Is Christ superior to other Prophets/Founders

[loverofhumanity]

That's not what I said, but yes, there is a reliable method for determining which statements deserve to be called knowledge by the definition provided, and which statements should not be considered that. What I was commenting on is the loose use of the word truth by the faithful, who use it to describe whatever they believe including many unfalsifiable religious claims believed by faith.

Their teachings don't map onto one another well except with a few principles that are not the product of any religion, although religions might teach them. The names of the days of the week are not names for the sun, and they are not mistaken for it, either. Humanism shares many of the principles of the religions, but those ideas don't come from them. They come from the same place the religious got them - human nature as shaped by evolution.

Humanism has some very good principles which I agree with but I believe that they initially came from God and religion but those who did not accept God rebranded them for their own.

Moreover, if you reflect justly, you will see that these good actions of other men who do not know God are also fundamentally caused by the teachings of God . . . When men saw that these actions were considered beautiful, and became the cause of joy and happiness for mankind, they conformed to them. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá

 

[Brian2]

Self serving Christian church nonsense. The Jews did not have 'different expectations'. They literally wrote the book on the subject of Messianic prophesy - presumably as inspired to them by the same god you worship. To claim that they somehow got it all wrong is to impugn that same god. But of course, for Paul and the early church to sell their new, invented snake oil - they had to convince their ignorant pagan victims to not look at the OT too closely, but to simply focus on that carrot dangled before them - the bribe of heaven. Ask any Jewish scholar - other than disaffected Jews for Jesus - why they rejected Jesus, and the answer comes directly from the eschatology that did not exist in Judaism until 200 BCE. The concept of a Messiah did not even exist until that time. It steadily gained steam, which is why the 1st century was the heyday of bogus Messiah claimants - Jesus being yet another. All were rejected because they did not fulfill the actual prophesies that the experts that wrote book knew were required.

The Messiah - Key beliefs in Judaism - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - AQA - BBC Bitesize

Learn about and revise key Jewish beliefs with BBC Bitesize Religious Studies - AQA.

www.bbc.co.uk

There is a reason not a single word was written about this Jesus until 2 full decades later. The church needed that time to cherry pick scriptures and pretend they were Messianic - and then squeeze a long dead Jesus into them. It's fraud, pure and simple. And the result? A multi trillion dollar business.

No, God gave the Jews the book and the Jews did not get it, according to what God said in the book.

So why do you say that Messiah concept did not start until about 200 BC but the Messianic prophecies the Jews and we all use come from a time a long time before that?

Read the NT and you will see that it writes about fulfilled prophecy being used right from the beginning.
But if you say it is all a lie, then that is your position despite what the Bible tells us happened.

 

[Firenze]

No, God gave the Jews the book and the Jews did not get it, according to what God said in the book.

So why do you say that Messiah concept did not start until about 200 BC but the Messianic prophecies the Jews and we all use come from a time a long time before that?

Read the NT and you will see that it writes about fulfilled prophecy being used right from the beginning.
But if you say it is all a lie, then that is your position despite what the Bible tells us happened.

No god ever gave the Jews anything. Humans invented the OT. That can be readily discerned by the barbaric, befuddled, jealous, and petty nature of their god. Like humans, like god.
History shows that the Jews weren't even thinking about a Messiah (big M) outside of all the kings who messiahs (little m) - until the Messianic era - 200 BCE. That's when they looked at their OT and came up with the attributes provided in the link. Those attributes held until the gospel authors - again, not bothering to write a single word about this "Greatest Story ever Told" until decades later. How bizarre is that fact? If you honestly believed you had seen the Living God crucified and resurrected - how many nanoseconds would it take you to start committing the salvation of the world story to paper and spreading the Good News? As I said, it took the church decades to come up with a cool story to sell to the ignorant pagans.

My position relies on what the bible doesn't tell us that the church made up. There's no virgin birth as an attribute of the Messiah - until the gospel authors pretended Isaiah 7:14 was Messianic. It wasn't. But it was cool story, bro. Virgin births were something pagans were used to. And since they were ignorant of Jewish eschatology, they were easy marks. So here we are, 2 millennia later, with a religion that piggy backed off of Judaism, and is fully reliant apologetics so save them from the frauds, redactions, interpolations, contradictions, illogic, and outright lies they swallowed. Religion truly presents as the opiate of a people desperate for that promise of eating grandmas cookies up in heaven.

 

[Brian2]

No god ever gave the Jews anything. Humans invented the OT. That can be readily discerned by the barbaric, befuddled, jealous, and petty nature of their god. Like humans, like god.
History shows that the Jews weren't even thinking about a Messiah (big M) outside of all the kings who messiahs (little m) - until the Messianic era - 200 BCE. That's when they looked at their OT and came up with the attributes provided in the link. Those attributes held until the gospel authors - again, not bothering to write a single word about this "Greatest Story ever Told" until decades later. How bizarre is that fact? If you honestly believed you had seen the Living God crucified and resurrected - how many nanoseconds would it take you to start committing the salvation of the world story to paper and spreading the Good News? As I said, it took the church decades to come up with a cool story to sell to the ignorant pagans.

My position relies on what the bible doesn't tell us that the church made up. There's no virgin birth as an attribute of the Messiah - until the gospel authors pretended Isaiah 7:14 was Messianic. It wasn't. But it was cool story, bro. Virgin births were something pagans were used to. And since they were ignorant of Jewish eschatology, they were easy marks. So here we are, 2 millennia later, with a religion that piggy backed off of Judaism, and is fully reliant apologetics so save them from the frauds, redactions, interpolations, contradictions, illogic, and outright lies they swallowed. Religion truly presents as the opiate of a people desperate for that promise of eating grandmas cookies up in heaven.

I think the easiest explanation for Matthew's "virgin birth" is that Matthew did indeed write his gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic as Church history records and that the translator translated Matthew's accurate rendering of Isa 7:14 to mean a virgin birth. This would be because the gospel story (even without Matthew's Isa 7:14 quote, does tell us that Mary was a virgin, and almah of Isa 7:14 it seems can refer to a virgin.
So the Greek translation ended up as "virgin".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My bottom line, I try to ask lots of questions and I'm very careful about spouting off about what's "The Truth". How about you?

I am also careful about what I call correct, although I try to avoid the word truth because it causes some to begin discussing absolute or objective truth, as if what we have isn't enough or is somehow inferior to the "truths" we learn from experience. I don't call an idea correct unless it is demonstrably so and can be used to predict outcomes. Thus, the correct directions to get somewhere are the ones that get you there. This is sometimes called the correspondence theory of truth: "the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes that world."

Humanism has some very good principles which I agree with but I believe that they initially came from God and religion but those who did not accept God rebranded them for their own.

Humanism is a rejection of those religions and the principle upon which they are based - faith in gods and dogma. The two pillars of humanism are that knowledge comes from reason applied to evidence, and moral values from the application of reason to the intuitions of the conscience. Neither of those principles come from the Abrahamic religions, which contradict both of them when they call faith and obedience to scripture virtues.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I am also careful about what I call correct, although I try to avoid the word truth because it causes some to begin discussing absolute or objective truth, as if what we have isn't enough or is somehow inferior to the "truths" we learn from experience. I don't call an idea correct unless it is demonstrably so and can be used to predict outcomes. Thus, the correct directions to get somewhere are the ones that get you there. This is sometimes called the correspondence theory of truth: "the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes that world."

This entire adventure into "TRUTH" began w/ post #217 when PearlSeeker said...

Baha'is say they regard all prophets as equal. But when we look closer this doesn't appear to be true. Baha'is believe that only they understand their Messenger correctly (other religions corrupted God's message) and only their Messenger understands all other Messengers and scriptures correctly. This reinterpretation of others and belief in superiority is not much different from Christianity.​

​

Christians reinterpreted only the Jewish prophets. At least they admit that messengers (originators) of other (non-Jewish) religions had their own teaching that is different despite some common ground.​

​

PS: Nice to see you're still here.​

It's my take that his post had nothing to do w/ falsibiabiliy, it was just his rant.

 

[Firenze]

I think the easiest explanation for Matthew's "virgin birth" is that Matthew did indeed write his gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic as Church history records and that the translator translated Matthew's accurate rendering of Isa 7:14 to mean a virgin birth. This would be because the gospel story (even without Matthew's Isa 7:14 quote, does tell us that Mary was a virgin, and almah of Isa 7:14 it seems can refer to a virgin.
So the Greek translation ended up as "virgin".

No, almah is and has always meant a young woman of childbearing age. If Isaiah had meant to describe a virgin, he would have done what he and every other OT author did - use the actual word for virgin - bethulah. So the prophesy fails right there. But it gets worse. Jewish eschatology has never considered 7:14 to be Messianic. The reasons are clear. The plain reading of the story is that Isaiah prophesied that a young maiden - already with child - would birth him quite soon, and name him Immanuel. Before that soon to arrive son reached a certain age, God would vanquish the enemies of King Ahaz. So, within no more than 12 years - not centuries later. So - not a prophesy of some distant event. Also not a prophesy of a virgin birth. But it gets worse still.

