I give a
litmus test to know a Christian from a Muslim:
- There is not a single Muslim in the world who believes that Jesus died on Cross, it is so clearly mentioned in Quran.
- So, according to Muslims Jesus never needed to be resurrected from the dead as he never died on Cross in the first place. Hence Jesus was never God(or Son of God) as per Quran/Islam/Muhammad.
- There is not a single Christian, in my knowledge, who does not believe that Jesus died a cursed death on Cross for the sinful Christians.
- Jesus as per the Christian faith resurrected to life from the dead, and hence he was God and
- he sat on the right hand of God, assuming all-power.
These are, I believe,
the superstitious or mythical building blocks of the Christian faith/religion which the Christians have been made to believe by Paul in Rome. Jesus did not agree with the Pauline Christianity.
Others are welcome to differ with me with reasons and arguments if any or without them, or correct me if they like, please.
Regards
____________
With some amendments in my post #30 on another thread "the litmus test " .
You are focusing on Jesus' fate and nature in order to call Christianity superstitious?
That is exceedingly bold, considering that it is Islaam and the Qur'an that you are comparing Christianity to.
Jesus' very existence as a historical person (as opposed to a fictional being) is tentative at best.
Nor is it very likely that literally
no exception for any of the statements that you make above exists among the billion Muslims or so that currently live. Realistically, many people simply don't understand and care about theology quite enough to have a firm stance on such esoteric matters. That is perhaps a bit more true in places such as Sierra Leone that have a touch of syncretism on them.
Therefore, 1) is probably not
exactly correct, although I agree that logically it is a strong, solid claim - albeit by construction not a very meaningful one.
2) does not make any sense to me. Even taking for granted that Jesus never died, that in no way implies that he could not be an aspect of the Trinity, or the son of God (either literally or symbolically).
Still, it is more noteworthy that, again, none of the various existing and competing claims regarding Jesus and how he relates to God, if at all, has much in the way of actual significance beyond the purely psychological effect.
A - Jesus may have never existed except as a myth.
B - Jesus may have existed as a literal person, presumably a heterodox rabbi that ran afoul of the Romans. That would help explain how quickly
C - Jesus may have been in some sense a Messiah, or not. That is ultimately a matter of personal perception, and reflects little more than how much acceptance and trust Jesus might have received.
C.1 - It is difficult to conceive of mainstream Christianity without however accepting Paul's epistles as its origin. And those, by their turn, rely on Paul's vision of Jesus - not so much for their content proper as for their doctrinal validity.
C.2 - While many people care a great lot about whether Jesus was myth, human, son of God or an aspect of God,
none of those claims has any inherent, clear meaning. They are not even necessarily at odds with each other. It is really all in the interpretation and the emotional significance lent to that interpretation.
3) I don't quite know how to interpret. Again, it is just not a big deal either way; it lacks actual significance. But it seems to be accurate except perhaps for the word "cursed", which may be problematic.
4) is premature in associating a ressurrection tale to a divine nature. That does not follow at all. Particularly given that Jesus is not even the only person to ressurrect even going by the Bible alone. Very few Christians would claim that Lazarus is God simply because he ressurrected.
5) is just an allegory with no meaning except as an inspirational image. What could it actually mean to have Jesus on the right of God and all-powerful?
