Couldn't have said it better myself...

[mikkel_the_dane]

Was Moses, peace be with him, a false prophet too?


It's all down to interpretation.
How could a person who rejects Jesus be rightly guided?
Rejecting prophets who have evident authority, means turning away from truth.

The disciples believed that Jesus is the Messiah. They didn't stop being Jewish.
Christianity became what it is, through a series of ecumenical councils. "Jewish Christians" were not invited.

I have evident authority, because I say so, because my interpretation is correct for the world. That is how that works and thus you are going to Hell, right?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I have evident authority, because I say so..

..except that you do not have any authority from God.

Jewish prophets did have, and there were evident signs that they were who they said they were.

One has to examine history to ascertain what happened in the case of Jesus.
Early on, Christians were persecuted along with other Jews, by the Romans.
Eventually, Christianity was adopted by the Romans and became a separate entity, while its Jewish roots continued to be persecuted.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

..except that you do not have any authority from God.

Jewish prophets did have, and there were evident signs that they were who they said they were.

One has to examine history to ascertain what happened in the case of Jesus.
Early on, Christians were persecuted along with other Jews, by the Romans.
Eventually, Christianity was adopted by the Romans and became a separate entity, while its Jewish roots continued to be persecuted.

You are in denial. I have authority from God in my interpretation as it is the truth for all of the world. Don't you get? You are so wrong and I have evidence for that! That can't be doubted by you, because you are wrong and that is a fact.

 

[Brian2]

What Mohammad is for Christians, Jesus is the same for Jews.

Don't forget Baha'u'llah.
There are many false prophets and false Christs and those you claim to be Christ have to wrongly use prophecies in the Bible and say those prophecies apply to them. And Muhammad did not claim to be the return of Christ but he also wrongly claims the Bible prophesies of him. (interestingly both Baha'u'llah and Muhammad claim the same prophecy to be about them)
A false prophet actually speaks contrary to God's Word in the scriptures and both Muhammad and Baha'u'llah do that, claiming that the Bible is wrong.
Jesus did not do that with the OT scriptures.

 

[Brian2]

Was Moses, peace be with him, a false prophet too?

No.

It's all down to interpretation.
How could a person who rejects Jesus be rightly guided?
Rejecting prophets who have evident authority, means turning away from truth.

The disciples believed that Jesus is the Messiah. They didn't stop being Jewish.
Christianity became what it is, through a series of ecumenical councils.
"Jewish Christians" were not invited.

Muhammad rejected the Jesus of the Bible. In your words. How could he be rightly guided?
The Jews kept the name of Jewish.
The Jewish Christians were kicked out of Judaism and to this day Jesus is anathema in Judaism and many Jews don't even know He was a Jew and in Judaism you cannot accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and be a Jew also.
Weird isn't it. That fulfills OT prophecy about the Messiah being rejected by His people. When He come back they will look on the one they have pierced and mourn. (Zech 12:10)
The Church eventually became mainly Gentiles and the Gentile Christians who were not under the Mosaic Covenant but under the New Covenant of Jesus and continued on in that Covenant. (Jer 31:31)

 

[Brian2]

Jews disagree... Religions deny each other. So what? What makes one true and others not?

So to you the Bible is true because the Bible says so? And others are not true because the Bible says who denies it is false? This is circular reasoning fallacy.

I believe the Bible and that Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies of the coming Messiah who dies for the sins of the world. Muhammad denies this.
And yes the Bible does say that a prophet who denies the word of God is a false prophet. Muhammad denies that Jesus died for our sins.
I suppose you say that this prophecy is false and the prophecies about the death of Jesus are false and the gospel crucifixion death and Jesus prophesying His death and resurrection are false and that if I as a Christian would only deny what the Bible says I would not be falling into the fallacy of circular reasoning (not sure how I do that ) and I could join others in the true religion of Islam. But first I have to deny the Bible.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Don't forget Baha'u'llah.

For me all those who claim or are claimed to be prophets with out any evidence are forgettable.
With +/_ 7 million, Bahaollah is forgettable. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is followed by more people.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Muhammad rejected the Jesus of the Bible..

No, he didn't.
The Qur'an confirms that Jesus was born of a virgin, and is the Messiah.

The Jewish Christians were kicked out of Judaism..

That's not strictly true.
By the 4th. century, the established gentile church of the Roman Empire considered them heretics, along with Arians and so forth.

The Church eventually became mainly Gentiles and the Gentile Christians who were not under the Mosaic Covenant but under the New Covenant of Jesus and continued on in that Covenant. (Jer 31:31)

There was no new covenant. It was decided that circumcision was not to be made compulsory on entering the faith .. and it carried on from there.

At the time, most followers of Jesus (which historians refer to as Jewish Christians) were Jewish by birth and even converts would have considered the early Christians as a part of Judaism. According to scholars, the Jewish Christians affirmed every aspect of the then contemporary Second Temple Judaism with the addition of the belief that Jesus was the Messiah. Unless males were circumcised, they could not be God's People. The meeting was called to decide whether circumcision for gentile converts was requisite for community membership..
Council of Jerusalem - Wikipedia

 

[muhammad_isa]

I believe the Bible and that Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies of the coming Messiah who dies for the sins of the world. Muhammad denies this..

Yes. The Qur'an states that Jesus did not die on the cross, but it appeared so.
The Bible consists of many different texts, and relies on Paul in particular. Paul was not a disciple, and was a late convert.
Tales get passed on, and some people believed that he died and rose again, and amongst the Hellenist community, it was not difficult to attach significance to this. The Romans/Greeks already had similar pagan ideas, in any case.

..Jesus prophesying His death and resurrection are false..

It got distorted. Jesus prophesised that he would be put to death, and he would appear again.
Any person that believed he actually died, would presumably write "he would die and rise again", not thinking that he wasn't conveying what Jesus actually said.

..so what has happened here, is a religion that started off with the shema (first commandment), and Jesus being the promised Messiah, turned into a religion that revolves around the death and resurrection of a Jewish Messiah.

It is no surprise that a Jew would reject this in its entirety. It is a pagan concept.
Jewish–Christian gospels have been lost except for fragments, so there is considerable uncertainty as to the scriptures used by this group.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So Jesus is sent by God to turn the Jews from the wrong path they were on and they kill Him and you think that this is immoral. Who was immoral in your opinion?
If God then accepts this murder as a sacrifice for humanity's sin by Jesus, who is then being immoral?

I feel like I've thoroughly explained what I find immoral about it. Instead of actually addressing my points, you just keep quoting the Bible at me. And here we are at square one again, because all you are doing is repeating what you think the Bible says, instead of thinking through the points I'm making about your claims.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I suppose you say that this prophecy is false and the prophecies about the death of Jesus are false and the gospel crucifixion death and Jesus prophesying His death and resurrection are false and that if I as a Christian would only deny what the Bible says I would not be falling into the fallacy of circular reasoning (not sure how I do that ) and I could join others in the true religion of Islam. But first I have to deny the Bible.

No. It doesn't matter if you are denying or accepting something. It matters if your faith is reasonable or just blind faith (because the Bible/Church says so).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. It doesn't matter if you are denying or accepting something. It matters if your faith is reasonable or just blind faith (because the Bible/Church says so).

Well, I only have blind faith in the end, but that works for me as my personal truth and is reasonable to me.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Well, I only have blind faith in the end, but that works for me as my personal truth and is reasonable to me.

But then your faith is equally beleivable as the ones you don't believe. How is this reasonable?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But then your faith is equally beleivable as the ones you don't believe. How is this reasonable?

Because my blind faith works for me, where as other faiths don't. I still use reason, not just objective reason or even logic or evidence.

 

[InChrist]

View attachment 67675

According to the biblical perspective,
hell is not really about being good because all people fall short of God’s goodness and holiness. It’s about being separated from our Creator God for eternity and the suffering that will be because God is the only Source of love, joy, beauty, or anything which brings satisfaction...


“Many people have suffered the excruciating pain of being terribly burned in this life. By your reasoning, God is to blame for their suffering because He constituted the human body with nerves that could feel pain. Yet those nerves were designed to warn of disease or other destructive forces at work in the body, and thus to save life.

