How do other religions view Jesus?

[hasantas]

Muslims think that some miscontruction occured by lapse of time and these are a small scale percentage but in very important issues. Otherwise Muslims believe in Bible perhaps more than Christians because we can realize facts in light of Quran.

 

[hasantas]

Quran was written according the words come out from mouth of Mohammed. But writers should speak and write in different dialects of Arabic. İn all dialects the meaning is the same but just some differents in speaking or writing. That differents are for some words otherwise main text is same.

 

[hasantas]

Why until first council of Nicaea it was polemical about divinity of Jesus. There were many clerics who dispute with that. But Church is the absolute power and successor of God(?) on earth so no one can object. Who can object against Church? As much we know Church do not allow other different versions and destroy different versions. How many different version were there before council? Who kow? God know the best. Muslims think that most of reasons for conflicts in Christianity is the because of domination of Church. There are thousands of different interpretations of Quran. Why some out of Church could not interpret Gospels?

There would not be holy scripture after Quran so God declared in Quran that God will protect Quran. Also Quran was revealed to normalize the defects in previous scriptures which occured by lapse of time too.

 

[dronald]

Why did you post the question in Mark 14:61 but did not post the response?

???

 

[hasantas]

???

Who do you ask and what?

 

[dronald]

Who do you ask and what?

Why did you post Mark 14:61? What was your point? Why not post the response?

 

[MartinJordan]

Why until first council of Nicaea it was polemical about divinity of Jesus. There were many clerics who dispute with that. But Church is the absolute power and successor of God(?) on earth so no one can object. Who can object against Church? As much we know Church.

When was the earliest time Islamic teaching spoke about Nicea? What did your prophet know about Christian councils? You need to answer this.

MJ

 

[Servant19]

Before I get into the interesting relevant parts of this, and without going down the various less-relevant rabbit holes, can I ask what the status is of this document in your belief system, and whether you consider the whole thing to be an accurate account of your beliefs?

I ask because it seems to contradict itself quite badly, from my point of view, when describing the Baha’i view of reality, and I’d like to check whether there are only specific parts of it that you would like considered, or whether it really is the whole thing. Because, for example, in one place it will say that the Baha’i view is not at all dualist and considers the physical world exactly as real as the spiritual, and then in another place it will say that the spiritual and physical are entirely different realities emanating separately with the physical world being only a reflection representing the truly real spirit, which is basically textbook dualism. So I was wondering if there were errors in this text, and you only wanted me to consider certain parts that were relevant and which you agree with?

Hello TAS, hope all is well.

Yes, the book is not an official Baha’i document, but it is the scholarly collection of a fair chunk of Baha’i Writings relevant to the subject. It is pretty accurate in its exploration of the subject.

In regards to the perceived dualism you have pointed out, I may need you to cut and paste the relevant bits that you feel are contradictory, however, from what I gauge, it is not a contradiction.

The gradations of existence from mineral kingdom, to plant, animal, human and spiritual kingdoms are all very much real, however in “relation” to one another, one is “more” real than the other.

In reality, God is the only truly real Entity, everything else in His Creation is just a transient image of Him really. So in “relative” terms, this physical world is not real in comparison to the spiritual Kingdom.

Can you point out the sentence that “considers the physical world exactly as real as the spiritual” ? I’m not saying that this is incorrect, I just wish to read it in context. The definition of “reality” is that it “exists”…the spiritual world exists, and equally so the physical world exists, but in “relative” terms, only God exists. Hope that makes sense. Its a subtle distinction which makes sense to me, maybe we can explore it more.

The world of the womb is real, but it exists within the REAL physical world which it is contained in. This is another perspective to address it too

.

 

[magnet]

Quran was written according the words come out from mouth of Mohammed. But writers should speak and write in different dialects of Arabic. İn all dialects the meaning is the same but just some differents in speaking or writing. That differents are for some words otherwise main text is same.

According to the traditional narrative, several companions of Muhammad served as scribes and were responsible for writing down the revelations. Shortly after Muhammad’s death, the Quran was compiled by his companions who wrote down and memorized parts of it. These codices had differences that motivated the Caliph Uthman to establish a standard version now known as Uthman’s codex, which is generally considered the archetype of the Quran we have today. However, the existence of variant readings, with mostly minor and some significant variations, and the early unvocalized Arabic script mean the relationship between Uthman’s codex to both the text of today’s Quran and to the revelations of Muhammad’s time is still unclear.

Donner, Fred, “The historical context” in McAuliffe, J. D. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’ān (Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 31–33.

Campo, Juan E. (2009). Encyclopedia of Islam. Facts On File. pp. 570–74. ISBN 0-8160-5454-1.

 

[TypesAndShadows]

Hello TAS, hope all is well.

Yes, the book is not an official Baha’i document, but it is the scholarly collection of a fair chunk of Baha’i Writings relevant to the subject. It is pretty accurate in its exploration of the subject.

Thank you.

In regards to the perceived dualism you have pointed out, I may need you to cut and paste the relevant bits that you feel are contradictory, however, from what I gauge, it is not a contradiction.

I would consider

We could wrongly see in these concepts a new formulation of the Platonic concept of the world of Ideas and of the material world. But whereas Plato’s conception may suggest a dualism between spirit and matter, there is no dualism in the Bahá’í texts.

to be in direct contradiction to, for example,

The spirit is the true reality of the world of creation: what we see and understand of this world is but `images reflected in water’[112] of the superior reality of the world of the Kingdom.

I don’t know what you would class is dualism, if you don’t think that is it.

But this is beside the point: you are happy for me to take everything in there as representing what you personally believe, and what Baha’i teach?

Thank you.

To avoid confusion, are you going to respond to anything at all in my other two posts, or shall I assume you are not going to reply on these points and move on?

 

[hasantas]

When was the earliest time Islamic teaching spoke about Nicea? What did your prophet know about Christian councils? You need to answer this.

MJ

Perhaps Mohammed has not known anything about Nicaea if Allah did not inform because Mohammed was unlettered and at that times it is hard to know such thing. But Allah revealed to Mohammed the right form of Bible. Muslims have interested in Christianity later because Quran mentioned them as people of book(revelation).

 

[MartinJordan]

Perhaps Mohammed has not known anything about Nicaea if Allah did not inform because Mohammed was unlettered and at that times it is hard to know such thing. But Allah revealed to Mohammed the right form of Bible. Muslims have interested in Christianity later because Quran mentioned them as people of book(revelation).

Are you saying it wasn’t important to God or Mohammed that Jesus was called God during Nicea? The issue of the nature of the Son of God and his relationship to God the Father? Why wait 350 more years? We’re talking Salvation here! How could that be?

Hasantas, you are making things up as you go along. We have all the answers and you can’t bring any proof just suppositions and after-the-fact information. You know about Nicea how? Islam taught you?

Come on Hasantas.

MJ

 

[hasantas]

According to the traditional narrative, several companions of Muhammad served as scribes and were responsible for writing down the revelations. Shortly after Muhammad’s death, the Quran was compiled by his companions who wrote down and memorized parts of it. These codices had differences that motivated the Caliph Uthman to establish a standard version now known as Uthman’s codex, which is generally considered the archetype of the Quran we have today. However, the existence of variant readings, with mostly minor and some significant variations, and the early unvocalized Arabic script mean the relationship between Uthman’s codex to both the text of today’s Quran and to the revelations of Muhammad’s time is still unclear.

Donner, Fred, “The historical context” in McAuliffe, J. D. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’ān (Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 31–33.

Campo, Juan E. (2009). Encyclopedia of Islam. Facts On File. pp. 570–74. ISBN 0-8160-5454-1.

Yes. Uthman destroyed different copies. Some Sahabas had a special copy but Sahabas wrote some description beside verses. Uthman and some Muslims worried if these explanations would be confused with verses. Otherwise Quran were compiled as a book during Caliph Abu bakr by a trusty commission.

 

[hasantas]

Quran never changed. Also Quran is beeing written in hundred different letters in Arabic now so is Quran beeing changed?

 

[dronald]

What I don’t get is why he posted multiple Bible passages. Did Hasantas read through the Bible and find those specific verses that he didn’t understand? Or was it a copy/paste thing?

My question remains. Hasantas posted Mark 14:61 but not verse 62. I want to know why, and what point he was making by posting verse 61.

I feel as if Hasantas just copied and pasted without actually knowing what he was talking about.

 

[otterman]

Hasantas:

The Quran confirms the truth of the Gospel, as well as all previous scriptures, and even tells Muslims to ask those who are reading the Book before them, if they have any doubt in the Truth. Quran 5.47 5.48. 35.31 and 10.94

So, this begs the question, when was the Bible (allegedly) corrupted, before or after the Quran was revealed, and why would Allah tell Muslims to ask the People of the Book anything, if their Book had been corrupted?

As a Muslim you only have the Quran as your reference, and this reference points to the fact that the Bible could not have been changed, because Allah tells his followers to refer to his previous scriptures, which could not be changed as they come from him, as the Quran confirms again in 18-27

The question of Jesus 'divinity.

Jesus was put to death on a charge of blasphemy, because He admitted He was God. Jesus’ crucifixion is a provable historical event, and can be found in several non Christian sources, The Quran therefore is wrong when it claims Jesus is not God, and rejects Jesus’ death by crucifixion. Marks Gospel in Chapter 14 verse 60-64 reports what happened at Jesus’ trial before the high priest, who condemned Him to death because Jesus claimed He was God. The high priest would not have been able to condemn Jesus to death, but for this admission.

Mark 14:60-64
60 The high priest then rose before the whole assembly and put this question to Jesus, ‘Have you no answer to that? What is this evidence these men are bringing against you?’
61 But he was silent and made no answer at all. The high priest put a second question to him saying, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’
62 ‘I am,’ said Jesus, ‘and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’
63 The high priest tore his robes and said, ‘What need of witnesses have we now?
64 You heard the blasphemy. What is your finding?’ Their verdict was unanimous: he deserved to die.

Is the reason you did not comment on this verse because it proves Jesus to be who He said He is?

If this is the reason, then maybe you need to question why you felt the need not to do this.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.John 1:14

Jesus is called Gods Word in the Bible as well as in the Quran.
The question that needs to be asked,is God’s Word, created or eternal?

If you are a Muslim the answer must be eternal, as the Quran (gods written word)is said to be from god, making it eternal.

The Quran also says Jesus is God’s Word, making Him eternal.

Although the Quran mistakes the Gospel as a written book, not as it should do,in the form of Jesus the man, it is true when it states Jesus is Gods Word, as in truth Jesus is Gods word made flesh.

It follows then:
Jesus is God’s Word, making Him eternal, making Him God.

 

[Servant19]

Thank you.

I would consider

to be in direct contradiction to, for example,

I don’t know what you would class is dualism, if you don’t think that is it.

But this is beside the point: you are happy for me to take everything in there as representing what you personally believe, and what Baha’i teach?

Thank you.

I think the phenomenon of the womb and the world after birth are a good example of true reality and non-dualism. (maybe I need to ask you what you understand from the term “dualism”…we may need to be on the same page with that definition first) This world into which the baby is born is “true reality”…(or “superior” reality which is the term used in the passage you copied and pasted in your previous post)

The womb is contained in this world. The baby in the womb is completely oblivious of this world, maybe some hints, but otherwise it is completely content in its own reality. To the baby, the womb is reality, and the only reality it will ever know whilst it is in there.

When it is born, the baby comes to realise that this world is “true reality” (or superior reality), the veil of blindness which was provided by the womb has been removed and the eyes can now discern true reality. Yet the womb is still in this world. It is not separate from it, it is not an expression of dualism.

The comparison can be extended and used to discern the difference between this world and the spiritual Kingdom… (Matt 3:2) “the Kingdom of heaven is close at hand”…as close as the Kingdom of earth is to the baby in the womb…

For me this makes rational, reasonable sense. God works in patterns and expresses Himself in ways that we can extrapolate these patterns to learn about the “as yet unknown”…after all isn’t that a way in which one may prove the existence of God to an atheist? The qualitative patterns in reality can be extrapolated to extend towards an Ultimate Reality…

To avoid confusion, are you going to respond to anything at all in my other two posts, or shall I assume you are not going to reply on these points and move on?

I will try to address what I can now. My apologies, I forgot and time was a touch limited

.

