Holy Spirit in Quran : invitation to FaithofAbraham

  • Thread starter Thread starter inJESUS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think there are several reasons. As I said, blasphemy might simply entail disagreeing with rabbis depending on which Jews you are dealing with.
 
Stephen0 said:
Interesting discussion. However remember, that the first core group that knew Jesus best would proclaim that Jesus was God, incarnated in flesh. Furthermore, they taught that the relationship between the Father and the Son was the Holy Spirit. Finally, they would rather die than deny what the Christ had instructed them to believe. Remember, that the High Priest Caiaphas forced Jesus under oath to answer him if he were the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One, and Jesus answered that he was. The response by this very knowledgeable Jewish official dramatized the severity of Jesus crime of stating that he was God, for Caiaphas tore his robe and proclaimed that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy. If the problem was that Jesus was the word of God as the other prophets had been then Jesus wouldn’t have been put to death on this technicality. Understandably, the Sanhedrin realized the magnitude of this upstart Jesus’s claim and needed to stop him. Prophet, hell, they had a mad man on their hands and needed to silence him then and there! If I had been raised a devout Jew, I could have agreed with the learned ones. ANYONE who really wants to understand Catholicism and therefore Christanity needs to go back and read the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. These men where trained by the apostles and would eventually give their life as their mentors had been forced to do to state the core truths of the Incarnation, Trinity, and the Eucharist, They gave no ground and recieved none in return. Blood was the only reward or answer. There was no quibbling for the Fathers writings state it all, so to understand us then understand their writings vouched for by their deaths.
Click to expand...
I think this excellent post really clears up the matter.
 
FaithofAbraham said:
I think there are several reasons. As I said, blasphemy might simply entail disagreeing with rabbis depending on which Jews you are dealing with.
Click to expand...
Disagreeing with a rabbi is not blasphemy. Which Jews are you referring to who would say otherwise? In point of fact, there has probably never been a rabbi in Jewish history who offered an interpetation of anything that did not result in another rabbi disagreeing with him or her.
 
Valke2 said:
Disagreeing with a rabbi is not blasphemy. Which Jews are you referring to who would say otherwise? In point of fact, there has probably never been a rabbi in Jewish history who offered an interpetation of anything that did not result in another rabbi disagreeing with him or her.
Click to expand...
Like I said depends on who you are disagreeing with and how they interpret blasphemy. Someone here just accused me of blasphemy yesterday regarding Trinity. If a gang of rabbis you disagree with say you are blaspheming, then it is what it is.
 
FaithofAbraham said:
Like I said depends on who you are disagreeing with and how they interpret blasphemy. Someone here just accused me of blasphemy yesterday regarding Trinity. If a gang of rabbis you disagree with say you are blaspheming, then it is what it is.
Click to expand...
I think you are mistaken. THere’s a specific definition of blasphemy in Judaism. It is not a matter of simply stating something that is viewed as contrary to Judaism.
 
Valke2 said:
I think you are mistaken. THere’s a specific definition of blasphemy in Judaism. It is not a matter of simply stating something that is viewed as contrary to Judaism.
Click to expand...
I believe that blasphemy is addressed in the Holy book of Leviticus?
 
Valke2 said:
I think you are mistaken. THere’s a specific definition of blasphemy in Judaism. It is not a matter of simply stating something that is viewed as contrary to Judaism.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty certain that some rabbis would say that claiming a false prophet is a true prophet of God would be considered to be lying about God and thus blasphemy.
 
FaithofAbraham said:
I’m pretty certain that some rabbis would say that claiming a false prophet is a true prophet of God would be considered to be lying about God and thus blasphemy.
Click to expand...
The Mishnah in discussing blasphemy states that the blasphemer is not guilty unless he pronounce the name of God (Mishnah Sanh. vii. 5). There’s not much chance of that happening as, according to Judasim, we no longer even know how to pronounce God’s name.

The Gemara (comentary on the Mishna) does enlarge the crime to include the impious use of any words which indicate the sacred attributes of God, such as “The Holy One” or “The Merciful One.” But it also states that while the Jewish Courts were in existence, the death penalty was inflicted only upon the blasphemer who used the Ineffable Name. The blasphemer of God’s attributes was subjected to corporal punishment (Sanh. 56a).

I do not see how claiming a false prophet is a true prophet would be blasphamy in Judaism. ALthough it might very well be another crime.

The trial of a blasphmer makes interesting reading. Only one witness was required to state the acuatl words that were said. The other witnesses would only testify as to whether they also heard such words. When the witness spoke the words of the blasphmer, the Court would tear their clothes as a sign of mourning.

Since the destruction of the Temple, excommunication replaced capital punishment.
 
Valke2 said:
I do not see how claiming a false prophet is a true prophet would be blasphamy in Judaism. ALthough it might very well be another crime.
Click to expand...
For example, if you swear to a Sanhedrin that you are a real prophet of the true God, but you are deemed to be a false prophet swearing by a false God:

OATHS

*To make all oaths in the name of G-d — any name, even a general descriptor, in any language — rather than making oaths in the names of the creations or false gods (a violation of commandment -14). Swearing in any of G-d’s names is a form of honor and respect toward Him.

This only applies when it is necessary to make an oath, as, for example, before a court. There is no requirement to make oaths in general, and it is better to avoid doing so as much as possible to steer clear of potential vain oaths or violations of an oath (commandments*

Or

VAIN OATHS

*Not to swear (a) that a certain fact is true when it is actually false, or that something that is impossible exists anyway; (b) that a fact is true, when that fact is already well known to people and needs no oath to affirm it; or (c) to violate a commandment of G-d’s Law (for a gentile, the requirements of the Noahide Laws). A person who made a vain oath of type (c) is forbidden to fulfill his evil oath, which would only compound his sin.

Since an oath involves using a name of G-d (see commandment +7), making a vain oath would be an act of blasphemy. *

And maybe dozens of more things they can nail you on for saying you are a true prophet of God if they deem you are not.
 
Again this thread has gotten away from what it originally was. What are we talking about? I forgot. I don’t think we started talking about the Jewish requirement for blasphemy.
 
FaithofAbraham said:
For example, if you swear to a Sanhedrin that you are a real prophet of the true God, but you are deemed to be a false prophet swearing by a false God:

OATHS

To make all oaths in the name of G-d — any name, even a general descriptor, in any language — rather than making oaths in the names of the creations or false gods (a violation of commandment -14). Swearing in any of G-d’s names is a form of honor and respect toward Him.

This only applies when it is necessary to make an oath, as, for example, before a court. There is no requirement to make oaths in general, and it is better to avoid doing so as much as possible to steer clear of potential vain oaths or violations of an oath (commandments

Or

VAIN OATHS

Not to swear (a) that a certain fact is true when it is actually false, or that something that is impossible exists anyway; (b) that a fact is true, when that fact is already well known to people and needs no oath to affirm it; or (c) to violate a commandment of G-d’s Law (for a gentile, the requirements of the Noahide Laws). A person who made a vain oath of type (c) is forbidden to fulfill his evil oath, which would only compound his sin.

Since an oath involves using a name of G-d (see commandment +7), making a vain oath would be an act of blasphemy.

And maybe dozens of more things they can nail you on for saying you are a true prophet of God if they deem you are not.
Click to expand...
well, that’s pretty much the same thing I said in my prior post. Because a vain oath involves knowinlgy lying while invoking God’s name.
 
I believe that Faith of Abraham stated that he is Muslim. Even without his stating this, I get the intuitive feeling he is a man schooled and steeped in the Koran and its associated books. Notice that he weaves in and out of definitions and fine points dealing with abstract terms. We must remember that in dealing with the Koran that we are not handling information from just one central book of theology and beliefs as we are with the Bible. Instead we are dealing with a multiplex of associated books such as the Hadith and the Sira literature which at times can even negate (abrogate) what the Koran has proclaimed. Naturally, the Koran cannot stand alone but requires these other associated works to give the Koran its proper context. As a result, it is informative to see FOA in a discussion like this to get an idea of how a student of the Koran thinks which comes from the structure of their book. This way of thinking is more flexible than our way, but also results in allowing the greater chance of deception. Thanks for posting FOA for I enjoy the contacts with other cultures. Funny, but I, like most westerners find it frustrating in dealing with amorphous ideas. It seems that I need this discipline that you offer. However, be careful for you can end up like some of the monks of old who spent endless hours debating about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
 
Stephen0 said:
I believe that Faith of Abraham stated that he is Muslim. Even without his stating this, I get the intuitive feeling he is a man schooled and steeped in the Koran and its associated books. Notice that he weaves in and out of definitions and fine points dealing with abstract terms. We must remember that in dealing with the Koran that we are not handling information from just one central book of theology and beliefs as we are with the Bible. Instead we are dealing with a multiplex of associated books such as the Hadith and the Sira literature which at times can even negate (abrogate) what the Koran has proclaimed. Naturally, the Koran cannot stand alone but requires these other associated works to give the Koran its proper context. As a result, it is informative to see FOA in a discussion like this to get an idea of how a student of the Koran thinks which comes from the structure of their book. This way of thinking is more flexible than our way, but also results in allowing the greater chance of deception. Thanks for posting FOA for I enjoy the contacts with other cultures. Funny, but I, like most westerners find it frustrating in dealing with amorphous ideas. It seems that I need this discipline that you offer. However, be careful for you can end up like some of the monks of old who spent endless hours debating about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
Click to expand...
Sure. Though I generally reject Hadith though I see some things in them that seem valid. For example I pray like Jesus taught, not repeating gestures or words in ritual fashion as Hadith and Islam instruct.
 
FaithofAbraham said:
Sure. Though I generally reject Hadith though I see some things in them that seem valid. For example I pray like Jesus taught, not repeating gestures or words in ritual fashion as Hadith and Islam instruct.
Click to expand...
Good. 👍
 
holdencaulfield said:
Good. 👍
Click to expand...
At heart I’m still really just a Christian, but a heretic to most Christians due to my position on Trinity. Though I’m a heretic to Muslims as well due to my position that Jesus was actually on the cross, because I reject Hadith, Salat gestures, etc.

Maybe I should just say my religion is Heretic so I have my bases covered…
 
FaithofAbraham said:
At heart I’m still really just a Christian, but a heretic to most Christians due to my position on Trinity. Though I’m a heretic to Muslims as well due to my position that Jesus was actually on the cross, because I reject Hadith, Salat gestures, etc.

Maybe I should just say my religion is Heretic so I have my bases covered…
Click to expand...
It’s good that you have made a move towards healthy skepticism. Honestly I think you should do more research into both faiths. Eventually you will find a answer.
 
holdencaulfield said:
It’s good that you have made a move towards healthy skepticism. Honestly I think you should do more research into both faiths. Eventually you will find a answer.
Click to expand...
In reality I just make my own religion since I don’t like any of the others, they have too much junk piled on top of the valuable teachings. That works best for me.
 
FaithofAbraham said:
In reality I just make my own religion since I don’t like any of the others, they have too much junk piled on top of the valuable teachings. That works best for me.
Click to expand...
That may but I think there comes a time when regardless of what you choose you choose to have a formal religion. I think that you should either take all of it or take nothing. This is just my belief though.
 
holdencaulfield said:
That may but I think there comes a time when regardless of what you choose you choose to have a formal religion. I think that you should either take all of it or take nothing. This is just my belief though.
Click to expand...
I’d rather just choose the best and leave the rest. Like Jesus said:

Matthew 13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top