Jesus and Mohammad

[Chang dao ling]

Hi, Both Jesus and Mohammad are prophets but why their teachings are different ? According to Bible and Quran how a person becomes a prophet? 

Edited January 11 by Chang dao ling

[SirPalomides]

The usual answer I see from Muslim apologists is twofold: 1. Some of the apparent contradictions are actually not contradictions; 2. Where there are contradictions it's because the Christians corrupted/ falsified their scriptures while God preserved the Quran inviolate- you can get the authentic teaching of Jesus in the Quran and hadith. 

[NaturaNaturans]

36 minutes ago, Chang dao ling said:

Hi, Both Jesus and Mohammad are prophets but why their teachings are different ? According to Bible and Quran how a person becomes a prophet? 

Think you missunderstood, and that the question was more alike: how can two prophets have so different teachings.

 

In christianity, Christ is not reffered to as a prophet, but something much more: God incarnated.

 

Some aspects of biblical Christ are was taboo in the semitic world: the trinity, God having a human form, depictions of God and the idea that God could die.

 

It is by some belived that Muhammed and his people began as a «heathen,» Christian tribe, but wanted reform for some of the reasons mentioned above.

 

As to why their teachings differ so much? Well, I am no Expert at islam at all (nor at christianity, but naturally i have some idea of it), but a few plausible readers:

- the cultures that influenced biblical Jesus differed wildley from 7th century arabia

- Jesus was somewhat of a pascifist (i think its fair to say), while Mohammed was a war lord.

[Nungali]

12 hours ago, Chang dao ling said:

Hi, Both Jesus and Mohammad are prophets but why their teachings are different ? According to Bible and Quran how a person becomes a prophet? 

 

 

Different Prophets for different times / culture  ;

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_(Baháʼí)

[Chang dao ling]

12 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

 

In christianity, Christ is not reffered to as a prophet, but something much more: God incarnated.

Yehova is the God in Bible right? And Jesus is his son. 

[NaturaNaturans]

55 minutes ago, Chang dao ling said:

Yehova is the God in Bible right? And Jesus is his son. 

Weeell… depends on who you Ask haha, and i think it is safer is you Ask @Nungali or @SirPalomides

 

But yes, Yehova is mentioned and Jesus is said to be the son of God.

[Nungali]

It may not be  'safe'    to ask me anything .

 

 

[Apotheose]

On 12/01/2024 at 1:51 AM, Chang dao ling said:

Yehova is the God in Bible right? And Jesus is his son. 

Jehovah is one form of God’s name in the Bible 

[NaturaNaturans]

Havent watched this yet, but educated, unbiased guy:

shall Watch tommorow morning : )

[Daniel]

On 1/16/2024 at 3:39 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

educated

 

what are his credentials?

 

On 1/16/2024 at 3:39 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

Havent watched this yet

 

There's a few problems with it.

 

At 3:54 - the speaker refers to elohim as connected to the root for terrify or afraid.  That would be yirah or pachad. - LINK.  The word elohim has nothing to do with fear or terror.

 

At 6:43 - the speaker has just finished telling that all written langauges were abjad (voweless ) at that time, but, claims that the written torah was not vocalized originally.  Does that make sense?  What does a person do with a text if they cannot vocalize it?  What happens in the mind when it's read?  What is the point of writing a text if it does not have a distinct precise meaning?  What he doesn't tell you ( or doesn't know )  is that the law requires each and every word to be pronounced when the scroll is written.  It's always had a pronounciation just like all the other abjad scripts.

 

Not only that, but according to the story , Moses and Joshua write the scrolls and read them outloud to the nation.  So this notion that the torah was not vocalized fails both logically and it's changing the story.

 

 

At 8:12 - the speaker is not aware of  the grammatical issue of the verb in Exodus 6:3 "נודעתי".  The tetragrammaton is most certainly known prior to this point in the story.  The best example is Gen 14 where Abram literally says the name "YHVH is the Most High".  Grammmatically, if the name was literally not known, it would have been written "הודעתי" not "נודעתי" like Exo 18:16 or Prov 22:19 for example.

 

At 9:03 - the speaker considers the number of verses in genesis 4 significant, but, the chapters and verses were added later for convenience.  There is no significance to verse numbers, chapter numbers, number of words in a chapter,, etc...  Those are all human conventions. 

