Thread: Jesus was a Muslim by US Religious professor part 2

Originally Posted by Stuart Wolfe

, much like how it would look strange for some random person from Bristol rummaging about England saying "I'm British! Listen to me"

If you've ever been to Bristol, it may still be an idea to do that!

Originally Posted by Marlowe

[ Its just stories written in a story book.
tata..

Can you imagine if there was an all out war, and most of mankind was wiped out.

After many years, a few survivors gave birth to children.

They would reach out to read whatever books had been left.

If they came across Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, then in 2000 years...

Originally Posted by Stuart Wolfe

OOPS! Well, at least the author remembers that none of Cain's descendants are still alive and that they died in the Great Flood, and that only Noah's descendants are around, Noah being the descendant of Seth.

There is zero evidence of a flood of this nature.

Or of Noah and his supposed Arc.

None.

Originally Posted by Stuart Wolfe

Well, this ought to be interesting. I hope he doesn't make some kind of logical fallacy, like thinking that Esau/the Edomites are the progenitors of the Jews when in fact it was his brother Jacob who fathered the twelve tribes, and that Esau would be the "uncle" to the Jews and not the father of them ...



!

Stuart , there're so many conflicting / contradictions in the Bible . there's really no point in selective /cherry picking certain passages which I'm sure can be / IS disputed in some other chapters.

Its a story book , a mix of fact + fiction, MORE fiction than facts ,

However , if you believe everything in that book as "gospel " (hehe) truth then O.K but fer fuks sake , dont expect everyone else to believe as you do.


tata ....




...

Originally Posted by Ronald0

And we also knpow the state the Old Testament is in and how violent it is plus how inconsistent and full of flaws even the Bible is so there's go the credibility of anything you post from there.

Correct.

Which is why, albeit the passage of time, all the witnesses being dead, and all the added on and made up stuff, in ALL these books, I do not, at the heart of it, believe that Jesus worshipped or was in any way in tune with whatever 'god' that was in the OT.

All one need do is PICK UP the OT.

Then read it.

Then ponder.

If they manage to do that, with reason and logic, then it should soon dawn on them that the god of the OT, was, well, this man puts it better...



And all of that, and more, can be evidenced - in the OT.

Thus, we are left with this.

If the god of the OT was 'real', then he sounds, by deed, action, and thought, precisely what 'satan' would be like, if you were to list the 'nature' of what he is said to represent.

If the god of the OT is not real, then he was something akin to a fable, one which reflected the psyche of those that created the fable, that would be genocidal, infanticidal, rule by fear, etc, etc.

Anyway, there is simply nothing similar in nature, between the god(sic) of that OT, and Jesus.

Nil.

I would go as far as to say they could not be more opposite.

And so, if Jesus believed in a god, then okay...but it was not the god of the OT.

Jack

The old and new testaments were written by two vastly different people, with their own version of God. However, Jesus said he came to fulfill the prophecises of the old. Then there was the booming Sky Voice after Jesus croaked saying "THIS IS MY SON, IN WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED."

The old testament guys were hardcore, tribal Habiru and the new testament guys were urbane Greeks and Romanized Jews.

Islam has no miracles and is just a copycat of the old testament, basically. It's all about smiting and being clean.

Going back further, it's all based on ancient Zoroastrianism with it's angels, heaven and hell, Satan figure, sexual taboos, morals and all that

Originally Posted by Mandrake

Islam has no miracles and is just a copycat of the old testament, basically. It's all about smiting and being clean.

What was 'clean' about the OT, my man?

Moreover, I have read more of the OT than of the Koran, however, from what I have learned of the latter, it is way much less violent, than the OT.

I cannot think of a book more hateful and genocidal, than the OT.

There isn't one.

The men that wrote it, we would see as utter psycho's today.

Originally Posted by Jack Napier

What was 'clean' about the OT, my man?

Moreover, I have read more of the OT than of the Koran, however, from what I have learned of the latter, it is way much less violent, than the OT.

I cannot think of a book more hateful and genocidal, than the OT.

There isn't one.

The men that wrote it, we would see as utter psycho's today.

Well, the OT has all sorts of cleanliness prohibitions about not eating pork or anything from the ocean without scales (No Clam Chowder) no mixing food with mother's milk out of some sort of respect for the thing you are eating (no cheeseburgers), no having a poke at the ol' lady when she's on the rag. Then you get into the rulebook that accompanies the Torah called the Talmud, which is full of even more complicated rules concerning cleanliness, such as what to do if you discover mold on your clothes or in your house or the proper way to cut one's hair and nails, prohibitions on cool tattoos, the proper way to nail your slave's ear to a doorpost, etc.

Originally Posted by Mandrake

Well, the OT has all sorts of cleanliness prohibitions about not eating pork or anything from the ocean without scales (No Clam Chowder) no mixing food with mother's milk out of some sort of respect for the thing you are eating (no cheeseburgers), no having a poke at the ol' lady when she's on the rag. Then you get into the rulebook that accompanies the Torah called the Talmud, which is full of even more complicated rules concerning cleanliness, such as what to do if you discover mold on your clothes or in your house or the proper way to cut one's hair and nails, prohibitions on cool tattoos, the proper way to nail your slave's ear to a doorpost, etc.

LOL.

Yes there is all of that.

Look, in the end, if people enjoy reading, that is good, and fact, people do not read enough.

But I would say this.

If you want to understand society today, at least read books that are about society today, be that on politics, geography, etc.

They are interesting, and informative, and educational.

The OT will not educate.

It should have no rel today.

Genesis. Adam and Eve. Give me a break. So, Adam and Eve have a couple of sons. And then what? Because you and I know, that to further populate, and with no mention of other humans at that point, this would involve....well...I don't even want to go there.

That snake. You know, the talking snake.

Look at how 'god' dished out the punishments.

We could have all been taking it easy now, and never having to work ever, if it had not been for Adam.

Aye, god collectively punished us all, FOREVER, by ensuring that people would have to provide for themselves, rather than what he had in his manifesto, which is what we could all live a life of leisure.

So, that guy who flips burgers, and hates his job.

He can take that up with Adam. Had it not been for Adam, there would be no need for him to have flipped burgers.

Eve.

How did god punish her. Pain in childbirth.

For every women.

Forever.

He does love those collective and disproportionate acts of vengence, doesn't he?

He sounds a lot like the way jews in israel behave today.

Finally, the snake.

How did god punish the snake, remembering his two previous, well over the top punishments?

He said to the snake (it may have been in Armaic or Hebrew, I would imagine), that the snake would have to slither on it's belly. (And eat dirt, which they don't)

I see.

That would be aking to my punishing you, by telling you that for the rest of your days, you shall have two feet.



Jack

Ps...The other thing is, that people then fall back on this...

'Ah, but that part was an allegory', or whatever.

Right.

Then, in the next sentence they will say some other outlandish claim was literal truth.

How do they know?

Are the allegories marked in blue ink, and the literal stuff in yellow..

Originally Posted by Jack Napier

There is zero evidence of a flood of this nature.

Or of Noah and his supposed Arc.

None.

Well, I guess Jack has actually given us a way to end the debate!

Given that there was no flood, then Genesis was made up. Thus goes the Bible. And - so was Sura 11 from the Koran.

Originally Posted by Sura 11

And he began to make the ark; and whenever the chiefs from among his people passed by him they laughed at him. He said: "If you laugh at us, surely we too laugh at you as you laugh at us". So shall you know who it is on whom will come a chastisement which will disgrace him, and on whom will lasting chastisement come down. Until when Our command came and water came forth from the valley, We said: "Carry in it two of all things, a pair, and your own family - except those against whom the word has already gone forth, and those who believe." And there believed not with him but a few. And he said: "Embark in it, in the name of Allah be its sailing and its anchoring; most surely my Lord is Forgiving, Merciful." And it moved on with them amid waves like mountains; and Nuh called out to his son, and he was aloof: "O my son! embark with us and be not with the unbelievers. He said: "I will betake myself for refuge to a mountain that shall protect me from the water." Nuh said: "There is no protector today from Allah's punishment but He Who has mercy; and a wave intervened between them, so he was of the drowned." And it was said: "O earth, swallow down your water, and O cloud, clear away", and the water was made to abate and the affair was decided, and the ark rested on the al-Gudi, and it was said: "Away with the unjust people."

So there we go. If something such as this was made up, them the history in the Koran was also fabricated. If the infallible Koran is in fact a collection of fables, most likely a lot of Mohammeds story was also made up of whole cloth. The whole thing is a fable. The end.

Mods, close the thread!