Maybe Christianity has Jesus Wrong: Jesus as Mystic

[3rddec]

While I can understand why the idea of Christ being just a mystic may be attractive to some but it ultimately leads to some new age buddhist type heresy where we all aim to become Gods in our own right. But it makes for intresting debate but thats all.

Love and Respect

 

[SalamChristian]

Peace everyone,

Trinitarianism proposes the formula --- original sin + crucifixion = salvation. (IMO)This formula is packaged under the concept of Jesus Christ(pbuh) being "Son of God". Or to put it another way, salvation is dependent on a "son of God" being sacrificed/crucified for original sin. Does Christianity have it wrong?---Jews and Muslims would agree. That a Muslim agrees or disagrees might be irrelevant---but that a Jew disagrees might be more significant since Jesus Christ(pbuh) WAS a Jew.

Compare the crucifixion to the story of Job, even in the Qu'ran. Iblis tells Allah (swt) that Job is not submissive. Allah (swt) knows this is not true, but he lets Iblis torture Job even to the point of wasting away his body with disease. Why does Allah (swt) let this happen? Because he wants to prove to Iblis that he is almighty--to glorify his name. Through the suffering of believers, some others may see the glory of Allah (swt) and ask for forgiveness, and be saved. The crucifixion is just like the story of Job, but Jesus (pbuh) suffered the ultimate pain for a human being to suffer for the glory of Allah (swt). Square this with the ayat in the Qu'ran which state that some of the prophets of God have been spurned, and some have been slain, and you get the bigger picture.

---That sin is not inherited (any mistakes (Prophet)Adam(pbuh) made were his---however, Judaism admits the consequences of a sin can be something that later generations may have to deal with) ---Blood/human sacrifice is not necessary for forgiveness of sins---God is forgiving if human beings repent.

Blood is not necessary for YOUR salvation. But why do the prophets suffer? Why are they persecuted? Even Muhammad (pbuh) had to suffer persecution and being slandered by his own people in order to bring back the true religion to those under al jahilayah, didn't he? This happened to Job. This happened to Jesus (pbuh).

As for the question of original sin, I would ask you this: why do we all die? Did not Allah say (swt) when he banished Adam from the Garden, "I made you from dust, and to dust you shall return"? Was it not their sin that originally brought death to humankind? Of course, you and I both believe in the last day, so we know this is temporary. But we are not in the Garden now, and the way I read the Torah, no one dies in the Garden, even temporarily. Nor does anyone suffer. But we suffer in this world, do we not? Did not Job suffer? Did not Muhammad (pbuh) suffer persecution at Ka'aba? Did not Jesus (pbuh) suffer slander from the Jews (at the very least)? That does not happen in the Garden, nor will we be made to suffer after the last day. We will drink from the cup with an admixture of camphor, as it says in the Qu'ran. I would ask you to please think about this difference between our world and the Garden to come, when you consider the doctrine of original sin, and before your next response.

LASTLY, I really wish that we didn't bring a comparison of Paul and Muhammad (pbuh) into this discussion. I mean, if we all had taken the time to patiently and compassionately read ALL of each others holy books and consider doctrine and arguments, then MAYBE we would be justified in doing this. But if you have not taken this time to consider the little points of another's religion, how can you reject the big ones? It is hasty, inconsiderate, and not done out of love for each other. I would ask that we please stop this now before it gets out of hand.

MustafaMC and Siam, check out these three verses of Paul's. They might help you get a better idea of the complexity of his theology, and show you that he is not advocating outright rejection of the Torah:

"For it is not those who hear the torah who are righteous before God, but those who do the torah will be declared righteous. For whenever Gentiles, who do not have the torah, do by nature the things required by the torah, these who do not have the torah are a torah unto themselves." Romans 2:13-14.

"And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love." I Corinthians 13:13.

I know that you think Pauline Christianity is about Christians thinking they are special and chosen, Siam, but that is just not the point of Paul's theology. Love is at the center, just like with the gospel of Jesus (pbuh). Love for Allah (swt) with all of your heart, and love for your neighbor as yourself--i.e. the Shema. The point about faith vs. works, Mustafa, is actually just the opposite of trying to claim we are special or we are not obligated to follow the law. The "works of the law" are things like circumcision. N.T. Wright has called these "ethnic badges." Paul was criticizing these "Jewish Christians," for judging their brothers on the basis of heritage instead of belief in Allah's righteousness and mercifulness. In other words, your salvation does not depend on what you or your parents have done, because Allah (swt) is forgiving, but rather what you believe RIGHT NOW, and whether you will open your heart to let Allah (swt) lead you to do the things that are righteous.

PLEASE, please, PLEASE find peace with each other, brothers, and listen to each other with compassion and patience. As Paul and Muhammad (pbuh) say,

"Love is patient, love is kind." and "If you continually bite and devour one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another." And "'When two believers in the one God [Muslims] fight (meet) each other with their swords, both the murderer as well as the murdered will go to the Hell-fire.'"

Salaam Alaikum brothers

 

[3rddec]

I always believed the Book of Job was written to explain why good people can suffer while evil people appear fine. Of course there are more levels to be found on each reading.
The short version
The position of satan was God why wouldn't he love you when you have been so good to him thats nothing to brag about , because God was srta bragging about how wonderfull Job was so God then gave the devil a chance to ruff Job up quite a bit. Initially Job was submissive then he finally looses it and lets rip at God and finally God tells him off and Job submits to Gods wisdom and they both get all buddy buddy again and God fixes things for Job again.

I love the book of Job ; Job seems so human.

As far as Original Sin goes it depends on your interpretation of what is meant by original sin. Its a tricky one and Im no scholar but my understanding is that when Adam listened to satan and disobeyed God he gave up his birthright as head of realm of creation called earth and mankind and had given it to satan who then becomes the head honcho of earth with all of mankind under his power or influence so all Adams descendants remain there. ( like the son of a slave would also be the slave of his fathers owner ). Thats not to say they were all evil but they were still seperated from God because of the original sin of Adam. But Christ by his ultimate sacrifice wrested control of Mankind back so that original sin is no longer a seperation as we all belong to him now but of course he is not satan and allows us free will so we are free to reject Christ offer of a return to the Father and salvation. But since reading this I want to explore the idea more as my interpretation is probably far to simplistic.

Love and Respect

 

[SalamChristian]

3rddec,

While I can understand why the idea of Christ being just a mystic may be attractive to some but it ultimately leads to some new age buddhist type heresy where we all aim to become Gods in our own right. But it makes for intresting debate but thats all.

Jesus did not claim to be a God, among many. This comment is really careless, brother, because it makes you sound like a polytheist. It is because of comments like this that the Muslims have rightfully criticized some Christians.

However, I would ask you to open your mind up to these verses:

"But to all who have received him - those who believe in his name - he has given the right to become God's children - children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband's decision, but by God." John 1:12-13

Doesn't that sound like we can achieve a relationship like that Christ had to God (except, of course, for the Messiah part. There is only one of those...that's the definition).

To all my Muslim brothers who are viewing this comment and these verses, consider also that we interpret that one of the Messiah's functions was to bring Allah to the non-jews, before you judge what we may take these verses to mean.

Shalom

 

[SalamChristian]

But since reading this I want to explore the idea more as my interpretation is probably far to simplistic.

I am glad that you said this. It is humble and honest of you. I am in the same boat. We are all in the same boat, on this forum, as far as I can tell. How much do we ACTUALLY know about each other? At the end of the day, I have only read maybe 15% of the Qu'ran so far, and that is only skimming the surface. And God and his creation is so much more infinite than any of us.

Peace brother

 

[SalamChristian]

To 3rrdec and all others who are interested,

That Job was a good man who the Lord only tested to prove Satan wrong:

"There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. And that man was pure and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil." Job 1:1

"Then the Lord said to Satan, 'Have you considered my servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a pure and upright man, one who fears God and turns away from evil. And he still holds firmly to his integrity, so that you stirred me up to destroy him without reason." Job 2:3

That others were made righteous and repentant by God's use of Job:

"So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and offer a burnt offering for yourselves. And my servant Job will intercede for you, and I will respect him, so that I do not deal with you according to your folly, because you have not spoken about me what is right, as my servant Job has." Job 42:9

That Job's experience is parallel in many ways to the experience of Jesus (pbuh) and all of the other prophets:

Job cries out to the Lord in righteousness (even though his cry is in itself a sin). Psalm 22 shows David doing the same thing, crying out to God "Eloi Eloi lama sabacthani"--my God my God why have you forsaken me? Ironically this statement simultaneously means "for what a purpose have you spared me." In any case, the point is that God relieves the burden of those believers who have been tested to their limits. Jesus (pbuh) makes this same point on the cross. Do you remember the third to last thing he says? He quotes Psalm 22: Eloi Eloi, lama sabacthani!" Or "Illahi Illahi lema sabacthani". At that moment, God relieves him of his burden by ending his life, only to restore him to new and everlasting life with the resurrection, and the honor of sitting at the right hand of God.

