Posts Tagged ‘Father’

Jesus was not “Son of God”

February 24, 2014

I have made following comments: blog “The Calladus Blog”; topic “What I believe”: link:

http://calladus.blogspot.ca/2010/05/what-i-believe.html
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5736821&postID=1351504333661851099&page=1&token=1393273621502

Paarsurrey:

@ Calladus : 23/2/14 5:31 PM (posted but still awaiting moderation by Calladus)

I take your first quote of Bible:

Matt 11:27

[26] Yea, Father; for so hath it seemed good in thy sight. [27] All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him. [28] Come to me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you. [29] Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. [30] For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47011.htm

Jesus was talking in parables and metaphors; as could be ascertained from the words “all you that labor”, “burdened”, “refresh”, “Take up my yoke”; so the words “Father” and “Son” are not literal but should be taken in symbolic form.

Now, here, you should reflect that you took a wrong view of Christianity; which is only a misnomer only because it teaches the teachings of Paul and Church and has nothing to do with the real teachings of Jesus.

You rejected the total picture of Christianity being irrational; and irrational it is for sure; this is because its many tenets that were invented by Paul and collaborated by the Church were irrational.

The interpretation of your research is wrong; the total could not be wrong if many of its components were not wrong.

Your study of Christianity is intact; but you could not ascertain right in it from the wrong in it, only because you could not think of a true principle that could have lead you to the correct conclusion.

“Is atheism more comforting than theism?”; no, certainly not

February 20, 2014

I posted following comments; blog “Enquiries on Atheism”: topic “Is atheism more comforting than theism”: link:

http://atheistenquiry.org/2014/02/19/is-atheism-more-comforting-than-theism/

http://atheistenquiry.org/2014/02/19/is-atheism-more-comforting-than-theism/comment-page-1/#comment-4527

paarsurrey
February 20, 2014 • 3:15 pm
I gave following comments on “Random thoughts” where this post has been reblogged.
paarsurrey says:
February 20, 2014 at 18:08

@ all the atheist friends in humanity who usually visit “Random thoughts”

“Is atheism more comforting than theism?”

No; it is not. People become Atheists just for convenience; not that there is any Truth in Atheism. Atheism cannot stand on its own; how could it give any comfort to others. The real comfort is in Truth; Atheism is a position of doubt and ignorance; it is an illusion.

Please don’t mind; no disrespect intended to anyone.

http://atheistenquiry.org/2014/02/19/is-atheism-more-comforting-than-theism/comment-page-1/#comment-4527

paarsurrey
February 20, 2014 • 10:10 pm

@stephenpruis: February 20, 2014 • 8:31 pm

Sorry for the apparent disrespect that I never intended.
I appreciate your decades of search and research for truth.

May I know; what religion your mother and father followed?

I am unhappy to ask this personal question; reply only if you feel expedient to answer; no compulsion.

Please

Thanks

I don’t need to convince one; my life is my life

January 5, 2014

I re-blogged a post titled “Meaning In Life, 3 Jan 2014”; the link of which is given below:

http://myatheistlife.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/meaning-in-life-3-jan-2014/

Then a discussion ensued; which I give below for the viewers of my Paarsurrey blog; the viewers are at liberty to join the discussion on the above link or here in this blog. Comments are welcome even if one differs with me.

paarsurrey
January 3rd, 2014

Reblogged this on paarsurrey and commented:

Paarsurrey says:

One may like to read the following from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908- the Promised Messiah:

The Object of Man’s Life and the Means of its Attainment

Different people, being short-sighted and lacking high resolve, appoint different purposes for their lives and limit themselves to worldly goals and ambitions. But the purpose that God Almighty has appointed for man in His Holy Word is as follows:
And I have not created the Jinn and the men but that they may worship Me. (The Holy Quran, adh-Dhariyat 51:57)
That is, I have created men and jinn so that they may know Me and worship Me. Thus the true purpose of man’s life is the worship of God, His understanding and complete devotion to Him.
It is obvious that man is not in a position to appoint the purpose of his own life, for he does not come into the world of his own accord, nor will he depart there from of his own will. He is a creature and the One Who created him and invested him better and higher faculties than those of all other animals, has also appointed a purpose for his life.
Whether anyone penetrates to it or not, the purpose of man’s creation without a doubt is the worship and the understanding of God and complete devotion to Him.

