Am I the only one to find this a tad worrying...?

Question

I realise we all have differing opinions but some things are a matter of fact, surely? Earlier today, someone asked: is it true Jesus was a Muslim?

Many of us pointed out that firstly, Jesus was Jewish and secondly, Islam didn't exist at that time! Despite this, 'best answer' went to someone agreeing that Jesus was Muslim!

Do you agree that this is lunacy???!

HI ECTERBOB :)

GERSHON - you misunderstand me. I couldn't care less about getting 'best answer'. My point is simply that to award the ' top response' to such idiocy is rather worrying!

GERSHON - sorry, am I now the one misunderstanding your comments re Jesus? Jesus was a practising Jew, he was born a Jew. I'm not sure if you're saying he may not have been - which is wrong - or if you're saying that Muslims say that. Please clarify :)

Answer 1

Yes, it is lunacy.
But it is something that Muslims use to deceive Christians into thinking that Islam and Christianity are compatible.
At my school, there is a Muslim movement called, "Muslims for the Messiah", and their banner reads, "Jesus was Muslim!"
Yeah, right.

Answer 2

Jesus was born Jewish, this is a fact. There are some religious fanatics (usually fanatic Christians) that find this fact unthinkable.

Regarding Islam - they believe that all righteous prophets were Muslims even if the term wasn't coined yet. As oppose to ignorance per s'e, this belief is part of the Islamic doctrine and part of their belief system. They believe that Islam is THE TRUTH and the fact that people didn't recognized it till 600 CE doesn't mean that this TRUTH was there. They believe that all the enlightened prophets were real Muslims and that includes - Abraham, Moses and Jesus.

Answer 3

I think that the question was an attempt at proselytisation, but I was not entirely certain.

The person who gave that answer appeared to have learned English as a second language. The Islamic belief is that while Islam did not exist before the 7th century as a religion called "Islam," Islamic concepts and practises were alive and were the true religion.

Of course it seems ludicrous to non-Muslims. Of course it makes perfect sense to Muslims. That's just the way that things are when you have different religions discussing a shared concept on which they have different points of view.

Answer 4

Good choice of the word "lunacy".

Luna being the ancient word for "Moon" and the Crecent Moon being a long held symbol for Islam.

Anyway, it's a common practice on R&S to just rant and rave, and then pick an answer that agrees with you.

Answer 5

If Jesus was not from the line of David he could not be Messiah period. Jesus is from the line of David and he is the Messiah if not then every person who believes in God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is truly lost. Because without the sacrifice our sins have not been atoned for. Jesus is in fact the LION and the LAMB.

Answer 6

Saw that question earlier today and decided it didn't rate an answer. And I most certainly agree that it is lunacy. But there is no accounting for idiot questions nor the answers of others.

Answer 7

The general rule of thumb here seems to be "don't confuse the issue with facts," While I have seem some who are genuinely looking for answers to honest questions - the majority seem to be looking for affirmation or amusement at the expense of (fill in the blank).

Answer 8

I was attempting just to say yes to your comment eventhough just plainly stating {yes} is true to us who beleive in Y'shua to be moshiach ben Yosef nevertheless realizing the aforementioned statements of those who always seem to revile him, granted me access to a challange.

Gershon wouldn't know the facts surrounding "certain" individual of the pharrasees in the time of Y'shua because 1st of all he wasn't there, next he rejects the writtings of the shluchim of Y'shua as given by inspiration of the ruach ha-koidesh which would make his arguments validated, and misquotes them for his conveniance as an aposer.

It would seem he {Yeshua} has something against the sect of the pharasees so Gershon thinks, but in reality it is against certain individuals of the pharrasees he aposes and does it rather abruptly as we know, then there is the statement we all know that he makes, and I quote:

{if your rightousness does not exceed that of the pharasees you can by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.}

And also regarding the pharasees he said: {Learn all you can from them but do not do as they do because they say and do not do.}

You don't see any negative thing here being said to the sect by Y'shua at all instead it shows praises to those who teach halacha and does them, that is...he is not against the true teachers of the sect of pharasees but only to those individuals who do not do as they teach.

Meaning Y'shua was attacking their hypocrocy, what they potrayed was to be pious amoung jews and were really corrupt, he was attacking the cancer at the core because the influence being spread begins with the teachers.

Besides the highest level of jewish service was also corrupt at that time, the cohen ha-gadol by law, as I am sure Gershon knows had to serve as high preist for life, meaning until he died, but in that century with money they would buy their term of service, something which is forbiden by halacha.

But I'm sure Gershon would apose me on this to, so I'll cut it short, apose me as you wish but Y'shua's teaching is not for the aposer but the listener and more true not just the hearer but the doer.

Answer 9

Yes, and it's maddening when you work hard to give people a real answer and you realize they didn't want one to start with. It happens to us all, but there are a few sincere individuals here who make it worthwhile.

Answer 10

Not at all. Lunacy has been normal throughout history.

I used to worry about best answers, but now I am more concerned with the quality of the people who become my contacts.

Getting best answer doesn't concern me either. Often we select the best answer as the one that agrees with us the most. I'm guilty of this sometimes. And sometimes it is difficult to choose. Generally if I favor one person over another, I might choose the other on the next question just to even things up.

Now, on the question of the person the christians worship being Jewish. We only have their book to attest to that.

There are indications in his teachings that he may not have actually been Jewish. But saying he was gives him an air of authenticity so he can attack the Jews. His rants against the Pharisees do not mesh with our knowledge of the pharisees of that time. Also, many of his teachings do not coincide with what Judaism teachings.

There are a couple of choices here. Perhaps he was a wonderful Jew and christian fables have been twisted around what he taught. Or perhaps he wasn't Jewish at all, but familiar with Jewish customs. And he was a forerunner of people in Y/A who attack Jews.

Personally, I'm happy to give him to the Muslems.

Shalom,
Gershon

sorry to take so long getting back to your question.

One of the things the christians put in their book to give the person they worship credibility is that he was born a Jew.

One problem is they say his family was from Nazareth which wasn't populated at the time. Another problem is the location of his birth. If you look at the passage he read on his 30th birthday which is when he would have become what was that time equivalent of a rabbi, you find it was the halftorah portion of the time for the festival of sukkot, which is in the fall. His parents wouldn't have gone to Bethlehem for Sukkot. They would have gone to Jerusalem.

Another problem is his teaching telling people to leave their families to follow him. This just isn't a Jewish concept.

If you examine the parables he told, many of them have a Jewish root, but the conclusion is non-Jewish.

Also we see him calling gentiles dogs. Yep, he sure did. When the woman wanted to be cured. Jews just didn't talk of the gentiles that way. The ones that were spoken of harshly were the idolators involved in baby rape and baby killings.

I see a lot of inconsistencies in their book that adds concepts from later times. It is as clear as if Mark Twain tried to write Moby Dick. You would see the difference in the language and the style of thought.

If you read their book, you can see the jump in the language of the time periods from one paragraph to the next. Much of it matches the language of Justin Martyr from the second century.

It's also very unnatural their books weren't written in Hebrew or Aramaic. We know the educated Jews of the time at least knew Aramaic and most knew Hebrew. We have evidence of that from both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud. This also comes from the Dead Sea Scrools.

The more I learn about Judaism, the more I learn the writtings in their book are anachronistic. The people of that time wouldn't have written them.

Hear - See, you did it again as a christian. You attacked us as being satan. Oh, you buried it in nice language, but it is very clear.

But the fact is, the person you worship called Peter satan. And said he would build his church upon this satan.

Another fallacy in your book just occurred to me. The person you worship would not have named Peter in Greek. Jews are always given Hebrew names.

The word Peter in Hebrew doesn't mean rock. That word is Zur. It is the word for the opening of the womb.

The name Simon is interesting, too because it is closely related to the concept of getting circumcised. This is interesting because Peter later opposed circumcision which is a sign of the covenant to enter the land.

It would be better said - your name is Peter, and through this opening would be born a new church. The comparison to christians giving up the inheritance in the covenant and rejecting Torah is very close to the birth of Esau.

Shalom,
Gershon

Hear, again you used a subtle twist of words calling me the opposition. Since I stated my beliefs first, it's you who is in the position of opposing them. In fact, you could not see opposition in another unless you had it in yourself.

Now, if you knew me, you would know I'm thoroughly against opposition. It's not a Jewish way of learning. I'm simply into learning truth.

Since you have set this up as opposition where there must be a winner and a loser instead of for the sake of learning Torah, I choose to longer participate in a discussion with you.

Shalom

"Which then brings me to my above quote which I made about the aposer is Satan how can you accuse me of saying that I mentioned your name?"

It's very simple, throughout your post, you referred to me as the aposer. Then you equate the aposer to satan.

No, you didn't mention my name directly, but you made it very clear you consider me satan. I'm sure others see it too.

Shalom