Did Jesus Die On The Cross?

[Thomas]

The point being, that orthodox Christianity evolved,

No, it's not the point at all. The point is the question is the OP, your wodgepaste is avoiding the point.

and the claims of different churches, be they western or eastern, that only they have the original teachings ...

More to the point, there are early teachings in Islam that say that Jesus died and was resurrected (check the wiki).

The various narrative traditions regarding the crucifixion are later, contradictory, without solid foundation and clearly cannot be true. Your 'Pilate intervention' is just such a case. A more objective gaze suggests they were born out of sectarian tension and serve a particular purpose.

Well then. How can you be so sure that Jesus is part-divine and part-human?
It contradicts the shema. i.e. God is One Lord

Oh dear ... tell me, how many Gods do you think Christians think there are?
No need to answer, it's a rhetorical question

As regards the first part, how can we be sure of anything? How can you be so sure Mohammed conversed with an angel?
Again, no need to answer, it's a rhetorical question

What does 'God is One' mean to you?

Precisely that.

Dividing God up into different parts doesn't conform to my idea of 'One'

Nor mine, That's not what the doctrine says. In fact the 'Great Church' declared that a heresy: Modalism.

Really, you should take the time to acquaint yourself with a doctrine before attacking it. Too often, as here, you're tilting at imaginary windmills.

Naturally, a person [ or gentile ] can claim such things, but I would suggest that its roots are in ignorance.

Please! You're walking on very thin ice here.

A multitude of gentile bishops making fatwas has little to do with Jesus and Judaism.

Careful – That smacks of various straw-man fallacies, unless it's just racism. You think God is for Jews only?
No need to answer, it's a rhetorical question I'm sure you didn't mean it.

 

[Thomas]

@Grandad has already shown you why your assertions are false.

To be fair, he hasn't. @Grandad has given a reasoned and well-thought-out response, which I respect, but it's not definitive, simply an explanation of his (and your) position.

The truth needs to be unravelled.

Well make your mind up! Actually, that's a fair description of the 'evolution' of doctrine that you seem to assume a negative in your prior post.

Some of us might have sincere beliefs, and others would rather "stick to what they have known since childhood"...whatever.

Oh, I do wish you'd desist from such straw man digs, it's quite unnecessary. You think you're better than a cradle Muslim?

 

[muhammad_isa]

how can we be sure of anything?

Reflection by early Christians on passages such as the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and Paul the Apostle's blessing: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all", leading theologians across history in attempting to articulate the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Eventually, the diverse references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit found in the New Testament were brought together to form the doctrine of the Trinity—one Godhead subsisting in three persons and one substance. The doctrine of the Trinity was used to oppose alternative views of how the three are related and to defend the church against charges of worshiping two or three gods
- wiki Trinity -

You think God is for Jews only?

Umm .. that's not what I'm saying at all.
Jesus was following an already established religion that did not have "a trinity".
That was dreamt up by gentile bishops.

..let's not get into the subject of Gospel of John and Gnosticism, yet again.

..so you are claiming by making God a "godhead", it is OK? .. no .. it is NOT OK.
Jesus did NOT talk about "a godhead".

 

[muhammad_isa]

You think you're better than a cradle Muslim?

You must have missed it..
I'm saying that people are all different. Some use reasoning to establish their creed, and others
purely follow what they are raised with.
Making "comments" about me does not change that.

 

[RJM]

Jesus was following an already established religion

Jesus came out of an already established religion. But that's not the same as saying he was 'following' it in details. He sometimes contravened the Sabbath and ate with sinners without washing, etc.

He came from Judaism, but he went beyond Judaism; he took it further, imo?

Baha'i comes out of Islam?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Jesus came out of an already established religion. But he did not necessarily 'follow' it in details. He sometimes contravened the Sabbath and ate with sinners without washing, etc.

He came from Judaism, but he went beyond Judaism; he took it further, imo?

No, he did not.
You have already made a new thread about "God's Law", but as I said previously, Jesus did NOT
start a new religion.

His followers believed that he was the Jewish Messiah.
That means that he had authority from God to tell Jews what the law actually meant in practice,
and NOT make a new "book of law".

i.e. he came to fulfil the law, and not to change it

 

[RJM]

No, he did not.

I say he did.

Jesus did NOT
start a new religion.

I say he did

You have already made a new thread about "God's Law

Correct. The title is 'What is God's Law?
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19896/page-2#post-352390

That's the right place to discuss it?

 

[RJM]

Jesus did NOT
start a new religion.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
(Matthew 16:18-90)

But as usual you will just deny he said it, and accept the parts you agree with?

Start a new thread?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I say he did. [ start a new religion ]

..well you are ill-informed..

Jesus was raised Jewish, and according to most scholars, he aimed to reform Judaism—not create a new religion.
When he was around 30 years old, Jesus started his public ministry after being baptized in the Jordan River by the prophet known as John the Baptist.

Jesus attended the temple, and preached to Jews.
He didn't tell the Jews that their religion was fundamentally wrong .. he told those in authority that their interpretation was wrong
i.e. not in the spirit of the law, and that some of their beliefs were WRONG.

That is quite different from a person starting a new religion.

 

[RJM]

Jesus attended the temple, and preached to Jews.
He didn't tell the Jews that their religion was fundamentally wrong .. he told those in authority that their interpretation was wrong
i.e. not in the spirit of the law, and that some of their beliefs were WRONG.

That is quite different from a person starting a new religion.

Scratches head ...

Einstein didn't say Newton was wrong. Because Newton wasn't wrong. However Newton's law were limited. Einstein took them further -- in so doing started a new physics.

Start a new thread?

 

[Thomas]

Reflection by early Christians ...

Nope. That doesn't address the question.

Jesus was following an already established religion that did not have "a trinity".

Jesus revealed it.

 

[Thomas]

Actually, can I draw a line here?

If we want to discuss the OP, then let us discuss the OP. I think @Grandad has been fruitful here and evidenced that such is possible.

If we want to broaden the issue out and seek to undermine the whole of another's faith and religion, dispute the authenticity of their Scripture, ridicule reasoned theology as 'gobbledegook' and so forth, make unfounded accusations of bullying, in fact generally have a go at the whole kit and caboodle, may I suggest we go elsewhere, to other forums that welcome such?

Here, at IO, the hope and intention is to discuss and compare ... I'd like to keep it that way.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Jesus revealed it.

Jesus revealed the trinity?
That's crazy!

Neither the word “Trinity” nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord”

 

[RJM]

Thanks @Thomas

Do I need to apologise to anyone or make clear that my comments are not meant against Judaism, but to explain the Christian belief that Christ extended it to become all inclusive.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If we want to broaden the issue out and seek to undermine the whole of another's faith and religion ... etc.

I'm not seeking to undermine .. I'm purely speaking what I consider to be the truth.
You wouldn't want "the truth" to be suppressed, would you?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..my comments are not meant against Judaism, but to explain the Christian belief that Christ extended it to become all inclusive.

I would agree that Jesus was a Jewish reformer.
However, you believe him to be "part-God" and that Jesus [ the God-part ] was saying that Jewish law is mostly unjust
and can be discarded,.

You are entitled to your version of "the truth"

 

[RJM]

@muhammad_isa
Please start a new thread. Please do not ignore @Thomas speaking as moderator/admin. Please don't take offence. We do not want to have to close this thread

Actually, can I draw a line here?

If we want to discuss the OP, then let us discuss the OP. I think @Grandad has been fruitful here and evidenced that such is possible.

If we want to broaden the issue out and seek to undermine the whole of another's faith and religion, dispute the authenticity of their Scripture, ridicule reasoned theology as 'gobbledegook' and so forth, make unfounded accusations of bullying, in fact generally have a go at the whole kit and caboodle, may I suggest we go elsewhere, to other forums that welcome such?

Here, at IO, the hope and intention is to discuss and compare ... I'd like to keep it that way.

 

[wil]

Oh the tightrope that interfaith discussion requires when religions have scriptures and beliefs which are unprovable yet each hinges on believing the unprovable.

Add to that other scriptures that indicate you less worthy if you don't believe and don't stand up when the CTA is incanted. Me thinks all the prophets of old are now working Madison Avenue and using NLP to get us to buy something or vote for someone.

I feel for you in this struggle and am thankful to be on the sidelines.

 

[Thomas]

I'm not seeking to undermine .. I'm purely speaking what I consider to be the truth.
You wouldn't want "the truth" to be suppressed, would you?

It's not a case of suppressing the truth, it's rather that you, through error or intention, misrepresent it.
Again I would politely ask, if you want to dialogue, please make the effort to acquaint yourself with the doctrine you're arguing against.

Assuming you'll ask for clarification:

However, you believe him to be "part-God" and that Jesus [ the God-part ] was saying that Jewish law is mostly unjust and can be discarded... You are entitled to your version of "the truth"

Yet again, this is a straw-man – this is nobody's version of the truth, at least it's certainly not mine, nor, I believe, @RJM Corbet's.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..this is nobody's version of the truth..

I'm not so sure..
Do many Christians believe that Jesus is "part-God" ?
Do many Christians think that Jesus started a new religion?
Do many Christians feel that only a fraction of Jewish law is applicable?

..and @Thomas, please don't speak for @RJM