Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 06-23-2012, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shafeesthoughts

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Anyway, back from the dementia of mountainman. Here is the latest claim of translating the text from alarabiya's english edition.

'I am a man, born of a woman, subject to the judgment of God; that live here like as other men, subject to the common miseries'

This part is more or less lifted straight out of the Bible. But obviously, had Jesus been no more than that, he would never have been the object of attention that he has been for 2000 years. The reason for this is that Jesus was perceived to have been tempted in every way as we are, but to have never succumbed to temptation. This of course, if true, made him perfect, and, if there is only one perfect, thereby God; or the God, Allah.

So Islam has to provide a reason for insistence that Jesus never did an evil deed, or said an evil word. If there is no reason to doubt his perfection, one is bound to ask, why turn down that perfection if it can be credited to those who have done evil deeds, and said evil words? Because this, the salving of conscience, is pretty well the sum total of Christianity. The only real distinctive of Islam is to deny this accreditation. The only real distinctive of Islam is to contradict another faith.

Although Islam rarely fails to misrepresent Christianity by alleging that it teaches 'trinitarianism', as do many others, also with notable stubbornness. It's the polytheism invented by antichrists that antichrists love to pretend is genuine Christianity, presumably because they have no genuine arguments.

So, with this persistent lie in the mouths of Muslims, why would anyone, Christian or not, pay them heed?

So Jesus (as) is perfect as he did not sin.

And you are equating that perfection with GOD.

Did Jesus (as) not fear?
Did Jesus (as) not eat and drink, and void, as all men do?

This is the reference to Jesus (as) being a man, as all men are.
Whilst the reference to him being masoom, innocent of sin, is in reference to his being a prophet and messenger from GOD.

Did Muhammad say that, or did you?

Quote:

This is fundamental to a true definition of a transcendental GOD

That no physical needs can exist, you mean. True, but Jesus was not a transcendental deity, in the biblical view. He was 'tempted in every way as we are, yet did not sin'. In that view, had he not been tempted as we are, his righteousness could not have been made evident to humanity, and there would be no reason to accept atonement.

mountainman · 06-24-2012, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

...Jesus was not a transcendental deity, in the biblical view.

The problem here is that the new testament literature and manuscripts (in which Jesus appears) have a transcendental history. Jesus appears not with any archaeological flesh but as an imaginary friend of those who had the Nicaean publishing rights. Recent publications suggest that as far as the Quran goes, Muhammad, as well, is another imaginary friend. Mecca is not on the 7th century GPS.

From toto's vatican scoffs:

Quote:

Do you recall that earlier this year, authorities in Turkey announced the discovery of an ancient manuscript that could be a 1,500-year old gospel? Notice: it could be. Since the document hasn’t been translated, no one is sure exactly what it is.

But it could be the apocryphal “Gospel of Barnabas,” attributed to the missionary companion of St. Paul. Here’s where the Iranian publisher enters the story:

This version of the Barnabas Gospel was written in the 5th or 6th century and it predicted the coming of the Prophet Mohammad and the religion of Islam, the Basij Press claims.

Do you see the problem here? If the document was written in the 5th or 6th century, it couldn’t very well have been written by someone who was traveling with St. Paul about 400 years earlier. It must have been written by someone claiming to represent St. Barnabas. Should we accept that claim? Another good question.

Another good question.

I have a few questions too.

Shafeesthoughts · 06-26-2012, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shafeesthoughts

So Jesus (as) is perfect as he did not sin.

And you are equating that perfection with GOD.

Did Jesus (as) not fear?
Did Jesus (as) not eat and drink, and void, as all men do?

This is the reference to Jesus (as) being a man, as all men are.
Whilst the reference to him being masoom, innocent of sin, is in reference to his being a prophet and messenger from GOD.

Did Muhammad say that, or did you?

Quote:

This is fundamental to a true definition of a transcendental GOD

That no physical needs can exist, you mean. True, but Jesus was not a transcendental deity, in the biblical view. He was 'tempted in every way as we are, yet did not sin'. In that view, had he not been tempted as we are, his righteousness could not have been made evident to humanity, and there would be no reason to accept atonement.

Interesting then also that Jesus (as) was not also tempted, in the greatest of ways that we all are everyday.

That is that he (as) did not marry.

That is the greatest sacrifice, the greatest self-denial, the greatest compromise that people make.

In Islam, it is said that marriage is half of the religion precisely for that reason.

Furthermore, we believe that in his second coming he will marry.

sotto voce · 06-26-2012, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shafeesthoughts

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shafeesthoughts

So Jesus (as) is perfect as he did not sin.

And you are equating that perfection with GOD.

Did Jesus (as) not fear?
Did Jesus (as) not eat and drink, and void, as all men do?

This is the reference to Jesus (as) being a man, as all men are.
Whilst the reference to him being masoom, innocent of sin, is in reference to his being a prophet and messenger from GOD.

Did Muhammad say that, or did you?

Quote:

This is fundamental to a true definition of a transcendental GOD

That no physical needs can exist, you mean. True, but Jesus was not a transcendental deity, in the biblical view. He was 'tempted in every way as we are, yet did not sin'. In that view, had he not been tempted as we are, his righteousness could not have been made evident to humanity, and there would be no reason to accept atonement.

Interesting then also that Jesus (as) was not also tempted, in the greatest of ways that we all are everyday.

That is that he (as) did not marry.

One is puzzled as to why it should be alleged that marriage is a temptation at all, let alone the greatest temptation.

There is an existential temptation, or challenge, that all face, irrespective of individual circumstances.

Shafeesthoughts · 06-26-2012, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shafeesthoughts

Interesting then also that Jesus (as) was not also tempted, in the greatest of ways that we all are everyday.

That is that he (as) did not marry.

One is puzzled as to why it should be alleged that marriage is a temptation at all, let alone the greatest temptation.

There is an existential temptation, or challenge, that all face, irrespective of individual circumstances.

Sorry you are right.
Temptation is the wrong word.

Rather it is a trial,
The more so as it is in your own house.
Behind your closed doors.

And it is a trueism that the partners in a marriage, know more of one another than could anyone else.

sotto voce · 06-26-2012, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shafeesthoughts

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shafeesthoughts

Interesting then also that Jesus (as) was not also tempted, in the greatest of ways that we all are everyday.

That is that he (as) did not marry.

One is puzzled as to why it should be alleged that marriage is a temptation at all, let alone the greatest temptation.

There is an existential temptation, or challenge, that all face, irrespective of individual circumstances.

Sorry you are right.
Temptation is the wrong word.

Rather it is a trial

Then why is it so popular? The majority have found life easier in a married state than otherwise.

Shafeesthoughts · 06-26-2012, 03:43 PM

Me thinks "this belongs on another thread".

sotto voce · 06-26-2012, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shafeesthoughts

Me thinks "this belongs on another thread".

I agree. It's not going to change Christian views of marriage, because Jesus indicated that celibacy was more of a challenge than matrimony. If it cannot be shown that Jesus did an evil deed, or said an evil word, there is no reason to doubt his perfection. So one is bound to ask, why turn down that perfection, if it can be credited to those who are painfully conscious that they have done evil deeds, and said evil words? Because this, the salving of conscience, is pretty well the sum total of Christianity. Christians do not find compelling the notion of praying towards Mecca, fasting and charitable deeds as being sufficient to salve conscience. These seem arbitrary, and not so different from Mosaic Judaism, which Allah/God could have instituted with Abraham. Or rather, Abram.

mountainman · 06-27-2012, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

If it cannot be shown that Jesus did an evil deed, or said an evil word, there is no reason to doubt his perfection.

One may still doubt his historical existence, as one might doubt the existence of Bilbo Baggins who by all accounts also first appeared in a codex. That's all I am asking for -some historical evidence. How old is this codex again? What does it say?

sotto voce · 06-27-2012, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

If it cannot be shown that Jesus did an evil deed, or said an evil word, there is no reason to doubt his perfection.

One may still doubt his historical existence, as one might doubt the existence of Bilbo Baggins who by all accounts also first appeared in a codex.

Doubt away.

Quote:

That's all I am asking for -some historical evidence.

Even though this thread is about Islam vs. Christianity. :shrug:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-26-2012, 03:43 PM	#67
Shafeesthoughts Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: London Posts: 379	Me thinks "this belongs on another thread".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.