Christianity in Five Minutes

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

What I was referring to tip-toe around was the claims of Jesus being at the same time God and the Son of God - which ALWAYS eventually comes up. If you have started a thread with questions about Islam, point me towards it. As long as you are not attacking my religion, but rather seeking to learn, then I will be glad to answer your questions.

Of course, I have done exactly that. And many have come to answer questions in very helpful ways. And some have come, disagreeing with their brother Muslim's comments to debate amongst themselves (I can understand that) or to tell people how to live (I can understand that in other contexts, but not as appropriate within that thread). And yet others have come not to answer questions but to proselytize without regard even to the questions asked. Indeed, I have had to be very careful with the type of questions I ask, for what I thought was the simplest of questions with which to begin the thread continues to illicit controversy and replies months later, often interrupting other things that I am trying to learn about and have people address.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Yes, were are at an impasse.

Mustafa, you and I have been at a theological impasse from the very beginning. I think we both recognize that. I hope you are not saying that we are at a relational impasse, because I don't feel that way at all.

Yes, others are quoted in the NT as referring to Jesus as the Son of God, but also as other than that.

And that is my point in reverse. You will find reference to many things that Jesus is. As you note he is a prophet, a servant of God, also a priest and King (from the Christian persepctive), but if we stop there, then we have missed the whole point of the gospel, for the gospel exist primarily to present Jesus to as Lord God and Savior.

We know from logic and the parable of the Prodigal Son that the servant is not equal to the Son.

I am sorry to say, but I think you are mis-applying that parable and that it does not refute the possibility of Jesus being both God's humble servant and submissive to the Father and at the same time God himself.

[COLOR=black]How can God (Jesus in the Wilderness) be tempted by Satan with the world and all it contains when it is already His?

To tempt: to entice to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain. Indeed Satan was offering enticements. Notice, they didn't work. But you are incorrect in saying that everything in the world is already God's. People are also in the world and God has given us free agency to make our own decision as to whether we will be his or not. Is not that the very reason that Islam teaches us to be submissive to God. As a human being, Jesus likewise had to choose to submit his will to that of the Father.

You may not appreciate the metaphor, but this is a continual dance choreographed by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be in mutual submission to one another. Should they cease to do it then the dance is ended. Hence the first descriptions of the nature of God by early Christians, before the invention of the word Trinity, (which by the way was meant to explain God's unitiy, not divide him into three parts) was perichoresis which carried the idea of "dancing around". The idea is that the whole of the one God can only be understood in the relationship or mutuality and to divorce any one person from the whole is only to speak of God's constituent parts and not really be speaking of God at all. But when we understand this act of perichoresis which is a mutual penetration of the Father in the Son who is in the Spirit as the Spirit is in the Son who is in the Father and the Son likewise being in the Father and the Spirit, then and only then are we actually speaking of the one God and not something less than his whole being.

This is why Muslims drive me crazy. You have this wonderful declaration of the importance of worshipping the one God, and yet (from my perspective) you fail to do so, by worshipping only one aspect of him and denying the rest of who he is. I'm not asking you to associate partners with Allah. I'm asking you to recognize that Allah is himself bigger than you understand him to be.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

Mustafa, you and I have been at a theological impasse from the very beginning. I think we both recognize that. I hope you are not saying that we are at a relational impasse, because I don't feel that way at all.

No, I was referring to the point that neither of us will budge on the central point about which we differ most. I accept you as an authority on Protestant Christianity and I respect that what you have to say are sincerely held beliefs.

And that is my point in reverse. You will find reference to many things that Jesus is. As you note he is a prophet, a servant of God, also a priest and King (from the Christian persepctive), but if we stop there, then we have missed the whole point of the gospel, for the gospel exist primarily to present Jesus to as Lord God and Savior.

Yes, by default as a Muslim I miss the point of the "gospel" of Jesus being Lord God and Saviour. I reject those portions of the NT that are in direct conflict with the Quran.

I am sorry to say, but I think you are mis-applying that parable and that it does not refute the possibility of Jesus being both God's humble servant and submissive to the Father and at the same time God himself.

The point that I was trying to make is that the prodigal son, upon realizing the terrible mistake that he had made, wanted to return home. He intended to tell his father that he was unworthy to be his son and wanted to return as a servant. This shows that a son has more rank than a servant.

