prophet would not make direct claims to God.

Perhaps no claim is more direct than Jesus' response to Caiaphas's pointblank interrogation:

"Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
"Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all condemned him as worthy of death (Mark 14:61-64).

Notice that Jesus responded to the direct question with a direct answer: "I am." Referring to himself as the "Son of Man," Jesus then added that he would be coming back on the clouds of heaven. Caiaphas and his onlookers knew the implication. This was a reference to the vision the Old Testament prophet Daniel had of the end times: the Messiah - the Son of Man - will come to earth to judge the world on the authority given to him by God the Father ("the Ancient of Days"), and all the world's people will worship him (Dan. 7:13). Of course, no one is to be worshiped but God himself. Yet here was Christ claiming that he would be the one to judge the world and receive worship from its people.

He was claiming to be God, and everyone knew it.
 
Last edited:

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
Big difference between real fathers and father figures, and what faith in each kind means in the real world.



The "father" and the "son"

Such words in different languages have many implications.
· The word أب or father in Arabic is near to the word رب or lord.
The word رب or lord means the master of the family, and the lord of the land means the owner of the land in both Arabic and English.

In the Arabic Gospel they make a clear distinction between the آب which means the lord and the word أب or father.

So originally when Jesus called on his Lord, he said آبي which means "my Lord" and does not mean: "my father."

The confusion came from a parable that God is like the father to his sons: he takes care about them, and God takes care about his creatures in like manner.

· The word إبنor son is like the word ولدin Arabic, which implicates in English: my son, my boy and my servant.

In an Arabic version of the NT in the Book of the Acts of the apostles: I find in Arabic they said about Jesus and God:

فتاه يسوع

Which means His servant Jesus, as they said in the same site in the Book of the Acts:

فتاه داود

Which means: His servant David.
While in the English Acts you see: "His servant David" and "His son Jesus".

So for the same original word: concerning Jesus the translator chose the word son, while for David he chose the word servant.

Therefore, they manipulate the words with their translation to give whatever meaning they like according to their enthusiasm:

because the Christian translator says within himself: this is Jesus, we cannot treat him like David: David is the servant of God, but Jesus is the son of God.

While in the original Gospel both are the righteous servants of God.

 
Last edited:

In Between Man

The Biblical Position
Sep 11, 2008
4,597
46
48
45
49° 19' N, 123° 4' W
Before you reply eanassir I will remind you that Jesus could not have been a prophet, which leaves you with two options to escape any implications for yourself. Jesus could have been a liar or he could have been a lunatic. Which one was he? Remember, you can't say prophet because that's clearly not what he was, and it's not a viable answer.
 
Last edited:

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
In correction of my post #190 in this thread:
The second bullet should be replaced by:
· The word فتى in Arabic means إبن or ولد or عبد ; which means in English: son, boy and servant.
 

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
Before you reply eanassir I will remind you that Jesus could not have been a prophet, which leaves you with two options to escape any implications for yourself. Jesus could have been a liar or he could have been a lunatic. Which one was he? Remember, you can't say prophet because that's clearly not what he was, and it's not a viable answer.


You depend in your assertion on the available Gospels which are not the original words said by Jesus.

And yes, Jesus was a prophet, an apostle and righteous servant of God; and he fulfilled the will of his Lord: God the Creator Who sent him to reform a stubborn people.

And yes, Jesus was not any god, neither was he any son of God, but son of man like all other sons of man.

He was a righteous servant and a prophet brought close to God and after he died, his spirit went to Paradise: the kingdom of heaven in the neighborhood of God.

God killed Jesus: i.e. He made him die, as did He make his mother die and all people die: the past and the present and the coming generations.

This is in the Quran 5: 17

لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَآلُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ قُلْ فَمَن يَمْلِكُ مِنَ اللّهِ شَيْئًا إِنْ أَرَادَ أَن يُهْلِكَ الْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَأُمَّهُ وَمَن فِي الأَرْضِ جَمِيعًا وَلِلّهِ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاء وَاللّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

The explanation:
(They have unbelieved, those who say: "God is [Jesus] Christ, son of Mary";

say: "Who, then, can prevent God [from doing any harm] should He will to kill [Jesus] Christ, son of Mary and his mother and those in the earth altogether!?"