"So the Lord restored what Job had lost after he prayed for his friends, and the Lord doubled all that had belonged to Job." Job 42:10 *This same point is corroborated in the Qu'ran.*
-The same point is made of Jesus in Phillipians and elsewhere. That he had humbled himself as a slave, and for so doing, he was rewarded with the honor of sitting at the right hand of God. This is not to say that Jesus was not the Word of God blown into Mary. Think more deeply about how both of these statements can be true exegetically, and you will see.

Peace

 

[YieldedOne]

Just saw this...

SalamChristian:
LASTLY, I really wish that we didn't bring a comparison of Paul and Muhammad (pbuh) into this discussion. I mean, if we all had taken the time to patiently and compassionately read ALL of each others holy books and consider doctrine and arguments, then MAYBE we would be justified in doing this. But if you have not taken this time to consider the little points of another's religion, how can you reject the big ones? It is hasty, inconsiderate, and not done out of love for each other. I would ask that we please stop this now before it gets out of hand.

Personally, I haven't felt disrespected by MustafaMC. He's been nothing but a nice guy to me the whole time I've been here. I don't believe I'm disrespecting him or Islam by responding to his intriguing question. If lack of love and/or consideration has been shown on my part, I sure apologize. But I think Mustafa's been nothing but respectful and considerate. At least from my perspective and brief experience on this board.

But I'm just as well with that. I'm much more interested in the "Is it reasonable to believe that Paul authentically heard from Jesus?" question!

 

[YieldedOne]

MustafaMC:
You hit upon most fundamental questions that every Christian should ask, "Did Paul actually receive a revelation from God through a personal encounter with Jesus?" or "Did Paul have an encounter with an imposter (Satan) who claimed to be Jesus and gave him a new (false) gospel based on faith in Jesus' death on the cross that effectively negated Jesus' life and what he taught the disciples before his ascension?" Christians don't realize their fundamental acceptance of Paul as a Messenger of God who brought and taught the gospel (not taught by Jesus) they now accept as the Truth.

I've been thinking about this a lot today, bro. And I've come to the conclusion that you are right. Without Paul as a Messenger of God (Christians would call him an Apostle), we don't have like 2/3 of the New Testament. And it IS Paul's Gospel to the GENTILES that we embrace. You're right. This is the deal maker or deal breaker. Like I said before, if it cannot be reasonably maintained that Paul actually did "receive revelation from God through a personal encounter with Jesus", then Paul is (either by lie, insanity, or demonic oppression) unfit to be authoritative for Christians, if they are being intellectually honest. If it can be reasonably maintained that Paul DID actually encounter Jesus...and Paul asserts that Jesus HIMSELF told Paul he was the "Son of God", then Paul's testimony is--at LEAST--a consideration for Muslims to ponder.

Good stuff, man.

 

[SalamChristian]

Without Paul as a Messenger of God (Christians would call him an Apostle)

Early Christians could also have called him a prophet, we just don't know. John called his Revelations prophecies. Doesn't that make him a prophet? Also, Muhammad (pbuh) is also called "Allah's Apostle," is he not?

And it IS Paul's Gospel to the GENTILES that we embrace.

Of course we also embrace the Gospel of Jesus, and see them as not being mutually exclusive. But I know that is what you meant. Gosh, I'm feeling like an English teacher more than someone who has anything with any substance to say lolol. I just see how miscommunication so often leads to our religious problems, that I feel obligated to clarify and qualify sometimes. :~)

Peace

 

[3rddec]

3rddec,



Jesus did not claim to be a God, among many. This comment is really careless, brother, because it makes you sound like a polytheist. It is because of comments like this that the Muslims have rightfully criticized some Christians.

However, I would ask you to open your mind up to these verses:

"But to all who have received him - those who believe in his name - he has given the right to become God's children - children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband's decision, but by God." John 1:12-13

Doesn't that sound like we can achieve a relationship like that Christ had to God (except, of course, for the Messiah part. There is only one of those...that's the definition).

To all my Muslim brothers who are viewing this comment and these verses, consider also that we interpret that one of the Messiah's functions was to bring Allah to the non-jews, before you judge what we may take these verses to mean.

Shalom

Im sorry Salam maybe I didn,t make my opinion clear enough maybe I should have written new age Buddhist heracy in bold sorry for any confusion.

Love and Respect

 

[siam]

Peace to you SC,

The story of Job in the Quran (Surah 21 verses 83-84, and Surah 38, verses 41-44) ---I don't see what you see. The Quran explains the meaning of these stories as a test of faith/trust---a trial that human beings go through in order to grow in faith, something all Prophets/human beings go through. I have already explained this before. (By the way---faith/trust = the use of ones intellect and reason to arrive at conviction. The Quran does not advocate blind faith)---I don't see any connection with a crucifixion. To me the stories of the Prophets speak of how through patience and trust in God, trials and tests can be overcome and we can grow in blessings/spirituality. Basically it is pointing to hope and trust in God's mercy and compassion. (---at an individual level---that is---all individuals have direct access to God's mercy and compassion)

I also don't see any connection between sufferring/trials/tests and their purpose mentioned in the Quran and "original sin" concept of Christianity.....From what I understand, without positing that all human beings are inherently evil---there would be no reason for a "sacrifice/crucifixion and therefore salvation would be independent of any man-made construct of "organized" religion. That is why in Judaism and Islam, salvation is directly between God and the individual.

YO
Thanks for the links. I'm afraid I may be ignorant of some of the nuances of Christianity---its a "devilishly" complex religion I read about the paasover lamb---From the explanation a Jewish person gave me, all rituals/feasts in Judaism are for purposes of rememberance (To remember God's blessing, mercy and Compassion) and nothing in the article link contradicts that or what I copy/pasted previously with regards to Jewish sacrifice -----last line from the link---"which kept alive in the memory of the nation the preservation and liberation of the entire people"---am I missing something? (I will read the other links later)

 

[siam]

Peace to you again SC,
You asked ---why do we all die?---because all creation is finite. We are also God's creation and therefore we are finite. Only God, the One, Indivisible, Uncreated is not finite. So why are we on earth for a short period of time?---Because God is most compassionate and merciful and only puts us through the trials and blessings of earth for a short period of time so as not to overburden us.
sorry running out of time.....will be back

 

[YieldedOne]

Siam:
Thanks for the links. I'm afraid I may be ignorant of some of the nuances of Christianity---its a "devilishly" complex religion I read about the paasover lamb---From the explanation a Jewish person gave me, all rituals/feasts in Judaism are for purposes of rememberance (To remember God's blessing, mercy and Compassion) and nothing in the article link contradicts that or what I copy/pasted previously with regards to Jewish sacrifice -----last line from the link---"which kept alive in the memory of the nation the preservation and liberation of the entire people"---am I missing something? (I will read the other links later).

Hmmm...talk to your Jewish friend about the function of the High Priest prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, particularly on the Day of Atonement.
See, the Book of Hebrews largely uses the analogies of "Jesus as High Priest". And this is important. Why? Because it places into context the "sacrifices" we are talking about. Let's look at this Scripture...

“If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.


Even though the scripture is primarily about dietary laws, hat section also deals with the actions of the High Priests of God. Only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies in the temple ONCE a year. And what did he do in there? He offered BLOOD of sacrifice before the Mercy Seat of God. And without the blood in that act, there would have been NO REMISSION OF SINS for Yom Kippur. The idea of a high priest going into the Holy of Holies without blood would have been absolutely ridiculous.

And it's this them that the Jewish Christians picked up on...

Hebrew 4:14-5:
Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. Because of this he is obligated to offer sacrifice for his own sins just as he does for those of the people. And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was.

So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him,

“You are my Son,
today I have begotten you”;

as he says also in another place,

“You are a priest forever,
after the order of Melchizedek.”

In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

and...

from Hebrews 9...
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Look carefully. The author is SPECIFICALLY talking about high priestly duties in the Temple on the Day of Atonement. And that ALWAYS dealt with the spilling of blood.

Ask your Jewish friend. They'll tell you.

 

[YieldedOne]

Siam:
Trinitarianism proposes the formula --- original sin + crucifixion = salvation. (IMO)This formula is packaged under the concept of Jesus Christ(pbuh) being "Son of God". Or to put it another way, salvation is dependent on a "son of God" being sacrificed/crucified for original sin.


This is inaccurate, bro. What's being said is this:

In order that God's covenant love would extend to ALL PEOPLE (not just the Jews), God sent His Messiah and Son as High Priest who would ONCE AND FOR ALL 1) atone for the sins of the people (ala the 2nd Temple Judaism understanding of what a High Priest did) and 2) bridge the divide between the "Children of Israel" and the "Gentiles" (ie. everyone else.) It's not about "original sin" per se at all. It's about saying that, because of God's actions through His Christ, people are AT-ONE with God and AT-ONE with each other, tearing down all walls of division.

 

[YieldedOne]

What is a High Priest?
by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg

From amongst the Kohanim, the holy descendants of Aaron, one person was selected to serve as Kohen Gadol (High Priest). Ideally, this person was a great Tzaddik who also served as the spiritual leader of the generation.

The most significant task of the Kohen Gadol was the implementation of the Yom Kippur service in the Temple. On this day he would enter the otherwise un-enterable Holy of Holies four times, with the mission of attaining forgiveness and atonement on behalf of all the Jews.

The most significant task of the Kohen Gadol was the implementation of the Yom Kippur service in the Temple

[Yom Kippur saw the convergence of the holiest elements of time, space and life: the holiest time, Yom Kippur; the holiest location, the Holy of Holies; and the holiest person, the Kohen Gadol.]

Today, there is no Kohen Gadol, as there is no Temple.

 

[YieldedOne]

This is how it would NOT be hard for a Jewish person back in Jesus' day (prior to the Destruction of the Temple) to see the "blood" of Jesus in these terms. NOT primarily as human sacrifice, but as ANALOGY for how Jesus' self-sacrificial death operated to bring Jews and Gentiles together as ONE PEOPLE under God...then bringing ALL OF THEM closer to God!

Make sense, Siam?

I am LOVIN' these rabbit trails! So much fun! ;D

Whole thread at a glance.

 

[SalamChristian]

Peace Siam,

The story of Job in the Quran (Surah 21 verses 83-84, and Surah 38, verses 41-44) ---I don't see what you see. . . . I don't see any connection with a crucifixion. To me the stories of the Prophets speak of how through patience and trust in God, trials and tests can be overcome and we can grow in blessings/spirituality. Basically it is pointing to hope and trust in God's mercy and compassion. (---at an individual level---that is---all individuals have direct access to God's mercy and compassion)

The crucifixion is a test and a trial. Jesus (pbuh) grows in blessings after the crucifixion, as he thereafter sits at the right hand of Allah (swt). Jesus had hope and trust in God's mercy and compassion, both in accepting God's will that he go onto the cross and in calling out to him in mercy while on the cross, and being forgiving of others even while suffering (as was always his will).

However, there are a couple statements in those ayat which I would point you to:

Allah (swt) describes the end result of Job's trial as a "reminder to those possessed of understanding" and "a reminder to the worshippers." Also, I recommend that you read Imam Ibn Kathir's tafsir of Job's life, as he relates many of the significant points which are not in the Qu'ran (such as exactly what the oath Job made was, or why using a green stick will be sufficient). I'm not sure where he pulls them from, whether from certain Hadith or from the Torah, but in any case if you read them with an open mind you will see that they agree with the point I am showing you about Ayub.

Sacrifice, as I said before, is perhaps not the best word, especially since you see it as eternal. Of course the pain Jesus (pbuh) suffered was not eternal. For this reason perhaps "offering" is a better word. Indeed perhaps you know of the tradition that Jews were to offer their first-born sons to Allah(swt)? And indeed perhaps you know that some Tafsir have pointed out that both Muhammad (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh) were without biological fathers after birth, and thus were protected by Allah (swt)?

Consider this verse from Al-Anaam

Shakir:
"And they set apart a portion for Allah out of what He has created of tilth and cattle, and say: This is for Allah--so they assert--and this is for our associates; then what is for their associates, it reaches not to Allah, and whatever is (set apart) for Allah, it reaches to their associates" Surah Al-Anaam, 136

This is the general point that Jesus (pbuh) establishes and Muhammad (pbuh) reasserts. As Jesus (pbuh) says similarly, you cannot serve two masters. To one who lacks understanding, and to the Jews who had not yet understood God's message, this looks like an eternal sacrifice, because you think you are losing something. But to one who has grown to understand the mercifulness and power of God, it is not a sacrafice but a meagre offering (or as we also say in English, a "temporary sacrifice"), because Allah will bless you with more than you have given. It is the same, again, with the crucifixion.