But you are incorrect in saying that everything in the world is already God's. People are also in the world and God has given us free agency to make our own decision as to whether we will be his or not. Is not that the very reason that Islam teaches us to be submissive to God. As a human being, Jesus likewise had to choose to submit his will to that of the Father.

This is according to Christian theology. From my perspective, Allah created the universe and everything within it and that He is free to do with it as He pleases to do so. One can't be tempted with what one already has.

You may not appreciate the metaphor, but this is a continual dance choreographed by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be in mutual submission to one another. Should they cease to do it then the dance is ended. Hence the first descriptions of the nature of God by early Christians, before the invention of the word Trinity, (which by the way was meant to explain God's unitiy, not divide him into three parts) was perichoresis which carried the idea of "dancing around". The idea is that the whole of the one God can only be understood in the relationship or mutuality and to divorce any one person from the whole is only to speak of God's constituent parts and not really be speaking of God at all. But when we understand this act of perichoresis which is a mutual penetration of the Father in the Son who is in the Spirit as the Spirit is in the Son who is in the Father and the Son likewise being in the Father and the Spirit, then and only then are we actually speaking of the one God and not something less than his whole being.

You totally lost me on this one. I thought God was not the author of confusion.

This is why Muslims drive me crazy. You have this wonderful declaration of the importance of worshipping the one God, and yet (from my perspective) you fail to do so, by worshipping only one aspect of him and denying the rest of who he is. I'm not asking you to associate partners with Allah. I'm asking you to recognize that Allah is himself bigger than you understand him to be.

I have no understanding of Allah beyond what He has told me in the Quran. The complexity illustrated even by the 99 Names and Attributes of Allah are beyond my comprehension. The God that I worship is the same Who spoke to Adam in the Garden of Eden, told Noah to build the ark, told Abraham to sacrifice his only son, spoke to Moses through the burning bush and that Jesus prayed to in the Garden of Gethsemane.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

You totally lost me on this one. I thought God was not the author of confusion.

Sorry. No, God isn't the author of confusion, but I guess that sometimes I am. The point isn't really central to this thread, so I'll save it for another one. Surely someone will want to talk about the Trinity again. Anyone willing to take that bet?

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

Well, I'm going to show my ignorance here. There are many historians and other authors of that age that I only know my one name (or one name and a descripter) -- Philo, Pliny, Julius Caesar, Eusebius, Tacitus, Suetonius, Virgil, Ovid, Cicero to name a few, but that doesn't mean that they only had one name, only that I know them by that. On the other hand while most Romans had two names, Flavius Josephus is the only Jew from the era that I can think of that I know by two names (and he was known to hang out with Romans).

Ah, I think you misunderstood me. Whether or not they had a surname doesn't matter at all (the original poster was, as usual, full of nonsense). I was just pointing out a bigger problem with the gospel authors' names—that we don't even know what their names are, since they didn't bother to sign them.

You want my theory? To the first question I really have no idea. Maybe because they weren't producing letters, but providing general information. But, personally, yes, I'm a little surprised that we don't see such signatures.

Even for the standards of the time this is strange. Christians often like to portray the gospels as "historical texts," but this is eroneous for several reasons. First of all, real historical texts have signed names. Secondly, "historical texts" of the time are chock-full of hearsay and nonsensical myths. Josephus, one of the most respected historians of the time, actually reports that there was a floating army in the sky in his War of the Jews. So comparing the gospels to real contemporary histories is not really doing much for the gospels' credibility.

But most certainly, before the creation of any written document of any form, even a Q document (if such existed), there was at the very least a corpus of stories with regard to Jesus that had accumulated out of the preaching of the apostles. These would have been the common cloth of which Mark, Luke, and Matthew would have each produced their gospel accounts. But each writing in their own way, with their own audience in mind, and with different access to this source material would have produced a slightly different document.

But this relegates the gospel authors to editors and redactors living decades after the fact, not eyewitnesses. Of course, I think this is exactly the case, but again it doesn't do much for the gospels' credibilty.

