Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

John, Mary and Jesus in the Qur'an. Surah Maryam

page: 8
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Scorpie


She was not just a "vessel" as some Christians believe.


Perhaps some individual people do that, but there is no doctrinal controversy that Mary is Jesus' mother. Krishna was born to a "surrogate mother," a vessel. Jesus is not Krishna.


Jesus himself never said anything of that sort.


As I have pointed out, all of the New Testament is of equal authority, just like the Koran. When Colossians reports that all things were made through Jesus, this is the revelation God has granted all humanity. Whether that revelation is through Jesus, God, or through the Holy Spirit, God, whom Jesus promised would be sent, makes no difference to Christians.

As your threads illustrate, direct quotations from Jesus before he ascended might have offered some common ground between Christians and Muslims, because you revere a literary character based on Jesus. But as your threads also illustrate, Jesus' words actually don't offer common ground, because your Isa is simply too different from the Jesus of Christianity.


If Jesus was the "word of God, period" then was Jesus who was sent to Jeremiah in the old Testament?


I don't know. One difficulty in following Jesus' early participation in history is that "the word of God" as a Hebrew phrase is not the same idiom as Logos in the Greek. Just because they both translate into the same English phrase doesn't help us to decide what Jeremiah and other Old Testament authors meant.

Even as a secular reader, I can only marvel at the brilliance of John in developing the parallelism of the underlying ideas in some uses of the two phrases. However, this inspiration came only after the Old Testament was written, and so the specific intended reference of the Hebrew phrase in any particular instance of usage must still be worked out, possibly case by case.

Prophetic revelation in general is the work of the Holy Spirit in Nicene Christianity. On the other hand, if it pleased Jesus to speak with Jeremiah on some occasion, then so it would have been.

On other matters:

Nobody disputes that you read the Bible contrary to the Christian reading. For you to say that "The Bible says..." missates the situation. The fact is merely that you interpret the Bible in a certain way. The people whose Bible it is obviously interpret it differently than you do.


So any fool can see that both the Muslim and Christian positions are the same. But Christians have elevated Jesus to the status of the God who sent him.


Surely, even you can see that your second sentence contradicts the first. It saps your credibility not to acknowledge that there are two incompatible views of Jesus, based on two incomaptible textual foundations. Those are the facts. Your best friend would tell you what I have told you about how your railing against such obvious facts, even as you prove them to be facts, makes you sound.

Second post, briefly

I didn't say that Muslims saw Jesus "as" Adam. Please read again what I wrote.

God could create somebody other than Jesus without a father, and did so twice according to Genesis (Adam and Eve). But God couldn't create Jesus without a father, because "Jesus without a father" must describe somebody else other than Jesus. Muslims believe in a Koranic character called Isa, who, if he lived, would be a third example of a human being with no father. But Isa is not Jesus. They don't have the same father, for one thing.

Your calling somebody else's belief "absurd" is idle. They think your belief is absurd. This is a discussion forum, and obviously, no useful discussion can follow from your remark.

The circumstances of Mary's agreement to serve God were posted by Dee. Luke depicts the situation. Mary volunteered when asked. And, of course, that was her first child, another point of agreement between Christianity and Islam.


God sending Jesus to Mary's womb ...


No, that's Krishna, not Christ. Islam and Christianity agree that Jesus is a human being, in every respect his mother's son, just like any son is. The disagreement is about him being the Only Son, God (literally, as in Monogenes Theos), which as you say, you find absurd, and which your opponents find scarcely short of self-evident.




posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 





The word existed before Mary, correct.. and God created the universe through the "word". But the idea that God created the world through Jesus is purely Pauls theology. Jesus himself never said anything of that sort.


Not so. John said it too. You've been listening to too many Paul bashers without proper research.

John 1:3, 10

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 




If Jesus was the "word of God, period" then was Jesus who was sent to Jeremiah in the old Testament?

The word of the LORD came to me.
- Jeremiah 18:1

Was it actually Jesus who was sent to Abraham?
After this, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision
- Genesis 15:1

Was it actually Jesus who was sent to Elijah?
And the word of the Lord came to Elijah the prophet,
-1 Kings 21:17


The answer is YES! This is why Christians believe that Jesus is Yahweh, Jesus is God. It's another reason he was also referred to as "the angel of the Lord". Wherever God showed up in the Old Testament, the angel always spoke for him and appeared on his behalf, whether it be in the form of a burning bush, a man, etc.

