The Christiano-Islam Revelation Concept

[farouk]

Esther 2:5; 3:4,6, 10, 13; 4:3, 7, 13, 14, 16; 5:13; 6:10, 13; 8:1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17; 9:1-6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22-25, 27-31; 10:3

Peace to all
Tumah
I have been through your above verses and here is my findings.

Esther 2
5 Now in Shushan the capital there was an ish Yehudi, shmo Mordechai ben Yair ben Shim’i ben Kish, a Binyamini.
Esther 3
4Now it came to pass, when they spoke yom vayom unto him, and his was a lo shema (not listen) unto them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordechai’s behavior would be tolerated; for he had told them that hu Yehudi (he was a Jew).
6 And he scorned to lay hands on Mordechai alone; since they had told him the Am Mordechai; therefore Haman sought to make shmad of kol haYehudim that were throughout the kol Malkhut Achashverosh, even the Am Mordechai.
10 And HaMelech took his taba’at (signet ring) from his hand, and gave it unto Haman ben Hamdata the Agagi, the tzorer (vexer, harasser) of the Yehudim.
13 And the sefarim were sent by couriers into all the provinces of HaMelech, to make shmad, to kill, and to annihilate kol HaYehudim, both na’ar and zaken (young and old), little children and nashim, on yom echad (one day), even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to plunder their possessions.

As you can notice from the above verses no mention of the word Yahadut(Judaism)
All that we see is Yehudi(Jew) and Yehudim(Jews).As for the rest of your quoted verses there is definitely no mention of Yahadut(Judaism).Hence it is very clear that no evidence of the word Yahadut ever existed during the time of Jesus(PBBUH) as well.
Peace
Farouk

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I offer no lengthy explanations, only my opinion.

Judaism has legs to stand on and considerable manifestations to validate it.

Yes, I think the Jews agree with this ^

Christianity advances Judaism’s promises and prophecies. It stands on Judaism’s legs and many manifestations of its own validating its claims. Christianity does not need the Bible to make its case.

I doubt it Jews agree with this ^

Islam has neither legs nor manifestations and their lack of providing them in the here and now proves it. Virtually no one can take their scant and selective Scritural interpretations seriously.

G-d does not tell us who will be in heaven and who will not. Catholicism dares not do so either.

Well, I usually see the Jews say similar things about Christianity. I think the Jews view the Christian interpretation of Jewish Texts to match with their propaganda, which is to justify Jesus to be the Messiah.
Right Tumah?

 

[thau]

Before we discuss the rest of your post, would you mind providing a little more information about the red statements?

Well I guess I sort of must mind because I am under siege at work and at home so I presently cannot spend the time necessary. (Hence, ok to dismiss me and my comments.)

As far as I am informed, Christianity does not deny many or most of the Jewish Scripture's teachings or claims. We surely recognize G-d’s hand in the history of the Jewish people, and what I would call miracles, including the resurgence of a Jewish nation in the Holy Land two thousand years after the Diaspora, including the revival of a dead language, the reclamation of a wasteland and the holding off of 7 Arab armies on the day of its declared independence by a band of poorly equipped patriots. We recognize that Judaism is part of our Christian religion, there is no separating the two.

Christianity does not need the Bible to prove the divinity of Jesus or the G-d sanctioning of its teachings. The historical events, the signs and wonders that followed all take care of that beyond any doubt in my mind, and surely in the deposit of faith in the Catholic Church.

 

[Sleeppy]

I guess you would mind. Oh well.

Try repeating your question, and my question, to your Rabbi.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm not really sure I understand what you mean.
Thanks for the discussion.

We have early revelation...Abraham...how is that not revelation?.. And later revelation, Jesus, Mohamed...I simply don't understand what you're trying to debate...

 

[Tumah]

Esther 2:5; 3:4,6, 10, 13; 4:3, 7, 13, 14, 16; 5:13; 6:10, 13; 8:1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17; 9:1-6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22-25, 27-31; 10:3

Peace to all
Tumah
I have been through your above verses and here is my findings.

Esther 2
5 Now in Shushan the capital there was an ish Yehudi, shmo Mordechai ben Yair ben Shim’i ben Kish, a Binyamini.
Esther 3
4Now it came to pass, when they spoke yom vayom unto him, and his was a lo shema (not listen) unto them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordechai’s behavior would be tolerated; for he had told them that hu Yehudi (he was a Jew).
6 And he scorned to lay hands on Mordechai alone; since they had told him the Am Mordechai; therefore Haman sought to make shmad of kol haYehudim that were throughout the kol Malkhut Achashverosh, even the Am Mordechai.
10 And HaMelech took his taba’at (signet ring) from his hand, and gave it unto Haman ben Hamdata the Agagi, the tzorer (vexer, harasser) of the Yehudim.
13 And the sefarim were sent by couriers into all the provinces of HaMelech, to make shmad, to kill, and to annihilate kol HaYehudim, both na’ar and zaken (young and old), little children and nashim, on yom echad (one day), even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to plunder their possessions.

