Was Jesus a Muslim?

**ceburat** · 03-09-2007, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

Originally Posted by ceburat

We follow the teachings of the Holy Bible.

what do the others follow?

Many different man made or self made religions.

**ChiangMai noon** · 03-09-2007, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by ceburat

Many different man made or self made religions.

and yours is??

I refuse to believe you are not a troll ceburat.

surely nobody could be as stupid.

**ceburat** · 03-09-2007, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

^
maybe not, but claiming to be christian above christians is extraordiarily arrogant.

I don't claim to be above or better than anyone. I do claim to follow the truth as outlined in the Holy Bible. Most people on this earth do not. So if that makes me arrogant, so be it.

**ceburat** · 03-09-2007, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

Originally Posted by ceburat

Many different man made or self made religions.

and yours is??

I refuse to believe you are not a troll ceburat.

surely nobody could be as stupid.

You could settle this very easy. Simply read the Bible for yourself.

**ChiangMai noon** · 03-09-2007, 04:52 PM

Why?
it's boring as fukk.

**shehiredahitman** · 03-09-2007, 04:54 PM

You seem to hold your beliefs close to you, Cerabut & I respect that. However, you follow your relegion by default due to your place of birth. If you had been born in a muslim country, you would be equally devoted to Mohammed or whoever it is. All religion is bullshit. Keeps the hordes in line.

**ceburat** · 03-09-2007, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

Why?
it's boring as fukk.

As you read more and understand more it becomes exciting. You can also learn the truth this way. Don't listen to junk people say. Read for yourself and find out what is what.

**ChiangMai noon** · 03-09-2007, 05:00 PM

^
I very much agree with hitman's point though.
i lived in Turkey for years, the Turks are muslim by default.
I married one, she was muslim by default.
I am a non believer by choice.

It's all a load of bollux, but if it makes you happy, carry on.

**Whiteshiva** · 03-09-2007, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by ceburat

Originally Posted by NathairCeann

^Point of order sunshine. If we are to believe what is in your favourite comic the Romans killed Jesus , not the Jews. Or maybe you are not aware that the region was under Roman occupation at the time and crucifixion was a Roman form of execution not a Jewish one. I could say more but I'm still waiting an answer from the other fuckwhit on how long God has been a "he".

Pilate who was the Roman Governor washed his hands of this matter. He found Jesus to be innocent. If it had been up to Pilate, he would have relesed Jesus. Pilate let them crucify Jesus at the insistence of the Jews. Jesus was accused of the chief priests and elders (Jews).

Bullcrap - if he was truly accused by the Jewish priests and elders (of blasphemy) they would not have needed to involve the Romans, they would have been quite within their rights to execute Jesus themselves - the Romans would have had no objections. However, the Jewish execution was carried out by stoning, not crucifiction.

The fact that Jesus was crucified is clear proof that he was executed by the Romans, and not for blasphemy. It is much likelier that he was, due to his popularity, considered a threat to the Romans, or more likely to Roman rule & occupation.

Suddenly phrases like "my kingdom will come" take on a new meaning.

Jesus was probably a shrewd politicians, hoping to overthrow the Roman presence in Palestine, and the Romans decided to act before he got too powerful, and at the same time send a clear message to the Jews dissent would not be tolerated.

Originally Posted by ceburat

Refer to chapter 27 of the Book of Matthew.

Why the heck should I? Matthew wasn't there.

**ceburat** · 03-09-2007, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by ceburat

Originally Posted by NathairCeann

^Point of order sunshine. If we are to believe what is in your favourite comic the Romans killed Jesus , not the Jews. Or maybe you are not aware that the region was under Roman occupation at the time and crucifixion was a Roman form of execution not a Jewish one. I could say more but I'm still waiting an answer from the other fuckwhit on how long God has been a "he".

