I'm not saying "they were Muslims, so there you go" .. I'm saying what I'm saying
i.e. the religions / cultures that they were involved in didn't make total sense to them
Thoughts on Incarnation
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
I'm not saying "they were Muslims, so there you go" .. I'm saying what I'm saying
i.e. the religions / cultures that they were involved in didn't make total sense to them
..not bait..
I was answering your explanation of why Christianity had been enforced in a certain form for centuries.
It is the same sentiment that resulted in the Crusades.
"Human nature" is not a good enough explanation, imo.
Who was doing the threatening? The Roman Empire who was uppermost, or the Arians? [ which you allege were in a minority ]
You probably agree that Jesus was wronged by the chiefs of the Jewish community encouraging the authorities to
execute him, but you are blind to the establishment of Nicene Christianity by Roman authority.
Of course, you didn't do it. You just accept what you are told, and dislike any change that challenges "Romaness".
@RJM Corbet says "that's how it is .. get over it". No thanks .. I don't like to continue with something that I find dubious.
I was pleased to be a Christian when I was younger .. and I still am.
I don't have to conform to what some church or state tells me. [ thank God ]
I can think for myself, thankyou.
Last edited:
Isaac Newton and Einstein thought for themselves. That is how they came up with new scientific theories.
Some proved to be correct, others contained mistakes.
Why should religion be any different? Why should it not contain mistakes?
Our spiritual progress in life does not have to be stagnant .. unless we make it so.
Many people believe in incarnation of souls / spirits. Makes sense to me.
..but when we talk about an incarnation of God .. not so much !
I understand that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient etc.
..and that is just the start. If you want to believe that such a concept can be incarnate in a human being,
one needs to "apologise" or find explanations as to how that can actually be coherent. Oh well.
Some proved to be correct, others contained mistakes.
Why should religion be any different? Why should it not contain mistakes?
Our spiritual progress in life does not have to be stagnant .. unless we make it so.
Many people believe in incarnation of souls / spirits. Makes sense to me.
..but when we talk about an incarnation of God .. not so much !
I understand that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient etc.
..and that is just the start. If you want to believe that such a concept can be incarnate in a human being,
one needs to "apologise" or find explanations as to how that can actually be coherent. Oh well.
There's a mountain in Switzerland, named after Pilate. Local legend relates that after his appointment in Judea, he was dismissed disgracefully from imperial service, and died on that mountain (suicide iirc). The same mountain also is said to have been haunted by two dragons, who were finally defeated by a Christian saint, Beatus if my memory serves correctly, whose shrine is a local pilgrimage site.
So accounts of Pilate's later career vary, it seems.
Christ explains the difference between himself and earlier prophets/messengers in the parable of the tenants:
And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the wine vat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country. And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard. And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.
And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled. And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some.
Having yet therefore one son, his well beloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son. But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.
(Mark 12:1-8)
Read full chapter ...
Although other messengers may have occasionally and loosely been referred to as 'sons of God' Christ brings his own unique relationship with the Father to front and centre in this and several other passages
And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the wine vat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country. And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard. And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.
And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled. And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some.
Having yet therefore one son, his well beloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son. But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.
(Mark 12:1-8)
Read full chapter ...
Although other messengers may have occasionally and loosely been referred to as 'sons of God' Christ brings his own unique relationship with the Father to front and centre in this and several other passages
Last edited:
Simply saying that "Those clever scientists" would find the Qur'an equally "illogical and suspicious", that's all.
Of course RJM Corbet was referring to the literal belief in Adam and Eve when he made that comment? He was questioning why someone should just accept what they are told, on the subject?
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19714/page-17#post-346642 #326
Last edited:
Yes, I rather think the claim that he converted, or was partial to Christians, is apocryphal.
Some stories say he committed suicide as a result of guilt for crucifying Christ... but Origen seems under the impression he lived on into old age, so that's probably a later accrued to the mythos of the man.
I don't know .. why do you single out just Adam & Eve?
..or perhaps you think that all the rest of the prophets mentioned in the OT weren't real people either?
When my name is tagged with an attributed comment on a different thread, I like to make sure I was quoted correctly
How do those two sentences connect anyway?
Last edited:
It's beside the point, imo.
I was just saying that Pilate could not find anything against him [ according to the Gospels ],
and so that begs the question as to why he would order him executed? [ I have already explained my view on this ]
Because he didn't want a riot. Have you actually read any of the gospels within the last 40 years?
Read on, the answer's there?
@RJM Corbet and @Thomas
I have already said:-
"I would have thought that it was obvious. Pontius Pilate did not want to execute Jesus, and very likely did not.
However, he had to be seen to be taking action so as to appease the community leaders of the temple."
..so yes .. to prevent a riot, if you like. It is not unreasonable to assume that he didn't die on the cross.
As far as I'm aware, his wounds were still apparent when he reappeared.
I have already said:-
"I would have thought that it was obvious. Pontius Pilate did not want to execute Jesus, and very likely did not.
However, he had to be seen to be taking action so as to appease the community leaders of the temple."
..so yes .. to prevent a riot, if you like. It is not unreasonable to assume that he didn't die on the cross.
As far as I'm aware, his wounds were still apparent when he reappeared.
Why do you think it is obvious, Muhammad? Don't you think it would have been a bit difficult to pull it off? Did Pilate take a special liking to Jesus, and risk his own position etc, to save his life?
Would it not have been easier just to let him die on the cross? What was Pilate's gain? The assumption is that Pilate took a special liking to his prisoner and then organised a complicated plot to save his life, ensuring secrecy between the soldiers and the people who witnessed it. Everyone knows three's a crowd with these sorts of conspiracies. Why? What motive did Pilate have?
The gospels are clear that when the time came to break the legs of the crucified to get them to die quickly, Jesus was found to be already dead and so the lance was thrust into Jesus' side just to make sure he was dead.
A person whipped and beaten then nailed to a cross for six hours with nails through his wrists and feet, then speared through the side with a lance, isn't too likely to be walking around after a few days? Terrible wounds. Flesh and muscle torn. Punctured lung. Weeks in hospital, even now.
Medicine wasn't too advanced in those days. Infection and sepsis Would he invite anybody to put their finger into the holes in his hands and feet, and to thrust a hand into the newly healing lance wound through the ribs in his side?
So how does it all make sense? How do you think it happened? How does it all tie up, and where's the evidence beyond Islamic scripture?
How is it all more likely, than the simple fact that Jesus did die on the cross?
This has been discussed in previous threads. Have you forgotten, and do you need the links again -- although it would be normal to assume that a person getting into a discussion of Jesus resurrection and appearance to 'doubting Thomas' would be familiar with the NT passage?
ha !
The lance (Greek: λόγχη, lonkhē) is mentioned in the Gospel of John (19:31–37), but not the Synoptic Gospels.
Yes, but you reject the NT parts you don't like, to suit your conspiracy. John has been accepted since very early. It's been exhaustively discussed.ha !
The lance (Greek: λόγχη, lonkhē) is mentioned in the Gospel of John (19:31–37), but not the Synoptic Gospels.
Never mind, ignore the lance (ha!) and try to get on with the rest of your explanation.
Would you be walking around and cooking fish etc, after hanging on a cross for six hours with nails through your wrists and feet?
..try reading the Qur'an?