Muslims, what do you think of Catholicism?

[Ramadhan]

A very good question. And the answer is, it depends.

The publishers of the various modern language translations (English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, etc.) have a difficult task in first selecting what they feel is the best text from which to translate. Unlike the Qur'an, we don't have a single document that we refer back to (as also unlike the Qur'an we didn't destory all copies that didn't agree with one another), but many. Some translations like the KVJ and the NKJV used the textus receptus as their text (at least for the New Testament, I don't know the sources for the OT). The textus receptus is a compiled Greek text of the NT that was arrived at by comparing various existing source documents, noting their similarities and differences and then through a process that I call educated guessing (but sounds vaguely familiar to the process that Muslims use to determine the veracity of various hadiths) making selection of that which they believe most accuratley represents the original. Others in translating other Bibles have, in differing from those who produced the textus receptus, used the same process but preferred other source documents as the text from which they have made their transaltion. Two of the standard Greek texts in use today are texts of the United Bible Societies and Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece which is I think used by the NASB. Some publishers, rather than using one of the standard texts, may prefer to produce their own text from among the source documents, but to know the specific answer to your question you'll need to read the introductory material of each translation. Similar processes are involved in selecting a text from which to translate the OT, but I wouldn't be versed in the names of any of those texts.

Per usual, all this long winded sentences just to say: we don't even know if there was an original bible. various people made up stories along the way.

 

[tango92]

if answering these questions would allow you to come to a greater understanding of islam i would feel no disrespect at all, in any case the 'issues' you have raised are all minor and once youve realised quran is the VERBATIM word of god then these questions become non issues. and anyway i know there are not satisfactory anwers to the questions in my above post.

most christians think that they are no different from muslims, you couldnt be further from the truth. picking a faith and hoping its the right one is a pretty unintelligent route.

may Allah give you sincerity

 

[Grace Seeker]

most christians think that they are no different from muslims, you couldnt be further from the truth. picking a faith and hoping its the right one is a pretty unintelligent route.

And I'm sure that is meant with the same respect toward Christians that your previous post carried with it.

may Allah give you sincerity

I wish you the same.

 

[tango92]

nope it wasnt,

sometimes you need to be harsh to be honest

 

[Grace Seeker]

You have accused that there were other contradicting versions of the Qur'an. Please give evidence.

Surely you know your own history better than I do. All I recall without going back to look stuff up is that the Qur'an was compiled at a later date, after the death of the prophet. At that time one of those who knew the prophet had all of the existing copies of the Qur'an brought together and they were read. That that were judged to be in err were desstoryed. Now, if they were truly known to be in err that makes sense. But that means one is placing confidence not in the Prophet, but in one of the Prophet's companions and his ability to perfectly know what it was that had been revealed to the Prophet. That's called faith. I don't blame you for having faith. Unlike Tango, I don't even consider picking a faith and hoping its right to be an unintelligent route. But that they had to destory some for being wrong, means that just as there are variant readings of the original copies of the writings of the Bible, so also there were variant readings of the Qur'an at some point in the history of Islam. Islam destroyed its variants -- I'll not question the motives, I'll assume for perfectly good reason -- but it did have variants, just like there are variant readings of the Bible which we chose not to destroy. (Though in some Christian communities that happened as well.)

Meanwhile most sources of the NT is Paul who didnt even meet Jesus a.s., most of bible authors are unknown.

nice comparison, eh?

I'm not sure that all of the hadiths are witnessed to by people who were companions of the prophets. No doubt most of those that are most strongly attested are, but I believe there are others that have less support and for which the attestation is a longer chain with someone reporting that some said that some said that a companion of the prophet heard ________________. I don't call that a contemporaneous source. And even those who cite the dependability of hadiths give less credence to some than to others for exactly such reasons.

As to the sources of the N.T., you don't have your facts straight. Most of the sources of the NT is not Paul. He may have been the biggest single contributor, but the contributions by other authors totals more than the work of Paul: 13 books by Paul, 14 books by those other than Paul; 87 chapters by Paul, 173 chapters by those other tahn Paul; Neither by number of books, this is so with any other standard I can think of measuring the relative size of the Pauline vs non-Pauline contributions to the New Testament -- for instance on my hard drive the non-Pauline works of the New Testament take up 1.4 MB, while the Pauline works of the New Testament take up only 514 KB.

