How do other religions view Jesus?

[dronald]

Modern concepts like ‘conspiracy’ are rather anachronistic when talking about the kinds of processes that would have applied at the time. However, even a Christian might be puzzled at the remarkable ability of Jesus to ‘fulfil’ all sorts of supposed ‘prophesies’ in the Tanakh but only ones that can be ‘fulfilled’ textually and what that might mean about the way the New Testament was written and how a canon was arrived at.

And that’s when it becomes a matter of trust. I, as an anonymous internet stranger can go on a website and claim to be either gender. An internet stranger may not be trustworthy so some may believe and some may not.

However, when I look at the Bible and the history of it, I trust that these men were telling the truth. I trust that the same men who recorded Jesus’s words about not telling a lie would also be honest when writing their accounts of what they saw and heard. Some may look at it and say, “I do not trust these men for [X] reasons.” While I have my own, many reasons why I trust them.

Err? Only part of it, the bit that Christians tacked on the end of the Bible.

Thanks for the first part, I enjoy reading it!

Well, you see, to us and, obviously, to Muslims . . . . it’s rather obvious - so it’s a matter of Christian diversion rather than Jewish/Muslim agreement.

Hm, perhaps with what you’d expect from the Messiah, but Islam is consistent on how it feels about its prophets.

David didn’t commit adultery, Solomon never got into idols, Jonah never got angry with God and Jesus never died. But I get your point; it must be obvious.

 

[meltzerboy]

The Jews of the time in the Bible while Jesus was being crucified. In no way would they believe or ever believe that their Messiah was going to be a man who would end up dead on a cross:

Matthew 27:39And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads 40and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.”41 So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, 42 “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him.43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God. '”

This fits the Islamic narrative that Jesus was either saved before being crucified or saved on the cross. Basically Islam turned Jesus into what would be expected of a Messiah… I mean, why in the world would the Messiah die on a cross? The Jews then didn’t accept it and the Muslims now think similarly. The Messiah can’t be crucified.

However, the Islamic narrative did not turn Jesus into what would be expected according to the Jewish narrative of the Messiah: mainly the worship of G-d by all the nations and, consequently, peace among all the nations. The Messiah was to accomplish at least this much (and more) during his first and only visit.

 

[Kaninchen]

However, when I look at the Bible and the history of it, I trust that these men were telling the truth. I trust that the same men who recorded Jesus’s words about not telling a lie would also be honest when writing their accounts of what they saw and heard. Some may look at it and say, “I do not trust these men for [X] reasons.” While I have my own, many reasons why I trust them.

Thing is, we don’t want you to do anything other than be the best kind of Christian you can be.

 

[schaeffer]

Thing is, we don’t want you to do anything other than be the best kind of Christian you can be.

Exactly! I joined this thread to answer the OP. That’s it.

 

[dronald]

*Hundreds *of references? I don’t think so. I think there is maybe a handful? And some are unclear–to the point that the wording has been debated about for centuries.
On top of that, we cannot know if he actually said these words exactly or if they’ve been remembered incorrectly or embellished.

I counted approximately 100 just from a search now; I may be missing some or I may have over counted. So i’m sorry if I exaggerated. Regardless, it’s said over and over; you can’t deny this.

Of course we can’t know. I can’t know if Josephus’s account of any specific person is true; he could have just been making lots of it up. Regardless, I do trust these men.

It’s possible he did not made the claim…but people believed he did, it was their perception…so they wrote it later because they felt it was true. Not a concious “lame invention” so much as something they did believe.

I wonder who started this odd saying and got it to catch on. I suppose we’ll never know. For some reasons the men who wrote the Bible all came to the same strange belief out of the sky.

Well, as a journalist who has sometimes forgotten her tape recorder and notebook and had to rush back to the office and write down the quotes I heard an hour later…I can say that even an hour later, the quotes are getting blurry.
So 30-60 years…not so easy to be accurate.

Well, that’ll do it for most ancient historians eh?

I do understand that people take their faith so seriously that they would die for it. This has been true since ancient tribes sacrificed themselves to the Gods.

Eye witnesses of what they claimed they saw? Perhaps you think Jesus was a magician? Do you have any theory on who He was?

Ah. Interesting. You would cite different evidence or quotes to show that Jesus claimed to be God…depending on whether you are speaking to an Atheist or a Muslim?
Quite interesting indeed.

.

Yes. Muslims believe the Gospel is authentic in its original form and was corrupted; while you seem to think it was written too late to get things right. Different approach for different people.

I don’t need to prove to a Muslim that Jesus did miracles, but I do have to prove certain things.

 

[SteveVH]

? It may be beyond your comprehension, but it’s a fact and understandable among many for thousands of years that millions of people have studied the words written in the Christian canon and come to the conclusion that Jesus was not “the Son of God”. But that doesn’t mean they think he was either lying or crazy.

It doesn’t? He claimed to be the Son of God. If they have concluded that he is not what he claimed to be then the only choices are: 1) He is lying. 2) He is deluded.

The problem is that I doubt there is anyone on earth who could read the words of Christ and not discern the truth in what he says. They reject him as the Son of God because that would mean they would have to live according to his words and change their lives. There are certainly millions who are unwilling to do that. They prefer their own rules.

There are other options that do exist beyond those two. One, for example, may be that the gospel writers have recorded or perceived events and quotes incorrectly.

As an unbeliever you could certainly hold that position. We, however, believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in discerning what is the word of God from what is not. In reality, the Bible is the most reliable ancient text that the world possesses.

These books were written 30-60 years after Jesus died and we cannot be certain who wrote them and if they were witnesses or not (if the last gospel writer was a witness, he or she would be maybe 80 years old at very least when they wrote it, if they were a witness).

Well, the Church was never reliant upon the written text for its faith in the first place. Our faith is in a Person, who taught the Apostles, who taught their successors, and so on. The faith was imbedded in the life of the Church. This is known as Sacred Tradition. The Scriptures were canonized on the basis of how well they stacked up against what the Church already knew was true. Our Church didn’t come from the Bible; the Bible came from our Church.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

It doesn’t? He claimed to be the Son of God. If they have concluded that he is not what he claimed to be then the only choices are: 1) He is lying. 2) He is deluded.

The problem is that I doubt there is anyone on earth who could read the words of Christ and not discern the truth in what he says. They reject him as the Son of God because that would mean they would have to live according to his words and change their lives. There are certainly millions who are unwilling to do that. They prefer their own rules.

As an unbeliever you could certainly hold that position. We, however, believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in discerning what is the word of God from what is not. In reality, the Bible is the most reliable ancient text that the world possesses.

Well, the Church was never reliant upon the written text for its faith in the first place. Our faith is in a Person, who taught the Apostles, who taught their successors, and so on. The faith was imbedded in the life of the Church. This is known as Sacred Tradition. The Scriptures were canonized on the basis of how well they stacked up against what the Church already knew was true. Our Church didn’t come from the Bible; the Bible came from our Church.

 

[MartinJordan]

Our Church didn’t come from the Bible; the Bible came from our Church.

Yep.Also a Living breathing Church. The Bible is for the Church by the Church to be exact. And Islam’s claim is false ( and clearly deficient in that respect) that we’re people of the Book.

Church for the Bible? No. Bible FOR the Church which began through Tradition, teachings and experiences living with Jesus and by his Apostles who learned from, prayed with and witnessed him.

MJ

 

[Kaninchen]

It doesn’t? He claimed to be the Son of God. If they have concluded that he is not what he claimed to be then the only choices are: 1) He is lying. 2) He is deluded.

You are rather missing the point - to people who don’t think the New Testament is scripture/reportage, he’s just a character in a story, albeit possibly based on some aspects of the life of somebody who actually existed.

Asking the trilemma question of such a non-believer, therefore, is not a matter of logic, it’s a matter of literary criticism.

 

[MartinJordan]

You are rather missing the point - to people who don’t think the New Testament is scripture/reportage, he’s just a character in a story, albeit possibly based on some aspects of the life of somebody who actually existed.

Asking the trilemma question of such a non-believer, therefore, is not a matter of logic, it’s a matter of literary criticism.

I think SteveVH was talking about relationship with Islam. Muslims believe even in John the Baptist who was from the NT and Jesus son of Mary (virgin) also from the NT for example. Literary criticism for Islam is a hard sell if Jesus was just a character in a story.

MJ

 

[hasantas]

=SteveVH;12274262]I

We, however, believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in discerning what is the word of God from what is not. In reality, the Bible is the most reliable ancient text that the world possesses.

How Church could be guided by the Holy Spirit? And who is that “Holy Spirit”? Did not Church give any wrong decision? I know there are many false decisions which Church men gave and miilions of people suffer from that. Why did not Holy Spirit guide that men. İt is so difficult to recognize.

Well, the Church was never reliant upon the written text for its faith in the first place. Our faith is in a Person, who taught the Apostles, who taught their successors, and so on. The faith was imbedded in the life of the Church. This is known as Sacred Tradition. The Scriptures were canonized on the basis of how well they stacked up against what the Church already knew was true. Our Church didn’t come from the Bible; the Bible came from our Church.

Here you shoot your own leg. İt is so problematic say that “Our Church didn’t come from the Bible; the Bible came from our Church”. Muslims believe that Muhmmed is the biggest prophet and he is sinless. But even Muhammed could can make wrong or imperfect decision by himself because he was humanbeing. Allah allways guide Muhammed by ruhu’l kudüs(holy spirit). Now you claim that Church men is guided by Holy Spirit! Are all men in Church prophets? Holy Spirit does not come on earth frequently. And that claim make Church untrustworthy. If you purpose to make Church trustable support it with Bible then ı can trust too. But you claim that you can form Bible according to Church and that is the main point Muslims do not accept. Otherwise we are “people of book” but not “people of Church”.

 

[Kaninchen]

I think SteveVH was talking about relationship with Islam. Muslims believe even in John the Baptist who was from the NT and Jesus son of Mary (virgin) also from the NT for example. Literary criticism for Islam is a hard sell if Jesus was just a character in a story.

MJ

Not really, it would be a different school of ‘lit crit’, one that thought that the NT was somewhat closer to the original historical character.

 

[MartinJordan]

How Church could be guided by the Holy Spirit? And who is that “Holy Spirit”? Did not Church give any wrong decision? I know there are many false decisions which Church men gave and miilions of people suffer from that. Why did not Holy Spirit guide that men. İt is so difficult to recognize.

What wrong decisions do you mean?

Here you shoot your own leg. İt is so problematic say that “Our Church didn’t come from the Bible; the Bible came from our Church”. Muslims believe that Muhmmed is the biggest prophet and he is sinless. But even Muhammed could can make wrong or imperfect decision by himself because he was humanbeing. Allah allways guide Muhammed by ruhu’l kudüs(holy spirit). Now you claim that Church men is guided by Holy Spirit! Are all men in Church prophets? Holy Spirit does not come on earth frequently. And that claim make Church untrustworthy. If you purpose to make Church trustable support it with Bible then ı can trust too. But you claim that you can form Bible according to Church and that is the main point Muslims do not accept. Otherwise we are “people of book” but not “people of Church”.

It’s very simple. You need to admit it is 600 years after Jesus so the foot is actually not ours. Plus the Church doesn’t talk about Mohammed at all neither did Jesus. That also means the Holy Spirit in Islam is not the Holy Spirit of Christians.

However, your Quran calls Jesus the Spirit of God and Word of God? Can you explain why?

MJ

 

[MartinJordan]

Not really, it would be a different school of ‘lit crit’, one that thought that the NT was somewhat closer to the original historical character.

Are you sure Islam demands “lit crit”?

MJ

 

[ronwilliams]

I think no metter what is your religion, the important issue is you believe on God or not. If you believe on god then you agree with this that “God is one”. God is never changed according to religion. God never says hindu, islam and other religion people is different to each other, all people is the part of god.

 

[332]

Jesus was a prophet nothing more.

 

[MartinJordan]

Jesus was a prophet nothing more.

What is your religion? And how far does your religion go to recognize his teachings? Pls show how it is traced. Thanks.

MJ

 

[MartinJordan]

I think no metter what is your religion, the important issue is you believe on God or not. If you believe on god then you agree with this that “God is one”. God is never changed according to religion. God never says hindu, islam and other religion people is different to each other, all people is the part of god.

Hi. So you follow all religions?

MJ

 

[dronald]

Jesus was a prophet nothing more.

Kind of a blunt statement here. How can anyone be “nothing more” than a prophet? Don’t prophets actually say and do things that make them special?

I can’t imagine someone saying, “tell me about Moses” and I say he was a prophet, nothing more. I would likely explain what Moses did, taught, etc. Likewise Jesus or Muhammad.

 

[MartinJordan]

I can’t imagine someone saying, “tell me about Moses” and I say he was a prophet, nothing more. I would likely explain what Moses did, taught, etc. Likewise Jesus or Muhammad.

Right.

MJ