"Questions for Jehovah Witnesses"

Woodrow · Oct 19, 2010

Hiroshi said:
Peace Woodrow.

If you look up any of those passages you will see from the context that Jesus is the one speaking. With this link:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

you can check any verse from the Bible. But you seem to have been taught to completely mistrust the Bible in any case.

I seem to have not made my point clear in my post. In my round about way I was trying to show that we do not accept the Bible as being authoritative. As far as "being taught" to mistrust the bible that came at least 20 years before I accepted Islam.

You are correct in saying I do not trust the Bible, but it is for reasons I found during my years as a Christian.

The point being here, is it is pointless to use the Bible as an authoritive text among people who believe it to be in error.

Hiroshi · Oct 20, 2010

Woodrow said:
I seem to have not made my point clear in my post. In my round about way I was trying to show that we do not accept the Bible as being authoritative. As far as "being taught" to mistrust the bible that came at least 20 years before I accepted Islam.

You are correct in saying I do not trust the Bible, but it is for reasons I found during my years as a Christian.

The point being here, is it is pointless to use the Bible as an authoritive text among people who believe it to be in error.

Well, the point that you were making at the start was that we should expect to see Jesus in the Bible presenting the correct view of the soul. I hope that I have demonstrated that the Bible does show him doing that.

Charles Taze Russell also rejected the Bible in his early years. But then he went back to examine it again and found that he'd had the wrong picture about it the first time.

I would really like to know what caused you to mistrust the Bible during your years as a Christian.

Woodrow · Oct 20, 2010

Hiroshi said:
Well, the point that you were making at the start was that we should expect to see Jesus in the Bible presenting the correct view of the soul. I hope that I have demonstrated that the Bible does show him doing that.

Charles Taze Russell also rejected the Bible in his early years. But then he went back to examine it again and found that he'd had the wrong picture about it the first time.

I would really like to know what caused you to mistrust the Bible during your years as a Christian.

You are correct I did point out in the bible, what I saw as the biblical concept of soul.

I learned to distrust the bible when I was studying it as a Seminarian. At first I thought it was because I was studying from the Catholic perspective. But, after experiencing several other denominations I became more convinced that the bible had numerous errors, mostly in the NT, Some problems being that there is no verification of who the authors were except for Paul and standing alone Paul seems to have a different view of what the early Christians believe. No where in the NT can I find anything even claimed to be the "Word of God(swt). It all seems to be a record of observations by unreliable witnesses or even hear say.

Hiroshi · Oct 21, 2010

Woodrow said:
You are correct I did point out in the bible, what I saw as the biblical concept of soul.

I learned to distrust the bible when I was studying it as a Seminarian. At first I thought it was because I was studying from the Catholic perspective. But, after experiencing several other denominations I became more convinced that the bible had numerous errors, mostly in the NT, Some problems being that there is no verification of who the authors were except for Paul and standing alone Paul seems to have a different view of what the early Christians believe. No where in the NT can I find anything even claimed to be the "Word of God(swt). It all seems to be a record of observations by unreliable witnesses or even hear say.

In Islam it seems to be considered of great importance who it was that wrote or recorded sacred sacred writings whether of the Qur'an or the hadith. By contrast, the writers of the Bible did not seek to draw undue attention to themselves and often did not even name themselves.

What is of real importance is what the writings have to say rather than who recorded them. How can we be sure that the writings genuinely come from God? It is because God reveals things that only he could know. In Isaiah 46:10, God says: "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come." Similarly, in the NT we read in Revelation 1:1 "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John".

The Bible, the NT included, is packed with prophecy foretelling what the future will bring. Many prophecies are yet to be fulfilled but also a great many have already had their fulfillment. We can see the fulfillment of what was recorded in advance and see that Bible prophecy is both accurate and reliable.

Woodrow · Oct 21, 2010

Hiroshi said:
In Islam it seems to be considered of great importance who it was that wrote or recorded sacred sacred writings whether of the Qur'an or the hadith. By contrast, the writers of the Bible did not seek to draw undue attention to themselves and often did not even name themselves.

What is of real importance is what the writings have to say rather than who recorded them. How can we be sure that the writings genuinely come from God? It is because God reveals things that only he could know. In Isaiah 46:10, God says: "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come." Similarly, in the NT we read in Revelation 1:1 "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John".

The Bible, the NT included, is packed with prophecy foretelling what the future will bring. Many prophecies are yet to be fulfilled but also a great many have already had their fulfillment. We can see the fulfillment of what was recorded in advance and see that Bible prophecy is both accurate and reliable.

While the speaker of the message is not the message and the message is the important matter. It does seem that those hearing such would have a need to know who the source was. without that verifiable knowledge, what proof is there that the message even came from God(swt). Verification of the source is needed if we are told the Message came from God(swt). There were several people claiming to be the Messiah at the time of Isa(as) and several of them even had the name Jesus. Without knowing the identity of the person reporting the account, how can we be certain they were even speaking about the true Messiah?

Grace Seeker · Oct 21, 2010

Woodrow said:
While the speaker of the message is not the message and the message is the important matter. It does seem that those hearing such would have a need to know who the source was. without that verifiable knowledge, what proof is there that the message even came from God(swt).

Woodrow, unless one actually hears God speak for one's self, I don't know how anyone could have "verifiable" knowledge that any specific message came from God. Of course, there are lots of things that we humans turn to: miracles, the integrity of the known author, harmony with other revelations believed to have been from God, but these are no guarantee. Whether one is reading the Bible, the Qur'an, or chicken bones it is we humans who project a divine source behind them that I submit cannot be verified in any one source better than another. Ultimately, for those who have no first hand experience in receiving the revelation, we accept what we do receive as being from God on faith.

Woodrow · Oct 21, 2010

Grace Seeker said:
Woodrow, unless one actually hears God speak for one's self, I don't know how anyone could have "verifiable" knowledge that any specific message came from God. Of course, there are lots of things that we humans turn to: miracles, the integrity of the known author, harmony with other revelations believed to have been from God, but these are no guarantee. Whether one is reading the Bible, the Qur'an, or chicken bones it is we humans who project a divine source behind them that I submit cannot be verified in any one source better than another. Ultimately, for those who have no first hand experience in receiving the revelation, we accept what we do receive as being from God on faith.

True

But if we know the identity of the person who received the revelation, we have a better chance of evaluating our reason to believe it to be true or false.

While "Ned, the neighborhood wino" may have a gift for beautiful writing I would hesitate in accepting what He writes as being the Words of God(swt) or even near truth. I think I would be more inclined to believe it if I knew the source was Abraham (PBUH) or Moses(PBUH).

Grace Seeker · Oct 22, 2010

Woodrow said:
True

But if we know the identity of the person who received the revelation, we have a better chance of evaluating our reason to believe it to be true or false.

While "Ned, the neighborhood wino" may have a gift for beautiful writing I would hesitate in accepting what He writes as being the Words of God(swt) or even near truth. I think I would be more inclined to believe it if I knew the source was Abraham (PBUH) or Moses(PBUH).

Granted. And, in my opinion, whether talking OT, NT, or Qur'an we are generally dealing with people whose character we do know -- I don't buy the argument many Muslims make that we don't know the NT authors (except for Hebrews, and even there I think the letter tells us about the author's character). It's really only in the ahadith that I find myself wondering about who these people are that are relaying these stories and chains of transmission to us and their reliability. But maybe if I was more versed in Islamic history I wouldn't have those problems.

Hiroshi · Oct 22, 2010

Woodrow said:
It does seem that those hearing such would have a need to know who the source was. without that verifiable knowledge, what proof is there that the message even came from God(swt).

I told you the proof. If the message accurately foretells the future then it must be from God. It is impossible for mere men to predict what great nations will arise to dominate world affairs centuries in advance. But the Bible does that. Isaiah 44:27-28 foretold 200 years in advance that a king named Cyrus would restore the Jews to their homeland by drying up the rivers. History records that Cyrus the Persian diverted the waters of the river Euphrates by digging a channel. The Persian soldiers then invaded the city of Babylon by marching along the dried up river bed. Babylon fell to the Medes and the Persians in a single night and the Jews were freed to return from exile to Jerusalem. Cyrus was named here even before this man was born!

Woodrow said:
There were several people claiming to be the Messiah at the time of Isa(as) and several of them even had the name Jesus. Without knowing the identity of the person reporting the account, how can we be certain they were even speaking about the true Messiah?

Again, Bible prophecy is the answer. There were about 200 separate prophecies about the Messiah in the scriptures. Only Jesus (or Isa) fulfilled them all.

Grace Seeker · Oct 22, 2010

Hiroshi said:
Again, Bible prophecy is the answer. There were about 200 separate prophecies about the Messiah in the scriptures. Only Jesus (or Isa) fulfilled them all.

Hiroshi, while I buy that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, I have Jewish friends who point to other prophecies that they claim are messianic that he did not fulfill. And I know non-Christians biblical scholars (and a few scholars so liberal it's hard to tell them from non-Christians) who argue that some of what is seen as fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus in the NT is mythological material added after the fact to make it appear that he fulfilled prophecies that we really don't have a way of verifying, just like Woodrow is questioning.

Hiroshi · Oct 22, 2010

Grace Seeker said:
Hiroshi, while I buy that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, I have Jewish friends who point to other prophecies that they claim are messianic that he did not fulfill. And I know non-Christians biblical scholars (and a few scholars so liberal it's hard to tell them from non-Christians) who argue that some of what is seen as fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus in the NT is mythological material added after the fact to make it appear that he fulfilled prophecies that we really don't have a way of verifying, just like Woodrow is questioning.

I see. Can you please give more details?

Grace Seeker · Oct 22, 2010

Hiroshi said:
I see. Can you please give more details?

I knew you would ask for details. With regard to the liberal scholars claims, yes I can. I'm sure you've read yourself though. People who say that Matthew only put in the part about Jesus being born of a virgin because of the Isaiah passage. Others who try to make much out of Luke having Jesus and his family return directly to Nazareth and Matthew have his family go first to Egypt and then Nazareth. Their arguments are that ostensibly Jesus is just a Galilean peasant and that Matthew is after the fact looking at a check list of prophecies for the Messiah and then adding details to Jesus' life in order that it can appear that he fulfilled them. There's more, but I know you are well-read enough to have encountered those things as much as I have.

The more serious issue, in my opinion, are the claims by Jews that there are messianic prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill. And right now, no, I cannot provide more details. I learned about them here on the board from some of the Jewish posters we used to have. But I didn't copy their lists. Perhaps if I spent some time surfing some Jewish websites they may be listed there. I don't know.

Hiroshi · Oct 22, 2010

Grace Seeker said:
I knew you would ask for details. With regard to the liberal scholars claims, yes I can. I'm sure you've read yourself though. People who say that Matthew only put in the part about Jesus being born of a virgin because of the Isaiah passage. Others who try to make much out of Luke having Jesus and his family return directly to Nazareth and Matthew have his family go first to Egypt and then Nazareth. Their arguments are that ostensibly Jesus is just a Galilean peasant and that Matthew is after the fact looking at a check list of prophecies for the Messiah and then adding details to Jesus' life in order that it can appear that he fulfilled them. There's more, but I know you are well-read enough to have encountered those things as much as I have.

The more serious issue, in my opinion, are the claims by Jews that there are messianic prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill. And right now, no, I cannot provide more details. I learned about them here on the board from some of the Jewish posters we used to have. But I didn't copy their lists. Perhaps if I spent some time surfing some Jewish websites they may be listed there. I don't know.

If the four gospels agreed exactly in content and in every detail then they would not have such value. It might even suggest that the writers copied one another rather than testifying as independent witnesses. We can be very glad that some gospel writers include details that the other three leave out because it gives us more information. More than 40% of Matthew's gospel is unique and contains material not found in the other accounts. But I don't see that as a reason to doubt what he says. He wrote mainly for the Jews and included a great many prophecies that saw fulfillment in Jesus. That is one reason why the book of Matthew is so important.

IAmZamzam · Oct 25, 2010

Hiroshi said:
Again, Bible prophecy is the answer. There were about 200 separate prophecies about the Messiah in the scriptures. Only Jesus (or Isa) fulfilled them all.

Every time I have ever heard a Christian say that (and I do quite literally mean every time) they have always given a different number. Every. Single. Time. I've heard everywhere from fifty to numbers in the thousands. Almost as though different people force different Messianic interpretations on different passages. Now what does that remind me of?

Grace Seeker · Oct 25, 2010

While many prophecies are clear, I also think some prophecies can be hard to identify. It seems reasonable that sometimes we might not even recognize a prophetic statement to be that at the time it was made. Is the wife who learns about her husband's plan for a new, but untried business being prophetic or just an unsupportive worrier when she says "I fear this will end badly"? So, it does not surprise me that those who try to identify and count the number of prophecies in the OT about Jesus would have differing counts, for one person will see a given statement as being prophetic and others will see others.

As to the present day Jewish view, the following is represents an understanding of their current expectations with regard to the Messiah:

What is the Messiah (Mashiach) supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

1) Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

2) Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

3) Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

4) Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

The messiah will be a regular human being, born naturally to husband and wife. He is not to be a god, nor a man born of supernatural or virgin birth. The very idea that God would take on human form is repulsive to Jews because it contradicts our concept of God as being above and beyond the limitations of the human body and situation. Jews believe that G-d ALONE is to be worshipped, and not a being who is His creation, be he angel, saint, or even the messiah himself.

(source: Rabbi Shraga Simmons @ Ask Rabbi Simmons)

Against both Christian and Muslim beliefs that Jesus is the Messiah, modern Jews posit the following:

According to the prophets of the Bible, amongst the most basic missions of the messiah are:

to cause all the world to return to G-d and His teachings,

to restore the royal dynasty to the descendants of David,

to oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Temple, in the event that it has not yet been rebuilt;

to gather the Jewish people from all over the world and bring them home to the Land of Israel,

and to reestablish the sanhedrin,

restore the sacrificial system,

as well as the Sabbatical year and Jubilee.

You have stated that in the New Testament it is written that Jesus fulfilled all of the prophecies of the prophets and the law. But which of these above requirements did Jesus fulfill? And if he is going to fulfill them the second time, why did he not attend to them the first time? This in itself is one concept which no amount of Biblical sleuthing can find a prophetic basis for - FOR THE NOTION THAT THE MESSIAH DOES NOT ACCOMPLISH THESE THINGS UPON HIS APPEARANCE, AND THEREFORE MUST RETURN A SECOND TIME, DOES NOT EXIST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. WHEREVER THESE THINGS ARE FORETOLD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, WE ARE TOLD THAT THE MESSIAH COMES AND DOES THESE THINGS - ONCE. Where in the Old Testament is there even the faintest allusion to such a concept, that the messiah does not complete the job, and therefore returns a second time? Every prophecy about the messiah makes it clear that he comes once and does the job.

(emphasis original)
(source: excerpt from a letter by Rabbi Chaim Richman, The Rabbi Responds: A Jewish View of the Messiah)

Hiroshi · Oct 26, 2010

Yahya Sulaiman said:
Every time I have ever heard a Christian say that (and I do quite literally mean every time) they have always given a different number. Every. Single. Time. I've heard everywhere from fifty to numbers in the thousands. Almost as though different people force different Messianic interpretations on different passages. Now what does that remind me of?

Surely we agree though that Jesus or Isa was both Messiah and prophet?

Hiroshi · Oct 26, 2010

Grace Seeker said:
While many prophecies are clear, I also think some prophecies can be hard to identify. It seems reasonable that sometimes we might not even recognize a prophetic statement to be that at the time it was made. Is the wife who learns about her husband's plan for a new, but untried business being prophetic or just an unsupportive worrier when she says "I fear this will end badly"? So, it does not surprise me that those who try to identify and count the number of prophecies in the OT about Jesus would have differing counts, for one person will see a given statement as being prophetic and others will see others.

As to the present day Jewish view, the following is represents an understanding of their current expectations with regard to the Messiah:

Against both Christian and Muslim beliefs that Jesus is the Messiah, modern Jews posit the following:

Thanks for the info. I don't have time to comment on everything. But the words in Isaiah 43:5-6 were fulfilled in a literal sense when Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon and afterwards restored the exiled Jews back to their home land. And in a spiritual sense Jesus also fulfills the prophecy by releasing those ensnared by false religion which is represented in Revelation chapters 17 to 19 by a great kingdom called "Babylon the Great".

جوري · Oct 26, 2010

Hiroshi said:
Surely we agree though that Jesus or Isa was both Messiah and prophet?

What does 'Messiah' mean to you?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] by Ahmad Deedat

The word CHRIST is derived from the Hebrew word Messiah, Arabic-Masih. Root word m-a-s-a-h-a, meaning to rub, to massage, to anoint. Priests and kings were anointed when being consecrated to their offices. But in its translated, Grecian form "CHRIST", it seems unique:befitting Jesus only. The Christian has a knack of transmuting baser metals into shining gold. What he is wont to do is to translate names into his own language like "cephas" to Peter, "messiah" to Christ. How does he do that? Very easily MESSIAH in Hebrew means anointed. The Greek word for anointed is "christos". Just lop off the 'os' from christos and you are left with christ. Now change the little 'c' to a capital 'C', and "hey, presto!" he has created a unique (?) name! Christos means ANOINTED, and anointed means APPOINTED in its religious connotation. Jesus (pbuh) was appointed (anointed) at his baptism by John the Baptist, as God's Messenger.Every Prophet of God is so anointed or appointed. The Holy Bible is replete with the "anointed" ones. In the original Hebrew - made a "messiah". Let us keep to the English translation - "anointed." Not only were prophets and priests and kings anointed (christos-ed), but borns, and cherubs and lamp-posts also.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

I am the God of Beth-el, where you ANOINTED a pillar.....