Prophet Muhammad vs Jesus Christ

Post Reply New Topic

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.

So we want to talk authenticity?

In Mark 12, Jesus speaks of the Torah (or the Pentateuch, the first 5 books of the Bible) as the book of Moses, the commonly accepted belief at the time (and for centuries afterwards).

Scholars now believe those books were compiled together from several sources. For example, there are two creation stories, side by side.

The first, Gen 1-Gen 2:4 has an order, with man being created last (after creatures etc). Written by an author who used the word Elohim for God, it's believed to have been written to show God's orderliness (I'm keeping it simple for brevity here). The writer also uses references to the old Ptolemaic system, where the planets and stars are fixed in a firmament above the unmoving earth.

The second creation story is from Gen 2:4 on into the fall story. It starts with man being created first (before creatures etc), and is a more anthropomorphic view, with relationships being an important part of the narrative. This author uses Yahweh for God. There are other parts where these two authors appear together, such as in the story of Noah's ark.

It's important to note, they are not thrown together to contradict each other. In tribal days (the roots of these stories), spiritual truths trumped historical accuracy. Mythos was performance in which these stories were passed down around the fire at night to keep the demons away (brevity again).

These days, the theories about the authorship have caused many arguments, about who and how many, but the core of it is still agreed upon, that the books are a compilation from several authors, several sources.

I learned about this while studying theology as an 18 year old. At the time, understanding the (asserted) intention behind the authorship and behind the compilation, I had no problem with it and it didn't add any doubt in my faith. It made sense and in some regards strengthened the logic of it.

But over the decades since, this knowledge has become a wedge against other issues. For example, why would Jesus refer to the Torah as Moses' work? He seemed well used to arguing with the priests in the synagog. He wouldn't just go along with what they believed for the sake of it.

I had this passage pointed out to me by a pentecostal pastor. He used it in support of Moses authorship, when all it did for me was add to my skepticism regarding Jesus. Curiously, it's generally reported that only fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Christians support Moses authorship.

My favourite Bible is the original Jerusalem Bible (as use in Catholic theology), owing to its use of original wording, such as using Elohim and Yahweh where they are used, instead of simplifying them to "God" like other Bibles do.

All of your "proof" is derived from one source - a collection of stories written by men to support their Patriarchy.

This Patriarchy has used the same book to support slavery, the oppression of women, and conquest by genocide for centuries. These also happen to be the same principles that America was founded upon.

If you want to cite books of legends as "proof" of your beliefs, then why not cite the Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, Manusmṛti, and Agamas?

Likely because, like many others, you believe only what you want to believe, and only because you were told to believe it.

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.

True and sadly enough many folks don't understand what faith even is.

Faith is not A requirement to believe that Jesus is the only Son of GOD OR WAS RESURRECTED FROM THE DEAD, AS fundamentalist modern so-called Christians STILL, NOW, AND FOR MANY CENTURIES MANIPULATE FOLKS in the 'herd of sheep' TO BELIEVE FOR SELFISH PSYCHOPATHIC LEANING GREED.

Faith is KNOWING DEEP DOWN WITH HUMAN EMOTION TO POWER HUMAN ACTION IN REAL LIFE that one can heal themselves and has relative free will with GOD aka Mother Nature True in this life, NOW.

The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, no matter who wrote it rings true to me in this sense..

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm

As I know that GOD exists on the beach without human beings at all.

And a Seagull makes his or her way in life based on FAITH OF LIVING LIFE NOW TO NOW WITH GOD ALLONE.

SO YEAH, I AM A 'seagull' too, AND I 'CRAP' on mis-truths when I see them.

But other 'SEAGULLS JUST' live with GOD, AND they truly are the 'SMART SEAGULLS' OF LIFE.

Thank you.

You are much more eloquent than I, and you've expressed these appropriate facts in plain and simple English - no convoluted word salads, and no Ad Hominem attacks.

Thanks again!

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

On top of that, Christianity had been a persecuted faith in the Roman Empire. It makes absolutely no sense for the Romans to try to destroy their own invention, if they indeed had invented it. On top of that, we know that Christianity had predated the reigns of Vespasian and Titus, as The Emperor Claudius (who was prejudiced against eastern "cults") had been so alarmed about reports of a resurrection in Judea, that he had made grave robbing in that province punishable by death. While the Emperor Nero, seeing popular discontent directed against him after the great fire in Rome, put the blame on the Christians, and ardently persecuted them.

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.

Be that as it may, I personally give Judaism dibs on the OT.

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.

Thanks.

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

In both those cases, you had to have had some sort of origin that inspired those beliefs. I admit I know next to nothing about Krishna, but with Odin, there might have been a prehistoric Germanic war leader who had inspired Odin/Wodan in later Northern religion, equating him with the much older Indo-European deity of the wind who also led the souls of the dead to the next life.