Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Khatru on March 30, 2017, 11:15:12 AM
-
The Muslims say he was but what is the Christian consensus (if it's possible to reach one) on this?
Can Jesus be the son of God as well as a prophet? I do believe there is a scripture which indirectly states that Jesus is the last prophet.
The reason I ask is that a number of American preachers have claimed to have prophesied Donald Trump as God's man in the White House. This made me wonder that if Jesus was a prophet then what is God doing sending inferior prophets after having sent his son?
-
Khatru,
The Muslims say he was but what is the Christian consensus (if it's possible to reach one) on this?
Can Jesus be the son of God as well as a prophet? I do believe there is a scripture which indirectly states that Jesus is the last prophet.
The reason I ask is that a number of American preachers have claimed to have prophesied Donald Trump as God's man in the White House. This made me wonder that if Jesus was a prophet then what is God doing sending inferior prophets after having sent his son?
If by “prophet” you mean someone who claims to have been in touch with a deity, there are plenty. If on the other hand you mean someone who can predict the future, there are no cogent reasons to think there have been any.
-
I don't believe Jesus was anymore than a human with charisma, which is why he attracted some followers.
-
Khatru,
If by “prophet” you mean someone who claims to have been in touch with a deity, there are plenty. If on the other hand you mean someone who can predict the future, there are no cogent reasons to think there have been any.
Taking into account the biblical definition of prophet, I was looking for a Christian view on this.
-
I don't believe Jesus was anymore than a human with charisma, which is why he attracted some followers.
I'm pretty confident Jesus existed but without all the magic stuff.
-
I'm pretty confident Jesus existed but without all the magic stuff.
Same here.
Less than credible claims have been made for modern day religious people who attract a following. For instance, that shyster Benny Hinn's healing ministry has supposedly resulted in amputated limbs growing back! ::)
Some years ago my brother-in-law and his wife, who are 'born again' Christians, went to see Benny Hinn in action. They said he could certainly put on a good show, but they didn't believe him to be a genuine healer, it was like watching a skilled magician doing his stuff.
-
I'm pretty confident Jesus existed but without all the magic stuff.
Yes it's highly possible Jesus did exist and was one of those Gandi/Mandella type persons we are lucky to have from time to time and in the same way as you say but there's nothing magicl about them.
ippy
-
Neither Ghandi nor Nelson Mandela, though both heroic, were prophets. They had no pretensions.
-
Neither Ghandi nor Nelson Mandela, though both heroic, were prophets. They had no pretensions.
What is your definition of a prophet? I ask because the future does not exist so that if anyone announces that such and such an event will happen, they will either be right or wrong entirely by chance, and that is only with hindsight.
-
Neither Ghandi nor Nelson Mandela, though both heroic, were prophets. They had no pretensions.
So are you saying Jesus had pretensions?
-
Neither Ghandi nor Nelson Mandela, though both heroic, were prophets. They had no pretensions.
They, Ghandi and Mandela, were exceptionally good people in much the same way I'm sure this Jesus person alluded to would have been and I very much doubt if the said Jesus was anything more than that, if he did ever exist.
Prophet, another one of those potty theistic words that unfortunately manage to get themselves incorporated into our language and no Gandhi and Mandela were not prophets, they both lived in the real world.
ippy
-
They, Ghandi and Mandela, were exceptionally good people in much the same way I'm sure this Jesus person alluded to would have been and I very much doubt if the said Jesus was anything more than that, if he did ever exist.
Prophet, another one of those potty theistic words that unfortunately manage to get themselves incorporated into our language and no Gandhi and Mandela were not prophets, they both lived in the real world.
ippy
Prophets can be part of the real world too.
http://www.jewfaq.org/m/prophet.htm
"• A prophet is G-d's spokesman to the people
• Can be male or female, Jewish or gentile
• The Bible records 48 male prophets, 7 female and one gentile
• Daniel was not a prophet because he did not speak to the people"
The above from the link.
If someone stands up and speaks an important message to the people about aspects of moral and ethical matters, in hindsight I suppose they could be classed as prophets.
In my link it's says...
"According to some views, prophecy is not a gift that is arbitrarily conferred upon people; rather, it is the culmination of a person's spiritual and ethical development. When a person reaches a sufficient level of spiritual and ethical achievement, the Shechinah (Divine Spirit) comes to rest upon him or her. Likewise, the gift of prophecy leaves the person if that person lapses from his or her spiritual and ethical perfection."
So I guess a prophet could a human rights advocate who stands up and shouts on behalf of the weak and vunerable, Jesus because he stood up for the downtrodden and spoke to people could too.
I guess anyone could stand up for what is right and be thought of as a prophet.
Perhaps we all have the potential to be a prophet, if just for five minutes ;)
-
Yes....in some future incarnation you could indeed be sufficiently spiritually developed to be a prophet...!
-
Yes....in some future incarnation you could indeed be sufficiently spiritually developed to be a prophet...!
Prophet = Guru?
???
-
Prophet = Guru?
???
What? A guru is basically a teacher, an expert at something.
-
What? A guru is basically a teacher, an expert at something.
Though Judaic prophets have traditionally been thought to be concerned with the future, many of the great prophets of the Bible were concerned with educating their own times in the 'ways of the Lord"
-
Though Judaic prophets have traditionally been thought to be concerned with the future, many of the great prophets of the Bible were concerned with educating their own times in the 'ways of the Lord"
We in India don't really differentiate between such qualities. We only call wise and evolved people as Rishis or sages who KNOW reality. Such people could teach others or just remain as hermits or sometimes make prophecies.
-
Doesn't a prophet actually have to PROPHESY something otherwise they're 'just' a teacher, no ?!?!!?
And a prophesy that comes true in THEIR lifetime ???
Nick
-
Doesn't a prophet actually have to PROPHESY something otherwise they're 'just' a teacher, no ?!?!!?
And a prophesy that comes true in THEIR lifetime ???
Nick
That's what the words prophet and prophesy have come to signify in everyday English, but the biblical usage (Hebrew: nabi) seems to be more general, with the sense of 'one who speaks for God'
This from wiki:
"The historic meaning of nabî' established by biblical usage is "interpreter and mouthpiece of God". This is forcibly illustrated by the passage, where Moses, excusing himself from speaking to Pharao on account of his embarrassment of speech, was answered by Yahweh: "Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak to him all that I command thee; and he shall speak to Pharao, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land" (Exodus 7:1-2). Moses plays towards the King of Egypt the role of God, inspiring what is to be uttered, and Aaron is the prophet, his mouthpiece, transmitting the inspired message he shall receive. The Greek prophetes (from pro-phanai, to speak for, or in the name of someone) translates the Hebrew accurately."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet
Foretelling the future seems to be a secondary meaning to this.
-
Yes....in some future incarnation you could indeed be sufficiently spiritually developed to be a prophet...!
Just like you or anyone else Sriram, I can imagine that.
Regards ippy
-
What? A guru is basically a teacher, an expert at something.
Could they be an expert at predicting future events? :-\
-
Rose - "Perhaps we all have the potential to be a prophet, if just for five minutes ;)"
I totally agree Rose, we can all prophesy accurately sometimes. People have foreseen changes in government, financial disasters, wars, personal things. That's not divine, it's just looking ahead analytically. (Can be wrong too!)
Jesus was considered to be the Messiah and prophet by those who followed him in Biblical times, and is now by Christians but there are non-Trinitarian groups such as Unitarians who don't believe he was God.
-
Rose - "Perhaps we all have the potential to be a prophet, if just for five minutes ;)"
I totally agree Rose, we can all prophesy accurately sometimes. People have foreseen changes in government, financial disasters, wars, personal things. That's not divine, it's just looking ahead analytically. (Can be wrong too!)
Jesus was considered to be the Messiah and prophet by those who followed him in Biblical times, and is now by Christians but there are non-Trinitarian groups such as Unitarians who don't believe he was God.
It is usually individuals or communities that are unsettled, in constant strife and unsure of the future, that would be most in need of some prophecy for a better future. These communities/individuals don't see any way of exercising control over their situation.
Historically, Jews have been in this situation for centuries. Therefore the need for prophecy and the need to be saved is highest in such communities. 'Someone is going to come very soon and sort out all problems'! Not that it actually happens, but it gives hope.
-
Dear Khatru,
Excellent thread ;) And to answer your question, yes I think you could call Our Lord a kind of a Prophet, although we Christians prefer Son of God :)
Dear Blue,
What's that fellows name, the Swedish guy ( the one who died recently ) who predicted future events using data, was he a kind of a prophet :o
Dear Rose,
We all have potential to be prophets!! I like it!! Brexit! Tis the end of the world, Brexit! A new rosy future :P :P Well depends on which Prophet you consult.
But I like the way this thread is going, the deeper meaning of what a prophet is exactly, the prophets of the old Testament, were they just people who could see the way thing were going, continue on your wicked ways Israel and your in for a hard time and they were usually right ( whether God came in a flaming chariot is another story for another time ).
My prophesy, continue to have a Tory government and the poor of this country will suffer >:( >:( Hey!! this prophesying is easy :P :P
Sorry for my little political derailment Khatru, I like this thread, some very excellent posts.
Gonnagle.
-
We use the term 'prophet' to denote someone who does some mystic Meg stuff - but it meant a lot more than that in the OT. Some prophets, like Jeremiah or Ezekiel did indeed have a gift of writing down what God had in store. Others basically showed a mirror to society in general, and the nation's leaders in particular, making a stand where the felt the standards had slipped - at the cost of their income, safety and sometimes their lives. So, in the OT sense of the word, yes, Jesus was a prophet - the ultimate prophet, being the fulfillment of God's plan. Combining the role of teacher, prophet, and His identity as God, he was, and is, the last of the prophets of Biblical vintage. Because of his actions, there were, nor will be, any more such. Some may have some gift of prophecy to some degree - or claim it - but none can really be a 'prophet' again.
-
We use the term 'prophet' to denote someone who does some mystic Meg stuff - but it meant a lot more than that in the OT. Some prophets, like Jeremiah or Ezekiel did indeed have a gift of writing down what God had in store. Others basically showed a mirror to society in general, and the nation's leaders in particular, making a stand where the felt the standards had slipped - at the cost of their income, safety and sometimes their lives. So, in the OT sense of the word, yes, Jesus was a prophet - the ultimate prophet, being the fulfillment of God's plan. Combining the role of teacher, prophet, and His identity as God, he was, and is, the last of the prophets of Biblical vintage. Because of his actions, there were, nor will be, any more such. Some may have some gift of prophecy to some degree - or claim it - but none can really be a 'prophet' again.
Thanks for that, Anchorman. It's expanding on something I was trying to point out a few posts back, but people keep banging on as if the word only meant some kind of fortune teller. Maybe if I typed something in bold it might help: Listen you guys, 'some bloke who predicts the future is only a secondary - or even tertiary - meaning of the word 'prophet ''.
I think Khatru, who started the thread, was aware of this, drawing attention to the Muslim view, and questioning whether or not Jesus was some kind of divine personage.
Was Jesus a prophet in the Old Testament sense? Well, he's certainly referred to as such a few times in the gospels.
On the other hand (to appease the folks obsessed with fortune-telling): on the occasions on which Jesus is reported as predicting the future - did he get it right?
-
Some may have some gift of prophecy to some degree - or claim it - but none can really be a 'prophet' again.
Of course, the followers of Joseph Smith would disagree :)
-
Hi Gonners,
Dear Blue,
What's that fellows name, the Swedish guy ( the one who died recently ) who predicted future events using data, was he a kind of a prophet
Hans Rosling, and he was only a “prophet” in the sense that he could use data to extrapolate probabilistic outcomes. The problem with claims about prophets in the sense of “people who can see into the future” is that to be legit they’d need to do so with a frequency better than just guessing. So far as I’m aware there never have been any, but you never know what tomorrow will bring…
…or do you? ;)
-
Of course, the followers of Joseph Smith would disagree :)
-
As would those of Russel.
However both can be easily shown to be deluded at best, and fraudulent at worst.
(Google 'Book of Abraham' if you want details - or go contact 'Ralph' on nglreturns if he's still registered, if you want an argument.....)
-
Anchs,
As would those of Russel.
Which "Russel"?
-
Anchs,
Which "Russel"?
CT Russel, founder of the Watchtower Bible and Tract society (AKA Jehovah Witnessess) and pyramidiot par excellence.
-
Anchs,
CT Russel, founder of the Watchtower Bible and Tract society (AKA Jehovah Witnessess) and pyramidiot par excellence.
Oh right, thanks. For one awful moment there I thought you were going to tell us that Bertrand Russell was deluded or fraudulent!
-
Anchs,
Oh right, thanks. For one awful moment there I thought you were going to tell us that Bertrand Russell was deluded or fraudulent!
-
Eh?
When did he claim to bre either a Christian or a prophet?
(not that he isn't worth reading, mind you!)
-
Dear Blue,
Hans Rosling, and he was only a “prophet” in the sense that he could use data to extrapolate probabilistic outcomes. The problem with claims about prophets in the sense of “people who can see into the future” is that to be legit they’d need to do so with a frequency better than just guessing. So far as I’m aware there never have been any, but you never know what tomorrow will bring…
That's the guy, who I think was a sort of prophet, but I think Jim and Dicky have a more fuller version of what it takes to be a prophet, as Dicky points out telling the future is only a second requirement, I hope he can expand a little on this.
Me I like the phrase, nothing new under the sun, many prophets were just saying, look if you down this round just remember what happened to etc etc etc.
Gonnagle.
-
Anchs,
Eh?
When did he claim to bre either a Christian or a prophet?
(not that he isn't worth reading, mind you!)
He didn't - I was just picking up on your Reply 28 is all. And yes, BR is certainly worth reading, here for example:
https://users.drew.edu/jlenz/whynot.html
-
Gonners,
That's the guy, who I think was a sort of prophet, but I think Jim and Dicky have a more fuller version of what it takes to be a prophet, as Dicky points out telling the future is only a second requirement, I hope he can expand a little on this.
Me I like the phrase, nothing new under the sun, many prophets were just saying, look if you down this round just remember what happened to etc etc etc.
Well, even if you take the primary meaning there have been plenty of those for plenty of gods. Whether any of them actually were channelling the thoughts of their various gods is a different matter entirely of course but as it stands "someone who proclaims their beliefs about the divine" doesn't seem a particularly remarkable one to claim to me.
-
Dear Blue,
Channeling the thoughts of God, I think we all have the power to channel Gods thoughts but some are more, well more in touch, able to see through all the hype, all the nonsense, people like Gandhi or Buddha, hell maybe old Confucius and certainly Our Lord.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Blue,
Channeling the thoughts of God, I think we all have the power to channel Gods thoughts but some are more, well more in touch, able to see through all the hype, all the nonsense, people like Gandhi or Buddha, hell maybe old Confucius and certainly Our Lord.
Gonnagle.
We all have the power to reason, some chose not to use it, as long as they don't try to pass on their unreasoning to the next generation; please fill your boots and stay in the dark.
ippy
-
-
As would those of Russel.
However both can be easily shown to be deluded at best, and fraudulent at worst.
(Google 'Book of Abraham' if you want details - or go contact 'Ralph' on nglreturns if he's still registered, if you want an argument.....)
Oh, I know about the "Book of Abraham" :) Quite a hoot - especially reading the squirming attempts of Mormons to claim that Joe Smith's "translation" was authentic, after the original texts he "translated" were found and properly translated by genuine experts.
-
Gonners,
Well, even if you take the primary meaning there have been plenty of those for plenty of gods. Whether any of them actually were channelling the thoughts of their various gods is a different matter entirely of course but as it stands "someone who proclaims their beliefs about the divine" doesn't seem a particularly remarkable one to claim to me.
That's true enough, blue, but some of the Biblical prophets expressed what would seem to be plain humane common sense in extremely powerful language:
"What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?
says the LORD;
I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of fed beasts;
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
or of lambs, or of he-goats.
"When you come to appear before me,
who requires of you
this trampling of my courts?
Bring no more vain offerings;
incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies --
I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.
Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me,
I am weary of bearing them.
When you spread forth your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.
Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your doings
from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,learn to do good;
seek justice,
correct oppression;
defend the fatherless,
plead for the widow.
"Come now, let us reason together,
says the LORD:"
Isaiah, chapter one.
(Note to self: careful, or you'll end up doing a Sassy)
-
CT Russel, founder of the Watchtower Bible and Tract society (AKA Jehovah Witnessess) and pyramidiot par excellence.
Yes, indeed. But like all sects, and indeed religions, the JWs have evolved. I don't think they say much about pyramids these days. They may even have lost some of the rabid anti-catholic fervour of their days under 'Judge' Rutherford. I suspect though, they haven't changed that much since the days of Nathan Knorr - except since the fiasco of rather strongly assertion that Armaggedon would occur before 1975 was out, they keep rather quiet about suggesting any dates for the end of the world.
I still give them kudos points for their idea of hell being simply the grave, though. That (to me) puts them ahead of any raging fundamentalists who suggest the 'unsaved' will burn forever.
Door-to-door salesmanship seems a pretty useless way of contributing to society, though, if it only consists in selling Watchtower and Awake.
-
Oh, I know about the "Book of Abraham" :) Quite a hoot - especially reading the squirming attempts of Mormons to claim that Joe Smith's "translation" was authentic, after the original texts he "translated" were found and properly translated by genuine experts.
-
What really impressed me was the collective squirm emanating from LDS central when the original papyrus which Smith bought from a snake oil salesman, and which the LDS claimed had been destroyed, turned up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York - and was really a pretty inferior bog standard copy of the Book of the Dead belonging to a low ranking nobleman of the late sixth century BC.
The convoluted burach they concocted to explain Smith's obvious fraud was actually more entertaining than the 'book of Abraham' itself.
-
Yes, indeed. But like all sects, and indeed religions, the JWs have evolved. I don't think they say much about pyramids these days. They may even have lost some of the rabid anti-catholic fervour of their days under 'Judge' Rutherford. I suspect though, they haven't changed that much since the days of Nathan Knorr - except since the fiasco of rather strongly assertion that Armaggedon would occur before 1975 was out, they keep rather quiet about suggesting any dates for the end of the world.
I still give them kudos points for their idea of hell being simply the grave, though. That (to me) puts them ahead of any raging fundamentalists who suggest the 'unsaved' will burn forever.
Door-to-door salesmanship seems a pretty useless way of contributing to society, though, if it only consists in selling Watchtower and Awake.
Their books are enough to put anyone off, Janet and John stuff, with people playing with lions and lambs.
Even the pictures look like something out of the 1950's.
They might not believe in hell but they do believe in Armageddon and what I don't like is that they have to head hunt to get their immortality. Only those who have converted a lot of people get saved.
It strikes me as a religion based on fear.
Probably because I have seen people terrified by what they teach, driven to suicide actually. I suppose someone can become unbalanced with other Christian/religious teachings but at one point I had jehovahs witnesses on both my mothers and fathers side.
They also subject children to abuse when they take them from door to door, because not everyone cares if children are present when they are abusive.
It's a very controlling sect.
My uncle is one of the elders and his grown up daughter wasn't allowed to be alone with her fiancé who was also a JW and had to be escorted at all times, even while getting their flat decorated ready for when they were married.
It's very strict and controlling once you get into it, members can be excommunicated if they step out of line.
That creates fear too.
People in it are encouraged to mix with JW's and even though our JW are still in contact it does break up families as they don't join in things like Christmas.
Having all your friends as JW is controlling too, because should they chuck you out, you lose your friends too.
It's initially friendly, but it has depths which hems you in and takes over your life to the point it becomes your family.
I was quite shocked when I heard how controlling it was over dates between boys and girls even when engaged, I think there is fear in it about being criticised and getting it wrong.
Women are expected to honour and obey their husbands, literally.
Every so often I hear something, and it makes me realise how controlling it actually is when you get right into it, how the rest of the world is viewed.
Their Kingdom Halls and isolated JW might come across as like everyone else, but looking at my uncle and aunt, when you get further in it gets a lot stricter in lots of ways.
This honouring your husband and obeying is a lot stricter than many other groups who just give it lip service.
Perhaps it's that my uncle is an elder. They are not even meant to use the internet because it's corrupting.
It's an isolating religion, where your family becomes the church.
The fastest way of getting rid of a JW is to tell them you are Catholic. It's the Pope, the statues of Mary, the cross which they see as a Pagan symbol.
My aunt and uncle won't go in another church, they always wait outside.
It's the evil crosses and idolatry that goes on in the C of E and the rest.
So funerals/weddings they wait outside
http://thejehovahswitnesses.org/things-jehovahs-witnesses-cant-do.php
-
Dear Dicky,
Just to say, post 39 excellent, their is a lot more to these old prophets than first meets the eye, and you actually sound like someone who does read the Bible and contemplates on its words ;)
But your next post :P I thought they gave that watchtower thingy away for free or is it because I am such a big NicholasMarks fan that they give it to me for free ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Their books are enough to put anyone off, Janet and John stuff, with people playing with lions and lambs.
Even the pictures look like something out of the 1950's.
They might not believe in hell but they do believe in Armageddon and what I don't like is that they have to head hunt to get their immortality. Only those who have converted a lot of people get saved.
It strikes me as a religion based on fear.
Probably because I have seen people terrified by what they teach, driven to suicide actually. I suppose someone can become unbalanced with other Christian/religious teachings but at one point I had jehovahs witnesses on both my mothers and fathers side.
They also subject children to abuse when they take them from door to door, because not everyone cares if children are present when they are abusive.
It's a very controlling sect.
My uncle is one of the elders and his grown up daughter wasn't allowed to be alone with her fiancé who was also a JW and had to be escorted at all times, even while getting their flat decorated ready for when they were married.
It's very strict and controlling once you get into it, members can be excommunicated if they step out of line.
That creates fear too.
People in it are encouraged to mix with JW's and even though our JW are still in contact it does break up families as they don't join in things like Christmas.
Having all your friends as JW is controlling too, because should they chuck you out, you lose your friends too.
It's initially friendly, but it has depths which hems you in and takes over your life to the point it becomes your family.
I was quite shocked when I heard how controlling it was over dates between boys and girls even when engaged, I think there is fear in it about being criticised and getting it wrong.
Women are expected to honour and obey their husbands, literally.
Every so often I hear something, and it makes me realise how controlling it actually is when you get right into it, how the rest of the world is viewed.
Their Kingdom Halls and isolated JW might come across as like everyone else, but looking at my uncle and aunt, when you get further in it gets a lot stricter in lots of ways.
This honouring your husband and obeying is a lot stricter than many other groups who just give it lip service.
Perhaps it's that my uncle is an elder. They are not even meant to use the internet because it's corrupting.
It's an isolating religion, where your family becomes the church.
The fastest way of getting rid of a JW is to tell them you are Catholic. It's the Pope, the statues of Mary, the cross which they see as a Pagan symbol.
My aunt and uncle won't go in another church, they always wait outside.
It's the evil crosses and idolatry that goes on in the C of E and the rest.
So funerals/weddings they wait outside
-
Interesting that Rutherford ditched the pyramid stuff which Russel had claimed to be a 'second Bible in stone' - whilst doing a rewrite of doctrine to keep Russell's dates - calculated using the non-existant 'pyramid inch' - as his prophexies.
Leaving aside the rubbish surrounding 'Beth Sarim' ('cos ro;lling about laughing at the sheer stupidity of it is hard on the ribs), and the fraudulent mistranslation of their 'bible' - the whole 'disfellowshipping' thing is so anti-Christian that it should be an offence....
We have a lady in our church, who has been a member for nearly forty years....she joined two years after rejecting JW religion and still finding the claim of Christ to be worth pursuing.
In all those four decades, none of her family has contacted her in any way - except a cousin, and she was disciplined by the local Kingdom Hall for doing so.
She only found out about her parents' death by seeing the death notice in the local newsagents; she was even refused access to their funerals.
Whatever their attitude is, Christian it is not.
By the way, in some of their many changes in doctrine over the past century, did you know that they were once perfectly happy with birthdays, voting in elections, serving in the forces, Christmas and the Cross....all of which they now happily condemn?
Flip floppery in its' most glaring form.
-
Their books are enough to put anyone off, Janet and John stuff, with people playing with lions and lambs.
Even the pictures look like something out of the 1950's.
They might not believe in hell but they do believe in Armageddon and what I don't like is that they have to head hunt to get their immortality. Only those who have converted a lot of people get saved.
It strikes me as a religion based on fear.
http://thejehovahswitnesses.org/things-jehovahs-witnesses-cant-do.php
Rose
Your personal history is disturbing, and I know full well this sort of thing goes on in many JW congregations - indeed is specifically encouraged from the headquarters of Watchtower Inc. However, I think it does vary from community to community, and is related specifically to the personalities of the Elders who are in charge of each congregation. The group I got enticed into at the tender age of 11 (by a school friend) seemed harmless enough, and the people quite genial. By the time I was 14 I had developed enough critical intelligence to see the inconsistencies, as well as the controlling elements. Then I read "30 Years a Watchtower Slave" by William Schnell, and realised that the whole organisation was pretty dangerous, just as you say, and we continue to hear horror stories up to the present day.
Needs to be put in context, though. I don't want to say too many exculpating things, but there have been horrors associated with all kinds of Christianity throughout history, whether Trinitarian, Arian or whatever. You say the Witnesses believe in Armageddon, and this inspires fear. Well, the matter of Divine Judgment has been part of mainstream Christianity since its inception (Dies Irae etc.), and the preachers of Universal salvation have been few and far between (Julian of Norwich, Origen perhaps). So one could hardly hold that against the Witnesses. I suspect the fear other fundamentalist groups instil into children of being burned forever in Hell is a greater abuse than fear of just being condemned to die (which we do anyway).
As for the 'Janet and John' books - admittedly awful, but I've seen just the same sort of thing pulped out by a number of evangelical churches - Jesus looking like a Hollywood film-star, holding up little babies and smiling mawkishly.
-
Dear Dicky,
Just to say, post 39 excellent, their is a lot more to these old prophets than first meets the eye, and you actually sound like someone who does read the Bible and contemplates on its words ;)
But your next post :P I thought they gave that watchtower thingy away for free or is it because I am such a big NicholasMarks fan that they give it to me for free ::)
Gonnagle.
Gonners
Never quite understood your enthusiasm for Sparky. His debt to Jehovah's Witness doctrines is in fact tenuous in the extreme, being restricted principally to one mistranslated text in Isaiah (his notorious 'dynamic energy') and apparent Arian beliefs (not that he's got a clue what the original Arians believed) - the rest he makes up as he goes along. As for his apparent predilection for the JW bible - he has yet to explain why he thinks it the 'best translation', since he appears to know bugger all of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. I doubt if even the JWs would admit him as a member (not a bad thing in itself), but his option seems to have been to rabbit away on discussion forums like this one, which is a dubious pleasure for most of us.
-
-
Interesting that Rutherford ditched the pyramid stuff which Russel had claimed to be a 'second Bible in stone' - whilst doing a rewrite of doctrine to keep Russell's dates - calculated using the non-existant 'pyramid inch' - as his prophexies.
Leaving aside the rubbish surrounding 'Beth Sarim' ('cos ro;lling about laughing at the sheer stupidity of it is hard on the ribs), and the fraudulent mistranslation of their 'bible' - the whole 'disfellowshipping' thing is so anti-Christian that it should be an offence....
We have a lady in our church, who has been a member for nearly forty years....she joined two years after rejecting JW religion and still finding the claim of Christ to be worth pursuing.
In all those four decades, none of her family has contacted her in any way - except a cousin, and she was disciplined by the local Kingdom Hall for doing so.
She only found out about her parents' death by seeing the death notice in the local newsagents; she was even refused access to their funerals.
Whatever their attitude is, Christian it is not.
By the way, in some of their many changes in doctrine over the past century, did you know that they were once perfectly happy with birthdays, voting in elections, serving in the forces, Christmas and the Cross....all of which they now happily condemn?
Flip floppery in its' most glaring form.
Anchorman
"Whatever their attitude is, Christian it is not."
It is indeed appalling, but also begs the question "What is Christian?" I find it hard to judge, considering as much of the history of Christianity as I do know about. One likes to think of pure altruism, forgiveness and all the rest - which can certainly be traced to some of the sayings of Jesus.
You also like to think it is down to what a person believes and, for instance, have castigated the Gnostics for not being "true Christians". Well, let us consider the behaviour of those latter-day Gnostics, the Cathars in Southern France centuries ago. They for the most part led peaceable, decent lives, until they were exterminated in their last stand on Montsegur in the Albigensian Crusade. The reason for their extermination was their beliefs, which did not accord with those of the Roman Catholic Church. Who were the True Christians here? (Likewise, the Arian Christians, of which only about two Church buildings remain in Europe).
"Kill them all - the Lord will look after his own"
-
The Muslims say he was but what is the Christian consensus (if it's possible to reach one) on this?
Can Jesus be the son of God as well as a prophet? I do believe there is a scripture which indirectly states that Jesus is the last prophet.
The reason I ask is that a number of American preachers have claimed to have prophesied Donald Trump as God's man in the White House. This made me wonder that if Jesus was a prophet then what is God doing sending inferior prophets after having sent his son?
Khatru
Don't know if you consider your question to have been answered yet. But I'm little surprised that you (as a non-believer) should be concerned with the various designations involved within the sects of Christianity, or in those religions that consider Christ to be a figure of 'cosmic' significance. Bit like intruding on private grief.
From the scriptures, it's clear that Jesus is referred to as a prophet - significantly on that Road to Emmaus, before the disciples are supposed to have had revealed to them his greater stature. The disciples speak of Jesus as "a mighty prophet before the people".
St Paul is still referring to 'prophets' in his list of signicant worthies within the early church in his 1st Letter to the Corinthians:
"27] Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
[28] And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.
[29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
[30] Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
[31] But earnestly desire the higher gifts"
1Corinthians 12
He seems to be referring to some hierarchy here, whilst stressing that everyone is an essential part of the 'body' of the Church.
-
Love; DU. That should be what defines a Christian. Love not only for those fellow believers, but those who don't believe and those who ridicule and condemn those who believe. Care for friend and foe, forgiveness in every situaation. Hey, no-one said it was easy.
-
Love; DU. That should be what defines a Christian. Love not only for those fellow believers, but those who don't believe and those who ridicule and condemn those who believe. Care for friend and foe, forgiveness in every situaation. Hey, no-one said it was easy.
No, that recipe is certainly not easy. However, it could be argued that those mediaeval Catholics who ended up burning heretics were also showing love, because they genuinely believed that if the heretics in question had 'got the wrong beliefs', they might end up burning forever in hell (something Shaw seems to be arguing for in St Joan).
Might I suggest that Buddhism, with its emphasis on compassion, has at least done less harm in history than Christianity with its emphasis on love?
-
Hi Anchs,
Love; DU. That should be what defines a Christian. Love not only for those fellow believers, but those who don't believe and those who ridicule and condemn those who believe.
Do people do that, or do they ridicule and condemn what people do with their beliefs? Personally I see no reason to treat someone that way just for having certain beliefs, however irrational I happen to think them to be. On the other hand, when reason has failed then ridicule and condemnation are legitimate I think when some insist on acting on their beliefs in respect of, say, their treatment of homosexuals.
For what it’s worth, there seems to me to be an inverse relationship between “big C” Christianity and “small c” christian behaviour – the more someone is the former, the less he’ll demonstrate the latter with someone like Fred Phelps as the exemplar of the phenomenon.
Care for friend and foe, forgiveness in every situaation. Hey, no-one said it was easy.
Which I applaud, though I see no reason to use it to define Christians. Some of us try to live that way anyway even though we’re not Christians, or indeed of any other faith.
-
The Muslims say he was but what is the Christian consensus (if it's possible to reach one) on this?
Can Jesus be the son of God as well as a prophet? I do believe there is a scripture which indirectly states that Jesus is the last prophet.
The reason I ask is that a number of American preachers have claimed to have prophesied Donald Trump as God's man in the White House. This made me wonder that if Jesus was a prophet then what is God doing sending inferior prophets after having sent his son?
A prophet and much more. Also a priest, a king and God himself.
-
ad,
A prophet and much more. Also a priest, a king and God himself.
That last one especially is a remarkable claim indeed, and I'm not sure what or where it was that you think he was king of either.
Still, no doubt at some point in the future you or someone else will share with us a method to suggest why these claims should be privileged above just guessing about stuff. I for one look forward to it.
-
ad,
That last one especially is a remarkable claim indeed, and I'm not sure what or where it was that you think he was king of either.
Still, no doubt at some point in the future you or someone else will share with us a method to suggest why these claims should be privileged above just guessing about stuff. I for one look forward to it.
Hi blue
I strongly suspect there is no 'method' (now there's a surprise). The Biblical record itself is tenuous and contradictory, but just for the record, here are a few details to contemplate:
1. Priest. He is referred to as "A priest forever according to the order of Melchizedech" in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Melchizedech gets a couple of references in the OT, once in a Psalm (which the Epistle quotes), and once in Genesis 14, in the story of Abraham. Seems to have been a bloke who came out of nowhere, and whose 'priesthood' pre-dated the Levite priesthood.
2. King. He is referred to as "King of the Jews" only by non-Jewish people in the NT - the Magi, the Roman soldiers and Pilate (who had the board fixed on the cross reading Iesus Nazareni Rex Iudorum, and in Aramaic and Greek as well). The Jews around said "Don't write that, write 'He said he was King of the Jews').
3.God. Well there are two contradictory texts in the same chapter of John's gospel for a start:
9]"He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?"
John.14
28] " If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I."
John 14.
The rest is the result of several hundred years of speculation.
Sounds all rather nebulous to me.
-
Hi Dicky,
I strongly suspect there is no 'method' (now there's a surprise). The Biblical record itself is tenuous and contradictory, but just for the record, here are a few details to contemplate:
1. Priest. He is referred to as "A priest forever according to the order of Melchizedech" in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Melchizedech gets a couple of references in the OT, once in a Psalm (which the Epistle quotes), and once in Genesis 14, in the story of Abraham. Seems to have been a bloke who came out of nowhere, and whose 'priesthood' pre-dated the Levite priesthood.
2. King. He is referred to as "King of the Jews" only by non-Jewish people in the NT - the Magi, the Roman soldiers and Pilate (who had the board fixed on the cross reading Iesus Nazareni Rex Iudorum, and in Aramaic and Greek as well). The Jews around said "Don't write that, write 'He said he was King of the Jews').
3.God. Well there are two contradictory texts in the same chapter of John's gospel for a start:
9]"He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?"
John.14
28] " If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I."
John 14.
The rest is the result of several hundred years of speculation.
Sounds all rather nebulous to me.
Thanks for this – interesting references. Indeed, I’m often struck by the “Lords”, “Kings”, “Masters” etc piled on to these deities like medals on a two-bit African potentate. As you say, it’s all a bit nebulous in any case and these titles seem to have been added after the event as honorifics rather than as formal titles in his lifetime.
I wonder too if the “ever so ‘umble” Jesus in which we’re told to believe would himself have welcomed titles of this kind or thought them unnecessarily grandiose. I suppose “an early moral philosopher and soothsayer who for his time had some interesting things to say” is insufficiently laudatory for some, but it’d make for a more rational basis for discussion I think.
-
The Muslims say he was but what is the Christian consensus (if it's possible to reach one) on this?
Can Jesus be the son of God as well as a prophet? I do believe there is a scripture which indirectly states that Jesus is the last prophet.
The reason I ask is that a number of American preachers have claimed to have prophesied Donald Trump as God's man in the White House. This made me wonder that if Jesus was a prophet then what is God doing sending inferior prophets after having sent his son?
I think you are confused:
Joel 2. 27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.
28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
Jesus was the Prophet who would bring the final truth of God.
" My words are Spirit and they are truth."
John 4 shows the woman at the well, a Samaritan also believed this to be the case.
Jesus was the Prophet who brought the final truth but those in Christ when the Spirit came upon them would learn of things
to come.
John 16:13
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
We knew false Prophet's would come just as we knew the children of God would prophesy.
Jesus is as all men of God were Prophets who told of the things to come.
But Jesus was more importantly the 'Messiah' which no other Prophet was or will ever be.
So the thing missing from the beliefs of Muslims is the truth about Jesus being the Messiah the Son of God.
He did as his FATHER would do. Hence the Muslim do not worship the same God as the Jews.
-
You keep on about the elusive 'truth' Sass, you might think you have it, but cannot prove it to be so. The Bible is just a collection of documents by a number of different authors, it has no more credibility than the Qur'an.
-
You keep on about the elusive 'truth' Sass, you might think you have it, but cannot prove it to be so. The Bible is just a collection of documents by a number of different authors, it has no more credibility than the Qur'an.
I think the truth is that it isn't me who has to prove anything.
The truth is you have never learned the way of God and so do not know what is truth or how to find it.
So until you have actually sought truth for the purpose of wanting to know the truth with a good and obedient heart, you are not in a position to judge what others who have, actually know. x
-
WELLLL That gets the award for best 'get out of jail' this year !?!?!?
-
I think the truth is that it isn't me who has to prove anything.
The truth is you have never learned the way of God and so do not know what is truth or how to find it.
So until you have actually sought truth for the purpose of wanting to know the truth with a good and obedient heart, you are not in a position to judge what others who have, actually know. x
Your post is funny, Sass! ;D
-
You keep on about the elusive 'truth' Sass, you might think you have it, but cannot prove it to be so. The Bible is just a collection of documents by a number of different authors, it has no more credibility than the Qur'an.
What truth is it that I cannot prove?
Truth is, you have no knowledge to back up or support your statement because you don't know what you are talking about...
There never was any credibility to the Koran. If you knew anything you would know allah never actually did anything for his followers or anyone else. The most silent god of any religion in history.. Read up and learn you might have something interesting to offer then,. :)
-
WELLLL That gets the award for best 'get out of jail' this year !?!?!?
You have to find your way to the prison before you can know how to get out of it...
-
What truth is it that I cannot prove?
Truth is, you have no knowledge to back up or support your statement because you don't know what you are talking about...
There never was any credibility to the Koran. If you knew anything you would know allah never actually did anything for his followers or anyone else. The most silent god of any religion in history.. Read up and learn you might have something interesting to offer then,. :)
Sass, you have no evidence to support any of your statements about matters of faith. The Bible is no more credible than the Qur'an. You keep stating as a fact something which is only a belief.
-
What truth is it that I cannot prove?
This one for starters:
I think the truth is that it isn't me who has to prove anything.
-
This one for starters:
Is that a truth or a statement of belief about something?
-
Is that a truth or a statement of belief about something?
You claim that it is the former, whereas everybody else knows it to be the latter.
-
A thought just struck me when I was replying to a post on another religious forum, could Jesus have been on the autism spectrum?
Having experience of Asperger's syndrome, as I have grandson (15) who has been diagnosed with it, and a husband who in all probability has it, I wonder if Jesus had it too? It seems like he was an intelligent guy, like my husband and grandson, but some aspects of his behaviour weren't quite normal and a bit obsessive, if reported correctly.
-
With reference to the original question a couple of comments from a latecomer to the thread.
The Biblical view of prophecy has always recognised two clear components to this gift. First foretelling, or being given some special insight of things yet to take place some time in the future and, second forth telling, which can perhaps be best defined as receiving some specific message or insight from the Lord which applies to His people in the present time. Often this could be a message of correction to get the church back to the things they should be busy with. Thus a church member who received and conveys a message such as, 'stop spending so much of your money on nice to have things like fancy electronics for your worship team. Rather plough considerably more of it into helping the poor an destitute' could well be exercising prophecy in the form of forth telling. Scripture lays down clear guidelines on how such messages are to be evaluated before being acted upon.
When Paul urges the Christians at Corinth to earnestly desire the higher gifts but especially that they might prophesy, he almost certainly had the forth telling component of prophecy primarily in mind. It is important for any church to be aware of what specific tasks or roles the Lord might have for them in their specific situations.
Jesus was widely recognized as a teacher, a priest and a prophet (both components) by many of His day and not only His followers. In addition Christians, of course, also recognise Him as their true King, as Messiah and as God Himself.
-
With reference to the original question a couple of comments from a latecomer to the thread.
The Biblical view of prophecy has always recognised two clear components to this gift. First foretelling, or being given some special insight of things yet to take place some time in the future and, second forth telling, which can perhaps be best defined as receiving some specific message or insight from the Lord which applies to His people in the present time. Often this could be a message of correction to get the church back to the things they should be busy with. Thus a church member who received and conveys a message such as, 'stop spending so much of your money on nice to have things like fancy electronics for your worship team. Rather plough considerably more of it into helping the poor an destitute' could well be exercising prophecy in the form of forth telling. Scripture lays down clear guidelines on how such messages are to be evaluated before being acted upon.
When Paul urges the Christians at Corinth to earnestly desire the higher gifts but especially that they might prophesy, he almost certainly had the forth telling component of prophecy primarily in mind. It is important for any church to be aware of what specific tasks or roles the Lord might have for them in their specific situations.
Jesus was widely recognized as a teacher, a priest and a prophet (both components) by many of His day and not only His followers. In addition Christians, of course, also recognise Him as their true King, as Messiah and as God Himself.
Really, and your evidence for that is?
-
Funny, isn't it, how prophecy can only be seen to be a lucky guess, or an unlucky guess, way after the prophecy has been made! :)
Funny, too, that nowadays, with so much better information around, how the number of well-known, listened-too prophets is not in the headlines! :)
-
....as God Himself.
Not quite all Christians would agree!
-
Really, and your evidence for that is?
I could provide plenty of Scriptural passages but for the moment need only point out that Islam recognized Jesus as both prophet and teacher. Not sure about His role as a priest. Perhaps Gabriella might have the answer here.
-
I could provide plenty of Scriptural passages [...]
No; she said evidence, not assertion.
-
No; she said evidence, not assertion.
So when Islam states that it is a religion that recognises Jesus as a prophet, that is not evidence that Islam recognises Jesus as a prophet, it is merely an assertion. Remarkable
-
So when Islam states that it is a religion that recognises Jesus as a prophet, that is not evidence that Islam recognises Jesus as a prophet, it is merely an assertion. Remarkable
Yes, exactly. Got it in one. Congrats.
-
Surely the point about Islam here was your post stated 'many of his day', and Islam wasn't?
-
I could provide plenty of Scriptural passages but for the moment need only point out that Islam recognized Jesus as both prophet and teacher. Not sure about His role as a priest. Perhaps Gabriella might have the answer here.
Islam wasn't a religion when Jesus was treading the boards! The Bible isn't evidence!
-
Not quite all Christians would agree!
The Muslims say he was but what is the Christian consensus (if it's possible to reach one) on this?
Can Jesus be the son of God as well as a prophet? I do believe there is a scripture which indirectly states that Jesus is the last prophet.
The reason I ask is that a number of American preachers have claimed to have prophesied Donald Trump as God's man in the White House. This made me wonder that if Jesus was a prophet then what is God doing sending inferior prophets after having sent his son?
Correct. Khatru really needs a Unitarian to answer this question. As for Donald Trump being a prophet....... yeah OK keep taking the tablets.
-
Correct. Khatru really needs a Unitarian to answer this question.
Why would that be?
-
Surely the point about Islam here was your post stated 'many of his day', and Islam wasn't?
True, but in addition to mentioning many of His day my initial post #66 also stated, 'In addition Christians.... An since there were no Christians until after His day this should be best understood as Christians all down the ages.
Further, recognising that Floo's standard get out jail free card is to reject any response in the form of Scriptural quotations as invalid I replied with a reference to Islam rather than Scripture. I was quite entitled to do this. After all the initial post on this thread, with its reference to Trump, did not demand that answers be confined to views of first century Christians.
But we have now reached the stage of arguing for the sake of arguing. The initial question was simply to enquire whether Christians (today) viewed Jesus as a prophet. That answer has been supplied. If you want to move on to debating whether that view is correct or not you are welcome. But if the rules of such debate are that Scriptural references are invalid and not allowed then I rapidly lose interest. Engaging in debates on Christian topics on the Christian section of the Board and disallowing the use of the standard Christian handbook as reference material is simply ridiculous.
-
True, but in addition to mentioning many of His day my initial post #66 also stated, 'In addition Christians.... An since there were no Christians until after His day this should be best understood as Christians all down the ages.
Further, recognising that Floo's standard get out jail free card is to reject any response in the form of Scriptural quotations as invalid I replied with a reference to Islam rather than Scripture. I was quite entitled to do this. After all the initial post on this thread, with its reference to Trump, did not demand that answers be confined to views of first century Christians.
But we have now reached the stage of arguing for the sake of arguing. The initial question was simply to enquire whether Christians (today) viewed Jesus as a prophet. That answer has been supplied. If you want to move on to debating whether that view is correct or not you are welcome. But if the rules of such debate are that Scriptural references are invalid and not allowed then I rapidly lose interest. Engaging in debates on Christian topics on the Christian section of the Board and disallowing the use of the standard Christian handbook as reference material is simply ridiculous.
The Bible can never be used as evidence to back anything up, unless there is verifiable independent evidence to corroborate it.
-
True, but in addition to mentioning many of His day my initial post #66 also stated, 'In addition Christians.... An since there were no Christians until after His day this should be best understood as Christians all down the ages.
Further, recognising that Floo's standard get out jail free card is to reject any response in the form of Scriptural quotations as invalid I replied with a reference to Islam rather than Scripture. I was quite entitled to do this. After all the initial post on this thread, with its reference to Trump, did not demand that answers be confined to views of first century Christians.
But we have now reached the stage of arguing for the sake of arguing. The initial question was simply to enquire whether Christians (today) viewed Jesus as a prophet. That answer has been supplied. If you want to move on to debating whether that view is correct or not you are welcome. But if the rules of such debate are that Scriptural references are invalid and not allowed then I rapidly lose interest. Engaging in debates on Christian topics on the Christian section of the Board and disallowing the use of the standard Christian handbook as reference material is simply ridiculous.
So just the first word needed in that post. The last sentence isn't true.
-
So just the first word needed in that post. The last sentence isn't true.
For completeness the last sentence of that post read, ' Engaging in debates on Christian topics on the Christian section of the Board and disallowing the use of the standard Christian handbook as reference material is simply ridiculous.'
I think there is some validity to my complaint Some while back there was a thread entitled 'God's choice: quick question for Christians. Just thought I'd ask: would the Christian God be more accepting of a kind atheist than a hateful Christian, or vice versa?'
So a question directed primarily at Christians on the Christian topic. I provided some views in response providing several Scriptural quotations in support of the Christian view as I understood it. One of the responses (and there were others along similar lines) included the following:
I'm happy to take these scriptures seriously provided that you can show that they are free of bias, mistake, exaggeration or propaganda - the claim that they are reliable is yours to demonstrate.
And there were one or two other responses on this topic along very similar lines.
So I am required to proof to an atheists satisfaction that the Scriptures of the OT & NT are absolute before giving the Christian understanding of the issue under discussion. I have not been asked to try and convince the atheist that the Christian view is absolute and correct. Only to provide the Christian viewpoint. I repeat that I view such a restriction as ridiculous.
My reply to that particular post was similar to my comments on this one and read. 'I think you are missing the point. If you do not want Christians to use the Scriptures, as they stand, to provide answers to issues pertaining to the Christian faith, then don't ask the questions. You might as well ask Gabriella to provide answers on what she believes on issues pertaining to Islam, and then rule out her use of the Koran as information source.'
-
DaveM,
For completeness the last sentence of that post read, ' Engaging in debates on Christian topics on the Christian section of the Board and disallowing the use of the standard Christian handbook as reference material is simply ridiculous.'
I think there is some validity to my complaint Some while back there was a thread entitled 'God's choice: quick question for Christians. Just thought I'd ask: would the Christian God be more accepting of a kind atheist than a hateful Christian, or vice versa?'
So a question directed primarily at Christians on the Christian topic. I provided some views in response providing several Scriptural quotations in support of the Christian view as I understood it. One of the responses (and there were others along similar lines) included the following:
I'm happy to take these scriptures seriously provided that you can show that they are free of bias, mistake, exaggeration or propaganda - the claim that they are reliable is yours to demonstrate.
And there were one or two other responses on this topic along very similar lines.
So I am required to proof to an atheists satisfaction that the Scriptures of the OT & NT are absolute before giving the Christian understanding of the issue under discussion. I have not been asked to try and convince the atheist that the Christian view is absolute and correct. Only to provide the Christian viewpoint. I repeat that I view such a restriction as ridiculous.
My reply to that particular post was similar to my comments on this one and read. 'I think you are missing the point. If you do not want Christians to use the Scriptures, as they stand, to provide answers to issues pertaining to the Christian faith, then don't ask the questions. You might as well ask Gabriella to provide answers on what she believes on issues pertaining to Islam, and then rule out her use of the Koran as information source.'
I think you misunderstand. Quoting from a text you think to be "holy" tells us what you believe. What you're being questioned about though is generally why you believe it.
-
The initial question was simply to enquire whether Christians (today) viewed Jesus as a prophet. That answer has been supplied.
Asserted.
If you want to move on to debating whether that view is correct or not you are welcome. But if the rules of such debate are that Scriptural references are invalid and not allowed then I rapidly lose interest.
For entirely obvious reasons.
-
For completeness the last sentence of that post read, ' Engaging in debates on Christian topics on the Christian section of the Board and disallowing the use of the standard Christian handbook as reference material is simply ridiculous.'
I think there is some validity to my complaint Some while back there was a thread entitled 'God's choice: quick question for Christians. Just thought I'd ask: would the Christian God be more accepting of a kind atheist than a hateful Christian, or vice versa?'
So a question directed primarily at Christians on the Christian topic. I provided some views in response providing several Scriptural quotations in support of the Christian view as I understood it. One of the responses (and there were others along similar lines) included the following:
I'm happy to take these scriptures seriously provided that you can show that they are free of bias, mistake, exaggeration or propaganda - the claim that they are reliable is yours to demonstrate.
And there were one or two other responses on this topic along very similar lines.
So I am required to proof to an atheists satisfaction that the Scriptures of the OT & NT are absolute before giving the Christian understanding of the issue under discussion. I have not been asked to try and convince the atheist that the Christian view is absolute and correct. Only to provide the Christian viewpoint. I repeat that I view such a restriction as ridiculous.
My reply to that particular post was similar to my comments on this one and read. 'I think you are missing the point. If you do not want Christians to use the Scriptures, as they stand, to provide answers to issues pertaining to the Christian faith, then don't ask the questions. You might as well ask Gabriella to provide answers on what she believes on issues pertaining to Islam, and then rule out her use of the Koran as information source.'
Yep, my point is that that isn't what happens. So isn't true
-
DaveM,
I think you misunderstand. Quoting from a text you think to be "holy" tells us what you believe. What you're being questioned about though is generally why you believe it.
Some while back a non-Christian poster raised a question on what the Christian view was on the passage in 1 Peter which makes reference to Jesus descending into Hades and preaching to the spirits in prison. I provided an answer of my understanding of the passage based on a wider Scriptural basis. I was more than pleasantly surprised when his immediate response was to thank me in a very complementary way for having gone to the trouble to provide and answer. Not that he believed there was any actual truth to the view but it certainly represented a refreshing change from the norm and helped lift the tone of debate to a more pleasant level.
As regards the present discussion in both instances which I referred to the question asked was a simple 'what is the Christian view', not why' On the 'why' question I have posted a number of inputs over the years as to why I believe in the reliability of Scripture, going right back to the old BBC Board days. And other Christian posters (including Alien) have posted far more extensively than I on the subject. Not surprisingly all have been rejected by the atheist/agnostic posters. It is a subject that has been kicked to death. It has reduced to a sterile and largely abrasive debate and in my view not worth perpetuating.
Now if it is considered that my views do not stand up to the scrutiny of the Scriptures that to me is something well worth debating.
-
Yep, my point is that that isn't what happens. So isn't true
Apologies but I am clearly missing something. Not sure what you are saying.
-
Apologies but I am clearly missing something. Not sure what you are saying.
That non Christians do not use that approach, so you shouldn't assume it.
-
You claim that it is the former, whereas everybody else knows it to be the latter.
Therein lies the problem... ASSUMPTION.
That statement is not true for everybody,. Not true for Christ or for the followers who did what he did too.
You choose to believe and blanket that statement as a fact or truth. In reality it is not, it is an opinion and with the witness statements of the disciples it has to be their words which hold the truth as far as witness.
-
A thought just struck me when I was replying to a post on another religious forum, could Jesus have been on the autism spectrum?
Having experience of Asperger's syndrome, as I have grandson (15) who has been diagnosed with it, and a husband who in all probability has it, I wonder if Jesus had it too? It seems like he was an intelligent guy, like my husband and grandson, but some aspects of his behaviour weren't quite normal and a bit obsessive, if reported correctly.
Are you really going with that Floo?
In reality no scholar worth their salt is going to even consider the above on the reflective side that people with the above diagnosis cannot do what Christ did.
-
Prophecy can take many forms with believers.
The Paris attack in France. Early in the evening I was driving with my sister when I just knew people were to be killed in France and nothing could stop it, I voiced this to my sister then I saw the Eiffel tower whilst looking through the window and knew it would be Paris.
I voiced this to my sister. It happened three hours later but we did not find out till after midnight when we returned to her home and it was on the news. She asked me to telephone her next time I get something through like that so she can avoid the place.
I have known things in the past before they happen but a family member present this time and she was shocked when it came to pass literally within hours.
Things are changing and prophecy is becoming a big part of the Church.
-
Apologies but I am clearly missing something. Not sure what you are saying.
that use of the Bible isn't disallowed on the Board.
-
Are you really going with that Floo?
In reality no scholar worth their salt is going to even consider the above on the reflective side that people with the above diagnosis cannot do what Christ did.
There is no verifiable evidence Jesus did any of the things claimed for him. At best he might have been good at sleight of hand and the gullible were taken in.
-
Prophecy can take many forms with believers.
The Paris attack in France. Early in the evening I was driving with my sister when I just knew people were to be killed in France and nothing could stop it, I voiced this to my sister then I saw the Eiffel tower whilst looking through the window and knew it would be Paris.
I voiced this to my sister. It happened three hours later but we did not find out till after midnight when we returned to her home and it was on the news. She asked me to telephone her next time I get something through like that so she can avoid the place.
I have known things in the past before they happen but a family member present this time and she was shocked when it came to pass literally within hours.
Things are changing and prophecy is becoming a big part of the Church.
I predicted a day or two before Diana's death she was going to die, does that make me a prophet! ::)
-
Why would that be?
Unitarians deny the Trinity, and some of them do see Jesus as a prophet, not as God.
-
Prophecy can take many forms with believers.
The Paris attack in France. Early in the evening I was driving with my sister when I just knew people were to be killed in France and nothing could stop it, I voiced this to my sister then I saw the Eiffel tower whilst looking through the window and knew it would be Paris.
I voiced this to my sister. It happened three hours later but we did not find out till after midnight when we returned to her home and it was on the news. She asked me to telephone her next time I get something through like that so she can avoid the place.
I have known things in the past before they happen but a family member present this time and she was shocked when it came to pass literally within hours.
Things are changing and prophecy is becoming a big part of the Church.
You certainly have a very good imagination Sass.
ippy
-
I predicted a day or two before Diana's death she was going to die, does that make me a prophet! ::)
All die... but did you predict the way she would die and where?
So really Floo... why make yourself look silly?
I have known things before they have happened previously.
I have experienced frightening things too. Be thankful you are too thick skinned to be aware of anything sensitive
around you. You are not worry to Satan, in fact he has nothing to worry about with you. You help him not hinder him. :)
-
You certainly have a very good imagination Sass.
ippy
No imagination... My sister knew I had known about things before hand but this time she was present when I received it.
Frightened Ippy? You should be because the things that exist you don't see you have no protection from outside Christ and God.
-
Are you really going with that Floo?
In reality no scholar worth their salt is going to even consider the above on the reflective side that people with the above diagnosis cannot do what Christ did.
Well my dear, considering the silly assertions you claim to be factual, I reckon my idea that Jesus might have been on the autistic spectrum was worth thinking about. Please note I didn't state it as a FACT, as I can't produce any verifiable evidence one way or the other. Not that has ever bothered you where your claims are concerned! ;D
-
No imagination... My sister knew I had known about things before hand but this time she was present when I received it.
Frightened Ippy? You should be because the things that exist you don't see you have no protection from outside Christ and God.
O K Sass, you've got me, I'm imagining my knees are shaking.
Don't forget Sass they're selling all sorts in smaller amounts for the same money and the bacofoil looks the same but the foil's a lot thinner.
ippy