Piercingtheveil81:
Muhammad refers to NT ideas at times in his own way to explain his revisions
for it, such as that Jesus was an ordinary man who was a prophet. But if he
meant to address the mainstream Christian view with verses 4:171, 5:72-75, and
5:116 of the Qur'an, and it's been the widespread view among Islamic people from
early on that Muhammad intended to, he mistook the mainstream Christian view as
not being monotheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_in_Islam
Giving him the benefit of the doubt he wasn't deliberately spreading misinfor-
mation about the mainstream Christian idea of the NT (the way a JWs leader does
to persuade people to their stance in comparison with it), he didn't understand
it, possibly getting his information from a bad source. The mainstream NT view
of Father, Son, and Spirit is monotheism, and only God deserves prayer and wor-
ship. Jesus isn't considered a separate being beside God. What I have on the
mainstream Christian view is on pp.6b to 10 at the next link.
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id18.html
Either way, it might be interesting to read something like those verses except
ones in which Muhammad addressed the actual mainstream Christian view, but we
never got them. We know he'd disagree with it since he considered Jesus to have
been no more than an ordinary man who was a prophet.
Another alternative, although a minority view, is that Muhammad didn't intend
those verses to compare his stance with the Bible and the mainstream Christian
view of the NT, but chose to compare his stance with that of a little (Arian?)
cult now lost to history.
Muslims refer to John 14:16, 14:26, 16:7, where Jesus foretold the coming
of the Holy Spirit (Pentacost in Acts 2), with the variation that Jesus meant to
foretell the coming of Muhammad, too:
"Muslims also assert that evidence of Jesus' pronouncement is present in the
New Testament, citing the mention of the Paraclete whose coming is foretold in
the Gospel of John. Muslim commentators claim that the original Greek word used
was periklutos, meaning famed, illustrious, or praiseworthy - rendered in Arabic
as Ahmad; and that this was substituted by Christians with parakletos."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus#Precursor_to_Muhammad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraclete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentacost
"Periklutos" is like a JWs leaders' NT "YHWH"--we haven't found manuscript
evidence for it.
glenster
JoinedPosts by glenster
-
14
1John 5:20
by PSacramento inthis was brought up in the phillipians thread by johnathan dough (sp?
), he mentions how in 1john 5:20 jesus is caled god.. .
now, in the niv it goes like this:.
-
glenster
-
14
1John 5:20
by PSacramento inthis was brought up in the phillipians thread by johnathan dough (sp?
), he mentions how in 1john 5:20 jesus is caled god.. .
now, in the niv it goes like this:.
-
glenster
"...it hardly seems he would have called himself god or son of god as that
could be misconstrued as usurping the first commandment of having 'no other
gods'".
In that culture, "son of god" could be angel (Job 1:6). Other things could
indicate God's own wisdom personified and sent to people, as in the intertesta-
ment Wisdom literature. The phrase wouldn't be off limits, but rocks would be
hurled if they thought Jesus meant the latter version and didn't believe he was.
By the mainstream view, that's why Jesus was threatened with rocks yet he didn't
say he was archangel Michael to get them to put down the rocks.
Also see the section on "Prayer and worship" most of the way down the next
page, which indicates they were going on for Jesus pretty early, and were a
couple of the main ways people indicated belief in God in first cent. Judaism.
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id22.html
Stephen didn't say he believed Jesus was an angel in human form to save his
life when he was put to trial, dragged across town, and stoned to death, either.
They didn't have a rule to stone you to death for seeing an angel. He prayed to Jesus. -
14
1John 5:20
by PSacramento inthis was brought up in the phillipians thread by johnathan dough (sp?
), he mentions how in 1john 5:20 jesus is caled god.. .
now, in the niv it goes like this:.
-
glenster
"And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so
that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son
Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." (New American Standard
Bible)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible
The basic mainstream view would understand the Son as God's own wisdom, not
as a seperate created being, personified and sent to people, so that being in
the Son is being in God more than just the case of followers joining the mes-
sanger Michael in unity of abidance to God. It would make more of the
parallel that being in the Father is being in the Son, and that being in them
is being in God and not just joining an archangel in abidance to God.
The mainstream view would emphasize that sons are typically same quality
beings as fathers and the JWs leaders would emphasize that sons are typically
seperate beings from Fathers. You'd have to go over more than these few
things, but I think the mainstream view has a stronger case for an only Son,
"the" Son, in that he would be the only one called Son who was like that
whereas "arch" just means "chief" angel, and other angels are called sons of
God. First cent. Judaism had more than one archangel, too.
I think the basic mainstream view has the stronger case generally than the
JWs leaders for having the originally intended view, but I can imagine how
either view would interpret that verse or "Son of God." But if I were the
editor and needed to have people think of the JWs leaders' view and avoid
thinking of the mainstream view, I would have avoided the parallels possible
with a verse like that or the phrase "Son of God" and would have used "God
sent archangel Michael, whom we agree about God with," among a lot of other
things.
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/ -
8
Take the Bible Test
by Lillith26 inthis is a test i borrowed from the wud website!
your imput is most welcome!.
1. how many contradictory creation of man stories are there in genesis?.
-
glenster
3. There are different ideas for Rom.11, but the faithful to be rewarded
can be Jews or Gentiles since the crucifixion, Acts 10, etc., which is
considered a growing development in God's course for followers and not a
change in His basic nature.
7. The concept of God's nature isn't of a loving father in the sense of an
all-beneficicent God who has people live in heavenly circumstances forever.
It would make a good-sounding concept, but nobody could believe it because it
couldn't be reconciled with what goes on in the world.
There's the love Job finds in getting a shot at life and what good there is
in life, or the chance for some to enter eternity with God with faith in the
crucifixion. By God's prerogative, He wouldn't have to give people any life
or quality of life, so any He gives is a plus. The deaths He's caused are fair
game, although remember when giving any examples like that, OT battles, etc.,
a bigger concern is that if He hadn't caused them to happen, He would have had
them die later, anyway, because He has everyone die. You could not like it or
consider it evil from the human point of view of what we'd prefer, but it's
just on the level of God's prerogative. All you can do toward finding a
loving father is find it in the mix like Job did.
Pharoah was pretty hard-hearted in the first place, and he and his people
weren't real nice about Moses' people. Some interpret Pharoah, against the
God of Moses and ruthless about his people, having a hardening of the heart
that came from within when confronted with Moses saying his God demanded that
Pharoah let Moses' people go. It might not be a perfect comparison, but it
reminds me of how Hitler and his people would react to a demand like that
about the Jews and not wanting to change even as the Allies approached Berlin.
But it took the Allies to make a change.
Romans 12:17-21 at the least discourages responding exactly in kind whenever
treated badly (slander when slandered, be bigoted to bigots, etc.). It's part
of the bigger context of whether or not Christians can act in defense, and, if
so, in the government or not. The case can be made that letting organized
crime and leaders like Hitler flourish would cause a lot more evil in the
world.
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id20.html
13. See the above, but one thing to add to that is that it's supposed to
have been a theocracy, led, even miraculously, by God, which would make the
standard of expectations go up in a tougher tribal world than 2009 USA. They
also made a distinction between accidental and deliberate sin, so the law
would indicate a son who was old enough to know better being enemy natured
about parents who were held to abide by higher standards, too. -
66
This Bible passage has always bothered me.......
by palmtree67 inthis is one of 2 bible passages that have always bothered me.. its from judges 19: (the entire chapter, so i will paraphrase.).
a levite marries himself a concubine.
she's unfaithful and goes back home.
-
glenster
"The first verse states the subject of the chapter. Every man is doing what
they think is right because God is not acknowledged as King. The Levite seeks
safety among the people of Israel but finds none. He then mutilates the body
of his dead concubine and sends it to the 12 tribes of Israel to show what the
people of Gibeah had done....First, we see that that religion, represented by
the Levite, when divested of God’s leadership is cruel at best. Secondly, we
see that people are not inherently good or moral as many would claim. Without
God’s leadership the people of Gibeah are depraved and dangerous."
http://beautyofthebible.com/2009/02/03/atheism-judges-19-and-hosea/ -
8
Take the Bible Test
by Lillith26 inthis is a test i borrowed from the wud website!
your imput is most welcome!.
1. how many contradictory creation of man stories are there in genesis?.
-
glenster
I've got to go to bed, but I looked up a few.
3. No. Rom.10:12, others
7. Exodus 10:1-2.
11.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword
14. See miseo definition c.
http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=%AFt0001315 -
10
If...and...had a child, the baby might grow up to look like....
by glenster inhttp://www.morphthing.com/.
-
glenster
Don A. Adams and Michael Jackson:
-
19
The Watchtower & Logical Fallacies (Long)
by darkl1ght3r in- w86 7/15 p. 20 par.
3 p. 37 par.
- w86 7/15 p. 10 par.
-
glenster
The JWs leaders use several methods a lot when teaching that their exclusive
views, meant to substantiate their claim of being the only rule-makers leading
spokesmen of a literal 1444,000, are proven by the best related history and
reasoning.
- Forced points
The JWs leaders assert that one interpretation for a scriptural word or verse
must the be the only interpretation for a verse. When done in a presentation of
all possible interpretations and when one knows better, it's a form of lying.
The JWs leaders do this in making declarations about numbers for prophecy
claims, when comparing their stance about Jesus with the mainstream one, etc.,
to make something that has the weaker case for having been the originally in-
tended idea seem like the only reasonable possibility.
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id21.html
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id22.html
(Erik Von Daniken does that with pseudoarchaeology claiming his evidence for
visits from flying saucer people can be explained no other reasonable way to
make very arbitrary possibilities seem like compelling possibilities, etc.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoarchaeology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Von_Daniken#Criticism
An example is if someone is trying to seem exclusively smart about math and
says the blanks of "_ + _ = 4" must be filled with 3 and 1. The reason it can
be effective is it seems reasonable if you don't think about it--3 and 1 do
equal 4. If they know math and know the other possibilties, though, it's a lie.
- Quote mining
The JWs leaders use the quote of a reference source seem supportive that
isn't. For example, the "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" tract uses quotes
of Ante Nicene Fathers seem supportive of a created Jesus view though they were
just referring to ideas both the mainstream and created Jesus views share, such
as the Son being subordinate to the Father, or one may have thought of Jesus the
mainstream way but that he appeared at a certain time, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
That can be so effective (combined with the peer pressure of the JWs leaders'
rules about shunning) that I once had an otherwise bright friendly JW explain
for about 20 minutes that Tertullian's Apology 21, which I showed him a Xerox
of, showed Tertullian taught a created Jesus.
- Omission of pertinent evidence
The JWs leaders leave pertinent related historical context out of their case
if it's bad for the idea of their case being as well indicated as having been the
originally intended idea.
The JWs leaders omit that people of Jesus' day had wisdom literature and could
understand the idea of God's own wisdom personified, not as a seperate created
being, and sent to people, understood Logos as not being a seperate created be-
ing from the Demiurge, the definitions of "firstborn," that Paul called Jesus
the Lord of the one God and one Lord "Shema"--Thomas realizing Jesus' identity
with it, too, etc.). A notable case is the blood issue considering important
related context is the Bible, such as Paul's writings about food.
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id22.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohistory
http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=%AFt0001056
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema_Yisrael#Shema_in_Christianity
The JWs leaders have shown similar omissions of pertinent evidence regarding
the medical issues related to their stance on the medical use of blood and major
blood fractions. (See "We must preserve the sanctity of our stance on blood--
truth and other's lives, we're not crazy about" at 2006 on the timeline at the
next link.)
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id12.html
- Mischaracterizing the other side of a case
The times the JWs leaders have used this include, but aren't limited to, the
sections on "Complaints about the JWs leaders' use of reference material" on pp.
1a, 1c, 5, 6b, 9, and 14 of my collection of research about them in the article
at the next link. Actually, they use this about any time they criticize others
as not teaching their distinctive stances.
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/index.html -
26
When Prophesy Fails - Why they stay
by Lady Lee inwhen prophesy fails - why they stay.
in the book when prophecy fails by leon festinger talks about why people still cling to their religious beliefs after they are proved false.
he starts the book with this:.
-
glenster
Since they wouldn't have to disregard Christianity but only the false claims
of exclusiveness of a few men?
Regarding the JWs leaders' old false claims of exclusiveness--"They don't teach
that anymore," regarding some of their current false claims of exclusiveness
because of the other ones they don't know about--"where else would I find the
truth about those?", and regarding those or even all of their current false
claims of exclusiveness because they don't want to be shunned by their friends
and family...
...and possibly a family member has a big inheritance for them, or someone
didn't explain it to them very well, or they popped a membrane, or.... -
10
If...and...had a child, the baby might grow up to look like....
by glenster inhttp://www.morphthing.com/.
-