I have recognized that the general knowledge of from where Christians have built their image of Jesus is remarkably low. What I'm going to, insha'Allaah, compile in this post is a terrible blow to the traditional history of early Christianity and Jesus as generally told by Christians. In other words, the "official" history of Christianity as told by Christians is very uncertain.
Just who is the Christian Jesus like?
In short, the official Christian story of Jesus is that he was born of a virgin on December 24/December 25/January 06 (varies among different churches and traditions) of Mary, the virgin, and that he was concieved by the Holy Spirit. According to almost all Christian denominations, Jesus was completly God and completly man. Not 50% of each but 100% of each! Though it is worth noting that the doctrine of the exact nature of Jesus was decided late at a council, and that some churches who disagreed with his view (for example the Armenian Apostolic Church) were excommunicated.
Jesus had to flee to Egypt as a child (his mother and foster-father fled with him) because Herod massacred a lot of infants. Later his family returned home. Jesus started his ministry when he was about 30-35 years old. He got twelve disciples and preformed various miracles during his ministry, as well as casting out demons. His teachings worried the Jewish clerics in the city, who were able to get him judged and crucified, and later buried in a tomb. However he was resurrected on the third day.
This is nothing unique, but an old story, and the Christian portrayal of Jesus follows the hero pattern of an ideal savior. Common traits among saviors before Jesus were:
*Born of a divine father and a human mother.
*Stars appeared at theirt births.
*Cast out demons.
*Rode donkeys inte the city.
*Celebrated communal meal with their followers with bread and wine representing the savior's flesh and blood.
*Betrayed for 30 pieces of silver.
*Died on a cross or a tree.
*Resurrected on the third day.
So on the most important things of Jesus' life according to Christian theology, (sonship, crucifixion, resurrection, betrayal) it is clear that those who manipulated Christianity stole from Pagan savior cults. All of the Gospels were compiled quite late (Mark about year 70 the earliest) and the latest (John) is actually the one containing most Christian theology.
And when it comes to the historical Jesus, it gets worse. There were Jews and Jewish Christians who believed that Jesus had been killed a century before. And in the (Apocryphic) Gospel of Peter it is said that Herod had Jesus killed. Clearly, we can't be certain about how the historical Jesus was. It is also worth noting that the worshippers of Mithra practiced baptism.
Previous saviors included (but not limited to):
Mithra, Osiris, Bakikkos (Bacchus), Krishna, Attis, Hercules and Dionysus.
How different is it then when it comes to Islam? There is no doubt about in which timeframe Muhammed lived, nor isn't his biography copied from biographies of mythical characters. And the picture of Jesus in Islam is that of a Prophet like the Prophets before instead of a savior like Mithra and Dionysus.
How different is it then when it comes to Islam? There is no doubt about in which timeframe Muhammed
Take 6 men.
These 6 men worked together for 3 years and knew each other well. 70 years afterwards have them write down their recollections of the events of those 3 years.
There will be discrepancies because people have different memories. If they wrote exactly the same thing that would be highly suspicious.
And therefore the Gospbels are plausible.
Whereas Muhammad (PBUH) talked to God. God recited verbally the Koran. Mohammed memorised the whole book and recited the book verbally to scribes who wrote it down.
And there was not one mistake! This is not plausible!
These 6 men worked together for 3 years and knew each other well. 70 years afterwards have them write down their recollections of the events of those 3 years.
There will be discrepancies because people have different memories. If they wrote exactly the same thing that would be highly suspicious.
And therefore the Gospbels are plausible.
Sure its possible, but its the word of MAN . It's NOT THE WORD OF GOD.
Sure its possible, but its the word of MAN . It's NOT THE WORD OF GOD.
Is that too hard for you to understand?
It's the word of the accounts of Jesus' disciples (not simply men which you disrespectfully say) who were recording Jesus' message- which was from God.
It's the word of the accounts of Jesus' disciples (not simply men which you disrespectfully say) who were recording Jesus' message- which was from God.
Go read the Bible yourself and see the flaws. Its also dubious that it was promoted by an anti-chtist (paul). You need common sense and more energy to research.
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
Every book is the Bible is the word of men.
At least you acknowledge its not the word of God. Christians would disagree here.
Go read the Bible yourself and see the flaws. Its also dubious that it was promoted by an anti-chtist (paul). You need common sense and more energy to research.
At least you acknowledge its not the word of God. Christians would disagree here.
yeh if you took the time to actually look at my comments and beliefs on the modern day Bible than you would know i share the same views as you.
Are you telling me then that the Qur'an in Surah 2 paragraph 62 (i think) where it says Christians will be rewarded is an error in the Qur'an? Surely the Qur'an wouldnt acknowledge a religion brought by a flawed book promoted by the anti christ.
the point i am making is that the original Bible was correct, unless you can explain to me otherwise? I am not here to win an argument, i am here to learn so please teach me if i am wrong.
Christians will be rewarded is an error in the Qur'an? Surely the Qur'an wouldnt acknowledge a religion brought by a flawed book promoted by the anti christ.
format_quote Originally Posted by yasin
the point i am making is that the original Bible was correct, unless you can explain to me otherwise? I am not here to win an argument, i am here to learn so please teach me if i am wrong.
And how many Christians follow the original Bible?? Today's Christians even reject many parts of the Old Testament.
Christians will not be awarded if they compare a human to Allah, eat pork, and abondon the REAL word of Jesus.
i know but what you dont understand is that my initial comment that the Bible was not merely written by men as you suggested was a blatent reference to the original bible!
Cresent, in the Old Testament, it is Moses or Aaron that turns the walking staff into a snake. The pharaoh’s fellows do as well, but they don’t seem to manage to turn the snake back into a walking staff.
These 6 men worked together for 3 years and knew each other well. 70 years afterwards have them write down their recollections of the events of those 3 years.
There will be discrepancies because people have different memories. If they wrote exactly the same thing that would be highly suspicious.
And therefore the Gospbels are plausible.
Peace be upon yall jus wanted to comment on this so that I could understand your point clearer, please be patient with me.
What I wanna jus say first is that, ok if we take that example of the 6 men who worked and then after so long wrote what they remembered, jus a couple of points.
1. We all then would have to agree that this would have mistakes and inconsistenes and would not be G-ds word and if it clashes with anyone else's writing then we would not jus be able to take this on its face value.
2. If it was jus these men's writing then we could begin to appriciate that it could have truth inside it, but it is clear that the authors were not the disciples of Jesus, it is also clear that in some Gospels bits and bobs were added in at later dates and so on, so we cannot be fully sure as to who wrote it.
So what I was confused on was, if we take for the sake of arguement that, these men got together and wrote after 70 years. Yet there were other gospels of others saying different things such as Jesus not being Crucified, then we would have to reconsider our position.
But in reality, when one looks at the Gospels and their history, some theories of the Q source and theories of the Author of Matthew taking parts from the Author of Mark then we can kinda see the authors may not be those men, since noone of them signed their work, and also we can see that there has been some tampering with the Gospels thus are not very reliable.
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
Whereas Muhammad (PBUH) talked to God. God recited verbally the Koran. Mohammed memorised the whole book and recited the book verbally to scribes who wrote it down.
And there was not one mistake! This is not plausible!
We could go into this for a long time, now, the simple fact that even non-arabic speakers can memorise alot of the quran, shows that it can be easy if someone dedicates their life to it. My friends who have school and college and other wordly matters, who only spend a little of the day memorising have memories 15 and 20 parts out of the 30, and they are spending only a couple of hours a day, plus arabic is not their first language, there are also kids who memorise the whole thing, before puberty.
So imagine a person devoting most of the day, and they were arabic speakers then it would be easy for them to memorise it.
So it is not unlikely but rather likely, specially if thats all u do most of the day, personally the surahs I know have not been forgotten and I dont spend even half of the waking day reciting.
And the whole book didnt come at once, bit by bit.
Anyhow, peep this I think this is quran memorising competition thing, Peep
thank ya for ya patience.
peace
The path is long but I hope we meet,
After the grave and the Day, in paradise in bliss upon a reclined seat.
A traveler traveling - travelled from shirk to tawheed,
If I'm remembered for anything - let it be the Mercy I seek.
1. We all then would have to agree that this would have mistakes and inconsistenes and would not be G-ds word
- If by "word of God" you mean:"Hey you there - Mark. Take your pen and write down what I - God dictate you" then You are correct. But for us it is Gods word because it is by Him inspired.
format_quote Originally Posted by IsaAbdullah
2. If it was jus these men's writing then we could begin to appriciate that it could have truth inside it, but it is clear that the authors were not the disciples of Jesus, it is also clear that in some Gospels bits and bobs were added in at later dates and so on, so we cannot be fully sure as to who wrote it.
Does it make such a differnce whether those who wrote it were disciples of Jesus, or disiples of disciples? You think that disciples were trying to deceive people when they were preaching He died and resurrected? Why than they didn't reject this lie when they were prosecuted and sentenced to death? Die for lie - that's really a great deceit
format_quote Originally Posted by IsaAbdullah
So what I was confused on was, if we take for the sake of arguement that, these men got together and wrote after 70 years. Yet there were other gospels of others saying different things such as Jesus not being Crucified, then we would have to reconsider our position.
- That's about gnostic gospels? Firstly - they were written later. Secondly - Gnostics believed that Jesus was only God (not human). They couldn't accept idea that God could die.
format_quote Originally Posted by IsaAbdullah
But in reality, when one looks at the Gospels and their history, some theories of the Q source and theories of the Author of Matthew taking parts from the Author of Mark then we can kinda see the authors may not be those men, since noone of them signed their work, and also we can see that there has been some tampering with the Gospels thus are not very reliable.
- signing work is a custom from middle ages. Ancient didn't sign their work. You know the "Q theory" - impressive You know it's quite an old one? Today it has many modification, but it's still standing. Q theory basicly means that some gospels where written before others. That this "first gospel" (Mark?) was widespreaded and commonly accepted by churches and that those who wrote younger Gospel knew it.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks