Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Now, I do believe Jesus to be the Messiah for the Jews. However, it is interesting to note how Jewish scholars use the Bible to reject Jesus. I draw parallels with Christians using the Bible to reject Muhammad, pbuh.

III. The Requirements for the Messiah and Christian Contradictions.

A. Here is just a brief list of some of the requirements for the Messiah:

(1) He must be Jewish (see Deut. 17:15; Numb. 24:17);
(2) He must be descended from Judah (Gen. 49:10) and Solomon (numerous places, but see I Chron 22:9-10);
(3) With the coming of the Messiah will be the physical ingathering of Judah from the four corners of the earth (Isa. 11:12, 27:12-13);
(4) Also with coming of the Messiah will be the reestablishment of the Holy Temple (Micah 4:1);
(5) In addition the Messianic age will be one of world-wide peace (Isa. 2:4, 11:6, Micah 4:3); and, finally,
(6) In the Messianic age the entire world will believe in G-d (Isa. 11:9, 40:5; Zephaniah 3:9).

B. Satisfying the Criteria -- the Geneology Problem

Even if Christians could establish that (a) Jesus existed and (b) Jesus was Jewish, they would have trouble proving that (c) Jesus was descended from Judah and Solomon. Both of the detailed geneologies in Matthew and Luke trace Joseph's lineage to King David, albeit differently since Matt. 1:16 says that a fellow named Jacob was Jospeph's father, and Luke 3:23 tells us that Joseph was the son of Eli. (It seems that that family had a lot of problems determining fatherhood.) But these geneologies are bogus because Matthew tells us that Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, but Mary was still a virgin even after he was conceived through the "Holy Spirit"! Matt. 1:18. Since we know that geneology runs from the father (Numbers 1:18; 2:2), Jesus cannot claim descendency from Judah.

C. No Messianic Era.

Even still, Christians still have a problem because they still can't establish points 3, 4, 5, or 6 in paragraph A, above. Saying that those events will happen in a Second coming is circular at best and contradicts Revelations 22:20 ("Yes, I am coming quickly.").

From:
http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishviewo ... onegod.htm


I see no difference in these lines of arguments for rejecting Jesus than the ones Christians use to reject Muhammad, pbuh. Both say that the Biblical prophecies aren't literally fulfilled.

Cheers,
Shafique

yes, I agree. and you also made some invalid points to discredit Baha'i faith as a post Islamic religion.

This is the cycle. Everyone will stick to the religion they were born with and argue that the others are false.

I just believe that the world is big enough for all of us to live with our own beliefs without making it hard for the others.

(and ebonics will come and say that it will not happen and he is not safe in ME because muslims believe that they should kill non-moslims and non-believers with swords and tax free salaries and then we go again)

spoonman wrote:yes, I agree. and you also made some invalid points to discredit Baha'i faith as a post Islamic religion.

This is the cycle. Everyone will stick to the religion they were born with and argue that the others are false.

I just believe that the world is big enough for all of us to live with our own beliefs without making it hard for the others.

(and ebonics will come and say that it will not happen and he is not safe in ME because muslims believe that they should kill non-moslims and non-believers with swords and tax free salaries and then we go again)

Totally agree - when I critique the book of Mormons or Scientology, the adherents also disagree with my opinions and consider my arguments invalid.

There should be no compulsion in religion, but just a sincere search for truth and respect the other persons' views and opinions. I do believe that there are facts of history etc that can be academically argued - but the interpretation of events/motives etc is one that people should be free to make up their own minds about.

The majority of people these days do not have a religion that they follow, and many are leaving the religions of their parents.

The debates will continue long after we have all gone.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Totally agree - when I critique the book of Mormons or Scientology, the adherents also disagree with my opinions and consider my arguments invalid.

There should be no compulsion in religion, but just a sincere search for truth and respect the other persons' views and opinions. I do believe that there are facts of history etc that can be academically argued - but the interpretation of events/motives etc is one that people should be free to make up their own minds about.

The majority of people these days do not have a religion that they follow, and many are leaving the religions of their parents.

The debates will continue long after we have all gone.

who wrote this? the tea boy!
I think that questioning one's own beliefs is a good thing. I question them myself but I don't see it as lacking in faith. When we question religion, our own and others I see it as: 1. approaching/viewing religion through a different perspective than the one indoctrinated upon us. 2.Being well informed, getting to the Truth.

spoonman wrote:This is the cycle. Everyone will stick to the religion they were born with and argue that the others are false.

I think that its a given in the majority but you know I don't think arguing about religion as in "mine is better than yours" is something that everyone aims for, not with me at least. My arguments here are mostly about clearing up misconceptions that I see others have and of course I have pointed out errors that I see in others. Here's the thing though: If I thought that Mohammad (for example) was a great and deserving prophet, I would acknowledge it. I wouldn't be "looking" for bad things to point out about him. As I see things one doesn't really need to go looking, hehe. But I don't go out of my way to criticize Islam though, I actually defend "established religions" as whole (because they share the one belief in one God, which I see as positive no matter what.) I do think that in the end what really matters is a belief in something good, something that makes life a bit more worthwhile, religion or not.

freza wrote:But I don't go out of my way to criticize Islam though, I actually defend "established religions" as whole (because they share the one belief in one God, which I see as positive no matter what.) I do think that in the end what really matters is a belief in something good, something that makes life a bit more worthwhile, religion or not.

Another point we agree on.

I believe all peoples were sent true religions and therefore no one people have a monopoly on truth. Society is better off following the precepts of religion than not following them - for all religions teach the same basic rules. This also corroborates the belief in one God - for there cannot be contradictory core values if there is one God, and any contradictions that exist are likely to be the work of man's corruption.

If we focus on the core - we can find much common ground.

That said, this thread shows that all religions have good arguments for their adherents to continue to believe in their rules and reject others - Jews reject Jesus, using the Bible. Christians use the Bible to argue for Jesus. Christians use the Bible to reject Muhammad. Muslims use the Bible to argue for Muhammad.

All think they are right - and recognising this fact is the basis of religious tolerance.

Cheers,
Shafique