why jews refuse jesus and Mohamed

[InvestigateTruth]

Uhm this is going off-topic the title clearly says ''Jews'' not ''Muslims'' but let us be the first give a example. In verse 34 we can clearly see those people were in doubt and did not know.

Now as for muslims why there cannot be someone else after him is simply because of Some authentic hadiths/traditions....

Yea, It may seem off-topic, but I believe it's for similar reason...basically depends how people want to interpret the Books and hadithes. so, i would give you the Baha'i view on this, as you gave the Moslem view.

Firstly, by appearance of Muhammad, both prophethood and messengerhood came to end....

There was a period of time in the history of human civilization, which God sent a number of guidance to humanity, which were called prophets and messengers. The known history of this starts from Adam and ends with the Seal of the prophets.
Now we are in a new age that humanity has advanced comparing to older ages. In this new age, God still sends guidance every about 1000 years, who are called Manifestations of God (for example Baha'u'llah).

There are just too many verses from Quran, Ahadith, Bible and even the non-Abrahamic religion scriptures that promises the appearance of a promised one.
For example Quran promises meeting with the Lord. Clearly God is invisible and always present, thus appearance of Lord means, the appearance of a Manifestation of God. Other verses of Quran that promises that God would still reveal Books, for example:

"And if all the trees on earth were pens and the Ocean (were ink), with seven Oceans behind it to add to its (supply) yet would not the Words of Allah be exhausted (in the writing): for Allah is Exalted in power, Full of Wisdom."
Quran 34:27

Clearly with Quran and Bible, the word of God cannot finish...
Moreover, there is no verse in Quran that says explicitly that God will not send another Book after Quran, unless by stretching some verses to interpret it that way.

So, I can just go on and on, and refer to hundreds and hundreds of verses from various Holy Books to show that how all religions somehow promise the appearance of a new guidance from God either explicitly or by alluding. But it would be off-topic and exhaustive.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

it not wise to say that what we chose is the best without compare first with another.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with judging a theological claim by its popularity. I suspect that more people believe in astrology than believe in Muhammad.

 

[F0uad]

Yea, It may seem off-topic, but I believe it's for similar reason...basically depends how people want to interpret the Books and hadithes. so, i would give you the Baha'i view on this, as you gave the Moslem view.

I am sorry but now i have to respond

Firstly, by appearance of Muhammad, both prophethood and messengerhood came to end....

So by this means there will be NOBODY after him not even 1000years.

There was a period of time in the history of human civilization, which God sent a number of guidance to humanity, which were called prophets and messengers. The known history of this starts from Adam and ends with the Seal of the prophets.
Now we are in a new age that humanity has advanced comparing to older ages. In this new age, God still sends guidance every about 1000 years, who are called Manifestations of God (for example Baha'u'llah).

Islamic teachings disagrees and counters the claim that God manifestates when it refutes the Christian claims and explaines that God is noting that we know off.

There are just too many verses from Quran, Ahadith, Bible and even the non-Abrahamic religion scriptures that promises the appearance of a promised one.
For example Quran promises meeting with the Lord. Clearly God is invisible and always present, thus appearance of Lord means, the appearance of a Manifestation of God. Other verses of Quran that promises that God would still reveal Books, for example

"And if all the trees on earth were pens and the Ocean (were ink), with seven Oceans behind it to add to its (supply) yet would not the Words of Allah be exhausted (in the writing): for Allah is Exalted in power, Full of Wisdom."
Quran 34:27

The verse is actually in Surah 31 and is mostly translated as this:

And if whatever trees upon the earth were pens and the sea [was ink], replenished thereafter by seven [more] seas, the words of Allah would not be exhausted. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

I don't see how this refers to a new revelation or scripture it actually tells us that God's word (the Quran) cannot be erased and will be protected by Allah(swt) if we would throw all the Quran's into the sea we still have it because its passed down generation after generation, the Quran is like glue that cannot be washed, burned or taken away. Like for example there are over 20/50 million hafiz's and the numbers only increased in time.