Deuteronomy 6:4

4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 





The Bible describes Jesus as a MAN who was approved by God. Jesus is also described as somebody who had to learn obedience and was heard by God because of his reverent submission. Hardly fitting for somebody who is portrayed as God.


Part of your problem is trying to decide for yourself what's "fitting" for God. If God wanted to come to earth to experience every human emotion and physical pain, to put himself in our shoes so he could see things through our eyes, experience life as we experience it, why do you think it's not fitting? Personally, I think it's something a loving and just God would do before he makes judgement on everyone.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 





The bible clearly tells us that Mary was favored by God and was blessed with a son.


So? What does that prove?

She gave birth to Jesus.

Now tell us what great pedestal he put her on after that. He didn't. What did he say to her before he died? Not much. He asked his disciples to take care of her and that was pretty much the last we heard of Mary.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



there is no doctrinal controversy that Mary is Jesus' mother.

When Christians say Mary's son was God, it automatically implies Mary was the mother of God.
Christians want to have it both ways and claim Jesus was God... but refuse to acknowledge Mary as the mother of God. But we know from scripture that Jesus was called Mary's firstborn.



As I have pointed out, all of the New Testament is of equal authority, just like the Koran. When Colossians reports that all things were made through Jesus, this is the revelation God has granted all humanity.

The New Testament was written by several authors.
The gospels contains both Jesus' words AND commentaries by the author. Its important to distinguish between the two and not establish a doctrine based on commentary. The idea that "all things were made through Jesus" is an example of a commentary becoming a doctrine. How can I be so sure? Because Jesus said NOTHING about all things being made through him.

Paul's letters contain HIS commentaries on Jesus' nature, mission and purpose. To determine whether he was right or wrong, simply cross-check with what Jesus actually said.



your Isa is simply too different from the Jesus of Christianity.

The God Jesus of the religion called "Christianity" is completely different from the human Jesus described in the Bible. So the human Isa of the Koran is the same as the Jesus of the Bible.



Nobody disputes that you read the Bible contrary to the Christian reading.

My approach to the Bible is different in the sense, I look at the source of Biblical statements.
Jesus himself saying "May your will be done" holds more weight than a commentary such as "all things were created through Jesus"

The Christian approach is "if its in the Bible, its got to be true". So, the words of Paul holds as much weight as the words of Jesus and even God.




For you to say that "The Bible says..." missates the situation. The fact is merely that you interpret the Bible in a certain way. The people whose Bible it is obviously interpret it differently than you do.

If I quote Luke 2:7 and write "The Bible says Jesus was Mary's firstborn"... am I misstating anything?
Its a pretty direct statement, not open to any interpretation.
Or were you referring to something else that I said? Please clarify.



Surely, even you can see that your second sentence contradicts the first.

Whoops.
I should have said "the Biblical and Koranic positions of Jesus are the same. But Christians have elevated Jesus to the status of the God who sent him."


It saps your credibility not to acknowledge that there are two incompatible views of Jesus, based on two incomaptible textual foundations.

No it saps your credibility when you deny that both the Bible and the Koran describes Jesus as...
-the son of Mary, the woman who was favored by God.
-a man who was doing the will of God, not his own.
-a man who could performed miracles through Gods powers not his own.
-a man who was sent by God, not God himself.
Its all there in both textual foundations.

It is actually the God-Jesus of Christianity which is incompatible with the Biblical account of Jesus.
The Koranic account of Jesus however, is a perfect match with that the Biblical account.



But Isa is not Jesus. They don't have the same father, for one thing.

Read above. I'd say its a perfect match.

As for not having the same "Father", Islam believes God created Jesus.... pretty much the same how Christians view Jesus' origins.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


If you want Jesus' words, read John 14.

Just like Muhammad, you want to hold on to the words of Jesus that you choose to and discard the rest.

Until you address these verses, you have nothing to argue.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 



The answer is YES! This is why Christians believe that Jesus is Yahweh, Jesus is God. It's another reason he was also referred to as "the angel of the Lord".