And as far as who the various authors of the Bible are:
Genesis -- tradition is Moses, most likely he compiled the stories of oral tradition and it was edited by unknown others
Exodus -- tradition is Moses, most likely he recorded the major part and it was edited by unknown others
Leviticus -- tradition is Moses, most likely he recorded the major part and it was edited by unknown others
Numbers -- tradition is Moses, most likely he recorded the major part and it was edited by unknown others
Deuteronomy -- tradition is Moses, most likely he recorded the major part and it was edited by unknown others
Joshua -- unidentified, though Joshua specifically known to have written portions of it according to the testimony of the book itself, Eleazar most likely wrote other parts
Judges -- written and compiled by an unnamed prophet, traditionally authorship assigned to Samuel
Ruth -- unknown
1 Samuel -- unknown, likely authors include: Abiathar, Nathan, Gad, and pupils from Samuel's school of prophets
2 Samuel -- ditto
1 Kings -- unknown Jewish captive in Babylon
2 Kings -- ditto
1 Chronicles -- most likely Ezra
2 Chronicles -- ditto
Ezra -- Ezra
Nehemiah -- Nehemiah (at least mostly, possible editing by redactors who borrowed from Ezra)
Esther -- unknown, some have suggested Ezra or Nehemian, but most likely a Jew living in Persia in the latter half of the 5th century BC
Job -- anonymous, many suggested authors such as Moses, Solomon, a contemporary of Solomon, Isaiah, Jereamiah, Baruch, and even Job himself
Psalms -- 73 of the 150 specfically ascribed to David; 10 to the sons of Korah; 12 to Asaph; 2 to Solomon; 1 to Ethan; 1 to Heman; 1 to Moses; 50 are anonymous though 4 of these are reported in other places in scripture as having been written by David and many others are suspected of having been
Proverbs -- most of this material originated with Solomon; chapters 30 and 31 are assigned to Agur and Lemuel, respectively; chapters 25-29 were written by Solomon but edited by a committee appointed by King Hezekiah some 200 years later
Ecclesiastes -- actually unnamed, but vs. 1:1 identifies the author as "the son of David, king of Jerusalem" several people fit that description traditional authorship is assigned to Solomon (though some commentators think the author was an anonymous impersonator of Solomon)
Song of Solomon -- Solomon
Isaiah -- Isaiah and Isaiah's disciples
Jeremiah -- Jeremiah
Lamentations -- Jeremiah
Ezekiel -- Ezekiel
Daniel -- Daniel (though many liberal "scholars" disagree arguing that the description of the various miracles are fiction and therefore must not be by the prophet)
Hosea -- Hosea
Joel -- Joel
Amos -- Amos
Obadiah -- Obadiah
Jonah -- traditional view is Jonah (again liberal "scholars" dispute any identification of the book's author)
Micah -- Micah
Nahum -- Nahum
Habakkuk -- Habakkuk
Zephaniah -- Zephaniah
Haggai -- Haggai
Zechariah -- Zechariah (a prophet from around 520 BC, and not to be confused with several other Zechariahs mentioned in the Bible)
Malachi -- Malachiah
Matthew -- not specified in the book, the best evidence supports the unanimous traditional assignment of this book to Jesus' disciple Matthew, son of Alphaeus
Mark -- not specificed in the book, the early church Fathers testified that the book was the work of John Mark
Luke -- not specified in the book, the oldest manuscript of the gospel and all the early church fathers attribute it to Luke
John -- not specified in the book, the testimony of John's own disciple is that John said he wrote the book
Acts -- not specified in the book, but it was definitely written by the same person who wrote Luke
Romans -- Paul
1 Corinthians -- Paul
2 Corinthians -- Paul
Galatians -- Paul
Ephesians -- Paul, though his authorship is disputed by some
Philippians -- Paul
Colossians -- Paul, though his authorship is disputed by some
1 Thessalonians -- Paul
2 Thessalonians -- Paul, though his authorship is disputed by some
1 Timothy -- Paul, though his authorship is disputed by some
2 Timothy -- Paul, though his authorship is disputed by some
Titus -- Paul, though his authorship is disputed by some
Philemon -- Paul
Hebrews -- unknown (at one time thought to have been by Paul, but it never had the testimony of all of the church Fathers, indeed some think it might have been written by Clement of Rome)
James -- James (I believe James the half-brother of Jesus, others would claim another James with the second most likely being the Apostle James, brother of John)
1 Peter -- Peter
2 Peter -- internally it claims to be the work of Peter, many scholars think it was written too late to have been written by the real Peter, the earliest recorded doubt of its authenticity was from Origen (c. 185 - 254 AD) who also accepts it in another source
1 John -- John the apostle and author of the Gospel (I'm aware of those who dispute all Johanine literature as authentically John, I just vehemently disagree with them)
2 John -- same author as 1 John
3 John -- same author as 1 John
Jude -- Jude, brother of James (the half-brother of Jesus)
Revelation -- John

