Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
delight

Founder of christanity?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

 

Hi there!

I think a large part of the problem scholars face is that the issue goes beyond language to so much else.

The example I ran of Matthew 8:20 perhaps illustrates this. Your earlier translation is spot on in terms of the contemporary meaning of the phrase 'Son of Man', and as one sentence taken on its own. However look at the Matthew 8 context (immediate, wider and Gospel-wide), and it is generally agreed that Jesus is talking about himself.

But why use a phrase meaning 'humanity' or 'someone', where the word 'I' should be? That's where the problem comes.

A further issue is that the meaning of 'Son of Man' varied over time. The usage seen in the Psalms changed following Daniel and subsequent messianic interpretation before/at the time of Jesus.

I think we can do work with the usage of Son of Man in Mark 13,14 without necessarily having to get at its meaning too closely, but I'll do that next week for sake of brevity. If Jesus did use the phrase of himself, in an original and unusual way, it is important to ask what we can learn from that.

 

On a side note, Jeremias identifies Jesus' Aramaic as a Galilean version of western Aramaic, which has minor differences with the Aramaic spoken in Judea. Matthew 26:73 is possibly evidence here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2019 at 5:21 PM, Leslie P said:

The example I ran of Matthew 8:20 perhaps illustrates this. Your earlier translation is spot on in terms of the contemporary meaning of the phrase 'Son of Man', and as one sentence taken on its own. However look at the Matthew 8 context (immediate, wider and Gospel-wide), and it is generally agreed that Jesus is talking about himself.

But why use a phrase meaning 'humanity' or 'someone', where the word 'I' should be? That's where the problem comes.

That goes beyond what I'm saying, my point is that the phrase "son of man" isn't a special theological phrase as people suggest it's a very ordinary circumlocution that's being used by the Gospel writers. Why that is would be a hermeneutical question. I think a good answer is just that it is a phrase that shows humility as was suggested in the articles I linked to. But inherently we don't learn something theological from it.

On 10/17/2019 at 5:21 PM, Leslie P said:

A further issue is that the meaning of 'Son of Man' varied over time. The usage seen in the Psalms changed following Daniel and subsequent messianic interpretation before/at the time of Jesus.

Actually it shows a relative stability over the course of 1000 years from Old Aramaic to Middle Aramaic.

bkl mh zy ymwt br ʾnš

"From all that which a person may die." (Sefire Stele 3, 8th century BC -- an example of Old Aramaic)

ܐܢܐ ܬܘܠܥܐ ܐܢܐ ܘܠܐ ܒܪܢܫܐ܂ ܚܣܕܐ ܕܒܢ̈ܝ ܐܢܫܐ ܘܣܘܠܢܗ ܕܥܡܐ܂

"I am a worm, not a man, shamed by men and despised by people." (Pe[Edited Out]ta translation of Psalms 22:7, must date from some time in the 4th century AD -- an example of Middle Aramaic).

Daniel's usage also fits with this indefinite sense of someone, in this case an unstated Messiah whom Daniel sees in his vision. It isn't a special theological phrase here either.

Additionally the Psalms were written in Biblical Hebrew so this idiomatic phrase doesn't appear in them like it would in Aramaic literature. It would be necessary to see how that phrase would be used in Hebrew before making a judgement about how it relates to this Aramaic phrase. For the moment I'll consider them second phrases even if the individual words are cognates.

On 10/17/2019 at 5:21 PM, Leslie P said:

On a side note, Jeremias identifies Jesus' Aramaic as a Galilean version of western Aramaic, which has minor differences with the Aramaic spoken in Judea. Matthew 26:73 is possibly evidence here.

Yes, although Galilean Aramaic would have been a subgroup within the general category of Palestinian (or Judean Aramaic). I remember reading somewhere how, among other quirks, it lost its pharyngeals. In any case, there is very little research done in it (presumably since we lack any significant data that could be useful in philological research) and my university library doesn't have any of the (very expensive) existing research so for the moment the specific features of it will continue to remain a mystery to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2019 at 6:02 PM, Leslie P said:

I would agree that the idea of “Son of Man” referencing Jesus' human nature is unlikely, since Jesus had no need to make that point. It was obvious by looking!

The next thing to say about 'Son of Man' is that there is no clear consensus at this time how Jesus used it of himself. Some theologians dislike going there at all.

It may be, as Ibn Al-Ja'abi suggests, an Aramaic phrase used as a circumlocution for 'I' or 'Someone in my position'; and there are may be instances where that could be how Jesus uses it (Mt 8:20 for example).

However not all passages work so well with that usage, and it may be that Jesus was referring to Daniel 7  in its usage of 'one like a son of man'. This would self-identify Jesus as the one who rescued God's people, and established the Kingdom of God.

 

This is reinforced by Mark 14:62 where Jesus is explicitly referencing Daniel 7.

 

I just want to add mark 2 1:12 in the discussion.

In verse 10, Jesus uses the phrase "son of man" is used, yet it's used in a divine context. "Know that the Son of Man Has authority on Earth to forgive sins".

And in this scenario, Jesus not only heals the paralytic, but he accomplishes something that no other man could do and he forgives the sins of that man. (Verses 5-12).

Fully human? Yes. However in scripture Jesus also performs actions that no other man nor Prophet could perform.

In full:

A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. They gathered in such large numbers that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. Some men came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus by digging through it and then lowered the mat the man was lying on. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on Earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iCenozoic said:

Fully human? Yes. However in scripture Jesus also performs actions that no other man nor Prophet could perform.

In full:

hi other Prophets did same miracles like him but also they did miracles that Jesus didn't do like as Prophet Musa (as)/Moses that had more miracles than other Prophets that others didn't do it & only Prophet that brings a book as miracle was Prophet Muhammad (pbu) but other Prophets didn't call their books as miracle and miracles like as miracles of jesus many time repeated by Shia Imams like as healing paralyzed people or returning people or animals from dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

hi other Prophets did same miracles like him but also they did miracles that Jesus didn't do like as Prophet Musa (as)/Moses that had more miracles than other Prophets that others didn't do it & only Prophet that brings a book as miracle was Prophet Muhammad (pbu) but other Prophets didn't call their books as miracle and miracles like as miracles of jesus many time repeated by Shia Imams like as healing paralyzed people or returning people or animals from dead.

In the quoted passage, Jesus not only healed the paralytic, but Jesus accomplished a greater feat in providing a means for salvation, which is something that no other Prophet could do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

That goes beyond what I'm saying, my point is that the phrase "son of man" isn't a special theological phrase as people suggest it's a very ordinary circumlocution that's being used by the Gospel writers. Why that is would be a hermeneutical question. I think a good answer is just that it is a phrase that shows humility as was suggested in the articles I linked to. But inherently we don't learn something theological from it.

 

No if you look at the Books of Daniel and Enoch the Son of Man clearly refers to Messianic figure who was supernatural attributes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Celtic Twilight said:

No if you look at the Books of Daniel and Enoch the Son of Man clearly refers to Messianic figure who was supernatural attributes.

Yes, the subject of that phrase is a Messianic figure but you're reading into it a necessarily Messianic connotation since it appears in reference to this figure. That's mistaken. The Messianic connotations aren't found within this Aramaic phrase itself at all but who you think it's being used to refer to. If you seriously look at Aramaic literature from the first temple period well into the Christian period you'll see it's an ordinary phrase devoid of what you're insisting. To put it in other words, the son of man is not necessarily the anointed one, the Messiah, only accidentally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2005 at 5:06 PM, way2go said:

We believe there is one Almighty God, the Creator of the universe. Man cannot even try to understand or explain the God or how He works. Christians believe God manifests Himself through Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Paul never even met Isa(عليه السلام) tho he only had a "vision", so your argument about Prophet Muhammad(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) doesn't really have weight here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Yes, the subject of that phrase is a Messianic figure but you're reading into it a necessarily Messianic connotation since it appears in reference to this figure. That's mistaken. The Messianic connotations aren't found within this Aramaic phrase itself at all but who you think it's being used to refer to. If you seriously look at Aramaic literature from the first temple period well into the Christian period you'll see it's an ordinary phrase devoid of what you're insisting. To put it in other words, the son of man is not necessarily the anointed one, the Messiah, only accidentally.

There is a son of man, and The Son of Man.

Taking a critical historical approach I don't see anyway around this- which by the way I do not see as necessarily confirming Nicene Christianity. Things are a lot more complex than that. The context of the New Testament is Second Temple Judaism. The below was written by an Orthodox Rabbi, though a rather liberal one, who places the phrase within a Second Temple context. The context does not necessarily lead to the conclusions reached by the Ecumenical councils though that is one possibility, other conclusions are also open, however the idea that The Son of Man means just an ordinary human being in the historical context of the New Testament is not one of them.

https://www.academia.edu/36254573/Daniel_Boyarin_How_Enoch_can_Teach_us_About_Jesus_Early_Christianity_2_1_2011_51_76

https://www.academia.edu/36254644/Daniel_Boyarin_Enoch_Ezra_and_the_Jewishness_of_High_Christology_in_Matthias_Henze_et_al._eds._Fourth_Ezra_and_Second_Baruch_Reconstruction_After_the_Fall_Leiden_Brill_2013_337_362

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Celtic Twilight

Salams,

Excellent! Thank you for these two articles, a well researched article on its usage in late second temple literature will prove fascinating. As Leslie pointed out earlier it likely isn't the case that if there was that specific Messianic connotation to this phrase that in every usage of it in the NT, eg., in Mt.8:20 where a more general reading does seem appropriate. Nevertheless look forward to reading these articles, thanks.

Wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

@Celtic Twilight

Salams,

Excellent! Thank you for these two articles, a well researched article on its usage in late second temple literature will prove fascinating. As Leslie pointed out earlier it likely isn't the case that if there was that specific Messianic connotation to this phrase that in every usage of it in the NT, eg., in Mt.8:20 where a more general reading does seem appropriate. Nevertheless look forward to reading these articles, thanks.

Wassalam

 

I think that The Son of Man in the New Testament it could be argued is comparable to the Universal Man in Sufism or the Cosmic Imam in Shia Islam. I know that Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai wrote a commentary on the Gospel of John, the Gospel with the "Highest" Christology, in which he argued that properly understood it was compatible with the Shia understanding of Islam, it hasn't been published in English so I am unsure how successful he was in this or what exactly his arguments were.

This is from the "The Spirituality of Shi'I Islam" by Dr. Mohammed Ali Amir-Moezzi who is a controversial scholar because he often takes extreme and/or fringe statements, beliefs, etc in Shi'ism and makes them of central importance, but if you examine the below and than examine the New Testament it could be argued easily that almost the same things are going on:

" The divine being comprises two ontological planes: the Essence (dhāt), which is unknowable, unimaginable and unintelligible, to be comprehended only through a negative, apophatic theology;53and the Names and Attributes (al-asmāʾ wa’l-ṣifāt) thanks to which creatures in general and human beings in particular are able to approach that which is knowable of God. This is the domain of theophanic theology because, in effect, the names and attributes, which are revealed through God’s Most Beautiful Names (al-asmāʾ al-ḥusnā), possess the places of manifesta-tion (maẓhar/majlā) that, like the organs, permit a relationship between God and his creatures.54 God’s organs are nothing other than the different aspects of the cosmic Imam, the archetypal Per-fect Man. The terrestrial Imams, for their part, are manifestations of him on the physical plane. There are numerous traditions in which the Imams repeat continuously: ‘We are the eye (ʿayn) of God, we are the hand (yad) of God, we are the face (wajh) of God, we are His flank (janb), His heart (qalb), His tongue (lisān), His ear (udhn).’55 The plane of essence constitutes the Deus abscon-ditus (Hidden God), while the plane of names-attributes-organs constitutes the Deus revelatus (Revealed God), that is to say, the Imam. Commenting on Q 7:180: ‘God possesses the Most Beauti-ful Names, invoke Him by these names’, the sixth Imam, Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, is reported to have declared: ‘By God, we are the Most Beautiful Names; no act of the servants is accepted unless it is accompanied by recognition of us.’56 In this division of essence/names-organs, one can clearly detect a transposition to the divine level of the omnipresent pair of bāṭin/ẓāhir. The esoteric, hidden and non-manifest aspect of God becomes His essence, which is forever inaccessible. His organs, which are the theophanic vehi-cles of His names, become His exoteric, revealed aspect. The Imam, who is the true revealed God, is therefore the exoteric aspect of God, and recognition of his reality is the equivalent of a recognition of what can be known of God. There are numerous traditions attributed to many Imams where it is stated: ‘He who knows us knows God, and he who fails to know us fails to know God.’57 ‘It is thanks to us that God is known, and it is thanks to us that He is adored.’58 ‘Without God we would not be known, and without us God would not be known.’59 "

 

Pages 298-299.

https://ia800104.us.archive.org/23/items/TheSpiritualityOfShiiIslamBeliefAndPractice/The Spirituality of Shi’I Islam Belief and Practice.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Celtic Twilight said:

the Cosmic Imam in Shia Islam.

hi we don't have cosmic Imam in Shia Islam but also he is alive & present between us like as human being 

 

21 hours ago, Celtic Twilight said:

No if you look at the Books of Daniel and Enoch the Son of Man clearly refers to Messianic figure who was supernatural attributes.

it mostly matches with attributes of 12th Imam the Imam Mahdi (aj) that said his roar will break the mountain & he can root up ancient trees from Earth also after his reappearance he will give some attributes to his Shias specially 313 person like as giving strength of 40 man to each one of them & unlocking their full brain power .

 

22 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

In the quoted passage, Jesus not only healed the paralytic, but Jesus accomplished a greater feat in providing a means for salvation, which is something that no other Prophet could do.

all Shia Imams & Prophet Muhammad (pbu) also providing salvation that we say it's their intercession that is a separation point of us  and rest of Muslim branches because they say everyone even Prophet Muhammad (pbu) died normally and has no affection on life of his followers after his death even in judgment day can't does anything for his followers but we say they are martyrs & can affect our wordly life if they want & Allah allows them but their rule in judgment day is more important because all of them will ask salvation through intercession for their Shias that rule of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is more important than rest of them because at the end he will say who will go to paradise or hell and there is some narration that Prophet Muhammad (pbu) also will do intercession about some of his followers that is narrated majority of them are from Yemen that accepted imamate of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) when Prophet Muhammad (pbu) was alive & remained steadfast on their oath and there is some Shia channels that are talking about miracles of Shia Imams even after their martyrdom but it's not very common between scholars to talk about it in western countries & they prefer to rely on logic than expressing miracles miracles although there is well recorded miracles of Imam Mahdi (aj) & rest of Imams recorded in Shia sources 

Miracles of Ahl ul bayt (عليه السلام)

Imam Ali's (عليه السلام) Miracle that Converted the Christian Monk - Sheikh Mateen Charbonneau

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-RtsRJqB3U26udJGGgdtpg

https://mateenjc.com/documentary/

https://www.imamreza.net/old/eng/list.php?id=0102

SOME MIRACLES OF Imam Ali BIN Hussain ((عليه السلام)) WHAT IS A MIRACLE?

http://www.erfan.ir/english/11427.html

https://www.al-Islam.org/the-hidden-truth-about-Karbala-ak-ahmed/chapter-26-miracles

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

all Shia Imams & Prophet Muhammad (pbu) also providing salvation that we say it's their intercession that is a separation point of us  and rest of Muslim branches because they say everyone even Prophet Muhammad (pbu) died normally and has no affection on life of his followers after his death even in judgment day can't does anything for his followers but we say they are martyrs & can affect our wordly life if they want & Allah allows them but their rule in judgment day is more important because all of them will ask salvation through intercession for their Shias that rule of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is more important than rest of them because at the end he will say who will go to paradise or hell and there is some narration that Prophet Muhammad (pbu) also will do intercession about some of his followers that is narrated majority of them are from Yemen that accepted imamate of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) when Prophet Muhammad (pbu) was alive & remained steadfast on their oath and there is some Shia channels that are talking about miracles of Shia Imams even after their martyrdom but it's not very common between scholars to talk about it in western countries & they prefer to rely on logic than expressing miracles miracles although there is well recorded miracles of Imam Mahdi (aj) & rest of Imams recorded in Shia sources 

Miracles of Ahl ul bayt (عليه السلام)

Imam Ali's (عليه السلام) Miracle that Converted the Christian Monk - Sheikh Mateen Charbonneau

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-RtsRJqB3U26udJGGgdtpg

https://mateenjc.com/documentary/

https://www.imamreza.net/old/eng/list.php?id=0102

SOME MIRACLES OF Imam Ali BIN Hussain ((عليه السلام)) WHAT IS A MIRACLE?

http://www.erfan.ir/english/11427.html

https://www.al-Islam.org/the-hidden-truth-about-Karbala-ak-ahmed/chapter-26-miracles

I was simply describing what was stated in the book of Mark. I understand that in Islam, Prophets and Imams did not die for our sins, and yes, I understand the view of intercession in Islam as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few thoughts.

Firstly, after reading the Daniel Boyarin article a (much shorter!) critique might be handy, and here's a good one:

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/enoch-the-son-of-man/

Secondly, as I've already said (but need to remind at least myself) we simply don't know what Jesus meant by the phrase Son of Man. Those wishing to demonstrate conclusively how Jesus used it need to be aware that clear success would make them the Andrew Wiles of Theology. Jesus did use it of himself, but not necessarily as a title.

On 10/21/2019 at 4:42 AM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

That goes beyond what I'm saying, my point is that the phrase 

<snip>

Actually it shows a relative stability over the course of 1000 years from Old Aramaic to Middle Aramaic.

<snip>

specific features of it will continue to remain a mystery to me.

Thirdly, I do feel that showing that a middle Aramaic usage of 'son of man' can be translated in the normal way doesn't mean that the phrase 'Son of Man' doesn't get used in other ways. Various Judaisms were reading the Daniel 7 passage containing it as messianic. The normal meaning of the phrase is not what matters here, it's the role that the figure denoted by 'Son of Man' plays that determines the contextual meaning.

And I propose that it is this role of Messiah in Daniel- the one anointed by God for a vital purpose- is what Jesus was referring to by 'Son of Man' in some (although possibly not all) places- Mark 13:26, Mark 14:62 are important in this respect.

 

image.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2005 at 2:20 AM, way2go said:

Your religion was founded centuries after Christianity yet you think Muhammed knew Christ better than Paul did? What a joke.

Ok smart-guy. Compare Paul's doctrines to what is written in The Didache. Red-flags? 

Christianity is the result of the competition of a very large amount of prolific separate traditions competing for the copyright of "Jesus" were cut down from the stalk, censored, refined and then sowed together with canonization and an established "Official" Doctrine (typified by the Nicene creed).

Jesus was a monotheist, history teaches this, even the New Testament books themselves teach this. It doesn't take a scholar to notice (although there is much scholarship on the topic). 

 

As for "...yet you think Muhammad knew Christ better than Paul did?". Paul didn't know Jesus personally, neither did Muhammad know Jesus personally, neither did Jesus know Moses personally, neither did Moses know Abraham personally. If you accept the Prophetic tradition, then this fallacious argument completely falls under the weight of it's stupidity. 

Paul was not a Prophet nor a successor of Jesus. Even if we were to take the New Testament at it's word, there is no reason to consider Paul an authoritative source. The fact too that Christianity needed a 'second founder' to attempt gaining it's own identity is enough of a testament to how flawed early Christianity was. 

Ironically, to your dismay, the Qur'an describes what did happen in objective history, there is no getting away from the fact that:

"But they cut off their religion among themselves into sects, each part rejoicing in that which is with them." - Surah 23:53

The Catholic Church, the Nicene Creed and other related issues were the 'official' answer to what happened in that above ayat. Ironically though, the 'reformation' against the Catholic Church itself created a few billion sub-sects (aka, Protestantism), which further outlines the subjective, relative nature of the mainstream Christian doctrine. 

 

The thing is that Christians are often so arrogant about their Bible canon (and often completely ignorant to what the canon itself actually is) but once you start dissecting objective history, the Christian narrative falls apart. From my own experience, it is because the Christian narrative is a socio-cultural meme bowtied by emotional attachment. I have no hard feelings but it must be explicitly stated or else I wouldn't be honest.

Edited by HakimPtsid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2019 at 6:25 PM, HakimPtsid said:

Ok smart-guy. Compare Paul's doctrines to what is written in The Didache. Red-flags? 

Christianity is the result of the competition of a very large amount of prolific separate traditions competing for the copyright of "Jesus" were cut down from the stalk, censored, refined and then sowed together with canonization and an established "Official" Doctrine (typified by the Nicene creed).

Jesus was a monotheist, history teaches this, even the New Testament books themselves teach this. It doesn't take a scholar to notice (although there is much scholarship on the topic). 

 

As for "...yet you think Muhammad knew Christ better than Paul did?". Paul didn't know Jesus personally, neither did Muhammad know Jesus personally, neither did Jesus know Moses personally, neither did Moses know Abraham personally. If you accept the Prophetic tradition, then this fallacious argument completely falls under the weight of it's stupidity. 

Paul was not a Prophet nor a successor of Jesus. Even if we were to take the New Testament at it's word, there is no reason to consider Paul an authoritative source. The fact too that Christianity needed a 'second founder' to attempt gaining it's own identity is enough of a testament to how flawed early Christianity was. 

Ironically, to your dismay, the Qur'an describes what did happen in objective history, there is no getting away from the fact that:

"But they cut off their religion among themselves into sects, each part rejoicing in that which is with them." - Surah 23:53

The Catholic Church, the Nicene Creed and other related issues were the 'official' answer to what happened in that above ayat. Ironically though, the 'reformation' against the Catholic Church itself created a few billion sub-sects (aka, Protestantism), which further outlines the subjective, relative nature of the mainstream Christian doctrine. 

 

The thing is that Christians are often so arrogant about their Bible canon (and often completely ignorant to what the canon itself actually is) but once you start dissecting objective history, the Christian narrative falls apart. From my own experience, it is because the Christian narrative is a socio-cultural meme bowtied by emotional attachment. I have no hard feelings but it must be explicitly stated or else I wouldn't be honest.

I'm sorry but if you could be a bit more specific about Paul's contradictions than a days read it would help. The Didache doesn't raise as many red flags as the Islamic school of thought. 

On a human level, nobody met anybody, but there is an obvious connection between all of them. Who gets to decide who was and who wasn't? On a "personal" level it's usually the "believers" opinion, but in the same way Christianity moved, so did Islam. Just as there are scholars that made hoops and hurdles for Christians to prove their loyalty, Islam has scholars to disprove anything the Christians say, and hoops to prove your loyalty to discrediting all things Christian. Muhammad gave more credit to Christians than any Muslim since, go figure. You can't have a new religion if the old one still works.

Can you name 50,000 of these few billion sub sects? Can you name all the sects and sub sects of Islam? 
I can agree with some of what you say but tell me what happens after a split in any religion. Every sect has a take-over policy, ask Ireland, ask the Middle East. Every sect rewrites the rules so differences can be seen between them. Every sect builds up a distrust to others, a disgust for their traditions, and accuse them of blasphemy, one way or another. Every sect decides they are actually the "one and only", and set out to prove it through scholarly interpretation. It's not new, it's happened to every Prophet and it didn't stop at Christianity.

Interesting reference to the Epistle of Barnabas. I don't know a Muslim who read past the fifth chapter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

about Paul's contradictions than a days read it would help. The Didache doesn't raise as many red flags as the Islamic school of thought. 

hi somethings like as making jesus as son of God or manifestation of God that crucified in exchange of forgiving all sins of his followers & removing some laws like as cancelling circumcision that done by him or he was the person that lead Christians to it that all derivation  from jewish rules that mentioned in Torah in name of Christianity that he stated it or we can find trace of him in it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2019 at 4:22 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

hi somethings like as making jesus as son of God or manifestation of God that crucified in exchange of forgiving all sins of his followers & removing some laws like as cancelling circumcision that done by him or he was the person that lead Christians to it that all derivation  from jewish rules that mentioned in Torah in name of Christianity that he stated it or we can find trace of him in it. 

Paul used the expression Son of God, he also told the believers they could become sons of God. Prophets of old were called sons of God. Not to be taken literally...until the council of Nicaea. Can't blame the council on Paul.

Can you tell me that circumcision will get you to Heaven? Paul stated that your circumcision is nothing if you continue in sin.

Jesus spent a lot of time telling the Jews about their man made God laws. Obviously they were not mentioned, or what was meant to be according to the Torah. 

One of the biggest things Paul was not involved in was the laws for Gentiles. That was the first major split in the church. The Christian Jews insisted the Gentiles became Jews before they could be Christians.  Paul brought up to James the problems with recruiting Gentiles, and James with his council determined what laws should apply to Gentiles. They didn't include many of the OT laws, stay away from blood and things offered to idols and things strangled. Stay away from fornication. Paul wasn't even in the meeting. He was there for the announcement when the meeting was adjourned. 

Many things get dumped on Paul, even after the truth be known.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

. Paul wasn't even in the meeting. He was there for the announcement when the meeting was adjourned. 

Many things get dumped on Paul, even after the truth be known.

hi , Same things happened during election of Abubakr as first caliph so as Shias we are familiar with it so not attending physically  doesn't make someone free from questioning  also Paul was mastermind of many deviations in Christianity that changed many rules to  turn Jews against Christians to keep  away Jews from becoming Christians by making void the jewish laws from Torah that he was the person that saved false Judaism of rabbis from extinction by Christians as reformers in Judaism and also made a new Christianity from  himself to deviate new converts in wrong pass with wrong ideas that we see it's fruit in zionist Evangelicals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2019 at 3:52 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

hi , Same things happened during election of Abubakr as first caliph so as Shias we are familiar with it so not attending physically  doesn't make someone free from questioning  also Paul was mastermind of many deviations in Christianity that changed many rules to  turn Jews against Christians to keep  away Jews from becoming Christians by making void the jewish laws from Torah that he was the person that saved false Judaism of rabbis from extinction by Christians as reformers in Judaism and also made a new Christianity from  himself to deviate new converts in wrong pass with wrong ideas that we see it's fruit in zionist Evangelicals. 

Huh?
That's a lot of accusations, where do they come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2019 at 1:25 AM, HakimPtsid said:

Jesus was a monotheist, history teaches this, even the New Testament books themselves teach this. It doesn't take a scholar to notice (although there is much scholarship on the topic).

Agreed. Jesus was a monotheist and the New Testament is very clear that so was the Early Church. But also Jesus was God taking human form. It's still all one God, though. That Jesus was a monotheist is normal Christian belief.

Quote

Even if we were to take the New Testament at it's word, there is no reason to consider Paul an authoritative source. The fact too that Christianity needed a 'second founder' to attempt gaining it's own identity is enough of a testament to how flawed early Christianity was.

Acts 9 describes how Paul was given authority: “This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel”.

He wasn't a second founder or even close to it. The disciples were doing just fine as it was, but Paul added an extra energy and excellent communication skills when in a Gentile environment.

Quote

The thing is that Christians are often so arrogant about their Bible canon (and often completely ignorant to what the canon itself actually is) but once you start dissecting objective history, the Christian narrative falls apart.

There's a huge question mark over whether there is such a thing as objective History, but could you unpack what you mean by this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...