True literal in some places yes.(Book OF Kings),not in the majority of course.But what you wrote was nothing close to what you just said.I was just pointing out that claiming academic archeology disproves the things The Bible says (or the Quran)was false.
In your own words
Now if you were talking about the academic context we sometimes put (ie as you said earlier about academics not agreeing whether they are historical or literal)then i owe you an appollogy
I was making the point that Christianity has already suffered the process and come out with a robust doctrine because of it. Islam has failed to do so, even though it has had almost as long a track record. One of the notable points in watching Jay’s debates with Islamic scholars is the contentious refusal to acknowledge actual factual finds. Like comparing the actual words on the page between different versions (which they refute).
It’s the mindset that is at fault. The scholarship follows the mindset…not the process of discovery and evaluating the results.
There is a significant difference between the “Textual” worldview of an Islamic and that of a so-called westerner. Logic and process are not done the same way. This is part of the reason for the contention between scholars. The vitriol coming from Islamic scholars toward anybody who says anything different is part of the culture of “passion” so to speak. If you aren’t arguing vehemently for your side, you are not doing the process correctly.
That is what has made Jay Smith famous, is that he is not using Apologetics, He uses Polemics to fit the Islamic process. Truth claims is exactly that. "claims. Christianity may seem to be full of Truth claims, yes. But it has endured the Critical Studies process which Islam has not. If your claims are based on sa text that has not passed the Critical test of veracity, it can only be a “relative” truth and not a verified Text.
Christianity claims (most of its core manuscripts) has passed the Critical test. Islam has not.
Truth claims based on narrative rather than
And I agree with this completely. One of my pet peeves is injecting science into a religious text. However, when it touches on the actual Hermeneutics of the text… .
But the core doctrine of the Bible is unchanged.History confirms that the first Christians were worshiping The Son and The Father at their synagogue-temples
Out of curiosity: Are you saying that you concede that neither the Old Testament (and/or the New Testament) nor the Quran have sufficient credibility to make one more valuable than the other?
True. Much of Old Testament archaeology is problematic.
For me when it comes these faiths I always look at it like this.
Judaism was here first.
Then came Christianity.
Then came Islam.
Christians and Jews both accept the Hebrew Bible. So then the debate comes down to does the Hebrew Bible point towards Jesus Christ or not. I think most of us here agrees that the Hebrew Bible points towards Christ meaning the Judaism was replaced by Christianity. Christianity fulfilled Judaism.
Then we have the Muslims that started up. They ultimately have no good ground to rewrite the Hebrew Bible and the new testament into their own set of sutras. It directly contradicts the Hebrew Bible and the Christian additions and it’s not supported by earlier Mesopotamians. The beliefs of the Quran as a whole developed well after Judaism and Christianity.
The God of Abraham is Yahweh. Yahweh is the father of Jesus Christ. Jews no longer worship the father because they reject the son. Muslims
Don’t worship the father because they are their own set of beliefs. It’s separate though. It would be like if I said I believed in Jesus, but my Jesus was found in the writings of the KKK.
They may use a lot of the same terms and titles, but ultimately it’s it who he is.
Muhhamad also studied the Bible .Both New and Old Testament.He knew Christians and Jews alike.It is likely Muhhamad included some teachings to the Quran that already existed in the Bible.For me Muhhamad is basically Joseph Smith.Both claimed a higher beign (Muhhamad claimed an angel Joseph Christ himself) revealed themselves to him (an angel at Muhhamad and Jesus at Joseph)and told them that basically the Christians got it wrong.
I’m not doing that at all! Whatever gave you that odd idea? And I said much, not most.
Sorry i read it better now.Missunderstood you
For the most part, the Bible, especially the New Testament, is rooted in real history, and is about real people and places and events. It’s much different in the Book of Mormon, where nothing is verifiable. (e.g. Christ teleporting to the Americas after the resurrection and converting Indians, who were the lost tribes of Israel.)
True.But i was stating the fact that an entity apperead to Muhhamad telling him that the Bible is corrupt well the same story happened with Smith.Just replace the angel with Jesus.Its also interesting since the Quran is a -religio-political book as well.Same argument can be made about the Old Testament but ill argue the later holds more of a “theocratic” system in a time of need that the Israeli comminity was into
Thanks for taking the time to reply! I had a few follow-up statements or questions.
That’s an interesting claim, what do you mean by this more specifically?
I am not sure that is a problem unique to the particular Islamic scholars of which you speak.
That’s hard for anyone to overcome various biases like this one. Many young Earth creationist students I have sound similar to this.
That’s how a lot of pseudo-academic ideas work. Take the modern anti-vaccine movement or the modern political scene in the US.
This is similar to my first question… What does this actually mean?
When viewed from a modern archaeological, historical, scientific, etc. perspective, I don’t think any of those disciplines view either text as necessarily having more credibility or merit or value than the other. Sure, the text can be useful, but say when doing ancient history, the texts seem to get some things right and others don’t seem to match archaeological evidence.
Are there other sorts of measures we judge such texts by? Like do we argue for internal consistency which both say occurs (though it takes a bit of faith and logical arguments to explain away various apparent contradictions). There might be some better arguments, but maybe at the end of the day, some of the truth claims about the supernatural cannot be truly judged in this life.
I agree, … completely; although I hasten to add that I cannot cite the number of “academics” who hold that opinion, and suspect that that number has not been determined beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreover, I know that there are at least two persons: Ilkka Lindstedt and Nina Nikki, at the University of Helsinki, who actively promote a different view: Critical comparison of the Bible and the Quran. [“Studying the Bible and the Quran side by side helps us understand that the two are fundamentally part of the same narrative tradition.”]
Frankly, I am unwilling to put aside my biases in order to become a member of a “we” that promotes either: that the Bible and the Quran have equal credibility and value, or that both are equally incredible. Anyone could show me all the inconsistencies in the Bible and the consistencies in the Quran and I would still affirm the crucified, resurrected, and ascended Jesus and I would reject the Quran, Muhammad, and Islam.
And yet, I say, there is one truth claim that must be judged in this life: “There is no other name under heaven by which it behooves us to be saved.” [Acts 4:12]
The name Jesus means "Savior .". It is the same name as Joshua in the Old Testament.
And Christ means anointed or anointed one.
There is no real reference in the Bible about Jesus being God, nor is there anyone, not even Paul, that considers God as a Trinity. That came much later with the Romans.
@Ani99,greetings.
The Name Jesus does mean Savior, but people do not save, YHWH saves.
There are two kinds names on the OT, Jahwist names and elohist names. Jahwist names include the name of YHWH, like Jesus, Joshua, and Jehu. Elohist names include the title of Elohim (God) as in El, Israel, and Samuel. Some names are both as Elijah and Joel.
The Name of Jesus per se does not mean much, because there Jews named Jesus at that time, because they were expecting the Messiah, the Savior.
Luke 1:31-33 (NIV2011)
31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.
32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
What is important in the NT is that God named Him, Jesus, and declared that He is the Messiah/Savior, Who is the Son of God.
In Psalm 2:7 (NIV2011) YHWH says to the Messiah
He [YHWH said to me, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.
Isaiah 43:11 (NIV2011)
11 I, even I, am the LORD (YHWH,) and apart from Me there is no Savior.
If YHWH (God) is the only Savior and Jesus is named by YHWH as Savior, then Jesus the Messiah must be also God.
Jesus did go around claiming to be God, but He did exercise the power of God over sickness and disabilities, water, the storm, and even death. He even had the power to forgive sin and grant eternal life with God.
In the NT Jesus is the Son of God and the Logos of God. Jesus is also Colossians 1:15 (NIV2011)
15 The Son is the Image of the invisible God, the Firstborn over all Creation.
Colossians 1:19-20 (NIV2011)
19 For God was pleased to have all His Fullness dwell in Him,
20 and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through His blood, shed on the Cross.
These verses indicate the rich relationship which God the Son has with God the Father though God the Holy Spirit which guarantees the unity of God and God’s Creation and People. These are explored and worked out through the Trinity.
Since you appear to enjoy trivia, here’s some more from: Jesus
The English name Jesus is derived from the Latin Iesus , a transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs). The Greek form is a rendering of the Hebrew ישוע (Yeshua) ), a variant of the earlier name יהושע (“Yehoshua” meaning “Yahweh saves”. This was also the name of Moses’ successor and of a Jewish high priest in the Old Testament.
The name Yeshua appears to have been in use in Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus. The 1st-century works of historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote in Koine Greek, the same language as that of the New Testament, refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus (i.e. Ἰησοῦς). The etymology of Jesus’ name in the context of the New Testament is generally given as “Yahweh is salvation”.
Since the early period of Christianity, Christians have commonly referred to Jesus as “Jesus Christ”. “Jesus Christ” is the name that the author of the Gospel of John claims Jesus gave to himself during his high priestly prayer. The word Christ was a [title or office] “the Christ”, not a given name. It derives from the Greek Χριστός (Christos), a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (משיח) meaning “anointed”, and is usually transliterated into English as “messiah”. In biblical Judaism, sacred oil was used to anoint certain exceptionally holy people and objects as part of their religious investiture (see Leviticus 8:10–12 and Exodus 30:29).
Christians of the time designated Jesus as “the Christ” because they believed him to be the messiah, whose arrival is prophesied in the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament. In post-biblical usage, Christ became viewed as a name—one part of “Jesus Christ”. The term Christian (meaning a follower of Christ) has been in use since the 1st century.
What I find fascinating is the fact that the Quran, which says it is the direct revelation of Allah to Muhammad, says in Surah 3:45 that
It seems odd to me that Allah would tell Muhammad that angels had told Mary that Allah wanted her to call the unborn (and possibly not even conceived) baby: “Messiah Jesus son of Mary”. I wonder if, after the infant was born, Mary addressed her son as, “Messiah Jesus son of Mary”, “Messiah Jesus”, or just “Jesus”.
@Relates greeting to you too. Nice to converse with you again.
A lot hangs on what we are to understand by “savior”. Another person who opens our eyes to something that can help us overcome some adversity can be called a savior.
Certainly the miracles are signs that Jesus had some higher knowledge about life. I believe he was deeply enlightened and in Union with God, indicated by his saying “I and my Father are one”. But I don’t think that this makes him God. Also the Jews were all described as the sons and daughters of God. First born could mean "one of God’s children, who has high rank, most beloved of God.
The word miracle comes from the Latin and earlier from the Greek. Certainly one meaning is wonderment or amazement but the Greek has a second meaning meaning mysterious, something not understood. How did Jesus heal? You will find that Jesus either saw their faith or asked “do you believe that it is possible?” In Mark 9:20 to 24 Jesus converses with an epileptic boy’s father and explains that belief is needed. And the boy’s father asks Jesus to help him believe. And there are other verses too that are similar.
What this shows is that Jesus did not simply heal regardless of the other person. If he saw faith / belief then he could go ahead but if not he sought the other person’s position.
Also we see here too that sin is as the Greek word indicates “missing the mark”. It is not about any and all evil acts, i.e., transgressions. A paralyzed man was lowered before him on a mat through the roof. Jesus healed him saying “Your sins are forgiven” And when questioned about it he said
(Mark 2:9) "Which is easier: to say to a paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, pick up your mat, and walk’? I don’t think this indicates that the paralyzed man was being punished for some wrongdoing. He was paralyzed because he believed something wrong, i.e., he got something wrong, missed the mark. So he had upheld ideas with conviction that caused his health problem. This is what Jesus was able to help him overcome. Jesus was basically saying that “sin forgiven” and “get up and walk” were equivalent.
And the same is true with the epileptic boy, only in that case it was the father that had been affected so as to unwittingly affect his son. Jesus needed to correct the father’s thinking and reactions to the evil spirits that were affecting him and there by affecting his son, in order to heal the son.
So there is no “power of God over sickness”. God has made us co-creators. God has enabled us to have a physical existence, physical body by upholding the basis for the physical reality, but we are also able to make changes to that body by how we think and react. This is the nuts and bolts of the whole of disease and disabilities. Once you understand this you can believe as to maintain your health despite what you are faced with.
The same is true of external forces like winds and water etc. It is just that we don’t understand enough. I found that we can set directives to the Universe, which effectively means toggling information upheld by God that governs the physical reality. I can’t say with certainty that my directive re-cyclones in Cairns is the reason, but we have cyclones every 5 years roundabout. The last one was Cyclone Yasi, 2011 after which I asked that no more cyclone come near my house, i.e., cairns until after I have sold and left from here. So far it is 10 years no cyclone. And there are other instances that I can tell you about that brought about changes in the physical environment. I am not God. But I believe that creation is made from information upheld by God in the Divine Consciousness and that God has made us co-creators, we can make changes. Jesus understood this to a far greater extent and thus had been able to make incredible changes, act that are mysterious to us and of wonderment.
As for Lazarus, it may be possible that his soul was still attached to his body. In which case Jesus was able to awaken him. I don’t fully understand this, but I still don’t believe that Jesus acted as God.
Messiah according to the OT was someone who would come to recue the Jews.
The non-Jews or Christians used the word Messiah as meaning the savior of the humankind, which effectively means everyone indiscriminately, i.e., regardless of being good or evil,.
Both the Hebrew and Greek of the word messiah mean the “anointed one”. Someone with a special role, a God-ordained role.
Jesus didn’t rescue/ save the Jews. They not only rejected him, the high priests had the Roman crucify him.
And the Romans, who were the ones that gave the second meaning, have given it for self-serving and political reasons.
Jesus, as all prophets, came to give information and help people uphold their belief in God and thereby be able to do what they need to do to make themselves right with God and thus be saved.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.