Prophet Muhammad vs Jesus Christ

Post Reply New Topic

Though Jesus' crucifixion has not been proven, there is nothing to disprove His existence nor His death by this means.

Crucifixion would have been considered a proper form of execution for rebellion, according to Roman law. Pilate's reasoning would have been also appropriate....if He was not rebelling or teaching revolution against Roman rule, the Romans would have cared less about religious spats within a conquered people.....and would have no reason for the time, effort, and expense of a public execution.

The biblical account of His death shows that it was desired by only corrupt religious leaders....no one else was threatened by His teaching.

To the masses, He was just one more itinerant street preacher/ rebbe.

Belief in His Resurrection is a choice, as is acceptance of His teachings as coming from One who was more than human.

Belief that a bit of wood came from His cross has nothing to do with His existence, teaching, or who He was or is.

The Shroud of Turin is inconsistent with the teaching of no image being worshipped or revered.

Though Jesus' crucifixion has not been proven, there is nothing to disprove His existence nor His death by this means.

Crucifixion would have been considered a proper form of execution for rebellion, according to Roman law. Pilate's reasoning would have been also appropriate....if He was not rebelling or teaching revolution against Roman rule, the Romans would have cared less about religious spats within a conquered people.....and would have no reason for the time, effort, and expense of a public execution.

The biblical account of His death shows that it was desired by only corrupt religious leaders....no one else was threatened by His teaching.

To the masses, He was just one more itinerant street preacher/ rebbe.

Belief in His Resurrection is a choice, as is acceptance of His teachings as coming from One who was more than human.

Belief that a bit of wood came from His cross has nothing to do with His existence, teaching, or who He was or is.

The Shroud of Turin is inconsistent with the teaching of no image being worshipped or revered.

And it lives in the blanket that you carry in the crook of your arm that has the thumb that you suck on the end of it. Right??

I have to read up on much of what you said before commenting. But...

Your claim that the Romans invented these stories to enslave the Jews makes no sense. Why would the Romans create a character that many Jews believed would overthrow Roman rule (though they misunderstood the purpose of the Messiah's coming)? Also, the Romans would not know or understand the Jewish scriptures enough to create a character that fulfilled so many Old Testament prophecies. If Romans created these stories, why were Christians later killed for believing them? How does it enslave a people to teach them about freedom? Jesus said that true freedom was found in him.

Now for your theological questions...

Jesus fulfilled ALL the Old Testament sacrificial laws in one act. He is both the Passover Lamb and the Atoning Sacrifice in one.

The Atoning Sacrifice in the O.T. was what temporarily satisfied the need for forgiveness of sin. That is why it had to be repeated. The sacrifice of an animal was a foreshadowing of the perfect sacrifice to come. Jesus was the perfect Atoning Sacrifice because he was human, yet sinless. In his perfection, he was able to be a suitable sacrifice. In his humanness, he was the perfect substitution so the sacrifice no longer had to be repeated.

The idea of him being the Passover Lamb is that the blood over the door frames of the houses told which houses were protected from the Angel of Death. This also was a foreshadowing of what was to come. It is about faith. The Hebrews in the O.T. story demonstrated faith in that they believed that putting the blood on their door frames would protect their family. Those who put their faith in Jesus are spiritually putting Jesus' blood on the door frames of their souls, so that when the day of Judgment comes, death will pass over them. Those who put their faith in Jesus Christ are promised eternal life.

You also misunderstand the doctrine of the Trinity. I do know it is hard to explain, but the best way I can describe it is a royal family. A Prince, though not the King, is still to be venerated. If a Prince is sent as a messenger to another country, it might as well be the King. Two separate people, two different roles, same family, same respect due, same kind of authority when it comes to dealing with the subjects of the kingdom. It is not treason to venerate the Prince because exalting the Prince is the same as exalting the King - one would be exalting the same family.

It's not a fair comparison to be honest, Jesus was supposedly a son of god, a divine creature, hence why he could be super nice and accept slaps without remorse, while Mohammad was supposedly to be a human.

Jesus was more of a spiritual guru and freethinker back then, while Mohammad was a war-leader with supposedly a divine message.

Now, if you compare ALLAH to the Christian God/Yahweh, they're both horrible beings.

If you really want to fairly compare Mohammad to a Christian figure, then compare him to David, the insane king who supposedly exterminated the Canaanite children because some god told him so.

I thought Judaism has more of a claim on David than Christianity.

Christianity started as a liberal cult born from Judaism (and from Jewish society) and the Old Testament is still a significant part of this religion.

Other than the name Koresh, was there any connection between Teed and David Koresh?

Not as far as I know. The Branch Davidians were a schismatic group of Davidian Seventh-day Adventists, which itself is a schismatic group of the Seventh-day Adventist church.

Teed's 'Koreshanity' is rooted in Christianity, but not specifically in Adventist Christianity.

The name Koresh itself... Koresh is the Hebrew version of the name Cyrus, referring to Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who is named a Messiah for freeing Jews during the Babylonian Captivity.

There were also in fact first century accounts by Roman historians like Tacitus and Seutonius who wrote of how the early Christians were persecuted by both Roman and Jewish society. Kind of hard to have Christians without the founder Christ.

So you cannot have Odinists without Odin, and Hare Krishna without Krishna?

Well they have wrong. Jesus died as a virgin.

are you mocking my faith? christians and muslims don' t tolerate that. why should I?

Eric I think that's a point pretty much everyone here can agree on. Scientology is a whole level of insane that I cannot understand.