“The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam” Pages 164-165
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

myatheistlife wrote:
January 4th, 2014

In the post http://myatheistlife.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/evidence-that-a-god-exists/ I describe what I would find suitable as evidence for a god. Until you can prove that your god exists there is little to no reason to listen to what you or your holy book says outside of the fact that Muslims seem to have a strange habit of blowing themselves up in the company of innocents. I’m not sure how that is supposed to fit your meaning for life, but I won’t accept that your particular version of a god fairy story is true till you can meet the standard for evidence I’ve listed in my other post. Good luck with that.

paarsurrey
January 4th, 2014

I don’t accept your standards. Why should one?

myatheistlife
January 4th, 2014

Well, you don’t have to unless you want to convince myself and others that your stories about a god are actually truths and not just the lies they seem to be.

paarsurrey wrote:
January 5th, 2014

I don’t need to convince you.

I have no claim to any piety or scholarship; I am an ordinary man in the street in search of Truth wherever I can find it.

I would like rather you to convince me that there is no God; with your evidences and proofs, if any.

I very naturally believe in the One-True-God Allah Yahweh, like I very naturally believe in my father and mother.

I believe in one true God very naturally

July 15, 2013

There started a discussion between me and john zande; please click the following link to view it:

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/an-atheists-temple/

PAARSURREY says:

July 14, 2013 at 7:05 pm

I don’t think it is a temple.

 

I wouldn’t imagine for a second you would. After all, your Middle Eastern god is anti-knowledge:

For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
(1 Corinthians 1:19)

 

A temple is for worship. I think inwardly your conscience wants to worship some greater power; please correct me if I am wrong.

I like atheists for a merit; they point out mistakes of the people who have gone mythical in their creeds. And it is a good thing to do.

But it should be done nicely.

I think you will agree with me on this point.

Of course. Atheist is merely a person who doesn’t believe in the gods. A much better word to describe me is a humanist, a naturalist… and we should always strive to be nice.

It is just fine. It is your choice to not believe in the one true God. If you like I will call you a humanist; and I know that a humanist must be humanly arguing with reason.

I think you will agree with me. Of course one has a choice to disagree also.

What is in a name?

The names are good if they describe some qualities or attributes. Different language could have different names expressing the same personage with the same qualities or attributes.

It has been very naturally with me. Like I believe in my father and mother; I never doubted about them. I believe in myself very naturally; I never doubted myself; and I don’t need any evidence for that; one could doubt if there is useful reason to it.

I think you also don’t doubt about yourself; and I accept your existence without any evidence whatsoever.

Don’t you?

“without any evidence whatsoever…”

There is physical, genetically verifiable evidence for your mother and father. There is evidence i exists: these words should suffice for that. There is no evidence for your Middle Eastern god.

I never needed any evidence for my father or mother; and I think 99.9% normal persons won’t need to check or verify it. Their love and support is an unequivocal evidence of their being my parent; additionally I could check it genetically I know; but there is no reasonable ground for me to check it.

Do you doubt your parents? I don’t think that you have to verify them genetically.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Note: Let us see as to how our friend JOHN ZANDE replies to the above question.

An atheist’s temple…

July 15, 2013

Paarsurrey wrote:
I don’t think it is a temple.

I want to share below the discussion ensued on the topic above mentioned between me and john zande; the viewers are free to make their own reasonable opinion.

 

I wouldn’t imagine for a second you would. After all, your Middle Eastern god is anti-knowledge:

For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
(1 Corinthians 1:19)

 

A temple is for worship. I think inwardly your conscience wants to worship some greater power; please correct me if I am wrong.

I like atheists for a merit; they point out mistakes of the people who have gone mythical in their creeds. And it is a good thing to do.

But it should be done nicely.

I think you will agree with me on this point.

Of course. Atheist is merely a person who doesn’t believe in the gods. A much better word to describe me is a humanist, a naturalist… and we should always strive to be nice.

It is just fine. It is your choice to not believe in the one true God. If you like I will call you a humanist; and I know that a humanist must be humanly arguing with reason.

I think you will agree with me. Of course one has a choice to disagree also.

What is in a name?

The names are good if they describe some qualities or attributes. Different language could have different names expressing the same personage with the same qualities or attributes.

It has been very naturally with me. Like I believe in my father and mother; I never doubted about them. I believe in myself very naturally; I never doubted myself; and I don’t need any evidence for that; one could doubt if there is useful reason to it.

I think you also don’t doubt about yourself; and I accept your existence without any evidence whatsoever.

Don’t you?

“without any evidence whatsoever…”

There is physical, genetically verifiable evidence for your mother and father. There is evidence i exists: these words should suffice for that. There is no evidence for your Middle Eastern god.

I never needed any evidence for my father or mother; and I think 99.9% normal persons won’t need to check or verify it. Their love and support is an unequivocal evidence of their being my parent; additionally I could check it genetically I know; but there is no reasonable ground for me to check it.

Do you doubt your parents? I don’t think that you have to verify them genetically.

A_T_2

View original post

Jesus himself revealed his plans he was to follow before he was put on the Cross

March 20, 2013

“I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice.” John 10:16

I think Jesus has not been understood correctly as mentioned in John 10:16.

There were twelve Jewish tribes out of which in Jesus, time only two resided in Judea. The rest ten tribes were in exile and resided in Afghanistan, Kashmir, North West frontier of Pakistan and some other part of India.

Jesus and his follower were being persecuted by Jews in Jerusalem; so Jesus as per the Word Revealed to him from the one true creator God, whom he used to refer as Father; that he would migrate from Judea and set out to meet other ten tribes of the house of Israel to spread the message entrusted to him by the Father.

When he would approach them they won’t oppose him as he was being opposed in Judea. They will listen to him and accept his message in large numbers.

Jesus talked about his future plans in symbolic terms as he was used to talk in parables. Jesus actually fulfilled this divine program; after the event of crucifixion in which he did not die and got revived from the near-death position and secretly travelled outside Judea to these areas.

The rest is already well-known in the history of India that Jesus died a peaceful and natural death and is buried in the Tomb of Jesus in india srinagar mohallah khan yar:

The viewers may verify this point for themselves with a little research, if they don’t mind.

“How old was Jesus Christ when he died?”

February 11, 2010

Paarsurrey edits/revises the answer.
Courtesy: wiki.answers.com

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_old_was_Jesus_Christ_when_he_died&action=edit

We do not know for sure the exact age of Jesus when He was crucified, but He was probably 33 years old.

Here is the argument. Jesus was baptized which means he was not a “Christian”. But the reason He was baptized was to “fulfill all righteousness,” (Matt. 3:15); Jesus never mentioned that reason, Matthew was not innocent, so could be wrong.

He had to fulfill the legal requirements for entering into the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20); that would have made Jesus a Jew; not a “Christian god”.

Priests offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Jesus became a sacrifice for our sin (1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21); if we would have sinned ; what our sins had to do with Jesus’ sacrifice or to any priest.

To be consecrated as a priest, Jesus had to be: 1) washed with water – baptism – (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16). 2) Anointed with oil – the Holy Spirit – (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16).

Jesus was a Christian god; if he was innocent he need do any such thing. Additionally, He may have needed to be 30 years old, Num. 4:3, “from thirty years and upward, even to fifty years old, all who enter the service to do the work in the tent of meeting.” Therefore we can conclude that Jesus began His earthly ministry at the age of 30. Since it went on for 3 1/2 years before Jesus was crucified, it is safe to say that He was 33 at the time of His death Jesus (the man) was crucified at the age of 33.

Jesus was though put on Cross, yet he was delivered in near-dead position.

• I’d say he was 24 at best.

• There are some Muslim traditions which say Jesus died a natural and peaceful death in Sirinagar, Kashmir, India, at the age of 120/125 years.

• Scholars estimate he was born 2-7 BCE and died 26-36 BCE. The Scholar are human beings; they should revise their estimates.
• Keep in mind, 2,000 years ago the average life-expectancy was less than 20; even then people could live well beyond an old age.

he was not 33 years old they don’t know exactly what was the age and it don’t say that in the bible

Since the Bible is specific about time, Christ would have been 33 1/2 years old when He was crucified, or 33 yrs., 6 mos.

Bible is not a sound source of history. The scriptures tell us that He died on Passover, so by using simple math, we can count BACKWARDS 6 mos. from Passover (roughly the middle of March) and determine His date of birth also, roughly the middle of September…Well, the scriptures could be wrong, the are supposed to be written by faulty human beings.

This last entry is pretty accurate; but remember: he also had an earthly existence for some 33 & a half years and also a heavenly preexistence before he came to live as a man on earth, and starting out life as a human baby. He is referred to in the Holy Scriptures as: “the first born of creation, and the son of God.”It is wrong to say Jesus was first born; physically. All things were created through him after he came to be. “I came to be a master worker along side my Father…..” Given that understanding, Jesus would have to be many millions of years, and probably billions of years old. No wonder he was so wise!

Meditating on these facts as we know them from the bible will help us understand the meaning of him being a mighty god, but not almighty God; god Jesus never was and he never claimed to be as such literally.

He is the son of God, an actual direct creation of God; Jesus was not a son of God; also, this is only possible if Mary was a wife of God; since that was not the case; Jesus could not be son of God literally. Therefore he is not God. He is the image of God, figuratively yes, as we would say a son is the image of his father. Yet a son is not in reality the father. Therefore the Father, Son, And Holy Spirit are one in purpose, but not three parts of one entity.

We don’t have to use this terminology cooked by Paul; it is a faulty terminology The Father, or God, the Creator, was most commonly known by the name of Jehovah. Some refer to him from the Hebrew as YHWH, and think it is wrong to utter God’s name aloud. What is wrong is ‘to utter God’s name in vain.’ We are to say His name with reverence and deep respect. Jesus model prayer referred to or known as ‘the Lord’s prayer’ says: “Let your name be sanctified,” or “Hallowed be thy name.”

I have made some changes; for more accuracy the editors should read the book “Jesus in India” by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_old_was_Jesus_Christ_when_he_died&action=edit

I thank wiki.answers, for giving an opportunity to me to revise the article.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

Man could create God; if man could create his parents

February 7, 2010

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=106309&p=2705903#p2705903The day Man created god

Adco wrote:

I find the following hypothesis more plausible than most others I have come across.

When man acquired a consciousness and could therefore think things like where did we come from, and he came up with the concept that some god must have put us here, that is the time that god came into existence.

I propose therefore that Man created god

Paarsurrey wrote:

Hi friends

I don’t agree with adco; it is creating a myth, in my opinion.

If man could create his father and mother of whom he is so certain to be born; then he should think of creating god. One cannot create one’s father and mother and very naturally thinks them his parents; so the same way one should rationally and naturally believe in the Creator-God Allah YHWH. Has ever a man thought that he has been born without parents?

I don’t think so.

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

No “Good without God?”: Jesus neither god nor Son of god

October 29, 2009

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2009/10/good_without_god/comments.html

Hi friends

It is no good without the Creator-God Allah YHWH. It is very unnatural not to believe in the Creator- God Allah YHWH. It is just like believing that one was born without one’s parents. One has not seen one’s father mating with one’s mother even then one believes that one has a father. One has not seen one’s mother giving one birth yet one is not in doubt of one’ mother; so one very naturally believes in one’s mother and father and is never in doubt.

One knows that one’s mother and father had taken pains in upbringing one; they did it with love in a very natural way. It is no good without the father and mother; and in the same way it is no good without the Creator-God Allah YHWH.

Through the parents the Creator-God Allah YHWH gives us a taste of His Grace, Mercy.

We got born of our parents; when we were nothing; if left unattended, unfed we would have not survived and died in our infancy, not even knowing that we were ever born. From infancy, we reached childhood, adulthood, old age; so it all evolved very naturally. It is against evolution and progression not believing in the Creator- God Allah YHWH.

All we see in the Universe is the Work of the Creator- God Allah YHWH. All our knowledge and sciences are based on knowing the laws of nature that the Creator has set in motion; without His Work, there would be no knowledge and no sciences.

It is his benevolence that He did not leave us alone and through the perfect men called Messengers Prophets he sent his Revelations so that we may know about his attributes and other things most essential for our ethical, moral and spiritual advancement; from the unseen realm. This is called the Word of the Creator- God Allah YHWH.

I think without the Work of God or without the Word of god; we will be worse off in our lives.

Is there a doubt in Allah the Creator of the heavens and earth? (Quran)
Jesus was however not a god or a Son of god.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Musli

Jesus of Bible is illogical; Jesus of Quran is logical

May 31, 2009

Paarsurrey says:

Matthew 24:36
36 But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone.

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47024.htm

Matthew 24:36 (New International Version)

The Day and Hour Unknown

36″No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, [a] but only the Father.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:36&version=31

The Son, Jesus of Bible, does not know of that hour, nor the angels or the Holy Ghost; only the Father knows, so only the Father is All-Knowing, the others of the Trinity don’t know anything ,for sure.

Verse Matthew 24:36 of the Catholic Bible mentions of Son; the Protestant Bible does not mention of son; this is perhaps a proof of the corruption of Bible if our Christian friends may note it, please.

If Father, Son, the Holy Ghost form one entity; as cunning Paul would tell our Christian friends; then all three must have equally known of the hour, logically. Jesus was a straightforward person he never told such meaningless and illogical things.

I think our Catholic and Protestant friends or their clergy would prefer to come here to the rescue of the Jesus of Bible; and would put words of wisdom in the mouth of Jesus of Bible or for its purification; which he forgot to mention.

We don’t see such illogical things being mentioned by Jesus of Quran.

I respect your faith.

I love Jesus and Mary as illustrated in Quran.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim