Jesus was a "Muslim"

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Literally, he wasn't a son of David at all. It was a term used to bring to attention that David was his ancestor.

Likewise, Mary was a "daughter of Amram", which would make her a "brother of Aaron" (her cousin Elizabeth WAS one of the "daughters of Aaron", in fact, and referred to as such in the Bible). In no sense does the Quran (or Islam) actually consider Mary to be the literal sister of Aaron.

It's only a problem if you look at it assuming it is one. I suppose it could be a little confusing because the Quran gives Mary's father the title of "Imran" (the arabic version of Amram), but if you read the text, you can tell what it is talking about.

edit on 3-10-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

Miriam's father was Amram. There is nothing to indicate Mary was from Amram, the Bible only says that Elizabeth was her cousin and came from Levi. The term, daughters of Aaron means simply she was of the priestly line. But on which side is Mary and Elizabeth related on? There is nothing stating it was on the father's side.

The Greek word used was syngenis, which means more than just a cousin, it covered a vast range of relationships.

Luke 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." 34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" 35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

Because Mary WAS NOT married at this time, then there can only be one genealogical line counting from her side, and that was Judah. If Jesus were born to Levi, thence to Aaron's line, then He would have been considered an Aaronic priest, however, at no time in the Bible is Jesus ever mentioned as of the Aaronic priesthood. He is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedech.

Hebrews 7 makes it very clear the Levitical priesthood ended with Zechariah and the Melchizedech priesthood is now in effect.

Hebrews 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, 6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. 7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. 8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. 9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. 11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Jesus is not counted as any time being from Levi, so therefore not of Amram, then not Aaron. John, being of the Levitical priesthood, represented the law and the prophets. Remember something here, Moses, representing the law and the prophets, did not enter into the promised land. They were led into it by.....Joshua, which is the same root as Yeshua, and means Yaweh is Salvation. So the law can get you to the edge, but salvation brings you in.

He whose descent is not counted of Levi.. Abraham paid tithes to? Jesus said "before Abraham was, I AM". Who did He say it to? The Aaronic priests.

reply to post by logical7


John stands apart from the rest of the synoptics because he takes more of a "mystical" approach, where the rest take more of a reporter-like approach. Because of the mysticism involved in John's writing, there have been all manner of misunderstandings of what he was trying to say. It's best, I think, to evaluate what he says in light of the other 3 gospel writers, and understand that he was using a more "flowery" language approach. Not much of John can be taken at face value - one has to dig deeper. There should be nothing contradictory, and if it appears there is, one should examine it more closely until a resolution is reaches harmonizing the writings.

Paul is, of course, in a class all his own. Even during the events, there was a lot of infighting between he and the other apostles. If they couldn't agree then, how can we expect them to agree NOW? part of that problem is in the fact that Paul's audience was entirely different from the other apostles audiences, and part of it seems to me to be the sheer bull-headedness that Paul exhibited.

You see, God seems to be willing to interact with people on a level they can understand. If we have a hard time understand one another due to cultural differences, how much more so will we misunderstand the way the other relates to God, given the nature of God meeting us on our own level of understanding, since we have no hope of attaining His?

Originally posted by logical7
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

No, we cannot make law. We can only follow it to the best of our ability, as we understand it. I think that the very act of relying on scholars, rather than studying it for yourself, would be a blockage between the individual and God. it's still placing an intermediary there, rather than seeking out God ourselves. That's just me, of course. I also understand that there are people with other concerns in life, who would rather pursue their own goals, and leave the studying to the scholars, relying on their judgement. Those people will have to take that up with God as to the correctness of their actions in due course, and it's not for me to say whether that was the right thing for them or the wrong one. That's between them and God.

reply to post by nenothtu


if other apostles and paul had obvious differences and paul was the more dominant, wouldnt that mean that he influenced the bible more without having any authority or worst by a self proclaimed one. Just reading the chapters by him makes a image of a used car salesman eager to make more sale, false modesty and wise arguments and twisted sentences to impress and awe gullible simpltons.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by logical7
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

No, we cannot make law. We can only follow it to the best of our ability, as we understand it. I think that the very act of relying on scholars, rather than studying it for yourself, would be a blockage between the individual and God. it's still placing an intermediary there, rather than seeking out God ourselves. That's just me, of course. I also understand that there are people with other concerns in life, who would rather pursue their own goals, and leave the studying to the scholars, relying on their judgement. Those people will have to take that up with God as to the correctness of their actions in due course, and it's not for me to say whether that was the right thing for them or the wrong one. That's between them and God.

what source you use to get the law?

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by logical7
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

No, we cannot make law. We can only follow it to the best of our ability, as we understand it. I think that the very act of relying on scholars, rather than studying it for yourself, would be a blockage between the individual and God. it's still placing an intermediary there, rather than seeking out God ourselves. That's just me, of course. I also understand that there are people with other concerns in life, who would rather pursue their own goals, and leave the studying to the scholars, relying on their judgement. Those people will have to take that up with God as to the correctness of their actions in due course, and it's not for me to say whether that was the right thing for them or the wrong one. That's between them and God.

what source you use to get the law?

What source do you use to get the laws of physics, which you are bound to obey. The laws of physics are complete and the laws of morality is also complete. Cause and Effect is a law in both the natural and spiritual. The law of reciprocity works, whether we realize it or not, or accept it or not.

Mohammed tried to circumvent those laws, but in the end, he was killed in the same manner he said allah would kill him if he lied. Well. Mohammed lied, and allah cut his aorta....wouldn't you think the law of reciprocity was in full effect in his case?

reply to post by Deetermined

Yeah right, whatever...

Isaiah 9:6

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 7:14

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Regarding Isaiah 9:6...
Then why is it that the jews don't believe the messiah is divine?
The "messiah" is a jewish concept and Christians have taken jewish scriptures and distorted it to make the messiah seem divine.

Secondly, Isaiah 9:6 only works against the Christian concept of "trinity". If the messiah is the "Everlasting Father", then your trinity is comprised of Father-Father-Holy Spirit.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Take it up with Jesus. I had nothing to do with how He planned His church and I had nothing to do with how He planned the activities of his followers. He had His own timetable .. first the children of Israel and then the rest of the children of the world. I had no say in it ...

Its pretty obvious... Jesus made his position on gentiles pretty clear when he was alive.
Then according to the account of the resurrection, we are to believe that he suddenly changed his mind.

Strange.

reply to post by FlyersFan

The early Christians ... the fathers of Christianity .. from a time before the bible was even around .. believed in the Holy Trinity. They wrote about it. You might want to read up ... Writings here

Yet, God never said he was triune.
On the contrary he said "I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God"

Jesus and the prophets never defined God as triune.

You get your "trinity" teaching from misreading verses.

reply to post by Deetermined

The next time you look up Bible verses, notice the difference between "son of God" and "Son of God". There's a difference in capitalization when referring to Adam versus Jesus.

Like somebody else pointed out, there are no capital letters in Hebrew and Aramaic.

Secondly, if capitalization is so important to you, go read Psalms 2:7 from the KJV

I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. - Psalm 2:7

www.biblegateway.com...

There you go.
It says "Son" (note the capitalization).... and also that it says he was "begotten".

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Regarding Isaiah 9:6...
Then why is it that the jews don't believe the messiah is divine?
The "messiah" is a jewish concept and Christians have taken jewish scriptures and distorted it to make the messiah seem divine.

Secondly, Isaiah 9:6 only works against the Christian concept of "trinity". If the messiah is the "Everlasting Father", then your trinity is comprised of Father-Father-Holy Spirit.

We didn't distort anything, they don't have the complete story, because they do not believe the new testament they have had no new revelation for 2000 years. The first christians were jews and they believed Jesus is divine to the point they were willing to die for it and so they did which is what the sword Christ brought that he spoke of when he said "i have not come to bring peace, but a sword". The orthodox jews are the apostates, not the other way around. Jews who have come to accept Christ have the complete story, both Tenach and New Testament, they are what is called a "completed jew", it's an explosive thing when a jew realizes Jesus is the King of Israel, the Holy One.

The orthodox jews deny Christ so much that they ignore prophecies pointing right at him because they cannot bear to realize for 2000 years they have believed lies, but they will realize it, which is what Hosea 5:15 is about which then brings Zechariah 12:10. They cannot bear to lose their tradition, which is what got them into trouble with God in the first place, they chose tradition over him. One camp wanted to kill Jesus as a false messiah, another camp wanted to force him to be king so they could destroy Rome which is what "taking the kingdom of heaven by violence" was about that Jesus spoke of.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


My point was that the very concept of messiah came from the jews, whether you like it or not.
They very definition of messiah is that he would be a human being doing the will of God.... NOT God himself.

Yes, the jews are wrong in rejecting Jesus. But it doesn't change the fact that they had originally defined the messiah as a human being. Christianity draws a lot from jewish concepts and scriptures.... and along the way, tweaked them to make the messiah a divine human.

Originally posted by babloyi
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.

yet just a few years ago He said his Name was Jesus, why would He say that

(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of MelchisedecBy so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
Hebrews7

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians2

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Acts4

Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
1 Timothy 1

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

My point was that the very concept of messiah came from the jews, whether you like it or not.
They very definition of messiah is that he would be a human being doing the will of God.... NOT God himself.

Isaiah didn't believe that, apparently not all jews believed he was just a man. All the prophets who proclaimed Messiah would be God himself were killed, don't you find that a bit odd? Everyone of them met a bad end, murdered in many cases, exiled in others. Zechariah was murdered between the altar and the holy of holies, Isaiah was stuffed in a log and sawed in half.

The entire purpose for Shavuot at Mt. Sinai was God was going to be Israel's king, but they didn't want a Spirit for a king, they wanted a flesh and blood man like the goyim. So he gave them what they asked for, setting it up where he himself could be their king cloaked hidden in the flesh of a man, but they didn't pay attention to their prophetic feastdays, when Gabriel told them how Messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey colt they missed it. This is where John 1 comes into play:

John 1:6-13

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


Look into the OT and see who the Light is, and the Light walked amoung men, he came to his own and they didn't recieve him. They didn't recognize their own God standing there right in front of them because he was hidden in the form of a man the way all kings walked about hidden, amoung their people to see if their people's hearts were for them.

Isaiah 44:6

6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.

Both Messiah and God saying this together as One.

Revelation 1:10-18 [Jesus speaking in underline]

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”

12 Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. 17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.

Do you not find it interesting that he shows up looking like the Ancient of Days described in Daniel 7:9. The whole titl "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" never struck a note in you? The only King of Kings is God, he's the King over all Creation. Do you not find it intersting that he bears the name above all names?

Philppians 2:9-11

9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The name above all names is God's name, Yahweh Master of Legions (Lord of Hosts). Here it is in the OT:

Isaiah 45:22-23

22 “Look to Me, and be saved,
All you ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
23 I have sworn by Myself;
The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness,
And shall not return,
That to Me every knee shall bow,
Every tongue shall take an oath.

But every knee is bowing to Messiah the Holy One of Israel:

Isaiah 45:11-13 [Holy One and his Maker speaking as One again]

11 Thus says the Lord,
The Holy One of Israel, and his Maker:
“Ask Me of things to come concerning My sons;
And concerning the work of My hands, you command Me.
12 I have made the earth,
And created man on it.
I—My hands—stretched out the heavens,
And all their host I have commanded.
13 I have raised him up in righteousness,
And I will direct all his ways;
He shall build My city
And let My exiles go free,
Not for price nor reward,”
Says the Lord of hosts.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Isaiah 45..


Isaiah 45:22-23:

22 “Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. 23 I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, And shall not return, That to Me every knee shall bow, Every tongue shall take an oath.

Yes, God said that. He makes it pretty clear that that He alone is God and there is no other. Isaiah never meant that to mean God=messiah...and I'm sure the Israelites understood that any differently.

He sent out Jesus to this world to do His will.... that does not mean Jesus is on the same level as God. Jesus himself makes it clear. Also, the distinction between God and Jesus is made several times in the bible how did you miss all of that?

Even Paul, who I don't trust, never called stated that Jesus = God.
Look at the quote from Phillipians that you just posted.... God exalted Jesus and gave him a name....meaning Jesus was a separate entity from God.

reply to post by logical7


I wouldn't say Paul was dominant. He was bull-headed, but not particularly charismatic. Stubbornness doesn't always equate to dominance. Some of what he wrote makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Originally posted by logical7

what source you use to get the law?

Jesus boiled all of the law down to two very simple concepts. One governs man's relation to God, and one governs man's relation to other humans. Everything else flows from those two naturally.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Every time Paul, or any other Jew referred to Christ as "THE Lord", (designated with the definite article), they were calling Him the Lord of the OT. (YHVH)

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

The early Christians ... the fathers of Christianity .. from a time before the bible was even around .. believed in the Holy Trinity. They wrote about it. You might want to read up ... Writings here

Yet, God never said he was triune.
On the contrary he said "I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God"

Jesus and the prophets never defined God as triune.

You get your "trinity" teaching from misreading verses.

edit on 3-10-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

Trinitarians are monotheists. We call God "Him", not "Them". "Elohiym" is a plural noun, but used in a singular context. It's technically a grammatical error in Hebrew.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by logical7

what source you use to get the law?

Jesus boiled all of the law down to two very simple concepts. One governs man's relation to God, and one governs man's relation to other humans. Everything else flows from those two naturally.

.
what about God`s attributes. how do you know How He is? thats essential to not get mislead by self or others. right and wrong are very subjective, say for example,an extreme one, for cannibles, killing human is not the same, they may worship God but they need guidance to determine morality.