Doctor X

Of course, it also tells us he was born twice roughly ten years appart. . . .

--J.D.

Spaz

I thought I could end this, but I guess not. River even said it himself, a muslim is just someone who submits to god, it's just a word, you're arguing over semantics. If cockbite meant "one who loves jesus with all their heart" would you not accept that you were a cockbite? C'mon, they're just words.

Doctor X

Oh it is never just words. It is the concepts behind the words that people fight over. Why else would a group meet, agree on "fundamentals," such as the Bible is "inerrant" and "every word true" and consider themselves literalists?

Thus one is "pro-choice" or has a "right to life."

Indeed, why else would someone attach the word "music" to the abomination that is country?

What is happening in these, frankly, spammed threads--one would have been enough--is an attempt to take over symbolization. It is akin to a fundamentalist Christian claiming every time "son" appears in the OT it refers to "JEEZUZ!!"

Of course, religions always blend and incorporate elements of one another. The problem is some pretend this does not happen and "the way it is now is the way it has always been."

--J.D.

Doctor X

I almost started a thread on this. . . .

"Samurai" refers to "those who serve."

THUS JESUS TAUGHT THE SAMURAI!!!!!!!!!

Really!

I mean . . . look at the parallels!

John the Baptist was beheaded.

The samurai beheaded people!

The "Holy Spirit" wiped out the Mongol invasion fleet PROVING the special regard the samurai . . . nay . . . Christians had!

Samurai use to crucify people . . . and stick spears in them!! Where did they learn THAT from?!!

Look at the basic kimono . . . or go to your local dojo and ask to see a gi . . . and you will see how similar it is to the dress Jesus wore. . . .

Coincidence?

--J. "Would You Like to Buy this Bridge?" D.

EstherRose

Spaz and Doctor X

I am sorry you don't appreciate my defenses for my faith and that you feel I am spamming the threads. Some things were said against my faith that I needed to address. I will continue to do so. Please feel free to ignore them and move on if you don't wish to read them.

To be muslim is to submit to the will of Allah. I am not muslim. I will never be muslim. I am obedient to my Lord and to Jesus Christ my saviour.

This is not merely semantics.

Doctor X

Ester:

Actually, I had no criticism of that other than one really cannot point to NT texts as a hodge-podge authority given their history. For example, it is hard to point to a text as a historical authority when it makes historical mistakes. Other than that one can believe whatever one wants to believe so long as one accept the tenuous basis for such beliefs and the rights of others to disagree.

I directed the charge of spamming against someone who would start numerous threads trying to prove that early "Christianity"--for want of a better term--is Islam. That, in and of itself, may seem a point worth mooting; however, one can do it in one thread. I can understand enthusiasm, but sometimes it requires containment.

I have not ignored anything. I will note [Cue violins.--Ed.] that some of my questions went ignored.

Which one? That is not a snide question, nor is it a rhetorical question. On a public board that is a valid question. You are free not to answer it, of course, but understand if some may question the basis of opinions.

As stated previously, it rarely is. Returning to the "point" of these threads, methinks we have an attempt to take the symbolism of religions and reinterpret them. Neat.

Is it valid to retroject those conceptions back to make them the authors' intentions? I think not, unless someone provides evidence to the contrary. That I have not seen.

River appears a pleasant enough fellow; if he wishes to believe he sees Islam in NT texts, he is free to do so. I should understand if others do not share that view point.

As a friend once put it:

Thus, River is free to see Islam in the texts, just as I can have visions of Mifune dispatching thugs, or even the cult seeing Krisna wandering about. None of us have a right, however, to claim it the actual intention of the authors without evidence.

--J.D.

Soul Invictus

Magus55,

This is a figurative description. It's along the lines of being a fisher of men. As one chosen by God to guide the people, he would naturally have the tools to be "the way" for the people as a resource to come to, "the truth" as in being representative being of God's utility, and "the life" as in aiding in helping others achieve a high spiritual relationship with God. I may not have articulated the sentiments very well, however to say this is a literal proclamation of his divinity is bordering on being feckless. As a former Christian, I am in awe of the issues surrounding differentiating figurative language (such as this) from literal language (10 commandments)

If Jesus is God, and God is solely one entity, Jesus is basically saying that no one comes to Me but by Me. So he helps lead people to himself?

This is going to be problematic for John 14:28. What about Acts 2:22 - Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know.

I'm starting a new thread here dealing with why Christians insist that Jesus proclaimed divinity.

EstherRose

But further on in the same passage we read what else Peter had to say: that He is Lord.

