It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Google Earth proves Muhammad-Islam

page: 16
25
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by NullVoid

Originally posted by nenothtu

Thanks for the interest. I'll try my best to explain in my own terms. I'll use comparison and cut the story short for easier understanding.


You're welcome. that's why I'm here - to learn.

I am aware that Arabic is pronounce differently in different areas, and that an Arab from Morocco, for instance, can have a difficult time making himself understood by speaking in some of the farther Arab countries. The written Arabic is pretty much the same across the Arab world. Are you saying that a difference in pronunciation changes the meaning? A tomato is still a tomato however it is pronounced, but I also know that the vowel points in Arabic can change the meaning - which is why I always thought that Arabic HAD vowel points to begin with - to make the meaning clear in the written language. For example, "hakim" and "hikma" mean different things, but have exactly the same consonants, and so must have the vowels inserted to make the meaning clear.

The earliest Qur'ans that I am aware of are in Kufic script. It's been a long time since I've seen them, but as I recall, they had the vowels. Are you saying that the vowels were left out of the first copies, and the Reciters could not recall the proper pronunciation?

As an aside, the vowel marks in Arabic are wonderful things. I was taught Arabic by a Syrian, and many years later wrote my name in Arabic for a Pakistani (whose native language was not even Arabic, but Urdu instead), whose eyes got as big as saucers when he looked at me, since he had no idea that I knew anything of Arabic, but he pronounced my name flawlessly from it. Without those vowels, it would have been anyone's guess, and he might have shot me instead!




There is no "right/correct version", no "modern version", no "original copy". There is only 1 copy of it and duplicated, recheck for consistencies. Its never was and never will change.


If that were so, there would have been no cause for Uthman to destroy all copies save one. He could have just ordered the proper vowels according to his own criteria inserted into each, from the Quraysh reciters.



About God love everyone, I think you can google the exact words, 11million result of it. I dont mean god love everyone literally, what I meant was - Christians practice and preach "love peace on earth" more than "submit yourself to god". Just that, nothing harmful, just wondering where is the "faith" part.


I wasn't offended. No harm done. I'm just trying to get the point across that the Christian conception is that by treating everyone fairly, you are demonstrating to others your faith in God, because God orders it so, and it's against human nature. Therefore, by going against their own natures when their minds tell them to hate, and obeying God instead, they believe that is an evidence of their faith, not a replacement for it. I'll be the first to admit that some Christians take that too far, and apply it where it was never intended for application. According to the Christians, even Jesus had his violent episodes - scourging the money-changers in the temple, for example, and advising his disciples to sell their cloaks and use the money to buy swords - but all too many forget that in their efforts to promote and unreasoning "peace".



About the "sooth sayer", sorry, I used the wrong words. I dont know the correct words but its talking softly with soothing feeling. All Christian priest/missionary/propaganda do that. Most convert at ease with Christian not because of the teaching but because of the soothing and loving effect.


I see. I think I understand. I believe you meant "speaking softly" or possibly "smooth talking". They do that to demonstrate their submission to God, in an attempt to imitate Christ, to be "Christ-like", not to try to mislead. It's their way of making an effort to demonstrate the peace they get from their relationship with God to others, in the hope that someone else may desire the same sort of peace.




posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Praetorius
 


God is the only divine intelligence and he prescribes and gives intelligence to all his creation including Satan and humans etc.., but none are divine.


Just lost huge amounts of credibility in my view... Damn and you've had some good posts before, this just ruins it for me. I don't like it when people don't keep an open mind - because the term 'god' cannot be 100% defined yet so arguing over something like that seems pointless.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Dialectical markings are NOT wonderful things... lol....


Let me give you an example of dialectical markings....


Jaafar bin Mohammed bin Qulaweyh narrated from Ali bin Hasan Al-Nahwy, from Ahmed bin Mohammed from Mansour bin Abi Abbas from Ali bin Asbat from Hakam bin Bohloul from Abu Humam abdullah bin Adhina from Jaafar bin Mohammed from his father from Ali bin Husain from his father who said:

Omer bin Al-Khattab stood up and said to the Prophet (sawas) "You keep telling Ali bin Abi Taleb
'You are to me like Harun was to Musa' but Allah mentioned Harun's name in the Quran but did not mention Ali "

The Prophet (sawas) replied to him "O disgusting bedouin! Have you not heard this verse

قال هذا صراط علي مستقيم (Al-Hijr:41)

"The path of Ali is a straight path (15:41)" (exact literal word for word into english is "This is the path of Ali, Straight".)

--
Ghayatol Maram p119 h75, Bihar al anwar V35 P58 H12, Manaqb ibn Shahr Ashoub V2 P302

With the markings as they are it is Qala hatha siratun AAalayya mustaqeemun

islam.thetruecall.com...:41.htm

THAT is the difference between having dialectical markings... and NOT having them... there are 10 readings to the holy Quran... 10.... when you have the markings you can only get 1 reading....





If that were so, there would have been no cause for Uthman to destroy all copies save one. He could have just ordered the proper vowels according to his own criteria inserted into each, from the Quraysh reciters.


lol.... HE DID... and HE DID... very precisely everything for a reason to make certain no readings were being done that were not according to his pleasure


edit on 30-5-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Islam came as a correction to the mistakes made by Both Christians and Jews in their Books (because of Tahreef) and their interpretation of Prophecy......


That I understand. I just find it odd that the "corrections" had no precedent in any of the earlier writings found so far, which would indicate that neither the Jews nor the Christians EVER had it right. If none of the predecessors ever had it right, and Mohammed's "corrections" amounted to new revelation, would that not make it a brand new religion, with no predecessors?



Lets face it we do not even believe you have possession of the true Injeel, the book from Jesus (although that is not a written thing in the Quran, it is just something we commonly believe)


Yes, I am aware of that belief as well, but I wonder where you think the true Injeel went? Do you believe that God revealed it to Jesus, and then man destroyed it utterly? Do you believe that man thwarted God in the matter of delivering the Injeel intact? if not, then where is the true Injeel to be found, from Jesus rather than from Mohammed?



We believe modern Christianity is Pauline doctrine and NOT the religion preached by Jesus... We believe Paul took a whole lot of falsehood and mixed it with some truth... and the Church of Christians is founded by Paul and his teachings...

NOT Jesus'


I see three strands of Christianity, one from Paul, one from John, and one from Peter and the church in Jerusalem, each given to a different audience, and so stressing different things. To be honest, I've always had problems reconciling many of Paul's teachings with the basic facts as presented in pre-Pauline Christian writings.

John, being a mystic, just leaves me scratching my head a lot and saying "What?"

So I mostly rely on the earliest Christian writings I can find as a picture of what Christianity is supposed to be.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB

Let me give you an example of dialectical markings....


Jaafar bin Mohammed bin Qulaweyh narrated from Ali bin Hasan Al-Nahwy, from Ahmed bin Mohammed from Mansour bin Abi Abbas from Ali bin Asbat from Hakam bin Bohloul from Abu Humam abdullah bin Adhina from Jaafar bin Mohammed from his father from Ali bin Husain from his father who said:

Omer bin Al-Khattab stood up and said to the Prophet (sawas) "You keep telling Ali bin Abi Taleb
'You are to me like Harun was to Musa' but Allah mentioned Harun's name in the Quran but did not mention Ali "

The Prophet (sawas) replied to him "O disgusting bedouin! Have you not heard this verse

قال هذا صراط علي مستقيم (Al-Hijr:41)

"The path of Ali is a straight path (15:41)" (exact literal word for word into english is "This is the path of Ali, Straight".)

--
Ghayatol Maram p119 h75, Bihar al anwar V35 P58 H12, Manaqb ibn Shahr Ashoub V2 P302

With the markings as they are it is Qala hatha siratun AAalayya mustaqeemun

islam.thetruecall.com...:41.htm

THAT is the difference between having dialectical markings... and NOT having them... there are 10 readings to the holy Quran... 10.... when you have the markings you can only get 1 reading....


