'An Affair On Golgotha' -- a refutation

[muhammad_isa]

That is disingenuous. You do not have to mention it. But it underlies everything you say here..

No .. you keep quoting the NT to "prove" your case, and I employ reason.

If it was manufactured by humans it would not have survived so long.

Sorry, but I can't agree with that. There are scores of different creeds that have "survived so long".
They won't "survive" forever though. China is a real threat to all of us. While we bicker over what God is and what God isn't, they are in the wings waiting to pounce

 

[muhammad_isa]

The whole thing is that followers of one faith should not expend all their energy on condemning those of a different faith and trying to correct and educate them..

Well, aren't you condemning Mr. Garaffa's faith/views by defacing his articles?

 

[RJM]

No .. you keep quoting the NT to "prove" your case, and I employ reason.

Don't be silly. You keep saying this or that about Jesus, and I provide passages to disprove your reasoning.

Sorry, but I can't agree with that

Not my problem

There are scores of different creeds that have "survived so long".

Yes. Are they all wrong?

They won't "survive" forever though.

Nothing will

China is a real threat to all of us. While we bicker over what God is and what God isn't, they are in the wings waiting to pounce

What has that to do with this Golgotha thread?

 

[RJM]

Well, aren't you condemning Mr. Garaffa's faith/views by defacing his articles?

They're not defaced. They're not the Mona Lisa. They have a discussion of alternative views attached. I'm not condemning his faith. I am disputing his conclusions. As do others here.

 

[Thomas]

The fact remains that Roman Christianity is manufactured by humans.

This shows the paucity of your argument.

One can just as easily argue that "The fact remains that Islam is manufactured by humans," yet you have no issue with that, because it seems reasonable to you. Well, Christianity seems reasonable to us.

Can you not respect that?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm not condemning his faith. I am disputing his conclusions. As do others here..

I know that. I don't agree with much of what he says.
..but it doesn't look nice to me. Would you be happy if Mr. Garaffa updated your articles on Christianity in the same fashion?

 

[RJM]

I know that. I don't agree with much of what he says.
..but it doesn't look nice to me. Would you be happy if Mr. Garaffa updated your articles on Christianity in the same fashion?

Absolutely. As long as he did not alter my wording, and attached his analysis neatly at the bottom, making clear the reason. Why should I mind? Perhaps the articles have been there so long they are the untouchable holy word or something?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Perhaps the articles have been there so long they are the untouchable holy word or something?

Yes .. hail Brian!

 

[muhammad_isa]

One can just as easily argue that "The fact remains that Islam is manufactured by humans," yet you have no issue with that, because it seems reasonable to you. Well, Christianity seems reasonable to us.

I CAN respect that "Christianity seems reasonable to you" .. it seems reasonable to me as well
However, what YOU deem to be Christianity is not universal i.e. the trinity, even though it is the majority belief.

We both believe in God, the Creator of the universe, but have different creeds.
The reason I believe the Qur'an to be as valid as the Bible is purely on a rational basis, and no other reason.

 

[Thomas]

... but it doesn't look nice to me. Would you be happy if Mr. Garaffa updated your articles on Christianity in the same fashion?

Let's be clear – most of the tone of the essay is a hatchet job, the materials seen through the lens of his agenda and his prejudice.

To offer a measure, what follows is a critique of the Third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, in the same tenor:

Uthman ibn Affan – the man who chose to produce an 'official' version of the Quran – was a shrewd businessman; one of, if not the, richest Moslem merchants in his lifetime, who very early on realised that his relationship to the Prophet put him in a very strong place with a captive market of loyal Moslems. When he came to power, he reversed many of the laws instituted by his predecessors, enabling him to make more money for himself and his family.

During Mohammad's lifetime, he was never awarded any position of authority, and never distinguished himself on military campaign. He preferred to remain in the background, to look after himself and his family, nevertheless he would split war booty among his relatives, rather than reward the actual combatants. He married Mohammed's daughter, assuring him a strong position in Moslem affairs, and when she died, he married another daughter.

As has been said, while his predecessor took no money from the treasury, he did not receive any gifts, nor did he allow any of his family members to accept gifts. Uthman the grifter relaxed these restrictions. Already rich, he made a show of not drawing a personal allowance from the treasury, but was happy to accept bribes for himself and his family. He also expressed the right to utilise public funds as he wished, so really did not need to draw an allowance or a salary, he just used the money as if it were his own.

He took no part in military campaigns, but appointed others to fight his wars of expansion.

His nepotism and profligacy was widely unpopular, and some of the surviving Companions of the Prophet called for him to step down. In the end, his maladministration gave rise to a revolt, and Uthman was assassinated in his bed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Let's be clear – most of the tone of the essay is a hatchet job, the materials seen through the lens of his agenda and his prejudice..

