Jesus was Jewish, so God must be Jewish

[CXC3000]

Jesus never said what you allege (him to have said).

 

What am I supposed to have said?

 

Do you really think Jesus said he was 'God' or the 'son of God' ?

 

 

Using better logic:

 

Jesus was human, so his father must be human.

 

 

Nope; Jesus had no father. It was one of the miracles of God

 

no, Grahame, "He begetteth not, nor is he begotten".

 

Then seeing as Allah had three daughters Lat, Uzza and Manat you have just blown Islam wide apart.

 

Lol ! - really ? - so the Pagan Arabs decided to attribute all manner of attributes to God (as you say, having daughters etc...), and you accept what they said ? - those same Pagan Arabs who used to bury their daughters alive because of the 'shame' they brought them ?

 

BTW, the word 'Muslim' is used at the time of Moses; from the Quran :

 

"But thou dost wreak thy vengeance on us simply because we believed in the Signs of our Lord when they reached us! Our Lord! pour out on us patience and constancy, and take our souls unto thee as Muslims (who bow to thy will)!"

(7:26)

 

[HeadingNorth]

So none of them has a true claim then?

 

None of them has any stronger a claim than any other. Effectively, the "true" king is the one with the crown on his head.

 

We're civilized enough nowadays that there is no possibility of anyone usurping the throne, but to try and figure out who was the last monarch not descended from a usurper, is pointless. You can go all the way back to Offa of Mercia and still not find one - Offa took most of his kingdom by slaughtering the other people who ruled it. Before that, the Romans were in charge; and before the Romans, there wasn't even a kingdom, just any number of individual tribes each with their own rulers.

 

Not only that, but the various branches of royalty have all married each other at times. Take the case of Henry Bolingbroke usurping Richard II, and taking the throne himself instead of Edward Mortimer who was next in line - both men were descended from Henry III, and descendants of theirs ended up marrying each other, so whether you believe that Bolingbroke or Mortimer was the "rightful" king you still end up in the same place five hundred years down the line. Elizabeth II can trace her lineage to either or both.

[HeadingNorth]

BTW, the word 'Muslim' is used at the time of Moses; from the Quran

 

The Qu'ran was not written at the time of Moses, and Moses did not speak Arabic. Whatever words actually came out of his own mouth, "Muslim" would not have been one of them. That's an Arabic translation of what he supposedly said.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Also: even if Jesus were a Divine Son (which he wasn't), and even if the Divinity were Jewish (which He's not), there's no connection in religious status terms.

You see, Judaism is defined matrilineally; one is a Jew if one's mother is a Jewess (i.e. irrespective of the father's religion).

[flamingjimmy]

 

BTW, the word 'Muslim' is used at the time of Moses; from the Quran :

 

Ok, now that's ridiculous, you cannot put forward a 7th century text as evidence that someone who allegedly existed thousands of years before that used a particular word.

[CXC3000]

I have a question for you. If today's Jews/Catholics etc are not muslims per your interpretation what do you believe about those who were around before the Quran?.

 

If those people accepted the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Abraham etc... then they were Muslims.

 

Again, for them to be Muslims, all it means was that they accepted the words of the true Men of God.

 

Second question.

How did a virgin give birth.

 

Erm, the usual way a mother gives birth ?

 

Mohammad belonged to a tribe of pagans.

 

That is correct.

 

But Muhammed himself wasn't a Pagan. He believed and preached in the One, True God.

 

Maybe we should lock Aqbus and CXC3000 in a room together and just wait for the dust to settle ... they're both absolutely impervious to logic and evidence, they both dogmatically insist that what their holy book says is truth because their holy book says so ... but they don't use the same book. That could be fun.

 

I'm happy for my Faith, HN; I'm happy in the knowledge that we were all created by God; that everything we see around us has the 'handprint' of the Creator.

 

I'm quite content with that. Can you say the same for your belief ? - you see, the only difference between people of Faith and those without, is that the former know how everything came about; the latter will always be asking questions, over and over again.

 

They'll never be satisfied until they get an answer they accept. Must be terrible, mind-wise.

 

True. but you shouldn't blame CX-whatever his name for it. You should blame the authors of the Quran, that stuff about how Adam, Moses, Jesus et al were all Muslim without knowing it is apparently in there, bizarre as it is.

 

As mentioned in an earlier post, the word 'Muslim' was around at the time of Moses

[Jeffrey Shaw]

The Qu'ran was not written at the time of Moses, and Moses did not speak Arabic. Whatever words actually came out of his own mouth, "Muslim" would not have been one of them. That's an Arabic translation of what he supposedly said.

True, although the languages generally used/spoken at the time include Aramaic.

[Balpin]

Do you really think Jesus said he was 'God' or the 'son of God' ?

Nope; Jesus had no father. It was one of the miracles of God

Lol ! - really ? - so the Pagan Arabs decided to attribute all manner of attributes to God (as you say, having daughters etc...), and you accept what they said ? - those same Pagan Arabs who used to bury their daughters alive because of the 'shame' they brought them ?

 

BTW, the word 'Muslim' is used at the time of Moses; from the Quran :

 

(7:26)

 

 

Astonishing, you actually believe these things dont you?

I work with many highly educated men and women, who have the power of life and death over people.

They have similar beliefs to yours.

It concerns me greatly, that otherwise intelligent people can believe in such stuff as this.

Caves, angels, winged horses, divine revelations.

It all seems a bit out of kilter to me.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Astonishing, you actually believe these things dont you?

I work with many highly educated men and women, who have the power of life and death over people.

They have similar beliefs to yours.

It concerns me greatly, that otherwise intelligent people can believe in such stuff as this.

Caves, angels, winged horses, divine revelations.

It all seems a bit out of kilter to me.

Worry not! You don't need to believe it. Simply adhere to the Seven Noachide Laws, that's all.

[flamingjimmy]

None of them has any stronger a claim than any other. Effectively, the "true" king is the one with the crown on his head.

 

We're civilized enough nowadays that there is no possibility of anyone usurping the throne, but to try and figure out who was the last monarch not descended from a usurper, is pointless. You can go all the way back to Offa of Mercia and still not find one - Offa took most of his kingdom by slaughtering the other people who ruled it. Before that, the Romans were in charge; and before the Romans, there wasn't even a kingdom, just any number of individual tribes each with their own rulers.

I doubt it would have been all that different before the romans, I would guess the only reason we don't know about the various local kings (and possibly queens, the Britons bucked that trend, although not very often) is because we hardly have any records at all.