Here is the thing, with regard to Mark and Luke, their documents were certainly early enough that the first generation of the church that would have personally known Jesus and been witness to these events was still alive to have repudiated them if they were presenting false testimony with regard to him.

This is a common argument, but it doesn't hold water when you look at some of the nonsense reported in histories of the time. How come nobody "repudiated" Josephus when he said there was a floating army in the clouds (this was reported much closer to when this event supposedly happened than the gospels)? Or how about Seuteonius' report that Emperor Vespasian magically healed a cripple and a blind person? History is full of unrepudiated miracle claims, especially in religious texts.

And besides—someone did repudiate them. Are you familiar with Tacitus' letter about the Christians? Modern Christians often cite this letter as "extra-Biblical proof" of the gospels' claims—but actually Tacitus refers to the resurrection as a "mischevious superstition"!

And if you suppose that these were all later, then you eliminate the book of Acts as having been an early document as well, for it had the same author as Luke.

But Luke is clearly late, as it's derived from Mark and earlier documents. So Acts must be late too.

And you eliminate the idea that Paul was a historical figure as well.

Wha? Of course he was a historical figure, we have his letters! Acts mythologizes him.

Why not just have all of the NT created after the church was already in existence and have someone name George, or perhaps George and his friends Harry and Bill be the authrors of everything. Of course, then you have to explain who it is that Harry, George and Bill came to be quoted by people in the early second century who knew them as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude. And you have to explain how some of the things that George and his friends wrote later were found in first century liturgies used by the church. And you have to explain where the church came from, if the ideas it was built on weren't themselves composed until a later time. And you have to explain how it is that forms of the church were spread not just through the Roman empire, but parts of the former Persian empire as well, and that they had these same stories.

I'm not sure what exactly there is to explain. The facts seem pretty self-explanatory:
• Jewish guy starts reform cult, gets crucified, cult fractures
• 10 or 20 years later, another Jewish guy deifies previous guy, absorbs elements of his now-fractured cult
• 20 years later, people from various factions start editing together legends about two Jewish guys.
• 30 years after that, faction leaders attribute legends pseudipgraphically to early famous Christians (happened all the time with Jewish writings)
• 220 years later, Roman emperor "converts" to one faction of this cult and outlaws all other factions, and spreads it across the world militarily.

We're left with scriptures from one faction of this cult, along with some scriptures and records from opposing factions (gnostics, docetics) ... it's all quite messy, most religions are, but you certainly don't need to appeal to any magical gods to explain how this happened.

No, that sort of theory, which is what I hear you basically proposing in saying "They are the invention of later church fathers.", seems even less credible than authorships you choose to reject.

I think you underestimate the prevalence of pseudepigraphs during the time period. They didn't have our conceptions of authorship or intellectual honesty. Many Jewish writings at the time were attributed to famous or legendary figures, even people like Adam. Some of Paul's letters are also clear pseudepigraphs.

Hey, when that's what we got, that's what we got. (Other than that paper I have in my desk drawer, that is.) The New Testament is still better documented and authenticated than the works of Homer, Sophocles, Plato, and Aristotle (btw, know any of their last names?) or even Julius Caesar. Yet no one doubts their existence or authorship. I think it is just because it is religion that people get so excited and antagonistic about it.

Well, plenty of people doubt Homer—for that matter, plenty of people doubt Shakespeare's authorship. Also, some people believe Socrates is the invention of Plato. I'm prepared to accept that for a lot of these famous ancient writings we'll never know for sure.

That said, whether or not a text is well-documented has little to do with its truth value. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is better documented than any of the works you mentioned but I wouldn't believe in Voldemort or magic, even if J.K. Rowling had wrote "these events are true and I am inspired from God" in the first page.

Which, accepting the account, as you do if you accept that he was really blinded by a talking light, was in fact Jesus talking to him.

Why on earth would anyone accept Paul's account? Do you believe every greedy televangelist who says he saw a light in his bedroom telling him to ask his parishioners for money for his BMW?

What? Now you are talking nonsense. Just exactly who/what was Paul persecuting if he wasn't persecuting the church before he became a Christian? What was it that the people who responded to Peter's preaching in Acts 2 joined?

Rival sects of Christians. Calling them a "church" is a stretch.....well, unless you're using the word as its original meaning of "assembly." So yeah, if that's what you meant, then okay, I'm wrong, you're right.

Of course. But for instance the Didache, which is a compilation of rules and rituals for use in worship in the church that is dated between 50-100 AD and by some to as early as 40 AD (that would be earlier than the earliers NT writing), it includes baptismal formularies that specifiically mention that those joining the church are to be baptized in the three-fold name of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". I don't think that you will find those words used by any religion other than Christianity. I use it to debunk the idea that Christianity and the worship of Jesus was "invented" by Paul, because these things are present before Paul's first letter, perhaps even before he began his missionary journeys.

Well, this is assuming it's as early as you claim. According to Wikipedia, most date it to early second century.

Well, theology is often about choosing the appropriate word, because, as you just testified to, it is semantics -- i.e. the study or science of meaning in language. I would call Jesus God incarnate. But God-man sounds like some sort of centaur-like beast or a Hercules-type myth, that is not what we mean to imply, so we stay away from any sort of language that might have those connotations to it.

Ha, gotcha. I can see how it might be interpreted as pejorative.

Depending on which defintion of demagogue you use:
1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times
I might agree with the use of the term demagogue. But I don't agree either that Paul was a charlatan or even that he appears as a charlatan. Paul certainly suffered enough that he no apparent gains from switching from a persecuter to a promoter of Christainity. If anything he lost the life he had before.

(I went with definition number 1)

I think it's relatively obvious he's a charlatan. He continually threatens his "flock" and promises them imaginary rewards for blindly following him. He opposes—almost violently—rival sects, sarcastically joking in Galatians that the pro-circumcision people should go all the way with their cutting and castrate themselves. He constantly invokes his authority from God, as if he's defensive about it.

Moving from a position of power as a Jewish enforcer (as he supposedly had) to a cult leader with almost unlimited authority over his flock was not necessarily a loss. If anything, I'd call it opportunism. I mean, which position would you rather have?

Sorry if it seems like I'm ranting about Paul, but he's really one of my least favorite historical figures. Right after all those Old Testament genocidal "heroes."

format_quote Originally Posted by Qingu

Sorry if it seems like I'm ranting about Paul, but he's really one of my least favorite historical figures. Right after all those Old Testament genocidal "heroes."

Well, at least you are polite and seem to know what you are talking about. It appears that one some things we have been open to learning from each other. On some things we already agreed. And on some things we are simply going to continue to disagree, maybe for a time, maybe forever. But I don't feel like I am discussing with either an attack dog or a rabid one, so it remains an enjoyable discussion, and sometimes even fruitful.

But this relegates the gospel authors to editors and redactors living decades after the fact, not eyewitnesses. Of course, I think this is exactly the case, but again it doesn't do much for the gospels' credibilty.

Why "but this relegates..."? I don't have a problem with the concept of Mark being a redactor or editor. He certainly wasn't present at the crucifixion or resurrection. Of course he is having to compile material from other sources. Even if he were to have personally interviewed Jesus between his resurrection and ascension, that would still make him a redactor of sorts. Tradition is that Mark was a disciple of Peter. If that is right, I think that still makes him a pretty credible source. Not as good as if Peter himself had written, but I'm going to guess that even the letters of Peter weren't penned by Peter, but just as many of Paul's were done were complete through the use of an amanuensis. Mark might have even been that person for Peter's letters, we'll never know. One of the things that I think is most interesting is that because the gospel of Mark is unsigned, you doubt its authorship. And because the letters of Peter are signed they are doubted by other scholars. What I think is going on is simply that people who wish to doubt are going to doubt either way. And of course, the other is also true, people who are predisposed to believe are going to believe either way. But if that is all there is, then facts appear not to matter, we begin with our apriori assumptions and we just stop there.

And besides—someone did repudiate them. Are you familiar with Tacitus' letter about the Christians? Modern Christians often cite this letter as "extra-Biblical proof" of the gospels' claims—but actually Tacitus refers to the resurrection as a "mischevious superstition"!

I'm not surprised by someone in Tacitus' position label something like the message of Jesus' resurrection as superstition. It means two things:
1) that he heard of the stories
2) that he did not believe them to be true himself

The point isn't that Tacitus proves that a resurrection took place. Indeed, he doesn't use the term "resurrection" at all. So, who knows exactly what he means by the "most mischevious superstition" which began in Judea and spread to Rome. Perhaps he refers to Christ's resurrection as a belief held by Christians that he considered to be mere supersition, perhaps he refers to the whole Christian religion as a superstition given the Christian belief in Jesus as the son of God and even God incarnate? He never actually explains himself further. So that question must be left unanswered.

But what Tacitus proves beyond the shadow of a doubt (unless you accept the Qur'an as the only source of evidence on Jesus' life that could be valid) is that "Christus, from whom the name [of the religion] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty," i.e. death at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Oh, but wait, since we have something extra-biblical that supports the biblical witness, then it too must have been tampered with. And sure enough, there are those who suggest that Tacitus is forged. The list never ends. It appears that there was more conspiracy behind the creation of the New Testament than in the Kennedy assignation and the 9/11 bombings combined.

But Luke is clearly late, as it's derived from Mark and earlier documents. So Acts must be late too.

Beginning with chapter 11, Acts is basically a narrative of Paul's missionary travels. But it ends with Paul in jail in Rome. It doesn't tell of the author taking leave of Paul. It doesn't tell of Paul's execution, suspected by many as about 64 AD. And it doesn't tell of Paul's release or hoped for trip to Spain. All worthy of being included in the book if they had taken place before it was written. So, it must have been written while Paul was still alive and in prison in Rome. Even if he was kept in prison past 64 AD, the book of Acts must of been written no later than 67 AD as that is the date of the burning of Rome and if Paul had still been present in Rome at that time it surely would have been mentioned. Nor is there any mention of the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Thus it seems reasonable to me that the complete silence on these major events in that caused such a big influence in the life of the church were after the writing of Acts was completed. It makes the best sense then to me to date Acts sometime between 60 & 67 AD, probably before 64 AD, and thus Luke to have been written before then.

I'm not sure what exactly there is to explain. The facts seem pretty self-explanatory:
• Jewish guy starts reform cult, gets crucified, cult fractures
• 10 or 20 years later, another Jewish guy deifies previous guy, absorbs elements of his now-fractured cult

Then, by your line of reasoning, the whole idea that Paul was originally an oppresser of this cult is pure fabrication?

• 20 years later, people from various factions start editing together legends about two Jewish guys.

Two Jewish guys? Jesus and who else?

• 30 years after that, faction leaders attribute legends pseudipgraphically to early famous Christians (happened all the time with Jewish writings)

Why wait that long? As you said, it happened all the time with Jewish writings. Why not just write those stories and attribute them to them in the beginning, 30 years earlier?

• 220 years later, Roman emperor "converts" to one faction of this cult and outlaws all other factions, and spreads it across the world militarily.

And how did the scriptures of this cult that was spread by the Roman empire in the 4th century end up being used by people living in the Persian influenced regions of the former Greek empire in the 3rd century?

We're left with scriptures from one faction of this cult, along with some scriptures and records from opposing factions (gnostics, docetics) ... it's all quite messy, most religions are, but you certainly don't need to appeal to any magical gods to explain how this happened.

Did I appeal to any magical gods? I believe I explain the process as being spread very much by human beings. Yes, humans who I believe are sensitive to God's leading, but I don't suggest that there is anything magical about it. Nor do I see how that would lend any more credence to the scriptures if there was. On the contrary, appeals to magic would, I think, tend to discredit them.

I think you underestimate the prevalence of pseudepigraphs during the time period. They didn't have our conceptions of authorship or intellectual honesty. Many Jewish writings at the time were attributed to famous or legendary figures, even people like Adam. Some of Paul's letters are also clear pseudepigraphs.

Well, if Paul's letters of pseudepigraphs, then we are back to saying that Paul was either not an historical figure or at most was a much more minor figure than people like to cite him as being. If the letters attribute to him aren't his, then the ideas attribute to Paul because of them aren't his either.

As for the prevalence of pseudipigraphs and the signing of famous people's names to documents produced long after they were dead, I have a great deal of awareness. So did the early church. It was for this reason that the canon of scripture was debated for some time before being settled. The issue most frequently was authorship. Could it be traced back to one of the apostles or someone who was under the direct supervision of an apostle?

It was on such grounds that very commendable works such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Letters of Barnabas, the Gospel of Peter, and many others, were rejected. Not because they were heretical, but because they were of doubtful authorship. Even the Didache, which was used regular by the early church in worship, did not pass the test of being able to be linked directly to an apostle.

Why on earth would anyone accept Paul's account? Do you believe every greedy televangelist who says he saw a light in his bedroom telling him to ask his parishioners for money for his BMW?

Depends on whether they grant me access to the BMW or not.

Speaking of Paul, I still think he gets a short shift on these forums. I've never been as big of a fan of Paul as I am of John. But, I've had to defend him enough here, that I'm becoming a bigger and bigger fan.

Along those lines, below is another writer who has his own interesting set of ideas with regard to Paul. I've provided a link; you might want to check him out.
Paul's Gospel and Caesar's Empire, by N.T. Wright

I begin with the word "gospel" itself. I have argued at length elsewhere that the word "gospel" carries two sets of resonances for Paul. 4 On the one hand, the gospel Paul preached was the fulfilment of the message of Isaiah 40 and 52, the message of comfort for Israel and of hope for the whole world, because YHWH, the god of Israel, was returning to Zion to judge and redeem. On the other hand, in the context into which Paul was speaking, "gospel" would mean the celebration of the accession, or birth, of a king or emperor. Though no doubt petty kingdoms might use the word for themselves, in Paul's world the main "gospel" was the news of, or the celebration of, Caesar.

It is important to stress, as Paul would do himself were he not so muzzled by his interpreters, that when he referred to "the gospel" he was not talking about a scheme of soteriology. Nor was he offering people a new way of being what we would call "religious". Despite the way Protestantism has used the phrase (making it denote, as it never does in Paul, the doctrine of justification by faith), for Paul "the gospel" is the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus of Nazareth is Israel's Messiah and the world's Lord. It is, in other words, the thoroughly Jewish, and indeed Isaianic, message which challenges the royal and imperial messages in Paul's world.

It is not difficult to see how this "gospel" functions for Paul. Theologically, it belongs completely with Isaiah's ringing monotheistic affirmations that YHWH and YHWH alone is the true god, the only creator, the only sovereign of the world, and that the gods of the nations are contemptible idols whose devotees are deceived, at best wasting their time and at worst under the sway of demons. Politically, it cannot but have been heard as a summons to allegiance to "another king", which is of course precisely what Luke says Paul was accused of saying (Acts 17.7). Practically, this means that Paul, in announcing the gospel, was more like a royal herald than a religious preacher or theological teacher. The appropriate response to the gospel can be stated in terms of "belief": the announcement included the claim that the true God had raised Jesus from the dead. Or it can be stated in terms of "obedience": it was a direct summons to abandon other allegiances and give total loyalty to this Jesus. Or, as in Romans 1.5 and elsewhere, these two can be combined, as Paul speaks, without feeling the need to cover his back against misinterpretation, of "the obedience of faith".

Rival sects of Christians. Calling them a "church" is a stretch.....well, unless you're using the word as its original meaning of "assembly." So yeah, if that's what you meant, then okay, I'm wrong, you're right.

That is what the term ecclesia means. It is the assembly of those who saw themselves belonging to the body of Christ. Catholics will say that this is an institution created by Christ and established in Peter and administered by all the apostles. I say that it is inclusive of all any and everywhere who see themselves as belonging to Christ or, as Paul would have said, "in Christ".

I think it's relatively obvious he's a charlatan. He continually threatens his "flock" and promises them imaginary rewards for blindly following him. He opposes—almost violently—rival sects, sarcastically joking in Galatians that the pro-circumcision people should go all the way with their cutting and castrate themselves. He constantly invokes his authority from God, as if he's defensive about it.

Moving from a position of power as a Jewish enforcer (as he supposedly had) to a cult leader with almost unlimited authority over his flock was not necessarily a loss. If anything, I'd call it opportunism. I mean, which position would you rather have?

Back to Paul again. Poor guide is like a Timex watch, takes a beating but keeps on ticking. Serious, take a look at the above link. It made me think a bit more about Paul, it might you as well. It certainly presents a new wrinkle to consider.

As to his unlimited authority as a cult leader. That authority was something he exercised with far fewer as a Christian than he had as a Jew. And it set him up to be in much more opposition with the Greek society into which he then ventured and the Roman authorities that would regularly imprison him. If Paul was looking for power, I think he made a bad play. But if he was trying to serve the one who he saw as having the ultimate power, then he took the only road that was available to him (or to any of us, in my opinion).

On one hand you assert that there is no validation for anything in the NT to be true, and then you turn back to it to claim that Jesus said certain sets of things you take out of context and that he didn't say certain other things because the exact words you want to see it worded in aren't found.

To change the metaphor -- It's like you are trying to throw out your cake and eat it to?

I recommend both of you read fabulous book by a credible scholar, historian, and archaeologist - James M. Robinson. His book is entitled The Gospel of Jesus: The Original Good News. Please everyone should read this book. This man is a credible historian and scholar, he personally worked on the Nag Hammadi discoveries. I wouldn't get my information from Christian theologians who are not an unbiased and neutral source. If this dispute between Islam and Christianity can be solved, it is by looking at history unbiasedly and evaluating the claims of the New Testament authors.

It is also important to research the following topics: Quelle source Gospel. Research about the crufiction. You will astonishingly discover many early Christians opposed the "orthodox" doctrine that Jesus was put on the cross. A document was unearthed from the Nag Hammadi library entitled the Apocalypse of Peter. Scholars date this text to about 2nd century CE. What does it say:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html

When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"
The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."
But I, when I had looked, said "Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place."
But he said to me, "I have told you, 'Leave the blind alone!'. And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put to shame."

However, despite some historical proofs that Jesus was never put on cross, but rather someone in his likeness, it is also important to consider Islam only says it appeared that Jesus was cruficied (died on the cross). He may very well have merely been crucificted and there is ample historical evidence that he was resuscitated (not resurrected). Furthermore, it can even be possible Allah only allowed his physical body to be crucified, but saved his soul and raised it to Himself, and thus he will come again in future. All of these are possible theories, but what is known for sure is that Jesus didn't die on the cross. Neither his legs were crushed to cause him to die quickly on the cross. Most likely he fainted. This is also why his disciples were bringing special ointments to his "tomb". This is also why when he regained conciousness he still had his physical wounds, and even to prove he was still the human Jesus and not a supernatural resurrected form he requested his disciples to bring him a fish to eat. Resurrection is the most far flung idea and has absolutely no basis, not even within the corrupted and heavily editted New Testament accounts.

format_quote Originally Posted by Talha777

However, despite some historical proofs

What historical proofs? You cited a text which refers to a secondary source, written by a sect of 2nd-century Christians. How on earth does this qualify as a "proof," Talha? Do you believe every claim in every religious text? (or every historical text, for that matter?)

that Jesus was never put on cross, but rather someone in his likeness, it is also important to consider Islam only says it appeared that Jesus was cruficied (died on the cross). He may very well have merely been crucificted and there is ample historical evidence that he was resuscitated (not resurrected). Furthermore, it can even be possible Allah only allowed his physical body to be crucified, but saved his soul and raised it to Himself, and thus he will come again in future. All of these are possible theories,

You left out another theory:

Islam simply incorporated the myths of the Docetics and Gnostics who held this particular interpretation of the crucifixion story. While these were relatively popular sects in Christendom, they were no means exclusive and were apparently minority positions from even the start of Christianity.

You need to realize that many religions around the time of early Christianity and Islam held this interpretation of Jesus. There were several varieties of Gnostics, including the Docetics, who believed that Jesus' body on the cross was an illusion or trick, and the Manichaeans, who believed that Jesus was the avatar of the one true spiritual God, who was opposed to the earthly god, or demiurge, of the Old Testament and Quran. These religions were almost completely in opposition to Islamic doctrine and some were actively persecuted by Muslims for heresy.

So it's very interesting that you'd seize upon one particular doctrine of these unIslamic religions and say it constitutes "historical proof" that the crucifiction happened as the Quran said.

Resurrection is the most far flung idea

Really? On what basis? It doesn't sound anymore far-flung than invisible spirits made out of fire, or the story of a man riding up into the sky on the back of a flying horse.