Pot .. kettle .. black
You also have a prejudice .. your insistence on Jesus being God [ or of the same substance ], and your particular interpretation of the Bible and its inerrancy.

To offer a measure, what follows is a critique of the Third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, in the same tenor:

Deviation
We aren't discussing Islamic caliphs.

 

[Thomas]

Good morning Thomas, I hope all is well.

Fine, thanks, I hope you are, too.

I see John 6:63 is worth considering ...

When citing individual verses of a text, we must always look to the surrounding context.

In the case of John 6, we have the Feeding of the Five Thousand, and the discourse on the Bread of Life, and then the further teaching at the synagogue in Capernaum.

Verse 51 seems to mark the break between the discourse to the multitude, and a deeper understanding given to the disciples with him in the synagogue (cf v60).

So the discourse begins again where it left off: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven" (v51).

Here begins a deeper teaching on the Eucharist, which even the disciples found hard to take: "Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?" (v61)

"Does this scandalize you?" He asks them. "If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit (pneuma) that quickeneth: the flesh (sarx) profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit (pneuma) and life (zoe)." (v62-64 emphasis mine).

So here we have Jesus speaking directly and explicitly of the Eucharist, of flesh and blood, not simply as metaphor, but a (revealed) mystery. Jesus is declaring His divinity – not simply the Son by analogy, not an oracle or a prophet, but that He is the Logos of God and, as we have come to define it, the Hypostatic Union – the Union of the Divine and the human – a union of which He, the Incarnate Son, is the Principle and Archetype actualised (living – physically present) in and to the world. It is the union of the spirit (pneuma) with the flesh (sarx) – the words He has spoken are spirit (pneuma) and life (zoe).

Life in this context to mean the whole person, body, soul and spirit, not a kind of dualism. The text in question then, "the flesh profiteth nothing" is understood in this context of His rebuke of their lack of faith in Him as the Incarnate Son. If He were merely a man, then then indeed 'the flesh profiteth nothing', but if, however, He is the Incarnate Son of God ...

This teaching, hard indeed, turns His audience against Him: "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him" (John 7:1) because of the implication of His words.

 

[RJM]

Yes .. hail Brian!

Very grateful to you for opening up the homepage again after all this time
Hope you're not regretting it now, lol
Blessings brother

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

When citing individual verses of a text, we must always look to the surrounding context

The context is not difficult Thomas.

In the end the question is easy.

Are you expecting the return of the same Flesh Jesus of 2000 years ago?

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

The context is not difficult Thomas.

In the end the question is easy.

Are you expecting the return of the same Flesh Jesus of 2000 years ago?

Regards Tony

He's posted more than 10 000 messages here. Actual scholarship, not new age meanderings. Perhaps you could read a few of them, then come again?

EDIT
Context is everything

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

He's posted more than 10 000 messages here. Actual scholarship, not new age meanderings. Perhaps you could read a few of them, then come again?

Is that your answer to that question? It is an applicable question.

I guess the disciples of Christ may have had to face such comments as well.

How many scholars accepted Jesus as Christ?

At the same time Scholarship is highly regarded when it considers all things.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

the same time Scholarship is highly regarded when it considers all things

Well to know what it says you have to first check it out

 

[RJM]

IMO @Thomas collection of writings here are far more accessible and understandable than the impenetrable stuff you Bahai guys keep pushing out, expecting everyone to try to read through, from of sense of duty or whatever, lol ...

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Well to know what it says you have to first check it out

I have had many of these conversations and in the end it all comes down to this choice.

Will Christ return as the same Flesh Jesus of 2000 years ago in some miraculous event, or will Christ come the same way as recorded in the Gospels. Born of a mother and Annointed as Christ.

There is endless Scholar based articles on this, but we can do away with pages of needless back and forth, if we set our expectations first.

I see Christ returns in the same spirit, but not the same body.

If another expects a flesh body, then it is easier to agree to disagree and not partake of fruitless discussion based in our own expectations.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

IMO @Thomas collection of writings here are far more accessible and understandable than the impenetrable stuff you Bahai guys keep pushing out, expecting everyone to read, from of sense of duty or whatever, lol ...

There is no expectation for any one to read or consider what Baha'u'llah offered, as that is a personal choice.

What is offered, is offered in the Love of God and the love for all humanity, regardless of race, gender or religion. It is offered as a gift, a new frame of reference that one can choose to consider, or not to consider.

I am happy to leave any conversation, at any time, if one no longer wishes to hear a different point of view.

Regards Tony