Steven Carr

There are many people who don't! Curiously, they are not regarded as insane by Christians, when they question the existence of the Koran in that time period.

Perhaps sceptics though will never be able to answer the question of why people were willing to stand up for their Islamic beliefs, when there were whole armies from Mecca coming especially to persecute them, if they were all fraudsters, and Muhammad has just invented the story of the Angel Gabriel visiting him.

Sojourner553

So you believe there is one God Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet? That only professing Muslims go to heaven? You believe Abraham almost sacrificed Ishmael instead of Isaac?

Or perhaps you mean, did a person name Mohammed live who began a new religion? I know of no historian/scientific analysis that questions whether Mohammed was a historical person.
But that doesn't make the Koran a divine document or even historically accurate -- do you agree?

As for Jesus, if you have seen any of my posts, I always defend that Jesus probably was a historical person. (Indeed I have engaged in some pretty viscious attacks by atheists on this board who were angered at my position on this. Vork and I exchanged some barbs on this once.)

To me though, just because a person is historical does not mean that all the stories/myths associated with that person are historically accurate.

That is I doubt if you believe all the miracles attributed to Mohammed, even though you think Mohammed is historical. The same applies to Buddha. The same applies to Elvis Presley (where I am referring to all the reported sightings of him after his death.)

Sojourner

NOGO

Radorth

Comparing Luke and John on Easter morning.

Luke 24
1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared.
2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb,
3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.

John: "it was still dark" is different but otherwise ok.

Luke 24
4 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing;
5 and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead?
6 "He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee,
7 saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again."
8 And they remembered His words,
9 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.


Note "they remebered his words". Your contention that MaryM did not believe it until she saw Jesus is shot down right here. MaryM remembered that Jesus had told them that he would be risen on the third day. Also this part of the story simply never happens in John where MaryM believes all along that Jesus' body had been stolen until she meets and recognizes him on her SECOND visit to the tomb.

Luke 24:
10 Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles.
11 But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them.
12 But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home, marveling at what had happened.

To reconcile the two stories one must assume that MaryM followed Peter back to the tomb. But this is what John says about MaryM's second visit:

John 20
13 And they (angels) said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him."
14 When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus.
15 Jesus said to her, "(Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?" Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, "Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away."
16 Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, "Rabboni!" (which means, Teacher).

So after the angel told MaryM that Jesus had resurrected on her first visit to the tomb and that "they remembered his words" (v8) MaryM was at least informed of the possibility that Jesus had resurrected. Yet on her second visits she still thinks that Jesus's body had been stolen and does not even recognize Jesus himself.

Conclusion:
1) Luke has one part of the story which does not exist in John namely that an angels tells her that Jesus had resurrected and had also to nudge her memory for her to remember Jesus's words.

2) There is a blatant problem where MaryM after having been told and acknowledges a piece of information, totally forgets it and goes back to her initial "Jesus' body has been stolen"

3) put another way - what did MaryM tell Peter?
a) (LUKE) the angels said that Jesus resurrected just like he told us
OR
b) (JOHN) Jesus' body has been stolen.

... and you claim that these stories are basically the same, right?

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Radorth

So? I remember people asserting lots of things I don't believe until I see them. I saw this "problem" before, but did not make much of it. Yes, Jesus was a truth teller to her, but resurrection is hardly a small thing. This is no contradiction, for we can easily imagine MaryM telling Peter "I saw the angels and I remembered his words, but I still could not believe it. I still thought the body might be stolen."

Ambivalent feelings would be perfectly normal at that point.

And the fact that details are missing from one telling proves nothing. You have moved from facts to assumptions about what Mary would have believed and done.

Radorth

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

I think Muhammed said pretty much all that he is reported to have said. As I recall he worked few if any miracles according to his immediate follower's accounts, but that is a bit beside the point. I believe he went into trances and heard things rather clearly (like why he could have more than 4 wives).

He says he heard from Gabriel, but that I do not believe, although I do believe he heard from a spirit of some sort. And since I believe "Satan himself appears as an angel of light" I have reason to doubt it was Gabriel, particularly whenMuhammed himself thought at first he was hearing an evil spirit.

Personlly I think he should have quit there, for he goes on (IMO) to do many evil and hypocritical things Jesus cannot be found doing, which prophets even in the OT shied away from. You will say "sour grapes" but that is not the case. Muhammed's religion appeals to me no more than any religion. I find the Koran suspiciously patronizing of Jesus as well. Christ is the only person I could put any faith in, as he sets all standards IMO, and then lets himself be crucified knowing I could never possibly live up to them in this frail tent.


There is Christ, and then there are, as JQ Adams put it, the farthing candles.

Indeed.

Rad

davidH

Ok Nogo

Let me explain how your reasoning now works;

1. You have grasped onto the idea that Jesus is the "Word".

2. Even after I have asked before you have failed to tell me what this "Word" means Jesus was.

3. I point out (top of page 9) how this can't be so regarding the wording of the verse. - You have given no reply but keep on assuming.

4. After me showing you this I show you verses in the Bible that prove that Jesus is God.

- You don't answer my questions about the "Word" but claim that this is referring to the "Word" being devine.

5. You are arguing your point on something that you haven't explained and been so vague about.

6. Frustrating when you keep on assuming this view point but haven't explained anything about it.


See what I am getting at?
You choose "the Word" which you say is God?

But Wordsymth sees it as God's laws and mandates that Jesus recieved....

You put in the "Word" in place of Jesus where it is clear that Jesus is referring to himself - if he where referring to God then he would have said so.

Nogo, Please go back to my post on top of page 9 and the one on the top of page 10 answer it completely.

Firstly answer about the "Word" , then tackle the verses I have raised.

You and Wordsymth have both given completely different interpretations of the "Word" but haven't bothered to explain what you mean by them.

Therefore Nogo, I have to assume that you have no comprehension of what you are talking about when you refer to "the Word" and how it relates to Jesus.
Rather you skip all complications of that and dive right in interpreting verses.

Sojourner553, surely you can see this. I post on page 9 and then on page 10, and yet Nogo avoids the "Word" which is what his arguement is now based on........

I asked Wordsymth about it too and he hasn't been back to answer or can't answer, Nogo avoids it.....

Nogo and in interpreting Hebrews 1 v 8 you are badly mistaken.


Sojourner533, I call you to give me your views on this here (Nogo's full answer about 3/4 down page 10) - as a neutral, just want an honest opinion ok ie. the Logic.


Nogo you wrote;

From scripture is that logical - wasn't Jesus called many many times - the Son of God?

Ok now please see verse 9; the very next verse,

Now here you will see that Nogo does something very strange;

The "Word" that Nogo claims to be God and now not Jesus is being talked about from Heb 1 v 6 - 12 and in verse 6 we find that God is talking here .

So according to Nogo's interpretation we have God saying to "the Son ie. the "Word" ie. "GOD"

THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU

What do you think Sojourner?

Nogo then goes on to say.
Verse 4 states that the Word inherited a more excellent name.

Ok Sojourner553, as a neutral please show me how Nogo gets this from this verse.

He then goes on to explain how he knows that the Son is the Word by

Which name is that "Son of God" see verse 5.

Ok Sojourner, call me out if I am wrong but doesn't the passage in Heb 1 v 1-3 begin by talking about God's Son?

So in that can Nogo say that the "Word" = "Son of God" ?

The Word of God is the Son of God and as John 1:1 says "is God"

Further back in his posts Nogo writes that he doesn't see the term "The Son of God" as a term referring to the devine.....
You back tracking here Nogo, or do you now see that "the Son of God" is a term that is used to identify God? - That is what it seems from what you have written here.


Then there is this that Nogo says;

Also look at verse 9 "above your companions"

So the Word and the angels were "companions" (ie equals) before the Word was anointed, ie select to be Son of God.

Does this make sense Sojourner? Does companions mean equals in the sense Nogo would have us believe?

Nogo says How is the Word (or Jesus for you) and angels "companions" if Jesus is a member of the trinity of God?

What do you think Sojourner?

Then there is this here that I found interesting;

Hebrews 1 v 8

But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER


First, as I told you already this is not "let's compare verses" discussion. You need to prove YOUR case and you have not done that.

You quote verses from a corrupt bible which adds words to support the trinity doctrine.

On two occasion you have been shown words that were added. Since you have previously based you arguments on these words you need to go back and remake your arguement accordingly.

Now what is Nogo saying here? Is he not saying that my verses ie. Heb 1 v 8 does support the Trinity but only because my Bible changes the words? So is he then admitting that my verses do support the Trinity version?

Also is it right to dismiss this verse as it must be wrong because my Bible changes the words?
Notice he has provided no proof that this verse is added to - or rather any of the other verses because we haven't discussed the original Greek versions.

Sojourner I would also ask you if this here is correct.

To answer the subject would I not have to show that the doctrine of the Trinity is show in the NT? Answer = Yes.

If Nogo proposes his interpretation which shows that the Trinity isn't shown in the NT then of course I have to challenge your interpretation.
If I didn't challenge your interpretation then the NT doesn't support the doctrine of the Trinity.

Isn't what I have written correct Sojourner?

Then Nogo you raise 3 last points;

1. The explanation of why Jesus was lowered and then raised above the angels that I gave comes straight from the Bible!!

Did you not read my post or something?
Here is a passage in Hebrews that explains it all.

Hebrews 2 v 5-9
Especially verse 9. The whole passage explains it, also v 17.

2. Again here you write this; How is the Word (or Jesus for you)
but just above you wrote this here;

Verse 8 says that the Son is God. It does not say that Jesus is God.

then you go on to write this here;

The Word of God is the Son of God and as John 1:1 says "is God" ????

You say I am to interpret "Word" as Jesus?

Also how can the "Word" be both "God" and "The Son of God" ?

Nogo, you are really going to have to explain what "the Word" is - you are making no sense at all.
Is this another Trinity aspect you have come up with? Son of God = Word = God, which according to you has some connection with Jesus...

Sojourner - what do you think?

Anyway it is clear from the passage that Jesus/God's companions are the angels - because they are different beings that live in heaven and worship God and do his bidding. - Companions doesn't = equals ie. the same. It means those you are with - I have companions.

3. Again Nogo this verse distinguishes Jesus from the angels - in saying that none of them where ever called "Son" but rather they were to worship Jesus.

As to when Jesus got the Title "Son" - it's what he has been called by God the Father - it has always been his name. His name "Son" was always superior to that of angels because they never had this priveledge.

However notice what is being said in verse 4.

So he became as much superior to angels as the name he inherited is superior to theirs.

Note; this isn't saying that his name was once not as superior but rather that his name has always been superior.

So as in Heb 2 it was Jesus becoming fully man that made him less superior to angels - only in the fact that he was human. Once he rose from the dead he seated at God's right hand in glory, and that was where he physically became more superior to angels.

Can I back this up? Yes, with what Jesus said.

Jesus was with the Father in Heaven as the Son and he left heaven and became fully human and yet still God, he then obtained that glory again when he ascended into heaven.

This isn't me making stuff up - it's all in the Bible. And I have already referred to it on page 9 and 10.

Well, have to go here.
Thanks Sojourner for any comments you make.

Cya next time Nogo, I'm not sure when I can get on...possibly not tomorrow but maybe Sunday, I'll have to see.

NOGO

Hi DavidH,

Your last post is the perfect example of the reason I hesitated in giving my interpretation of this issue.
Instead of answering my questions you are now debating my point of view. David you must prove YOUR point of view not mine.

What I believe your problem to be David is that you don't try to understand fully the problems raised. The answers that you give simple DO NOT ANSWER the points.
Hebrews 2:5-9 does not exaplain why Jesus was anointed above HIS COMPANIONS.
I asked you: when was Jesus anointed above his companions?
When did he inherit the name of "Son of God"?

The text does not say that when Jesus resurrected he was elevated above the angels.
The text says that Jesus BECAME better than the angels when he inherited the name "Son of God".
These are two separate events.

You are ignoring the word "became". If his name was always superior then one does not talk about becoming, one would just state his name is superior to theirs.
So David, as usual you have not answered the point. You just dance around the issue pretending to answer but never facing what the text actually says.

You did not answer this one either. You just turned around and tried to find faults with my interpretation.
Ok David, forget about my interpretation. Can you now show us how your interpretation fits in with what the Bible actually says.

"Companions":
This is a real problem for you. If Jesus is a member of the trinity of God then why does Hebrews 1 even suggests that Jesus and the angels can be compared?
In which way can Jesus be compared with the angels?
Why call them companions?

Can you please forget everything else and answer these questions without forgetting the one concerning the word "became" above.

[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

NOGO

You have a rather weak point here. MaryM knew Jesus was a truth teller, she saw his miracles, the angel stated that Jesus resurrected, the angel also reminded her of Jesus' words that he would resurrect, also the angels were in dazzling clothing and the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, yet when he spoke to Peter she became all cool and simply told him she would stick with her first impression that Jesus' body was stolen. Riiiight!

Let's say that I concede this point. What about the other points that I raised?

Sojourner553

I. You are correct that Mohammed admitted he was not "personally" able to produce miracles. Yet his visions were of a miraculous supernatural realm -- heaven, God, a devil.

Many people (then and now) "hear and see" things in trancelike stages. Today we know visions of fantastic images are usually the result of MENTAL ILLNESS (whether temporary or permament).

It is a fact the New Testament ALWAYS attributed the cause of bad visions from mental illnesses (like epilepsy) to be from demons. Not all epileptic attacks are bad--Some epileptics have seizures in regions of their brains that give them beautific visions-- and like Mohammed might be deemed a prophet.

[By the way, Josh McDowell attributed Mohammed's visions to mental illness!! -- just to show you Christians can have the same view -- for individuals outside their own religion.]

II. During the times of Paul, the ancient hellenized world believed that epileptic seizures were of "divine origin"--ie were manifestations of outside forces taking over an individual--not a mental disease.