Jesus never referred to himself as God...
And the idea that the angel of the Lord is Jesus is yet another Christian fantasy.
The angel was stern and unforgiving... Jesus saved an adulteress from stoning.


Part of your problem is trying to decide for yourself what's "fitting" for God. If God wanted to come to earth to experience every human emotion and physical pain, to put himself in our shoes so he could see things through our eyes, experience life as we experience it, why do you think it's not fitting?

Well, you have already decided for yourself that God chose to come to earth and experience being human.
How can being born between the legs of a woman be "fitting" for God?


So? What does that prove?

She gave birth to Jesus.


The problem is you believe Jesus is God... so it makes Mary the mother of God... regardless of whether or not she was placed on a pedestal.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 





As for not having the same "Father", Islam believes God created Jesus.... pretty much the same how Christians view Jesus' origins.


Quit making stuff up.


The mainstream Christian belief is that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine and fully human and the savior of humanity.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 





How can being born between the legs of a woman be "fitting" for God?


Jesus as God didn't encompass God as a whole. It was only a part of himself.

You keep saying that "with God, all things are possible" and then you contradict it because it doesn't fit your image of who you think God should be.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 



The mainstream Christian belief is that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine and fully human and the savior of humanity.


Ah the old fully God and fully man claim.
Where exactly did Jesus ever describe himself as fully divine?



You keep saying that "with God, all things are possible" and then you contradict it because it doesn't fit your image of who you think God should be.


"Nothing is impossible with God" does not necessarily mean God would end up doing something degrading.
Nowhere in the Bibles account of Jesus' birth is it stated that Mary would be giving birth to God.

edit on 8-3-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Guess what? You haven't proven anything different.

You don't want to believe what the prophets said that walked with Jesus, but you'll put all of your faith in a man who didn't listen to a word Jesus had to say about himself. Sad.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Scorpie


Christians want to have it both ways and claim Jesus was God... but refuse to acknowledge Mary as the mother of God.


As I mentioned, denying Mary the title Theotokos and its translations into other langauges is a minority view within Nicene Christianity. Obviously, if you feel that that's a contradiction, then you need to be discussing it with somebody who holds the combination of views which you're concerned about.


Its important to distinguish between the two and not establish a doctrine based on commentary.


So you say. Your opponents disagree. There's no logical difficulty with their disagreement, so once again, I can't help you if you have some objection to that.


The idea that "all things were made through Jesus" is an example of a commentary becoming a doctrine. How can I be so sure? Because Jesus said NOTHING about all things being made through him.


According to John Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would help people like Paul and John. If you're dissatisfied with the help the Holy Spirit provided them, then guess whom you must take that up with?


So the human Isa of the Koran is the same as the Jesus of the Bible.


No, John 1 is still in the Bible. If God did not create the world through Isa, then Isa is not the same as the Jesus of the Bible.


Or were you referring to something else that I said? Please clarify.


You yourself explained how you read the Bible differently than Christians do. What part of my statement saying that, then, do I need to clarify? You've agreed with me already.

Thank you for clarifying your other pair of sentences. However, my reaction is still that nobody disputes that you read the Bible contrary to the Christian reading. For you to say that "The Bible says..." missates the situation. The fact is merely that you interpret the Bible in a certain way. The people whose Bible it is obviously interpret it differently than you do.

"Obviously," because that's what you're complaining about.


No it saps your credibility when you deny that both the Bible and the Koran describes Jesus as...


Why bother to make up lies about me? Nobody denies that according to the Bible, Jesus is Mary's firstborn, her son, that God chose her to ask to serve, and that she did what God asked of her. Why all this BS that I deny what nobody denies?

As to the rest, we've been over it. You cherrypick what suits you. Jesus, especially in John, explains eloquently what it is like to be both God and man, fully the one and fully the other. You pick out the man-related parts and pretend the God-related parts don't count, while accusing the Nicenes of neglecting the man-related parts. In fact, they teach that Jesus is fully a man based on those very passages you cite. The differences are that they keep the rest of the book, and they don't try to add the Koran to their scripture, as if the two were somehow consistent.


As for not having the same "Father", Islam believes God created Jesus.... pretty much the same how Christians view Jesus' origins.


