Was Jesus a prophet?

[Shaker]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Surely the point about Islam here was your post stated 'many of his day', and Islam wasn't?

[floo]

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!

[Humph Warden Bennett]

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.

[Shaker]

Correct. Khatru really needs a Unitarian to answer this question.

Why would that be?

[DaveM]

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.     

[floo]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[DaveM]

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.'

 
   

[bluehillside Retd.]

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. 

[Shaker]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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]

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. 

[DaveM]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Sassy]

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.

[Sassy]

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.

[Sassy]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Apologies but I am clearly missing something.  Not sure what you are saying.

that use of the Bible isn't disallowed on the Board.

[floo]

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.

[floo]

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!

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Why would that be?

Unitarians deny the Trinity, and some of them do see Jesus as a prophet, not as God.

[ippy]

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

[Sassy]

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.

[Sassy]

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.