₦airaland Forum

CoolUsername:
A man who performed so many miracles, caused such a stir that Herod allegedly ordered mass infanticide for his sake, rose from the dead and floated off into the upper atmosphere should at least have an arrest record. All allusions to his miracles and divinity were only gotten from Christian sources
way after the fact.

The gospels are in direct conflict in their details on many occasions. The whole thing is just a cacophony of scribbles from men with an agenda.

What is your point for crying out loud? Do you just want to prove the gospels unreliable hence completely useless when it comes to Jesus? Sorry to burst your bubble but scholars even though they agree the gospels are not totally reliable, still believe the synoptic gospels and Paul are the best sources for the historical Jesus, what they do is take away those parts that do not align historically, in separating the wheat from the chaff just like they do with that of Socrates and other historical materials they have. Ancient writers usually had their form of bias when they wrote and even the best of them wrote from their own biased point of view. This is no news.
As for Jesus performing miracles and being a healer, this is more likely to be the truth about the historical Jesus even his enemies the Jews who wrote the Talmud between 70-200AD, spoke of Judaism in the first century, when it came to Jesus, they could easily have said he didn't exist and everything was a lie, but this is what they wrote about yeshua (Hebrew name for Jesus)

On (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover, Jesus the Nazarene was hanged and a herald went forth before him forty days heralding, "Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and instigated and seduced Israel to idolatry. Whoever knows anything in defense may come and state it." But since they did not find anything in his defense they hanged him on (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover.

Ulla said: "Do you suppose that Jesus the Nazarene was one for whom a defense could be made? He was a mesit (someone who instigated Israel to idolatry), concerning whom the Merciful [God] says: Show him no compassion and do not shield him (Deut. 13:9). With Jesus the Nazarene it was different. For he was close to the government.[54][65][66][67] source.. (Wikepedia, Jesus in Talmud).

So even his enemies did not deny that he existed or performed miracles, rather they said he was a magician who led Israel astray with his sorcery, while you, 2000 years later claim he performed no miracle.

ayoku777:
And who told you Jesus couldn't read?

Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, AND STOOD UP FOR TO READ.

17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

Next time, make well informed arguments.

Shalom

Ignore this Amen Ra, don't waste your time, he isn't even worth the stress.

AmenRa1:
It's not new I know Christians just love to lie
EXTANT:
adjective

1. Still in existence.
2. Currently existing; not having disappeared.
3. Still alive; not extinct.

Hmmm tired, bros you win.

AmenRa1:
Did U miss this part that says he did write? Did U also miss the @bolded??

Nothing written by Socrates remains extant. As a result, all first-hand information about him and his philosophies depends upon secondary sources.

It says nothing written by Socrates remain extant which means they have no proof that he wrote anything. I could also say nothing written by Jesus remain extant. It proves nothing.

Read your source well, we need Xenophon, Plato, Aristophanes and Aristotle to learn of Socrates and not his own writings.

AmenRa1:
see Christians O we're did U get this stuff from?
Nothing written by Socrates remains extant. As a result, all first-hand information about him and his philosophies depends upon secondary sources. Furthermore, close comparison between the contents of these sources reveals contradictions, thus creating concerns about the possibility of knowing in-depth the real Socrates. This issue is known as the Socratic problem,[4] or the Socratic question.[5][6]

To understand Socrates and his thought, one must turn primarily to the works of Plato, whose dialogues are thought the most informative source about Socrates' life and philosophy,[7] and also Xenophon.[8] These writings are the Sokratikoi logoi, or Socratic dialogues, which consist of reports of conversations apparently involving Socrates.[9][10]

As for discovering the real-life Socrates, the difficulty is that ancient sources are mostly philosophical or dramatic texts, apart from Xenophon. There are no straightforward histories, contemporary with Socrates, that dealt with his own time and place. A corollary of this is that sources that do mention Socrates do not necessarily claim to be historically accurate, and are often partisan. For instance, those who prosecuted and convicted Socrates have left no testament. Historians therefore face the challenge of reconciling the various evidence from the extant texts in order to attempt an accurate and consistent account of Socrates' life and work. The result of such an effort is not necessarily realistic, even if consistent.

Amid all the disagreement resulting from differences within sources, two factors emerge from all sources pertaining to Socrates. It would seem, therefore, that he was ugly, and that Socrates had a brilliant intellect.[11][12]

The character of Socrates as exhibited in Apology, Crito, Phaedo and Symposium concurs with other sources to an extent to which it seems possible to rely on the Platonic Socrates, as demonstrated in the dialogues, as a representation of the actual Socrates as he lived in history.[13] At the same time, however, many scholars believe that in some works, Plato, being a literary artist, pushed his avowedly brightened-up version of "Socrates" far beyond anything the historical Socrates was likely to have done or said. Also, Xenophon, being an historian, is a more reliable witness to the historical Socrates. It is a matter of much debate over which Socrates it is whom Plato is describing at any given point—the historical figure, or Plato's fictionalization. As British philosopher Martin Cohen has put it, "Plato, the idealist, offers an idol, a master figure, for philosophy. A Saint, a prophet of 'the Sun-God', a teacher condemned for his teachings as a heretic."[14]

It is also clear from other writings and historical artefacts, that Socrates was not simply a character, nor an invention, of Plato. The testimony of Xenophon and Aristotle, alongside some of Aristophanes' work (especially The Clouds), is useful in fleshing out a perception of Socrates beyond Plato's work.

Lol, it seems you are confused here, this source you are quoting says to understand Socrates and his work we must turn to Plato, where in this article did you see that Socrates wrote a thing? Abeg atheist brethren and Christian brothers come and help a brother.

Amen Ra, even your source doesn't agree with you.

AmenRa1:
Search Socrates problem on Wikipedia and educate Ur self

Socratic problem

The Socratic problem (or Socratic question)[1] is the term for the situation in the history of scholarship with respect to the existing materia pertaining to the individual known as Socrates which scholars rely upon as the only extant sources for knowing anything at all about this individual, but when compared, show contradictions and do not agree. It is apparent to scholarship that this problem is now deemed a task seeming impossible to clarify and thus perhaps now classified as unsolvable.[2][3]

Socrates was the main character in most of Plato's dialogues and was a genuine historical figure. It is widely understood that in later dialogues Plato used the character Socrates to give voice to views that were his own. Besides Plato, three other important sources exist for the study of Socrates: Aristophanes, Aristotle, and Xenophon. Since no extensive writings of Socrates himself survive to the modern era, his actual views must be discerned from the sometimes contradictory reports of these four sources.Socratic problem

The Socratic problem (or Socratic question)[1] is the term for the situation in the history of scholarship with respect to the existing materia pertaining to the individual known as Socrates which scholars rely upon as the only extant sources for knowing anything at all about this individual, but when compared, show contradictions and do not agree. It is apparent to scholarship that this problem is now deemed a task seeming impossible to clarify and thus perhaps now classified as unsolvable.[2][3]

Socrates was the main character in most of Plato's dialogues and was a genuine historical figure. It is widely understood that in later dialogues Plato used the character Socrates to give voice to views that were his own. Besides Plato, three other important sources exist for the study of Socrates: Aristophanes, Aristotle, and Xenophon. Since no extensive writings of Socrates himself survive to the modern era, his actual views must be discerned from the sometimes contradictory reports of these four sources.

CoolUsername:
Don't get me wrong. Chances are good that Jesus existed. All I'm saying is that it's a little counter-intuitive for an omniscient god to rely on flawed humans to record what he did.

Also, I feel that if a man performed the miracles that Jesus was said to have, then we won't have to wait till 20 years after his death for him to be mentioned in passing in some letters.

I also strongly feel that we won't have to wait for 30 years after his death for people to actually start talking about his life and said miracles.

And I very strongly feel that the stories about him shouldn't be so conflicting in their details.