As you can notice from the above verses no mention of the word Yahadut(Judaism)
All that we see is Yehudi(Jew) and Yehudim(Jews).As for the rest of your quoted verses there is definitely no mention of Yahadut(Judaism).Hence it is very clear that no evidence of the word Yahadut ever existed during the time of Jesus(PBBUH) as well.
Peace
Farouk

I am sorry friend farouk, but your intelligence is way above anything I can ever hope to comprehend. Please excuse me for completely missing your point.

Well, I usually see the Jews say similar things about Christianity. I think the Jews view the Christian interpretation of Jewish Texts to match with their propaganda, which is to justify Jesus to be the Messiah.
Right Tumah?

I bow to your understanding. :bow:

Well I guess I sort of must mind because I am under siege at work and at home so I presently cannot spend the time necessary. (Hence, ok to dismiss me and my comments.)

As far as I am informed, Christianity does not deny many or most of the Jewish Scripture's teachings or claims. We surely recognize G-d’s hand in the history of the Jewish people, and what I would call miracles, including the resurgence of a Jewish nation in the Holy Land two thousand years after the Diaspora, including the revival of a dead language, the reclamation of a wasteland and the holding off of 7 Arab armies on the day of its declared independence by a band of poorly equipped patriots. We recognize that Judaism is part of our Christian religion, there is no separating the two.

Christianity does not need the Bible to prove the divinity of Jesus or the G-d sanctioning of its teachings. The historical events, the signs and wonders that followed all take care of that beyond any doubt in my mind, and surely in the deposit of faith in the Catholic Church.

I am under the impression that Muslims make similar claims to what you've stated here.

I won't expect a reply. I understand that you are swamped and this isn't really important.

Try repeating your question, and my question, to your Rabbi.

Thank you for your wise advice.
If only you could be so pragmatic when responding to my OP.

We have early revelation...Abraham...how is that not revelation?.. And later revelation, Jesus, Mohamed...I simply don't understand what you're trying to debate...

I think there is a difference between a revelation of G-d and (for lack of a better term, let's call it) G-d sending a new rule book. Balaam experienced a revelation of G-d. Technically he fits the description of prophet along the ranks of Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That is a revelation, when G-d reveals Himself to someone/s and gives them a personal command: bring your son as a sacrifice; don't go with those men to curse Israel; I will go down with you to Egypt. Those are all personal revelations.

Then there is the other form of revelation, when G-d gives the Torah. That did involve a mass revelation, that is true. But the purpose was to give the Law to Israel. That is not just a revelation, that is providing the framework for the nation to live under for all eternity.

This is what Jesus, Muhammad, Baha'ullah, Joseph Smith and all other later "prophets", try to do: establish a framework for the world to live under. This is not simply a personal revelation. It shouldn't be classed as such.

This is the type of revelation that I'm talking about here. A revelation that causes a structural change in one's communion with G-d. From Noah onward, everyone in the world is required to live within the structure of the 7 Noahide Laws. From Moses onward, Israel must add to that structure, another 606 Laws. Then Jesus comes and removes 612 of them. And adds the going through him in order to get to G-d. Then Muhammad comes, takes out going through Jesus and throws in a bunch of other Laws, more similar to the ones Moses brought. These are structural changes in the framework of communion. They are not simply revelations.

There is actually a third type I think, which was the nature of the prophets after Moses. But they didn't change the framework from Moses', they seem to mostly act in a more oracle-like capacity, or rebuked the nation, according to the personal revelation they had from G-d.

I realize that the title was misleading. I just wasn't sure what else to call it.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think there is a difference between a revelation of G-d and (for lack of a better term, let's call it) G-d sending a new rule book. Balaam experienced a revelation of G-d. Technically he fits the description of prophet along the ranks of Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That is a revelation, when G-d reveals Himself to someone/s and gives them a personal command: bring your son as a sacrifice; don't go with those men to curse Israel; I will go down with you to Egypt. Those are all personal revelations.

Then there is the other form of revelation, when G-d gives the Torah. That did involve a mass revelation, that is true. But the purpose was to give the Law to Israel. That is not just a revelation, that is providing the framework for the nation to live under for all eternity.

This is what Jesus, Muhammad, Baha'ullah, Joseph Smith and all other later "prophets", try to do: establish a framework for the world to live under. This is not simply a personal revelation. It shouldn't be classed as such.

This is the type of revelation that I'm talking about here. A revelation that causes a structural change in one's communion with G-d. From Noah onward, everyone in the world is required to live within the structure of the 7 Noahide Laws. From Moses onward, Israel must add to that structure, another 606 Laws. Then Jesus comes and removes 612 of them. And adds the going through him in order to get to G-d. Then Muhammad comes, takes out going through Jesus and throws in a bunch of other Laws, more similar to the ones Moses brought. These are structural changes in the framework of communion. They are not simply revelations.

There is actually a third type I think, which was the nature of the prophets after Moses. But they didn't change the framework from Moses', they seem to mostly act in a more oracle-like capacity, or rebuked the nation, according to the personal revelation they had from G-d.

I realize that the title was misleading. I just wasn't sure what else to call it.

Well.. I think there is some questionability in regards to the idea that Jesus was merely 'changing' the existing norm for Israel, evidenced by groups like the Essenes and of course the Sadducees mentioned in another thread, so the idea of one completely in agreement following of the Torah may not hold up in the face of historical analysis.
One example that comes to mind is John the Baptist...It was Jesus who was baptized, He obviously thought there was already validity in differing Jewish belief...in fact the different sort of baptism, is even clearly delineated by the fact that it was "John the Baptist", not 'Jesus the Baptist...(I believe baptism to be wholly symbolic)..in any case, we already see different Jewish beliefs in the time of Jesus, so how much Xianity is focused on the divinity of Jesus as opposed to 'changing' existing Torah law is somewhat up for argument, though obviously His teachings did so.

 

[Desert Snake]

Oh, btw, I'm arguing from the standpoint of a loosely accepted 'chrononlogy and format' of how Christianity arose, it's relation to Judaism etc., not necessarily my beliefs.

 

[Tumah]

Well.. I think there is some questionability in regards to the idea that Jesus was merely 'changing' the existing norm for Israel, evidenced by groups like the Essenes and of course the Sadducees mentioned in another thread, so the idea of one completely in agreement following of the Torah may not hold up in the face of historical analysis.
One example that comes to mind is John the Baptist...It was Jesus who was baptized, He obviously thought there was already validity in differing Jewish belief...in fact the different sort of baptism, is even clearly delineated by the fact that it was "John the Baptist", not 'Jesus the Baptist...(I believe baptism to be wholly symbolic)..in any case, we already see different Jewish beliefs in the time of Jesus, so how much Xianity is focused on the divinity of Jesus as opposed to 'changing' existing Torah law is somewhat up for argument, though obviously His teachings did so.

I hear what you're saying. But both the Essenes and the Saducees both adhered to Mosaic Law. Granted it was as they understood it. But the basis of these denominations was performance of the Mosaic Law. The Saducees didn't argue that we should eat pig and the Essenes definitely didn't. They still worked within the larger framework of the Mosaic Law.

But either Jesus or at least, the NT authors, attempt to put the Mosaic Law behind them and create a new framework based generally on two idea. The Golden Rule and Jesus. That is a pretty big departure from the framework of the various greater Jewish denominations.

Oh, btw, I'm arguing from the standpoint of a loosely accepted 'chrononlogy and format' of how Christianity arose, it's relation to Judaism etc., not necessarily my beliefs.

Oh, I wasn't sure what you are. I naturally assumed Christian, but you've been fairly objective in stating your point.

 

[Desert Snake]

I hear what you're saying. But both the Essenes and the Saducees both adhered to Mosaic Law. Granted it was as they understood it. But the basis of these denominations was performance of the Mosaic Law. The Saducees didn't argue that we should eat pig and the Essenes definitely didn't. They still worked within the larger framework of the Mosaic Law.

But either Jesus or at least, the NT authors, attempt to put the Mosaic Law behind them and create a new framework based generally on two idea. The Golden Rule and Jesus. That is a pretty big departure from the framework of the various greater Jewish denominations.

Yeah,I agree with that, in this context.

Oh, I wasn't sure what you are. I naturally assumed Christian, but you've been fairly objective in stating your point.

And, at the risk of presenting an uncommon or unorthodox view as well...better if other viewpoints are represented in the thread also, which, ..there have been.

 

[Desert Snake]

Oh, I wasn't sure what you are. I naturally assumed Christian, but you've been fairly objective in stating your point.

I do consider myself a Christian.. I don't think that label has to have some strict theological parameters, we are talking about scripture that can be interpreted in different ways, in my opinion.
Of course, some Christians might disagree, but that's nothing new.