RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
Have you given any thought to psychotropic medication?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Judaism: why kill somebody just for his claim that he is a prophet of God?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Have you given any thought to psychotropic medication?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey said: ↑
Does one mean that Judaism people never acted on this commandment from Moses mentioned in the Torah*? Please
*Deuteronomy Chapter 13:1-11
Balaam was a false prophet mentioned in Torah Num. xxii*.-xxiv.
What did the Jews do to him? Please
Regards
*Numbers Chapter 22
Does one mean that Judaism people never acted on this commandment from Moses mentioned in the Torah*? Please
*Deuteronomy Chapter 13:1-11
Balaam was a false prophet mentioned in Torah Num. xxii*.-xxiv.
What did the Jews do to him? Please
Regards
*Numbers Chapter 22
rosends
Well-Known Member
No, he wasn't. Why would you assume he was?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey said: ↑
paarsurrey said: ↑
Does one mean that Judaism people never acted on this commandment from Moses mentioned in the Torah*? Please
*Deuteronomy Chapter 13:1-11
Balaam was a false prophet mentioned in Torah Num. xxii*.-xxiv.
What did the Jews do to him? Please
Regards
*Numbers Chapter 22
Regards
paarsurrey said: ↑
Does one mean that Judaism people never acted on this commandment from Moses mentioned in the Torah*? Please
*Deuteronomy Chapter 13:1-11
Balaam was a false prophet mentioned in Torah Num. xxii*.-xxiv.
What did the Jews do to him? Please
Regards
*Numbers Chapter 22
Does one mean that Balaam was a truthful prophet? Please
Regards
rosends
Well-Known Member
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Does one mean that Balaam was a truthful prophet? Please
Regards
Regards
_______________
*Balaam
"He was killed along with the Midianites by the Israelites" (Num** 31:8)
Was Balaam a true follower of Yahweh?
**8 And they slew the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain: Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian; Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
Regards
Then why did Jews killed Balaam*? Please
Regards
_______________
*Balaam
"He was killed along with the Midianites by the Israelites" (Num** 31:8)
Was Balaam a true follower of Yahweh?
**8 And they slew the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain: Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian; Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
rosends
Well-Known Member
I guess that depends on what you are looking for in terms of "truthful." According to Judaism, he received a message from God and it was his role to spread that message, which he did. I'm not sure what else you are getting at.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey said: ↑
Does one mean that Balaam was a truthful prophet? Please
Regards
Then why did Jews kill Balaam*? Please
Regards
The question, please
Regards
Does one mean that Balaam was a truthful prophet? Please
Regards
Then why did Jews kill Balaam*? Please
Regards
"why did Jews kill Balaam?"
The question, please
Regards
rosends
Well-Known Member
He died in battle. Are you asking "why was there a war"? He was not put to death or executed under any particular law about being a prophet.
Ayahuasca will wake them up....or the Holy Anointing oil made properly.
the3rdwheel
Beth
Are you that somebody?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
No.
It is a principled stance. It could be anybody. Such a person must not be harmed physically or his property. One has a right just to give reasons and arguments to such a person that his stance is incorrect. Nothing more.
Regards
gnostic
The Lost One
Actually is even more than that.
Paarsurrey is an Ahmadi.
He not only believed that Jesus avoid death, but based on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Jesus migrated to India, after the crucifixion.
This is pure fabrication, with no historical basis and evidences that Jesus ever set foot in India.
The whole Jesus in India, is purely to elevate Ahmad's own position as the new and "messiah".
I personally think it is purely propaganda to promote his new religion.
Actually, this is copying Muhammad's own propaganda, that Abraham came to what would be later be Mecca, with his son Ishmael, to help with building his house - the Kaaba, before going back to his home in Canaan.
There are no historical evidences for Abraham travelling over 1200 km to Mecca, just so find a new home. All we have Muhammad's hearsay.
Muhammad clearly wanted a way to increase his own status by claiming a descendant of Abraham, via Ishmael...of which neither are historical figures.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"He not only believed that Jesus avoid death, but based on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Jesus migrated to India, after the crucifixion.
This is pure fabrication, with no historical basis and evidences that Jesus ever set foot in India."
And one means that history is only that what has been written in the West?
Regards
the3rdwheel
Beth
That would require some professional doctor's and a clinic, I should know since I was that person once.
gnostic
The Lost One
No, paarsurrey.
There are no literary evidences (history) that the post-crucifixion Jesus was ever in India, until the second half of the 19th century.
Ahmad wasn't the first to write about Jesus in India; others (like Louis Jacoliot, 1869, and Nicholas Notovich, 1887) have written about Jesus coming to India, living there from teenager years to his 20s, hence pre-ministry days, not post-crucifixion years, as Ahmad claimed.
Both are found to be fraudulent works.
Notovich claimed that he found scrolls pertaining to Jesus, when Notovich visited Tibetan monastery, where Notovich supposedly acquired these scrolls. The monks there revealed that Notovich have visited them, nor have any such scrolls.
Ahmad was the first to claim that Jesus came to India post-crucifixion.
I don't think the Qur'an and traditions (hadith) are reliable texts, as history, but both never mention India, as being the home of Jesus, after the crucifixion.
What is certain is that Ahmad didn't get it from the Qur'an and hadith.
There is no texts in India, between 1st century to the mid-19th century. It would seem Ahmad based his assumption on misidentifying one Yuz Asaf with Jesus, a character in Waqiat-i-Kashmir (The Story of Kashmir, 1747), written by Sufi Muhammed Azam Didamari. Waqiat-i-Kashmir was only translated into Hindi in 1846.
There are no records in 1st century in India, about Jesus.
You really don't understand how history work do you, paarsurrey?
The further in time from the event, it is supposedly written about, the less reliable it is as history. But you have zero records of Jesus in Jesus' time (1st century) and zero records in early 7th century (Muhammad's time).
And the only things you do have is possibly Didamari's, and two other authors before Ahmad - Jacoloit and Notovich - both of them fabricating their stories, and Ahmad himself, also a liar.
Sorry, but I can't you seriously. And it has nothing to do with east vs west; you simply have no reliable sources, except for Ahmad's hearsay.
Even the Sunni and Shia Muslims think that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a liar, and they represent 99% of world population of Muslims. And globally the Ahmadis don't even make up half-a-percent. Which means that the Sunnis and Shiites don't believe Ahmad to be the second messiah.
So don't give me this nonsense about biased towards the east, when most Muslims don't believe in Ahmad's stories about him and Jesus. And btw, I am culturally both Chinese and Australian.
Last edited: