An interesting Islamic interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion.

babloyi
reply to post by Akragon

 

I tend to take a more stringent view of what counts as a "God" than early jews, apparently. Sons of God is also pushing it a bit, considering how much the phrase confused Christians.

By the way, you missed out the beginning of the verse you quoted:

I told you, and ye do not believe; the works that I do in the name of my Father, these testify concerning me; but ye do not believe, for ye are not of my sheep, according as I said to you: My sheep my voice do hear, and I know them, and they follow me, and life age-during I give to them, and they shall not perish -- to the age, and no one shall pluck them out of my hand; my Father, who hath given to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to pluck out of the hand of my Father; I and the Father are one.

Really isn't a claim to Godhood at all, simply a way of expressing himself.

I didn't miss it... it just wasn't necessary...

You're overlooking which side of the debate im on...

reply to post by Akragon

I realise you're not arguing for the Godhood of Jesus, I was just pointing out that using John 10:30 as proof that Jesus said he was God (again, not that that is what you were doing, of course, you were merely responding to that) is a bit misleading, because that isn't what Jesus was doing in that passage at all. In that passage he was simply expressing the strength and belief of his followers.

reply to post by babloyi


You would be shocked if I could only pull up every debate I've had here where Christians pull that passage on me and stop in the middle of it... I bet there is well over 100 instances just with me

My usual response is KEEP READING... why did you stop there?

babloyi
So unless there are two or more Gods (i.e. polytheism), it doesn't work.

I'm going back to the Buddhist (or HIndu) thoughts on Jesus. The incarnation of the ASPECT of Mercy. That would fit Jesus being fully man and fully God ... the Mercy aspect of God. It works. And considering the other quotes He made .. it fits. I'm not saying the Buddhists (or HIndus) are right. I have no idea. I'm only saying ... it fits.

reply to post by FlyersFan

I think it is Hinduism that goes into aspects and avatars and incarnations more so than Buddhism. Many people are surprised to learn that Hinduism can very often be understood to be a monotheistic faith, albeit a pluriform monotheism, with Brahman being the "True Essence", and all the gods you may know of Hinduism (Shivah and Krishna and so on) being specific "aspects". I believe sk0rpi0n was hindu at some point, so maybe he knows better, or someone still in the know could chime in.

Are you saying then that the Father is the "Justice" aspect? Again, it doesn't fit, especially when combined with your previous assertions that Jesus was FULLY God.

Akragon
Yet Buddha didn't speak of God... he did say there was a higher power but didn't bother dealing with who or what it was...

"God" in Buddhism

Although an absolute creator god is absent in most forms of Buddhism, veneration or worship of the Buddha and other Buddhas does play a major role in all forms of Buddhism. In Buddhism all beings may strive for Buddhahood . Throughout the schools of Buddhism, it is taught that being born in the human realm is best for realizing full enlightenment, whereas being born as a god presents one with too much pleasure and too many distractions to provide any motivation for serious insight meditation. Doctrines of theosis have played an important role in Christian thought, and there are a number of theistic variations of Hinduism where a practitioner can strive to become the godhead (for example Vedanta), but from a Buddhist perspective, such attainment would be disadvantageous to the attainment of nirvana,since it may possibly be based on mental reification. Some forms of Buddhist meditation, however, share more similarities with the concept of henosis.

According to Buddhist teaching .... which was available in Jesus time and in His part of the world ... people can strive to become buddhas. Look at the gospels for a moment from a Buddhist view. Jesus was an enlightened buddha who reincarnated, not for his own karma sake, but for ours. Those who have reached enlightenment and become one with the universe have no need to reincarnate. They do so out of total mercy and goodness to help others to get off the reincarnation wheel (which scripture is full of). So look at Jesus words from a Buddhist view ... he is fully man ... he is also fully "God" (enlightened and off the reincarnation wheel). IMHO ... it fits.

Interesting side note -
Jesus/Buddha teachings side by side

JESUS: "A foolish man, which built his house on sand."
BUDDHA: "Perishable is a city built on sand." (30)
JESUS: "Therefore confess your sins one to another, and pray one for another, that you may be healed."
BUDDHA: "Confess before the world the sins you have committed." (31)
JESUS: "In him we have redemption through his blood, the foregiveness of sins."
BUDDHA: "Let all sins that were committed in this world fall on me, that the world may be delivered." (32)
JESUS: "Do to others as you would have them do to you."
BUDDHA: "Consider others as yourself." (33)
JESUS: "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also."
BUDDHA: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon all desires and utter no evil words." (34)
JESUS: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you."
BUDDHA: "Hatreds do not cease in this world by hating, but by love: this is an eternal truth. Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good." (35)
JESUS: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."
BUDDHA: "Let your thoughts of boundless love pervade the whole world." (36)
JESUS: "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone at her."
BUDDHA: "Do not look at the faults of others or what others have done or not done; observe what you yourself have done and have not done." (37)
JESUS: "You father in heaven makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous."
BUDDHA: "The light of the sun and the moon illuminates the whole world, both him who does well and him who does ill, both him who stands high and him who stands low." (38)
JESUS: "If you wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."
BUDDHA: "The avaricious do not go to heaven, the foolish do not extol charity. The wise one, however, rejoicing in charity, becomes thereby happy in the beyond." (39)

babloyi
Are you saying then that the Father is the "Justice" aspect?

No. God the Father .. the main God-Head. Jesus, being God's Mercy Aspect is also fully God, but not the main God-Head. (I kind of pictured it like a cookie. Crumbs from a cookie are still fully cookie, but are not the BIG main part of the cookie. God the Father = main cookie. Jesus = cookie crumb from the main cookie. I dont know if that's theologically what was being said, but that's how I pictured it). That seemed to make sense to me. I think I remember reading the 'aspects' thoughts from Swami Amar Jyoti. (I've read so much stuff that sometimes I forget which book I've read it in)

babloyi
I think it is Hinduism that goes into aspects and avatars and incarnations more so than Buddhism.

I don't know. Be it Buddhist or Hindu. The 'aspects' made sense to me.
I read the Hindu and Buddhist thoughts ... they kind of interchange a bit in my head.
Some of what they BOTH say is very interesting.

That was all off topic ... back to the topic ...

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

That was written 600+ years after the events.
The gospels were eyewitness accounts - as told by people who were there.

So who should people believe .... the account Mary herself gave to Luke; her accounts of Jesus early life and the things she meditated on in her heart; the account that accurately describes the death of a person in Jesus situation, .... or a fictional story written by a murderer with an agenda 600+ years later?

That's the bottom line.

I'll take the gospel of Luke which is Mary's eyewitness account of the life, death and resurrection of her Son, over the stories made up by Muhammad 600 years later - stories taken from the GNOSTICS, and Jews, and Pagans and Zoroastrians.

reply to post by FlyersFan

I'm sorry, but the gospels were not eye-witness accounts (or first-hand accounts, as you sometimes say). The author was unlikely to be Luke, and with even your dating of its writing to 60AD (it is more generally understood to have been written around 90AD), that would've made Mary about 72 at the time, something pretty implausible. The Gospel of Luke was mostly copied from Mark and the Q documents, which are now lost to time, and probably used other written records as well, which we have no access to. They certainly weren't first-hand eyewitness accounts.

One could certainly say "I have faith that the Gospels are true and inspired by God", and no one could counter that in any way at all, it is your faith. However, in that case, chronological differences are totally irrelevant. Someone could be inspired by God to write the day after Jesus rose, someone could be inspired who never even really met Jesus, and someone could be inspired 600 years, or even 2000 years after the fact. One inspired (on faith) revelation being closer to the events than another inspired (on faith) revelation is irrelevant to the truth of those revelations.

reply to post by babloyi

You are, of course, free to dismiss the gospel accounts. I believe them to be the best accounts available because of the timing. (side note - Christian tradition holds that Mary did indeed live into her seventies). I'll take the accounts written by those who heard directly from eyewitness rather than something made up 600+ years later. If you wish to buy into the 600+ year later accounts ... that's your choice. I certainly don't.

reply to post by babloyi


You do know the Q documents are speculative at most right?