Clearly with Quran and Bible, the word of God cannot finish...
Moreover, there is no verse in Quran that says explicitly that God will not send another Book after Quran, unless by stretching some verses to interpret it that way.

Then i would ask what does a perfection of a religion mean? If its perfected there wouldn't need to come something else right?

So, I can just go on and on, and refer to hundreds and hundreds of verses from various Holy Books to show that how all religions somehow promise the appearance of a new guidance from God either explicitly or by alluding. But it would be off-topic and exhaustive.

Everyone can do that but we have to read the Context, Commentary of the time and historical context.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I am sorry but now i have to respond

So, sorry, now I have to reply too.

So by this means there will be NOBODY after him not even 1000years.

Oh, why does this remind me followers of Prophet Joseph? (by no means God sends another messenger...)

Islamic teachings disagrees and counters the claim that God manifestates when it refutes the Christian claims and explaines that God is noting that we know off.

This would be really off-topic, and I think can be discussed in a separate thread. But basically depends on the understanding about Islam and Depends how you would understand the term "Manifestation of God". This doesn't mean incarnation of God in the human form. Baha'is have a different understanding about Islam, and depends on how you understand Manifestation of God. There are verses in Quran that shows this agrees.

The verse is actually in Surah 31 and is mostly translated as this:

And if whatever trees upon the earth were pens and the sea [was ink], replenished thereafter by seven [more] seas, the words of Allah would not be exhausted. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

I don't see how this refers to a new revelation or scripture it actually tells us that God's word (the Quran) cannot be erased and will be protected by Allah(swt) if we would throw all the Quran's into the sea we still have it because its passed down generation after generation, the Quran is like glue that cannot be washed, burned or taken away. Like for example there are over 20/50 million hafiz's and the numbers only increased in time.

Well, to me it clearly says that the words of God does not finish in writing.

Then i would ask what does a perfection of a religion mean? If its perfected there wouldn't need to come something else right?

The Baha'i view is that there is only One religion. The religion of God.
In every age God perfects that religion, and by the end of age, it is renewed again, because it looses it's spiritual effect as people made different sects, and every sect made it's own interpretation, so, it is not the same as original. therefore needs to be perfected again. Jesus also brought the perfect religion, but later it was renewd and perfected by Muhammad's revelation....and in this age the same Truth is renewed through revelation of Baha'u'llah. So, each time God perfects the religion for an age.

To each age its Book. What He pleaseth will God abrogate or confirm: for with Him is the source of revelation. Quran 13:38-9

Everyone can do that but we have to read the Context, Commentary of the time and historical context.

Yes, this requires lots of time to investigate. I refer you to these 2 websites:

Baha'u'llah: The Great Announcement of the Qur'an

and also from various scriptures:

http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/

 

[F0uad]

So, sorry, now I have to reply too.




Oh, why does this remind me followers of Prophet Joseph? (by no means God sends another messenger...)




This would be really off-topic, and I think can be discussed in a separate thread. But basically depends on the understanding about Islam and Depends how you would understand the term "Manifestation of God". This doesn't mean incarnation of God in the human form. Baha'is have a different understanding about Islam, and depends on how you understand Manifestation of God. There are verses in Quran that shows this agrees.




Well, to me it clearly says that the words of God does not finish in writing.



The Baha'i view is that there is only One religion. The religion of God.
In every age God perfects that religion, and by the end of age, it is renewed again, because it looses it's spiritual effect as people made different sects, and every sect made it's own interpretation, so, it is not the same as original. therefore needs to be perfected again. Jesus also brought the perfect religion, but later it was renewd and perfected by Muhammad's revelation....and in this age the same Truth is renewed through revelation of Baha'u'llah. So, each time God perfects the religion for an age.

To each age its Book. What He pleaseth will God abrogate or confirm: for with Him is the source of revelation. Quran 13:38-9



Yes, this requires lots of time to investigate. I refer you to these 2 websites:

Baha'u'llah: The Great Announcement of the Qur'an

and also from various scriptures:

Click on one of the following to navigate further down this page Religious Unity

I really want to reply but lets keep it for a other thread.

 

[Harmonious]

Yes i noticed that they dont care about proselytizing,but ist written in the OT
that they shouldnt proselytize or something like tradition.

More to the point, Jews believe that non-Jews have commandments to do. There is no need for non-Jews to become Jews in order to do God's will.

 

[Harmonious]

sorry, not just of Christ, but of the entire Godhead.

just a quick question - all the temple work in the OT, sacrificing animals etc. etc. - what do Jewish people think this was in similitude of?

seems like a lot of the OT talks about Jesus,

how do you interpret all of the above?

This list has been addressed over and over, just not in this thread. However, I wouldn't have a problem with your Zecharia 13:6 reference referring to Jesus. In context, the verse in question refers to a false prophet who is caught out. And rather than admit his sin, he is so brazen as to LIE about it, and is scrabbling for any excuse to try not to be caught out.

Somehow, I get the feeling that isn't the potrayal that you would prefer to think of when you think of Jesus.

 

[Harmonious]

The thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy tells us that if a person comes along claiming to be a prophet, and their message is that we should cease keeping the commandments, or worship God in some fashion not our own, or give up the Torah, then that prophet is false.

The Rabbis tell us in the Talmud (I can't recall tractate and page at the moment) that the age of prophets ended around the time of Ezra and Nechemiah. And they make it crystal clear that Jesus was a false prophet. They actually believed that there had ever only been seven non-Jewish prophets: it is not at all clear that they thought there could ever be any more. But it is inconceivable that they would have accepted the message of a non-Jewish prophet that told the Jews that they should adhere to a scripture other than Torah, and adopt different ritual and law, and a different sacred language. Any Jew who said such a thing would be accounted a heretic, and rightly so.

I just wanted to give you frubals for this post, but I can't

 

[Levite]

I hope you can understand my doubt that the actual scripture writers from thousands of years ago had any of the convoluted and overly complicated meanings (as you called them) in mind when they were writing.

I think that goes back to what I said before about the presumptions that we make about how text is composed and intended. I do indeed understand your doubt, because most cultures don't approach text the way that Judaism does. That's not intended as a judgmental of superiority or inferiority, only a statement noting difference.

It almost sounds like you're saying the writers were content to give the common person misleading information because they were really writing in code to a higher audience (as in my Messiah example). Isn't it more reasonable to believe that sometimes they were just plain mistaken.

But that's the thing: it's not coded to a higher audience, because the meanings were never intended to be esoteric to Jews. Written Torah is designed to be read in light of Oral Torah, which is a living tradition of complex exegetical and interpretive methodologies. When Written Torah is read in the absence of Oral Torah, and practical meanings of certain verses are then revealed to the reader, the meanings seem hard to support or even bizarre; and even when the reader is made aware of the methodologies of Oral Torah, quite often, being unfamiliar with text designed to be read for multiple meanings and interpreted in light of a living tradition, the steps used in exegesis may seem strange and convoluted.

But ultimately, I think that's because Torah as a whole wasn't designed or written with a non-Jewish audience in mind. It was written and designed for Jews, presuming the social, cultural, and textual norms of Jewish tradition as a context.

 

[gnostic]

Because by that reckoning, we should all be making a religion out of the Beatles, or JRR Tolkien, or Scarlett Johansen.

Definitely would prefer to worship Scarlett Johansen than any Abrahamic deity or follow any prophet. :yes:

I would fall at her lovely feet. :thud:

 

[George-ananda]

I think that goes back to what I said before about the presumptions that we make about how text is composed and intended. I do indeed understand your doubt, because most cultures don't approach text the way that Judaism does. That's not intended as a judgmental of superiority or inferiority, only a statement noting difference.



But that's the thing: it's not coded to a higher audience, because the meanings were never intended to be esoteric to Jews. Written Torah is designed to be read in light of Oral Torah, which is a living tradition of complex exegetical and interpretive methodologies. When Written Torah is read in the absence of Oral Torah, and practical meanings of certain verses are then revealed to the reader, the meanings seem hard to support or even bizarre; and even when the reader is made aware of the methodologies of Oral Torah, quite often, being unfamiliar with text designed to be read for multiple meanings and interpreted in light of a living tradition, the steps used in exegesis may seem strange and convoluted.

But ultimately, I think that's because Torah as a whole wasn't designed or written with a non-Jewish audience in mind. It was written and designed for Jews, presuming the social, cultural, and textual norms of Jewish tradition as a context.

Levite.....Thanks again for your clear explanation of something not clear. You are a great source to have on RF.

Being a non-Jew, I see I have no interest in diving into the complex world of the Torah. I'll leave that to you and the experts.

 

[Oryonder]

Can you guide me to modern prophetic content of the magnitude of the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel?
It's also important to dwell for a moment about what a 'prophet' actually means. Is it simply having a supernatural quality? or is it also a man of social and political comprehension, power, and vision?

Confucious and Buddha would qualify methinks.

 

[Caladan]

Confucious and Buddha would qualify methinks.

And I suppose you consider Confucius and Buddha as 'modern'? :no:

 

[Oryonder]

And I suppose you consider Confucius and Buddha as 'modern'? :no:

Missed the "modern" part, my bad .. why does it have to modern though ?

 

[Caladan]

Missed the "modern" part, my bad .. why does it have to modern though ?

Read Peg's post for more context because this is what she brought up, modern Prophethood.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

The thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy tells us that if a person comes along claiming to be a prophet, and their message is that we should cease keeping the commandments, or worship God in some fashion not our own, or give up the Torah, then that prophet is false.

The Rabbis tell us in the Talmud (I can't recall tractate and page at the moment) that the age of prophets ended around the time of Ezra and Nechemiah. And they make it crystal clear that Jesus was a false prophet. They actually believed that there had ever only been seven non-Jewish prophets: it is not at all clear that they thought there could ever be any more. But it is inconceivable that they would have accepted the message of a non-Jewish prophet that told the Jews that they should adhere to a scripture other than Torah, and adopt different ritual and law, and a different sacred language. Any Jew who said such a thing would be accounted a heretic, and rightly so.

Hi, if you don't mind I would like to probe this a bit.

If this is what most in Judaism are taught, and if I happened to be a young Jew studying such topics. I think I would be inclined to investigate in a manner similar to this.

Take for example:
I set up a group with a set of rules:

• to respect one another
• to help one another
• to feed one another
• to ensure each other safety etc...

I tell them they must abide by these rules or certain death will come upon them.

Then, a year later assuming they are still abiding by the rules, I come back and say so here is a new rule:

• love one another

It would be natural for the group to discuss how this new rule effects the older rules. They might ask, does it change the original rules, does it fulfill the older rules, does it contradict the older rules, etc...


In review, I realize this is completely watered down, and not an accurate representation of comparing the Torah's rules and mandates with Jesus coming along.


Though, I do wonder is it at least responsible to be inquisitive in this manner, so an individual can truly evaluate the situation for him or herself. Taking this method to a much greater length and comparing our Torah with claims against our Torah, just to make sure we are not missing something. Rather than just accept what we are "told".

Though, I am sure just as in any religion, there are some who are compelled to study in depth for themselves and their own curious tendencies, and then there are those that just accept what they are told.

Hope this is not offensive at all, I merely thought about your comment and became curious about inquisitive processes in general.

 

[gnostic]

dear levite...
we are as a good moslem have to accept both your torah and scripture, we accept both moses and jesus as the person chosen by god as prophet.

we know that moses, jesus and mohammed come from the same "father", abraham. many prophet come from it clan.

but you can't close your eyes and mind, if jesus and mohammed are not a person really chosen by god, it is impossible they have follower as many as today. it is impossible their words are accepted by many people all around the world untill today.

The problem is that you and other Muslims say that they accept Moses and Jesus as prophets as their own, and yet how many Muslims do you think have actually read and accept the Torah or the gospels?

How many Muslims take the time of actually learning the teachings of Moses or Jesus?

Unless there are ex-Christians or ex-Jews, who converted to Islam, I think there are very few Muslims here have read either one of those scriptures.

And in some of the Muslim-populated nations, there are legally bans on Christians from teaching anyone or to openly carry bibles, which could get them arrested and imprisoned. And in these nations, ex-Muslims who convert to Christianity, could face arrest, trial, imprisonment, and either a public flogging or face death sentence.

So much for no compulsion in Islam. That's not understanding or accepting teachings of either Moses or Jesus.

 

[Levite]

Hi, if you don't mind I would like to probe this a bit.

If this is what most in Judaism are taught, and if I happened to be a young Jew studying such topics. I think I would be inclined to investigate in a manner similar to this.

Take for example:
I set up a group with a set of rules:

• to respect one another
• to help one another
• to feed one another
• to ensure each other safety etc...

I tell them they must abide by these rules or certain death will come upon them.

Then, a year later assuming they are still abiding by the rules, I come back and say so here is a new rule:

• love one another

It would be natural for the group to discuss how this new rule effects the older rules. They might ask, does it change the original rules, does it fulfill the older rules, does it contradict the older rules, etc...


In review, I realize this is completely watered down, and not an accurate representation of comparing the Torah's rules and mandates with Jesus coming along.


Though, I do wonder is it at least responsible to be inquisitive in this manner, so an individual can truly evaluate the situation for him or herself. Taking this method to a much greater length and comparing our Torah with claims against our Torah, just to make sure we are not missing something. Rather than just accept what we are "told".

Though, I am sure just as in any religion, there are some who are compelled to study in depth for themselves and their own curious tendencies, and then there are those that just accept what they are told.

Hope this is not offensive at all, I merely thought about your comment and became curious about inquisitive processes in general.

The truth is that Jesus himself was not trying to found another religion. I am not even convinced he portrayed himself as a prophet; and I personally doubt very much whether he ever called himself or tried to convince anyone that he was the literal son of God-- we simply had no such concept in our culture, it is something far more akin to pagan mythology.

With the exception of claiming the messianic mantle, when clearly he was not the moshiach, much or most of what he seems to have actually personally taught, going by the Sermon on the Mount and the parables as arguably the most "original" of what is attributed to Jesus in the gospels, isn't all that far from the boundaries of Rabbinic Judaism. Which is unsurprising, since he was a renegade Perushi (Pharisee): the Talmud tells us that he was a dropout from the yeshiva (rabbinic academy) of Rabbi Yehoshua. And the "parables" in the gospels are clearly constructed using Rabbinic midrashic methodologies.

But even if all of the above is true, that's not Christianity, and that's not the sum total of what the gospels and the rest of the Christian scriptures teach. Christianity hasn't really been "messianized" Judaism for around 1800 years or so. And the Jesus that they believe in would clearly be a false prophet and an apostate, if he existed.

I am personally happy to respect Jesus for who I believe he really was: though what I think he really taught was still beyond the bounds of Rabbinic tradition, and therefore Jewishly unacceptable to us, I still think Jesus was probably really just a charismatic ascetic lapsed rabbi trying to emulate the lessons he learned in reading the Prophets. But I also have to acknowledge that that guy is not who Christianity believes in (with probably one or two exceptions, I'm sure) when they talk about Jesus. That's not the guy who is ultimately portrayed in a complete reading of the Christian bible. Nor is any kind of Christianity likely an accurate reflection of what Jesus taught when he was teaching other Jews, in his lifetime.

And that guy, and those teachings are absolutely beyond the pale for us. They may be fine for non-Jews to utilize as their religion. But they are absolutely incompatible with Judaism and Jewish belief.

 

[Levite]

*Deleted Post*

Very true. The Palestinians should not be stealing land from us.

 

[Oryonder]

Very true. The Palestinians should not be stealing land from us.

LOL .. It is hard to steal something from another when that another does not own it to begin with.