 

[Servant19]

In the time since my last post, I have read Apology 1 by Justin Martyr, in the Dods translation as found on New Advent. Your quotes are probably from Apology 1, although the wording was slightly different suggesting a different translation. Which translation were you using?

I’m surprised that you’d use Justin Martyr, because although he demonstrates a similar confusion of the Word and the Spirit to your own use (he sometimes uses the terms interchangably, which would of course make nonsense of several Biblical passages such as where Jesus assures his disciples that after he is gone they will receive another comforter, who is the Spirit. I think we’re still in John 14!), he is very clear that the Word is God as well as being the first-begotten of the Father. So, even though he is not Trinitarian (as is understandable given how little time people had had to process what they knew at the time he was writing), he says in Chapter 63

So you think being Trinitarian is Truth because it developed as an evolution over time, yet think that Justin Martyr, who was one of the earliest Church Fathers is speaking a confusion??

Why would you not think that the evolutionary development of a Trinitarian doctrine is not a man-made doctrine which bears little resemblance to what Jesus actually taught?

I find the interchangeability between the Word and Spirit as very interesting, and resembles a Truth forgotten in all the evolving over time…

But he also, especially in chapter 62, explains how he believes that all the stories of pagans that have any similarity to the stories of Christ are because Moses wrote earlier than any pagan philosopher, and so demons tried to copy the Biblical prophecies in these pagan religions, to cause people to think that Jesus was just another like them. So Justin Martyr would say that Hindus are just copying Moses because demons want them to dismiss Jesus as just another of the same sort that they have met in stories before. In this, of course, he is as out-of-line with Catholic teaching as when he maintains that the Spirit is the Word, but I really don’t think you want to be relying on him to support your own beliefs.

So can you please show me where Moses ever said, or even indicated, or even hinted at being a Spirit that comes to earth from Age to Age, as Lord Krishna did?

I do not consider Hinduism a pagan religion, and I do not see any evidence that Moses , or Justin Martyr did either. Do you have ant source for this assumption please?

How do you take his writings? Do you consider him as some sort of prophet?

I take his writings as an expression of pretty early Christianity which is closely reflected to what Christ actually taught. The less time elapsed the better. Over time, man-made doctrines start to creep in…

I am here to exchange information on our understandings of who Jesus is. I am guided by the Church in this, for reasons that would take an entire other thread. If I want to further my understanding of the Word, it would not be through considering the Word to be someone other than God. There are lots of sources for me to develop my understanding of God: I do not accept certain core beliefs that would cause me to look for this understanding in other religions, although I fully respect that you do accept those core beliefs. If this is going to be a problem, and you really wanted me to convert to some sort of Baha’i view of Truth, then I’m afraid this will go nowhere.

I’m just here to point out that early Christians may have considered the Word to be the “first-begotten of God” just as the First Begotten of the Sun is its Rays. If the sun was an eternal entity, then its rays are also eternal with it, but distinct from it nevertheless…

In like manner, God is an Eternal Being and His “First Emanation” (the Word) is also coeternal with Him, but distinct from Him nevertheless.

I don;t want you to convert to anything.(it’s God’s job, not mine) I am simply saying that early Christian thinking as to who Jesus was seems to conform very closely to Baha’i thinking as to who Jesus was.

You can agree or disagree as you please dear friend. I cannot walk your path. It is for you to pray earnestly for God to guide you, and for me likewise. I may well be totally wrong, and everything I have read is irrational and unreasonable codswallop. There is not a day that goes by where I don’t pray for guidance towards the Truth of God, our Creator. I never sit comfortable and wallow as if to think I know it all…

The cornerstone of my life is “a humble posture of learning”


.

 

[meltzerboy]

Quran never changed. Also Quran is beeing written in hundred different letters in Arabic now so is Quran beeing changed?

Neither has the Torah, from which many teachings found in the Qur’an derive.

 

[otterman]

So you believe in selectively choosing what the Church proclaims to be true and in this particular matter you are more enlightened. Do I have it right?

I believe what the church teaches about the Catholic faith to be true.

What the Catholic church teaches about the Islamic faith is flawed, and untrue, because in-depth research on this faith, proves this to be the case.