The fact is there are no original documents from the first century... everything that exists is a copy of a text from the first century which are actually still in very bad condition...

Though I would trust documents that were written within 100 year of his life before I would trust ones which were "inspired" 600 years after the fact...

the copied documents of the gospels May not have been witness accounts... but they do comply with each other on most things... which makes at least three separate accounts of his life as compare to "inspired" work...

Even if they are second hand witnesses... its still more reliable then anything inspired...

For instance Paul was "inspired"... I hate these emotes... so i'll use this >>----> : /

Inspired... Just doesn't cut it

Akragon
Inspired... Just doesn't cut it

Neither the gospels nor the qu'ran are 'inspired' by God.
The gospels wrote down what was seen from that time period.
The Qu'ran plagiarized from the Gnostics, Jews, Zoroastrians and pagans.
And then changed it around to fit an agenda.
Neither were 'inspired'. The source of both are well known.

reply to post by Akragon

But they aren't 3 separate accounts. Many of the sources copied from each other, and some of the sources are known to have been copied from a 3rd, unknown source. I know that the Q documents are considered speculative, but then again, the multiple authors of multiple gospels copied it from SOME 3rd source, seems simplest just to call it Q.

If one wanted to look at it from a totally skeptical viewpoint, neither the Quran nor the Bible have any valid historicity. They are equally invalid. If you wish to take it on faith, that is another matter, but then, as I said, 60 years, 600 years, makes no difference.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Just Trying to give the benefit of the doubt here...

I dislike the word "inspired" in any case... I've seen many things around this place there were "inspired" by god... some of them make me wretch.

The OP has stated repeatedly the quran was inspire... but the fact is even if it was "inspired" by something... it really doesn't mean squat...

I was recently inspired to grab another beer... somehow I doubt God was the one who did it.

Who knows though... maybe God likes beer

reply to post by babloyi

But they aren't 3 separate accounts. Many of the sources copied from each other

the wording is different, and the accounts are different... some comply with the others some do not...

the synoptics are the ones considered possibly from Q source... where does that leave John and Thomas?

And by the way... time makes a huge difference

reply to post by Akragon

In many of the related stories, the wording is exactly the same. In others, it varies slightly.

I wasn't aware that Thomas was even considered part of the canon. And John? I thought it was pretty much agreed that the Johannine literature wasn't written by John, and in fact was composed by multiple authors (even specifically the Gospel of John itself), near the end of the 1st century.

And as I said, if all you have to justify something to yourself is faith, and you're using an implicit assumption (the Bible is true) and working on everything else based off that, then time really doesn't make a difference. If we were in the year 3rd millennium instead of the 2nd, would the Bible become less valid to christians? Does the fact that for hundreds of years, believers accepted the Comma Johanneum as fact, and it was part of the Bible, phase current Christians? If I inserted "And God is Good" at a random point in a Bible, and that version was copied and repeated, a thousand years down the line, would that make a difference? What if instead I did "And Jesus didn't like the taste of figs"?

reply to post by babloyi

In many of the related stories, the wording is exactly the same. In others, it varies slightly.

Actually no its not... there are a some passages where the wording is exactly the same, but it is by no means the majority of the texts... read any chapter of any of the gospels and compare it to the verses that are similar... in some rare cases the wording is verbatim... but one can clearly see they were not written by the same person, or even copied from the same text... that is of course unless the writer decided to reword certain things

I wasn't aware that Thomas was even considered part of the canon.

The Canon of the bible has nothing to do with this conversation

And John? I thought it was pretty much agreed that the Johannine literature wasn't written by John,

its generally agreed that none of the gospels were written by the titled authors... except in the Christian community... that doesn't mean they weren't eyewitnesses... or even second witnesses to the events

and in fact was composed by multiple authors (even specifically the Gospel of John itself), near the end of the 1st century.

im not sure where you heard that... John's gospel had one writer, you can tell by the style of writing... along the same lines of debate. one can clearly tell that revelation was not written by the same author as the gospel of John...

And as I said, if all you have to justify something to yourself is faith, then time really doesn't make a difference. If we were in the year 3rd millennium instead of the 2nd, would the Bible become less valid to christians?

Obviously not to a Christian... on the other hand the writing within the gospels remains valid to this day, and will remain vaild forever... that is kinda the idea behind them

Faith really has nothing to do with it.. its a general ideal of morality which wasn't in place before these books were written... compare the ideals of the OT with he NT... they are drastically different.

Things change over time... but the gospels have remained valid... similar to other religions... that's why they became religions and not just another book to be flopped onto a shelf and forgotten

Of course this is aside from the agendas behind organized religions... which have remained for thousands of years

Does the fact that for hundreds of years, believers accepted the Comma Johanneum as fact, and it was part of the Bible, phase current Christians?

Nope... but its well known that the Comma Johanneum was inserted into the texts to push the trinity

Except to Christians who believe the book is one complete work... these people believe anything their church teaches and usually do not actually study the book.. or its origins

You've heard of the blind leading the blind right?

If I inserted "And God is Good" at a random point in a Bible, and that version was copied and repeated, a thousand years down the line, would that make a difference? What if instead I did "And Jesus didn't like the taste of figs"?

Obviously anyone studying said book would clearly see something has been changed

Akragon
I dislike the word "inspired" in any case... I've seen many things around this place there were "inspired" by god... some of them make me wretch.

I'M SO WITH YOU ON THAT. Makes me want to blow chunks ...
'Inspired'. BLAH! People make up bunk and then claim 'god's inspiration'.

For those that believe in inspired religious texts .. since the texts obviously are at odds with each other ... then logic says that at least some of them were inspired' by evil or by human spirit. Obviously both the gospels and the Qur'an can't both be 'inspired' by God. He's have multiple personality disorder if He inspired both.

reply to post by Akragon

Akragon
Actually no its not... there are a some passages where the wording is exactly the same, but it is by no means the majority of the texts... read any chapter of any of the gospels and compare it to the verses that are similar... in some rare cases the wording is verbatim... but one can clearly see they were not written by the same person, or even copied from the same text... that is of course unless the writer decided to reword certain things

I found this handy infographic on wikipedia. It shows how 35% of Luke is unique to Luke, 20% of Matthew is unique to Matthew, and only 3% of Mark is unique to Mark. I'd say that makes the claim "the majority of the text is copied" not incorrect.
Relationship between Synoptic Gospels

Akragon
im not sure where you heard that... John's gospel had one writer, you can tell by the style of writing... along the same lines of debate. one can clearly tell that revelation was not written by the same author as the gospel of John...

I'm not sure where you heard otherwise. The book was built up in 3 phases, probably by many different authors who were probably part of an early Johannine community.

If you'll excuse me for quoting wikipedia, but you can check the sources if you don't accept something that is written there.

The Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[23] summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:[24]

An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85-90 AD.[25]

In view of this complex and multi-layered history it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process.[26] The final composition's comparatively late date, and its insistence upon Jesus as a divine being walking the earth in human form, renders it highly problematical to scholars who attempt to evaluate Jesus' life in terms of literal historical truth.[27][28]

Catholic Rev. Raymond Edward Brown was an expert on the whole Johannine community. The same page also gives an example of how an entire chapter was inserted between how the text was previously.

Akragon
The Canon of the bible has nothing to do with this conversation

I'm not sure what this conversation is, anymore, really . For something vaguely on topic, another interpretation on Jesus's crucifixion and the events leading up to it, was the subject of an old old thread of mine, useless now, because the links are dead. If I may quote from my own text of it, however, you will see what I mean:

babloyi
- Jesus returns to Jerusalem. Some followers are disappointed that the King doesn't take his place immediately.
- Judas had no need for money as he was the guy with the group funds. Instead, he was hoping that if Jesus was confronted by the soldiers, he would be then provoked into wreaking havoc on the enemies of Israel.
- During the Last Supper, Jesus obviously knows that Judas was to betray him, so tells him to go do what he is going to do.
- Not willing to sit around waiting for arrest, Jesus brings up the topic of defense with his disciples (Luke 22:35-38), and finds that they have 2 swords among them.
- They move off to Gethsemane, having a courtyard with stone walls, outside of the town to be in a better position to defend themselves.
- He places 8 of his remaining disciples to guard the entrance, and Peter and the two "Sons of Thunder" as the inner line of defence with him (Matthew 26:36-38), and then alone, settles to pray for deliverance.
- Jesus gets annoyed at how his disciples KEEP falling asleep. The enemy is able to get through because of this.
- Jesus realises a problem: he had assumed a small jewish rabble, roused up by the Pharisees. Instead, he gets trained Roman soldiers. He tells his disciples to lay down their arms.
- Jesus is taken for trial, and ALL his disciples desert him.
- Jesus was not aware (nor part of) any scheme to get him sacrificed as a "lamb" for all humanity. He gave his defence (John 18:20-23), at the sham of a trial, and certainly did not "opened not his mouth".
- Since the Jews did not have the power to execute, they took him to the Romans, where they tried to get more false charges against him, but again they were proved false (John 18:33-38). The Jews almost attempt blackmailing Pilate, at which point he washes his hands of the affair, and lets Jesus be crucified.
- Jesus was strung up to the cross along with two others (purported to be "zealots" or heroes of the people, rather than theives, as translated by the term used in the Bible- "lestes"). He was not nailed to the cross, but rather, bound like the other two, in the . The "Doubting Thomas" episode is irrelevant, because he wasn't there, as they had all fled.
- Various earthquakes, thundering, etc. occur, which probably clear out the crowd. It was made to appear to the Romans that Jesus was then dead (in just 3 hours), so that breaking his legs became unnecessary. It was so surprising that death occurred so fast that "Pontius marvelled".
- He was then taken down by his "secret" disciples Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, with Marys being the only spectators. The next day was the Sabbath, and the Jews get suspicious as to the speedy removal of Christ from the cross. Pilate does not pander to them.
- Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb on Sunday (not to anoint Jesus or any such thing, but to take care of him, as she knew him to be alive). She finds the tomb opened. She gets worried, and meets Jesus who she does not recognise, because he is disguised as a gardner (to hide from the jews).
- She finally realises who he is, but he asks her to "touch him not", because he isn't "ascended to the Father" (not dead, but in a lot of pain).
- Jesus also meets up with his disciples, who are incredibly fearful and disbelieving, because they think he was crucified (since they had all fled, unlike Mary Magdalene, who was an actual witness, and was thus not afraid when she realised it was Jesus, and not a gardener), and the thing in front of them is a ghost. Jesus continuously assures them he is not resurrected or a spirit, but ALIVE!

PS: (and sorry now for what is such a huge post), but I'm curious as to what you mean by morality stuff in the NT that wasn't there before. Because, at least according to Christian tradition (and I agree there's been a lot of debate on faith vs works within the Christian community), whether you were good or bad is irrelevant, you're damned in the afterlife if you didn't believe that Jesus Christ came as God incarnate to sacrifice himself for your sins. Christianity has some interesting ideas, e.g. turn the other cheek to violence and let him without sin cast the first stone, but it is interesting how for example, the first has never been used properly in history (and now people say it is some sort of metaphorical thing or some other excuse), and the second is supposedly an addition to the main text.

babloyi
It shows how 35% of Luke is unique to Luke, 20% of Matthew is unique to Matthew, and only 3% of Mark is unique to Mark. I'd say that makes the claim "the majority of the text is copied" not incorrect.

I'd say that means they are talking about the same subject so naturally a lot of it will be the same.

If you and I and two other people write about what we have seen at ATS then we are going to get some of our writings the same. Same subject written on by numerous authors means that they are going to have cross over. That doesn't mean that I copied from you or you copied from me. It just means that we are writing about the same subject.

Luke has Mary as a source of information whereas the others do not. Therefore, Luke is going to have more stand alone information (Mary/Joseph life pre-Jesus ....Jesus growing up ... Home life ... what was in Mary's heart). The rest was all reporting on the same incidents by different authors from different eyewitness.