OK .. you quoted what I think is meant by a "true religion" i.e. one that claims Divinity and can be deemed of reliable source.
..but I asked you what you think .. Can a true religion be something I wrote on the back of an envelope last night?
OK .. you quoted what I think is meant by a "true religion" i.e. one that claims Divinity and can be deemed of reliable source.
..but I asked you what you think .. Can a true religion be something I wrote on the back of an envelope last night?
Bhaktajan II
Hare Krishna Yogi
- Messages
- 2,277
- Reaction score
- 115
- Points
- 63
The Roman Empire and its inhabitants witnessed for 300 years before accepting Jesus.
C
CobblersApprentice
Guest
Can a true religion be something I wrote on the back of an envelope last night?
Obviously it all comes down to definitions within the treacherous sea of language.
"True"........."religion". Possibly the size of the envelope would also be a factor, but I'll leave that.
Again, if "salvation" is the bottom line (as I think it ought to be) then possibly there need not be any specific structure, authoritative text, to bring such forth. So many factors. In zen there is a "dispute" between "gradual" and "sudden" enlightenment. How sudden is "sudden"? Where do the authoritative texts come from? Given, from "beyond" our world, or do they simply arise from Reality-as-is, as part of the liberative qualities of spatiality and temporality, the fertility of the earth itself?
The book of Revelation often gets a bad press, but it does contain the verse about the lamb who was slain "before the foundation of the world". Therefore, all that needs be in place has always been in place, no more is needed. The uncanonical Gospel of Thomas has Jesus say "Lift up a rock and I am there".
The Buddha is once said to have held up a flower, saying nothing. One person "got it". For the rest we have the Pali Canon of Scripture, far more than could fit on the back of an envelope! But are there not all points inbetween?
This effects every religion, really.
The Muslim faith holds certain things true about the childhood of Jesus— clay birds coming to life for example — were stories in circulation which the Church had already dismissed as apocryphal fictions. So from where I stand, these stories in Islam are dubious in origin.
Of course, 'truth' here sometimes gets narrowed to the evidence of a mechanical process, a 'sciencey' kind of thing, whereas 'truth' in this context opens a broader territory and further horizons, beyond the scope of telescopes or microscopes to focus on, let alone fathom.
Most religions will have a core that fits on the back of an envelope. Jesus' summary of the law, the four noble truths, the Schema, the Fatihah, the Mahamantra, a diagram of the World Tree...OK .. you quoted what I think is meant by a "true religion" i.e. one that claims Divinity and can be deemed of reliable source.
..but I asked you what you think .. Can a true religion be something I wrote on the back of an envelope last night?
Yes of course .. but my point is about what we base our belief on.
..so this comes from a standpoint that Muhammad, peace be with him, did not receive the Qur'an from G-d.
What "the church" decides cannot really be compared to Divine revelation. Where did the Vedas, Torah & Gospel originate?
When they were first revealed, they were the truth of the day. They were revealed because the previous revelations were corrupted.
This is the whole point about the Jews not accepting Jesus. The Qur'an is the latest revelation. If it was corrupted, then G-d would bring another .. and another......
This age is different from previous ones. The sky is filled with aeroplanes and internet data
Communication in the past was frought with error!
I, for one, value the scientific method. I acknowledge it can be manipulated through statistics and such .. but if we throw away logic & reason, we are left purely with superstition.
So was mine, my friend.
Well not quite, but it does rather undermine the authenticity of that declaration if something that is known to be untrue is declared true.
But then if these childhood tales were missing, would Islam be different? I don't think so, they're not core. They're not Revelation, as they were known before the Prophet (pbuh).
Nor does it do that. The Church defines its teachings based on Revelation and argued from that.
The Quran is the record of the Companions of the Prophet and the Caliph ... they perform the same essential compiling and editing as the church in that context – They decided what comprised the writings; what went into the Book and what didn't.
Same process as the Quran.
Well that corruption only takes moments ...
It would be invidious of me to point at the Middle East, at Isis, Boko Haram and their ilk, all why claim the Prophet as their inspiration and guide, but that is the world we live in. And all manner of cultural customs are declared 'Moslem' when they are no such thing, they are simply customs that were prevalent at the time.
In the same way we have Hassidic Jews, easily recognised in the streets, who whatever their claims regarding their religion, seemed wedded to the cultural appearance of the Ukraine in the 18th century, as if that was in any way relevant, other than a social recognition signal.
The point is, to the pure heart Revelation can never be corrupted, and the Revealed is always luminous. Transcendent Truth (the content of Revelation) does not have a 'use-by' date, it is timeless.
Well others would beg to differ ... time will tell, but they seem to be doing OK.
And it's not today! Yep, so do I.
Yep.
Which is what many, on supposedly scientific grounds, would deem your faith and mine to be ...
I mean, can you prove the Angel Gabriel?
The Jews don't think Jesus was the Messiah because the Torah got corrupted? But Jews and Christians use the same texts? That does not make sense to me.
I'm more convinced by the Jewish position, which is that Jesus simply did not do the things the Messiah is expected to do.
As to later revelations and dispensations after Islam: there are many, and they claim in turn that Islam got corrupted. What are your reasons for rejecting them?
C
CobblersApprentice
Guest
Slight tangent. But I can hear a text come to life when expounded by one person, and die the death in the hands of another. Some OT texts sing in some Jewish expositions, whether or not they "reject" Jesus as Messiah. Possibly the pious might claim "The Lord knows his own"
(Maybe this would be better placed in the Revelation thread)
That's what I said .. you think that the Qura'n is not a Divine Revelation .. you think it's the same as the Bible
i.e. A collection of scrolls by different authors.
You are confusing what people claim, and what Almighty God claims in the Qur'an..
No it isn't! How do you know that it has not been corrupted over time?
Now, you may say that the same could be said about the Qur'an, but it cannot
100's of thousands of people have learnt it by heart from 1500 years ago to the present
I can't view your profile, but I assume that you are a Christian.
I believe what Jesus is reported to have said as being the truth eg. the synoptic gospels
I was raised a Christian, and am very thankful for my education
Firstly, while the OT is in the Christian Bible, most Christians do not take it literally as do Jews.
..and secondly, you would have us believe that they tried to kill/crucify Jesus because they thought he was not Holy?
Ha
Pontius Pilate thought he was .. and so did Herod along with John the Baptist
Last edited:
C
CobblersApprentice
Guest
In the past, rightly or wrongly, I have thought that though often Mohammad is compared to Jesus, and the Koran compared to the Bible, in fact it seems that it is Mohammad who reveals the Koran, while the Bible reveals Jesus Christ.
The Word as text, or the Word as Person.
The Word as text, or the Word as Person.
If only...
They certainly use different exegesis, and a bewildering variety, but most Christians who read the bible will study the Hebrew Bible just as carefully as the New Testament. Just look at the various online bible study tools. Both parts are equally present and indexed and commented almost verse by verse.
..and secondly, you would have us believe that they tried to kill/crucify Jesus because they thought he was not Holy?
Ha
Pontous Pilate thought he was .. and so did Herod along with John the Baptist
At the end of the day, it was the Romans who executed him, on the accusation of sedition or rebellion ("King of the Jews"). As happened all too often in those times.
To the Romans, it was not a matter of holiness, as they had a totally different understanding of the term, but a matter of suppressing a potential rebellion.
Jesus' political and religious enemies had a hand in this, no doubt. There were collaborators and opportunists and resistance and warring factions in the resistance in Roman occupied Judea just as there were in any other similar historic situation.
(I already used up the Monty Python reference)
Most Christians claim that the OT is superseded .. that is a huge topic that needs its own thread.
The Romans did NOT think that He was a threat to them .. Jesus was a peacefiul person, and not stirring up rebellion.
I'm reminded of the attitude in the current "authority" thread.
Jesus claimed to be a "religious authority" .. the Christ/Messiah .. Most of his people i.e. Jews, did NOT accept him. They wanted power for themselves.
..and look what happened .. the temple in Jerusalem got destroyed
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
I don't have an opinion on that.OK .. you quoted what I think is meant by a "true religion" i.e. one that claims Divinity and can be deemed of reliable source.
..but I asked you what you think .. Can a true religion be something I wrote on the back of an envelope last night?
C
CobblersApprentice
Guest
Hopefully, neither Christians nor Jews take it literally that God threw giant hailstones down upon the enemies of the Jews, killing more than were killed in the actual battle!
C
CobblersApprentice
Guest
Most Christians claim that the OT is superseded .. that is a huge topic that needs its own thread.
The Romans did NOT think that He was a threat to them .. Jesus was a peacefiul person, and not stirring up rebellion.
I'm reminded of the attitude in the current "authority" thread.
Jesus claimed to be a "religious authority" .. the Christ/Messiah .. Most of his people i.e. Jews, did NOT accept him. They wanted power for themselves.
..and look what happened .. the temple in Jerusalem got destroyed
Oh dear, I'm leaving this particular discussion.
C
CobblersApprentice
Guest
Perhaps just as contentious.......and perhaps needing - again - another thread.....
Most Christians would assert that Jesus was sinless. Most Moslems would assert that the Koran is totally free of corruption. But the "zens" ask why a clearly enlightened person falls into the well. Meanwhile, Saichi sees his very own wretchedness as "one" with Amida. "Thank you for the favour" he cries, as though speaking to his mum.
A koan, both Truth and Question.
I'm off to the Pure Land for a while......
They don't follow all the commandments, because in Christianity they were relaxed. But the text is highly important to Christians, to their theology and in their individual practice, and they study it and read it in Church service along with the New Testament.
..and secondly, you would have us believe that they tried to kill/crucify Jesus because they thought he was not Holy?
Ha
Pontius Pilate thought he was .. and so did Herod along with John the Baptist
Yes sure, they are reported as thinking that way. Other reports from the time period indicate that crucifixion was gruesome even by Roman standards, and they used it as punishment and deterrent for rebellions, banditry and so on. This is my understanding of why he was executed - the Romans took a dim view of him riding into the city claiming kingship, challenging their puppet regimes in the region, and being followed by a partially armed retinue. You and everyone else are entitled to your own understanding, of course. There are many good and valid and interesting ways to understand the texts.
Bhaktajan II
Hare Krishna Yogi
- Messages
- 2,277
- Reaction score
- 115
- Points
- 63
That leaves us to proceed by the method of deduction?
Or by the method of Inference?