Were Jesus and Muhammad insane?

[Cobol]

Yes please....
If you have any more, from the gospels...... I would like to see them.

He approved of slavery (or at least didn't object to it) and said that God is like a slave owner who beats his slaves and sells families to pay for debts. Luke 7:2-10, Luke 12:47, Mathew 18:23-25
Someday he'll fight against people with a sword sticking out of his mouth. Revelation 2:16, Revelation 19:15, 21
He threatens to kill children (with death). Revelation 2:23
He's going to kill billions of people with his sickle. Revelation 14:14-20
He unnecessarily killed 2000 pigs. Mathew 8:30-32, Mark 5:12-13, Luke 8:33
He killed a fig tree by cursing it. (Because it didn't have any fruit that he could eat.) Mathew 21:19, Mark 11:13-14
He didn't know much about Biology. Mark 4:31-32
He lied about prayer. Mathew 17:20, Mark 11:23-24, John 14:13-14, 15:7, 15:16, 16:23, Mathew 21:21-22, Luke 17:6
He said some stupid things. Mark 9:23, Luke 10:19, Luke 16:15, Luke 21:16-18, Luke 21:23, John 7:38, John 9:39, John 12:25
He talked complete nonsense about the end of the world. Mark 13:8, 24-25, Mathew 24:3-30, Luke 21:10-11
He said that everyone who lived before him was a thief and a robber. John 10:8
His neighbors rejected him. Mathew 13:55-57, Mark 6:3, John 6:42
Many that saw him up close and personal thought he was mad and possessed by a devil. John 10:20
His family didn't believe in him. John 7:5
His friends thought he was insane. Mark 3:21
He said that his true followers would cast out devils, speak in tongues, handle snakes, and drink poisons. Mark 16:17-18
He said that disbelievers will be tormented forever in hell. Mark 16:16
He dresses kind of funny. Revelation 1:13-16, Revelation 2:18, Revelation 19:12-16
He is the living dead with keys to hell and death. Revelation 1:13-16
He is not very tolerant, if he is not acknowledged. Mathew 10:32-33
He wouldn't let him disciple bury his father. Mathew 8:21-22
So much for the abolitionists, and the resistance movement in Nazi Germany. Mathew 5:38
He wasn't tolerant of not being acknowledged. Mathew 10:32-33, Mathew 12:30
He would not allow goodbyes to family. Luke 9:61-62
He said looking at another woman is adultery. Mathew 5:28

He should have been fully vetted before being selected as the messiah.

 

[oldbadger]

He approved of slavery (or at least didn't object to it) and said that God is like a slave owner who beats his slaves and sells families to pay for debts. Luke 7:2-10, Luke 12:47, Mathew 18:23-25
Someday he'll fight against people with a sword sticking out of his mouth. Revelation 2:16, Revelation 19:15, 21
He threatens to kill children (with death). Revelation 2:23
He's going to kill billions of people with his sickle. Revelation 14:14-20
He unnecessarily killed 2000 pigs. Mathew 8:30-32, Mark 5:12-13, Luke 8:33
He killed a fig tree by cursing it. (Because it didn't have any fruit that he could eat.) Mathew 21:19, Mark 11:13-14
He didn't know much about Biology. Mark 4:31-32
He lied about prayer. Mathew 17:20, Mark 11:23-24, John 14:13-14, 15:7, 15:16, 16:23, Mathew 21:21-22, Luke 17:6
He said some stupid things. Mark 9:23, Luke 10:19, Luke 16:15, Luke 21:16-18, Luke 21:23, John 7:38, John 9:39, John 12:25
He talked complete nonsense about the end of the world. Mark 13:8, 24-25, Mathew 24:3-30, Luke 21:10-11
He said that everyone who lived before him was a thief and a robber. John 10:8
His neighbors rejected him. Mathew 13:55-57, Mark 6:3, John 6:42
Many that saw him up close and personal thought he was mad and possessed by a devil. John 10:20
His family didn't believe in him. John 7:5
His friends thought he was insane. Mark 3:21
He said that his true followers would cast out devils, speak in tongues, handle snakes, and drink poisons. Mark 16:17-18
He said that disbelievers will be tormented forever in hell. Mark 16:16
He dresses kind of funny. Revelation 1:13-16, Revelation 2:18, Revelation 19:12-16
He is the living dead with keys to hell and death. Revelation 1:13-16

I'll do what i can to discover some more.

These are going to keep me involved for many days.
I thankyou.

 

[shmogie]

Jesus affirmed the punishment of killing children who curse their parents, this law was established in the Torah, and when Jesus came to the Jews he too made sure that it was still supposed to be followed:

Matthew 15: 1-9 :
Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


Here we see Jesus rebuking the Jews who were not following this command, that those who curse their parents should be killed, rather the Jews made up their own man made laws. As you can see, Jesus was very angry with them for not following this law, and brought it to their attention, it is very obvious that Jesus still believed in this law and believed in carrying it out.
Once again, he was not making an issue of the law. He was making an issue of the failure of of the pharisees to follow the law, their hypocrisy. You are trying to say he wanted them to kill their children. No where does he say this. His point was again, traditions superseding the law
Christians often like to claim that the Torah laws are no longer to be followed; these verses completely refute that notion. If Jesus wanted to abrogate the Torah law on the punishment of children cursing their parents, he could have easily ended that commandment right there and then, but rather what we see is that he is very angry that the Jews have not followed this rulin
So we must ask the Christians, why don’t they follow this law, and why don’t they ever tell us that Jesus believed in this law as well. It seems they are ashamed, and it also seems they are shy, and it also seems that they are so caught up in their own lies and inventions they created on Jesus that they can no longer escape it.

theology 101. The law was given to Israel as part of a covenant between THEY and God. Christ said this covenant (law) he came to fulfill, Fulfill means finish. He did so, on the cross when he said it is finished. Throughout the OT Israel had problems with the law, but they continually insisted they would keep it. Christ spent over three years dealing with Israel exclusively, they refused to accept him as the Messiah, to acknowledge their failures, repent. God then made a NEW convent with the Gentiles, based upon faith, as God originally gave Israel salvation. The law of the Torah never applied to gentiles, unless they converted or were in Israel. Christians are not under the Torah, but the new Covenant, The Apostles, direct followers of Christ knew this, read the rest of the NT, they make this so absolutely clear. The Gospels were written about Christ's ministry to the Jews, he referenced the Torah because they were hypocrites and liars in relationship to it ( not all Jews, but certainly the sanhedrin and pharisee's) Note the money changers in the Temple, The pharisee' accusing him of breaking the sabbath, numerous times, etc., etc. Individual parts of the law are irrelevant, he was addressing it in total as a principle that Israel wanted, couldn't keep, then were arrogant and dismissive about it. The Torah no longer applies.

 

[Cobol]

theology 101. The law was given to Israel as part of a covenant between THEY and God. Christ said this covenant (law) he came to fulfill, Fulfill means finish. He did so, on the cross when he said it is finished. Throughout the OT Israel had problems with the law, but they continually insisted they would keep it. Christ spent over three years dealing with Israel exclusively, they refused to accept him as the Messiah, to acknowledge their failures, repent. God then made a NEW convent with the Gentiles, based upon faith, as God originally gave Israel salvation. The law of the Torah never applied to gentiles, unless they converted or were in Israel. Christians are not under the Torah, but the new Covenant, The Apostles, direct followers of Christ knew this, read the rest of the NT, they make this so absolutely clear. The Gospels were written about Christ's ministry to the Jews, he referenced the Torah because they were hypocrites and liars in relationship to it ( not all Jews, but certainly the sanhedrin and pharisee's) Note the money changers in the Temple, The pharisee' accusing him of breaking the sabbath, numerous times, etc., etc. Individual parts of the law are irrelevant, he was addressing it in total as a principle that Israel wanted, couldn't keep, then were arrogant and dismissive about it. The Torah no longer applies.

How can god the father be pro-stoning and god the son anti-stoning, why is there confusion in heaven?

In Mathew 5:17 Jesus is speaking about the Old Testament principles and authority of rule and revelation. When Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law, meaning to bring to reality or carry out. He came to establish it and demonstrate how it pointed to Him and how He would live it perfectly.


Christianity does discredit itself by its own book and doctrine. It is full of falsehoods, absurdities, fabrications, corruptions, etc, etc, right there in the very same bible.

 

[shmogie]

How can god the father be pro-stoning and god the son anti-stoning, why is there confusion in heaven?

In Mathew 5:17 Jesus is speaking about the Old Testament principles and authority of rule and revelation. When Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law, meaning to bring to reality or carry out. He came to establish it and demonstrate how it pointed to Him and how He would live it perfectly.


Christianity does discredit itself by its own book and doctrine. It is full of falsehoods, absurdities, fabrications, corruptions, etc, etc, right there in the very same bible.

