One big thing that confuses about Islam and perhaps someone can explain it.

[irosie91]

It isn't clear why you would think that isn't known. Further, when, as in John, it is mentioned that stones were picked up, was that to inflict other than earthly demise?
In other words, with what are you disagreeing? Are you maintaining that, indeed, Jesus was a prophet?

I disagreed with the notion that a bunch of
"pharisees" got together and attempted to
convict Jesus of Blasphemy so they could stone
him to death ----putatively for falsely claiming
to be a "prophet"------such a situation is not
consistent with law and custom of the time

 

[there4eyeM]

I disagreed with the notion that a bunch of
"pharisees" got together and attempted to
convict Jesus of Blasphemy so they could stone
him to death ----putatively for falsely claiming
to be a "prophet"------such a situation is not
consistent with law and custom of the time

It is recorded in the cited scripture. If you don't accept the New Testament, there isn't any discussion. Further, Jesus was not claiming to be a prophet. They were going to punish him on the spot for blasphemy. It was forbidden to use the term associated with YHWH. It is surprising that we have this lack of communication; it would have seemed you would know these things.

 

[irosie91]

It is recorded in the cited scripture. If you don't accept the New Testament, there isn't any discussion. Further, Jesus was not claiming to be a prophet. They were going to punish him on the spot for blasphemy. It was forbidden to use the term associated with YHWH. It is surprising that we have this lack of communication; it would have seemed you would know these things.

I do know "these things" ---the concept that a
"bunch of pharisees" could LEGALLY (in jewish law
and custom of that time) accost a jew and EXECUTE him for Blasphemy is FAR OUT INSANITY. It did not happen. The situation
you describe would be MURDER. Furthermore
Pharisees, SPECIFICALLY, did not support execution
for Blasphemy.
Do you have ANY IDEA what a Pharisee was?
Jesus was a Pharisee. Just about the only
crime Pharisees considered capital was
premeditated murder. In fact that principle
was adopted into American Jurisprudence.
The formulators of american Jurisprudence
were bible thumpers. Getting back to your
allegations---just what sort of AUTHORITY
do you imagine "pharisees" had?

 

[there4eyeM]

I do know "these things" ---the concept that a
"bunch of pharisees" could LEGALLY (in jewish law
and custom of that time) accost a jew and EXECUTE him for Blasphemy is FAR OUT INSANITY. It did not happen. The situation
you describe would be MURDER. Furthermore
Pharisees, SPECIFICALLY, did not support execution
for Blasphemy.
Do you have ANY IDEA what a Pharisee was?
Jesus was a Pharisee. Just about the only
crime Pharisees considered capital was
premeditated murder. In fact that principle
was adopted into American Jurisprudence.
The formulators of american Jurisprudence
were bible thumpers. Getting back to your
allegations---just what sort of AUTHORITY
do you imagine "pharisees" had?

You are responding as if these incidents are my creation. Did you read the verses from the New Testament? Your argument is not with me, it is with John.

 

[irosie91]

You are responding as if these incidents are my creation. Did you read the verses from the New Testament? Your argument is not with me, it is with John.

I read the verses ---very consistent with the writings of the completely unknown "JOHN" --not credible. It is clear to me that the "JOHN" was
an apologist for ROME. John is one of the most common hebrew names of that time. Some writer probably used it as a pen-name. There
are LOTS of writings from the time of Jesus---
lots of LITERATE people----especially Pharisees whom the Romans despised----of course the feeling was mutual

 

[there4eyeM]

I read the verses ---very consistent with the writings of the completely unknown "JOHN" --not credible. It is clear to me that the "JOHN" was
an apologist for ROME. John is one of the most common hebrew names of that time. Some writer probably used it as a pen-name. There
are LOTS of writings from the time of Jesus---
lots of LITERATE people----especially Pharisees whom the Romans despised----of course the feeling was mutual

Deciding whom and what to believe is indeed a fundamental issue. That is why some of us wonder how people come to accept the words of men stumbling in from the wilderness (such as Mohammed or Smith) with "messages".

 

[Colin norris]

One thing of many things that confuse me in regards to Islam among their followers. Muhammad by their own admission isn't God. The term blasphemy is a term reserved only for God. So, why are they claiming it is blasphemy if anyone even depicts Muhammad in a picture of any kind but not any of their other Muslim warlords?

Meaning people can show pictures, photographs or paintings of the Sultans or Ayatollah etc and no problem.

You can even criticize them, but if anyone paints a painting or drawing or speaks out against Muhammad it is considered blasphemy.

That makes little sense and that reaction of exalting Muhammad as God (which they all say he wasn't) is a blasphemy unto itself.

How am I wrong?

All religions adopt some form of punishment, until years ago it was usually death, if they feel mocking has occurred.
Mohammad apparently did exist but Allah didn't.
The whole quran is plagiarised from Judaism and Christianity and they had traditional punishment for those who disagreed with their stupidity.

I understand it all perfectly.

 

[irosie91]

All religions adopt some form of punishment, until years ago it was usually death, if they feel mocking has occurred.
Mohammad apparently did exist but Allah didn't.
The whole quran is plagiarised from Judaism and Christianity and they had traditional punishment for those who disagreed with their stupidity.

I understand it all perfectly.

not exactly perfectly, mr. norris. Of course your
statement that the koran is "plagiarised" from
Judaism and Christianity would get you DA AXE
in a shariah adherent land. Robert Spencer (a
writer who carries a family Legacy of islamic oppression as being from an Eastern Orthodox
family caught up in the "armenian genocide"
has written a scholarly book that puts forth a
theory that Muhummad did not exist. Getting
back to YOUR HEAD----be careful about the koran.
Muslims are very sensitive about that book ---
disparaging it is GROSS BLASPHEMY and the
penalty is your head----NOW (as opposed to
"years ago") My very own hubby was born in
a shariah adherent society----I have a few copies
of the koran but had to hide them----in the land
of his birth------our possession of said book----
could mean a deadly attack on the whole
community. He will not even touch a koran or
remain in the same room with one.

 

[Uranus]

ok what's the "difference" since muhummad seems to be designated as BOTH. Their english
was fine. In southeast asia one needs english to
get into medical school

A prophet is someone who receives revelation from God. A messenger is someone who was sent with a message from God to mankind.

 

[irosie91]

A prophet is someone who receives revelation from God. A messenger is someone who was sent with a message from God to mankind.

just a continuum ---thanks for the "definition"

 

[surada]

Then the Koran is in error, because Jesus cannot be a prophet.

Jesus did predict the Abomination of Desolation and the destruction of the temple. Isn't that prophecy?

 

[there4eyeM]

Jesus did predict the Abomination of Desolation and the destruction of the temple. Isn't that prophecy?

You can't be seriously maintaining the equivalence.

 

[surada]

You can't be seriously maintaining the equivalence.

Is that not prophecy? For Christians he's also Messiah.

 

[there4eyeM]

The Biblical definition of a prophet entails more than just foreseeing an event. If Jesus is who he said he is, then it would be no surprise he could foresee things. Because Jesus said what he did, he put himself in a position over that of prophet.

 

[The Original Tree]

You limit Jesus (The One True Living God) because of the imposter Satan-Allah whom you worship and who deceived Muhammad and all Muslims and will drag them to Hell with him. ALLAH IS A LIAR AND DECEIVER BECAUSE HE IS SATAN THE DECEIVER.

This is why Muslims hate Jews, because Satan hates Jews. If Satan can exterminate all Jews he makes God a Liar, breaks God's Covenant with Abraham..

Satan=Allah will be defeated and cast in to Hell at Armageddon.

 

[irosie91]

It is recorded in the cited scripture. If you don't accept the New Testament, there isn't any discussion. Further, Jesus was not claiming to be a prophet. They were going to punish him on the spot for blasphemy. It was forbidden to use the term associated with YHWH. It is surprising that we have this lack of communication; it would have seemed you would know these things.

I do know-----you don't

 

[irosie91]

Jesus did predict the Abomination of Desolation and the destruction of the temple. Isn't that prophecy?

no---it is political commentary written into a book
after the fact

 

[surada]

no---it is political commentary written into a book
after the fact

Jesus wasn't born at the time of the Maccabean revolt.

 

[irosie91]

Jesus wasn't born at the time of the Maccabean revolt.

Is there some reason that you posted up that
statement?----when Jesus was born -- the Maccabean revolt was history known by
pharisees LIKE JESUS

 

[surada]

Is there some reason that you posted up that
statement?----when Jesus was born -- the Maccabean revolt was history known by
pharisees LIKE JESUS

Maybe I didn't understand your post 297.