 

[aadil77]

A very good question. And the answer is, it depends.

The publishers of the various modern language translations (English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, etc.) have a difficult task in first selecting what they feel is the best text from which to translate. Unlike the Qur'an, we don't have a single document that we refer back to (as also unlike the Qur'an we didn't destory all copies that didn't agree with one another), but many. Some translations like the KVJ and the NKJV used the textus receptus as their text (at least for the New Testament, I don't know the sources for the OT). The textus receptus is a compiled Greek text of the NT that was arrived at by comparing various existing source documents, noting their similarities and differences and then through a process that I call educated guessing (but sounds vaguely familiar to the process that Muslims use to determine the veracity of various hadiths) making selection of that which they believe most accuratley represents the original. Others in translating other Bibles have, in differing from those who produced the textus receptus, used the same process but preferred other source documents as the text from which they have made their transaltion. Two of the standard Greek texts in use today are texts of the United Bible Societies and Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece which is I think used by the NASB. Some publishers, rather than using one of the standard texts, may prefer to produce their own text from among the source documents, but to know the specific answer to your question you'll need to read the introductory material of each translation. Similar processes are involved in selecting a text from which to translate the OT, but I wouldn't be versed in the names of any of those texts.

There were never any contradicting versions of the quran before its compilation

You say they were based upon greek texts, so was the bible revealed in greece? Or is the greek text a translation of another text?

You've made it clear that you don't have a single text to translate from and that different texts did contradict with each other, thats means their are different versions of the bible and not simply translations

 

[Grace Seeker]

There were never any contradicting versions of the quran before its compilation

That's not the story I understood it from other Islamic sources. But my memory sometimes does fail me. Right now it fails me on where I first learned that. Or perhaps it is failing me because I was confused at the time and am remembering it wrong.

You say they were based upon greek texts, so was the bible revealed in greece? Or is the greek text a translation of another text?

You've made it clear that you don't have a single text to translate from and that different texts did contradict with each other, thats means their are different versions of the bible and not simply translations

Most of the OT was written in Hebrew. Most (if not all) of the NT was written in Greek.

The Bible is not, and never was, a single book. It is a collection of many different books. Those books circulated as independent scrolls and parchments. These independent documents were the originals. They were copied and recopied -- with respect to the OT over many centuries, and even with the NT it was in the 300s before the scrolls were bound together into codexes the first immediate precursors of our modern book format that one finds the Bible published in today. So, even the search for a single text is misplaced, you need to search for single texts. A single text for each of the separate books of the Bible. One doesn't ask about the original Bible, but about the original Matthew or the original John. And yes, at one time, there would have been a single original text for each book.

But, of course, they made copies of those original texts -- originals which have been lost to the ravages of time and mostly reverted to dust. And, in copying, multiple copies, not just single copies were made. And over time there were errors made in the copying process. There were even occassions when redactors intentionally tried their hand at re-writing parts of the text. Does this impact our ability to produce an original Bible? You bet it does. But not as much as you might think. Now, if you want to know why it is that this is so, I'll be glad to explain why in a thread devoted to the Bible. Long ago we hijacked this thread away from its original purpose, but a thorough explanation of Biblical source documentation probably belongs some place other than in a thread asking Muslims what they think of Catholicism.

 

[aadil77]

Why was the new testament written in greek? I thought the whole of the bible was revealed in aramaic, isn't that the language Jesus (pbuh) spoke? I'd ask these questions in the 'answers from christians' thread, but it doesn't exist

 

[Grace Seeker]

Why was the new testament written in greek? I thought the whole of the bible was revealed in aramaic, isn't that the language Jesus (pbuh) spoke? I'd ask these questions in the 'answers from christians' thread, but it doesn't exist

No. Only a very small portion of the Bible is written in Aramaic. Aramaic wasn't even spoken by the Jews until they returned from the Babylonian exile, most of the OT was completed in Hebrew long before then.

As for the NT, there are multiple reasons that it is mostly in Greek. But primarily it was written in Greek for the same reason that this forum is written in English. Both happen to be the common langauge of international social discourse of their respective times. Once Christianity left the confines of Palestine, and especially after it became popular among gentiles as much or more so than it was among those of Jewish background, Greek was the principle language of the churches. So steeped were the first century Christian churches in the use of Greek, even when they read from the OT they chose to use the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures rather than the original Hebrew versions of them.

The first Christian writings that became part of the NT were not the Gospels telling of the life of Jesus, but letters written to Greek-speaking churches. The first of the Gospels that were written (Mark), was written by a non-Palestinian, diaspora-Greek-speaking Jew. The second (Luke), by a Greek-speaking gentile. The third (Matthew), which might have been originally written in Aramaic, but the oldest copies we have are in Greek with the closest we have to an extant Aramaic version of it actually being in Syriac and a copy a whole century older. The fourth Gospel (John), being written by an Aramaic-speaking palestinian Jew who had lived the last 30 years of his life exiled onto a Greek-speaking island in the middle of the Greek world and stylistically written so as to make an appeal to that audience.

It's also actually very likely that Jesus spoke Greek as fluently as he spoke Aramaic. I'm not saying that Aramaic was not his first tongue, but it is most likely that he was tri-lingual, as were most who indulged in commerce in the region of Galilee where Jesus was from. Aramaic for home life. Greek in the marketplace. And Latin when dealing with the ruling Romans. Even the sign which gave the reason for his execution above Jesus' head was written in all three languages.

 

[aadil77]

Wait I thought the bible was god's words revealed through prophet Jesus then written down by some people, why do different languages come into it and 'letters to churches'? Doesn't that make parts of the bible man made and therefore not meant to be part of bible?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Wait I thought the bible was god's words revealed through prophet Jesus then written down by some people

Then someone informed you wrong. None of it fits that description, not even the Gospels which tell in narrative form what God did in and through Jesus' life. In telling that story, the Gospels report some of Jesus' words; but what God was doing, not Jesus' words, is what we mean when we speak of the gospel message.

Doesn't that make parts of the bible man made and therefore not meant to be part of bible?

The Bible is very much a product of both God and human authors combined. The biblical authors are not merely pens in the hand of God; they do indeed influence the style (and probably even the content) of what is written. The Bible is a completely different sort of book than the Qur'an in that regard. There is no comparison, and one misunderstands the Bible when one tries to judge it is if it were penned by God.


Again, I think we are doing injustice to this thread. I would start a new thread with an exposition on the Bible, but fear it would not be acceptable because it would be seen a promoting something other than Islam. I do wonder what happened to that thread Woodrow designed for asking questions of Christians?

 

[aadil77]

yh lets leave it here then, the other thread was best for this

 

[جوري]

To the OP.. I think very poorly of Christianity in general, and catholics are probably the most corrupt of the bunch.. although I don't know that you can stratify paganism, does it matter if you take one idol vs. several that is as an object of your adoration, if the very core of your religion is in error and extremely convoluted .. bottoms line without huge excerpts.. the basic tenet of your religion upon which all else stands is illogical.. as such, it doesn't matter to me the volumes of people you quote or their personal experience to support such corruption.

Catholicism has had a very dark history especially contentious when it came to Muslims and even christians that weren't catholic (do read some about pope urban II) amongst others all together makes for a very unattractive mix..

In general I think Christianity is obsolete as a religion except for some patriotic few, and I rather believe they are simply hyper-vigilant.. I don't know that anyone in this day and age still believes in self-immolating gods that pray unto themselves and then concede to provincial conspirators the next day.. mere fact that a god would be born or die or suckle or cry etc. already tells me the universe can function without such a god as it did in his absence and his death!

all the best

 

[gmcbroom]

The Vale's Lily. As a Maronite Catholic, I'm a little saddened that you think Catholics are corrupt. Still, you are entitled to your opinion. I don't deny that there have been bad people that have done things in the name of the Catholic Church. However, not all are corrupt. Try not to blanket judge that which you know nothing about.
We don't worship idols. We ask the saints to intercede to God for us. A saint isn't a God or even equal with God. A saint is someone who's died who we believe is close to God. Thus we ask for them to intercede to God on our behalf. I realize it can be a touchy subject as their are even christians that don't believe saints exist. Still it is a Catholic belief since the earliest days of the church.
As for the self immolating God reference Jesus wasn't burned to death, he was crucified. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. Remember in the Old Testament the Jews had to sacrifice unblemished animals sometimes they could and sometimes they made do with what they could find. This didn't please God when they did that but in his infinte compassion he sent his Word to dwell among us and become the perfect sacrifice thus enabling us to reach the Father through the Son.

 

[Ramadhan]

We don't worship idols. We ask the saints to intercede to God for us

How do the saints intercede to God if they are already dead?

I realize it can be a touchy subject as their are even christians that don't believe saints exist.

How do you determine if someone is a saint?
How come paul johannes paulus approved more saints than all sainst approved by all his predecessors combined?

As for the self immolating God reference Jesus wasn't burned to death, he was crucified. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice.

OK so he was not self-immolating technically. But based on current christianity, he committed suicide. Does this mean that committing suicide is a way to attain paradise? Did jesus set example for suicide?
Is this why there are plenty of christian cults who committed mass-suicide?

Remember in the Old Testament the Jews had to sacrifice unblemished animals sometimes they could and sometimes they made do with what they could find. This didn't please God when they did that but in his infinte compassion he sent his Word to dwell among us and become the perfect sacrifice thus enabling us to reach the Father through the Son.

Did God tell you this?
Did Jesus tell you this?
I thought Jesus said that he was ONLY sent to the lost sheep of Israel?

 

[gmcbroom]

Naidamar, You raise good questions.
I don't know how saints are designated except that if a specific amount of miracles are attributed to to them and they lived a certain way then they can be nominated for sainthood. For more information feel free to google it. . As for how a saint can intercede on our behalf i believe through God they can hear our prayers for nothing is beyond him.
As for Jesus commiting suicide you could view it as that but the Christian tradition doesn't hold that view. To us he sacrificed himself to save us all. Could he have walked away? Of course. But he didn't. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. He enabled us to once again approach the Father. For he said the only way to the Father was through him. To Christians at least Catholics, Jesus is both God and man. He is God made manifest. That's why Demons fear him and obey.
Your right he was sent to the Jews, he said as much. However, he opened the way so that we all may approach the Father. As he said All are welcome at his Father's Table. After all in the Bible's New Testament, you can read many books where he healed the Gentiles. He could have brushed them off and he did to a few. But he also embraced them too. Why did he do it? Because he loves us.
As for the Christian cults that commit suicide they may not be following God. There is a difference between suicide and sacrifice. Suicides are often out of despair. Sacrifice is often out of love. Agape is the Greek word for love you'll find in the oldest known new testament. It means sacrificial love. Do people still sacrifice themselves today? You bet. Anytime your willing to die to save another. That's sacrifice. Jesus also said that those who are willing to lose their life for my sake will save it. That's why martyer's are embraced. Even in Islam.

 

[YusufNoor]

hey, i didn't bump the thread, BUT i see Catholicism as the MOST SATANIC of all forms of Christianity, just edging out Mormonism!

I don't know how saints are designated except that if a specific amount of miracles are attributed to to them and they lived a certain way then they can be nominated for sainthood.

these "miracles" are miracles that are allegedly performed AFTER they are dead! i mean WTF!? once Constantine became Christian, it was soon "passe" to kill Christians in the arena. one should also point out that historians as well as theologians are figuring out that the number of Christian martyrs has been greatly exaggerated.

add to this that most Christians didn't study Christianity, they were just trying to avoid hellfire. SOME clergy, but NOT a majority by any means, did study, but the most pious and learned were monks. the best of them were held in VERY high esteem, some even rose in rank in the Church.

so if there were some great calamity, that is, a flood or epidemic, people would dig up the bones of such monks and PRAY TO THEM! they would pray to them until the calamity ended. when said calamity ended, they would rationalize that God finally heard the prayers of the dead guy that they prayed to [THEY prayed to him, HE prayed to God (for them) and God answered HIS prayer!], that a miracle had happened!

2 of such "miracles" and you can get nominated for SAINTHOOD!^o)

makes TOTAL sense...NOT!!:hmm:

PEACE

 

[Perseveranze]

Naidamar, You raise good questions.
I don't know how saints are designated except that if a specific amount of miracles are attributed to to them and they lived a certain way then they can be nominated for sainthood. For more information feel free to google it. . As for how a saint can intercede on our behalf i believe through God they can hear our prayers for nothing is beyond him.
As for Jesus commiting suicide you could view it as that but the Christian tradition doesn't hold that view. To us he sacrificed himself to save us all. Could he have walked away? Of course. But he didn't. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. He enabled us to once again approach the Father. For he said the only way to the Father was through him. To Christians at least Catholics, Jesus is both God and man. He is God made manifest. That's why Demons fear him and obey.
Your right he was sent to the Jews, he said as much. However, he opened the way so that we all may approach the Father. As he said All are welcome at his Father's Table. After all in the Bible's New Testament, you can read many books where he healed the Gentiles. He could have brushed them off and he did to a few. But he also embraced them too. Why did he do it? Because he loves us.
As for the Christian cults that commit suicide they may not be following God. There is a difference between suicide and sacrifice. Suicides are often out of despair. Sacrifice is often out of love. Agape is the Greek word for love you'll find in the oldest known new testament. It means sacrificial love. Do people still sacrifice themselves today? You bet. Anytime your willing to die to save another. That's sacrifice. Jesus also said that those who are willing to lose their life for my sake will save it. That's why martyer's are embraced. Even in Islam.

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Do you think it's really right for someone else to die for your sins? Hey, I wish that was true, I wish I could go into any court in the world, even the one in the afterlife and say "this man can take all my blame", but really, who's that stupid?

It's almost insulting God if you think he can be that easily fooled. You do bad, your going to get your punishment, if you do good, your going to get your earned reward. And if there's anyone who can "forgive" you, then it's your Creator, no one else. Get away with murder in this world sure, but in the next world you will be asked about it, and the answer such as "he died for my sins" won't help you a single bit.

That is in my book, a God who see's all his Creation as equal (except in Peity/Good deeds) and judges them equally aswell.

 

[IAmZamzam]

You want to know if we have any questions about Catholicism? All right, here's one of mine that I've never heard any Catholic give a real answer to before and I don't expect them to this time either, so give me a pleasant surprise: if the cardinals' election of the new Pope is really God's decision and they're not truly making it themselves then why do they bother talking it over at all? Why not just cast lots like the apostles were said to in the book of Acts when they had to replace one of their own number? Aren't Christians supposed to emulate the apostles?

 

[Ramadhan]

I don't know how saints are designated except that if a specific amount of miracles are attributed to to them and they lived a certain way then they can be nominated for sainthood.

You haven't explained why Paus Johannes Paulus created more saints than ALL the numbers of saints created by ALL previous popes COMBINED.
Whats with the inflation?
How much money does each saint bring to the coffers of the Vatican?

As for how a saint can intercede on our behalf i believe through God they can hear our prayers for nothing is beyond him.

This doesn't make sense at all, and is illogical.
let me get this straight in simple steps:
1. Catholics pray to saints.
2. Oops. The saints are dead and so cannot hear the prayer.
3. But God is all hearing, so He can hear the prayer, so what does He do? Acting like a clerk/admin assistant, God relays the prayer to the dead saints
4. The saints received the relayed prayer from God
5. The saints OK the prayer and ask God to approve the prayer

Catholics are really something.
First, they claim God died to erase their sins, and then now they charge that God acts like a postal worker relaying messages and prayers from catholics to the dead saints.
In the first instance, God cannot forgive and erase sins by His will, but He must die.
In the second, God cannot accept prayers but through saints or maybe god only prioritize relayed prayers from dead saints.

How much more pagan can you get?

As for Jesus commiting suicide you could view it as that but the Christian tradition doesn't hold that view. To us he sacrificed himself to save us all. Could he have walked away? Of course. But he didn't. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. He enabled us to once again approach the Father. For he said the only way to the Father was through him. To Christians at least Catholics, Jesus is both God and man. He is God made manifest. That's why Demons fear him and obey.

So God, who created the whole universe with ease, had to humiliate himself as human and had to go to the toilets/bushes to relieve himself, committed suicide because he cannot forgive human sins any other way. He also killed himself to enable human to approach him.

ummmmm'kay...