I see what you mean - without the "i" in Ali, it tends to make it make no sense, doesn't it? it appears to leave it hanging "this is the straight path of the". "The" what? it just hangs there.

it seems to me that is a good argument that diacritical markings ARE a good thing, and that they can in fact be WONDERFUL things for firming up a meaning!




edit on 2012/5/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

I see what you mean - without the "i" in Ali, it tends to make it make no sense, doesn't it? it appears to leave it hanging "this is the straight path of the". "The" what? it just hangs there.

it seems to me that is a good argument that diacritical markings ARE a good thing, and that they can in fact be WONDERFUL things for firming up a meaning!

edit on 2012/5/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)


It is the markings that change the meanings... if you look at what I posted, it is the exact same as what is on the link.... the only thing that changes the meanings of the exact same words ARE the Markings

and no... we do not "firm up" any meaning in the quran,,, precisely because there are 10 levels of meaning to each and every ayah in the Quran... 10

each meaning, gives more depth of understanding... its like a layer cake... its all cake, but without all the different layers and icings and whatnot.... it would not be the same

you and I have spoken on what it means to be 'religious' it is a path to knowing God.... well, sometime ago you were in kindergarden... but now you have suceeded through college (just example)... you needed one grade, one level, one after another in order to reach the goal of intelligent man

This is the way the Quran is revealed, one level after the other, and as we grow spiritually we find and understand more depth of the Quran, revealing to us more and more about that God we seek to know, and about his "path' for us.....

like the above ayah, we learn two parts of the path of Allah, One part is His sincere servants, the other Part is the Leader of those sincere servants, the first of the Guides... it shows us what to follow to be counted as one of those sincere servants, thus enabling us to become firmly upon that path.


Quran says "and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding."

edit on 30-5-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by InfoKartel
 



He is one of the messiahs. Big difference.


Your original words in this post were:
"Muslims see him as one of the many prophets."
"Which is that he is one of many prophets. Not the messiah."

In other words, you denied Jesus messiahship in Islam.

Interesting how you are changing your stance now to "He is one of the messiahs"




edit on 29-5-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)


It's amazing how you clueless people will say things that are testament to your ignorance.

I said Muslims see Jesus as one of the prophets, not the messiah. A messiah, not the messiah. What's the difference in between both? The significance. Hence why I also mentioned Islamic context and root of words.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NullVoid
 


Just stop trying. Your overwhelming ignorance is not working for you.

Neither is your religion that has tricked you into tricking people.

At the end of the day, you go to bed with fear in your heart, not love. Try to understand that sentence, then come back and claim Christianity is just "lovey dovey". Your brain will thank you if you pay close attention.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Since we all believe that there is only One God, who created us all... then does it not stand to reason that this same God only has One religion for mankind to follow?

Islam teaches that there is one God, and One religion given mankind by God. Through the course of human history there have been 124,000 Prophets sent to mankind... all of Them delivered the exact same message to their people....That message was the religion of God.

Over course of time, people changed this... culture got involved, human wants and desires got in the way... and all the people changed the message.. eventually, in manners which suited them and their culture.

We do not believe the religion originated with the Torah... we believe it was first given to Nabi Adam, and through 124,000 other Prophets and through time was also given to all of mankind.

The reason why 'correction' is so important now, in this last religion, in the time before the end, is because the end is centered around these misinterpretations, and the people who live by them.

God would like us to get it right. Because His message never changed, that one he wanted all of mankind to know.

Islam (Shia Islam to be precise) teaches that the true Injeel will be revealed (shown) at the end, when the Mahdi and Jesus return, They will bring it with Them.
edit on 30-5-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


My own personal opinion is that God does not change, but he relates to each man who seeks him in a way that man can understand. It is thus not God who changes, it is people who differ. Problem arise when they try to impose the particulars of their own understanding on others. They will try to impose a message menat for them alone on the general population.

because God does not change, there are some things that are immutable, unchangeable, hard and fast rules for all. I don't believe that they are as many as a lot of people would have us believe, though. Those are the important things, the "core values", and everything else that is preached among men is fluff and interpretation, which inevitably leads to differences - some times, unnecessarily violent differences.

I'm not at all sure that any single religion has all of the answers, and ONLY the right answers. There is far too much "interpretation" of the core values, and far too much imposition of the individual messages.

As a poor analogy on a purely human level, if a man comes to me and says that his boss told him to do something, and he insists that I do the same, and I respond by saying that I'm not going to do that, because my job is something else, that does not mean that I hate him, nor that I hate his boss, nor that I reject the message his boss gave for him. it only means that I have another path to walk. How I walk that path will be between ME and the boss, not him and the boss. it is not for him to fret himself over or impose his path on me, nor should I impose mine on him. We can discuss such matters, and come to a conclusion, but imposition is not acceptable. Not to me, not to him, and ultimately not to the boss.

Yes, there is only one religion for man to follow, but it is not for any man to impose it on another, and especially not his understanding of it. that is between God and each person, because ultimately it is the individual who will answer for it, and no one else. I further don't believe that the core values of that one religion include all of the extra baggage that people have tried to include in them over time.

Understand that is just my personal opinion, and you'll not find it endorsed among any of the religions of man.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I just want to say, I do not disagree with you overall. While there would be three points I might differ slightly on, I do not believe now is the time to speak on them. Maybe someday in the future we will come to this again and discuss.

Thank you for a wonderful conversation (on my favorite topic
) This has been a good discussion.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


Addendum:

I don't take much interest in eschatology or "end times". it seems to me that a lot of people fear "the end", and because of that will haggle and interpret and fritter their lives away worrying over "the end", and miss the beginning entirely. I believe that how one lives is far more important than how one dies. When I stand before God, he will not say "Congrats! You got the eschatology dead on! Enter!" he will be far more interested in what I did and how I lived, especially how i related to Him, between the beginning and the end. the beginning and the end are but instants. It is everything in between, the part they call "life", that matters.

Now i have no doubt that there are some premillenial dispensationalist Christians out there who will damn me to hell for blasphemy for carrying that opinion, but I don't care in the least what they do and don't damn to hell. it's not their opinion or judgement that matters to me. They can answer for themselves, and explain to God on their own just how important the end is. I don't care about it.

If one is worrying and fretting over the end, he's not getting related to God right in the now - or for the right reasons. He's trying to save his own skin, not honor God for God's sake.

If the true Injeel is not to be delivered to man until the end, why did Jesus come so early, then hang on to it instead of delivering it so that people could get right before the end? Why did he come and walk the earth for 30 years or so, then ascend to heaven and sit, seemingly immortal, for 2000 years or so, then come back for the final showdown, to rule for 40 years, and THEN die? Why not pack it all in to a single normal life span?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Jesus did not hang onto it... the people hid it because they wanted to hide the truth....

The truth comes back at the end of times, and for a proof to mankind, the injeel is coming back too


is this more clear?

I agree living this life in truth is what is important....to me religion is to help us live the best life possible, and also to show us the path of knowing... when we grow in knowing our reasons become clear...

In the words of the Holy Imam alayhe salaam

‘Verily people worship Allah in three ways: One group worships Him in desire of His reward, and it is the worship of covetous ones, and it is greed; and others Worship Him in dread of the Fire, and it is the worship of slaves, and it is fear; but I worship Him in His love - Mighty and Great is He and this is the worship of noble ones. (It is) because Allah has said: and they shall be secure from terror on that days (27: 89); and He has said, Say: ‘If You love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you. . .’ (3:31). Therefore, whosoever is loved by Allah, he shall be among the secure ones; and it is a hidden position, cannot touch it save the purified ones.” (al-Ilal, al-Majalis and al-Khisal)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 





To be honest, I've never been sure why the Muslims think he did come -what they think was his purpose in existing 2000 years ago.


Good question, because if he didn't come as the Messiah 2000 years ago then he had no other purpose being here other than to troll a few ultra-orthodox jews.

He would have established his kingdom on earth 2000 years ago, but if he had done that then none of us would be here right now. He postponed his kingdom back then to save the future believers. If he hadn't none of us would exist right now, it would have all ended 1000 years ago. By his sacrifice, he saved not just the past and present believers but the future ones too. He's raking in as many as he can get before he pulls the curtains down.

When he was last here an uprising was brewing and he couldn't do what he came to do if he overthrew Rome right then. What more was that only a minority of jews repented and followed after him. The parable of the fig tree ties into this.

Christ's Kingdom Postponed till later date.

He will return when his people say "blessed is he who comes in the name of YHWH". Which is what "Jacob's Trouble" is designed to do, make them seek the face of the one they pierced.
edit on 30-5-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by InfoKartel
 




I said Muslims see Jesus as one of the prophets, not the messiah. A messiah, not the messiah.


Saying Jesus was not THE Messiah" does not automatically imply that you meant to say Jesus was A messiah..

But you can keep telling yourself that.



edit on 31-5-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



I did ask you, specifically, what the word "messiah" means in the Islamic context. It does not mean the same thing it does in the Christian context, which is actually the core of my argument.



Islam teaches monotheism to be sure, but I'm not at all convinced it is the same monotheism.


1. Like I said before..the word messiah in Islam means the same thing as it does in Christianity... Reason being, Islam does not challenge the concepts of the biblical prophets and Jesus. An objective reading of the Koran, without any pre-conceived notions against Islam is proof.

2. I am a non-muslim (or at least an "incomplete muslim") who is familiar with the narratives of both the bible and the Koran. Looking at the Koran objectively, one can see that the Koran repeats biblical narratives.

Jesus being the messiah, Abraham being the "friend of God", Noah being guided during the flood, Lot being saved from the destruction of Sodom, Moses defeating the Pharaoh, Jonas being swallowed by the fish... etc.

and also the concepts and teachings of the biblical prophets such as Gods unity, Jesus messiahship etc.

So given these vast similarities between the bible and the Koran, its logical to hold that God in the Koran is the same God that the biblical prophets revered. Only a bias would lead one to conclude that Islams monotheism is not the same as that which was taught by the biblical prophets.





edit on 31-5-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



To Christians, the two are intimately connected, and to Muslims they are absolutely disconnected.

Christians may think the 2 (Jesus messiahship and his crucifixion) are connected.
But a closer read of the bible shows that Jesus' death was an execution... and not a ritual sin-sacrifice like Christians believe.
I have made a more detailed thread on this subject here.
Jesus' death... standard Roman execution or sacrifice for sins?

Christians believe the messiahs primary purpose was to die as a sacrificial animal, so anyone who believes so with his heart is redeemed of sin. IMO, this theology is severely flawed because human sacrifice being a very unbiblical concept.


What is it that Muslims think he accomplished during his time on Earth, before he was ascended, that made him the messiah?

Muslims believe he was God's last messenger sent to the Israelites.

I'd like to ask you... what is the definition of "messiah" in the bible? Does it state anywhere that the messiah's role was to be a sin sacrifice? If so, why is it that the jews reject Jesus AND the idea of "sin sacrifice"?

Remember, before the first muslim/christian debate on the messiah, the jews first had the concept of "messiah".



that is a gross oversimplification of the Christian viewpoint, and an inaccurate and inadequate conception of the Christian view of the atonement for sins. I have yet to see any sacrificial animal rise from the dead, so the Christians MUST conceive of Jesus as being something more than a mere "sacrificial animal".


"I have yet to see any sacrificial animal rise from the dead, "

Take it up with the christians... who claim the sacrifices of unblemished animals in the OT are "prophecies" of Jesus sin-sacrifice. I've debated this in that the link I posted earlier.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Truthfully said, I love this kind of discussion and where its leading. The post was hijacked and we dont even bother about it and that there is greater subject than what the title is all about. Its wonderful, but I'm not too bright in Islam to discuss such matter, but we are all learning in positive way. Thanks to everybody participation.

nenothtu - Please be aware that OpinionatedB have Islamic Syiah view and might have different view than me on certain matter. The Shi'a constitute 10–20% of Islam and are its second-largest branch, The largest denomination in Islam is Sunni Islam, which makes up over 75% to 90% of all Muslims. There are Sufism, Sufism is a mystical-ascetic approach to Islam that seeks to find divine love and knowledge through direct personal experience of God - yay Wikipedia
. Its sort of the best but very tricky to achieve, you either reach it or become atheist like.