With the exception of philo and Josephus how many rabbinic or Jewish writings do you have from the first century? Was it a literate culture and did they place so much value in writing rather than oral teaching? Even Talmudic Judaism did not put their events down for many years until the second century after the destruction of the temple, they never saw the need to write, the apostles also may have thought the kingdom of God was very near, even so not many of this fisher men could have been literate to write things down, when they began to die, the Christian communities saw the need to record these events, especially after the destruction of the temple.

AmenRa1:
oh now am ignorant well I didn't expect anything less from a Christian

Lol, ok you are not ignorant, but show me what Socrates wrote, he wrote nothing Amen Ra.

AmenRa1:
Who told U Socrates didn't pen anything down are U kidding me?? In the case of the Buddha he didn't claim to be God nor was he educated unlike U Christian that claim Ur Jesus was God incarnation But couldn't read or write upon all the Omni titles U gave the imaginative character

I didn't know you were this ignorant, show me what Socrates wrote.

AmenRa1:
The Source Is That There Is no Evidence That Jesus Ever Existed Talk less Of to write anything the same way we don't have anything written by Superman or santa it seams Ur blocked head didn't get the point of the post

You surely do not want to argue this with me, do you?

CoolUsername:
My modified post answers your question.

It still doesn't answer my question. Socrates perhaps one of the greatest philosophers ever never penned anything down. The rational Buddha also never penned anything down, his disciples wrote about him 500years after. Many great men do not write things down. Why should a living Christ write a book?

AmenRa1:
See Foolishness In Display Like m not aware that Jesus story was cooked up by U Christians during the reign of Constantine

If it was cooked up and you don't believe it, then what is the source of your claim that he couldn't read and write?

CoolUsername:
Isn't kind of funny that a guy that was literally God came to lead his people to the light and couldn't pen a thing down? With no references of all his wonders until at least 20 years after his death?

Why does it really matter that he should pen a thing down? Maybe there's something l'm missing here.

AmenRa1:
No he didn't use it, how was he able to wake up the dead according to Ur holy book?? But ordinary to read and write was hard for him??

How do you know Jesus was unable to read and write? In the book of Luke he came out to read the temple scrolls as was his custom where he found the book of Isaiah 61, also when a woman was to be stoned for adultery he wrote on the ground. It seems you have nothing relevant to say in this thread you opened, you are just angry.

4kings:
Ok
How do u mean he could replace them?
Isn't everyone(Christians) chosen for different purposes? [Note: I'm talking about the same time period]

Take Saul as an example, God put Saul as king, Saul misbehaved and then he found David. Saul was replaced with David. The parable of Jesus in which many were selected to come to a feast and they refused, with others taking their place is another example.

4kings:
*This glory is also from the foundation of the world.*, which means foreknowledge, so then how could a being with foreknowledge be disappointed of what he already knows.

He knows the elect because he chose them before they were born and ordained them for glory, his will however is that all of them whom he has given to Jesus should not be lost. The problem is he doesn't know if they would persevere till the end because of their freewill to choose, this is why Paul himself believed he could be a cast away.

4kings:
@oaroloye
If God is not omniscience, then how do u explain the prophecy of the fate of Abraham's generation declared in Gen15:13.
Also can u pls expatiate a little more on God's limitations and those levels.

I do not agree with all of oaroloye's point but to an extent his view on Yahweh is not far fetched.
For example in Genesis 18v21, the lord has heard so much about Sodom and Gommorah, and he has come to verify himself.
Another example is when he states that isrealite's burning of their children, is something that has never even crossed his mind. However this doesn't nullify the fact that God chooses some not because they are special in any way but to do some work e.g Jeremiah who was ordained before he was born, as well as Paul, this people suffered a lot, and who knows? Some of them did not even live out half their potential to God's disappointment. However oaroloye is right that God has prepared a certain glory for those who persevere till the end. This glory is also from the foundation of the world.

4kings:
I suppose Moses will be one of the example of those who must follow a course. Right?
If so, his original course was obviously to lead the children of Israelites to the promise land, but well, that didn't happen because God got angry of his action(freewill I suppose).