Hippocrates, the ancient Greek "Father of Medicine" wrote in his ON THE SACRED DISEASES how he disagreed with his colleagues, in arguing that epilepsy was NOT of divine origin:

III. There is evidence the earliest Christians could work no real miracles.

* Paul wrote that he suffered from "some affliction", a "thorn in the flesh"-- He states he prayed to Jesus THREE times to be healed, but that Jesus refused! Instead, according to Paul, Jesus told him that his "grace [was] enough" and that his "power [was] perfected in [Paul's] weakness. (2 Corinthians 12:7-9.). Paul again refers to an "illness" when he wrote to the Galatians that "...it was because of an illness... that I preached the gospel to you..."(Galatians 4:13)

* Paul writes in Corinthians that he was unable to convert the crowds there because

"... the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom".

This passage was written in Paul's first letter to the Christian congregation in Corinth, Greece. That is, Paul had obviously been debating
with Jews and Greeks as to why they should convert to Christianity, but found them "foolishly" refusing to accept the truth of Jesus. The Jews demanded that they would require a "sign" from God in order to believe. The Greeks, steeped in their tradition of philosophy (ie their search for "wisdom") must have NOT been convinced by Paul's arguments on the truth of Jesus being the Christ.

As the gospel stories are full of miracles, signs, and moral wisdom parables, it is surprising that Paul should not have referenced these-- if he had known of them. As mentioned in Section I, Paul did not feel it necessary to be instructed by the original apostles in Jerusalem. Yet he should have been AWARE that such miracles and moral stories existed through his contacts with other Christians. {Think how much smaller stories quickly pass through the "grapevine" at your job. It is almost impossible for Paul to have not heard of ANY miracles of Jesus-- if there were any}.

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/NATURE2.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/NATURE2.TXT</a>

* Jesus is said to have performed miracles. yet Matthew notes there were miracle-workers throughout Palestine performing the same type of miracles -- ie removing devils and so forth.

Skeptics argue that what is lacking in the gospel accounts is a documented diagnosis by any impartial, competent eyewitness. There is
typically NO discussion of any follow up to determine if the person suffered a relapse after the excitement of the cure had passed. This latter point is important, because there are documented case studies where emotional hysteria
can produce the same (but temporary) results. (See Section VII, Chapter 3).

According to Geza Vermes in his book JESUS THE JEW, when he consulted various psychiatrists whether any of the diseases in the New Testament could be recognized as hysterical (ie mental as opposed to physical), they first wanted to know the "state of health of the patients six months after discharge, before giving him an answer." This information is unfortunately not presented in the gospel stories. Vermes describes how he searched the passages of the New Testament
for clues to whether the expulsions of the demons were permanent. He found that the actual expulsion of the evil spirits always followed a direct command: "Be silent", "Out, unclean spirit, come out of this man!, "Deaf and dumb spirit, I command you, come out of him and never come back!" (Only in ONE case is the devil directly ordered to stay away permanently.) Geza Vermes, JESUS THE JEW, Fortress Press,1973, p 23)

* There are hints that Jesus was not all-powerful. People had to believe in him fully first:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT</a>

*There are no external witnesses to the miracles in the New Testament. The earliest reference to Christianity calls it just another "pernicious superstition" that has found its way to Rome. Here is Tacitus writing around 110 AD:

Other contemporary historians (either living during the times of Jesus or a century after) never mention the miraculous nature of Christianity.

This included important Roman writers such as:

*Petronius
*Seneca
*Pliny the Elder
*Pliny the Younger
*Juvenal
*Martial
*Plutarch
*Tacitus
*Seneca

have little or nothing to say on Jesus himself. (Only Tacitus and Seneca DO have a brief reference to the existence of "Christians" who worshiped a crucified leader called the Christ.)


**Btw: Wasn't Paul, Peter, and James all executed by the Romans? Where the rubber hits the road -- we see no real evidence for miracles.

Sojourner

[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Radorth

He did mention miracles in his writings asking "Are all workers of miracles?" This indicates even ordinary people saw or were used to work them. I believe he says as well "Didn't we work miracles among you?" But there I am reliant on memory as I cannot find it in his writings.

And of course you are keeping his writings and throwing out the Acts of the Apostles- one way to argue I suppose.

Wait a minute. The NT is quite clear that God does not simply work miracles for anybody who wants to see one. Jesus could not even work them in some places. They seem to happen as a unique and special act of grace or where God wishes to initially establish the authority of someone, as in the early formation of the church. And Jesus said some won't believe even if one is raised from the dead. What good did it do for God to work all those miracles for the Israelites?

Watch a miracle today. Make a golden calf tomorrow. God is only interested in getting people to give up sin and rebellion, mostly for their own benefit (which surprisingly few are wise enough to see).

Radorth