Pilate who was the Roman Governor washed his hands of this matter. He found Jesus to be innocent. If it had been up to Pilate, he would have relesed Jesus. Pilate let them crucify Jesus at the insistence of the Jews. Jesus was accused of the chief priests and elders (Jews).

Bullcrap - if he was truly accused by the Jewish priests and elders (of blasphemy) they would not have needed to involve the Romans, they would have been quite within their rights to execute Jesus themselves - the Romans would have had no objections. However, the Jewish execution was carried out by stoning, not crucifiction.

The fact that Jesus was crucified is clear proof that he was executed by the Romans, and not for blasphemy. It is much likelier that he was, due to his popularity, considered a threat to the Romans, or more likely to Roman rule & occupation.

Suddenly phrases like "my kingdom will come" take on a new meaning.

Jesus was probably a shrewd politicians, hoping to overthrow the Roman presence in Palestine, and the Romans decided to act before he got too powerful, and at the same time send a clear message to the Jews dissent would not be tolerated.

Originally Posted by ceburat

Refer to chapter 27 of the Book of Matthew.

Why the heck should I? Matthew wasn't there.

For sure the people who wrote whatever you read where not there either. So now what??

**ChiangMai noon** · 03-09-2007, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by ceburat

For sure the people who wrote whatever you read where not there either. So now what??

ignore it for the political spin it is or live your life by it.
up to you.
I'm comfortable enough with my choice.

Vive la godlessness.

**AntRobertson** · 03-09-2007, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by ceburat

I don't claim to be above or better than anyone. I do claim to follow the truth as outlined in the Holy Bible. Most people on this earth do not. So if that makes me arrogant, so be it.

Well to my mind and on the evidence of your posts you are actually demonstratably arrogant. Self-righteous too.

Both of which are a sin. Bad luck, do send a postcard from Hell won't you.

**Umbuku** · 03-09-2007, 07:06 PM

**kerux** · 03-09-2007, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by ceburat

Originally Posted by NathairCeann

^Point of order sunshine. If we are to believe what is in your favourite comic the Romans killed Jesus , not the Jews. Or maybe you are not aware that the region was under Roman occupation at the time and crucifixion was a Roman form of execution not a Jewish one. I could say more but I'm still waiting an answer from the other fuckwhit on how long God has been a "he".

Pilate who was the Roman Governor washed his hands of this matter. He found Jesus to be innocent. If it had been up to Pilate, he would have relesed Jesus. Pilate let them crucify Jesus at the insistence of the Jews. Jesus was accused of the chief priests and elders (Jews).

Bullcrap - if he was truly accused by the Jewish priests and elders (of blasphemy) they would not have needed to involve the Romans, they would have been quite within their rights to execute Jesus themselves - the Romans would have had no objections. However, the Jewish execution was carried out by stoning, not crucifiction.

The fact that Jesus was crucified is clear proof that he was executed by the Romans, and not for blasphemy. It is much likelier that he was, due to his popularity, considered a threat to the Romans, or more likely to Roman rule & occupation.

Suddenly phrases like "my kingdom will come" take on a new meaning.

Jesus was probably a shrewd politicians, hoping to overthrow the Roman presence in Palestine, and the Romans decided to act before he got too powerful, and at the same time send a clear message to the Jews dissent would not be tolerated.

Originally Posted by ceburat

Refer to chapter 27 of the Book of Matthew.

Why the heck should I? Matthew wasn't there.

You know absolutely nothing of the history before the crucifixion - or of why the Jews didn't execute Jesus themselves. There is so much

in your post, I don't know where to start. And I'm not going to, because I'd be casting pearls....

Matthew wasn't there?

I guess Pilate wasn't there either? Or the Jewish high priests? Or Jesus Christ?

**Whiteshiva** · 04-09-2007, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by ceburat

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by ceburat

Originally Posted by NathairCeann

^Point of order sunshine. If we are to believe what is in your favourite comic the Romans killed Jesus , not the Jews. Or maybe you are not aware that the region was under Roman occupation at the time and crucifixion was a Roman form of execution not a Jewish one. I could say more but I'm still waiting an answer from the other fuckwhit on how long God has been a "he".

Pilate who was the Roman Governor washed his hands of this matter. He found Jesus to be innocent. If it had been up to Pilate, he would have relesed Jesus. Pilate let them crucify Jesus at the insistence of the Jews. Jesus was accused of the chief priests and elders (Jews).

Bullcrap - if he was truly accused by the Jewish priests and elders (of blasphemy) they would not have needed to involve the Romans, they would have been quite within their rights to execute Jesus themselves - the Romans would have had no objections. However, the Jewish execution was carried out by stoning, not crucifixion.

The fact that Jesus was crucified is clear proof that he was executed by the Romans, and not for blasphemy. It is much likelier that he was, due to his popularity, considered a threat to the Romans, or more likely to Roman rule & occupation.

Suddenly phrases like "my kingdom will come" take on a new meaning.

Jesus was probably a shrewd politicians, hoping to overthrow the Roman presence in Palestine, and the Romans decided to act before he got too powerful, and at the same time send a clear message to the Jews dissent would not be tolerated.

Originally Posted by ceburat

Refer to chapter 27 of the Book of Matthew.

Why the heck should I? Matthew wasn't there.

For sure the people who wrote whatever you read where not there either. So now what??

All I am saying is that what little we know about Jesus was mostly written by people who weren't even alive at the same time he was. Remember the gospels were originally written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew!

So you probably have to take the gospels with a pinch of salt, especially considering the many discrepancies there are between them - and I am just talking about the four that some guys in Nikea decided would be valid 300 years after the crucifiction, ignoring the volumes of other documents about Jesus' life. I know Christians prefer to think of Jesus as some peace-loving long-haired hippie preaching love and forgiveness, but there are far to many holes in that theory. The example I gave above (Jesus being crucified rather than stoned to death - thus clearly being sentenced and executed by the Romans rather than the Jews) is just one of them - for which I noticed you were unable to come up with a plausible explanation.

How about this one then - If Jesus was nothing but a prophet/son of God preaching peace, love and forgiveness, turn the other cheek, etc - how come he travelled with a dozen well-trained bodyguards armed with swords?

And entering Jerusalem on a donkey (as prophesised by Zechariah) thus implying that he was the Messiah - do you really think this was a coincidence? I believe it is far more likely that it was a shrewd immaculately planned and executed move by Jesus to increase his followings amongst the Jews - after all, Jesus was well versed in the Torah and knew about Zechariah's prophesy (Zechariah 9:9 - the new messiah would enter Jerusalem on a donkey).

The fact that Jesus chose to do so during Easter (the most important date in the Jewish calender) was done to ensure that Jerusalem would be full of Jews celebrating passover , thus improving the chances of a Jewish uprising against the Romans (which is what he was planning).

Jesus was a visionary, a freedom fighter and quite possibly a very good man, but a mere mortal, the biological son of a carpenter, conceived out of wedlock. And I do think that if he was here today he would have been rather surprised surprised and quite possibly a little amused at what impact his life (and death) had on the world.

"Damn it guys - we just wanted to kick out the occupiers, but the f*ckin Romans found out and got to us first. Starting a new religion was the last thing on our minds. You mean people today actually think I was God and pray to me? Don't they know that I was Jewish?"

**FatBoyEric** · 04-09-2007, 12:39 PM

**ceburat** · 04-09-2007, 02:43 PM

[quote=Whiteshiva;386209][quote=ceburat;385335][quote=Whiteshiva;385314][quote=ceburat;383895]

Originally Posted by NathairCeann

So you probably have to take the gospels with a pinch of salt, especially considering the many discrepancies there are between them -

How about this one then - If Jesus was nothing but a prophet/son of God preaching peace, love and forgiveness, turn the other cheek, etc - how come he travelled with a dozen well-trained bodyguards armed with swords?

?"

Can you list some of these so called discrepancies between the four gospels?

Where do you get your information abut bodyguards?

**Whiteshiva** · 04-09-2007, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by ceburat

Can you list some of these so called discrepancies between the four gospels?

The description of the resurrection is perhaps the most obvious. The number of angels present at the grave, for instance.

Originally Posted by ceburat

Where do you get your information abut bodyguards?

Hint: What happened when the Romans came to arrest Jesus? How could a peaceloveing unarmed deciple manage to not only attack, but also seriously injure a trained, armed Roman soldier - after all, the Romans were not known to hold back if they felt threathened - as Jesus found out the day after?

You have actually read these stories, haven't you?

**ceburat** · 05-09-2007, 12:54 AM

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by ceburat

Can you list some of these so called discrepancies between the four gospels?

The description of the resurrection is perhaps the most obvious. The number of angels present at the grave, for instance.

Originally Posted by ceburat

Where do you get your information abut bodyguards?

Hint: What happened when the Romans came to arrest Jesus? How could a peaceloveing unarmed deciple manage to not only attack, but also seriously injure a trained, armed Roman soldier - after all, the Romans were not known to hold back if they felt threathened - as Jesus found out the day after?

You have actually read these stories, haven't you?

I have read all four gospels. Altho they each tell the story a little different, there is no discrepancies. Angles are spirits and spirits can appear and disappear. How do you know that there was not 10 or 20 angles there not showing themselves. In each account, none state that they were the only angle there.

As far as bodyguards go - you are assuming much. Any man can be caught by suprise even well trained men.

You said many discrepancies. Many - Please list a few real ones. I'm interested.

**kerux** · 05-09-2007, 04:10 AM

All I am saying is that what little we know about Jesus was mostly written by people who weren't even alive at the same time he was. Remember the gospels were originally written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew!

especially considering the many discrepancies there are between them

There is not a single discrepancy in the Gospels. Bring just one here.

The description of the resurrection is perhaps the most obvious. The number of angels present at the grave, for instance.

Bring each verse here that you allege presents a discrepancy. You make a blanket general statement and provide no specifics. That's because when you do provide details, we can tear your allegation to shreds.

The example I gave above (Jesus being crucified rather than stoned to death - thus clearly being sentenced and executed by the Romans rather than the Jews) is just one of them - for which I noticed you were unable to come up with a plausible explanation.

There is no dispute that Jesus was "sentenced and executed by the Romans." So what's the problem? If you read the gospel accounts the reason for this is clearly explained. Just one more example showing you don't know what you're trying to write about.

What happened when the Romans came to arrest Jesus? How could a peace loveing [sic] unarmed deciple [sic] manage to not only attack, but also seriously injure a trained, armed Roman soldier..

More

The disciple you don't name was Peter, a fisherman, an occupation requiring, at that time, strength and good physical conditioning, and was perhaps the most given to being physical of all the disciples. Peter wasn't unarmed, as you allege, but armed with a sword with which he cut off the Roman soldier's ear.

You have actually read these stories, haven't you?

And Greek was the perfect language of that time for the gospels to be written in.

**Whiteshiva** · 05-09-2007, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by ceburat

I have read all four gospels. Altho they each tell the story a little different, there is no discrepancies. Angles are spirits and spirits can appear and disappear. How do you know that there was not 10 or 20 angles there not showing themselves. In each account, none state that they were the only angle there.

I see - so there are no discrepancies, just stories told differently, and angels cannot be counted accurately?

"Yeah, there was an angel there, or perhaps two or three - I don't really remember, 'cause I wasn't really paying attention....."

Originally Posted by ceburat

As far as bodyguards go - you are assuming much. Any man can be caught by suprise even well trained men.

So we agree on the disciples drawing their swords, attacking and seriously injuring at least one of the soldiers that came to arrest Jesus?

Originally Posted by ceburat

You said many discrepancies. Many - Please list a few real ones. I'm interested.

Try answering these questions:

1) Who was the father of Mary, mother of Jesus?
2) Which son of David did Jesus descend from?
3) Who was Sheltiel's father?
4) Which one of Zerubbabel's sons was Jesus' ancestor?
5) Who was Uzziah's father?
6) Who was Jechoniah's father?
7) Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?

You may start looking at Matthew - first chapters....

What about the "sitting on David's throne"? According to Luke (1:32) the angel said Jesus would inherit the throne of David, yet in Matthew Jesus descends from a guy called Jehoiakim (Matthew 1st chapter), and according to Jeremiah (36:30) Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants could sit upon David's throne.

Just to finish off - let's take two from the day of the crucifixion: Where was Jesus on the sixth hour that day? According to Mark (15:23) he was on the cross. According to John (19:14) he was in Pilate's court!

Or what exactly were Jesus' last, dying words on the cross? - come on - this is probably the single most important moment in the whole of Christianity - surely the people present would have paid attention and had a clear recollection of what their saviour and Messiah said?

Nope: According to Like (23:46) he says "Father, into your hands I commit my soul". According to John (19:30) he simply says "It is finished". Hardly the same thing, is it?

There are lots more, and if you are truly studying the gospels, I am surprised you haven't noticed them. These scriptures are interesting, I'd even go as far as saying fascinating, but one have to read them with an open and inquisitive mind, and as I mentioned earlier, take it all with a big pinch of salt.

**kerux** · 05-09-2007, 10:34 AM

You're probably relying upon hearsay for your beliefs re:the gospels, and that is why you can't bring the verses here for our examination.

If you were wise, you'd most likely wouldn't invest your life savings in a stock just because you went to a stock broker's website where they were pushing a particular stock. You'd want to examine the company and all the details before you made your decision. If you didn't and invested your life savings you'd be a fool.

But when it comes to eternal life, you do just that.

Just to finish off - let's take two from the day of the crucifixion: Where was Jesus on the sixth hour that day? According to Mark (15:23) he was on the cross. According to John (19:14) he was in Pilate's court!

One is jewish time and the other is Roman time.

According to Like (23:46) he says "Father, into your hands I commit my soul". According to John (19:30) he simply says "It is finished". Hardly the same thing, is it?

No, it isn't but you didn't post everything Jesus said while on the cross. In other words, you made a simple mistake only a fool would make. Or someone who doesn't want to know what the truth of the matter is.

**AntRobertson** · 05-09-2007, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by kerux

You're probably relying upon hearsay for your beliefs re:the gospels, and that is why you can't bring the verses here for our examination

In point of order, the entire bible is nothing but hearsay. The term could well have been coined with it in mind.

**kerux** · 05-09-2007, 11:18 AM

Is that why Sir William Ramsay said this about Luke, who wrote the majority of the New Testament?

Sir William Ramsay - Archaeologist and Nobel Prize Winner 1904

"I regard Luke as the greatest historian who has ever lived, save only Thucydides."

_______________________________________

And then we have this from Simon Greenleaf:

Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was the famous Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Profesor of Law at Harvard upon Story's death in 1846.

H.W. H. Knott says of this great authority in jurisprudence: "To the efforts of Story and Greenleaf is to be ascribed the rise of Harvard University to the eminent position among the legal schools of the United States.

Greenleaf produced his still famous worked titled A Treatise on the Law of Evidence which is "still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure."

In 1846, while still a professor at Harvard, Greenleaf wrote a volume entitled

An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evnagelists
by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice.

In short, Greenleaf's book applied the rules of evidence used in a court of law to the evidence available regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Conclusion? Guilty

**AntRobertson** · 05-09-2007, 11:20 AM

^

Could very well be. History is, as I'm sure you're aware, an exercise in hearsay as well.

Thread: Was Jesus a Muslim?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions