An interesting Islamic interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion.

page: 10
3
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 

I'm not just talking about something as simple as different people talking on the same subject. It is generally accepted in modern Bible scholarship that Mark was written first, and the other two gospels copied from it. Even the traditional view shows that Luke (who wasn't an eye-witness) wrote it after some sort of community meeting of accumulating the information (i.e. he may not have collected it himself at all):

Luke 1
Seeing that many did take in hand to set in order a narration of the matters that have been fully assured among us, as they did deliver to us, who from the beginning became eye-witnesses, and officers of the Word...




posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 



I found this handy infographic on wikipedia. It shows how 35% of Luke is unique to Luke, 20% of Matthew is unique to Matthew, and only 3% of Mark is unique to Mark. I'd say that makes the claim "the majority of the text is copied" not incorrect.
Relationship between Synoptic Gospels



That is the idea of the synoptic gospels.... that being three different accounts of the same events written some years apart

Which brings up the idea of the Q source which is nothing more then speculation... though very possible... nothing provable


I'm not sure where you heard otherwise. The book was built up in 3 phases, probably by many different authors who were probably part of an early Johannine community.


Perhaps...

the point is the original surviving texts was copied from 1st century texts, sometime in the early 2nd century...


PS: (and sorry now for what is such a huge post), but I'm curious as to what you mean by morality stuff in the NT that wasn't there before. Because, at least according to Christian tradition


Well the OT says "do what I say, not what I do"... where as the NT says "Do what I say, I'll show you how, use my son as an example"


whether you were good or bad is irrelevant, you're damned in the afterlife if you didn't believe that Jesus Christ came as God incarnate to sacrifice himself for your sins.


Christian dogma...


Christianity has some interesting ideas, e.g. turn the other cheek to violence and let him without sin cast the first stone, but it is interesting how for example, the first has never been used properly in history (and now people say it is some sort of metaphorical thing or some other excuse), and the second is supposedly an addition to the main text.


would you not say that forgiveness is supposed to be one of the main tenants of the "Christian" faith?

Forgive and you will be forgiven, show mercy and you will be shown mercy, yet if you do not show said attributes you will be shown none?




posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Akragon
That is the idea of the synoptic gospels.... that being three different accounts of the same events written some years apart

Which brings up the idea of the Q source which is nothing more then speculation... though very possible... nothing provable

But that's the entire point. They aren't really separate accounts, the majority of the text is copied from the other. Q is indeed speculation, because, as you say, we have no such documents available to us. But they're speculation in the same way that an anthropologist might see the bones of a male and female together with traces of a fire nearby and assume they were together- educated hypotheses built off the information at hand.



Akragon
Forgive and you will be forgiven, show mercy and you will be shown mercy, yet if you do not show said attributes you will be shown none?

But is the "Golden Rule" all that unique to Christianity? I'd say it certainly wasn't something morally new that Christianity introduced, in fact, people say it is there in some form or another in almost every religion.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 




But is the "Golden Rule" all that unique to Christianity? I'd say it certainly wasn't something morally new that Christianity introduced, in fact, people say it is there in some form or another in almost every religion.


I don't speak for Christianity... I only know what it should be...

do onto others as you want done onto you... how does that apply when one takes upon himself what he doesn't want done to him or others... and still does not retaliate?




posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

babloyi
Q is indeed speculation,

You aren't talking about the Qu'ran but to keep with the subject of this thread and the difference in the crucifixion story ..... The Qu'ran isn't inspired ... but is 'speculation' to fulfill an agenda. The 'speculation' was bits and pieces of the Gnostics, Jews, Zoroastrians, and pagans ... all mixed together and then added to. It's not of God. It's of Muhammads own invention.

The Gospels are of that time. They are eyewitness accounts written down.
Luke wasn't there, but Mary was. And that's where he got the information from.
Mark wasnt' there, but Peter was. And that's where he got the information from.

Gospel and Qu'ran. Big difference in source materials.
edit on 9/15/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Akragon
I don't speak for Christianity... I only know what it should be...

do onto others as you want done onto you... how does that apply when one takes upon himself what he doesn't want done to him or others... and still does not retaliate?

My apologies. Perhaps I should've used the word "Christian Bible" in there instead of "Christianity". My point being, the Golden Rule wasn't something new that Christianity invented. And it fits perfectly in your scenario: "Do unto others, as you would have them do to you", not "Do unto others what they are doing to you".

reply to post by FlyersFan
 

Errr...FlyersFan, I'm not sure you understand what me and Akragon are talking about, but by "Q Documents", I'm not talking about the Quran.
This link might be helpful to you: Q Source
edit on 15-9-2013 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

babloyi
I'm not talking about the Quran.

Okay .... thought you were talking about the Qu'ran.
No wonder I thought you weren't making sense.
I'll check that. Thanks for the link.
ETA .. know what .. I think your term 'speculation' kinda fits the Quran anyways.
Speculation with an agenda .... it fits.


edit on 9/15/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 



My apologies. Perhaps I should've used the word "Christian Bible" in there instead of "Christianity". My point being, the Golden Rule wasn't something new that Christianity invented. And it fits perfectly in your scenario: "Do unto others, as you would have them do to you", not "Do unto others what they are doing to you".



So again, where exactly does "turn the other cheek" fit into the golden rule?

Another thing about the Q source... have you considered the possibility that this non-existent document could have actually been a person?

Perhaps Jesus?

edit on 15-9-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 

It doesn't. But from the phrasing of your previous statement, I thought you were talking about "Do unto others as you would have them do to you".
"Turn the other cheek"- as in non-resistance to the point of facilitating violence or oppression (someone strikes you, give them the other cheek to strike, someone takes your coat, give them your coat as well, etc.), is a somewhat disturbing philosophy even in theory if you ask me, but I've never seen or heard or read of it used successfully or otherwise in any situation ever, so much so that Christians have come up with alternate theories about what it means. One I've read attaches some sort of cultural meaning to being smacked in the face, the response of offering the other cheek is then some sort of insulting rebuttal or something.

And yeah, Q could've been Jesus. Pity we can't see don't have the original recorded. Would probably be a lot more meaningful.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 



"Turn the other cheek"- as in non-resistance to the point of facilitating violence or oppression (someone strikes you, give them the other cheek to strike, someone takes your coat, give them your coat as well, etc.), is a somewhat disturbing philosophy even in theory if you ask me,


Its hardly disturbing... in fact it is the epitome of mercy...

Though I admit I do agree with you to an extent on your other point... I try my best to live up to the teachings of Jesus... I live my life by them... Yet... IF someone "strikes" me, they best be a better fighter then me as well...

Unless of course it is a female... In that case I have personally "turned the other cheek" many times in my life...






new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join