Posts Tagged ‘perfect man’

Why an old revealed scripture must be more reliable or truthful than a new one?

April 29, 2013

While commenting on one of my latest post titled: “The Bible scribes did character assassination of the messenger prophets to attract more people”; our friend Hank Kimball gives his opinion.

Hank Kimball Says:
April 29, 2013

Interesting. According to who? Based on what? The statement: “Being a perfect man or an innocent man is a pre-requisite of messenger prophet of the one true creator God.” I am sure you have some ancient text that can be verified as making the claim that messenger prophets of the one true God are perfect and innocent.
I do not hold that in order that a man be a servant of God or a prophet of God or a messenger prophet, as you put it, he needs to be perfect. If it isn’t in the bible, AND it COMPLETELY renounces statements the bible makes; the source needs consideration.
If you would be so kind as to please quote the source when making claims that contradict scripture.

paarsurrey Says:

I quote a passage from your post:

“The statement: “Being a perfect man or an innocent man is a pre-requisite of messenger prophet of the one true creator God.” I am sure you have some ancient text that can be verified as making the claim that messenger prophets of the one true God are perfect and innocent.”

Why should one hold an ancient scripture more reliable than a new one from the one true God? If it is from the one true God; it must be accepted without putting any conditions.

Vedas are believed to be more ancient scriptures than the OT or NT; do you believe them more reliable than the OT or NT Bibles?

If not; why not?

Please give your arguments.

Also please quote from Moses and Jesus that the ancient scriptures are more reliable than the new ones.

One should note that every scripture that is ancient now was new one at his time.

I think one must have clear criteria for the reliability or truthfulness of a scripture whether it is old one or new one.

Advertisements

“The word of God is not required to be straight forward”- maaark says

May 24, 2009

https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/is-it-not-essential-that-god%e2%80%99s-word-should-be-straightforward-for-the-text-as-to-claims-and-full-of-rational-and-logical-reasons-stated-there-in-the-context-if-god-is-full-of-wisdom/#comments

Maaark says:

The word of God is not required to be straight forward

Paarsurrey says:

I believe Jesus was an honest man and hence he need not to be complicated. An honest man’s character and psyche is always reflected in his speech. Jesus was no god; that I can understand, but even if we consider him as a man; he should be straightforward with his fellow human beings.

If Jesus of Bible was not straightforward then it is a demerit and Jesus would be lowered as a human being and he does not remain a perfect man in any case. In that case the status of Bible would be also lowered to a corrupted book.

I believe there would be many honest and straightforward men in this world, so then Jesus of Bible is reduced lower in status to all these people, for sure, logically.

I think you are wrong and you should consider revising your concepts. I don’t think any good Christian would agree with you.

By the way what faith you are in. Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?

Do all the Christians reading this post agree that Jesus was not a straightforward man?

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

who did not allow Jesus to live longer?

February 14, 2009

Marianne Says:

Hi

Maybe if Jesus was allowed to live a long life, and be an old man, his life would have been different. But he only had a very short time to do his job. He was very busy, and did not have time for a wife.

Paarsurrey says:

Hi

I don’t get your point; the Christians believe that Jesus was a perfect man and a perfect god at the same time.

So, please define clearly ; who did not allow Jesus to live longer? Why he was in a hurry in doing things ? Who put him in tension?

Kindly answer these little questoions and also please menion your denomination in Christianity to understand your view point more clearly.

I love Jesus

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Jesus was a perfect man only if he got married and had children

February 8, 2009

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4781545&postcount=7
If Jesus did not marry; then he is father of none

Originally Posted by dolphinlove:
ok…
now i dont know how many times we have told you the purpose of Jesus coming to earth. We have told you numerous times the reason he did not marry, his purpose what not to marry, his purpose was to come here and teach, amongst other things!

Paarsurrey, you obviously cant by the idea of a man is not a man unless he gets married, has sex and has a child.
That is not the only thing that makes up a man, many other things make up a man as well you know.

Paarsurrey says:

Hi

Well your claim for Jesus is not of a man; your claim is for a perfect man, and a perfect man must marry and have children, only then we could know what his behavior was with his wife/wives, his sons and daughters.

One cannot look on Jesus as an exemplary Model of a husband or as a father to his sons, so essential for a family. Why should one deny Jesus of these natural instincts gifted to him by God Allah YHWH? Just for some imaginary sins of the Catholics and their atonement! Can’t one stop sinning so that there is no need for this imaginary sacrifice, which never happened, for Jesus’ sake?

Let Jesus enjoy his life; like you all yourself enjoy so much. Why to make Jesus a scapegoat, for nothing?
One could however differ with me with solid reasons; that is one’s birth right.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Jesus was a powerful and effective teacher

February 7, 2009

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4778484&postcount=10
Originally Posted by Nepenthe:

Hm. As I recall, Jesus generally used to use “it is written”: when he was referring to the codes of Judaic law – he was a very learned rabbi at a very early age. Even though we don’t have any of his own personal writings, it is very clear he was a very widely and well-educated man and a bold and innovative thinker. He was obviously a brilliant and determined student of the Judaic code of law, the best medical instruction available at the time, knew several languages and was a charismatic, idealistic and brilliant in the arts of oratory and dialogue. In short, he was a powerful and effective teacher.

Paarsurrey says:

Hi

I don’t deny that Jesus had the above qualities; that make it most essential that he should have left something in writing. If he wanted some iprovement or reformation in Toran, which he though has been corrupted by the rabbis, whom he admonished
so much, then he should have definitely written down a Book himself.

If he was a CatholicGod as you believe why he failed this imprtant task; he must have lived longe enough to complete this improtant project, in my opinion. This make him a failed god; and god he never claimed.

The above cited qualities by you are sufficient to make him a great man indeed; let him at least remain a perfect man at least.

Please don’t get confused. I don’t want to confuse anybody; I only want to increase your confidence in Truth.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks
__________________
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Charles Darwin was not the father of atheism

June 30, 2008

“Charles Darwin was not the father of atheism”

By George Pitcher
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 30/06/2008
Courtesay daily Telegrpah http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/30/do3005.xml

This week sees the anniversary of one of the greatest landmarks in the history of science. Tomorrow we commemorate the great day, exactly 150 years ago, that Charles Darwin unveiled his theory of evolution by natural selection, the most authoritative scientific challenge to Biblical accounts of our origins in, well, the history of the universe.
• Read more from George Pitcher
So we can expect the celebrations of Darwin’s genius to start this week and run through next year, the 200th anniversary of the great man’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his On the Origin of Species.

Charles Darwin: not a man easily pigeon-holed
Less happily, there will doubtless be jolly parties with themes like “The Death of God”, at which Professor Richard Dawkins will appear in human form alongside his apostle, Christopher Hitchens, to the rapture of his atheistic disciples. Sinful bishops and rabbis will be forgiven, so long as they repent, and secularists will move among the people, with Darwin’s sacred text to guide them, singing “Happy Birthday to Reason.”
But wait a minute. Or, indeed, a millennium. As the wonderful Oxford don John Hedley Brooke puts it, we should be careful about pigeon-holing the man who wouldn’t pigeon-hole pigeons.
Wasn’t Darwin also a man of God, who wrestled with some form of faith throughout his life? Was he not intensely respectful of the relationships between science and faith? Should atheists, such as Dawkins, really adopt Darwin as their champion?
Yes, yes and no, in that order. But I just want to suggest that Darwin wasn’t the father of atheism; that his story is far more complex than that and that his contribution to the relationship between faith and reason is what really counts, rather than whether he came down firmly on one side or the other, like Sir Alan Sugar deciding whether to hire or fire God.
This ambition will not be achieved by a simple narrative of the arc of his life, from going up to Cambridge to take holy orders, to his early Bible-quoting evangelism on HMS Beagle during his scientific Grand Tour, to a deistic position when he wrote On the Origin of Species, and his later agnosticism (and very probably atheism in the face of family tragedy).
Far better to see Darwin in the theological context of his time. The prevalent Victorian religious mindset was Natural Theology and, if its principal proponent, William Paley, would forgive the paraphrase, it ran that life, the universe and everything was too ordered, too complex, too coincidental and too downright beautiful to have come about by accident. It followed that it all must have had a benign and purposeful creator.
Little wonder that Darwin’s revelations about evolution undermined that. But he was still able to write this intriguing confession, about the effects of contemporary theology on him, in The Descent of Man: “I had not formerly sufficiently considered the existence of many structures [which are] neither beneficial nor injurious, and this I believe to be one of the greatest oversights as yet detected in my work.” Darwin was apparently unable to annul his former belief that each species had been created on purpose. And this led him to assume that everything “was of some special, though unrecognised, service.”
But it wasn’t his science that destroyed his residual faith; it was the death of his 10-year-old daughter, Annie. Darwin’s alienation from his former faith was driven by bitter personal experience, not cold, scientific analysis, as those who hail him as faith’s nemesis might like to claim.
In later life, Darwin refrained from committing himself to atheism. He tended to have theistic moments, such as when contemplating how the universe came to be here at all. Darwin intuitively understood the pre-Enlightenment relationship between faith and reason, or the idea of a reasonable faith that is as old as Augustine. Unlike today’s posturing and positioning, he was a brave and honest explorer of all that makes us work. That’s what we should be celebrating and aspiring to recapture this week.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/30/do3005.xml

paarsurrey comments to the daily Telegraph :

Hi

It is very satisfying to note that Darwin was not a father of the Atheists/Agonostics; and he could not be one as atheists existed before him. If someone thinks that he was one, he must be taking it metaphorically.The Creationists similarly, in my opinion, take Adam as their father only symbolically as human beings existed before Adam. Adam was the first perfect man with whom GodAllahYHWH conversed directly.

I think it would be more appropirate to say that doubt or confusion are the father and mother of the Atheists/Agnostics, while certainty is the father/mother of the theists who believe in OneGod.
https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Loving Real Jesus

June 26, 2008

 

Hi

The fact that Jesus didn’t die on the cross, doesn’t lessen the importance of what Jesus taught one iota.

Some may think that Jesus removed from “Son of God / God”, would have no role to play and no attraction left for the believers? I would like to reflect on this aspect and would say this is not correct.
If Adam, Krishna, Abraham, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, David, Solomon, Socrates, Muhammad etc. , all humans , perfect men in their own merit, they attracted and won hearts of much of the world without claiming divinity, godhead, or association with God for themselves; and only through their character, morality, politeness, wisdom , they successfully did it. All these respected and most loved religious leaders of the world were brothers in belief in one God.
Why cannot then Jesus do so – whom the Christians consider “Perfect Man”. Has he lost the charisma?
Do they find any discrepancy in his being a prefect man that they need yet to add another feather to him and make him son of God or God?
Surely there is no such need. In fact they have over burdened Jesus and under the weight of this mythical additional burden his own human personality has been concealed from the eye of the people. Remove these burdens and myths woven around him so that his pristine personality glows and enlightens the whole world with his brilliant light. Let his true personality and message of peace reach the corners of the world so profoundly needed by the humanity? There is no mystery, nothing to hide.
Let the superstitions and myths die so that Jesus lives in the hearts of the people.
Mirza Tahir Ahmad has reflected on Jesus’ role, attraction and gravitational pull as under:-
For almost two thousand years, it is not the legends woven around the reality of Jesus Christ that has kept Christianity together and has helped it to survive the challenges of reason and ever growing enlightenment borne out of scientific progress, nor is its survival due to the mystic belief of Trinity. What has held the truth and essence of Christianity together is the beauty of the person and the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is the divine conduct and not the divine person of Jesus that has been so beautiful to adhere to. It was the suffering, patience and perseverance for the sake of noble ideals and his bold upright rejection of all despotic attempts to make him change his principles that is the real backbone of Christianity. It is still as beautiful and as loveable today as it was ever before. It has influenced so powerfully the Christian minds and hearts that they remain bonded to Jesus and would much rather shut their eyes to logical discrepancies than to break away from him.
His real greatness lies in the fact that he transcended and conquered the forces of darkness that had conspired to vanquish him despite being a frail human being and no more than a human being. That victory of Jesus is something to be shared with pride by the children of Adam. As we see it from the Muslim vantage point, he is one of the most noble progeny of Adam who taught humanity by his example of perseverance in the face of extreme suffering and pain. Not to surrender but to remain steadfast in the teeth of extreme trial was the noblest achievement of Jesus. It was his life of suffering and pain that redeemed humanity and made him conquer death. If he had accepted death voluntarily, it would have been tantamount to an attempt to escape his state of suffering. How can one conceive this to be an act of bravery. Even the act of those who commit suicide, under extreme pressure, is taken to be a mere act of cowardice. To share suffering in life is far better than to escape suffering through death. Hence the concept of the supreme sacrifice of Jesus by accepting death for the sake of humanity is hollow sentimality with no substance in it.
The greatness of Jesus, we again insist, lay in his supreme sacrifice during his lifetime. All his life, he defied the temptations to give in and exchange a life of suffering with that of ease and comfort. Day in, day out he confronted death but refused to give in and lived for the sake of the sinful to bring them to life. He conquered death not by surrendering himself to death, but by refusing to bow down to it. He defeated it roundly and emerged from its clutches where a lesser man would have perished. Thus he proved his truth and the truth of his word beyond a shadow of doubt. That is how we see Jesus and that is why we love him so. His voice was the voice of God and not the voice of his own ambitions. He said what he was commissioned to say, neither more nor less than what God had told him to say. He worshipped God throughout his life and worshipped Him alone and never did he require any mortal to bow before himself or before his mother or the Holy Ghost. This is the reality of Jesus to which we invite the Christians of all denomination and faiths to return.

 

 

Christians of all denominations – return to real Jesus

 

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/christianity_facts_to_fiction/index.htm

I love Jesus,Mary and Muhammad

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim