Did Muhammad ascend to heaven and descend, Messiah Jesus refutes this.

page: 13
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Sorry, I saw there are two threads on this subject already, you need to take it over there if you want to discuss it, this isn't the place.


since you may have missed it my reply concerning jesus's marital status
www.abovetopsecret.com...

the jesus most preach is a mass of mythological detritus overlaid upon the person and teachings of an original historic jesus, who occasionally shines through, like a pearl in the muck of a pig sty




posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


You see, I prefer what His closest friend in the world said about Him, the man Christ left the care of His mother to as He hung dying on a Roman tree trunk, John. Or what His half-brothers James and Judah had to say about Him. Maybe it's just me, but they carry more weight than dudes who lived a few hundred years later IMHO.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


"Sheol" in Hebrew means "grave". Every corpse in every cemetery on Earth is in sheol.


either you know that i'm refering to the belief that the dead are asleep/unconcious till judgement day or you don't.

you are being a literalist and nit-picking to boot.

you have yet to justify your belief that hindus, who were practicing rhinoplasty while europeans were still struggling with the basic concept of basic hygiene [thanks to xtianity, btw], whose religion is thousands of years older and religious texts far outnumber xtianity's, and will still be around thousands of years after the abrahamic religions become an obscure footnote, lack logic and are in error,

other than your unfounded belief they are.


When is this eradication going to take place? People have been diligently trying for a couple thousand years. A ballpark figure will suffice. And not sure where you did your OT survey courses, but the Jews believed in Abraham's bosom for the dead. The Saduccees were a small sect that disbelieved in a resurrection. But seriously, when is this eradication going to happen? When one fire is stomped out 30 more spring up in it's place. And in Hebrew "sheol" is the name for "grave". Do you just despise being corrected?

What does"xtianity" mean?

edit on 19-9-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


You see, I prefer what His closest friend in the world said about Him, the man Christ left the care of His mother to as He hung dying on a Roman tree trunk, John. Or what His half-brothers James and Judah had to say about Him. Maybe it's just me, but they carry more weight than dudes who lived a few hundred years later IMHO.


Exactly why I don't accept the trinity doctrine.
Since it came 200 years later.
edit on 19-9-2012 by truejew because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


as for eradication there isnt any really, the religious paradigm is on a downward spiral
and it will be nadir between 50-100 years it's possible Xtians may exist but will only be known as an obscure cult known only to scholar-geeks

the Great Extermination/Persecution is merely paranoid guilt fantasies held by xtians unconciously aware of xtianity's moribund attempts at regaining relevance through violence even at the price of touching off a world war against muslims with their "clash of "civilizations"" trope, when they aren't trying to start an interplanetary one with their "aliens/ET are demons" trope. not to mention the covert genocidal war of the MIC against the Elementals especially Sylphs, which are falsely referred to by the more militant as "the Powers and Principalities of the Air".

as for xtianity it's just a short hand version of christianty, the X being a form of Chi Rho


Do you just despise being corrected?
it is you who were corrected champ
not interested in riding the merry go round of non sequiters and circular logic
i see you once again avoid the issue and refuse to answer my question

so be it.
i'll take no more of your time then . good day.
edit on 19-9-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


You see, I prefer what His closest friend in the world said about Him, the man Christ left the care of His mother to as He hung dying on a Roman tree trunk, John. Or what His half-brothers James and Judah had to say about Him. Maybe it's just me, but they carry more weight than dudes who lived a few hundred years later IMHO.


Exactly why I don't accept the trinity doctrine.
Since it came 200 years later.


That isn't true according to church history or systematic theology. Have you ever read the apostolic creed? Or Irenaeus's "Against Heresies" volumes?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


What is with this rash of new posters who just arbitrarily assert rational and/or logical superiority at the onset of a conversation? I've been in the game for a long time, is this just how it's done these days. To Hell with classic logic and Plato?

ETA: Please explain what I was "corrected on" please, unless I missed something each and every one of your posts were simply arbitrarily asserted subjective opinions. Please enlighten, thanks.


edit on 19-9-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


as for eradication there isnt any really, the religious paradigm is on a downward spiral
and it will be nadir between 50-100 years it's possible Xtians may exist but will only be known as an obscure cult known only to scholar-geeks

the Great Extermination/Persecution is merely paranoid guilt fantasies held by xtians unconciously aware of xtianity's moribund attempts at regaining relevance through violence even at the price of touching off a world war against muslims with their "clash of "civilizations"" trope, when they aren't trying to start an interplanetary one with their "aliens/ET are demons" trope. not to mention the covert genocidal war of the MIC against the Elementals especially Sylphs, which are falsely referred to by the more militant as "the Powers and Principalities of the Air".

as for xtianity it's just a short hand version of christianty, the X being a form of Chi Rho


Do you just despise being corrected?
it is you who were corrected champ
not interested in riding the merry go round of non sequiters and circular logic
i see you once again avoid the issue and refuse to answer my question

so be it.
i'll take no more of your time then . good day.
edit on 19-9-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



F.Y.I. The idea that aliens are demonic in nature and not extra-terrestrial, but extra-dimensional didn't originate with Christians, Drs. Jacques Valle and J Allen Hynak first proposed that based on the numerous years of research into the phenomena and neither of those two men were "Christians". They are giants in the field of UFOlogy, and were the first to hypothesise the ideas. So attack their credibility, you'll be laughed out of every alien/UFO thread on the net.



edit on 19-9-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

That isn't true according to church history or systematic theology.


It is very true according to Church history.


Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Have you ever read the apostolic creed?


The apostles' creed was written after 200 AD.


Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Or Irenaeus's "Against Heresies" volumes?


Against Heresies was written to defend against Gnosticism, which trinitarianism came from. Irenaeus taught one God, not three gods/persons.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 


Trinitarianism didn't come from gnosticism. Where did you learn that? And parts of his "Against Heresies" volumes addressed Gnosticism, but he had volumes (plural). I don't think you have read his volumes. His teacher, and John's direct disciple Polycarp also taught the person of Christ as distinct and separate of the person of the Father. Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna in Turkey. (See Christ's letter to Smyrna in Revelation)


"But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues..."



(Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", Book II, ch. 30, section 9)

edit on 19-9-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

lol while some of your proofs of falsehood may be of note my response was regarding the alleged falsity of the night journey and that alone not the falsity of one religion or other, as much of the same and similar proofs abound regarding xtianity.

if you were to astral project to Jerusalem right now you'd find the past and future versions of the temple all merged right there

and didn't Ezekiel, the son of man, have a similar experience, himself, namely visiting and measuring a temple that wasn't there, among other visions and being caught up in spirit?
it's also been speculated he was an epileptic too, though i don't necessarily subscribe .


i'll spare you the godzilla facepalm this time



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Gah. I had written a long reply to this thread, only to have it disappear when ATS told me that I can't post replies anonymously....I wasn't doing that?
Anyhow, the cliff-notes version.

Claiming that Jesus refuted the idea that Muhammad ascended to heaven and quoting a passage that says "No one has gone into heaven except the Son of Man" is a bit backward, isn't it? That passage was supposedly revealed 500 years before Muhammad claimed to have ascended into heaven. At the time it was revealed, perhaps no one HAD ascended into heaven. But Muhammad came after that, not before that (this point has already been raised by a couple posters before me).

This basic flaw in the central premise of the thread is perhaps the reason why it flew into an off-topic, 10-page argument about the existence of God....still hasn't recovered from that.

Anyhow, lonewolf, it puzzles me why you seem to feel the need to give detailed posts about a subject you know so little about, and are so consistently wrong about. I mean, a christian saying Islam is wrong because it says God has no son makes sense.
A christian saying that Islam is wrong because it calls Muhammad a messenger of God, and therefore implies that we should worship Muhammad as equal to God, while Muhammad was obviously not Jesus....is...well...mind-bogglingly bizarre, to say the least.

A primer, perhaps, on Islam (and tangentially, your own scriptures, maybe):
According to Islam, Muhammad was a messenger of God, yes. So was Jesus, and Moses and Abraham and Noah, etc. Muhammad, and Jesus, and Moses and Abraham and Noah were also Prophets of God. The word for Prophet here in arabic is "nabi", the same as the "nevi" in Hebrew. The word for Messenger here is "rasool", which while it doesn't have any direct cognate in hebrew, is generally understood to be "mal'akh". Mal'akh is generally understood in the OT to refer to angels (and the same word is used in arabic to refer to angels as well), but the word isn't ONLY used in the context of Angels in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. You can understand "rasool" to be "Apostle", if "Messenger" hurts your head too much, but your own scriptures use the term Messenger for both.
In the OT, Malachi in 2 separate occasions refers to messengers (mal'akh) as non-angels, once referring to priests, and once referring to who Christians believe is John the Baptist (one who prepares the way). The NT refers to both Apostles (obviously), as well as "messengers" (in the context of neither angels, NOR Jesus), and even references the verse about the messenger who is the one who prepares the way.
I'm not sure where you infuse the weirdness about "Mal'akh" or Messenger of God/Angel of God being Jesus, but that is a matter your co-religionists can handle, if they wish. Has nothing to do with the Quran.

reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Actually, as DerepentLEstranger says, there are some groups that understand the ascension to have been a case of astral projection, or travelling from within a dream (although the results not being just a dream). And I'm not sure how you equate the "Buraq" creature semantically to donkey, when "bigger than a donkey" (the description given of it in the scripture) is hardly semantically equal to "donkey".
Anyhow, no tradition at all claims that Muhammad announced or even spoke to or met any of the jews living in Jerusalem. What they do say is he prayed there, then ascended the heavens, where he met the Prophets of old, who gave him their blessing and prayers, and according to some traditions, he lead them in prayer.

And pointing out mismatches between the same stories in the Bible and Quran as proof that the Quran is false doesn't really make sense. As I said, muslims do not believe in the accuracy of the Judeo-Christian scriptures as they are today.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


And parts of his "Against Heresies" volumes addressed Gnosticism, but he had volumes (plural). I don't think you have read his volumes. His teacher, and John's direct disciple Polycarp also taught the person of Christ as distinct and separate of the person of the Father.


Polycarp taught one God also, not separate gods/persons. He also was a Quartodeciman as I also am.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 


Does that mean Jesus died on Friday the 13th day of Nisan?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


And parts of his "Against Heresies" volumes addressed Gnosticism, but he had volumes (plural). I don't think you have read his volumes. His teacher, and John's direct disciple Polycarp also taught the person of Christ as distinct and separate of the person of the Father.


Polycarp taught one God also, not separate gods/persons. He also was a Quartodeciman as I also am.


You're quite wrong, Polycarp taught that the Lord Jesus Christ and the Father aren't the same personhood of God. That the Son co-existed eternally "WITH" the Father. And I never said Polycarp taught there were three gods, you're burning straw men. So did you read what Irenaeus said?

edit on 19-9-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by truejew
 


Does that mean Jesus died on Friday the 13th day of Nisan?


Christ was crucified on a Thursday. Catholic tradition teaches Friday.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

lol while some of your proofs of falsehood may be of note my response was regarding the alleged falsity of the night journey and that alone not the falsity of one religion or other, as much of the same and similar proofs abound regarding xtianity.

if you were to astral project to Jerusalem right now you'd find the past and future versions of the temple all merged right there

and didn't Ezekiel, the son of man, have a similar experience, himself, namely visiting and measuring a temple that wasn't there, among other visions and being caught up in spirit?
it's also been speculated he was an epileptic too, though i don't necessarily subscribe .


i'll spare you the godzilla facepalm this time


Considering that Mohammed came 600 years AFTER Christianity should tell you something about the world in which he lived. He at first says Christians and Jews should be consulted when it comes to the Bible, but 23 years later he changes his mind and then says to kill Christians and Jews. And you will notice that as a Christian I did not get offended when you x'd Christ. I would like to ask this, what would happen if you typed xlam or xlim? I think for the sake of fairness you should apply that same thought. Wouldn't you agree to fairness, or do you just like negating Christianity alone?

OK, here is one Hadiths regarding his "inspirations"..take it for what you wish but the Hadiths are why they understand the Quran, because the Quranic verses were explained by the Hadiths, it is impossible to separate the two.


Narrated 'Aisha: (the mother of the faithful believers) Al-Harith bin Hisham asked Allah's Apostle "O Allah's Apostle! How is the Divine Inspiration revealed to you?" Allah's Apostle replied, "Sometimes it is (revealed) like the ringing of a bell, this form of Inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state passes ' off after I have grasped what is inspired. Sometimes the Angel comes in the form of a man and talks to me and I grasp whatever he says." 'Aisha added: Verily I saw the Prophet being inspired Divinely on a very cold day and noticed the Sweat dropping from his forehead (as the Inspiration was over).


I would post more but space prevents me from doing so. When he received his first inspiration, it was an encounter with a being in the cave of Hira. The being seized him, choked him, beat him and then told him to recite the Quran, which was not even published in book form until over 100 years later by Uthman. It was after this encounter when he told Kahdijah what happened, it was she who suggested it was Jibreel. He claimed he felt he was possessed.

So if you would like to assume he was eating mushrooms and had a psychedelic experience, you are free to think that way. But you would then have to explain that for every time he had an "inspiration". often times in front of other people.

I have to ask this though, do you think it is of any religious value of narrations of what women should do when they have periods, how to remove semen stains, which hand to use when cleaning yourself after going to the restroom, what foot to start walking with, the price to pay women after mutah, that silence of a little girl indicates complicity, sex with dead people, sex with food, sex with anybody, Jews were turned into rats, pigs and monkeys, stoning a monkey for committing adultery, which side to dress yourself from, what hand to eat with, if you don't have water to use clean dirt, how to pawn your armor to buy food, throwing a glass of water on a servant, what kinds of dishes to eat from, and many other things.

Are any of those things of any religious value?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
More quotes. Irenaeus:


"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'"


"Against Heresies", volume 10



Polycarp:



"O Lord God almighty... I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever"


N. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
Against Heresies was written to defend against Gnosticism, which trinitarianism came from.


On what do you base that claim? Gnostics had dozens of gods, and they were all distinct beings. If one is a polytheist, what need does one have for the Doctrine of the Trinity?
edit on 19-9-2012 by adjensen because: Grammar



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi

 

Actually, as DerepentLEstranger says, there are some groups that understand the ascension to have been a case of astral projection, or travelling from within a dream (although the results not being just a dream). And I'm not sure how you equate the "Buraq" creature semantically to donkey, when "bigger than a donkey" (the description given of it in the scripture) is hardly semantically equal to "donkey".
Anyhow, no tradition at all claims that Muhammad announced or even spoke to or met any of the jews living in Jerusalem. What they do say is he prayed there, then ascended the heavens, where he met the Prophets of old, who gave him their blessing and prayers, and according to some traditions, he lead them in prayer.

And pointing out mismatches between the same stories in the Bible and Quran as proof that the Quran is false doesn't really make sense. As I said, muslims do not believe in the accuracy of the Judeo-Christian scriptures as they are today.


I am glad you didn't assume that I know nothing as you said to lonewolf, but let's look at what I meant semantically, yes, bigger than a donkey but smaller than a mule. So of course he would not say it was a donkey as he claims it had wings. The statement "led them in prayer" indicates what? Would that not imply that he was announcing a "messiahship" because rabbis lead people in prayer in a synagogue. When he claimed to tie his Buraq to a ring the prophets used, he was exerting his own prophethood, Would you not think so? A prophet did not lead in prayer in the synagogue, but he did not say synagogue, he said the temple. If he went to the temple where Jews were at, why did he not mention how the prayers of Jews were performed in the temple?

He was a gentile, therefore it was forbidden for him to enter beyond the courtyard of the gentiles. Perhaps he missed that? Which temple did he enter? The one Solomon built or the one Herod built?

Only the high priest was allowed to enter the holy of holies to offer sacrifices, and since he does not indicate sacrifices were being offered, then perhaps he knew nothing about that? Why did Mohammed not mention the courts of the gentiles and Jews, and not mention the Holy of Holies?

When Islamic apologetics are presented with this historical inaccuracy, then tend to scramble to deflect that by reinterpreting the Quran. They then say he went to the furthest mosque, and yet still hold to the tradition that he ascended from a physical rock now where the Golden Dome Mosque is. The Golden Dome Mosque was not built in the time of Mohammed, and he can't say that he tied Buraq to a ring that the prophets used, if he is the last prophet and was in a mosque that is not built yet.

So we are left with this, which temple? If it is the mosque that was not yet built, no prophet before him could tie their animal to a non-existent ring.

What do you think it was? The temple of Solomon or Herod? The Golden Dome mosque? He does not describe the courtyards or the Holy of Holies. He was a gentile, he would have not gone into the temple at all according to Jewish law. So no, there was no temple visit, no mosque visit, no buraq, just the fantastic story.





top topics
 
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join