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.
The gist I get from the OP is that it's not Mohammed's truthfulness confirmed, because Mohammed, by the OP's logic, could not have known the proper direction by himself. I don't subscribe to that notion, by the way - I see no reason that Mohammed would not have known the proper direction. It has been established that he had a life early on as a successful trader and traveler, and one cannot do that with a poor sense of direction. Take that for what it's worth from a traveler.
Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by nenothtu
Lets ask them
Viewpoints are important
Going back to the Eid example, in America there are many who view the sacrifice as no sacrifice at all, but an instance of animal cruelty under the laws. Does that invalidate the Eid sacrifice or what it commemorates? Because it has been legalistically determined to not be a "sacrifice"?
I've not made that determination for myself, because frankly none of those passages are important to me in reaching a conclusion on this matter
So enlighten me - why DID they slaughter bulls, heifers, goats, lambs, and even birds like doves on their sacrificial altars?
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
This is not about "viewpoints". Going by the christian scriptures... we can see that the OT animal sacrifices (on which rests the christian theology of Jesus "sin sacrifice") were always ritual. They were carried out under the supervision of a religious priest... involved the use of consecrated items...and most importantly was dedicated to a deity.
However, the biblical narrative of Jesus' sacrifice shows that it was NOT a "sin sacrifice".... because there were no priests or consecreated tools. Neither was it dedicated to any deity. Instead it was simply a routine Roman execution without the "ritual".
The christians have injected a ritualistic meaning to Jesus' death and woven an elaborate theology around his death.
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by nenothtu
I've not made that determination for myself, because frankly none of those passages are important to me in reaching a conclusion on this matter
Actually it is important...because it all pertains to the role and definition of the messiah (from the christian perspective). You seemed to be interested in the definition of "messiah" a few pages ago.
Remember, "messiah" was originally a concept of the Old Testament people...and NOT the christians.
So lets stick to the definition of "messiah" as defined by the OT people....
We see that
a)the messiah was to be a normal human being and NOT divine.
b)the messiah's role was not to be a sin sacrifice.
The muslims who believe the messiah is not divine, sticks to the definition of "messiah" as defined by the people who originally had the concept of "messiah". (Jews reject the messiah, but thats a different story.)
The christians, however believe the messiahs role was to be a sin sacrifice and also that he is a part of God or God himself....meaning they have altered the original meaning of "messiah".
So enlighten me - why DID they slaughter bulls, heifers, goats, lambs, and even birds like doves on their sacrificial altars?
The purpose of an animal sacrifice did have something to do with cleansing "sin".
Unlike Jesus' sin sacrifice, these slaughters involved rituals and priests and consecrated objects.
Christianity relies on the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament to substantiate their "sin sacrifice" theololgy. Which is why christians draw parallels to the Old Testament sin sacrifices and Jesus "sin sacrifice"... because they believe it all foreshadowed Jesus sin sacrifice.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by nenothtu
Lets ask them
That's not something you should put past me - ask THE_PROFESSIONAL - HE knows I'm not quite right!
Where, for example, do you believe that it specifies that the messiah id not to be divine, and where does it specify that he will not be a "sin sacrifice"?]
I'm willing to entertain that notion, but have yet to see any evidence put forward to support that contention.
Would the messiah not be a holy man? Would the things he consecrates somehow remain unconsecrated because a pagan Roman magistrate failed to consecrate them as well? Are the rituals and prayers of the messiah to no effect, then, because Romans failed to recognize them?
Are the prayers and rituals of a Muslim ineffective because someone else would fail to recognize them?
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
The messiah being "divine" and a "sin sacrifice" are christian concepts.
You know that the Christians came much later later and they modified the original concept of a human "messiah" to make him a "sin sacrifice" and "God".
So when a christian speaks of "messiah", we know they are referring to a concept that the jews originally defined. So its best to go by the jewish definition of "messiah".
Its simple.... the jews defined the messiah as a normal human and NOT divine....
And if Jesus is THE messiah... then muslims who accept Jesus "the messiah" understand him as a normal human and NOT divine.
Its the christians who wrongly believe that the messiah was supposed to be divine, (though they accept Jesus as messiah.) So christians are in no position to question the jewish definition of "messiah" being human.
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by nenothtu
Would the messiah not be a holy man? Would the things he consecrates somehow remain unconsecrated because a pagan Roman magistrate failed to consecrate them as well? Are the rituals and prayers of the messiah to no effect, then, because Romans failed to recognize them?
Are the prayers and rituals of a Muslim ineffective because someone else would fail to recognize them?
The messiah is a holy man, but not divine.
Go over the NT account of Jesus crucifixion one more time.
NOT ONCE does he say anything about his death being a sin sacrifice.
edit on 5-6-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)
Again, where can I find that Jewish definition?
Furthermore, you seem to be moving the bar and requiring "divinity" of a messiah, or of any one capable of consecrating a sacrifice. Which of the Jewish priests who consecrated sacrifices were "divine"?
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by nenothtu
Again, where can I find that Jewish definition?
Ask the jews... if you are really interested in the jewish definition of the messiah.
Christianity relies on the jewish concept of "messiah".
SInce they came much later, Christians are in NO position to define the messiah as a "sin sacrifice" or as God himself.
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Do YOU think they are wrong?