17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
Not really, as I said, it's cool...
Give me any statement .....
- Thread starter islamis4u
- Start date
Not really, as I said, it's cool...
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Juan, I'm not certain, but I think that's, "Saalam"...
Thanks Q, but I chose that particular word quite carefully.
Shalom.
Of course you did...just checking...Thanks Q, but I chose that particular word quite carefully.
Shalom.
Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste Islamis4u,
thank you for the post.
the objection isn't the claims it's regarding the logic being employed as it excludes Al Qur'an from the same critique which you are apply to the Bible.
Christians don't claim that Jesus wrote the Bible anymore than Muslims claims that Muhammad wrote Al Qur'an. both religions readily acknowledge that someone else wrote the words which are attributed to the figure in question. you hold the Bibles claims to be unreliable due to this but you view Al Qu'ran as reliable when, if you are being consistent, it should be viewed as unreliable as well.
i realize that you cannot do so as a Muslim but that is where the objection lies, for me, not with particular claims.
metta,
~v
thank you for the post.
the objection isn't the claims it's regarding the logic being employed as it excludes Al Qur'an from the same critique which you are apply to the Bible.
Christians don't claim that Jesus wrote the Bible anymore than Muslims claims that Muhammad wrote Al Qur'an. both religions readily acknowledge that someone else wrote the words which are attributed to the figure in question. you hold the Bibles claims to be unreliable due to this but you view Al Qu'ran as reliable when, if you are being consistent, it should be viewed as unreliable as well.
i realize that you cannot do so as a Muslim but that is where the objection lies, for me, not with particular claims.
metta,
~v
Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste all,
i mistakenly edited Farhans reply to this thread when i meant to quote it instead.
please accept my apologies.
metta,
~v
i mistakenly edited Farhans reply to this thread when i meant to quote it instead.
please accept my apologies.
metta,
~v
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
Conspiracy!
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
While it is very sad that Farhan's post was lost, I can assure it was not intentional. It is the kind of mistake I have made a time or two in the past myself, and one I sincerely wish I could repair once it is done.
Vajra's character is above reproach, I believe him when he says it was accidental.
I know long responses are a pain to write and very sad to lose. I would encourage Farhan to please respond again, as I would personally like very much to hear what it is he has to say.
Indeed, the thought is never lost, it might just be worded slightly differently.
I'm curious too.
And as an aside, I've deleted whole thread's by accident (paid for it too)...Vaj is a saint.
v/r
Q
I dont think so. In response to this
He said this
Whether Jesus personally wrote it or not is not the issue here. The problem is that in no way from this sentence can one infer Jesus claiming divinity. Regardless of whoever wrote the bible, there is still no red letter sentence in it where you can catch Jesus saying," I am God". It's always John or Paul trying to push divinity into him.
There are similarities, but there are a lot of differences too. Both Jesus & Muhammad didn't write anything. But Muhammad dictated all of Quran in his life, & had it memorized word by word by a large number of people. And this was the "official & only" version of Quran from him. Gospels were written 60-80 years after Jesus. And there were many of them. We have got 4 in NT alone.
As far as your second point is concerned, Quran did exist in written form in Muhammad's life time. And two years after his death, it was available in one bounded volume. One bounded volume of NT took around 300 years. And that was not exactly the NT we have right now.
Quran didnt have to pass through consolidation of conflicting texts. It was a difference of dilects. Lets suppose, Americans say that we will only pronounce/write Sulfur, & that's the correct English. Britishers say that only Americans can come up with such lame spellings. It will be spoken/witten Sulphur, the way it has always been. Sulfur is stupid spelling. Now a hundred Chinese people learn English, 50 from Americans, other 50 from Britishers. When the American-learnt-Chinese will recite/write some thing holly in front of British-learnt-Chinese, there will definitely be a fight, because both of them will consider the other side committing blasphemy.
This is exactly what happened in Azerbaijan. There were & still are different ways of pronouncing vowels, sometimes even consonants (like Jamal & Gamal, Qaddafi & Gaddafi). When there are two consecutive vowels, there can be around 5-7 ways of pronouncing/writing it. Like Drop first keep second, drop second keep first, keep both, drop second elongate first, drop second double first etc. Each tribe has a tendency to pronounce them in a particular way. And for Arabs all of them are correct. But for Persians, obviously they would have thought that one of them is right & others are wrong. Unlike this, the first gospels were written around the fall of Jerusalem, a period of huge political chaos, death & destruction.
Another thing that is not shared by Christianity is Islam's continued political supremacy in the Middle East, since the last years of Muhammad. Muslims didn’t have to bear all that torture that Christians faced, nor did Islamic theology/practice face the theo-philosophical & socio-cultural onslaught of any dominant empire. As a result, it remained much more pure than Christianity.
The issue here isn’t Jesus or his teachings. The issue is what happened between "teachings of Jesus era" & the "Christianity Institution era". His being God-incarnate or not doesn’t change his teachings, but this definitely changes the perspective in which we see them. The begotten son of God vs. the prophesized messiah; for an English mind thinking within the domains of English language & culture, there isn’t much of a difference. For a Hebrew mind, thinking within the domains of Hebrew language, culture & history, these concepts are miles apart. One leads to salvation, the other is plain blasphemy. Simply putting it, one view makes us think that he came to abrogate the law, the other obviously says that he came to confirm it.
The problem here is, what really is the Christian orthopraxy? The practice of Jesus & his followers, the views of apostles who never saw him, or the creed approved by Roman Emperors. And all three are way too different from one another to be considered "one religion".
Jesus says that there is no way you can achieve salvation without following the law. Paul nails this "only way to salvation" to the cross. The councils keep the law nailed, but brings down the perfect lamb & transforms him into a semi-divine immortal. These are three radically different mythos, which create three different social psyches, three different human personalities, & three different "ortho"- praxies. So which one is "correct Christian living"?
Rather than thinking about Christianity's perfection or imperfection, the more important aspect that needs to be contemplated upon is, is Christianity really about following Christ? If it is, then for me it's perfect. If it isn’t, then like everything human, Christianity too is prone to error & imperfection.
To this question a Christian will reply."Yes…Christianity is all about following the Christ". And the non-christian would then ask, "Which Christ"? And this brings us again where we started.
I forgot about this.
Scholars of Christianity (not Christian scholars) do argue over the Bible in the same way as muslims argue over Hadith. It just that such argumentation isnt found "within" Christianity. There are many passages in the NT that are of special interest for these scholars. Like what happened after the tomb was found empty? Interestingly most of the passages that show Jesus as a super-human seem to be later additions.
As far as Jesus' role as Christ is concerned, just see him in his jewish perspective. Its so *evident* that he was the Messiah of Jews, not of the Romans. So why see him through Roman eyes? Moses is what jews thought of him. Try to see him through Egyptian viewpoint & you will encounter a whole lot of similar confusions there too.
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
er.... if you ask the jews what we thought of jesus, it is so evident for us that he *wasn't* the messiah, so this point really isn't that logical.farhan said:
b'shalom
bananabrain
BlaznFattyz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
The majority of jews, not all jews, as there is always a remnant before Christ was born, during his life here, and when he went back to the Father that believe and have hope in His name. Give me any statement...Here are some words of Christ contrasted against the Old Testament:
John 8:24, "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
John 8:58, "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
John 13:19, "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He."
John 8:12,"When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
John 10:11, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."
Rev. 1:17, "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.’"
Luke 23:3, "So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied."
Exodus 3:14, "God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’"
Isaiah 43:10, "You are my witnesses," declares the Lord, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me."
Isaiah 60:20 ,"our sun will never set again, and your moon will wane no more; the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your days of sorrow will end."
Isaiah 40:11, "He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young."
Isaiah 48:12, "Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last."
