Jesus was a "Muslim"

If you let me answer that last question...Muslims believe that each prophet was sent specific for his time for his people, and every people got a prophet and a message. Which is why muslims will often point out to where the bible says that Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel (although they accept him as the prophesied Messiah with a specific and very important role to come in the end times as well).

At the end, with many of the other messages and books distorted, the final messenger was sent, being Muhammad, for all mankind for all time.

reply to post by nenothtu


i meant the basic message of One God.
But ya the prophets came with laws too, about living a life according to justice and equality.
Jews practice the law, muslims too but christians somehow got exempted while Jesus(pbuh) told "whoever breaks the least commandment would be least in the kingdow" p.s- hope nobody assumes its just the TEN. OT has hundreds of them.
So ya Obeying the prophet is important, be it yours or mine.
But people do like it easy, "the way/door to Heaven is narrow(difficult)" and the wider road where everything is allowed leads the other way. Bible has a lot of wisdom if read properly.

reply to post by logical7


Please detail how a person can follow the law after 70 AD. Not even Jews can practice Mosaic Law/Judaism, they have practiced TALMUDIC Judaism since the Council of Jamnia.

Originally posted by logical7

thats simple enough to explain.
Following any prophet would be fine if you had a record of what they said.
Consider the jews now, they had a prophet Moses(pbuh) and the OT. But denied Jesus(pbuh) "we have everything we need and want nothing new"were they correct?NO
Jesus(pbuh)admonished them for their wrongdoings and alteration of text for personal gains
they tried to kill him to get rid of him.
600 or so years later another prophet comes and the story continues..

Oh, I agree that Jesus admonished his fellow Jews for their wrongdoings, but I know of no where that he admonished them for their text alterations for personal gain. Can you point those instances out for me so as to educate me?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by logical7

 

Please detail how a person can follow the law after 70 AD. Not even Jews can practice Mosaic Law/Judaism, they have practiced TALMUDIC Judaism since the Council of Jamnia.

ya many of mosaic law would be difficult.
Especially when state and religion are seperate.
what i meant was general outlook towards them, like jews practice kosher, muslims practice halal while most christians have pork.
But jews do have their own court system(civil) and muslims demand the same(civil) but the first picture after hearing SHARIA is stoning, chopping.

Originally posted by babloyi
If you let me answer that last question...Muslims believe that each prophet was sent specific for his time for his people, and every people got a prophet and a message. Which is why muslims will often point out to where the bible says that Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel (although they accept him as the prophesied Messiah with a specific and very important role to come in the end times as well).

At the end, with many of the other messages and books distorted, the final messenger was sent, being Muhammad, for all mankind for all time.

Thank you. I believe pretty much the same - up to a point. There are some divergences, perhaps the most glaring one being that Mohammed was not my prophet - he was sent to the Ishmaelites, not to me, so he is not "my" prophet. The claim of being sent "for all" is not unique to Mohammed, nor is the claim to have been "the last prophet".

Curiously, perhaps, if another prophet is sent to another people, or even one "for all", the Muslims will join the other two Abrahamic religions in rejecting the new one, because they already have their "last" prophet, as both of the other two have, which caused them to reject the "next" prophet. Curious how that works, isn't it? A built-in rejection mechanism and justification for it.

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by nenothtu

 

i meant the basic message of One God.
But ya the prophets came with laws too, about living a life according to justice and equality.
Jews practice the law, muslims too but christians somehow got exempted while Jesus(pbuh) told "whoever breaks the least commandment would be least in the kingdow" p.s- hope nobody assumes its just the TEN. OT has hundreds of them.
So ya Obeying the prophet is important, be it yours or mine.
But people do like it easy, "the way/door to Heaven is narrow(difficult)" and the wider road where everything is allowed leads the other way. Bible has a lot of wisdom if read properly.

Well now, that's a fact. Christians were not really let off the hook - they are apparently required to suss out the applicable laws from the most basic, given by Jesus as "Love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself". Seems simple, on the face of it, but it's more complex when that has to be applied to any given situation, and one has to figure out for himself the "right" way to handle it. I think Christians would prefer a set of "laws" to follow as the Jews and Muslims have, to get someone else to do the thinking for them, but that isn't how it was set up for them. Most of the Christians i know just let their preacher make up the laws for them - "don't drink, don't smoke, don't dance, don't listen to music" etc. ALL of those have no real bearing on the core, their relationship with their God.

Same for the Levitical laws - they were made up on the fly by men. Seriously... what application does mixing wool and linen or whatever have to a modern Christian in his relation to God? While they are busy applying the minutiae that some guy some where made up for them, they miss the sight of God altogether. It's sort of like missing out on seeing miracles that occur every day, because one is looking for a Burning Bush episode. I suppose from my take on that, you can see where I go in regards to Shari'a, as well.

Now there ARE some laws that are hard and fast, but they are few. All of the rest of one's behavior can be guided by those few with judicious application of logic to them. Every single one of those immutable laws can be found in the heart of the Books - everything around them is only fluff.

Not everything is allowed, but neither are the strictures of others applicable to each individual. the narrow way is made narrow by keeping one's self in check, and that is far harder than allowing others to make the rules for you.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by logical7

thats simple enough to explain.
Following any prophet would be fine if you had a record of what they said.
Consider the jews now, they had a prophet Moses(pbuh) and the OT. But denied Jesus(pbuh) "we have everything we need and want nothing new"were they correct?NO
Jesus(pbuh)admonished them for their wrongdoings and alteration of text for personal gains
they tried to kill him to get rid of him.
600 or so years later another prophet comes and the story continues..

Oh, I agree that Jesus admonished his fellow Jews for their wrongdoings, but I know of no where that he admonished them for their text alterations for personal gain. Can you point those instances out for me so as to educate me?

here Matthew 15
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".
10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which
cometh out of the mouth, this defileth
a man.
12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the
Pharisees were offended, after they
heard this saying?
13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath
not planted, shall be rooted up.
14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind
lead the blind, both shall fall into the
ditch.

Originally posted by logical7

ya many of mosaic law would be difficult.
Especially when state and religion are seperate.
what i meant was general outlook towards them, like jews practice kosher, muslims practice halal while most christians have pork.
But jews do have their own court system(civil) and muslims demand the same(civil) but the first picture after hearing SHARIA is stoning, chopping.

I didn't eat pork even when I was a Christian - not out of any observation of the law, but rather out of health considerations (carries trichinosis) and because the cannibals in New Guinea said that pork is the closest thing to human, which is why they started raising pigs. creeps me out, it does!

Anyhow, regarding Shari'a, most non-muslims only see stonings and choppings, as you correctly observe, They never get deep enough to see all then micromanagement of thousands upon thousands of minute details that are ruled on by this or that cleric. To me, that micromanagement of every single aspect of life, to include the size of a pool of water to draw from for ablutions and the like, is far more insidious than a spectacular killing or maiming.

I recently had cause to go through some of the pronouncements by one of the Iranian clerics, and it made me cringe, the level of detail it descended to. What's even worse, to my mind, is that he had to rule on such minutiae because someone, some where, couldn't figure it out on his own. I'm sure he is a good man, but I prefer to find my own way through the warren, rather than relying on the judgement of another. That's just me, though.

In the end, whether I got it right or whether I got it wrong will be something I have to take up in due course with God. I won't have the safety net of saying "but the imam said..." or "but the priest said..." or "but the rabbi said..."

reply to post by nenothtu


i agree a lot with you,
when prophet Muhammad(pbuh) was asked what is sin, he told"sin is something that pricks in your heart and you are afraid of it becoming public"
a real concise law i must say.
The same way, Jesus(pbuh) gave the law "do unto others what you wish to be done to you"
and the whole prophetic law can be derived from this above law.
.
and ya majority have a confusing of priority as again Jesus(pbuh)said, "how can you point out a spec in your brother's eye before removing the log in your own"
.
.equality, justice should rule much higher than what to eat, wear etc

reply to post by nenothtu


"Human.. the other, other white meat".

reply to post by nenothtu


people go for micromanagement of their lives when they get disconnected from God. jews did it and made laws and priests supreme and Jesus(pbuh) came to cultivate a bit more compassion and love and forgiveness.
The trick is to keep a balance.
All Law and No love BAD
All Love and No law BAD
Law and Love BETTER.

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by logical7

 

Please detail how a person can follow the law after 70 AD. Not even Jews can practice Mosaic Law/Judaism, they have practiced TALMUDIC Judaism since the Council of Jamnia.

ya many of mosaic law would be difficult.
Especially when state and religion are seperate.
what i meant was general outlook towards them, like jews practice kosher, muslims practice halal while most christians have pork.
But jews do have their own court system(civil) and muslims demand the same(civil) but the first picture after hearing SHARIA is stoning, chopping.

But the Jews cannot follow Mosaic Judaism/Law with no temple. The Judaism practiced since Jamnia, post 70 AD, is Talmudic. And Gentile Christians eat pork, I'm not sure if Messianic Jews do or not.

reply to post by logical7


I can see how that could be taken for "textual alterations", but it could equally be misinterpretation of the text presented, without actual textual alteration. Levitical laws are a particular sore point with me, and I'm willing to go so far as to consider them the "commandments of men", as specified in that passage. In that case, though, they would not be so much "alterations" as something slipped in by a bunch of priests to make their lives easier and richer.

I trust priests of any religion about as much as I trust the average politican. Wasn't it priests that allowed the money changers to do business inside the temple?

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by nenothtu

 

i agree a lot with you,
when prophet Muhammad(pbuh) was asked what is sin, he told"sin is something that pricks in your heart and you are afraid of it becoming public"
a real concise law i must say.
The same way, Jesus(pbuh) gave the law "do unto others what you wish to be done to you"
and the whole prophetic law can be derived from this above law.
.
and ya majority have a confusing of priority as again Jesus(pbuh)said, "how can you point out a spec in your brother's eye before removing the log in your own"
.
.equality, justice should rule much higher than what to eat, wear etc

Well, I agree with all that. I personally define "sin" as whatever keeps you from God, whatever is a block between yourself and Him. That may be a different thing for me than it is for you, but if it creates that barrier for any individual, it is a sin for that person - but may not be for another, if it doesn't create that barrier for them. It stands to reason that anything like that would prick a religious person in the heart until it is removed, and they would not want it to go public.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by nenothtu

 

"Human.. the other, other white meat".

Yeah, I'm gonna hate seeing that on a billboard some day... "Rack of Ribs, 11.95"

reply to post by nenothtu

Well now, that's a fact. Christians were not really let off the hook - they are apparently required to suss out the applicable laws from the most basic, given by Jesus as "Love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself". Seems simple, on the face of it, but it's more complex when that has to be applied to any given situation, and one has to figure out for himself the "right" way to handle it. I think Christians would prefer a set of "laws" to follow as the Jews and Muslims have, to get someone else to do the thinking for them, but that isn't how it was set up for them. Most of the Christians i know just let their preacher make up the laws for them - "don't drink, don't smoke, don't dance, don't listen to music" etc. ALL of those have no real bearing on the core, their relationship with their God.

Our laws revolve around worshipping in spirit and in truth, not fleshly laws of "do not do this, or do not do that" so much as it is adhering to commandments of being merciful, and forgiving. We don't figure out how do to anything, we're to be lead in the spirit of Christ who has become our conscience and we follow his "voice". We're not forbidden to eat pork because our God tells us nothing is to be refused if it is taken in thanksgiving by those who know the truth. We walk in the faith that our God is strong enough that he can purify even the worst things and make them pure, even purify the worst of people. There is nothing our God cannot do and we walk in that faith, He shuts the mouths of lions, walks in blazing fire (Daniel 3:25), raises up the dead and forgives the sins of the world. The only sin Jesus will not forgive is to blasphemy (slander, scoff, make fun of) the Holy Spirit. As for music i personally hate listening to anything that does not glorify the Father or the Son, and even then i'd prefer their names to be sung over their titles. We were only given 4 commandments by Christ's apostles who themselves were also prophets, given at the Council of Jerusalem. These 4 things are:

1. abstain from consumption of blood
2. abstain from eating strangled things (they retain blood)
3. abstain from sexual immorality
4. abstain from partaking of food and drink offered to idols

However we do recognize the 10 commandments as they are imbedded into the First and Second Greatest commandments Christ gave which is to love Yahweh Elohim with all our mind, heart and strength, and to love others (and our enemies) as we love ourselves and this is where being merciful and forgiving comes into play. How can we cast stones at another person, when what they have done or do is no worse than what we have done and do? No man is without sin save the One who was crucified on the cross at Golgotha, even John the Baptist said he was unworthy to unlatch even one of Christ's sandals.

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by nenothtu

 

people go for micromanagement of their lives when they get disconnected from God. jews did it and made laws and priests supreme and Jesus(pbuh) came to cultivate a bit more compassion and love and forgiveness.
The trick is to keep a balance.
All Law and No love BAD
All Love and No law BAD
Law and Love BETTER.

Agreed. Seeking "law" over seeking God would be a sin in my mind if it got to the point of looking to a man to clarify it for me rather than God. Therefore, when people lose sight of God, they seek after the micromanagement of laws.

You mentioned the 10 Commandments earlier I believe. if you'll examine them closely, you will find that EVERY one of them relates to 1 of the 2 basics Jesus set forth - to love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as if he were your self. If you love God with all your heart, for example, you will by nature not allow any other god before him. if you love your neighbor as yourself, for another example, you will by nature not sneak around and sleep with his wife.

Walking the "straight and narrow" seems to me to boil down to those two in every instance, but it's an incredibly difficult thing for most people to do, For some odd reason. they seek the opinions of men as to "right and wrong" instead, and tend to lose sight of God altogether when they do do, BECAUSE they are looking to men for answers.

reply to post by nenothtu


i have read some part of bible OT and NT and can tell you that in OT it does seem that the bias and level of faith of the scribes seeped into the text.
Even the NT, there's a marked difference from Matthew to John and the initial verses of John almost seem planted, the style stands apart and hits the eye and so does the ending of some chapters, they have a conclusion almost forcing the reader to have a set of belief contrary to what the chapter would give if the conclusion verses were absent.

reply to post by nenothtu


i agree about the law.
Man is incapable of making law, if someone desires that, its like being a pharoh. And is islamically associating partners with God.
Man can only use the intelligence to derive a ruling based on principles given by God. But ya the scholars are needed as not everyone is learned enough just as a doctor is need