Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

ok, so let's get more hypothetical.  Let's say for argument's sake the earliest Christians including the disciples believed in Jesus as a X and not Y. And then the Y doctrine took hold between 50-100AD. Now when selecting the Gospels, the earliest Christian gospels that mentioned Jesus as X would be considered heretical, correct?

The word heretical in my opinion mean something that must be faught by all means. When Jesus lo longer was on earth, of course a vacuum occured. Thr first Christians were a persecuted group that had to stick together even if they did not agree on every detail. What makes you think that the "doctrine" during 20 years after the crucifixion, (from when we have the oldest letters in the Bible) could change in such an extent that it would have been called "herasy" by the first generation Christians, their parents?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, andres said:

The word heretical in my opinion mean something that must be faught by all means. When Jesus lo longer was on earth, of course a vacuum occured. Thr first Christians were a persecuted group that had to stick together even if they did not agree on every detail. What makes you think that the "doctrine" during 20 years after the crucifixion, (from when we have the oldest letters in the Bible) could change in such an extent that it would have been called "herasy" by the first generation Christians, their parents?

Could the doctrine change? Definitely as proven in the case of Moses on the Mount for 40 days and the Jews worshiping a golden calf.

Well the doctrine of divinity of Jesus (being the literal Son of God) was pretty radical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Could the doctrine change? Definitely as proven in the case of Moses on the Mount for 40 days and the Jews worshiping a golden calf.

Well the doctrine of divinity of Jesus (being the literal Son of God) was pretty radical.

Hang on a minute. Moses went for 40 days and there was an absolute turn-around in religion, not just some doctrine.

The doctrine of Jesus becomming the literal son of God was not 20 years into a new religion, but in the year 325 when the Nicean creed declared it to be true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Son of Placid said:

Hang on a minute. Moses went for 40 days and there was an absolute turn-around in religion, not just some doctrine.

The doctrine of Jesus becomming the literal son of God was not 20 years into a new religion, but in the year 325 when the Nicean creed declared it to be true. 

Nicean Creed was when it was officially adopted as the creed but it started way before then, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Could the doctrine change? Definitely as proven in the case of Moses on the Mount for 40 days and the Jews worshiping a golden calf.

Well the doctrine of divinity of Jesus (being the literal Son of God) was pretty radical.

You cannot use the story of Moses as proof. A story written after having been kept orally for 500 years.

Consider:  500.000 Jewish men + wives and children. Maybe 3 million nomadic  jews in all. If they abandoned their faith because Moses was away 40 days, they were not very convinced Jews. The first generation Christians were willing to die for their religion. And their children would inherit their religion just like most children of Muslims and Christians inherit the religion of their parents. Your scenery is not realistic. Sorry.

And I told you: "son of God" is not to be understood literally. God did not sleep with Mary. But HAD it been Christian belief it had not been radical. In all contemporary indoeuropean religions humans and Gods having common offspring was normal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, andres said:

And I told you: "son of God" is not to be understood literally. God did not sleep with Mary. But HAD it been Christian belief it had not been radical. In all contemporary indoeuropean religions humans and Gods having common offspring was normal. 

not in God's monotheistic religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Wait, I just got. You don't believe in Jesus as the actual Son of God. Correct?

Unlike all humans, Popes, Prophets and footballplayes inclusive, I believe Jesus is divine and infallible. What relation there is between the "Son of God" and God himself I do not know, but I know it is not the result of a sexual relationship between God and Mary. If the Quran by saying "God has not got no Son" accuses Christians for believing this , Muhammed got it very wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shiaman14,

 

Quote: I am not really sure how much of the above pertains to Mark 16:9-20. You talk about the weakness of the Gospel writers but I already know that . Although, their weakness should have been covered up if they were inspired by God.

 

Rsponse: --- This is why I included the verses from John, to show that Mary Magdalene came to them and they both testified, --- Peter included the results of Mary reporting to them, in writing the last verses of Mark, --- and John included the same, saying that Mary Magdalene came and told them:

 

I had said that only Mark had a weakness of fear, so he was not an eye witness of the resurrection and the empty tomb, as Peter and John had been. If he got his information from one of the women who fled, then he would say, "They fled and said nothing to anyone."

 

Let's suppose that in Mark's last verse, where it says:

8 So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

--- Notice that it says in verse 1:

Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him.

--- So there were three women, including Mary Magdalene. --- And they might all have been frightened, and the other two might have fled to their homes, but Mary Magdalene went to tell Peter and John, as it says next:

9 "Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons.

10 She went and told those who had been with Him."

 

And John repeated that in John 20:

1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

2 Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple (John), whom Jesus loved,

--- So Peter and John both recorded what Mark omitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2016 at 11:26 AM, shiaman14 said:

divinity of Jesus (being the literal Son of God) was pretty radical.

I have yet to find a single Christian who takes the title, "son of God", literally. Only Muslims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@shiaman14

Be sure to refer me to a Church or Christian who takes the title, "son of God", literally. I have yet to find one.

As for your question, my understand is that this title has three meanings:

1. Angels

"the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose." (Genesis 6:2)

"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown." (Genesis 6:4)

Note: Christians believe that angels have freewill and some chose to follow Satan.

2. A person who is in a loving relationship with God

"You (Israelites) are the sons of the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 14:1)

"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God." (Deuteronomy 32:8)

Note: To describe the type of intimate relationship one should have with God, God is called our father and those who obey Him are His children. See verse below. 

"Do you thus repay the Lord, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you?" (Deuteronomy 32:6)

3. Of divine nature (in other words, God Himself)

I disagree with this meaning as Christians use this to mean Jesus is God incarnate. 

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." (Mark 1:1)

"And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.” (Mark 3:11)

I hope this clears things up.

Edited by Ali666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ali666 said:

@shiaman14

Be sure to refer me to a Church or Christian who takes the title, "son of God", literally. I have yet to find one.

As for your question, my understand is that this title has three meanings:

1. Angels

"the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose." (Genesis 6:2)

"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown." (Genesis 6:4)

Note: Christians believe that angels have freewill and some chose to follow Satan.

2. A person who is in a loving relationship with God

"You (Israelites) are the sons of the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 14:1)

"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God." (Deuteronomy 32:8)

Note: To describe the type of intimate relationship one should have with God, God is called our father and those who obey Him are His children. See verse below. 

"Do you thus repay the Lord, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you?" (Deuteronomy 32:6)

3. Of divine nature (in other words, God Himself)

I disagree with this meaning as Christians use this to mean Jesus is God incarnate. 

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." (Mark 1:1)

"And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.” (Mark 3:11)

I hope this clears things up.

#3 is what I am referring to. It is the mist common belief in Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shiaman14,

 

Quotes from near the bottom of page 1: The 4 Gospels are the only ones in the Bible but that does not mean they were the only ones in existence in the first century.

Quote: Apart from the Gospel writers, do we know the authors of the rest of the books in the NT? Isn't it predominately Paul?

 

Response: --- The history is given in a Bible Dictionary and it is easy to understand. --- From the time Jesus began preaching and doing miracles to show that God's power was demonstrated through Him, the 'Oral Gospel' began and spread throughout the country, as in this, in Matthew 4:

23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.

24 Then His fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and He healed them.

25 Great multitudes followed Him—from Galilee, and from Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan.

--- There were no doubt articles in every local newspaper or communication they had, --- and everybody knew about Jesus and His disciples.

 

The first written works that remained for years was "The Sayings of Jesus" by Matthew in Aramaic. --- And "The Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew,(Aramaic)." --- Aramaic was a dialect of Hebrew.

Quote: "Saint Jerome tells us that a Hebrew version of Matthew was still extant in his day (400 AD) at the library in Caesarea and /or Alexandria.  Eusebius tells us that Pantaenus the missionary, went to India, and was told by the locals that Bartholomew the Apostle had brought the Gospel of Matthew, written in Hebrew, to India in the first century."

 

The Apostles went out from the Jerusalem Church and those who went to other countries would have a copy of Matthew's Gospel, plus other writings that were available.

 

Paul was converted within months or a year after Jesus ascended, Acts 1, and after the Day of Pentecost, Acts 2. --- He had opposed the Apostles' teaching, and in Acts 9, he was converted. --- He began to witness right away, but then went to Arabia for three years before he came back to Damascus in Syria.

This would bring the time to about year 37-38. --- He was in Antioch, Syria, with Barnabas and others when God called them to go on a Missionary journey in Acts 13:

1 Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."

3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.

 

--- His Jewish name was Saul. but his Roman name was Paul, as he was also a Roman citizen. This would have been about 45 AD.

Paul was a scholar and would have all of the written material available. As they established Churches he would keep contact with them, and when he couldn't visit them, he would write letters. --- The reason Paul's letters were used in the Churches is because they were all written and distributed some years before the three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, were written in Greek.

There were three Missionary journeys where Paul and others established Churches, and they would go on from there to establish others, --- so it was some time before letters were written back to them. --- The first letter was written to the Galatians between 53-56.

--- Because the new Churches had common problems, Paul's letters were like 'circuit letters' that were sent from one Church to another, as it says in Colossians 4:

16 Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

17 And say to Archippus, "Take heed to the ministry which you have received in the Lord, that you may fulfill it."

--- This is why Paul's letters are used in Churches today, because he addresses problems that people and leaders had.  

I could give you the approximate dates of each of Paul's letters, --- some of which he wrote from his prison cell in Rome. He no doubt kept all of his writings because it says in a letter to Timothy, when Paul invited him to come to Rome in 67 AD --- 2 Timothy 4:

13 Bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you come—and the books, especially the parchments.

The choosing of the order of the 27 Books of the New Testament was guided by the Holy Spirit. --- The latest books to be included were the personal letters of Paul to Philemon and 2nd and 3rd John.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their common 'paper' was made from Papyrus, the plant like reed that grew locally in wet areas, to a height of about 12 feet. They would open the stem and cut strips which they laid in the size of sheet they wanted, then they would lay strips the opposite way and press them together. --- The juice or sap would act as glue and in their soft state, one side would be made smooth, and then let dry in the sun. --- The result was a yellowish sheet much like our heavy wrapping paper.

--- Making Papyrus, and printing, as the Scribes did, was a big business, so the local news could be sent out quickly. They also had 'town criers,' --- and 'word of mouth' was the main communication. --- People could listen to the testimony they heard, and by the mouth of two or three witnesses (those who told the same story) it could be believed and communicated to others. --- If there was one who told false stories or said things off the top of his head, they would be rejected, because there was no second and third witness.

--- And the paper didn't have to be top quality because you know what they say about 'yesterday's newspaper.'

Edited by placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only was the printing technic not yet invented, Papyrus was also very expensive and newspapers therefore impossible. But of course news had other ways of spreading. Not mentioned in any documents during his lifetime we can be pretty certain that Jesus was not known by a large public, however this changed fast as Christianity grew.  

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have said writing, rather than printing, which they knew very well, just like Matthew who would be writing even as Jesus spoke.

 

As for Jesus being well known: It says in Matthew 4:

23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.

24 Then His fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and He healed them.

25 Great multitudes followed Him—from Galilee, and from Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan.

Edited by placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, placid said:

I should have said writing, rather than printing, which they knew very well, just like Matthew who would be writing even as Jesus spoke.

"Writing" is closer to the truth, only not many could read or write. News were mainly oral. 

How do you know that Mathew wrote before 33AD? And what did he write?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote: Education was a priority for Jewish people. Jesus would have learnt the Bible at the village school (until the age of twelve) and at the local synagogue. This accounts for Jesus' knowledge of Hebrew (the language of the Bible) and Aramaic (the language in which religious discussion was held). It was also the custom of the time for young adults to attach themselves to a local teacher or sage.

 

The Jews always had a good educational system. and the OT Scriptures were learned early. It is strange that you would think that God's chosen people would be illiterate. --- How about this for reading and writing from about 1450 BC? --- Deuteronomy 6:

4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!

5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

6 "And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart.

7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.

8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.

9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

 

They would bind little leather cases on their arms and foreheads, which were called 'phylacteries,' and in them were written verses for reminders of God's laws. --- They would also write on their doorposts and gates, so that everyone could read it.

--- The Jews were always well educated in writing and reading, as all the laws were written and carried with them. --- Consider the Dead Sea Scrolls which contain all, or part, of all 66 Books except one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there were educated Jews that could read and write. Had there not been we would not have the Bible. But for most Jews being able to read was not necessary. Or was it?

But you claim that Mathew wrote already during Jesus mission, which means before 33AD. Where have you got this information from, and what did Mathew write?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was recorded and confirmed by the Church Fathers that Matthew first wrote, "The Sayings of Jesus," in Aramaic, which I believe were Matthew 5, 6, and 7, which start and end with ‘Sayings.’

It begins in Matthew 5:2 "And He opened His mouth and taught them, ‘saying:’" --- and it ends in 7:

28 "And so it was, when Jesus ended these ‘sayings,’ that the people were astonished at His teaching."

 

It was confirmed by the Church Fathers that Matthew wrote his first Gospel in Aramaic (a dialect of Hebrew, so some call it Hebrew).

This is said to be the record of the oldest "Gospel of Matthew in Aramaic" contained in this codex:

The Aramaic English New Testament was translated directly from Aramaic into English from the oldest New Testament ever discovered, the Khabouris Codex, which some scholars date all the way back to 120 A.D.

--- The original Manuscripts were vulnerable to the ‘wear’ of much use, and the weather, so they were constantly copied from the originals as long as they had them, and while it gives an early date, it may have been copied from the original.

 

The early Fathers of the Church (Irenaeus, Jerome, Eusebius) tell us that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Saint Jerome tells us that a Hebrew version of Matthew was still extant in his day at the library in Caesarea and /or Alexandria.  Eusebius tells us that Pantaenus the missionary went to India, and was told by the locals that Bartholomew the Apostle had brought the Gospel of Matthew, written in Hebrew, to India in the first century. --- (That was when the Apostles went out from Jerusalem, to take the Gospel Message to other countries.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Would we really have evolved if we can't even fix what we destroyed?
    • Salam, I'm of the opinion that we should fix this earth. We won't need to leave this place for thousands of years if we do.
    • That is a good comment. Thanks for the points. First of all one user said that since eastern men think western women are freer, they are sinful. I did NOT mean that kind of freedom. It doesn't matter whether you are western or eastern. If you're Muslim, you won't do that. I mainly focused on freedom in working, money, and freedom in social interactions. These freedom I think does not attach man and woman to each other like before. For example, in SOME parts of eastern countries, man and woman are so dependent on each other. When you look at it, you see that they have some sort of limitations on their social interactions and give higher priority to family. You see that they spend MORE time than most western families with their family. I think one of the things that helped into these form of families is that wife is householder. She kept her husband around herself, and man became attracted and dependent on her. In western culture I think men at work are in contact with women. They are not Muslim and this is some sort of deterioration for his family base. Because he sees other women without Hijab, and if he doesn't follow religion correctly, he goes back home at night and compares his wife with his female colleagues (I know it's disgusting). These social interactions does not attach man and woman to each other in a proper way, and I think it is an introduction to freedom. I think it gives you this freedom to spend more time than before with your colleagues rather than your wife. Let me tell you from my experience of Iran. I personally cannot imagine that spending time with my friend is more enjoyable than my wife. I do know that other Iranian people have similar orientation if they are religious and did not have boy/girl friend in the past. I personally support women who work in companies with Hijab. It's some sort of advertisement and creates a good picture of Islam. About your idea on desi people, I think it's true to some of them. I also have this feeling towards them but not all. I asked my friend who is Indian: "do you like to support your wife financially if she wants to be house wife?" He said NO. That was surprising to me. He said she needs to work and earn money. I don't like supporting her financially. This is a non-muslim american culture. I saw some programs on TV that man was COMPLAINING that my wife doesn't work and I have to take care of all bills myself. Judge gave right to the man because in this culture with these rules, his words sound reasonable. My friend is not American at all. He was raised in India, but he is affected by this culture. How can I be sure that my future wife is not affected by some similar things(not particularly this example, any other western culture)? That is not acceptable to religion because even if woman works, man should give her Nafaghah. When I said cultural differences, I mainly meant this 50-50 culture that man and woman are both responsible and working.
    • That's a Catholic thing. Protestant churches have an empty cross. Nobody worships it as a God. It is a symbol, a reminder. The Israelites were into idols, they made many graven images, including a golden calf, they worshiped as a god. 
    • The Wahhabi phenomenon only occurred 120 years ago, prior to the creation of the wahhabis, Shia's were still persecuted by the mainstream Sunnis.  
×