Prophet Muhammad vs Jesus Christ

Post Reply New Topic

Cathylynn:

I'd be interested to know:

Did your medical studies ever cause you to doubt your faith?

I'm not a religious person. I would place myself firmly in the agnostic/atheistic camp, in fact.

However, I don't argue religion--because religion is a matter of personal faith. There's really no proof "either way."

You are explaining the incarnation, not the trinity. Just to be clear, Jesus is God the Son and is not the same person as God the Father. That would be a Unitarian view, not a Trinitarian view.

You still have no concrete evidence. You have someone's evaluation of a text and supposition of how and why and when it was written, with no external proof from the author or outside documents detailing how/why/when. You cannot prove that older stories "influenced" the Biblical stories. All you can do is say is that experts have assumed that the Pentateuch has been compiled from other sources and influenced by older stories, based on their own interpretations of how the text reads. Those interpretations are coming from a 21st century western viewpoint, not the viewpoint of an Ancient Hebrew.

The ancient Hebrews claimed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. *This* is what we know for certain. You are saying that today's experts are saying that all of those experts at that time were wrong, though they lived much closer to the time of these writings. They had the same ability to examine the literary qualities of the scriptures, yes? And they were aware of other ancient stories and texts, yes? Yet they said Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

The idea that the OT stories come after older tales does not make sense on the grounds that stories get embellished over time, not simplified. "In the ancient near east, the rule is that simple accounts or traditions may give rise (by accretion and embellishment) to elaborate legends, but not vice versa. In the ancient Orient, legends were not simplified or turned into pseudo-history (historicized) as has been assumed for early Genesis." K.A. Kitchen in "Ancient Orient and the Old Testament"

Moses was a prophet, so it is believable that God revealed to him things about the future. It is also very possible that Moses compiled accounts that had been handed down, acting like an editor. That still makes the compilation his work. (I still would like to know what dating of the Exodus you hold to.)

Your argument that widespread agreement is "proof" of these theses is a fallacy of appealing to authority. It is quite possible for the majority to be wrong. It has happened many times in the past. Let us not forget the time when most thought the sun revolved around the earth, which was believed by both clergy and scientists of the time (widespread agreement), and those who disagreed were even excommunicated from the church.

I am not a fundamentalist. I am a conservative. There's a big difference. I also don't think my conservative Jewish friends would appreciate being called fundamentalist, either.

My husband (a pastor) has tried to explain further things to me regarding how the texts are set up, and at this point it gets a bit over my head since I have not studied this in as much detail as he has. So, from here on out I bow out of this discussion.

Thank-you for arguing civilly.

how can he not be the same person if god is one and jesus said that the he is the word and he was before abrahim and made the heavens and earth and he and the father is one? jesus also said that he was the ruler of earth and haven. there is only one god, and jesus was not a prophet, he was god in human flesh.

Did we read completely different Bibles?

Where in the Bible did Jesus make all these claims?

So who is Jesus according to you?

Here you go: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/jesusgd2.htm

We should treat anything in the New Testament written about Jesus as if Jesus said it himself? I don't think so.

Once again, I asked where in the Bible did Jesus make those claims. I did not ask where someone else made statements long those lines.

Let's make it simpler.

Where did Jesus claim to be "the ruler of heaven and earth"?

Here is a copy of a post I made on another forum:

If there is anyone here genuinely interested in seeing Islam dissected look here:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apo ... /index.htm

"Fear not; I am the first and the last:" Revelation 1:17

"Son, thy sins be forgiven thee." Mark 2:5

I and my Father are one. John 10:30

Jesus saith...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? John 14:9

[A]ll men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. John 5:23

But unto the Son he [God] saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Hebrews 1:8

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 8:58

In which of those did he claim to be the ruler of heaven and earth?

Since he says that he is god, he is the ruler of earth and heaven.

You are making an inference.

If you read Genesis 1 carefully, you will see it says "let us make man in our image." The members of the Trinity worked together. Same "blood line", same essence of being, same character qualities, but different persons. That is why I used the analogy of the Royal Family. The prince is just as much royalty as the king. This carries through many of the other Scriptures where the Father speaks of one day exalting the Son and making him ruler over all. The Father "stayed home" in Heaven, and the Son went forth into the land as an ambassador to the people and became like them in order to communicate with them better and restore their relationship to the royal family. The Holy Spirit is like the authority of the royal family. It is all powerful, is part of the essence of royalty, is in agreement with the royalty, and "does the work", but is not tangible.

A couple of things, here.

First, I don't think Jesus ever claimed to be "ruler of Heaven and earth" specifically (don't have time to read through all the Gospels right now), even though he did equate himself with God. He would never have claimed to have authority OVER his father, which would have been implied had he said he was "ruler of Heaven and earth."

Second, why does this particular phrase matter? Jesus equated himself with God, which white as snow made clear through the quotes. Also, his miracles showed that he had power over the natural world, and his temptation in the desert showed his power over Satan. One particular miracle, when he healed the paralyzed man who had been let down through the ceiling, was done to show that he had the power to forgive sins.

From Luke 5:

"21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, “Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 22 When Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answered them, “Why do you question in your hearts? 23 Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 24 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the man who was paralyzed—“I say to you, rise, pick up your bed and go home.” 25 And immediately he rose up before them and picked up what he had been lying on and went home, glorifying God."

Jesus' miracles showed he had authority over both the natural and supernatural/spiritual realms.

As you don't seem to have tackled any of the links given, here's just one bit of concrete evidence from them.

At several points, particularly in Deuteronomy, the writer makes references to towns, events, and other things that occurred long after Moses' time.



I hoped I was quite clear in talking about the scholars who were in agreement, not lay people attending Bible study, and not pastors, ministers, priests etc, but scholars, people whose life's work is the study and discovery of history.

Oh... and as an aside, the theology I studied was under a Presbyterian tutor in 1975 - very conservative. And as I also said, the discussion has changed a lot since then but I have tried to stay current on it.



That's ok. I'll bow out with you too. It's not the sort of thing anyone can get a full picture of overnight. And in a forum like this, it is difficult to do justice to something that took me months of study on this one topic.

Cheers

What would be interesting, in my estimation, is the ultimate result of any inquiry determining why Trinitarian Christianity, out of all the other Christian theologies, pantheistic religions, etc. of the time and thereafter, was able to acquire such a foothold in the hearts of the majority of European-descended people--and to continue this foothold 2,000 years later!

How this itinerant preacher, out of all the itinerant preachers of his time, was able to instigate this Juggernaut known as Christianity!

Christianity must have been doing something right! Forceful compulsion in Medieval days is not the only answer.

Note: I'm an agnostic/atheist.