Trailblazer
Veteran Member
You might like to peruse this thread I started a while back called....
How Paul changed the course of Christianity
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Concerning the Islamic Conception of Jesus
- Thread starter Sundance
- Start date
How Paul changed the course of Christianity
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
We know that ardent Christians edited the gospels. A perfect example is the addition of the last verses of Mark, not found in earlest copies.
The VERY FIRST verse of Mark was played with, from :-
Mark:
{1:1} The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
to:-
{1:1} The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son
of God;
Esarly copies did not include those last words.
Well then. It's time to start a really in depth study of the gospels and really learn about them.
You need to caste off the Institutional Indoctrination and to pick up on some Individual Investigation!
You tell me junk, like: 'All Scholars agree'. What rubbish that is. Wonderful scholars like Geza Vermes who translated the Dead sea scrolls and was a Christian priest left Christianity after undertaking his own investigations in to the Historical Jesus. Just one example of how differently scholars think.
Nobody minds you believing in Jesus as God. That's called Faith. (Although you claim not not to in your OP. Very strange.
But you've started a thread, attacking Islam, because it does not agree with you. That's using your (sort of) faith for contentious conflict, and sadly for you there's Historical Jesus students around to tell you that you're wrong, and that you are the aggressor on this thread...... or you were.
I'm not sure about that at all.
Nor am I convinced that the Jesus who got executed actually died.
The two different possibilities (above) are very strong arguments in their own right.
You brought him up! Remember?
The Apostle who let down Nazarene...... or whatever you wrote..? It was your diversion.!!
If you believe that Jesus is God, or insist that this was what you got taught, I have no issue with any of that.
Bit you are chucking your beliefs in to the face of all Islam, and that is aggressive, confrontational and contentious, is all.
You might at least study HJ and discover the other possibilities.
I've been very aggressive about a very few aspects of Islam in the past....... had enormous arguments on here with many members..... so please don't think I am anything but a Deist. OK?
Definitely! Thank you so much for showing me and thinking of me! Its so kind of you!
I see. Well, let me ask you this, as you are a Muslim.
What sense does the claim I am addressing make? That Christians (and Jews) corrupted or changed the very texts that they wrote?
Has this been verified or is this your own conjecture?
On the particular issue that was addressed, there is agreement among historians and NT scholars that the Baptism and Crucifixion of Jesus are the two events in His Life that we know happened historically, as extrabiblical sources bear it witness.
What I actually state in my OP regarding my religious convictions is that though I am sympathetic to Christianity as a religion, I do not identify with it. Actually, for a reason much related to this particular issue: integrity, truthfulness. You see, OB, Christianity teaches that there’s one God, and only one God. I do not believe this. I believe in many gods, yet I worship one God exclusively. I would never ever say that Christianity is not monotheistic. That it is is plain and evident.
Muslims in their evaluation of what the New Testament says about Jesus (again, in the hopes of justifying their own beliefs about Jesus and convincing Christians that they have it wrong) tend to deny that it teaches what it does (Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, crucified and resurrected after three days), claiming that those doctrines were added in later, instead of built in when first written. This is intellectually dishonest. This is why I have an issue. Any other person whose own religion is subject to this sort of dishonesty in evaluation would take the same issue.
I have nothing personal with Islam in general. I’m not, however, at all fond of the claim that the New Testament doesn’t establish Jesus as the Son of God when it does in clear and unequivocal language. It’s fine to disagree with something. It’s not fine to try to say that that something doesn’t actually teach what it says it teaches or to claim that it was corrupted or changed when it doesn’t say what someone else wants it to say. It’s the very same issue that many on the Forums took (or take) with the Bahá’í Faith, which contributed to why I had left.
As a huge history enthusiast, I’m actually quite fond of studies relating to the Historical Jesus.
I understand, OB. I apologize if I’ve been hot-headed. Can you forgive me?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The short answer is using the "scientific method", which we use in science but is not used in the formation of having a religious faith. I do have religious faith, but it's not based on the scientific method but is based on personal experiences.
Can you tell me about your faith and experiences?
1 Peter 3:15
...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
Unlike me, who is the representative of all Islam, the "Christians and Jews" were not one coherent, singular, all controlling unit managing the production of the scriptures.
The Christians and Jews did not set out as a whole unit in agreement through all time and history set on corrupting books.
Furthermore, the Muslim, wholly represented by only me, often don't even believe the "Book" or "Books" of the Septuagint and New Testament (the Masoretic Text didn't exist yet when the text of the Qur'an was completed) represent the actual direct revelation spoken by Moses (who Duncan calls Moises and may some day cause the destruction of my electronic devices from the screen smashing rage it induces) or Jesus.
This is because the Muslim (me), is used to the style and fashion which we thought Muhammed received revelation or uttered it, which is that Odin causes Muhammed to utter rhymes directly in a direct fashion, as if possesed or hearing it from somewhere.
The Septuagint has a different history, it seemed to be a collection comissioned to write down the traditions of the Israelites, made into Hebrew by the Masoretes or whatever much later.
What we expect from the words of Moises (nooooo!), are direct revelation, which in the case of Muhammed didn't look like "the story of Muhammed", and the story of Moses goes even into and past his death and beyond. So the True Torah is often considered lost, with only fragments if at all to be guessed at from the Bible or the "Oral Torah".
Next, we don't expect the true revelation of Jesus to be "the story of Jesus" which resemble more the records Muslims call the Hadith. The "Injeel" or Evangelion is expected to be in the usual rap style of rhyming and metered verses speaking directly. So that is also considered a lost lecture (the word "lecture" or "recital" is "Qur'an"), though some probably do think the modern Bible including the New Testament are important and included.
Some of the Jews say "The Oral Torah" was given to Moses and maintained orally for a long time by people and is the key to decoding the Torah or Tanakh.
The Christians dealt with a canonization process which took circulating stories about Jesus and made them "officially acceptable" or "denied" but none of them seemed to present the words directly or in the style of the rhyming verse and revelation of direct speech, and they were written in Greek which Jesus was not imagined to be speaking either, though maybe he did, the Septuagint was also in Greek and not expected to be the language of "Lost Hebrew" which is now reconstructed with reference to the Living Language of (Mordor) Arabic.
The Qur'an says that God manages these processes, and is the real power behind all this, including what ended up being the Qur'an known today, even though any canonization process or ordering process it may have gone through in its early history, so that anything that may have been lost is believed to be "God's will" just as anything that ended up in the Bible is considered also "God's will" which is not necessarily good or good for everyone.
The Bible itself, says the following:
Jeremiah 8:8
How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the Law of the LORD is with us,’ when in fact the lying pen of the scribes has produced a deception?
1 Kings 22:23
"So now the LORD has put a lying / deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."
Matthew 15:6
And honour not his father or his mother,he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Isaiah 10:1,2
Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousnesswhich they have prescribed
Jeremiah 4:22
"For My people are fools; they have not known Me. They are foolish children, without understanding. They are skilled in doing evil, but they do not know how to do good.
The Qur'an offers a "reformed" and "direct revelation" style of re-telling the tales of the Bible and traditions with an extreme ethical emphasis rather than just chronicles or a collection of historoc legends or whatever Ptolemy had commissioned of the Jews in producing the Septuagint.
"
"The first five books of the Hebrew Bible, known as theTorah or the Pentateuch, were translated in the mid-3rd century BCE; they did not survive as original translation texts, however, except as rare fragments.[2] The remaining books of the Greek Old Testament are presumably translations from 200 BCE to 50 CE. "
"
The Masoretic Text[a] (MT or ) (נוסח המסורה) is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of Tanakh in Rabbinic Judaism. The Masoretic Text defines theJewish canon and its precise letter-text, with its vocalization and accentuation known as the Masorah. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries of the Common Era (CE).
The oldest extant manuscripts date from around the 9th century.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text#cite_note-3 The Aleppo Codex(once the oldest-known complete copy but since 1947 missing the Torah) dates from the 10th century. "
"According to Jewish tradition, the Oral Torah was passed down orally in an unbroken chain from generation to generation until its contents were finally committed to writing following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, when Jewish civilization was faced with an existential threat, by virtue of the dispersion of the Jewish people.[1]"
"
Hebrew is attested epigraphically from about the 10th century BCE,[4][5] and spoken Hebrew persisted through and beyond the Second Temple period, which ended in the siege of Jerusalem (CE 70). It eventually developed into Mishnaic Hebrew, spoken up until the fifth century CE.
Biblical Hebrew as recorded in the Hebrew Bible reflects various stages of the Hebrew language in its consonantal skeleton, as well as a vocalic system which was added in theMiddle Ages by the Masoretes. There is also some evidence of regional dialectal variation, including differences between Biblical Hebrew as spoken in the northern Kingdom of Israeland in the southern Kingdom of Judah. The consonantal text was transmitted in manuscript form, and underwent redaction in the Second Temple period, but its earliest portions (parts of Amos, Isaiah, Hosea andMicah) can be dated to the late 8th to early 7th centuries BCE. "
"The primary source of Biblical Hebrew material is the Hebrew Bible.[10][18] Epigraphicmaterials from the area of Israelite territory are written in a form of Hebrew called Inscriptional Hebrew, although this is meagerly attested.[18][19] According to Waltke & O'Connor, Inscriptional Hebrew "is not strikingly different from the Hebrew preserved in the Masoretic text."[19] The damp climate of Israel caused the rapid deterioration of papyrus and parchment documents, in contrast to the dry environment of Egypt, and the survival of the Hebrew Bible may be attributed to scribal determination in preserving the text through copying.[20] No manuscript of the Hebrew Bible dates to before 400 BCE, although two silver rolls (theKetef Hinnom scrolls) from the seventh or sixth century BCE show a version of thePriestly Blessing.[20][21][22] Vowel andcantillation marks were added to the older consonantal layer of the Bible between 600 CE and the beginning of the 10th century.[23][nb 1] The scholars who preserved the pronunciation of the Bibles were known as the Masoretes. The most well-preserved system that was developed, and the only one still in religious use, is the Tiberian vocalization, but both Babylonian and Palestinian vocalizations are also attested.[23]The Palestinian system was preserved mainly in piyyutim, which contain biblical quotations.[23] "
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It's a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeery long story, but I'll just give you the "Cliff Notes" version of it.
I had left Catholicism for roughly 20 years, but starting around 6 years ago I kept having these weird "premonitions"* dealing with an Italian Catholic girlfriend who literally changed my life 50+ years ago. These kept on being repeated for about 2 years, and I couldn't make heads nor tails as to what was the Boss trying to tell me? They gradually dissipated in frequency, but then I kept getting this strong and repetitious impulse to drive 3 hours from here and go to St. Thomas More Student Parish in Kalamazoo, wheres she and I attended several masses together 50+ years ago even though I wasn't Catholic.
My wife, who also is an Italian Catholic, was willing to let this play out as she knew what was happening and trusted me, so I drove there, attended mass, and by the time I got to the end of it I knew I had to return to the Catholic Church, which I eventually did.
* I prefer using the term "spiritual connection", and one thing happened just about a year ago that just blew my mind and even further convinced me that this was all so very real. In short, I spent four days in a row in deep depression but for an unknown reason, and I have never had trouble with depression before. I even questioned if I had a mini-stroke or something like that. On the 4th day, which was a Monday, I literally forced myself to get on-line, and one of the things I do daily is to check the obituary section of our local newspaper, and I found out that my old girlfriend's mother passed away, and she came from a very devout close-knot family. Needless to say, I broke down in tears because I know just how compassionate and devout my old girlfriend was and I'm sure is, which is why I fell in love with her in the first place.
However, with the being said, I ended up marrying the right woman because our rather goofy personalities better match.
So the Muslim idea and Diabolic Suggestion of the Qur'an is this:
1. Moses was given direct revelation likely in the fashion of the Qur'an which is barely, if at all, retained in the Bible.
2. The Hebrew stopped being spoken in place of Aramaic and much was lost with various upheavals.
3. The Greek was used frequently by the Christians, and the Christians recorded stories of Jesus which are not the direct revelation recited by Jesus as recorded, in other words, like the Qur'an is considered the words of Muhammed supposedly from God, the New Testament is not considered to be the words of Jesus supposedly from God, but the writings of stories collected about Jesus and statements of Jesus, similar to the Hadith writings written about Muhammed.
4. There are scriptural variations of even the available texts, not that it even matters because these are not believed to be representations of the actual revelations of Moses or Jesus.
5. The Bible itself seems to admit to scribes corrupting, Prophets receiving deceptive revelation.
So how do we know Muhammed wasn't lied to? We don't. The Qur'an is to be read and if one prefers it, as I do (says the True Muslim), they are to use it to the best of their ability. As our ghost friend once said:
72:10
And that we know not whether evil is meant for those who are on earth or whether their Lord means to bring them good:
If you want to hear what I mean by the direct, rhythmic, rhyming, and metred style of the Qur'an, here is an example:
(Notice how it is not Muhammed talking but is talking To Muhammed and telling him what to say and do, which was retained in the writing):
So the idea is, one will prefer it or not, God determines, and its never known what God will certainly do or what is truly intended or going to come about, we are eternally in suspense because God is free and unrestricted.
"Josiah ordered the High Priest Hilkiah to use the tax money which had been collected over the years to renovate the temple. It was during this time that Hilkiah discovered the Book of the Law. While Hilkiah was clearing the treasure room of the Temple he discovered a scroll described in 2 Kings as "the book of the Law",[16] and in 2 Chronicles as "the book of the Law of the LORD given byMoses".[17] The phrase "the book of the Torah" (ספר התורה, sefer ha-torah) in 2 Kings 22:8is identical to the phrase used in Joshua 1:8and 8:34 to describe the sacred writings that Joshua had received from Moses. The book is not identified in the text as the Torahand many scholars believe this was either a copy of the Book of Deuteronomy or a text that became a part of Deuteronomy.[18]
The Hebrew Bible states that the priestHilkiah found a "Book of the Law" in the temple during the early stages of Josiah's temple renovation.[22] Hilkiah then gave the scroll to his secretary Shaphan, who took it to King Josiah. According to the Bible, King Josiah then changed his form of leadership entirely, entering into a new form of covenant with the Lord. He wiped out all of the pagan cults that had formed within his land. He, along with his people, then entered into this new covenant with the Lord to keep the commandments of the Lord.[23]
For much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it was agreed among biblical scholars that this "Book of the Law" was an early version of the Book of Deuteronomy, but recent biblical scholarship sees it as a largely legendary narrative about one of the earliest stages of the creation of Deuteronomisticwork.[24] That is, historical-critical biblical scholars generally believe that the "Book of the Law"—an early predecessor of the Torah—was invented by Josiah's priests, who were driven by ideological interests to centralize power under Josiah in the Temple in Jerusalem. Many scholars see the whole core narrative, from Joshua to 2 Kings, as comprising a Deuteronomistic History (DtrH) written during Josiah's reign.[25] In fact, some recent European theologians even go so far as to posit that most of the Torah and Deuteronomistic History was composed and finalized several centuries later, during the Persian period.[26] However, most biblical scholars are coming to believe that theDeuteronomistic History was composed using other earlier sources, including a brief chronicle of king's names, age at the beginning of their reign, and their mother's names.[27]
Josiah is known only from biblical texts; no reference to him exists in other surviving texts of the period from Egyptor Babylon, and no clear archaeological evidence, such as inscriptions bearing his name, has ever been found.[4] "
I'd like the veeeeeeeeery long autobiographical version if you can give it a go, once it is written you will be able to edit and use it again and in other ways possibly as well. Can you email me the lengthier version to [email protected] with all the details vividly described? Its not a fruitless effort and means a lot to me.
In the meantime, thank you so much for writing this awesome summary, I deeply appreciate it!
I believe in miracles, and those you mentioned were very nice! So did you get back in touch with the old girlfriend too and talk to her?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Like a dummy, I did it a couple of years ago here at RF but but never made a hard nor a soft copy of it as I have been asked for the longer version a couple of times since. I don't have the time to do it today, but if you respond to this post I should be able to do it tomorrow.
Take care.
Any time that you have the time, there is no need to rush it, what I'm lookig for ideally is the most depth, symbols, thoughts, memories, insights, miracles all throughout your life, paranormal events, unusual things, scripture verses and how you interpreted them, why you believe certain things while rejecting others possibly.
If the RF version is still up online I can look at that too but a fresh and even deeper writing of the story that you go through slowly from your whole birth story and maybe even your ancestry, there might be cool clues and considerations you hadn't even thought of or recognized before looking into it in the broadest way possible or encompassing every little aspect. So it might take time, but I'd read and savor every bit of it!
So since this has a text limiter, email might be the way to initially write it out bit by bit, so thats at [email protected]
I grew up going to Catholic school and I love these accounts!
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Verified. The first verse.
Verified. The last verses of Mark, all after Magdalene at the empty tomb, are additions. Mark reported no resurrection. Matthew and Luke copied Mark, in many places word for word, so neither of those Apostles could have claomed to be witnesses or authorities on any resurrection. And John the apostle was not there and that can be shown easily.