 

At 15:20 - the speaker has already forgotten what they said at 3:17 about conjugation of verbs

 

At 15:44 - the speaker correctly states the translation of elohim as a singular god must be indicated in the text.  True.  It's indicated in the verbs.

 

At 17:10 - The speaker presents, correctly, that elohim can mean several different things, not just god or gods, but anything that is powerful: eg judges and angels.  That's because the word comes from the root aleph-yud-lamed which is a divine power - LINK.  Judges were divinely chosen.  Samuel was a judge.  Deborah was a judge.  Samson was a judge.

 

At 18:43 - Here the speaker thinks they've found an inconsistency, where Abraham is referring to plural gods, but actually the speaker is, ironically, mistaken.  Verbs are complicated in hebrew.  This particular verb form is "binyan-hitpael" followed by "אתי" which makes it reflexive.  The other part that is complicated is the verb itself does not mean " to cause".  The speaker is fixated on the verb as if the subbject of the verb is "causing".  It The verb means to "wander", but, it also means "to go down" as a pejorative, with a negative connotation.  This can be seen in the hebrew and the aramaic.  It's a mistake. - LINK and LINK It's ironic, and a litttle funny, that the speaker is makiing a mistake with the hebrew verb for ... making a misktake  

 

This mistake the youtuber is making is not entirely their fault.  In the wikipedia entry for elohim, LINK, there's a mistranslation of a talmudic passage which seems to indicate that elohim is the subject of the plural verb.  But, as I mentioned above, it's not just a plural verb, it's binyan-hitpael-reflexive of the verb " to go astray" "to make a mistake".  Binyan-hitpael is past-tense and casual.  Reflexive means the speaker is speaking about themself.  The verb is "to go astray".  If it's plural reflexive that means there were multiple mistakes and Abraham is the subject of the verb.  Elohim is NOT the subject of the verb.  And.  Strangely.  What are the mistakes plural?  That's what the talmud and other commentators are trying to figure out.

 

From here, one can read the actual passage in the talmud and understand what's being discussed - LINK.  In the passage, they are discussing whether or not Abraham made a mistake.  The mistake was not about referring to elohim as a plural.  The mistake was referring to elohim as if it has caused a mistake.  That's why the counter-argument refers not to singular/plural but to the causation.  The youtuber's miscomprehension is not their fault.  They're going by what is written in english on wikipedia.  But if they go one level deeper and read the actual talmudic passage referenced, they'll see that the dispute is not about plurality.  Elohim is not the subject of the verb.   The wiki article refers to several other commentators which wikipedia claims confirm that a plural elohim is being referred to here.  But if those comments are read they are referring to the cause - LINK

 

Elohim is not the subject of the verb.  Elohim did not wander.  Elohim did not make mistakes.  Abraham wandered.  Abraham made mistakes, plural.  The verb "התעו" is plural. but it's followed by a word which makes it reflexive.

 

---

 

I'm not seeing anything which indicates "education" in the field of hebrew language on their youtube page.   They're eloquent and they spend the majority of their time on medieval armor, it seems.  Besides this one specific video, I had to go back 5 years to find anything referring to linguistics.  It's completely unrelated to hebrew.  Then I had to go back another year to find anything else.  It's also completely unrelated.  The youtuber consistently is skipping over analysis of the verbs.  Verbs are arguably the most important part of biblical hebrew.  But they're also the most challenging.

 

Here's an example of someone educated in the field.

 

https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/ask_a_scholar_what_does_yhwh_elohim_mean

Mark D. Futato, Robert L. Maclellan Professor of Old Testament and Academic Dean at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. Dr. Futato received his Ph.D. and M.A. in Semitic Languages from the Catholic University of America. He specializes in Hebrew language and is author of the book Beginning Biblical Hebrew (Eisenbrauns, 2003).

 

Please note?  They authored a collegiate text-book on biblical hebrew.  That's a lot more than youtube popularity.

 

 

Here's what they say:

 

Elohim is actually a plural noun (indicated by the /im/ as in cherubim and seraphim). Sometimes the referent is plural. At other times the referent is singular. Like most words in English, Elohim can mean several things. Sometimes Elohim refers to plural "gods," as in "You shall have no other gods before me" (Deuteronomy 5:7). At other times it refers to the singular "God," as in "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). It is clear in this latter example that even though the form of the word Elohim is plural, the referent is singular, because the verb with which Elohim is used ("created") is singular in Hebrew.

 

One might argue that this is biased because they were educated at a Catholic university, but, the book was published by Penn State which is not a religious institution.  So, it's a youtuber using wikipedia vs. an individual who is educated in the field.  Yes, they are probably religious, and so am I.  That's why I provvided links so that you can go and read it yourself to confirm that I'm not ... covering up the truth.  

 

Yes, it takes time and effort to read and research these issues fully.  Correcting a misconception like this is not something which is easily covered in a 20 minute youtube video.  It doesn't take very long to make the claim.  For those who desire to reaffirm their choice to leave christianity or abrahamic theology, they only need an eloquent speaker and a few screenshots to bolster their beliefs (dis-beliefs?).  It takes a lot more than that to correct it.

 

Edited January 21 by Daniel

[Daniel]

On 1/14/2024 at 6:08 PM, Apotheose said:

Jehovah is one form of God’s name in the Bible 

 

Yes.  You may already know a lot of this, but for other readers who don't:  Hebrew is a unique language because of the layers of meaning which are expressed in the form of the letters and their pronounciation.  These layers of meaning completely rule out the pronounciation of "Yahweh" and strongly suggest that the proper pronounciation is something very close to Jehovah.

 

1)  First, the "W" is certainly wrong. 

 

"W" does not exist phonetically in hebrew, that's arabic.  It's known that it must be pronounced "V" because the sound "V" is pronuced by connecting the bottom teeth to the upper lip.  Then the vocal cords are connected to each other. Then air is connected from one side of the vocal cords to the other side.  Then air is connected from the inside of the mouth to the outside of the mouth.  All of these connections produce the very unique "V" vibrating phonetic.  "V" = connection.  None of this happens with a "W" sound.  "W" begins open. Then it opens further.  The vocal cords are not even activated.  There is no vibration.   The "W" pronounciation comes from arabic.

 

The "V" ( mispronounced "W" ) is the third letter in the four-letter-name.  It's called "vav".  The word "vav" means "hook" literally.  It's best known for its inclusion in the tablernacle.  All of the vavim ( the hooks ) were made of silver along with the other connnecting sockets.  Silver is a unique metal because of it's the most refelctive of all the metals.  The egyptians made their mirrors from silver.  Reflection IS connnection.  It's now known that silver is not only the most reflective, it is also the msot electrically and thermally conductive.  Silver is a connector.  It is naturally a "vav", a hook.  

 

This idea that vav is a connector is ... reflected in the hebrew language in other places as well.  The letter vav as a prefix ( "Amen v'Amen" When Jesus says "truly, truly" in the book of John ) means "and".  The vav literally connects words and ideas together.  The vav also is used for communicating possession, "his".  The vav is connecting an object to its owner.   The letter's form even looks like a hook.  All of this indicates that when the letter is pronounced, it would be vocalized as a connection, as vibration.  It would not be expressed as a hollow "W" sound.

 

2)  Yahweh would certainly not be spelled with 4 letters in hebrew.  it would be spelled with 3 letters.

 

The four letter name is spelled Y-H-V-H.  In hebrew, in order to spell Yahweh ( Yahveh ), the first letter, "Y" is voweled with a kamatz or maybe a patach.  It's one or the other.  The second letter, "H" would be unvoweled.  That's a problem.  No hebrew names are constructed that way.  When the "H" was added to the Abram, it became AbraHAm.  The interior "H" is always voweled.

 

The way to confirm this ( and I have ) is to go to the book of chronicles.  The first 9 chapters are filled with almost nothing but names.   There are no unvoweled interior "H"s in any names.  It does not happen that way.  If the name is pronounced Yahweh/Yahveh, it would be YVH, not YHVH.

 

3) YHVH = "Yiyeh-Hoveh-V-Hayah"  "Will-be-Was-And-Is" "Yi-Ho-V-ah"

 

The meaning of the name YHVH is god revelaing itself as eternal without any beginnings and without any endings.  This is explicity stated in the burning bush episode.  First it is eluded to with the private name "Ehyeh".  Then it is confirmed later where God clearly states:  "My name is 'forever' ".  The name means "Ohlam" literally "forever".  The name Ohlam has other meanings too, but, it's most often understood as "eternal".   That's precisely what is happening with YHVH. 

 

 

Edited January 21 by Daniel

[Chang dao ling]

10 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Yes.  You may already know a lot of this, but for other readers who don't:  Hebrew is a unique language because of the layers of meaning which are expressed in the form of the letters and their pronounciation.  These layers of meaning completely rule out the pronounciation of "Yahweh" and strongly suggest that the proper pronounciation is something very close to Jehovah.

 

1)  First, the "W" is certainly wrong. 

 

"W" does not exist phonetically in hebrew, that's arabic.  It's known that it must be pronounced "V" because the sound "V" is pronuced by connecting the bottom teeth to the upper lip.  Then the vocal cords are connected to each other. Then air is connected from one side of the vocal cords to the other side.  Then air is connected from the inside of the mouth to the outside of the mouth.  All of these connections produce the very unique "V" vibrating phonetic.  "V" = connection.  None of this happens with a "W" sound.  "W" begins open. Then it opens further.  The vocal cords are not even activated.  There is no vibration.   The "W" pronounciation comes from arabic.

 

The "V" ( mispronounced "W" ) is the third letter in the four-letter-name.  It's called "vav".  The word "vav" means "hook" literally.  It's best known for its inclusion in the tablernacle.  All of the vavim ( the hooks ) were made of silver along with the other connnecting sockets.  Silver is a unique metal because of it's the most refelctive of all the metals.  The egyptians made their mirrors from silver.  Reflection IS connnection.  It's now known that silver is not only the most reflective, it is also the msot electrically and thermally conductive.  Silver is a connector.  It is naturally a "vav", a hook.  

 

This idea that vav is a connector is ... reflected in the hebrew language in other places as well.  The letter vav as a prefix ( "Amen v'Amen" When Jesus says "truly, truly" in the book of John ) means "and".  The vav literally connects words and ideas together.  The vav also is used for communicating possession, "his".  The vav is connecting an object to its owner.   The letter's form even looks like a hook.  All of this indicates that when the letter is pronounced, it would be vocalized as a connection, as vibration.  It would not be expressed as a hollow "W" sound.

 

2)  Yahweh would certainly not be spelled with 4 letters in hebrew.  it would be spelled with 3 letters.

 

The four letter name is spelled Y-H-V-H.  In hebrew, in order to spell Yahweh ( Yahveh ), the first letter, "Y" is voweled with a kamatz or maybe a patach.  It's one or the other.  The second letter, "H" would be unvoweled.  That's a problem.  No hebrew names are constructed that way.  When the "H" was added to the Abram, it became AbraHAm.  The interior "H" is always voweled.

 

The way to confirm this ( and I have ) is to go to the book of chronicles.  The first 9 chapters are filled with almost nothing but names.   There are no unvoweled interior "H"s in any names.  It does not happen that way.  If the name is pronounced Yahweh/Yahveh, it would be YVH, not YHVH.

 

3) YHVH = "Yiyeh-Hoveh-V-Hayah"  "Will-be-Was-And-Is" "Yi-Ho-V-ah"

 

The meaning of the name YHVH is god revelaing itself as eternal without any beginnings and without any endings.  This is explicity stated in the burning bush episode.  First it is eluded to with the private name "Ehyeh".  Then it is confirmed later where God clearly states:  "My name is 'forever' ".  The name means "Ohlam" literally "forever".  The name Ohlam has other meanings too, but, it's most often understood as "eternal".   That's precisely what is happening with YHVH. 

 

 

So Jesus and Yahweh are same? 

Edited January 22 by Chang dao ling

[Daniel]

9 hours ago, Chang dao ling said:

So Jesus and Yahweh are same? 

 

That depends on who you ask.

 

According to mainstream Trinitarian Christianity?  Yes.

According to Unitarian Christianity?  No.

 

If you're asking me, definitely not.

 

Edited January 22 by Daniel

[Eduardo]

We know that INRI is the Latin acronym for the title Iesu Nazarenus Rex Iodeourum, that titlr Pilate recognized in the cross, but what were the Hebrew acronyms?

 

Based on various investigations, the Hebrew acronym should be: שוע הנוצרי ומלך היהודים. Translating, vocalizing and taking into account the reading from right to left, we obtain:

 

Yeshua Hanotsri Wemelek Hayehudim.

 

The initials give the sacred tetragram: YHWH

 

For that reason the priests asked Pilate to change the title.

Edited January 22 by Eduardo
Clarification

[Dainin]

Nehemiah Gordon did his doctorate on the tetragrammaton at a university in Israel. He has researched and located over 1000 early Hebrew bible manuscripts that give the vowels for YHVH. According to him, these indicated that the correct pronunciation should be "Yehovah." For those interested, he has lots of YouTube videos on this subject.

 

https://www.youtube.com/@Nehemiaswall

https://www.nehemiaswall.com/about-nehemia-gordon

https://www.nehemiaswall.com/nehemia-gordon-name-god

 

Edited January 22 by Dainin

[Nungali]

16 hours ago, Chang dao ling said:

So Jesus and Yahweh are same? 

 

Not 'jesus'  but we have 'Joshua .... ben Joseph '   and Joshua can be  with a  Y  and  add a  'SH'  and you get Ya - hesh- u-ha .   Yahovah , Yaheshwa : YHVH - YHShVH .

 

Add the 'fire sacrifice'   to YHVH and you get Jesus ... the Son . Then there is the 'third one'  ;

'The Holy Ghost '  ... yep, God is part ghost  ( dont be scared now     )

 

A curious religion , no ?

[NaturaNaturans]

On 22.1.2024 at 3:53 PM, Daniel said:

 

According to mainstream Unitarian Chrnstianity?  No

Also known as muslims.

 

Edit: qouted the wrong sentence of Daniels post, so had to correct it.

Edited January 23 by NaturaNaturans

[NaturaNaturans]

The reason I was hesitant to answer you on the name of God @Chang dao ling, is because throughout history and til today, the idea that the old testament god and NT God is not the same god. Marcion was one of the earliest church fathers, and he rejected he viewed OT got as tribal god/demiurge and NT God as God with a capital G. A self proclaimed angry, jealous and antropromorfic god  who demands tribute and flattens cities to the ground is not consistent with the platonic/NT God, who is the "highest good" in lack of better term.

 

In Cor it is written: 

Quote

But their (jews) minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

 

 

The book "the evil creator," goes in great depth on this. Unfortunatley it costs about 60 euros (wonder why).

Quote

 

This book examines the origins of the evil creator idea chiefly in light of early Christian biblical interpretations. It is divided into two parts. In Part I, the focus is on the interpretations of Exodus and John. Firstly, ancient Egyptian assimilation of the Jewish god to the evil deity Seth-Typhon is studied to understand its reapplication by Phibionite and Sethian Christians to the Judeo-catholic creator. Secondly, the Christian reception of John 8:44 (understood to refer to the devil's father) is shown to implicate the Judeo-catholic creator in murdering Christ. Part II focuses on Marcionite Christian biblical interpretations. It begins with Marcionite interpretations of the creator's character in the Christian "Old Testament," analyzes 2 Corinthians 4:4 (in which "the god of this world" blinds people from Christ's glory), examines Christ's so-called destruction of the Law (Eph 2:15) and the Lawgiver, and shows how Christ finally succumbs to the "curse of the Law" inflicted by the creator (Gal 3:13). A concluding chapter shows how still today readers of the Christian Bible have concluded that the creator manifests an evil character.

 

 

 

[Daniel]

On 1/22/2024 at 6:53 AM, Daniel said:

According to Unitarian Christianity?  No.

 

5 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Also known as muslims.

 

You're equating Unitarian Christians with Muslims?

 

5 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Marcion was one of the earliest church fathers

 

Are you sure?  

 

Per wikipedia: "Early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian denounced Marcion as a heretic or antichrist, and he was excommunicated by the church of Rome around 144." - LINK

 

5 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

The book "the evil creator," goes in great depth on this. Unfortunatley it costs about 60 euros (wonder why).

 

Does this mean you're not reading it?  You don't know what it says?  

 

5 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

analyzes 2 Corinthians 4:4 (in which "the god of this world" blinds people from Christ's glory),

 

There's various interpretations.  Here is the mainstream opinion:  

 

https://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-god-world.html

 

This is from the JWs.  Their devotion to scriptural fidelity makes them good sources for questions like this.  They agree with the mainstream Christian theology.

 

"6 Faithful angels use their power for good, but Satan uses his power for evil. And Satan surely has great power and influence. The Bible refers to him as “the ruler of this world” and “the god of this system of things.” (John 12:31; 2 Corinthians 4:4) Satan even has “the means to cause death.” (Hebrews 2:14) This does not mean that he kills all people directly. So, what does it mean? First, this world is filled with Satan’s hateful and violent attitude. Second, because Eve believed Satan’s lie and Adam disobeyed God, all humans sin and die. (Romans 5:12) Satan is, as Jesus called him, “a murderer.” (John 8:44) He really is a powerful enemy."

 

5 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

But their (jews) minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

 

It's not really "the jews", because, according to the NT there are no such thing as jews and gentiles.  Galatians 3.  I think it would be good to read the entire passage in 2 Corinthians 3:

 

12  Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13  We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14  But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15  Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17  Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18  And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate a the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

 

What's written here is, reading the OT without Christ is reading the OT from under a veil.  In Christ, the veil is removed, and one can read the OT correctly.  It has nothing to do with being jewish. Further, a hint is given about what it means to be in Christ according to the apostle.  This is a "shout-out" to several prophecies in the OT of which you are probably not aware.  It's the jewish concept called "t'shuvah" "return".

 

Isaiah

 

44:22

מחיתי כעב פשעיך וכענן חטאותיך שובה אלי כי גאלתיך׃
I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, your transgressions, and, as a cloud, your sins; return to me; for I have redeemed you.
 

 

Jeremiah

4:1
אם־תשוב ישראל נאם־יהוה אלי תשוב ואם־תסיר שקוציך מפני ולא תנוד׃
If you will return, O Israel, says the Lord, return to me; and if you will put away your abominations out of my sight, and do not waver,

 

Malachi  ( the most well known example )

 

3:7

למימי אבתיכם סרתם מחקי ולא שמרתם שובו אלי ואשובה אליכם אמר יהוה צבאות ואמרתם במה נשוב׃
From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my ordinances, and have not kept them.

Return to me, and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts. But you said, How shall we return?
 

 

Luke

 

1:17

 

And he [Jesus] will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

 

 

5 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

A self proclaimed angry, jealous and antropromorfic god who demands tribute and flattens cities to the ground is not consistent with the platonic/NT God,

 

Maybe you're not aware that Jesus prophecies that the temple and jerusalem will be destroyed?   It's a vital prophecy because it confirms Jesus as a jewish prophet according to the story.  Maybe re-read Matthew 24?  Jesus says all these things must happen.  It's not all champaign and roses.

 

When one studies the OT, the message that is contained there is that everything is happening for a reason.  There is only 1 divine power with only 1 divine plan.  Pagans struggle with this idea then and now.  That too is part of the plan.

 

Edited January 24 by Daniel

[NaturaNaturans]

18 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Pagans struggle with this idea then and now.  That too is part of the plan.

Okay my Friend, to be honest i barley scim trough at this point. There is no point in arguing with one who whole hearthely belives that every word written on sheep skin in the Judean wasteland is literal truth, and resorts to qouting more sheep skin litterature when questioned. But sometimes it gets so ridicioulus that i feel the need to comment. Not for your sake, but for my own and the fact that this is an open forum. Rude, I know, but… without honesty we will never get anywhere. 

I thank God he didnt make me one of his chosen people.

[Daniel]

56 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Okay my Friend, to be honest i barley scim trough at this point. There is no point in arguing with one who whole hearthely belives that every word written on sheep skin in the Judean wasteland is literal truth, and resorts to qouting more sheep skin litterature when questioned. But sometimes it gets so ridicioulus that i feel the need to comment. Not for your sake, but for my own and the fact that this is an open forum. Rude, I know, but… without honesty we will never get anywhere. 

I thank God he didnt make me one of his chosen people.

 

I don't think what you're saying is rude.  I think it's foolish to make claims about what is written in ANY text without reading what is written in the text.

 

You've referred to various scriptures, but one doesn't need to consider it literal truth in orrder to have a discussion about it.  However, in order to make any sort of credible claim about what's written, it absolutely requires knowing what's... written.  If you don't know these texts, then, your **belief** in the crritics is no less religious than my beliefs.

 

People discuss harry potter, myth, and legend all the time without making any claims about their truth.

 

Edited January 24 by Daniel

[NaturaNaturans]

7 hours ago, Daniel said:

Pagans struggle with this idea then and now.  That too is part of the plan.

Okay then, @Daniel, lets try. And ill try systemetically, and hope you will as well.

 

1. Unitarian Christianity is not a thing. The trinity has been at the very core of the faith at the very begininng. One off-shoot of christianity, so to speak, did just that: viewed christ as a prophet but not divine. Today we know them as muslims. Christ is mentioned more times then Muhammed in the quran. 
 

(And please dont bring up scientology or jehovas whitnesses or something, thats just dishonest).

 

2. As usual, you completley ignored the main argument: Yahwe is a tribal god and NT God is not.

 

 (OT even has a name, just like me and you, and a chosen tribe of israelittes. And cananites, who also worshipped him. Many would say that the israelites and cananites where practically the same people, snd a Google search will confirm that).

 

Even with a basic and superficial understanding of the bible, you notice a massive disconnect in the nature of God and values. This is not some fringe belief, it is mainstream and has allways been so.

 

3. Yes, I am 100% certain that Marceon is among the earliest church fathers, credited with first canoniziation of NT. A simple look at his wiki page would confirm that. I am sure you looked it up aswell, but decided to ignore it since it doesnt fit your fanatical view on religion.

 

4. Yes, i have not read the evil creator. I have listened to the author however. Anyways, it is not relevant. Again: you do not need that particular book to understand that Yahwe is complete evil from a Christian perspective, and these ideas has been around for as long as Christianity has. 
 

5. This leads to another interresting point: focusing on the soul and not the letter of the text, another schism between christianity and judaism.

 

6. No point in commenting on the version you googled Your way til in order to protect Your faith. The old covenant refers to jews, and nobody else. There is absolutley no other way to read that. 
 

7. of course there is no such thing as jews and gentiles, unless you are a jew. Jews arent special in any way what so ever for the 8 billion people who are not jews. Most of the find the idea of the chosen people rather disturbing. Yet more evidence that OT god is a tribal god.

 

8. Why do you qoute me isiah, jeremiah and other prophets of judaism? It is, again, irrelevant to everyone not jewish.

 

9. No, I am very aware that Jesus despised the jewish priestly class and the temple/synagoge, and you know what, in the bigger picture, his «prophecy» was correct.

 

10. «Pagans struggle with this idea then and now.  That too is part of the plan.»

 

Most people consider statement like these as extremist, fundementaltist and insane, but it is okay.

 

Take care.

 

 

[NaturaNaturans]

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

People discuss harry potter, myth, and legend all the time without making any claims about their truth.

Can we please discuss Harry Potter instead? It at least contains wisdom, is loved by countless millions, is not taken literally and doesnt feel the need to specify that you shouldnt sacrifice your children in fire so the demiurge so a tribal god can inhale the smoke.

 

OP asked about Jesus and Mohammed. Yahwe and Jesus is not the same, and it does not depend on who you ask.

[Dedicated]

Replying to the question on a surface level. These two prophets emerged during different times of political unrest. Some of the tenets of Islam make more sense when taken in context. Arab tribes were warring and many women were left widows. Before Mohammed men took up to fifteen wives, but from what I hear Islam only allows extra wives if a man has the economic and emotional means. And then only up to five. 

[Daniel]

 

13 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Unitarian Christianity is not a thing

 

Unitarian Christianity is not a thing?  Chrstianiity.com disagrees with you.  This is what they say about themselves.  You may not agree with them, but, that doesn't mean it's "not a thing".  This simple fact that the council needed to clarify Jesus' divine status shows that there were substantial early Christian congregations which were not worshipping Jesus as a deity. 

 

Unitarians track their history back to the Apostolic Age and maintain this belief was popular during the pre-Nicene era, preceding the First Council of Nicaea in 325. Many Unitarians consider their Christology most similarly matches that of the "original Christians."

 

https://www.christianity.com/church/denominations/what-is-unitarianism-discover-the-history-and-beliefs-of-the-unitarian-church.html

 

Here, below, you can see that it took several hundred years to fully establish, enforce, and normalize the trinity doctrine.

 

The Council of Nicaea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ. ... In Nicaea, questions regarding the Holy Spirit were left largely unaddressed until after the relationship between the Father and the Son was settled around the year 362.  The doctrine in a more full-fledged form was not formulated until the Council of Constantinople in 381 and a final form formulated primarily by Gregory of Nyssa.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Trinity

 

13 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Today we know them [unitarian Christians] as muslims.

 

I'm not sure that Unitarian Christians would appreciate that equivilance.  Maybe this conclusion is coming from your location and isolation from non-trinitarians?  You've admitted to a lack of education in Islam, the OT, and non-protestant Christianity, correct?  So where is this confidence coming from?  

 

 

13 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

And please dont bring up scientology or jehovas whitnesses or something, thats just dishonest

 

The JWs are excellent with scripture.  None the less, here is a long list of Unitarian Christian resources.

 

https://www.unitarianchristianalliance.org/resources/

 

13 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

As usual, you completley ignored the main argument: Yahwe is a tribal god and NT God is not.

 

The main point is, because you have not read the OT, nor studied it, nor read and understand its language, then you are not in a position to distinguish fact from fiction.  So, you post opinions, but they often collapse when examined rationally.

 

13 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

OT even has a name, just like me and you, and a chosen tribe of israelittes. And cananites, who also worshipped him. Many would say that the israelites and cananites where practically the same people, snd a Google search will confirm that

 

That's somewhat true, but, also over simplified.  The problem with google searching and youtubing is that without reading the text itself, one would never be able to distinguish between fact and fiction.  That's why the JWs are a good resource.  When talking about the bible, they are always-always directing the reader to ... drumroll ... the text that's in the bible.  The individual's demonination, or label/affiliation doesn't matter.  The bible's text is the bible's text.  

 

Critics do the opposite.  They discourage reading the bible.  They will clip a tiny piece from the bible, and refuse to read the surrounding text.   Critics like "deal-breakers" and "gotchas".  But they hate including details and nuance because it diminishes the impact of their critique.

 

13 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Even with a basic and superficial understanding of the bible, you notice a massive disconnect in the nature of God and values. This is not some fringe belief, it is mainstream and has allways been so.

 

Sure, that's a superficial understanding.  Thanks for admitting it.  Superficial.  Shallow.  Immature.   The critic often relies on a cartoon-version of the biblcal god of Abraham.  Then they deny that anyone anywhere can possibly have a more mature, deeper understanding of the text than themself.  It's arrogance + ignorance.  It's ignorant, because it's a shallow superficial understanding.  And it's arrogant becausee it lifts up their own ignorance as the ideal.

 

13 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Yes, I am 100% certain that Marceon is among the earliest church fathers, credited with first canoniziation of NT. A simple look at his wiki page would confirm that. I am sure you looked it up aswell, but decided to ignore it since it doesnt fit your fanatical view on religion.

 

It could be that I missed it, but I certainly did not choose to ignore it.    I checked multiple sources prior to posting.  But since I am not an expert in Christianity, I asked the question, "Are you sure?"  You're claiming 100% certainty?  Why?  Where is this confidence coming from?  You've admitted a lack of education in this subject matter previously.  Has something changed?

 

I just double checked the wiki-article.  What are you seeing there which indicated Marcion is a Church father?  I'm seeing it as distinct, because, it describes Marcion as having written his own gospel adapted from Luke and denied the others.  The other Chruch Fathers, right or wrong, labeled him a heretic.  I've searched for anyone anywhere that includes Marcion as a Church Father, and I cannot find any.

 

Please direct me to the section on the wiki-article which described Marcion as a Church Father?  I am finding nothing corraborating your position.  I am finding the opposite.  Marcion made contact with the Church Fathers approx. 140 CE. They labeled him a heretic in approx. 144 CE.  Here's a source hopefully you will respect, the famous critical-biblical-scholar Bart Erhman:  LINK 

 

The above is bolded since you have said that you are skimming my posts.

 

13 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Yes, i have not read the evil creator.

 

Then bringing the book as a source isn't useful, because, you don't know what it says.  You don't know if it makes any valid arguments and you cerrtainly have not actively looked for or considered any valid counter-arguments.  

 

---

 

Let's stop here for now.  I'm eager to read your response to the evidence I brought that Unitarian Christianity is "a thing" and "was a thing".  Also, I'm interested to read how you are establishing Marcion as a Church father when everything I'm finding is the opposite.

 

Thank you,

 

Edited January 24 by Daniel