Jesus just a mere mortal: Failed prophecy!

[alexxcJRO]

Mark 8:38, 9:1
“ 38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.�

9 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.�

Matthew 16:27-28
"27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.
28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.�

Luke 9:26-27
“26 Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
27 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.� “

Christ predicted his second coming would occur during the lives of the people he spoke too.

Q: Did Jesus come in his Father’s glory with his holy angels during the lifetimes of the people he spoke too?
A: No.

Q: Did the Kingdom of God/Heaven come to power during the lifetimes of the people he spoke too?
A: No.

Q: Did the Final Judgment happened and every person got rewarded according to their deeds during the lifetimes of the people he spoke too?
A: Clearly, no.

Even one of the most famous Christian apologist C.S. Lewis admits Jesus knew no more about the end of the world then any other mere mortal.
"…he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else."
—C. S. Lewis, The World’s Last Night and Other Essays (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1973), 98. (Post-conversion)

https://archive.org/stream/worldslastni ... p_djvu.txt

Q: How can one still maintain belief in Jesus being the perfect son of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God in face of such clear evidence of the opposite?

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 38 by paarsurrey1]

It is a wrong notion that Jesus was god or son of god, please. Right, please?

[5:117] And when Allah* will say, “O Jesus, son of Mary, didst thou say to men, ‘Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?’�, he will answer, “Holy art Thou. I could never say that to which I had no right.

In this Christianity sub-forum, the works considered holy by Muslims hold no authority, either with your Christian opponents, or the unbelievers. So it does your argument no good to try to convince Christians or atheists that the Jesus Christ of Christianity (note what I said there) said (as quoted in the Quran), that he had no right to call himself or his mother a god alongside Allah.
The Jesus of Islam said that in the Quran. Not the Jesus Christ of Christianity.

I always quote Quran for the apparent reason given in the verse, not as an authority, necessarily. Reason is universal, isn't it, please?

Reason for the Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism people, given below:

Is it reasonable to believe a human as god or son of god, please?
If it had been reasonable, then one, being an Atheist, would have believed Jesus as such. Does one, please?
Regards

[alexxcJRO]

One-True-God did not make Jesus any god:

[5:117] And when Allah* will say, “O Jesus, son of Mary, didst thou say to men, ‘Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?’�, he will answer, “Holy art Thou. I could never say that to which I had no right. If I had said it, Thou wouldst have surely known it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. It is only Thou Who art the Knower of hidden things.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... &verse=116
* One-True-God

It is a wrong notion that Jesus was god or son of god, please. Right, please?

Regards

Firstly,

I am an agnostic-atheist.
I don’t believe Jesus was a demigod, god and whatever other similar nonsense.
I believe Jesus was most likely a charismatic cult leader maybe a bit delusional, suffering probably from narcissistic personality disorder; who fooled some morons into following him.

Secondly,
My argument was with Christians who believe Jesus to be divine, perfect, sinless and having all kinds of magical powers.

Thirdly,
The author of the gospel said Jesus said he was God.
The author of Quran said Jesus said he was not God.

You are basically saying: “Christian hearsay is not portraying the reality, for look I have here other hearsay who says otherwise.“

Q: Seriously?!!! Don’t make me laugh? 😊))
Q: Why should one give more credence to the Muslim hearsay then to the Christian hearsay, huh?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 40 by paarsurrey1]

I always quote Quran for the apparent reason given in the verse, not as an authority, necessarily. Reason is universal, isn't it, please?

The reason that you, personally, do not believe Jesus was divine (in any way, shape or form) is because your religion (Islam) teaches that for a man to be so is to encroach upon Allah. Allah in your religion is unique, only he is divine.

Here in this Christianity sub-forum, it is considered possible (and not just possible, an actuality) by Christians that Jesus was divine (in some way, shape or form). According to Christians, Jesus was crucified on the cross, died, and then resurrected.
When I, an atheist, (and the other atheists on this site), argue against that, we don't say "It didn't happen because this other religion says it was a deception". Such a statement would be meaningless to the Christian; what reason would they have to accept your religion's writings?

Is it reasonable to believe a human as god or son of god, please?

This depends on what angle you're coming from. As said above, the Muslim answers this question by saying no, because it means putting a man on the same level as Allah. It's blasphemous.

I, the atheist, say no, not because it means putting a man on the same level as God/Allah...but because the entire story about this apparent God-man doesn't make any kind of sense.

So if you, the Muslim, try to point out to an atheist the reason why Jesus couldn't be God is because in your Quran he apparently says he has no right to call himself a god...that statement doesn't really mean anything to us. Whether such a statement is blasphemous or not is not our concern.

If it had been reasonable, then one, being an Atheist, would have believed Jesus as such.

There's more to believing things than just because they're 'reasonable'. It's reasonable that I could be a member of the British Royal Family. However, I do not believe that I am, and neither does anyone else.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 42 by rikuoamero]

rikuoamero wrote:
I, the atheist, say no, not because it means putting a man on the same level as God/Allah...but because the entire story about this apparent God-man doesn't make any kind of sense.

but because the entire story about this apparent God-man doesn't make any kind of sense.

It is a OT usage to say to god-like people or righteous people as god, that is not literal One-True-God or YHVH or Allah.
Jesus did not die on the Cross, he was delivered in a near-dead position that also negates Jesus being god or son of god.
Right, please?

Regards

[marco]

Jesus did not die on the Cross, he was delivered in a near-dead position that also negates Jesus being god or son of god.
Right, please?

paarsurrey - our information about Christ's crucifixion comes from the NT. Jesus said a few words on the cross and finally died. The NT attests there was no need for the customary leg-breaking. He was taken down and buried in a tomb gifted by Joseph of Arimathea. At the beginning of the 11th century Muslims destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, built to commemorate Christ's crucifixion.

Your near-dead theory matches no information we have. Jesus was believed to have been divine, sharing divinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. It was his human manifestation that perished, so we are told.

Do you have better, more reliable information from the early first century? Later theories from the 7th century are inadmissible, being too far from the event. We can all theorise.

[paarsurrey1]

Jesus did not die on the Cross, he was delivered in a near-dead position that also negates Jesus being god or son of god.
Right, please?

paarsurrey - our information about Christ's crucifixion comes from the NT. Jesus said a few words on the cross and finally died. The NT attests there was no need for the customary leg-breaking. He was taken down and buried in a tomb gifted by Joseph of Arimathea. At the beginning of the 11th century Muslims destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, built to commemorate Christ's crucifixion.

Your near-dead theory matches no information we have. Jesus was believed to have been divine, sharing divinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. It was his human manifestation that perished, so we are told.

Do you have better, more reliable information from the early first century? Later theories from the 7th century are inadmissible, being too far from the event. We can all theorise.

Jesus was believed to have been divine, sharing divinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Does one believe in it? If not, why not, please?
Regards

[polonius]

Jesus did not die on the Cross, he was delivered in a near-dead position that also negates Jesus being god or son of god.
Right, please?

paarsurrey - our information about Christ's crucifixion comes from the NT. Jesus said a few words on the cross and finally died. The NT attests there was no need for the customary leg-breaking. He was taken down and buried in a tomb gifted by Joseph of Arimathea. At the beginning of the 11th century Muslims destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, built to commemorate Christ's crucifixion.

Your near-dead theory matches no information we have. Jesus was believed to have been divine, sharing divinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. It was his human manifestation that perished, so we are told.

Do you have better, more reliable information from the early first century? Later theories from the 7th century are inadmissible, being too far from the event. We can all theorise.

RESPONSE
We also have the report of Tacitus, a Roman historian of this period.

“Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius:�

Tacitus was a Roman historian writing early in the 2nd century A.D. His Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of considerable value.

The Romans were rather efficient. If they executed a person, we can be virtually certain that they were dead.