Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The point is that they interpret one word two different ways. 'Though hast broken' versus 'Thou hast lengthened.'
Salaam Alaikum.
I have been through this already. I understand you disagree. But like I said, the Jews can and do likewise insist that the prophecies talk of the return of Elijah himself. So do they not have a valid point?Yet Deuteronomy 18:1-5 makes clear that "brethren" means "Israel".
And he became 'a great nation' after their acceptance of the message of Muhammad s.a., as I said, but I understand you disagree with my explanation.Ishmael and Isaac are both seed of Abraham, and it was promised to Ishmael that he will become a great nation. However, this doesn't mean that the prophet would come from him.
Because, for one, the prophecy did not say Elijah will return in a vision. Secondly, some pious people see visions of Prophet Muhammad s.a., and not one of them claims that it was 'a return' of Prophet Muhammad s.a. I am sure Israelite prophets and saints were shown such visions from time to time. Thirdly, the vision was only seen by Jesus a.s. and a few disciples.Why would a vision not count?
My point was that he had followers before the attempted crucifixion, so it becomes meaningless to say he will see his offspring after a prolongation of his life, as he saw them before anyway.His followers are His spiritual offspring.
Sure. Again, the point is that IF one were to take their testimony as true, it is clear evidence that Jesus survived the cross without being killed on it.Tacitus was a respected historian. He was not careless in his work, and would not have used the beliefs of Christians, who he found detestable and hated, as evidence.
First of all, let us make clear that the correct meaning of crucifixion is death on the cross. A person who is placed on a cross and taken down alive is not said to have been crucified. This is true in English as well as in Arabic. However, it is a common misunderstanding to think crucifixion means merely placing someone on the cross even if he didn't die on it, or perhaps people just aren't careful in their usage of the term.The fact that Tacitus reported the crucifixion of Jesus and not His resurrection is to me strong evidence that Jesus was crucified. The crucifixion of Jesus was witnessed by crowds of people, Jews and pagans and Christians (His followers).
Right, so the most one can say from his account is that Jesus was placed on a cross and he appeared to have died on it.The resurrection was witnessed only by His followers. Had Tacitus reported the resurrection, one could have more easily accused him of being a Christian, or copying his sources from them. He didn't. He reported His crucifixion, which would have been something that was publicly witnessed.
How is it easy to prove when it necessitates a study of the historical and archaelogical data?Not the strongest, but among the most easy to prove.
I could do, but again, even before looking into it, it seems to me that it will end in a stalemate.Feel free to do so and get back to me.
Good.Would you like an even easier example? OK, no problem.
16:69 states that God told the bee to, among other things, eat from all the fruits.
Yet we know that there are some fruit that bees are unable to get access to, and others that poison them.
Again, the misunderstanding stems from not properly understanding Arabic grammar. In Arabic, there are two tenses, the past (which is perfect) and the imperfect, which applies to both the present and the future. The context will determining whether the tense is present or future or both. In the verse under consideration, it can only be the future tense (they will meet), because it is made clear there currently exists a barrier between them (which will one day be removed so they will encroach/transgress, i.e. meet.Below is a website that gives a word-by-word breakdown of the verses. The verse does not say that the waters one day will meet, or that the barrier is only for the present time.
It states that the bodies of water (or "seas") meet, and do not "transgress". How can there be a barrier between waters if they are said to be meeting? That is a good question.
Then the problem is the understanding of some Muslims, and not a problem with the Qur'an itself.Some Muslims claim that this is a reference to the halocline, which stratifies water into a fresh level and a salty level.
Because there was a barrier between the two seas, and they met through the canals.How is this a reference to the Suez and Panama Canals?
I have already explained that it can only be the future tense that is used, not the present.Also, how can the verse be a prophecy if it is referring to something in the present?
I think what's omitted here is that even Jesus' followers held traditional view of messiah. When Jesus talked about his execution,, Peter reacted with disbelief. If I remember correctly, that's noted in more than one place. Peter did not act maliciously, he was just being Jewish.
Did anybody mention that the idea of the messiah-as-God-Incarnate is utterly alien to Jewish theology, both before and after the 1st century CE?
In fact, there had already been several "Anointed Ones" (which is what messiah - or its Greek equivalent "Christos" - actually means) in the Bible, among them King David, and the messiah that was prophecied was pretty much expected to be a mortal leader - touched by god, sure, achieving great deeds, most certainly. But a man, not a deity.
The whole idea of the One God impregnating a virgin and becoming a part of his own creation is utterly alien to Judaism, has never been part of the messianic prophecies, and sounds a lot more like the hellenic mystery religions that existed at approximately the same time throughout the Roman empire.
The same goes for the whole "restoring cosmic balance by means of divine sacrifice and resurrection"-motif, as well as the very concept of initiation, mystery, and eucharist.
Did anybody mention that the idea of the messiah-as-God-Incarnate is utterly alien to Jewish theology, both before and after the 1st century CE?
In fact, there had already been several "Anointed Ones" (which is what messiah - or its Greek equivalent "Christos" - actually means) in the Bible, among them King David, and the messiah that was prophecied was pretty much expected to be a mortal leader - touched by god, sure, achieving great deeds, most certainly. But a man, not a deity.
The whole idea of the One God impregnating a virgin and becoming a part of his own creation is utterly alien to Judaism, has never been part of the messianic prophecies, and sounds a lot more like the hellenic mystery religions that existed at approximately the same time throughout the Roman empire.
The same goes for the whole "restoring cosmic balance by means of divine sacrifice and resurrection"-motif, as well as the very concept of initiation, mystery, and eucharist.
Indeed. This is part of the reason why I love Christianity so much. Because it is just the most unlikely idea for a world religion. A Man comes to a people who would never have come up with the notion of Him being the Son of God, then dies in the most humiliating manner possible and is then brought to life again. You would never invent something like that for a world religion, but it works so well, and has done for millenia.
I think the importance of that particular council is somewhat overestimated by many.Also, the notion of Jesus as God incarnate is not something He said, but one belief among many that won the debate among Christians at the council of Nicea and then was enforced (sometimes violently!) by the Christian authorities.
I'm not so sure that follows as I will elaborate:Indeed. This is part of the reason why I love Christianity so much. Because it is just the most unlikely idea for a world religion.
a people who lived among another group of people who had sons and daughters of deities in a ton of their mythsA Man comes to a people who would never have come up with the notion of Him being the Son of God
In the same way that thousands of others died, especially those of the people he is claimed to be part of.., then dies in the most humiliating manner possible
Just like a lot of the mystery religion demi-gods that were popular in the area.and is then brought to life again.
You would never invent something like that for a world religion, but it works so well, and has done for millenia.
...
It seems pretty common to the dying/resurrecting mystery cults mixed with SOME Judaism. Its lasting power may be something to see, but Judaism has lasted longer so we can't really go by time served here.
Of all those cults, Christianity is the only "cult" where the person died for another's sins.
Not a person. A god-man, fully man and fully god. This is the reason Christianity had to deify Jesus. A death of a man no matter how holy is still just a circle of life; a tragedy, but nothing out of ordinary. Greek Prometheus suffered much worse for the sake of men(and ladies),btw. But, kill a god for the sake of man and we may have something(the idea of killing all powerful and immortal being makes no sense, but that is beside the point). It is a powerful image that would be appealing to many.Of all those cults, Christianity is the only "cult" where the person died for another's sins.
Of all those cults, Christianity is the only "cult" where the person died for another's sins.
Hi
Loammi and Danisky,
Whilst it is true that the Tanach is clear that everyone is responsible for their own sins, vicarious atonement is a later Christian teachings, as is trinity and literal sonship. Jesus did not teach them such things. So these erroneous doctrines cannot prove that Jesus wasn't the Israelite Messiah. The Nazarenes and Ebionites remained true to Judaism whilst accepting Jesus as Messiah. What happened in councils such as that of Nicea and how the message of Jesus got corrupted in time in the Roman Empire is another story.
Also, Jesus is reported to have been seen alive by his disciples after the attempted crucifixion, and it is also clear that he is avoiding other Jews and Romans. His behaviour is that of one who has survived crucifixion and does not want to be captured again and killed for certain this time. There is sufficient evidence to show he travelled to the lost tribes of Israel (who were taken into captivity by the Babylonians and Assyrians over have a millenium before Christ (721BC is one date), and many of them settled in Kashmir. Here is a Jewish website mentioning this:
The Mystery of the Ten Lost Tribes
It is reported that Jesus travelled there, preached to the lost tribes, got married and had children and lived to a ripe old age. Hence the prophecy in Isaiah 53:10 about seeing his offspring was fulfilled.
Peace.
and again, none of that matters because the prophecies were not fulfilled. Isaiah 53 is only used in trying to show that he was supposed to die for the sins of the world when a reading of the Hebrew pretty much debunks that because the person suffers not "for" the sins of the world but "because of" the sins of the world.
To illustrate this, if I were to go into a court and offer to be punished for another's crime, that would be "for their sins". If I am attacked in the street and beaten nearly to death, that is "because of their sins". Two entirely different concepts. So Jesus could have lived to be 1000 with a million children and he is no closer to being messiah while the messianic prophecies remain unfulfilled.
Which still gets us nowhere because one cannot die for the sins of another. The Tanach is quite clear on this point. The person who sins is the one who has to pay the price. Moses was not allowed to offer his own life for the sins of Israel. We're still at something that sits outside of Jewish understanding.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?