The believers in the Koran just believe Jesus was a prophet. Belief is not fact. The Bible was written by humans for humans, and Jesus called Scripture"Your Word, no mention of God giving it or inspiring it.
Yes, believers in the Koran accept Jesus only as a prophet, which incidentally is blasphemy from a Christian perspective, since Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God. As for belief, you are right again, and we are all in the same boat, as everyone believes something; whether it is fact or not is a different matter. However, regarding the Bible, Jesus does refer to its being inspired by God.
While Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of God, the fulfillment of Scripture, etc., he also employed a lot of teasers to get people to think. In Mark12:35-37, Jesus quotes King David from Psalm 110:1.
35While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? 36David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
“ ‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.” ’
37David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”
The large crowd listened to him with delight. (NIV)
According to the scripture Jesus called himself the son of God for the same reason the Psalmist called his listeners; “God and the sons of God” and Jesus called scriptures as Your Law".
Not quite. That is a misinterpretation of an isolated passage of scripture. It is not something Christians have somehow missed through the ages. Context means a lot in any situation, including ones where Jesus cited scripture in an exchange with the religious leaders of that time. Don’t forget that scripture clearly indicates plenty of those religious leaders were looking for a way to discredit him and do away with him. They were constantly trying to trip him up, show him up, etc. In every case, Jesus turned the tables on them. (No pun intended initially, but I like it, so I’ll leave it.) This case was no exception. This passage does not diminish his overall claim to be the Messiah, I Am, the Son of God, God. Those religious leaders did not have him crucified simply because he contradicted them, but because of his all too obvious claims. The question is not whether Jesus claimed to be God. That was quite clear. The question is whether Jesus is God, or was only a man. Christians point to Jesus’ resurrection as the ultimate fulfillment of scripture and the vindication of his claims, not to mention the personal hope of resurrection and eternal life with God.
Indeed this is the Christian belief not necessarily a fact, they is much contradiction in the Bible and it is a matter of what wants to believe. What Jesus is quoted as saying has also contradictions, one can translate that any way they desire. God could very well inspired Mohammed to write a book and send an angel to dictate it, that is also a belief not a fact!
Those who write history win every argument, you know. Plus there is no Biblical justification for associating the Messiah with the foolish notion of a son of God. And I’m aware of the misinterpretations the Christians used to get Jesus up to the level of the divine Roman emperor.
While those statements do not constitute well-known facts, they are not uncommonly held beliefs. But beliefs are not facts. My observation is that there are plenty of arguments wherein those who rewrite/invent/deny historical evidence manage to pull off a coup. Accusations go back and forth about just who is doing that.
Though I think it far from a foolish notion, I would not argue obviousness for the Messiah being the Son of God, as that was a sticking point for the religious leaders of the day. I will say that Jesus frequently confronted their misunderstandings of the Scriptures and challenged them to think again. It is hard to change an ingrained belief, regardless of how otherwise unfounded it may be. Culture and tradition are powerful foundations for belief. I have had to change many of my beliefs over the years. I believe any honest thinking person will have to do the same (and I doubt that belief will change). No one starts out with a perfect understanding of everything. No one even dies with a perfect understanding of everything.
Some may try to pull Jesus down to divine Roman emperor status, but Christians do not. Divine emperor status pales in comparison to the extraordinary claims of Jesus.
Yes, I was stating the Christian view. But claiming contradiction does not mean the contradiction exists. It is an interpretation, an opinion, a belief, maybe, but not a fact. In an important situation, I doubt you would want someone to interpret you any way they desire. I know I would not. If I say something that does not sound consistent to someone else, I would like the opportunity to explain, rather than have someone just interpret me any way they desire. So, no, I do not agree that you can simply interpret it anyway you want. That’s dangerous when trying to determine the truth, and infuriating when someone is doing it to your own words.
Actually, if God exists, I would then consider it a fact that he could inspire anyone he chooses to write whatever he wants them to write. But I wholeheartedly agree that someone claiming to be inspired by God does not constitute a fact (that God did indeed inspire them). That claim must be backed up with evidence. And further to your point, my assessment of the evidence would be my belief, not a fact. And I would say the same about anyone else’s assessment. It would also be their belief, not a fact. I think we are in agreement here. But maybe there is some confusion still. The writing itself is a fact; it is evidence. But the content, who wrote it, when it was written, etc., are things to investigate. My own studied conclusions regarding the OT & NT writings are at odds with yours. We have differing beliefs regarding them. That is probably because we accept different additional assessments of related facts. What neither of us wants to do is simply accept someone else’s opinion of those and call it a fact.
Regarding what one wants to believe, I would hope that what we want to believe is the truth. In fact, I would consider that a first step. If I don’t want to believe the truth, whatever it turns out to be, then it seems to me there is really no point to the investigation, as I would then be lying to myself from the start. Saying this recalls a famous passage by CS Lewis from Surprised by Joy
It’s funny to see many lines written by many people on this subject.
Anyone who takes a second of thought on religions will notice how fake they are.
3 religions 1 God.
At least 2 has to be wrong if God and his/her religion is authentic.
Jihadis should hope it’s Islam since they do believe in it, very much.
Christians should hope it’s Christianity since they are sincere believers.
Jews should believe --after the Holocaust-- they still believe. (Although if the Holocaust never happened modern State of Israel wouldn’t have been established but whatever!)
This God should be more active since he used to talk people 5000 years - 2000 years ago! and even leaving someone pregnant!
At least tell us more.
This was funny.
I’m not talking culture and tradition, I’m talking Bible here. Messianic Judaism today (real Messianic Judaism, not Christianity in disguise) does not claim that the Messiah will be the son of god. God had sons in pre-Flood Genesis, but they were hardly objects of virtue.
Today god having children (except for Jesus) is an outlandish concept, but back then it was a standard belief. Alexander the Great traced his ancestry back to the gods.
As a Messiah Jesus was quite a flop. And just a guy who didn’t live up to the prophecy by become king was not going to impress the heathen who were used to divine emperors. Remember, Christianity did not gain much traction among Jews who knew the story. But pagans did not hear the law every week, and didn’t exactly have a Bible handy, and were so good candidates to be fed a story. All you have to do is twist Jesus saying God my father from the figurative - which anyone can say - to the literal.
If one reads the Bible and pays attention it brings up many questions, as an example, According to the NT Jesus told his close friends relatives and listeners That he would die and resurrect on the third day, They apparently didn’t believe Him or they would not have gone to anoint a dead body, nor would his apostles be surprised that he had resurrected. Mary M. didn’t recognize him and she had seen him about 36 hours before and took him for the gardener. Why didn’t they believe what he said he would do?
I understand that we are talking about the Bible, but none of us can escape the context of culture and tradition. In fact, you cite it repeatedly in your comments. One person is more familiar with this, another with that, etc. You must interpret the Bible to come up with a definition of Messiah before you can evaluate someone’s claims about the Messiah. Since you sound familiar with Messianic Judaism, meaning that the Messiah has yet to appear (if I understood you correctly), then that context of interpretation controls whatever else you believe. However, it is not the Bible itself, but rather an interpretation of the Bible that leads to this sort of conclusion. Whether interpretations and conclusions are correct is another matter. The point is that they happen within a context of culture and tradition. This is true of everyone. Someone may tout one culture or tradition over another, but again, that is subject to evaluation as well. Jesus challenged the interpretations of the day. I can well understand why such interpretations were popular, but if they are wrong, it may not be so easy for the ones holding on to them to adjust to the truth.
As for God having children in a literal human sense, Christians do not claim that; that is more of a pagan concept, which may be why so many stumble over that. They may be trying to apply a human understanding much like those in the Greek and Roman tradition. So, Christians agree that is quite outlandish. The Incarnation is not even close to that sort of thing, nor was the creation of Adam for that matter. So, no, God did not have sons in a literal human sense in Genesis. Are you suggesting that Messianic Judaism claims he did? If so, that is not something I was aware of. But I’m thinking your sentences were not meant to be read with that close a connection here.
I do agree that Christianity did not really begin to sweep the Roman world until the now famous Jew, Saul of Tarsus (the apostle Paul) began his preaching ministry. So, I agree that for many years it was mainly a Jewish movement. But the movement included many intelligent people. Again, the accusation of twisting is an interpretation, one that to me has no foundation. Jesus was turned over for crucifixion because of his extraordinary claims, including being the Son of God, though I agree that one may not have been sure whether he was always being literal. But, again, no one took it in a literal human sense. Jesus’ trial was along these lines. From Matthew 26:
I quite agree that reading raises many questions, and it would be wrong to try to suppress them. I also agree that this might seem strange, if they understood everything Jesus said correctly. I believe they did not always understand Jesus correctly, and that this is quite evident from a reading of the Gospels. Also, as I mentioned in my latest response to Voyager, Jesus did not always speak in literal terms, or at least not in terms that were unambiguous. The Matthew 26 passage below, where it mentions tearing down and rebuilding the temple, is a case in point. John 2 presents it this way (NIV):
Given that this is one of his more extraordinary claims, it would seem easier to believe that he was speaking figuratively. Given the brutality of flogging and crucifixion, it would be much easier to believe another way more appropriate to assume his throne. But then, it would depend on what the goal is, what the throne is, what the kingdom is, etc. Given the veil of tears of a bereaved woman, immediate recognition might not be expected. She seems to have recognized him immediately when called by name. However, there were more sober instances where Jesus was not immediately recognized. One might also attribute that to after effects of the aforementioned brutality, or to the resurrection body having features that render it less recognizable. It might be hard to picture what someone will look like from babyhood to childhood to adulthood, though evidently there is software to predict it. But one could just as easily surmise that, after the resurrection Jesus was able to cloak himself sufficiently for the purpose, as well as move through space-time in ways we are not. Of course, if he is God the Son, that should not be any surprise. In any case, I do not find this a stumbling block, if Jesus really is who he claimed to be. I would add, though, that just because someone is a follower of Jesus, this does not mean they automatically believe everything he says to the point of putting it into action. That tends to be a much longer process. In fact, Paul and a few others wrote a lot of letters to Christians encouraging them to put it into action.
It’s a collection of myths and legends much akin to Greek and Roman mythology, and should have no more impact on our daily lives than that.
Everything is an interpretation, but some are more far-fetched than others. The Messianic prophecies are quite clear. Christians twist them to make them fit Jesus, and invent stuff about Jesus (such as the birth in Bethlehem) to match clear ones. But then we run into real problems like the requirement he be descended paternally from David, which you can’t have if God is his father.
If one likes logical consistency in a story, like I do, the Bible is sorely lacking.
Take a look at Genesis 6.
Your Biblical knowledge is wanting. There are ways of explaining this away, but when viewing the Bible as an evolving myth this is clearly left over from earlier versions of the myth. I’m not claiming that this has anything to do with the Jesus story. I included it for rear that nitpickers would mention it, and since I assumed you would know of it.
The Romans would hardly care if Jesus claimed to be the son of a god they didn’t particularly believe in. If Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews - which is in line with the Messianic prophecies - then they would care, and that would be enough to have him executed. And they wouldn’t need Jews to turn him in. That whole thing might not be historical but could be the result of Jews in the area being very unimpressed by this so-called Messiah. The Messianic prophecies say that the Messiah will lead Israel to victory and independence. The Messiah was expected to last more than a week in the big city. A classic case of “whoops. Well, he meant to do that!”
In John 10 he explains why he calls God his father, using the words of the Psalmist. " I said you are gods and sons of god , So why do you say I blaspheme because I call God my father when your fathers did?"
Voyager, I have to admit that you did manage to get a chuckle out of me with the “whoops. Well, he meant to do that!”
We agree that some interpretations are more far-fetched than others; we just disagree on which are the more far-fetched. For example, those are unfounded, far-fetched accusations regarding the NT twisting or inventing stuff about Jesus. In addition, Paul was a Jew through and through, yet he saw no problem with the paradox of the Messiah being a son of David and the Son of God. It is quite consistent and logical. From his greeting in Romans 1 (NIV):
The story is logical, consistent and profound. One of the more profound prophecies to me is that of Abraham being told by God to offer his miracle son Isaac as a sacrifice (see Gen 22 passage below). Christians see this as a now clear foreshadowing of God offering his own son as a sacrifice for the sin of mankind. The story even introduces the saying, “On the mountain of the LORD, it will be provided.” And it repeats God’s promise, “Through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed.” The parallels with the crucifixion of Jesus are striking: the father acts willingly; the true son is to be the sacrifice; the son carries the wood; the son goes willingly; the actual offering is to be done by the father. In both cases, God provides the sacrifice and all nations on earth are to be blessed. There is no ‘whoops’ about it. Christians did not invent it; it was already foretold in Scripture. God really did mean to do that; Jesus really did mean to do that. And to me it is very consistently done indeed; in fact, profoundly so. Also, it is not the sort of thing I would expect from a human standpoint. It is certainly not the sort of thing that appeals to human pride. For example, Islam accepts the virgin birth, and even the crucifixion, but stops short of the victim being a prophet of God. The interpretation I’ve heard from Muslims is that it was actually Judas who ended up on the cross, hoist on his own petard, as it were. The humiliation of a prophet of God just goes counter to their thinking. I think the feeling easy to identify with.
Genesis 22:1-18 (NIV):
[/COLOR]
I’ve never known of anyone whose Biblical knowledge wasn’t lacking to some degree. However, your initial assumption of mine in this case was correct. I am well aware of the Genesis 6 passage, but I feel no more compulsion to view its “sons of God” in a literal human sense than I do God referring to a group as “My people”. Nor do I see any need to view the Bible as an evolving myth; rather I view it as it presents itself, that is, as a gradual revelation of God and his purposes for mankind. I agree that the passage can be explained, though I see it as such an obscure reference that it is unnecessary, except to demonstrate that consistency can be maintained. There are certainly many such possible views, thus Christians should feel no need to divide over it. As I have mentioned, context is very important. It makes far more sense to take the clearer passages as the foundation and allow the less clear to settle in around them. When that is done, consistency in the story is quite sufficiently maintained.
Jesus was not the only one to claim to be the Messiah during that time. But historically Jesus was not a big concern to the Romans; it was the Jewish leaders that were so bothered. They were able to drag the Romans in, namely Pilate, forcing their hand with the King of the Jews claim. True these Jews were worried that it would not be just Jesus, but perhaps the entire nation that would suffer if they continued to let it go on. However, it was not Jesus’ concept of Messiah that was feeding all of the tension and fear, but rather the concept of Jews around him. Fast forward another forty years and we see the terrible fate of Jews that held on to the worldly Messianic hopes. The Christian Jews were not a part of that.
Jesus was in the big city more than a week more than once, though it did tend to be a bit dangerous for him there, and not only there. His final Passover week neatly follows the plan that fits the above prophecy. It is easy to see that people being dominated by invaders for centuries would be looking for a military leader. But the picture given in the Bible from the beginning is one of mankind becoming separated from God due to sin. And note that Christians did not invent that either. The continuation of the story as presented in the NT is perfectly consistent with the need to finally resolve that issue. That God would have to solve the problem himself would seem obvious to anyone who has ever tried to live a sinless life, though some might try to pretend there is no such thing as sin, or try to deny their own sins. Again, it is a profoundly consistent story.
No, the Bethlehem story is the far-fetched one and unfounded.
A census that requires people to go back to their place of birth? Really?
The story does become logical when you want to attribute to someone from Nazareth, that, actually, he really was from Bethlehem…
Only if you make the mother to be from the house of David.
What you call “profound” is what we call far-fetched.
The definition of the Messiah was quite clear.
Jesus is inconstent with the requirements.
Only by twisting and making up stuff (sorry, by profound insght) can Jesus as the Messiah be made to seem credible.
Where does the bible present itself as such?
To me it just seems like a collection of local writings accumulating from 600 B.C ,
with an addendum from a new splitter movement.
I remember doing an Open University Arts Foundation Course called something like “What is a Gospel?” It’s main argument was that there are many types of literature- Factual Accounts to Fantasy. To read a Gospel correctly it was necessary to assign it a status that was neither Fact nor Fantasy, but as a special type of literature in the same way that Thomas Paynes Essays, (or anyone else’s political programs from Maltus to Marx and onwards to the present day.
The argument was that if you treated it as fiction then you missed the first person reaction to it when received as part of religious education/indoctrination; if you treated it as fact, this made the ‘truths’ so contained to be strange otherwise unsupported truths and often at odds with other religious and non-religious truths. The answer for both Gospels and Essays was that they were in a special category of admonitions, propaganda, attempts to create belief, and so were neither fact nor fantasy.