Your biased opinions and apparent anger has screened out your reason, and compelled you to attack Christians rather than LISTEN ! A covenant is an agreement, a contract, when the contract is fulfilled, it no longer exists. The Torah was a contract between Israel and God. If you go to Genesis you will find that initially there was no law for Israel as they came out of Egypt. THey were in harmony with God. At Sinai, they essentially demanded that they be given a set of laws, they were uncomfortable with simply living by faith. THey also told God that whatever they came up with, they could follow it. The law was given, and suddenly there was a separation between they and God, the law. They could never keep it, if they could there would have been no provisions for repentance and forgiveness. So then justice required they keep the law perfectly. This was what Christ was continually addressing, their failure, and arrogance in failure. HE kept the law perfectly IN THEIR AND OUR PLACE, thus meeting the demands of justice.
he died, the punishment for our breaking the law, he was resurrected as we will be, by faith. PERFECT JUSTICE AND PERFECT MERCY provided. It was all fulfilled at the cross. You seem really concerned about the harshness of the law, I understand that. However, remember it was given to people traveling in a hostile land in an environment where they had no time to play around with disobedience disrupting what they were trying to accomplish. Punishment was swift and sure, and I can tell you when it is, the deterrent value of the law is maximized and the need for punishment is minimized. They had no jails, no parole officers, no time to deal with people acting out.

 

[Cobol]

Your biased opinions and apparent anger has screened out your reason, and compelled you to attack Christians rather than LISTEN ! A covenant is an agreement, a contract, when the contract is fulfilled, it no longer exists. The Torah was a contract between Israel and God. If you go to Genesis you will find that initially there was no law for Israel as they came out of Egypt. THey were in harmony with God. At Sinai, they essentially demanded that they be given a set of laws, they were uncomfortable with simply living by faith. THey also told God that whatever they came up with, they could follow it. The law was given, and suddenly there was a separation between they and God, the law. They could never keep it, if they could there would have been no provisions for repentance and forgiveness. So then justice required they keep the law perfectly. This was what Christ was continually addressing, their failure, and arrogance in failure. HE kept the law perfectly IN THEIR AND OUR PLACE, thus meeting the demands of justice.
he died, the punishment for our breaking the law, he was resurrected as we will be, by faith. PERFECT JUSTICE AND PERFECT MERCY provided. It was all fulfilled at the cross. You seem really concerned about the harshness of the law, I understand that. However, remember it was given to people traveling in a hostile land in an environment where they had no time to play around with disobedience disrupting what they were trying to accomplish. Punishment was swift and sure, and I can tell you when it is, the deterrent value of the law is maximized and the need for punishment is minimized. They had no jails, no parole officers, no time to deal with people acting out.

In fact, if Jesus had contradicted any of the Father's principles, let alone such a well-established one, that very disagreement would have immediately disproved His claims to be the divine Son.
Even His enemies knew that He had to affirm capital punishment in order to prove Himself a true prophet. How strange, then, that those who claim to love Jesus assert that He did exactly what His enemies failed to trick Him into doing! Far from opposing capital punishment, Jesus actually advocated it, as His unity with the Father required. In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus taught, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." Just a few verses later, He extends the prohibition against murder to hatred and condemns haters to "the hell of fire" (v. 22), which is strange talk for someone who opposes capital punishment. It's difficult to dismiss these verses because they occur smack in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount.
If Jesus elsewhere opposes capital punishment, then He is not only contradicting the Father, but even His own words.
When the Romans come to arrest Jesus, Peter rather ineptly tries to defend Him by killing Malchus, but only succeeds in slicing off his ear. Jesus rebukes him with the warning, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." Far from advocating pacifism, as this passage is often misused to do, Jesus here teaches Peter that using the sword (for murder) will only get the sword used against him (for execution).
Shortly thereafter, Jesus tells Pilate in John 19:11, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above …." This authority to put Jesus to death would be odd if it didn't entail the general power to execute criminals. Finally, when He is dying by crucifixion, Jesus accepts the repentance of the thief on the cross, who says to his reviling companion, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds…" (Luke 23:40-41). Had Jesus disagreed with this statement, responding to it with the promise of eternal salvation was a rather obtuse way to express the correction.
Beyond all this evidence that Jesus affirms the consistent biblical principle of capital punishment, there is yet one more vital concept to grasp. Christians believe that Christ died on the cross to pay for the sins of us all. Although His sinlessness merited eternal life, He endured the death we deserved to extend that gift to us. If no crime deserves the death penalty, then it is hard to see why it was fitting that Christ be put to death for our sins…." If we didn't deserve the death penalty ourselves, then why would Christ need to suffer it on our behalf in order to satisfy the justice of God? Denying the death penalty directly assaults the justice of the Father—the One who required His own Son to pay precisely that price in our stead.

 

[Cobol]

A few words on Muhammad

Muhammad showed all the symptoms of his lunacy and his prophetic claim, based on the quicksand of grand delusion. But the irony is that the entire religion of Islam is based on the truth claim of such a man who could easily swing back and forth between the two extremes - reality and fantasy. Like the mythological Narcissus, he actually worshiped his own image - not God. He had created Allah in his own image and attributed to that God the qualities of his own self. He used Islam to pervade Muslim psyche, and possessed their mind. Islam is an extremely defenseless religion and hence vulnerable to collapse. There is not a single atom of truth in it to support. This religion, originated from the grand delusion of a malignant Narcissist. It is merely a hoax. It is like a house of cards - looks tall, big, mighty and gigantic but the base is weak.

 

[shmogie]

In fact, if Jesus had contradicted any of the Father's principles, let alone such a well-established one, that very disagreement would have immediately disproved His claims to be the divine Son.
Even His enemies knew that He had to affirm capital punishment in order to prove Himself a true prophet. How strange, then, that those who claim to love Jesus assert that He did exactly what His enemies failed to trick Him into doing! Far from opposing capital punishment, Jesus actually advocated it, as His unity with the Father required. In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus taught, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." Just a few verses later, He extends the prohibition against murder to hatred and condemns haters to "the hell of fire" (v. 22), which is strange talk for someone who opposes capital punishment. It's difficult to dismiss these verses because they occur smack in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount.
If Jesus elsewhere opposes capital punishment, then He is not only contradicting the Father, but even His own words.
When the Romans come to arrest Jesus, Peter rather ineptly tries to defend Him by killing Malchus, but only succeeds in slicing off his ear. Jesus rebukes him with the warning, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." Far from advocating pacifism, as this passage is often misused to do, Jesus here teaches Peter that using the sword (for murder) will only get the sword used against him (for execution).
Shortly thereafter, Jesus tells Pilate in John 19:11, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above …." This authority to put Jesus to death would be odd if it didn't entail the general power to execute criminals. Finally, when He is dying by crucifixion, Jesus accepts the repentance of the thief on the cross, who says to his reviling companion, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds…" (Luke 23:40-41). Had Jesus disagreed with this statement, responding to it with the promise of eternal salvation was a rather obtuse way to express the correction.
Beyond all this evidence that Jesus affirms the consistent biblical principle of capital punishment, there is yet one more vital concept to grasp. Christians believe that Christ died on the cross to pay for the sins of us all. Although His sinlessness merited eternal life, He endured the death we deserved to extend that gift to us. If no crime deserves the death penalty, then it is hard to see why it was fitting that Christ be put to death for our sins…." If we didn't deserve the death penalty ourselves, then why would Christ need to suffer it on our behalf in order to satisfy the justice of God? Denying the death penalty directly assaults the justice of the Father—the One who required His own Son to pay precisely that price in our stead.

Well, as a Christian, I support capital punishment, no inconsistencies there. Christ kept the law perfectly as an act of mercy for those who cannot, all of humanity. Of course, all of humanity deserves the death penalty, it is not just about acts, but a condition, depravity. Christ kept the law perfectly as the representative of humanity, he had the nature of Adam, not born in sin, exposed to sin, bathed in sin, undepraved, making a rational choice to obey, Paul says the first Adam brought sin into the world, the Second Adam (Christ) made a way of escape from it. Of course our sin DID require the death penalty, "the wages of sin is death". Christ imputed his perfect keeping of the law, and our penalty for breaking it, to all who accept these facts by faith. We have kept the law perfectly, and we were punished for our sins and sinful condition, through him, it has all been fulfilled. On the cross the thief sincerely repented of what he had done, and by faith accepted Christ as being who he said he was. The only way to be covered by the cloak of Christ and be saved, today. Perfect keeping of the law was required, it was done by Christ. The law demanded death for sin, it was accomplished through Christ. The old Covenant is done, the new Covenant of mercy now reigns. Perfect justice meets perfect mercy

 

[Muffled]

I personally don't think neither Jesus nor Muhammad ever existed, but if they did wouldn't they be considered lunatics or having a delusional disorder, or grandiose delusions that occur in people suffering from a wide range of psychiatric diseases, including schizophrenia. These patients are characterized by bizarre beliefs that one is omnipotent or powerful. These delusions typically are religious and supernatural.

So considering the preposterous things they said, wouldn't they be considered insane?

I believe they would be considered all kinds of things by fools.

 

[Muffled]

In modern days this would be the opinion of many and it would be much harder for prophets such as Yeshua عليه السلام and Muhammad عليه السلام to reach the masses with their teachings. And what's bizarre in belief that there is one source of everything?

I believe my wife thought I was certifiable but maybe that changed a bit after she encountered a demon.

 

[Muffled]

Grandiose delusions are typically religious and supernatural, if you do just a little bit of research you would know this.

I believe my delusions were never grandiose. In my fantasy life that was more the case but I didn't have any trouble separating reality from fantasy.