The Baptism of Jesus...... sure.
A Crucifixion is for sure, but which Jesus, and whether that Jesus actually died that day is debatable.
But no agreement over resurrection........ certainly not.
What you belief in is up to you.
What Islam believes in is up to Islam.
Both Islam and Bahai deny that Jesus was physically resurrected, or that he is God. Both deny the Trinity as well.
Maybe some Bahai and Muslim members can say that for themselves...?
Huh? You are angered..... you wrote as much.
I'm an HJ student. Have been for several years now. There's a lot to delve in to. It's amazing what an individual search can dig up.
No probs....
Salam, I am Islam. I believe that Jesus was a miraculously generated human messenger of God (Allah) who was not really crucified or killed and did not descend into Hades to preach to the dead shades and spirits, so was not ressurected. As Islam, I reject any form of Trinity or Tritheism or Triune "Godhead" or "Three Powers, Forms, Persons, Beings, Personalities" or whatever various sects or denominations or cults have said. God is One, and Jesus is not the "Begotten Son" nor God or God distinctly incarnate. So says Islam (me).
Why? Logic, Fidelity to Strict Monotheism, Strategy, Policy, and "because the Qur'an says so" can be some of the reasons why I, Islam, say or believe such.
Personally, I don't think of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammed, Baha'Ullah, or any human being as really very important at all. They are all expendable, replaceable, exchangeable, pawns. The focus should not be on them (says I, Islam) but solely on the One True and Only Power (OTOP) which accords with reason and reality and our deeds and ethics for our life quality and the quality of our potential life after ressurection, if what the Qur'an suggests will be made to come to pass by The OTOP who gives us all our experiences and can make dreams a reality, and reality a hell too!
I see.
Concerning the Resurrection, I absolutely agree with you, OB. There’s no extra-biblical evidence for it. However, it is plainly evident that the New Testament teaches about a bodily resurrection. To say that it teaches anything else is dishonest, as I have been saying. I have no problem with any religion or scriptures that teaches what it does or that it teaches things different than what I believe. However, I’m not too fond of people who say that a religion or scripture teaches something different than what is evident that they teach. It’s dishonest. Again, it’s the same problem people of various religious persuasions have expressed with Bahá’ís.
Only concerning the matter I raised above will I become upset. Nothing else regarding Islam or any other religion really would bother me.
I agree with you, OB. World History and the History of Religions are things that I’ve become heavily enamored with.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hello..... and thank you for responding to my wishes.
That will help to make all clear to the OP.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
OK.
Teaches....... that word. I often substitute it for the word 'sells'.
Anyway.... sure the NT needs to convince readers of resurrection, but Jesus was not so much interested in that as in stopping the disgusting practices that were being continued at the Temple. He wasn't fond of the residents of the city and surrounding townships either..... they really did extract every last coin out of the visitors for as little as possible, and made fun of their accents and ways.
Paul needed to push resurrection as hard as possible. He wasn't interested in Jesus or he would have made more mention of Jesus and his actions. None. Paul never offered a single anecdote from Jesus's mission. There was no better way of controlling the masses than the threat of everlasting pain. Hellfire.
The Romans ultimate threat to anybody who might stand against Rome was crucifixion. Strip a convict naked for maximum shame. Lash them to a cross. Leave them to die over a three day period in total agony, keeping themselves alove by pushing up with their legs for each breath. Their bodies still evacuating for laughing onwatchers to see.
Paul had a much better idea. Three days of agony to death.... nah! An eternity of pain. Works wonders.
It's just that the Baptist and Jesus didn't 'teach' what Paul taught, is all. I'm not interested in anything but research and investigation in to as much truth as possible.
I won't get started on Bahai....... spare me.
.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
No, but I wrote her a one-and-out letter about 3 years ago thanking her profusely for changing my life and apologizing for deciding to leave her as I never wanted to hurt her.
The more complete story is that we had been together for 5 months two years previous, and she dropped me, which was my fault as I treated her like a saint, not as a lover. Two years later, "fate" brought us back together, and this time I didn't treat her like a saint. Both us quickly fell in love with each other, and I had no clue how this "menage de trois" of sorts (not sexual) would end up. However, I decided that I had to go with the one I met and fell in love with the previous year as she stuck by me even though she knew that I was dating my old girlfriend, and we've been married for 53 years now.