When OpinionatedB mentioned something, it doesnt mean he represent the majority of Muslims, some part he mentioned, I dont even know or care or learnt, but we are standing on same principle - There is only 1 god Allah , and Muhammad is Allah rasul . We Sunni view Syiah like a different religion path sometime, but still have same core value - 1 god and honour the Quran, we Sunni still declare them as Islam/Muslims and so do they towards us. We view Jews as the same but they honour different book that is for them only and weirdly they honour that too! No recruiting!. About Christianity - hmmm much to think about.

If Christianity accept the 1 god view, most probably it will become supposedly like this :
There is only 1 god Allah/YHWH/whatever , and Jesus/Isa is Allah rasul.
and thats it. Do you know, I even can say
"There is only 1 god Allah, and Jesus/Isa is Allah rasul" and still nobody will hate me in Islam.
Even the Jews are closer to this approach using Moses as rasul/messenger.

So, you see, the concept of Islam is pretty simple - monotheism, say who is your messenger/saviour and follow your book. Thus Islam can be seen as a continuation of a single monotheism teaching. The non zionist Jews stick to their Torah/Tanaks and guess what ? They are closer to Islam than Christianity even though they are our promised enemy.


We Muslims dare not say Jews wrong at all but we do claim Christians are wrong. The Jews hold to their Book, it is given to them only and they honour it. Islam do the same, Christians ...uh ? trinity ? god come down as human and later killed by human so every human removed from sin ? what sin ? do i have a sin before I'm born ? Being alive is damned if that is correct. If it is my own sin, then I think I'm the one who should be punished, am I right ?

It is in my view Jesus is just a messenger and he will return to correct whats wrong. Abraham, Moses, Aaron and others need not!


All in all, only god knows.
Assalamualaikum.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NullVoid
 


Brilliant post.



If Christianity accept the 1 god view, most probably it will become supposedly like this :
There is only 1 god Allah/YHWH/whatever , and Jesus/Isa is Allah rasul.


IF...IF.

Christians should say... "There is no god but God....and Jesus is His messenger."



edit on 31-5-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by nenothtu
 



To Christians, the two are intimately connected, and to Muslims they are absolutely disconnected.

Christians may think the 2 (Jesus messiahship and his crucifixion) are connected.
But a closer read of the bible shows that Jesus' death was an execution... and not a ritual sin-sacrifice like Christians believe.
I have made a more detailed thread on this subject here.
Jesus' death... standard Roman execution or sacrifice for sins?


It depends on which side of the cross one is standing - the Christian side or the Roman side. Those on the Christian side see it as a sacrifice, those on the Roman side see it as a simple execution.



I'd like to ask you... what is the definition of "messiah" in the bible?


My understanding is that it means "the annointed one", and refers to some person of power, as a king, a priest, or a prophet. The anointing itself was usually ceremonial, a recognition of status.



Does it state anywhere that the messiah's role was to be a sin sacrifice?


There are allusions to that, particularly in Isaiah, but I don't think there are any direct statements as such. That would make sense to me, since offering sacrifice is but one facet of the office.



If so, why is it that the jews reject Jesus AND the idea of "sin sacrifice"?


That would probably be better answered by a Jew, since my knowledge of Judaism is spotty at best. It's my understanding that the Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah because they were expecting a political messiah - a king - rather than a messiah who was a spiritual leader. The question of the sacrifice perplexes me. I have no idea why they no longer hold blood sacrifice. They did so up until the Roman Conquest of Judea shortly after the time of Jesus, then for some reason it simply stopped.



Remember, before the first muslim/christian debate on the messiah, the jews first had the concept of "messiah".


Absolutely. I believe that Saul is the first anointed one I am aware of, and that was long before any of the Muslim-Christian debates. It was long before either Christianity or Islam.





edit on 2012/5/31 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
25
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join