More than one leprous person in primitive societies has had part or all of a foot burned off by a campfire before noticing what was happening because he couldn’t feel the pain. Any doctor will tell you that pain is a marvel that helps to preserve the body—and that pain and life are so inextricably linked as to be inseparable. Pain sends a vital message that we need to heed.

The “fire” of hell and the “burning” torment of the doomed and damned are consistently likened to thirst. When we look at it in that way we come to a better understanding: that the suffering of hell exists not because of God’s desire to punish but because of His love. He loved man so much that He made him an eternal being capable of knowing Him and dwelling with Him forever. In His love, He so constituted man that fellowship with God is no mere option and thus of little enjoyment. No, it is vital to his very being and thus brings infinite pleasure and satisfaction.

If God made us to have fellowship with Him and to draw our life and purpose from His direction over us, then the moment we divorce any part of life from Him, whether it be knowledge or love, it becomes polluted and perverted, a caricature of what was intended. That fact is observable everywhere. Man may not experience the thirst for God in this life when he is surrounded with like-minded friends and the pleasures of this world. He is like a man in the Sahara desert who, early in the morning, refuses to take the water offered to him; but in the heat of the day, he is dying for lack of the water he earlier despised.

That the Bible likens separation from God’s life and fellowship to a burning thirst provides a metaphor that helps us to understand in some measure what both heaven and hell will be like. Following that analogy, we realize that hell’s suffering will be so excruciatingly painful for the very same reason that heaven will be SO exquisitely joyful. That is the way with thirst unquenched—or satisfied.

It is easy to understand that the person dying of thirst burns with torment for the same reason that a drink of cold water quenching one’s thirst tastes and feels so good. Our insight becomes even clearer when we remember that thirst burns and torments, and quenching that thirst soothes and exhilarates, because water is absolutely essential to life. In like manner, hell will feel so bad and heaven so good because the intimacy and fullness of God’s presence and love is as essential to our spiritual life as water is to our physical life.

Those in hell will burn with an unquenchable thirst for the love of God for which they were made and from which God never intended them to be separated. There is absolutely no quenching of this moral and spiritual thirst for those in hell because they have by their own choice cut themselves off from God for eternity.”

quoted from Dave Hunt

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

According to the biblical perspective,
hell is not really about being good because all people fall short of God’s goodness and holiness. It’s about being separated from our Creator God for eternity and the suffering that will be because God is the only Source of love, joy, beauty, or anything which brings satisfaction...


“Many people have suffered the excruciating pain of being terribly burned in this life. By your reasoning, God is to blame for their suffering because He constituted the human body with nerves that could feel pain. Yet those nerves were designed to warn of disease or other destructive forces at work in the body, and thus to save life.

More than one leprous person in primitive societies has had part or all of a foot burned off by a campfire before noticing what was happening because he couldn’t feel the pain. Any doctor will tell you that pain is a marvel that helps to preserve the body—and that pain and life are so inextricably linked as to be inseparable. Pain sends a vital message that we need to heed.

The “fire” of hell and the “burning” torment of the doomed and damned are consistently likened to thirst. When we look at it in that way we come to a better understanding: that the suffering of hell exists not because of God’s desire to punish but because of His love. He loved man so much that He made him an eternal being capable of knowing Him and dwelling with Him forever. In His love, He so constituted man that fellowship with God is no mere option and thus of little enjoyment. No, it is vital to his very being and thus brings infinite pleasure and satisfaction.

If God made us to have fellowship with Him and to draw our life and purpose from His direction over us, then the moment we divorce any part of life from Him, whether it be knowledge or love, it becomes polluted and perverted, a caricature of what was intended. That fact is observable everywhere. Man may not experience the thirst for God in this life when he is surrounded with like-minded friends and the pleasures of this world. He is like a man in the Sahara desert who, early in the morning, refuses to take the water offered to him; but in the heat of the day, he is dying for lack of the water he earlier despised.

That the Bible likens separation from God’s life and fellowship to a burning thirst provides a metaphor that helps us to understand in some measure what both heaven and hell will be like. Following that analogy, we realize that hell’s suffering will be so excruciatingly painful for the very same reason that heaven will be SO exquisitely joyful. That is the way with thirst unquenched—or satisfied.

It is easy to understand that the person dying of thirst burns with torment for the same reason that a drink of cold water quenching one’s thirst tastes and feels so good. Our insight becomes even clearer when we remember that thirst burns and torments, and quenching that thirst soothes and exhilarates, because water is absolutely essential to life. In like manner, hell will feel so bad and heaven so good because the intimacy and fullness of God’s presence and love is as essential to our spiritual life as water is to our physical life.

Those in hell will burn with an unquenchable thirst for the love of God for which they were made and from which God never intended them to be separated. There is absolutely no quenching of this moral and spiritual thirst for those in hell because they have by their own choice cut themselves off from God for eternity.”

quoted from Dave Hunt

Thanks for your input, but I'm sure you realize that for someone who simply does not believe in the existence of "God," the entire post is really quite meaningless.

 

[Brian2]

No, he didn't.
The Qur'an confirms that Jesus was born of a virgin, and is the Messiah.

There is more to the Jesus of the Bible than that.

That's not strictly true.
By the 4th. century, the established gentile church of the Roman Empire considered them heretics, along with Arians and so forth.

I suppose some Jewish Christians groups were insisting on being obeyers of the Law of Moses for Christians. They may have been considered heretics by Gentile Christians of the time but their true judgement comes from God.

There was no new covenant. It was decided that circumcision was not to be made compulsory on entering the faith .. and it carried on from there.

At the time, most followers of Jesus (which historians refer to as Jewish Christians) were Jewish by birth and even converts would have considered the early Christians as a part of Judaism. According to scholars, the Jewish Christians affirmed every aspect of the then contemporary Second Temple Judaism with the addition of the belief that Jesus was the Messiah. Unless males were circumcised, they could not be God's People. The meeting was called to decide whether circumcision for gentile converts was requisite for community membership..
Council of Jerusalem - Wikipedia

Read Acts 15, it was more than circumcision that was a problem.
Why do you say that there was no new covenant. The New Covenant is what is promised in the OT and it is what Jesus said His gospel was. (see Matt 26:28 for example, and the description of the New Covenant in the OT.)

 

[Brian2]

Yes. The Qur'an states that Jesus did not die on the cross, but it appeared so.
The Bible consists of many different texts, and relies on Paul in particular. Paul was not a disciple, and was a late convert.
Tales get passed on, and some people believed that he died and rose again, and amongst the Hellenist community, it was not difficult to attach significance to this. The Romans/Greeks already had similar pagan ideas, in any case.

Muhammad denies the gospel message that Jesus died for the sins of the humanity, and so he also denies the OT prophecies about this. This is a little thing for Muslims, but it is destroying the work of Jesus for all those who believe Muhammad.

It got distorted. Jesus prophesised that he would be put to death, and he would appear again.
Any person that believed he actually died, would presumably write "he would die and rise again", not thinking that he wasn't conveying what Jesus actually said.

..so what has happened here, is a religion that started off with the shema (first commandment), and Jesus being the promised Messiah, turned into a religion that revolves around the death and resurrection of a Jewish Messiah.

It is no surprise that a Jew would reject this in its entirety. It is a pagan concept.
Jewish–Christian gospels have been lost except for fragments, so there is considerable uncertainty as to the scriptures used by this group.

So the words of Jesus and what He did have been lost to the world except in the message of Muhammad who denies the gospel record of Jesus that has been passed on. But interestingly Jesus said that His words would be forever. (Matt 24:35)

 

[Brian2]

I feel like I've thoroughly explained what I find immoral about it. Instead of actually addressing my points, you just keep quoting the Bible at me. And here we are at square one again, because all you are doing is repeating what you think the Bible says, instead of thinking through the points I'm making about your claims.

You said it is immoral, I ask you why and you refuse to answer. OK

 

[Brian2]

No. It doesn't matter if you are denying or accepting something. It matters if your faith is reasonable or just blind faith (because the Bible/Church says so).

It is just blind faith because the Bible says it.
Does that mean that it is wrong?
Have you seen modern history books about the Bible and the gospel of Jesus and how it is all myth? How could my faith be anything but blind faith which goes against the wisdom of the world?
Do you have a faith? What is it? Is it a reasonable faith or blind faith?
Why?