I also don't see any connection between sufferring/trials/tests and their purpose mentioned in the Quran and "original sin" concept of Christianity.....From what I understand, without positing that all human beings are inherently evil---there would be no reason for a "sacrifice/crucifixion

Shakir:
"They said: Our Lord! We have been unjust to ourselves, and if Thou forgive us not, and have (not) mercy on us, we shall certainly be of the losers." Surah Al-Arah, 23.

sacrifice/crucifixion is God's mercy to us, and God's test to Jesus (pbuh), according to Orthodox Christian views. All prophets are God's mercy to us, and Jesus life itself was a living prophecy and mercy to us, for he was literally God's Word blown into Mary's womb.

You asked ---why do we all die?---because all creation is finite. We are also God's creation and therefore we are finite. Only God, the One, Indivisible, Uncreated is not finite. So why are we on earth for a short period of time?---Because God is most compassionate and merciful and only puts us through the trials and blessings of earth for a short period of time so as not to overburden us.

Shakir:
"He said: Get forth, some of you, the enemies of others, and there is for you in the earth an abode and a provision for a time. He (also) said: Therein shall you live, and therein shall you die, and from it you shall be raised." Surah Al-Araf, 24-5.

I don't think you're getting the bigger picture. There is no death in the Garden, as I read all of the Abrahamic scriptures. Do you read them differently? Do you believe there is death in the Garden?

Salaam Alaikum brother

 

[YieldedOne]

Wiki's on the money...

Paul's theology of the gospel accelerated the separation of the messianic sect of Christians from Judaism, a development contrary to Paul's own intent. He wrote that the faith of Christ (YO's Note: God's Messiah) was alone decisive in salvation for Jews and Gentiles alike, making the schism between the followers of Christ and mainstream Jews inevitable and permanent. He argued that Gentile converts did not need to become Jews, get circumcised, follow Jewish dietary restrictions, or otherwise observe Mosaic laws. Nevertheless, in Romans he insisted on the positive value of the Law, as a moral guide.

Yeah. That's it. That's what Paul was talking about in Galatians and Philippians. See that, Siam?

Hey! MustafaMC! Where you at, homie? I'm anticipatory of your response in our discussion...

Multiple choice:


With respect to Paul's testimony of his personal encounter with Jesus and Jesus' self-revelation as "Son of God", Paul is...
a) a motivationless liar
b) a mentally deranged liar
c) a demoniac liar
d) a convinced truth-teller.


If possible, provide your reasoning. Mere opinions are cool. But seeing reasoned process would be great for the discussion, I'd think... :shade:

 

[YieldedOne]

Oh, and anyone can answer that question. Not just MustafaMC. Inclusiveness is tiiiiiight.

 

[MustafaMc]

Personally, I haven't felt disrespected by MustafaMC. He's been nothing but a nice guy to me the whole time I've been here. I don't believe I'm disrespecting him or Islam by responding to his intriguing question. If lack of love and/or consideration has been shown on my part, I sure apologize. But I think Mustafa's been nothing but respectful and considerate. At least from my perspective and brief experience on this board.

But I'm just as well with that. I'm much more interested in the "Is it reasonable to believe that Paul authentically heard from Jesus?" question!

Have you ever heard of hitting a hornet's nest and then turning to run like hell to get away from the angry hornets? That is how I feel now as I just returned home from a trip that I left for right after my post. hehehe:giggling: I apologize that I have led this thread down a divergent rabbit hole, but quite honestly I believe this is a rabbit hole every Christian should have the courage to go down and come out with an understanding of where the tenets of his faith originated. I hope you will take the time to read my entire post here.

YieldedOne, you are right I did not mean any disrespect to you or to your religion. I recognize you and other Christians on this forum as being sincere in your faith and I personally know there is a lot of good in Christianity. My whole point was to get people to 'think outside the box' of their normal perspective. Likewise I didn't see your comments as being disrespectful towards Prophet Muhammd (saaws) or toward Islam and, even if they were, they could be seen as being justified as honest replies to my questions. It is easy to perceive Quranic verses or hadith from our personal perspectives or through the lenses of our own faith as opposed to the context in which they are said. I have read two lengthy biographies on Prophet Muhammad (saasws), "The Sealed Nectar" and "A Biography of the Prophet of Islam in Light of the Original Sources an Analytical Study". After reading these books, my love for Rasool'Allah (saaws) grew immensely to know of his noble character and the many hardships, persecutions and threats on his life that he endured only to establish the worship of One God. Perhaps you do not know how vigorously Islam was opposed with the threat of annihilation by the pagan idolators and how tenuous their position was in the early years. This was clearly not an example where 'turn the other cheek' was applicable. In my reading of the Quran, I see multiple cases where Prophet Muhammad (saaws) was defended as not being a madman, a soothsayer, wizard or taught by others. From this I understand that there were vicious and unjustified attacks on his noble character that were brought only because he claimed to be a messenger from God and opposed their idolatry.

I had read a majority of the NT when I was a Christian and then again after I decided to practice Islam in 2001. It was this later reading that certain things came to my conscious attention in light of my Islamic faith. Of particular note, the first 2 chapters of Galatians shed new light on the struggle to define Christianity in the 1st century. A few years ago I watched a TV show from the ministry of Les Feldick and I was shocked to hear him say that neither Jesus nor his disciples were the primary proponents for what became the Christian faith, but rather Paul was the one 'who got it right'. Quoting below in green from his websites: http://www.lesfeldick.org/news13.html and http://www.lesfeldick.org/news14.html an article by William R. Newell, "Paul's Gospel".

There are two great revelations, or unfolders of Divine Truth in the Bible - Moses in the Old Testament, and Paul in the New.

Paul in his great Epistles reveals Christ as our Righteousness, Sanctification, Redemption, and All in All.

But unto none of these twelve Apostles did God reveal the great body of doctrine for this age. Just as God chose Moses to be the revelator to Israel of the Ten Commandments, and all connected with the Law dispensation; so God chose Saul of Tarsus be the revelator and unfolder of those mighty truths connected with our Lord's burial, resurrection, and His ascended Person. And all the "mysteries" or "secrets" revealed to God's people in this dispensation by the Holy Ghost are revealed by Paul. Finally, Paul is the unfolder of that great company of God's elect, called the Church, the Body of Christ, the individuals of which body are called members of the Body of Christ - members of Christ Himself. No other Apostle speaks of these things. Peter himself had to learn them from Paul.

You can judge any man's preaching or teaching by this rule - is he Pauline? Does his doctrine start and finish according to those statements of Christian doctrine uttered by the Apostle Paul? No matter how wonderful a man may seem in his gifts and apparent consecration - if his Gospel is not Pauline, it is not the Gospel; and we might as well get our minds settled at once as to that. Paul calls down the anathema - that is the curse of God Himself - upon anyone who preaches any other Gospel than that which he declared (Gal. 1).

The great doctrines that Paul reveals may be outlined as follows: (he lists 13 points which outline his understanding of Christianity) The failure or refusal to discern the Pauline Gospel as a separate and new revelation and not a "development from Judaism," accounts for two-thirds of the confusion in many people's minds today as regards just what the Gospel is. Paul's Gospel will suffer no admixture with works on the one hand or religious pretensions and performances on the other.

Now Paul in his wonderful revelation declares that God hath reconciled the world to Himself; that God was in Christ (at the Cross) reconciling the world unto Himself (11 Cor. 5:19).

I choose not to speculate on which of the alternatives that you listed is likely true.

However, I do know that the doctrines of Paul and those of Muhammad (saaws) are diametrically opposed because quite obviously Jesus (as) cannot be both the "Son of God" and "not the Son of God". The choice I have made is to accept Prophet Muhammad (saaws) as Messenger, Prophet and Servant of the One God and to accept what he taught regarding God that He has no father, mother, son, daughter or equal. My point is to raise the question for you to answer as to whether or not you see Paul as the Prophet of God who taught that Jesus (as) was the Son of God and literally God in human flesh Who came to live a perfect life on earth and to die on the cross as the only possible atoning sacrifice for your sins.

I am interested in hearing your perspective on Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus) as Messenger of God. For me as a Muslim the claim to be a Messenger of God is a most spectacular claim. I remind you of the ridicule that Muhammad (saaws) endured for making such a claim that Christians seem to take so lightly and uncritically regarding Paul.