I see you haven't read the Nicene Creed lately, nor did you pay attention to what I recently posted from Arius. For Orthodox Christians, Jesus doesn't have "origins," he has always been. Even for Arius, there would be no time at which Jesus didn't exist, no time when God would have created him, no time before which Jesus didn't exist, no time when Jesus wasn't, in Arius' phrase, "perfect God."



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Deetermined
 



I'm pretty sure you discard the teachings of Jesus (outside of the 10 commandments) every day.


I'm not perfect... never claimed to be.
Which is why we are pray for forgiveness everyday. Not just kick back and think, "Jesus died for my sins, so I'm ok".

My point was that Jesus said Satan would not do anything to divide his kingdom... so for colbe to say that Islam a religion that warns against Satan... is actually of Satan, goes against Jesus statement.


Ridiculous to argue, to make Christ less. Jesus said "I AM." Plain and clear, Our Lord is God, Second
person of the Blessed Trinity, always was, always will be.

I said Islam is from Satan, look at it's fruit.

This thread is a con, do not speak of Christ or His mother with any connection to Islam. Islam rejects
Christianity. The West especially liberal western media ignore what Islam really is, they write of tolerance and
ignore the evil of Islam. In Europe, there are laws to their regret now...do not speak ill of Islam,

The Kuron states subjugate all non-Muslims. And Muslims call it honor killing to murder anyone who converts to Christianity. Remember Rifqa Bary? Muslims need to hear, their God is a false god.

It will take God's divine Great Warning coming "soon." Free will, many Muslims and some prideful Christians will still say no when they are shown. Pray for conversions, the grace of God changes hearts.



No reply...hmmm.

Why do you profess Islam? Islam's history and our time, Muslims torture or kill anyone of their own who converts to Christianity. How evil, it should be enough to see Islam isn't of God.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


If you want Jesus' words, read John 14.

Just like Muhammad, you want to hold on to the words of Jesus that you choose to and discard the rest.

Until you address these verses, you have nothing to argue.





John 14
23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father
will love them, and we will come to
them and make our home with them.
24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words
you hear are not my own; they belong
to the Father who sent me.

do christians obey his teaching? If any teachings contradicts his teachings then whom will you obey? I see that Jesus' pbuh teachings are discarded to believe Paul who 'claims' to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Would you believe anyone who claims that? Why not add to the Bible each time anyone claims that he/she has the Holy Spirit speaking through them!
Bible is not the Gospel that Jesus pbuh preached, Bible contains the Gospel in parts and pieces.
If you assume the whole Bible as God's words then thats your 'faith.'
Bible was compiled by authorities who had their own selfish agendas and being honest and truthful wasn't a priority.
The idea was one Universal(Catholic) religion for ruling all subjects more easily and effectively.

You explain the inconsistencies in Bible by excuses like 'fully man, fully god' , Jesus pbuh being 1st creation/always existing etc.
Jesus pbuh says he is only a powerless man, others say he is god. You say he is both!!
You give others' words as much, even more importance than Jesus' pbuh words!
Muslims do the opposite and try to obey his teachings than banking upon a promise made by people (after Jesus pbuh had left) that the sins have been paid for!
It reeks of a plot to keep the subjects spiritually happy so that they pay taxes and remain docile like sheep.

Do you think that most of them hear or understand? They are only like the cattle; nay, even worse than the cattle. (Qur'an 25:44)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


Obviously, if you feel that that's a contradiction, then you need to be discussing it with somebody who holds the combination of views which you're concerned about.

I'm not doing a literary analysis here, rather I am going over Mary's firstborns status as "God" and the obvious implications for Mary, who would naturally become the mother of God. But of course, this is would not be an issue for an agnostic like yourself.


(on distinguishing between Jesus' words and commentary)

So you say. Your opponents disagree. There's no logical difficulty with their disagreement, so once again, I can't help you if you have some objection to that.

You being an agnostic are not an opponent at all. I'd like to hear from Christians that it doesn't matter whether its Jesus' or the author of the gospel speaking. If Christians stop short of distinguishing between Jesus' words and commentary.... and going by the "if its in the bible, its gotta be true" approach, then there isn't much I can do. I can always continue to make my case that Jesus was human and not God using Jesus' words directly.



No, John 1 is still in the Bible. If God did not create the world through Isa, then Isa is not the same as the Jesus of the Bible.