My question also to kilo4sure, is do this people who have been called out to do serious work, also have the luxury of freewill even during their course. Clearly, Moses did what God did not want him to do, he also advised God not to destroy the Israelites(the focus of Yahweh's purpose ).
If your answer is yes, then chances are, moses could have abandoned the Israelites, Paul could have backslided out of arrogance, Jesus could have given up(the cup) cos of pain and fear, and so on. Right?
If not, properly explain the case of Moses.

Brilliant question, l do not know for a fact if they had the freewill to turn away from God's purpose, but from what l can deduce from the scriptures, l would say this is very possible. To an extent l still feel that Yahweh has been disappointed with many whom he has chosen and given gifts because in the end they made choices that were detrimental to divine purpose. Many of the chosen still do not live up to their full potential. For example God chose Jacob even before he was born, but the decision to cheat his brother was definitely from Jacob himself. Esau who was not as blessed as Jacob became more wealthy than Jacob by his freewill even his descendants for many years were quite successful and produced wise men. So even in predestination, l would say the elect can choose to be deceived or abandon purpose, this would not thwart God's plan because he can even replace them.

Okite15:
Jesus d same yesterday, today and forever. Modernity cannot change Gods standard.

Thesame Jesus told you not to judge. Not all the 613 laws in the old testament were written for you. There are moral, civic and ritual laws. Jesus came to heighten the moral laws, and the Christian religion makes them universal. Focus more on the ten commandments as well as the two greatest commandments which Jesus reiterated.
You are in no position to declare who goes to hell or heaven.

4kings:
@kilo4sure you said:
There is a form of freewill for all to believe but ultimately no one can believe if God does not choose to teach him to believe. -----what do u mean by "form of freewill to believe".

God himself who made all men, knows what he has made them for, he knows why he may not draw a man to Jesus in this age, for his ways are past finding out, however we must continue to preach for we do not know whom God wants to add to the church. ------- Going by this; how would u differentiate freewill from illusion, what if the preacher was supposed to? & if u disagree on the subject of illusion, why then do u 'consider' the possibility that God might not draw a man to Jesus.

The summary is that some have been chosen as elects to do the work of God, this does not make them special, but it means much is required of them, not all are equal. God cannot call everybody but God wants everybody to come to him. The reason God wants men to continually seek after righteousness is this... If we do the right things even without knowing God or Jesus, just like Cornelius we continually pull ourselves to the spirit of God who unknown to us, begins to minister to our hearts and draws us to Jesus. We then receive the Holy spirit to do the work of God.
However some may not go through this process before they believe, some may even believe for selfish reasons, they all have their freewill to do that, but those who have been chosen by God or predestined especially during the time of Jesus among the Jews he preached to, did not just believe because of freewill only, but because they have been called out. Predestination focuses on the elect. God himself taught these people to believe, because they have work to do.However there are some who were not called, but who just beleive, God also has his way of using these people. So either away the right belief even from our freewill is not an illusion, but no one could have truly believed so as to do mighty works e.g the apostles, Cornelius, Paul, etc without having been called out by God from the foundation of the world. I believe that God has a way of drawing the world to Jesus, but some have been called out ahead to do serious work.

In my opinion, both predestination and freewill are biblical. Choosing either extremes would be a mistake. However it seems to me that your question is on how both concepts balance each other in the scheme of things.
1) lf predestination is true, then we were already chosen by God to be Christians no matter what we do, then ultimately how is believing in Christ of our own choosing? And why are we told to believe in him as though we had a choice in the matter?
2) lf we are chosen then the others are ultimately damned due to no fault of theirs, then why does God yet blame us and how is this fair?
To answer these questions, the Calvinists in Europe exalted predestination above our freewill almost neglecting the biblical passages that indicate freewill. If l am to answer these questions however from my own point of view, l would say..
1)Predestination is indeed true and biblical, and indeed some are chosen by God in the scheme of things, just like Israel was chosen. But again to be chosen means you have a lot of work to do. The issue is every human by virtue of nature deserve to die and not rise again. God is in a process of changing this order of things and defying nature, so at some point in time he alters history and the scheme of things by choosing some to do his work. He calls them however to work with him in transforming the world (your will be done on earth as it is in heaven). This does not automatically mean others are damned as the strict Calvinists believe, but it is the will of God that all men be saved. How he does this is past finding out, and seems to be a slow methodical process from human point of view.
2) There is a form of freewill for all to believe but ultimately no one can believe( in order to do the works of God as elects) if God does not choose to teach him to believe. God himself who made all men, knows what he has made them for, he knows why he may not draw a man to Jesus in this age, for his ways are past finding out, however we must continue to preach for we do not know whom God wants to add to the church.
However inspite of all these, there is freewill to do right and wrong because in my view, God does not micromanage the world, he knows the end from the beginning but he does not control our choices to do right and wrong, though he could make good use of even the wrong choices for his purpose. Choosing to do evil continually thwarts the plan of God to save us and even leads to destruction, hence we are constantly admonished to choose righteousness.

alfarouq:
John, Solomon, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael are all prophets and I did not despite that. So let me ask you one too
If john and Solomon too have to prophesise the coming of Muhammad for it to be genuine, then can you show me in your Bible where Abraham, Noah, Enoch to mention a few prophesise the coming of Christ? If not you must be on a long thing
Mind you I am not saying I must see there prophecies from your bible before I can accept that Jesus was an honorable prophet, I am just using your own argument and please stop derailing the thread, all you have to do is prove that my argument is wrong. Beating about the bush is not the way to go

So you agree that john the disciple of Jesus is a prophet then, good to know.
I have refuted your argument on the parcelete in the book of john in my first reply, so you can't accuse me of not addressing the op, if you have a rebuttal to my argument above on why Muhammed is not the parcelete in john, bring it on.

alfarouq:
I was not the first person to say the Bible has been corrupted nor will I be last so why don't you direct your questions first to those bible scholars that removed some of the verses from the attributing it to an interpolation that was not in the ancient manuscripts
You don't believe in the Qur'an so its only reasonable for me to use the Bible which you believe to help remove the fog over your eyes.
The Bible contains word attributed to God, his prophets such as Jesus, Isaiah and co and the words as reported by others such as Mathew, mark, Luke and peter. All of this is evident from the choice of pronouns used. Muslims don't have a problem with the ones reported from recognised prophets but what we don't accept is hearsays and fabrications from peter Paul and their ilks.
Have you ever seen where Bible scholars remove a verse attributed to any prophet referring to it as a fabrication just like they removed some of the verses from others. I hope you will be guided by your wisdom and intellect

Okay so now that the scholars have removed the interpolations, do you agree with the ancient manuscripts now? Do they vindictive Islam? Or more interpolations have to be removed?
If according to you john is not a prophet, and you only listen to prophets, then you have no business quoting john's gospel as a prophecy of Muhammed. Was Solomon also a prophet? If so does the book 'Songs of Solomon' contain prophecy of Muhammed?

He has opened thesame thread twice, well this is my reply from the other thread...
one instance, you condemn the bible saying the bible is corrupt and cannot be trusted. But with the other side of your mouth, you tell us that Muhammed was prophesied in the bible, so which is it? If only parts of the bible are corrupted, how do you know those parts. If you know them by using the Quran as criteria then that again is begging the question.
Muhammed cannot be the spirit of truth because....
1) Jesus was speaking to his disciples first and those who would thereafter hear their words, the disciples were aggrieved that Jesus was about to leave them as he predicted to them in his own words, Jesus however tells them not to be sorrowful, because when he leaves he would send to them a comforter and helper to them to console them and take his place. Muhammed was born 600years later after they all died.
2) This passage clearly speaks of the spirit of truth, not a man, the spirit is to dwell in the disciple and those who hear their words forever, and also to be with them forever. Muhammed obviously died after suffering for years due to a woman's poisoned love portion.
3)The spirit of truth was to be sent in the name of Jesus, (john 14v26). If Muhammed is the spirit of truth, then this would mean that he was sent on the authority of Jesus, meaning Jesus has authority over Muhammed. And to even make this clearer, Jesus states that he sends this spirit of truth from the father. This would mean that Jesus sent Muhammed to the world. Do Muslims agree with this?

alfarouq:
Prophet Isaiah is considered to be one of the major prophets of the Old Testament. In the Book of Isaiah there are several prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. In chapter 42, Isaiah begins with a prophecy for the coming of prophet Jesus. After verse number nine, God declares through Isaiah, the "new things" that are to "spring forth" in the Land of Kedar.

In the Bible there is only one personality called Kedar. He was the grandson of prophet Abraham, through his son Ishmael (see Gen.25:13). Kedar's descendants had settled in Paran (Syno-Arabian dessert). In the Rabbinic literature Arabia is called the "Land of Kedar". Prophet Muhammad was a descendant of Kedar.

God declares through Isaiah;

"Behold, the former things are come to pass, and the new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them. `Sing unto the Lord a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth'. Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voices, the villages that Kedar doth inhabit: let the inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains. Let them give glory unto the Lord, and declare His praise in the inlands." Chapter 42, Verses 9-12.

God did reveal in the Land of Kedar, through prophet Muhammad - a direct descendant of Kedar, a "New Song" - The Qur'an (Koran). This happens to be the only Scripture to be revealed in the language of the Kedarites. The verses of the Qur'an are recited like a poem. Nearly 1.2 billion Muslims, residing all over the world, recite this "new song" and Glorify Allah, in their daily prayers, five times in a day. The initial Revelation came to prophet Muhammad in a cave of Mount Hira near the city of Mecca. There are several mountains near Mecca. During the annual Islamic Pilgrimage called "Hajj", Muslims from all over the world, assemble in Mecca and shout Glory to the Lord from the top of Mount Arafat. The pilgrims continuously give Glory to Allah on their ways, to and from Mecca.

"The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies." Verse 13.

In the Old Testament the God often speaks "I" will do this, or "I" have done this; whereas, He has chosen human beings like us, to do these jobs. (see 2 Samuel 12:7-12). Muhammad did go forth as a mighty prophet of Allah, did stir up jealousy among the most influential and dominating tribe of the pagan Arabs in Arabia. Finally with a war cry and roar, Muhammad did prevail upon the enemies of Lord - the idolaters, fulfilling the above prophecy.

"I have long time holden my peace; I have been still, and refrained myself, now will I cry like a travailing woman; I will destroy and devour at once." Verse 14.

The prophets that came before Muhammad had all tried with peaceful missions. But, the concept of sharing God's Glory continued to surface again and again, in one way or other. It was with the war cry, through the descendants of Kedar (Arabs), these sinful practices were destroyed and devoured, inside and outside of Arabia. The spread of Islam was swift, wide spread and at once.

"And I will bring the blind by a way they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known; I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things I will do unto them, and not forsake them." Verse 16.

It is an undeniable fact that before the advent of Islam, the pagan Arabs were like the blinds. Their religious and social concepts were crooked. The revelation of this "new song" brought them out of that darkness. Earlier, God had not sent any prophet to these people. By sending Muhammad, God fulfilled His above promise and also the following promise to Abraham;

"And also of the son of the bondwoman I will make a nation, because he is thy seed." Genesis 21:13.

Please note the word "also" in above promise. The nations of Judaism and Christianity came out from the descendants of Abraham and Sarah. The nation of Islam came out from the descendants of Abraham and Hagar. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are three children of Abraham by God's Covenants with Abraham.

This also fulfils the following prophecy by Jesus;

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but what soever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you thing to come." John 16:13

For further details about "the Paraclete" and "the Spirit of Truth" please see Section 1 of this article.

"They shall be turned back, they shall be greatly ashamed, that trust in graven images; they say to the molten images, `Ye are our gods.'" Isaiah 42 Verse 17.

History records that Prophet Muhammad (saws) did put the pagan idolaters to great shame when he demolished before them, their 365 idols that were installed in Ka'bah (Mecca), the most respected place of pilgrimage in the whole of Arabia. Today, Ka'bah is the Grand Mosque of Islam. Muslims from all over the world face towards Ka'bah while reciting their daily ritual prayers.

In one instance, you condemn the bible saying the bible is corrupt and cannot be trusted, with the other side of your mouth, you tell us that Muhammed was prophesied in the bible, so which is it? If only parts of the bible are corrupted, how do you know those parts. If you know them by using the Quran as criteria then that again is begging the question.
Muhammed cannot be the spirit of truth because....
1) Jesus was speaking to his disciples first and those who would thereafter hear their words, the disciples were aggrieved that Jesus was about to leave them as he predicted to them in his own words, Jesus however tells them not to be sorrowful, because when he leaves he would send to them a comforter and helper to them to console them and take his place. Muhammed was born 600years later after they all died.
2) This passage clearly speaks of the spirit of truth, not a man, the spirit is to dwell in the disciple and those who hear their words forever, and also to be with them forever. Muhammed obviously died after suffering for years due to a woman's poisoned love portion.
3)The spirit of truth was to be sent in the name of Jesus, (john 14v26). If Muhammed is the spirit of truth, then this would mean that he was sent on the authority of Jesus, meaning Jesus has authority over Muhammed. And to even make this clearer, Jesus states that he sends this spirit of truth from the father. This would mean that Jesus sent Muhammed to the world. Do Muslims agree with this?

Muhammed was a tricky man, in that he made all prophets Muslims. The isa in Quran was not even a teacher of men, no proverb, no sermon on the mount, just strange miracles like speaking as a new born baby, and transforming men to pigs.
Isa is also believed to have escaped death, and some believed Judas took his place immediately on the cross and Allah deceived the Romans. But this would be a very careless job from Allah, since apparently he also deceived the disciples of Jesus who were also convinced that Jesus died fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 53. The lrony is that Allah had to wait for 600years to set the records straight, beggeting another new religion in the process. This shows that Allah is not organized. First, allah became the founder of Christianity( which would later lead so many astray) just because he did a poor job at deceiving people that Jesus died. In order to rectify the mess, he had to wait for 6 centuries to figure out a plan in far away arabia, here again the process led to another new religion.
Allahu Akbar.

This is why l get bored with eschatology.

0ubenji:
The “Rapture” being referred to in a passage in 1Thessalonians 4:16-18, where Christians are “caught up” in the
clouds to meet the Lord in the air.” have been largely misconcieved.

Many Christians believe,
and promote, that this being “caught
up” to meet the Lord will occur before the Great Tribulation
sometime in the near future. Christians will simply vanish(as we've always assumed),
meet Jesus somewhere in the air, and then return with Him
to Heaven to await the end of time.
But notice, in 1Thessalonians 4:15, Paul says that “…we who are alive,
who are left,” shall be caught up.
This is a very important
point to stress to rapture enthusiasts.
Those who are “left”
get caught up to meet the Lord.

Keep that in mind as we look
at these next couple of Scripture passages.

The "rapture" concept got their ideology from a passage in
Luke 17:22-37(the very one scholar8200 refused to read up for understandable reasons), and a similar passage in Matthew 24:29-44, which
"strongly compares" the coming of the Lord to the days of Noah and
the days of Lot.

Matthew 24 puts it this way: “As were the
days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man…[they
ate, they drank, they married] and they did not know until
the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the
coming of the Son of man. Then two men will be in the field,
one is taken and one is left. Two women grinding at the mill,
one is taken one is left.”

----------------------------

“One is taken, one is left” — the Rapture right?

Jesus takes
the Christians and leaves behind non-Christians!

That’s how rapture enthusiasts interpret these passages..

---------------

Well, there are however. Two problems with these "rapture” interpretation:

First, in the passages from Luke 17 and Matthew 24, Jesus’
coming is compared to the days of Noah and the days of Lot.
Let’s think about that for a moment. After the flood, who was
left?

Noah and his family — "the good guys". The bad guys
were taken('caught up' in the flood) and the good guys were left behind!

-------------

After Sodom
and Gomorrah went up in smoke, who was left?

Lot and his
daughters — "the good guys". The bad guys were taken('caught up' in the fire) and
the good guys were left behind!.

------------------

The second problem with the dogmatic “rapture” interpretation,
has to do with what I mentioned above: 1 Thessalonians 4
says that those who are “left” get to meet Jesus in the air.

-----------------

You want to be left behind. Why? Because those who are left
behind get to meet Jesus on His return to earth.

Again, when
you put 1 Thessalonians 4 together with Matthew 24 and
Luke 17, it becomes quite apparent that the good guys are
the ones left behind to meet Jesus.

------------------

And, if you need further proof of that, there’s a passage in
Matthew 13 that pretty much seals the deal.

Matthew
13:39-43, “…and the enemy who sowed them [the bad seed]
is the devil; the harvest is the close of the age, and the
reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and
burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son
of man will send His angels and they will gather out of His
kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers(the bad guys), and throw them
into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their
teeth. Then the righteous(the ones that remain after the bad ones have been taken and dealt with) will shine like the sun in the
kingdom of their Father.”

------------------------------

So when Scripture says that “one is taken and one is left,” as
it does in Luke 17 and Matthew 24, it is not talking about the
Rapture, it is talking about the harvest at the close of the
age(which we have translated to the rapture ideology, as evident in these sermon and xtian films).

The ones who are taken, as it says in Matthew 13, are
the evildoers. The angels will take them and toss them
into the furnace of fire(somewhere else). So, the "rapture ideology" got it
wrong. The ones taken are not the good
guys, they are the evildoers. The ones who are left behind
are the ones who get to be caught up in the clouds to meet
Jesus in the air(to go nowhere actually) at His Second Coming, when He will bring all
of the angels and saints with Him and there will be a new
Heaven and a new earth.

Ii is only when the bad guys have been taken away unto judgement, then the good guys left behind will be caught up with the lord upon arrival. There's nothing like "the good guys will vanish or get caught up, then the bad guys remain to suffer whatever stuff with the destruction of the earth". That is a misnomer, which in itself nullifies the ideology of rapture, to say, it's not anywhere in the bible.



In other words, there will be no Rapture like the ones you have always believed. The rapture ideology teach the
opposite of what Scripture actually says.


Cc: Scholar8200, honourhim

--------------------------

You both should educate urselves by visiting the link below which has various bible translations of the Luke 17:22-37 and Matthew 24:29-44 where the "rapture" ideology actually came from. 1thessalonians 4:16-18 only buttress the idea, emphasizing on who are "left behind" after the judgment of the bad guys have taken place. Toggle different translations as u please.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+17:22-37

I think the major issue here is how you interpret ''caught up" , l would love you to explain your interpretation of the term better, if you don't mind.

4kings:
kilo4sure, I see u again yet in another similar thread.

Lol, l see you too brother.

4kings:
Me too, thankgod.


Haba!, I'm very sure u know that the paragraph that talked about Jesus was first quoted by Eusebius.
Besides [i am assuming u are a history fan], how could Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, Justin and many others who propagated paganism & all those egyptians stuff not notice Josephus words.
Also Origen the 'church father' who tried his best to advocate Christianity, never made reference to that Josephus paragraph. Moreso Origen disliked Josephus for not believing in Christ.

Goodnight my friend, i'm busy and I don't want to argue much, but if u have any strong contrary opinion ( to that Josephus' paragraph), you can post it am open-minded, and I will reply wen I see it.

I agree that the belief in Eusebius' possible interpolation is warranted and this is the major reason why scholars in the 19th century doubted the testimonium flavanium since Eusebius was the first to quote the text, but with other manuscripts such as the Arabic manuscript devoid of reference to Jesus as messaiah or other possible Christian interpolation, it is more reasonable to believe that an original core existed which was then interpolated, the original remained but additions were made to it to make it align with Christian beliefs. But you can hold on to your belief though if you so which, we agree to disagree.