The prophesy failed! King Ahaz got his butt whipped by his enemies.

So again, the lying gospel authors only pretended this was Messianic because virgin births were a common element of the pagan mythologies their victims grew up with. And the NT stating that Mary was a virgin is nothing more than an invented attribute, since it relies on a false translation. Some would call it outright fraud.....

 

[SDavis]

Can you show me texts that show Jesus Christ prior to the common era?

People are so focused on the human named Jesus and the name Jesus and not the spirit within the body. Knowing full well that the name Jesus is nowhere written in the Old Testament. Jesus isn't even a Hebrew name - there were no J's in the Hebrew alphabet.

Bible Gateway passage: John 8:56-59 - King James Version

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus...

www.biblegateway.com

Jesus said Abraham rejoice to see his day and he did _ Jesus also said before Abraham was I Am.
I Am is the English name for Yahweh -Jesus said himself he is Yahweh of the Old Testament.

Bible Gateway passage: John 20:28 - King James Version

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

www.biblegateway.com

Thomas said to him just before Jesus ascended into the air my Lord and my God.

Kiss the Son lest he be angry and you perish in the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little _ Psalms 2:12 ............... "THE" Lord said unto "MY" Lord sit thou at my right hand til I make thine enemies thy footstool _ Psalms 110:1

John 1:1-2 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the "Word was God." The same was in the beginning with God ..... All things were created by Him (3) .... And the word became flesh any dwelled among Us (14) ..... He came into his own and they received him not.
Old Testament verses stating THE WORD OF GOD CAME UNTO ME. The Word Came. Saying

Can you show me texts that show Jesus Christ prior to the common era?

 

[Brian2]

No, almah is and has always meant a young woman of childbearing age. If Isaiah had meant to describe a virgin, he would have done what he and every other OT author did - use the actual word for virgin - bethulah. So the prophesy fails right there. But it gets worse. Jewish eschatology has never considered 7:14 to be Messianic. The reasons are clear. The plain reading of the story is that Isaiah prophesied that a young maiden - already with child - would birth him quite soon, and name him Immanuel. Before that soon to arrive son reached a certain age, God would vanquish the enemies of King Ahaz. So, within no more than 12 years - not centuries later. So - not a prophesy of some distant event. Also not a prophesy of a virgin birth. But it gets worse still.

The prophesy failed! King Ahaz got his butt whipped by his enemies.

So again, the lying gospel authors only pretended this was Messianic because virgin births were a common element of the pagan mythologies their victims grew up with. And the NT stating that Mary was a virgin is nothing more than an invented attribute, since it relies on a false translation. Some would call it outright fraud.....

Mary was a young woman of child bearing age and according to the NT (even without Matthews Isa 7:14 prophecy) was a virgin who had a baby.
The Isa 7:14 prophecy was a double prophecy it seems. It is associated with the child of Isa 9 and the Jews do not see this child as divine (even if that can be seen in the prophecy) and they do not see the prophecy as Messianic even if that also can be seen in the prophecy.
With Isa 9 child as the Messiah and a knowledge that the Messiah was born to a virgin and a knowledge that almah can sometimes refer to a virgin, someone put 2 and 2 together and used the alternative translation of almah, virgin.
Isa 7 child can refer to the prophecy you indicate, thus giving one prophecy meaning and the Isa 7 child can be seen as the Messiah, thus giving the other prophecy meaning.
And as far as I know the prophecy surrounding events in Isaiah's day did not fail and also the 2nd alternative about the Messiah did not fail.
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name fmmanuel.8 15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria!”

No reason for Ahaz to go to Egypt for help when the Assyrians will come and defeat the foes of Ahaz anyway.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Jesus said himself he is Yahweh of the Old Testament..

No, he didn't.
If Jesus is G-d, then who was Jesus worshiping .. himself?

 

[Firenze]

Mary was a young woman of child bearing age and according to the NT (even without Matthews Isa 7:14 prophecy) was a virgin who had a baby.
The Isa 7:14 prophecy was a double prophecy it seems. It is associated with the child of Isa 9 and the Jews do not see this child as divine (even if that can be seen in the prophecy) and they do not see the prophecy as Messianic even if that also can be seen in the prophecy.
With Isa 9 child as the Messiah and a knowledge that the Messiah was born to a virgin and a knowledge that almah can sometimes refer to a virgin, someone put 2 and 2 together and used the alternative translation of almah, virgin.
Isa 7 child can refer to the prophecy you indicate, thus giving one prophecy meaning and the Isa 7 child can be seen as the Messiah, thus giving the other prophecy meaning.
And as far as I know the prophecy surrounding events in Isaiah's day did not fail and also the 2nd alternative about the Messiah did not fail.
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name fmmanuel.8 15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria!”

No reason for Ahaz to go to Egypt for help when the Assyrians will come and defeat the foes of Ahaz anyway.

The actual Hebrew text states "...the maid HAS CONCEIVED..." We know this by asking any Jewish scholar. It means Isaiah was talking about a soon to occur event - not something centuries in the future. Why did your church have to lie and mistranslate the tense?

This claim of a 'double prophesy' is a latter day invention - and quite an obvious one - of your church - necessary once the fraud of claiming 7:14 as Messianic was exposed. I'm sorry you've been duped. But you have 2 billion others, mostly ignorant of Jewish eschatology, that are in the same sinking boat. I get it. No one wants to face the fact that they have devoted a significant part of their lives to a scam. So, I can sympathize with your plight, but will not sit by while you repeat these lies. Unwittingly or otherwise.

 

[Brian2]

The actual Hebrew text states "...the maid HAS CONCEIVED..." We know this by asking any Jewish scholar. It means Isaiah was talking about a soon to occur event - not something centuries in the future. Why did your church have to lie and mistranslate the tense?

From the Tanach, this site: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15938?
Isa 7:14Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.
Once the connection is seen of the Isa 7:14 prophecy with the Isa 9 Messianic child prophecy, then the present tense of Isa 7:14 can be seen as the Prophetic Perfect Tense and translated accordingly with that context in mind. That is how I have seen that anyway and it is not a lie imo.

This claim of a 'double prophesy' is a latter day invention - and quite an obvious one - of your church - necessary once the fraud of claiming 7:14 as Messianic was exposed. I'm sorry you've been duped. But you have 2 billion others, mostly ignorant of Jewish eschatology, that are in the same sinking boat. I get it. No one wants to face the fact that they have devoted a significant part of their lives to a scam. So, I can sympathize with your plight, but will not sit by while you repeat these lies. Unwittingly or otherwise.

I have been reminded that with almah, the Septuagint translates it as "virgin", which is interesting, maybe the translators saw the connection with Isa 7 and Isa 9 and the reference to the divinity of the child in Isa 9 and the obvious Messianic nature of the Isa 9 prophecy. I hear the Septuagint was commonly used in Jesus day.
Double prophecy had to be thunk up I guess because the Jews had their interpretation of certain prophecies that are Messianic according to Christians and not according to the Jews.
I imagine, considering what I see as the obvious Messianic nature of some prophecies and their reference to Jesus and what happened to Him, that the whole thing was part of God's plan to blind many Jews to the truth of the Messiah. (see Isa 6:9 and Matt 13:13 etc)
Considering Isa 9, the child is said to sit on the throne of David forever. Sounds Messianic to me,,,,,,,,, and when we look at Isa 9:1 we can even see that the child could be from Galilee and be a great light (and not just another King of Judah).

 

[Firenze]

Yes, the Septuagint rendering of 'virgin' is a well known error. That's all. And Christianity has unwittingly run with it ever since. There simply are no prophecies that refer to Jesus. All there is are the fraudulent actions of the early church to quote mine OT prophesies whether they were Messianic or not and then squeeze Jesus into them.

I have led you to the water. It's always the Christians choice whether to drink the Truth or continue to live in a lie. Many will not. Such is the narcotic power of the bribe of heaven....

 

[SDavis]

No, he didn't.
If Jesus is G-d, then who was Jesus worshiping .. himself?

He said before Abraham was I Am John 8:12 through 59 __verses 56/57/58. Not that you read

'I Am Who I Am'? The Meaning of God's Name in Exodus | Biblical Mind

Confusion arises about the meaning of God's name translated “I am” and the related “Yahweh” when we read those terms through Western lenses.

hebraicthought.org

No he was not worshiping himself _ he was worshiping God our Father _ who is spirit and **no man** has seen.

Scriptures indicating more than one _ Let us make man in our image - man has become as one of us - THE Lord said unto MY Lord sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool - unto us a child is born unto us a son is given. And the government shall be upon his shoulders and his name shall be called wonderful, counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.
Why did Thomas call him my Lord my God? Why does John 1:1-2 said in the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
You know, I said all of this no point in saying it again even printing anything different.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No he was not worshiping himself _ he was worshiping God our Father _ who is spirit and **no man** has seen.

..so now we have "God the Father" who I claim is Yahweh, the one and only..
..and we have Jesus. That makes 2 identities that are God.

It is a major contradiction. G-d would not emphasise his Oneness as the first commandment,
and then "send himself" to worship himself. It is gobbldigook, in my opinion.

Why did Thomas call him my Lord my God? Why does John 1:1-2 said in the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
You know, I said all of this no point in saying it again even printing anything different.

Firstly, we don't know for sure who wrote these words..
..and secondly, we know that these texts were chosen by the Roman church, which evolved with a political hierarchy .. and still is to this day.

 

[SDavis]

..so now we have "God the Father" who I claim is Yahweh, the one and only..
..and we have Jesus. That makes 2 identities that are God.

It is a major contradiction. G-d would not emphasise his Oneness as the first commandment,
and then "send himself" to worship himself. It is gobbldigook, in my opinion.


Firstly, we don't know for sure who wrote these words..
..and secondly, we know that these texts were chosen by the Roman church, which evolved with a political hierarchy .. and still is to this day.

Each and everyone is a title to their own opinion.

And when he says he is the one and only God - he is speaking of false and idol gods that the people were worshiping. He is letting them know he is God of this Earth, he is the creator. And the first five books of the Old Testament supposedly was written by Moses _ the Book of Genesis 1:26 let "us" make man in "our" image and 3:22 man has become as one of "us"..... Isaiah is of the Old Testament unto us a child is born ...... David wrote much of his books of the Old Testament and wrote THE Lord said unto My Lord and he also wrote kiss the Son lest he be angry and his wrath is kindled but a little and you perish in the way. Indicating TWO LORDS _ the Lord and my Lord. And put focus on the anger and wrath of the Son.

But then those who will deny the Divinity of Christ such as those who practice Judaism or Islam or even Jehovah witnesses will always disagree - so it is.

 

[Trailblazer]

But then those who will deny the Divinity of Christ such as those who practice Judaism or Islam or even Jehovah witnesses will always disagree - so it is.

I do not deny that Christ had a divine nature, but I do not believe that Christ was God incarnate. I believe that Christ had a twofold nature, one nature divine and the other nature human. Thus in a very real sense He was both God and man, yet He was not God in the flesh because God is spirit.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 66

 

[YoursTrue]

Each and everyone is a title to their own opinion.

And when he says he is the one and only God - he is speaking of false and idol gods that the people were worshiping. He is letting them know he is God of this Earth, he is the creator. And the first five books of the Old Testament supposedly was written by Moses _ the Book of Genesis 1:26 let "us" make man in "our" image and 3:22 man has become as one of "us"..... Isaiah is of the Old Testament unto us a child is born ...... David wrote much of his books of the Old Testament and wrote THE Lord said unto My Lord and he also wrote kiss the Son lest he be angry and his wrath is kindled but a little and you perish in the way. Indicating TWO LORDS _ the Lord and my Lord. And put focus on the anger and wrath of the Son.

But then those who will deny the Divinity of Christ such as those who practice Judaism or Islam or even Jehovah witnesses will always disagree - so it is.

Colossians 1:19 - KJV - For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

 

[Muffled]

Now how do we decide it. We could have had a duel if we lived in the same city or country. We can abuse or curse each other, but that will not be civil. Actually Krishna is not a historical person. Krishna is a myth, and Hindus ascribe words of wisdom to such figure, Krishna, Rama, VedaVyasa, etc. Since Hinduism is an indigenous pagan religion, not established by any one person, and one of the oldest religions (was there when the Aryans came to India around 2000 BCE).

I believe we do not decide it. I can see the truth in the Bible but that does not mean that you will be able to see it. However the information that people are not reborn into animals comes from the Holy Spirit and that means a person had to have accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior and even then not all people hear the Holy Spirit the same way and some adhere to wayward spirits thinking it is the Holy Spirit.

I don't believe in duels. That would resolve nothing. I would still believe what I believe and you would still believe what you believe.

BTW i believe the fact that something is older does not mean that it is more likely to be true. A flat earth is an older belief than an oval earth. (The earth is not round.)

 

[Muffled]

I do not deny that Christ had a divine nature, but I do not believe that Christ was God incarnate. I believe that Christ had a twofold nature, one nature divine and the other nature human. Thus in a very real sense He was both God and man, yet He was not God in the flesh because God is spirit.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 66

A spirit is in the flesh so there is no reason that the Spirit of God can't be in the flesh.