We could be having this argument in 500 AD, before any Koran... and I would still be asking you where exactly in the Bible Jesus said he God created the world through Jesus. You know very well that Jesus never said anything about God creating the world through him. So, invoking John 1 doesn't help your argument in any way.



You yourself explained how you read the Bible differently than Christians do. What part of my statement saying that, then, do I need to clarify? You've agreed with me already.

When I agree with you on something, I'll let you know.

You said something about how I "misstate" a situation when I say the Bible "says" something. I asked for an example.
I assumed you were talking about Luke 2:7 where it says Jesus was Mary's firstborn. A firstborn is a firstborn. The meaning of the word doesn't change. So how will my interpretation of someone giving birth to her firstborn differ from that of a Christian or an atheist or even somebody who has never heard of Jesus? It doesn't.



Why bother to make up lies about me? Nobody denies that according to the Bible, Jesus is Mary's firstborn, her son, that God chose her to ask to serve, and that she did what God asked of her. Why all this BS that I deny what nobody denies?

You, by your own words, deny the fact that both the Koran and the Bible describes Jesus as...
-the son of Mary, the woman who was favored by God.
-a man who was doing the will of God, not his own.
-a man who could performed miracles through Gods powers not his own.
-a man who was sent by God, not God himself.

...and still insist that that Isa is not the Biblical Jesus....because God, according to the unknown author of John, created the world through Jesus. I wouldn't have much of an argument here if Jesus in the Bible claimed that God made the world through him, would I?


edit on 8-3-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



You cherrypick what suits you. Jesus, especially in John, explains eloquently what it is like to be both God and man, fully the one and fully the other. You pick out the man-related parts and pretend the God-related parts don't count, while accusing the Nicenes of neglecting the man-related parts.

I'm not cherrypicking.
I'm looking at this from the perspective of the monotheistic Israelite religion that Jesus himself was born into. Christian ideas of "fully man / fully God" were completely alien to Jesus' Israelite religion. The Israelites were rather explicit about the line between man and God.Christianity is blurring that line between man and God. But the very premise that Jesus was the firstborn of a human woman outright eliminates any possibility of Jesus being God.

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. - Numbers 23:19

Jesus needs to be studied in context with the Israelite religious tradition. When you look at Jesus in isolation from his Israelite religious background, then even the strange theory that Jesus was actually a Buddhist monk also starts to sound valid.



In fact, they teach that Jesus is fully a man based on those very passages you cite. The differences are that they keep the rest of the book,

That is all there is to it. Jesus was fully man... chosen, approved and sent by God. Sure, he had a divine essence in him, but that does not mean he is God. Also Jesus never claimed to be "fully man / fully God", and so is perfectly in line with the Israelite religion he himself was part of.

edit on 8-3-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by eight bits
 



....what it is like to be both God and man, fully the one and fully the other. You pick out the man-related parts and pretend the God-related parts don't count, while accusing the Nicenes of neglecting the man-related parts.

I'm not cherrypicking.
I'm looking at this from the perspective of the monotheistic Israelite religion that Jesus himself was born into. Christian ideas of "fully man / fully God" were completely alien to Jesus' Israelite religion. The Israelites were rather explicit about the line between man and God.Christianity is blurring that line between man and God. But the very premise that Jesus was the firstborn of a human woman outright eliminates any possibility of Jesus being God.

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. - Numbers 23:19

Jesus needs to be studied in context with the Israelite religious tradition. When you look at Jesus in isolation from his Israelite religious background, then even the strange theory that Jesus was actually a Buddhist monk also starts to sound valid.



In fact, they teach that Jesus is fully a man based on those very passages you cite. The differences are that they keep the rest of the book,

That is all there is to it. Jesus was fully man... chosen, approved and sent by God. Sure, he had a divine essence in him, but that does not mean he is God. Also Jesus never claimed to be "fully man / fully God", and so is perfectly in line with the Israelite religion he himself was part of.

edit on 8-3-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)


Your opinion, it is wrong, sorry. God has revealed who He is skorpion. Only God says I AM. Jesus is fully
God and fully man. Only God can come back from the dead, everyone else who has returned was raised by God. The Church by her God given authority preserved His words and she helps us understand as best we can the mystery of the Incarnation.


DIRECT STATEMENTS OF JESUS' EQUALITY WITH GOD THE FATHER


1) MATTHEW 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. {the devil was tempting Jesus Himself}

2) MATTHEW 10:40 . . . he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

3) MATTHEW 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and {he} to whomsoever the Son will reveal {him}.

4) MATTHEW 13:13-15 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. (14) And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: (15) For this people's heart is waxed gross, and {their} ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with {their} eyes, and hear with {their} ears, and should understand with {their} heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

>>>ISAIAH 6:9-10 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. (10) Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 04:01 AM
link   
logical7


do christians obey his teaching?


How does this help your case? Jesus is saying his words aren't only those of one man, himself, but of the entire Godhead as well. The Christian God speaks with one voice, Jesus' here.

This is an illustration that "the Bible says..." is easily misapplied. You don't know what a speech means if you don't know who is speaking. If Monogenes Theos is speaking, then the speech depicts the unity of the Trinity of which he is a part, and obviously so.


Would you believe anyone who claims that?


What's your argument? You believe Mohammed when he said it, even as you disbelieve other teachers who said the same thing of their authority. You aren't in a position to criticize somebody else for doing what you do.

Similarly, Islam was as much the state religion of a bloodthirsty and blooddrunken empire as Christianity was. If there's something wrong with that, then you ought to be advocating some third religion instead of either of the two which share the same abuses in their pasts.


You give others' words as much, even more importance than Jesus' pbuh words!


Actually, Jesus told the people whose words are given all that weight that those people would do even greater things than he did, and that the Holy Spirit would give them understanding. It seems, then, that a Christian would be expected to attend to all the teachers sent to them in that generation and chosen by Jesus to be teachers, or else Christians would need to cherrypick Jesus the way some non-Christians do.

Anyway, logic doesn't decide the issue. Your religion, just as much your opponents' religion, teaches that God can designate men to speak authoritatively on God's behalf. If Jesus is only a designee, then he cannot appoint authoritative teachers. That's your position and it is consistent. On the other hand, if Jesus is God, then by the same principle, he can appoint authoritative teachers. That, too, is a consistent position and it's what your opponents profess.


Scorpie


How can being born between the legs of a woman be "fitting" for God?


I don't follow. Does Islam teaches that a woman, or some part of her body, is unfit for God to be present there? Who created these places which are unfit for God's presence?


You being an agnostic are not an opponent at all.


Quite so. Your "opponents" in this thread are principally those you are saying are mistaken, that is, Nicene Christians. However, I am a cultural Chrisitan, and you do sometimes treat me as an opponent. I can live with that. Meanwhile, I have some familiarity with the issues you raise, and so can identify points of agreement and disagreement between you and your actual opponents.


So, invoking John 1 doesn't help your argument in any way.


"My argument" doesn't need any help. John is in the Bible, there's no doubt about that. Your opponents' position is that what's in the Bible is the basis of their religion, just as a Muslim would say that what's in the Koran is the basis of her religion.

I appreciate that you'd like some license for your cherrypicking, but there is no such thing. "Oh, that's not in quotation marks, so I can edit it out." If you want to do that for your own faith, then that's fine, but it simply isn't your opponents' position.

As to other matters already addressed: Nobody disputes that Jesus is Mary's firstborn, or that being Jesus' mother might reasonably be described as being favored by God. The dividing issue is chiefly whether the basis of the Christian religion is the Bible, or just the portions of the Bible you agree with, with your interpretations substituted for what the actual authors wrote.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Christian ideas of "fully man / fully God" were completely alien to Jesus' Israelite .... Jesus needs to be studied in context with the Israelite religious tradition.


So what if it was alien to the Jews?? Just because the Jews were doing things a certain way didn't mean they got it right. For example .. the Jews were all upset that Jesus performed a miracle on the Sabbath. They said He was breaking the laws of God. Jesus, being God incarnate, straightened them out and told them that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath.

The Jews had envisioned a political messiah who would rescue them from Roman rule. Instead, the messiah was a spiritual one. Basically .. the Jews got it wrong. Jesus corrected them. And Jesus has no need to follow any man made rules or ideas. Israeli religious tradition doesn't hold Jesus bound.






top topics



 
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join