Who was jesus, Prophet?

having dificulty posting

 

I was disapointed by one of es_bih’s posts as he quoted all of these sriptures and then did nothing to provide us with an interpretation backed up by a logical argument.

 

"I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him."

John 13:16

Now many of these  are actually taken right ot of context. Take for instance the last one Jonh13:16. here jesus is talking to his disiples at the last supper. Let me requote the passage with the surounding verces.

 

6He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?"

 7Jesus replied, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand."

 8"No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet."
      Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."

 9"Then, Lord," Simon Peter replied, "not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!"

 10Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you." 11For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.

 12When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. 13"You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. 15I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

 

Emphasis added.

 

Now here Jesus refers to himself as Lord. This term in the Greek (Kurios) is defined as:

1. He to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord
1. The possessor and disposer of a thing
1. The owner; one who has control of the person, the master
2. In the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor
2. Is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master
3. This title is given to: God, the Messiah

Greek lexicon.

Here Jesus clearly positions himself as an icon of respect by the use of an authorative title, so to use this as part of your argument, es-bih, is taking this passage out of context. Now this authority does not necessarily mean he is god, but it sure points to the fact that he is indeed the messiah as he later on admits to. It is worth noting, also, that he tended to avoid the subject of his “messiah-ship” just like he avoided the topic of his divinity. By the new and old testaments make it pretty clear that he was the messiah (particularly Isaiah). 

 

So, does old covenant scripture point to the conclusion of the messiah’s divinity? Be it yes or no, what is the role of the messiah, what does scripture say of him, and of his purpose? Is he a sin offering or just a leader who never really set the captives free from the oppression of the Roman Empire? What is the messiah’s role in the grand scheme of things from a Muslim perspective? If we can agree that he was just a man for the moment, then what was Allah’s purpose for him? I know this question has been discussed a little already, but I’m not satisfied with the answers due to their brevity and lack of references.

 

What is the Messiah’s role? Is he man or God?

I would love to hear a Jew’s perspective on the messiah’s role at this stage in the argument.

iknow, i know.  i just can't help being amused by some of the responses i get. LOL.

Originally posted by Truthisnotrelitive i admit i don't seem to enter a discussion without somone trying to convince me truth is relitive. mabey i should change my name just to avoid the bother of having these debates. any way. um ... i would like to mention that the book of john indicate that jesus was more than just another bloke/prophet.

Well, it would do, wouldn't it? The Bhagavad Gita indicates that Krishna was more than just another chariot driver, too. And the Book of Mormon indicates that Mormon was more than just another gold engraver.   Religious texts are not evidence of their own truth.

         The source of the knowledge and the declerations of the prophets is same for all time periods.Some of the prophets are unknown but all the populations even tribes has been had the capability to reach the truth. The truth is we are created and One did it. "Believe it or not"  has been the offering of all prophets.

"If God is alive, He can give more than a text to humanity."

Originally posted by Truthisnotrelitive hey peoples of AE i had a bit of a question, actually, but i decided to post it in the philosophy/theology section because it could prove to evolve into a good debate. (but if someone answers it strait up then if it gets moved to Q's and A's then that's fine with me) BTW: if this question has been sufficiently discussed before in another post, just refurr me to the post and archive section where i may find it. anyway, here goes. For the sake of this discussion, lets make it clear that the god of the tanakh, the new testament and the Quran are the same (El'oheim, Allah, YHWH, the Lord ect.). This is the stance of most Muslims I'm assuming. Now, as we know, the Jewish bible (the Tanakh) was the first revelation/s of the Divine to mankind. In this revelation the Divine establishes a covenant with Abram/ Ibrahim (a blessing of his reproductive abilities), which was later extended through the mosaic law. Then came the revelation of the Christ. This new revelation was possibly prophesied by the prophets of old, as the children of Israel had disobeyed the lord their god, thus breaching the covenant made between god and their ancestor, and were consequently sent into exile in Babylon. Thus god (speaking through the prophets) terminated the old contract, and divorced Israel. But he spoke of a new covenant that he would make with his people and extend that agreement with the other nations of the world. This new covenant was tied in with the messiah. Christ the messiah came, as prohesied. He established the new agreement between god and man. Then, some time later, Mohamed received his revaluation from the angel Gabriel, which introduced a different theology to the new and old testaments. The Quran is the final revelation of god, and the rest of the sacred scriptures (tanakh and new covenant) are stages of god's revelation that lead to the final testament – the writings of The Prophet. Jesus is revered as a holy prophet, just as the other prophets (eg. Ibrahim) are revered. However jesus has one defining feature which makes him unlike the other prophets. Jesus claims to be not only sent by god, but to be, in essence, the personification of the divine himself. He makes this clear many times in scripture. (eg “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one can come to the father except through me”john 4:6 and “i pray that they would be one, just as you and i are one- as you are in me, father, and i in you”.john 17:21, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born I AM” John 8:57.). these are big claims. so here is where i don't get it. If jesus is god(in complete oneness with the Divine All Powerful), and he establishes the new covenant, then why is another revelation of god necessary? Did god fail a second time in maintaining a global contract between himself and man, even though this one was according to him impossible to break and would last for all eternity? Was a third needed? But if Jesus is just a prophet as mentioned in the Quran, then why did he come. And on that note, if he was just a man inspired by god, yet he claimed to be god himself, the only two possible assumptions are he is a lying nut case or he is telling the truth. The is no middle ground. He either is the messiah or he isn't, and if he isn't, why does the Quran encourage its followers to read the teachings of a madman? Just wondering

Originally posted by Murat From the simplest form of living things to highest one, from bacteria to Homo Sapiens .Living things need to have some food, but God not.Living things digest them to break down into smaller pieces, but God not.Living things produce their energy by aerobic or anaerobic respiration ,but God not.Living things must excrete their metabolic wastes but God not....etc. All of these : nutrition ,digestion respiration,metabolism,excretion and sensitivity are the common charecteristics of all living things.       God is the giver of life , He may have another form of life but exactly different from ours`. He wants mankind to understand his greatness and superiority in the proportion of our life.

By living being I understand self-conscious, rational life, what the animals don't have. If God has will and ration (as you say) He is self-conscious, personal being. So, He is alive. In Christianity food is not necessary in after-life, so its not something human beings are dependent of.

hi azimuth

for the record, none of the paragraphs are quotes. the red one covers a little pre-messiah history and then out lines what i, in my limited understanding, can conclude to be the general Muslim stance on the importance and chronology of the holy books. i may be wrong, but that info seemed a good foundation and useful background knowledge to the discussion. so for the moment i acknowledged my brothers and friends beliefs, stating some of them clearly and simply, before going on to question some inconsistencies in those beliefs.

the reason i asked the questions was not simply to know that, as you said:
"well  People who think Jesus is one of the Prophet don't believe he is God , and who believe he is God don't believe he is a Prophet. simple."

the purpose of the question was to discover the Islamic explanation for these inconsistencies. you can simply say to me that "Jesus is a prophet" or "jesus is god" with out some biblical proof. that's not academic or logical. I'll need more than an opinion without clear and relevant justification before i can consider a response, let alone accept it.

Originally posted by Truth i admit i don't seem to enter a discussion without somone trying to convince me truth is relitive. mabey i should change my name just to avoid the bother of having these debates.

, Yeah I noticed that too. Don't worry, I won't try to convince that truth is relative (unless we are actually talking about that )

now this is an interesting passage as it speaks of the Word (which is God) becoming flesh. than isn't an interpretation, that's just what it says. so here the Word is refurred to as containing life which gave light to the world. it appears that this Flesh/Word exsisted with god in the begining, and was indeed god himself (what ever "he" is).

I have never really understood this whole "Word" thing in a Christian perspective. It sounds like a incorrectly translated metaphor to me. If anything "the Word" would be "the message", or "by God's command", which is not God.

there is a lot to this scripture, and as it was endorsed by the Prophet Mohammed, arguments that state that the scriptures are biased toward the author's own agenda are irrelevent in this context. If the prophet endorsed a sripture that was twisted by his followers, then you question the Prophets authority as a spiritual voice from god to man.  Period.

Muhammed (pbuh) and the Quran endorse the prophethood of Jesus, not the NT. That is a very important difference. The 'Injeel' of the Quran, although commonly translated as Gospel, is the message preached by Jesus, and not the gospels of the NT. The NT is considered to reflect the opinions of early christians, but not the opinions of Jesus. The only religious text endorsed by the Prophet is the Quran. Hadith requires scrutiny, the Bible doubly so.

What is the messiah’s role in the grand scheme of things from a Muslim perspective? If we can agree that he was just a man for the moment, then what was Allah’s purpose for him?

To bring the people he was sent to (the Palestinians, both Jewish and non-Jewish) back to Islam/Judaism after they had ceased to practice it.

I know this question has been discussed a little already, but I’m not satisfied with the answers due to their brevity and lack of references.

Islamic theology is full of brief answers. My sentence above is pretty well the beginning and the end of the answer. If I said more I'd just be repeating myself. My quotes from the Quran on the first page, and the one I am adding below should be sufficient as references. If you want more this (link) is a link to a good online copy of the Quran. There are three translations there (Yusuf Ali, Shakir and Picthall). If you click on index and search for Jesus you will find everything you need.

O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. [4:171]

I would love to hear a Jew’s perspective on the messiah’s role at this stage in the argument.

We don't have many Jewish members. Try PMing Hebrewtext and asking him if he wants to get involved in this thread.

Originally posted by gcle Religious texts are not evidence of their own truth.

They can be, depends what they are saying. But I agree with the point you were trying to make.

Originally posted by Menumorut The same for the God of Olt Testament, there are many passages where God says "I am alive".

Whether God is alive or not is simply arguing over the definition of our word life. For usually human perception saying God is alive is sufficent, but God is not alive in the same way a butterfly is.

Originally posted by Truth the purpose of the question was to discover the Islamic explanation for these inconsistencies. you can simply say to me that "Jesus is a prophet" or "jesus is god" with out some biblical proof. that's not academic or logical. I'll need more than an opinion without clear and relevant justification before i can consider a response, let alone accept it.

There are only opinions to consider Truth. Its St Paul's opinion (through the Church) against God's opinion (through the Quran). I've given you Quranic proof which in our opinion trumps biblical proof. The bible has been throughly studied by both Chuchmen and Ulema for a very long time, as such for every passage that would seem to refute Jesus's divinity there is an official church interpretation that says the opposite. For every part of the bible that seems to endorse his divinity there is another that refutes it. As such there is no biblical proof in either direction concerning Jesus's divinity. Rather than the two of us throwing bible passages at each other it should be fairly evident from the number of monotheist christian sects both ancient and modern. The discussion over divinity in the bible is only predated by the discussion over the authenticity of the bible and the role of the church in its creation.
Its the word of the Roman church* vs the word of the Quran, the OT, and monotheistic Christians**.


*As in the Church of the Roman Empire.
** I should just call them all "Greater Muslims", as in, muslims + those who believe as we do both modern and pre-islam