The sovereignty , of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them belongs to God; He creates whatever He likes; surely, God is All-Able to do anything.)

So don't exaggerate in the matter of Jesus; because Jesus himself does not agree about that, and will quit himself from anyone enthusiastic about him.

And don't depend on these distorted books, but follow the interpretation of the Quran, which Jesus himself revealed to the interpreter of the Quran and the Bible: here is part of this interpretation taught by Jesus Christ (and if God Most Gracious helps me, I shall translate all the interpretation and put it on the web.)

And Jesus promised to sent the Paraclite: to teach people many things that they could not understand in the past. And the Quran confirms the Ten Commandments, and Mohammed believed in all the apostles of God and invited people to God alone without associate or son.

In English:


Or else you will lose in your afterlife, and Jesus will quit himelf from you and will neither intercede for you nor will he redeem you.
 
Last edited:

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Before you reply eanassir I will remind you that Jesus could not have been a prophet, which leaves you with two options to escape any implications for yourself. Jesus could have been a liar or he could have been a lunatic. Which one was he? Remember, you can't say prophet because that's clearly not what he was, and it's not a viable answer.
In your blind faith to the written word, you fail to see that it is not Jesus who is the liar or the lunatic but it is those who misinterpreted the words in the first place.There is nowhere in the original texts where Jesus said he was the Son of God. He said I am a son of god and that we are all children of god. He never placed himself above anybody. It was the translators who deified him 300 years after he died. It is you who is mistaken because you have been purposely mislead by those who formed the official church of Rome and the bible back in the years 316 Ad.

With 2500 or so modern interpretations of the bible, even christian cannot agree on moral absolutes. The interpretation you adhere to is just as wrong as all the rest. Although it behooves me to agree with eanassir, I have to agree with his argument that it is the misinterpretations that confuse you. But then, even the Muslims can't agree on what the Qoran has to say about moral absolutes. I believe on many points he is as confused about god/allah as you are.
 
Last edited:

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
In your blind faith to the written word, you fail to see that it is not Jesus who is the liar or the lunatic but it is those who misinterpreted the words in the first place.There is nowhere in the original texts where Jesus said he was the Son of God. He said I am a son of god and that we are all children of god. He never placed himself above anybody. It was the translators who deified him 300 years after he died. It is you who is mistaken because you have been purposely mislead by those who formed the official church of Rome and the bible back in the years 316 Ad.

With 2500 or so modern interpretations of the bible, even christian cannot agree on moral absolutes. The interpretation you adhere to is just as wrong as all the rest. Although it behooves me to agree with eanassir, I have to agree with his argument that it is the misinterpretations that confuse you. But then, even the Muslims can't agree on what the Qoran has to say about moral absolutes.

Hi Cliffy, hi :smile:

I believe on many points he is as confused about god/allah as you are.

Curse be on your devil; how is that :lol:
 

weaselwords

Electoral Member
Nov 10, 2009
518
4
18
salisbury's tavern
I just glossed over this thread & find it pretty nonsensical "believe & have faith" in two religions one created by a tax collector on the way to Damascus & the other created by a rug merchant travelling around Mecca. My suspicion is they were both sunstroked & had hallucinations of delusions of grandeur to create a new religion
 

big

Time Out
Oct 15, 2009
562
4
18
Quebec
And you think that justifies your fallacy of equivocation? :roll: Big difference between real fathers and father figures, and what faith in each kind means in the real world.

"Real father" is a meaningless expression since being a father is a purely symbolic social role. Religion is about having faith in the efficacy of this symbolic order without which one becomes psychotic.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
"Real father" is a meaningless expression since being a father is a purely symbolic social role. Religion is about having faith in the efficacy of this symbolic order without which one becomes psychotic.

It has been my experience that many of the religious faithful are anti social and psychotic.