Acts 2
32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
35until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet." '
36"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Soul Invictus

These verses you've stated are complimentary to my point. My assertion is that Jesus at best would have a tool for God's utility, so he would naturally receive the spirit of God in order to do God's work. The only point these verses point out is that Jesus is Lord and Christ. Giventhe context of those terms than I don't find that problematic as Lord was a term applied to earthly men and christ simply means anointed, which given these definitions strengthen the case for Jesus' mortality and displaces any notions for an unwarranted divinity. I'm thinking that the terms Lord and Christ cause unnecessary discussion because the definitions of those words are given an uncharacteristic ideology applied to them.

Also if you read Matthew 10:40 the text that is recorded to have been quoted by Jesus is as such:

Jesus is speaking to his apostles) He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. Another reference that Jesus is distinguishing himself from "the source"

Also think of it this way (source via Evangelion from an older thread)

It is important to remember that the ancients used such terms in the context of representation and agency. A man could speak on behalf of a god as if he was that god, even to the extent of performing miraculous works and exercising divine privilege.

Thus, in the words of Dr James McGrath (Butler University, Indianapolis):


If a king wanted to make peace with another nation, he did not go in person - or at least not in the first instance - but sent his ambassador. When a wealthy person wanted to arrange a property purchase or sale in another region, he sent a representative. When God wanted to address his people, he sent a prophet or an angel. Agency was an important part of everyday life in the ancient world.

Now there were certain basic rules or assumptions connected with agency in the ancient world. The most basic of all was that, in the words of later Jewish rabbis: “The one sent is like the one who sent him” (cf. Mek.Ex. 12:3,6; m. Ber. 5:5). Or, in words which are probably better known to those of us familiar with the New Testament, (Matt. 10:40). These are words which the Gospels record Jesus as saying to his apostles, and ‘apostle’ is simply the Greek word for ‘one who is sent’, an ‘agent.’

When someone sent an agent, the agent was given the full authority of the sender to speak and act on his behalf. If the agent made an agreement, it was completely binding, as if the person who sent him had made it in person. Conversely, if someone rejected an agent he rejected the one who sent him. The agent was thus functionally equal or equivalent to the one who sent him, precisely because he was subordinate and obedient to, and submitted to the will of, him who sent him.

It was in this way that Jesus represented the God of Israel to the world in which he lived.

No divinity for Jesus, (so no trinity for that matter) however an instrument of God he was, nonetheless.

Regards,

Invictus

River

Islam believes in the historical Jesus Christ.

It has come upon my attention that very, very few Xtians know what Lord, and Messiah and Savior actually means. Lord does not necessarily imply Deity.

For example. In the Bible, Moses is called the Lord of Mt. Sinai. Jesus is called the Lord of Seir. And Muhammad is called the Lord of Mt. Paran. We also hear that Prophets such as Elijah and Khidr are called Lord of the Desert and Lord of the Seas , respectively.


Christians love to use the term Messiah and Savior , interchangeably without understanding that there is a substantial difference.

The word "Savior" is usually connected with Original Sin/Crucifixtion but not necessarily so.

The word " Messiah" or Masih ( Quranic Arabic) is a somewhat mysterious term that has yet to be fulfilled. In Christ's 2nd coming he will fulfill his obligation as " Messiah". He will end all wars, bring peace to the world, unite all peoples , defeat the Gog/ Magog, and the AntiChrist. This is a powerful role and a unique one reserved only for the Christ. Thus , back in the days of Jesus, he would often hesitate, when one would approach him and say " Are you the Messiah?".

Christians have always tried to make the Muslim concept of Jesus look banal. They say, that we consider him " just a prophet". As if he really is " just a prophet". Islam gives more respect to Jesus Christ(pbuh) than the whole of the Christian world. We never dare draw him , or say his name in vain. Nor do we joke about him. We always say "peace be upon him" (pbuh) after his name. Muhammad(pbuh) glorifed Jesus Christ (pbuh)and protected his name from Blasphemy. Jesus Christ (pbuh) is called " Sinless" in Islam. His Qur'anic titles include " Messiah", " Spirit of G-d" , "Soul of G-d", " Sign of the Hour", "Sign" , " Word of G-d" and " Messenger of G-d". Thus he is revered greatly in Islam and not simply "just a prophet" as Christians assume. In fact almost all of the 1.6 billion Muslims are now patiently waiting his Return. And perhaps it will be the Muslims that will find him in Damascus, Syria during his Descent.

Lastly, I do not understand why Jews, and Christians try to claim God as their own...as if he is just for one people. The Jews constantly call him "their God" and the Christians ( some not all) love calling the Islamic God, Satan. They say the Christian God is loving and the Muslim God is mean.....but in actuality have they even read the NT....the Jewish/Christian/ Islamic/Zoroastrian God is one and the same.

And whats with the prejudice behind calling Allah a different God or some sort of a moon god. My roomate is an arab Jordanian Catholic and he calls G-d , Allah just like any other arab Jew or Christian.....

.....theres so much to learn......before we can all be united....