Isaiah 44:6, "This is what the LORD says -- Israel's King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."
Christ says using the same words as seen in John, Luke and Revelations contrasted with Exodus and Isaiah so everyone would know who he is claiming to be. Even God in the old testament does not say here i am God in these verses, he says I am, or saviour/redeemer, or everlasting light, or good shepherd.
John 8:24, "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
John 8:58, "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
John 13:19, "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He."
John 8:12,"When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
John 10:11, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."
Rev. 1:17, "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.’"
Luke 23:3, "So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied."
Exodus 3:14, "God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’"
Isaiah 43:10, "You are my witnesses," declares the Lord, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me."
Isaiah 60:20 ,"our sun will never set again, and your moon will wane no more; the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your days of sorrow will end."
Isaiah 40:11, "He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young."
Isaiah 48:12, "Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last."
Isaiah 44:6, "This is what the LORD says -- Israel's King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."
Christ says using the same words as seen in John, Luke and Revelations contrasted with Exodus and Isaiah so everyone would know who he is claiming to be. Even God in the old testament does not say here i am God in these verses, he says I am, or saviour/redeemer, or everlasting light, or good shepherd.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
OK, if we are going to make a fine distinction, it seems to me that Scholars of Islam (not Islamic Scholars) are afraid to give voice to the short comings of the Koran for fear for their lives...Salmon Rushdie?
There *are* matters developed within scholarship that do gravitate into the laity...here at CR on the Christianity board alone is a wealth of examples. So a blanket suggestion that the Christian laity is blind, deaf and dumb to issues raised by scholarship is not wholly true...and I dare add that the Christian laity is far more receptive to scholarly criticism than Islamic laity is.
While I agree that there are many disputed passages in the NT, I think that without examples to show it is a bit presumptive to claim "most of the passages that show Jesus as a super-human seem to be later additions." Even though I do tend to lean in this general direction, I wouldn't dare make such a blanket statement. And I don't have to worry about an angry mob led by clergy to assassinate me if I did!
First, BB is correct, if Jesus did fulfill Jewish Messianic proscriptions, there would be no distinction today between Judaism and Christianity; the two would be one, or at least Christianity would be a formal subset of Judaism.
Second, were it not for Paul's specific efforts to "paganize" Jesus' brand of Judaism, it would still be required to first be Jewish before becoming Christian. Which explains how Jesus came to be viewed through Roman eyes, if you think about it. Naturally, this was cemented in Constantine's time at Nicea, but there has been a traditional love-hate thing going on between Christianity and Paganism since Paul's time.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
The conspiracy goes deeper. My Hard drive & monitor stopped working at the same time. Looks like something global is going on against me .
Sorry to hear about this, and its good to see you back.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I struggled for over an hour responding point by point, and then a glitch in the computer ate everything I wrote...
But I did see a theme developing. There was a term Dauer used a short time back, and it escapes me just now...but the gist was the presumption of being better, culturally and institutionally as applied to religion.
The simplest way I can think of to explain is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. When all is said and done, the arguments boil down to one religious tradition trying to impose its set of dogma onto another religion's sacred texts...and that is just not right, on many levels.
Am I to believe an argument that the Christian Bible is inaccurate because it claims something hard to believe...an argument coming from a person who believes the hard to believe stuff in the Koran?
I mean, an outsider would look and laugh at two fools arguing over silly imaginary stories...which is exactly what an atheist would do. You have a hard time believing that Jesus might be G-d in human form and flesh. OK, I have a hard time believing Mohammed ascended to heaven, from the Temple Mount no less, and in a dream was enough to build an Islamic Mosque? It all just seems a bit contrived to me.
At root is the...I sure wish I could remember what Dauer said here, the term was perfect...but there is that cultural superiority complex that leads itself to believe it has the right to exert itself over other faiths. That is a logical fallacy of appeal to authority. This is not limited to scholarly discussion, or even friendly debate. It permeates all facets of the faith, to the point that other faiths cannot coexist unmolested and without condition within an Islamic governed state.
Was Jesus G-d in human flesh? Who besides a Christian should even care?
computer failure is not a matter of if, but rather of "when"...The conspiracy goes deeper. My Hard drive & monitor stopped working at the same time. Looks like something global is going on against me .
been there, done that, own the tee-shirt...
I feel for you Farhan.
And no one believed Michael Phelps could take eight golds in one olympic contest...superhuman indeed...
Scholars & non-scholars have been doing their scholarly/non-scholarly criticism on Quran/Muhammad for a thousand years. The first translations of Quran in European languages were done with the same intent, ie to criticise Quran. In the 70s, Puin & Crone gave their theories of later origin of Quran. There were other theories of Syriac origin & plagiarisation of Apocrypha. But what they gave were only theories, without any concrete evidence. All they could say was that since an event was in Infancy gospel, & since its in Quran too, so it must have been copied. Still, all of them are pretty much alive.
There are other scholars, like Edward Peters, Esposito etc who consider Quran to be the exact word of Muhammad, because of the very reason that the other party is unable to give any proof. On their side is the difference between the biblical canonification & the Islamic one. As far as Quran is concerned, even the secular scholarship doesnt get proof of anything added after Muhammad. There isn't much proof of Bibles going around in Arabia in Muhammad's time either. So we are left with one man only, Muhammad. Either he was a super-desert-man having a knowledge of everything from Greek philospphy to Biblical scholarship, or else, he did get some revelation.
NT, as scholars say, emerged as a part of history. Lots of Gospels were there, written by people who never met Jesus, but copied the oral tradition, according to the needs of people & times. As a result, lots of matters develop within the scholarship (of Bible), that we dont find within the scholarship of Quran. Although we see these very same problems in Hadith. Because its collection is more or less similar to the collection/canonification of the bible.
Salman Rushdie is a fiction writer, not a scholar. He should have stayed within his domains. He is getting what he is getting because his book got politicized, first by the Iranian govt, & then by the Queen. Scholarly criticism is one thing, politicized mockery is another. Other than that, his aim was to make money, & thanks to this controversy, he is making lots of it. He should be a happy man.
I never said that Christianity is blind & deaf to the scholarship. Its just that usually Christians are quite aloof with the things going on. And this is according to my experience with Christians. I haven’t met all of them ofcourse.
Religion is more or less about appeal to authority. "This is right/good because he said so". Infact any kind of moral judgment is an appeal to authority, There is no logic behind goodness. People follow a belief system (including atheism) either because they accept some authority, or else because it feels good, which is an appeal to emotion. Either way, faith (or lack of it) is a little bit illogical.
Jesus being "homoousios" is not hard to believe, but more exactly "hard to find". We don’t see him saying this in "his book". And that’s precisely the original post. It's not hard to believe because I believe in Quran, its hard to believe because it doesn’t exist. As I said before, its later people, Paul or John. Or else the publishers who use uppercase for every he used for Jesus.
So if you believe in a religion, you are giving in to somebody's authority. The real question is, whose authority are you giving in? The question gets bigger when we see more than one distinct & seemingly contradicting authorities.
Islam vs. Christianity is a separate issue; we aren't into that right now. Right now we have got Jesus & his divinity, which makes the foundation of Christianity (Atleast the dominant version of it).
From Islamic point of view, considering Christ "third of the three" is mayhem/anarchy of cosmic level. So the whole universe cares.
Although I agree with this, but still, in the initial days, the Christianity that existed was Jewish Christianity. Following the Mosaic law & accepting Jesus as a human being, a messenger of the sender. This is the only Christianity that seems real to me. I think if you see it from a neutral perspective, you will arrive at the same conclusion.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
I don't think there is much room for such theoretical speculation when the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles in Acts 10. If you insist on seeing Jesus just in his Jewish perspective, you will be denying the Holy Spirit.