Concerning the Islamic Conception of Jesus

[Trailblazer]

What Does the Bible Say About Jesus Return?

All those verses are about the return of Christ.
The Bible says nothing about the same man Jesus returning.

 

[Sundance]

All those verses are about the return of Christ.
The Bible says nothing about the same man Jesus returning.

It is absolutely evident in the New Testament that it is the same Jesus will return. It’s the same Jesus who was crucified and resurrected. If you are of any doubt, ask yourself this question: why would Jesus Christ send another human being to guide people to the truth of who He is, and have that person deviate, essentially rendering Jesus Himself to have been a liar?

 

[Trailblazer]

Sooooo fundamentally, your rebuttal is flawed.

Believe whatever you want to believe, it won't make it true.
Beliefs are funny things, anyone can have them but they cannot be proven true or false, so it is silly to argue as if you know the truth.

I believe that Christianity as it is believed by the masses is flawed. That is my personal opinion.

 

[Sundance]

I believe that the gospel writers wrote stories that made it appear as if Jesus rose from the dead and millions of people got duped into believing that Jesus rose from the dead by reading those stories and believing what Christianity teaches unquestionably.

I also believe the belief in the bodily resurrection is the worst thing that has ever happened to Christianity because the very purpose for which Jesus lived and died was completely lost and forgotten because of the focus on the bodily resurrection. Even the cross sacrifice has played second fiddle to the bodily resurrection.

Christians who believe in the bodily resurrection are glorifying the flesh of Jesus. Such a focus on the boldly resurrection goes completely against what Jesus taught about the unimportance of the flesh. Jesus makes it very clear that the physical body is not important, only spiritual life is important.

Luke 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Needless to say, I believe the resurrection stories were fictional stories, just as the liberal Christians believe.
What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

I have no theories about why they were written to sound real because only God knows why that happened.

I do not believe that Jesus ever rose from the dead so there is not point trying to convince me of that.
You have a right to your beliefs and I have a right to mine, and I do not want to argue about them.

Regardless, if you believe that they were fictional stories, they are still told as having occurred bodily, not through any other means.

 

[Sundance]

Believe whatever you want to believe, it won't make it true.
Beliefs are funny things, anyone can have them but they cannot be proven true or false, so it is silly to argue as if you know the truth.

I believe that Christianity as it is believed by the masses is flawed. That is my personal opinion.

As I said in my OP, any person who has any belief about Jesus is fine, insofar as they don’t try to twist what the New Testament says.

 

[Trailblazer]

That the Bible and the vast majority of Christians throughout history testify to the Bodily Resurrection of Christ Jesus is plain and evident.

How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false.
That is called the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Examples

This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true or that they're wrong because all the rest do otherwise.

• Billions believe in my religious belief.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

 

[Sundance]

How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false.
That is called the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Examples

This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true or that they're wrong because all the rest do otherwise.

• Billions believe in my religious belief.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

I see. Well then, let’s just stick with what the Scriptures say, shall we?

The New Testament is plain and evident regarding what it teaches about Jesus. According to it, He claims to be the Son of God, Son of Man, Jewish Messiah, crucified and bodily resurrected. That simple. You’re free to disagree with the New Testament, absolutely, but you cannot deny that it teaches these things.

It would be the equivalent of an Atheist saying that he or she doesn’t see God in the Hebrew Scriptures, when it’s crystal clear that those Scriptures teach that there is a God.

Just because you may not want to believe in a bodily resurrection doesn’t mean that it’s not there in the New Testament.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is absolutely evident in the New Testament that it is the same Jesus will return.

It is absolutely evident in the New Testament that the same Jesus will never return.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Moreover, Jesus said It is finished, and then decades later, people tried to bring Jesus back to life by writing fictional stories about how Jesus rose from the dead. What a sad state of affairs this is.

 

[Trailblazer]

Regardless, if you believe that they were fictional stories, they are still told as having occurred bodily, not through any other means.

So what? Fiction is fiction, and there is great danger in believing that fiction is the truth because that prevents people from ever knowing the truth.

This is logic 101 stuff.

 

[Trailblazer]

As I said in my OP, any person who has any belief about Jesus is fine, insofar as they don’t try to twist what the New Testament says.

I did not twist it, I just don't believe it.

 

[Sundance]

So what? Fiction is fiction, and there is great danger in believing that fiction is the truth because that prevents people from ever knowing the truth.

This is logic 101 stuff.

People communicate truth and wisdom through storytelling all the time. That’s the way it’s always been. Whether in religion, through music, dance, art or film. If it is only a fictional story, who cares? It’s still a very beautiful and timeless story. It’s been told the very same way for the last 2,000 years and it will always be. What’s recorded in the story is what’s recorded. Period.

 

[Sundance]

I did not twist it, I just don't believe it.

Madam, you just had an argument, going back and forth with me, about what the New Testament itself actually teaches trying to selectively pull verses from it in proving your opinion, not merely what you or I believe to have happened. To me, that sounds like trying to twist it. It is very dishonest.

 

[Trailblazer]

The New Testament is plain and evident regarding what it teaches about Jesus. According to it, He claims to be the Son of God, Son of Man, Jewish Messiah, crucified and bodily resurrected. That simple. You’re free to disagree with the New Testament, absolutely, but you cannot deny that it teaches these things.

No, it is not clear that the NT teaches all of those things. Some of them are clear but others are just based upon interpretations of the text. Even the resurrection stories can be interpreted as a fictional story rather than to mean that Jesus rose bodily, as the liberal Christians have interpreted it.

It is clear that Jesus was the Son of man, but it is not clear that Jesus was the only Son of man.

It is clear that Jesus was the Son of God, but than you have to ask what that means, and it will mean different things to different people.

It is certainly not clear that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah; it it was clear the Jews would believe that Jesus was their Messiah.

It would be the equivalent of an Atheist saying that he or she doesn’t see God in the Hebrew Scriptures, when it’s crystal clear that those Scriptures teach that there is a God.

No, it is not quite like that because some of the things that Christians have attributed to Jesus are not clear, since there are other verses that contradict those verses.

Just because you may not want to believe in a bodily resurrection doesn’t mean that it’s not there in the New Testament.

All that is there is a story but a story is not proof that anything in the story ever happened.
The alleged witnesses in the story are part of the story so they don't count. Anyone can write a fictional story that has witnesses written into the story.

 

[Trailblazer]

Madam, you just had an argument, going back and forth with me, about what the New Testament itself actually teaches trying to selectively pull verses from it in proving your opinion, not merely what you or I believe to have happened. To me, that sounds like trying to twist it. It is very dishonest.

Show me some verses that I have twisted the meaning of.

 

[Trailblazer]

People communicate truth and wisdom through storytelling all the time. That’s the way it’s always been. Whether in religion, through music, dance, art or film. If it is only a fictional story, who cares? It’s still a very beautiful and timeless story. It’s been told the very same way for the last 2,000 years and it will always be. What’s recorded in the story is what’s recorded. Period.

As I said, the danger in believing a fictional story is true is that people can live their whole life believing something is true that is not true and that prevents them from knowing what is actually true.

The danger in attaching great significance to a story and believing the events in that story actually happened is that it has implications for all one's other beliefs. For example, the belief that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into the clouds to heaven allows Christians to also believe that the physical body of Jesus is in heaven and that the same Jesus will return in the same physical body. That belief precludes Christians from recognizing the return of Christ in another man.

 

[Sundance]

No, it is not clear that the NT teaches all of those things. Some of them are clear but others are just based upon interpretations of the text. Even the resurrection stories can be interpreted as a fictional story rather than to mean that Jesus rose bodily, as the liberal Christians have interpreted it.

I agree somewhat. Some things in the New Testament are unclear (some of what happens in the Book of Revelation comes to mind). However, certain other things (the Crucifixion and bodily Resurrection of the Lord Jesus) are quite clearly elucidated. No fancy interpretation is required, as what actually occurs is put right there in front of you.

“The Son of Man will be handed over to the Gentiles, who will mock, and scourge, and crucify Him (killing Him). After three days, he will be raised to life.”

It does take any fancy exegesis to figure out what Jesus is saying.

Try this one:

“You will destroy this temple, and in three days, I will raise it.”

What is the temple He spoke of? A verse that follows explains it clearly.

“The temple that He spoke of was His Body.”

What does this mean. Obviously, He’s saying that He’s going to be killed and after three days, He will come back to life. It’s clearly explained. Black and white. Clear as day.

It is clear that Jesus was the Son of man, but it is not clear that Jesus was the only Son of man.

It is clear that Jesus was the Son of God, but than you have to ask what that means, and it will mean different things to different people.

It is certainly not clear that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah; it it was clear the Jews would believe that Jesus was their Messiah.

No, it is not quite like that because some of the things that Christians have attributed to Jesus are not clear, since there are other verses that contradict those verses.

All that is there is a story but a story is not proof that anything in the story ever happened.
The alleged witnesses in the story are part of the story so they don't count. Anyone can write a fictional story that has witnesses written into the story.

As to whether or not He was the Jewish Messiah, that’s a 2,000-year-old, back and forth argument. A dead horse which I will not flog. However, He does claim that He is. Same thing with the other titles He uses for Himself.

I’m not arguing to whether or not the stories actually occurred. Honestly, it’s inconsequential. I’m only arguing that the New Testament teaches what it does. It teaches about Jesus that He claimed to be the Son of God, Son of Man, that He was crucified and rose from the dead after three days. This is what it teaches. This is what I’m arguing.

 

[Sundance]

As I said, the danger in believing a fictional story is true is that people can live their whole life believing something is true that is not true and that prevents them from knowing what is actually true.

The danger in attaching great significance to a story and believing the events in that story actually happened is that it has implications for all one's other beliefs. For example, the belief that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into the clouds to heaven allows Christians to also believe that the physical body of Jesus is in heaven and that the same Jesus will return in the same physical body. That belief precludes Christians from recognizing the return of Christ in another man.

Christians believe this because that is exactly what the New Testament teaches, and nothing else. Claiming that it teaches anything else is wrong. Plain wrong.

Like Hare Krishnas, they are not going to say that the Bhagavad Gita doesn’t teach reincarnation. It clearly does. Like with the Christians, however, you Bahá’ís for some reason say that it doesn’t teach reincarnation (and this is only because you don’t believe in reincarnation). It’s delusional, I think.

 

[CG Didymus]

Some things in the New Testament are unclear (some of what happens in the Book of Revelation comes to mind). However, certain other things (the Crucifixion and bodily Resurrection of the Lord Jesus) are quite clearly elucidated. No fancy interpretation is required, as what actually occurs is put right there in front of you.

Weird thing, Baha'is do believe that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Regarding the birth of Jesus-Christ. In the light of what Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá have stated concerning this subject it is evident that Jesus came into this world through the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, and that consequently His birth was quite miraculous. This is an established fact... Shoghi Effendi​

Many Liberal Christians don't.

St. Paul seems to have been unaware of the virgin birth St. Paul apparently knew little about the life and teachings of Jesus.

The virgin birth may have been copied from a Roman fable: Livy, a famous Roman historian, had written a very popular book on the history of Rome that was widely circulated in the first decades of the 1st century CE. In it, he explained that Mars, the Roman God of war, fathered twins Romulus and Remus, the original mythical founders of the city of Rome. Their mother was Silvia, a Vestal Virgin.
The virgin birth may have been copied from another religion5 History records that various religions claimed that:

Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her.

The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings.

A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin.

In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after his death.

The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born "at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus." 6

In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25. An alternative myth is that he emerged from a rock.

Also in Persia, Zoroaster was born of a virgin.
(continued on next post)​

 

[CG Didymus]

Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors, and for Alexander the Great of Greece.

One source is quoted as saying that there were many mythological figures: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and Horus who share a number of factors. All were believed to have:

been male.

lived in pre-Christian times.

had a god for a father.

human virgin for a mother.

had their birth announced by a heavenly display.

had their birth announced by celestial music.

been born about DEC-25.

had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant

met with a violent death.

rose again from the dead.
Almost all were believed to have:

been visited by "wise men" during infancy.

fasted for 40 days as an adult.​

Plenty of reasons to doubt something that the Baha'is and Conservative/Evangelical Christians believe. It is strange to me why Baha'is only reject the literal resurrection and not the virgin birth?

 

[Trailblazer]

No fancy interpretation is required, as what actually occurs is put right there in front of you.

“The Son of Man will be handed over to the Gentiles, who will mock, and scourge, and crucify Him (killing Him). After three days, he will be raised to life.”

It does take any fancy exegesis to figure out what Jesus is saying.

The problem is that Jesus did not say that; the authors of the NT said that about Jesus.

Try this one:

“You will destroy this temple, and in three days, I will raise it.”

What is the temple He spoke of? A verse that follows explains it clearly.

“The temple that He spoke of was His Body.”

What does this mean. Obviously, He’s saying that He’s going to be killed and after three days, He will come back to life. It’s clearly explained. Black and white. Clear as day.

No, that is not clear as day.
Firstly, Jesus did not say that; the authors of the NT said that about Jesus.
Secondly, even if Jesus did say that we do not know what Jesus meant by temple.
Thirdly, Jesus did not say “The temple that He spoke of was His Body.” Someone else said that because they assumed Jesus meant His body, so that does not answer the second question.

As to whether or not He was the Jewish Messiah, that’s a 2,000-year-old, back and forth argument. A dead horse which I will not flog. However, He does claim that He is. Same thing with the other titles He uses for Himself.

That depends upon what you mean by "the Jewish Messiah." If you mean the Messiah who would fulfill all the messianic prophecies, clearly Jesus was not that Messiah, since he did not fulfill all those prophecies. To say Jesus will fulfill the rest of them when he returns won't work, because Jesus has not returned. I can say I am going to buy a private island after I win the lottery but until I have won the lottery that is just something I am hoping for.

I’m not arguing to whether or not the stories actually occurred. Honestly, it’s inconsequential. I’m only arguing that the New Testament teaches what it does. It teaches about Jesus that He claimed to be the Son of God, Son of Man, that He was crucified and rose from the dead after three days. This is what it teaches. This is what I’m arguing.

Maybe that is true, the NT teaches these things, but it teaches a whole lot more that you fail to mention.
You completely omit what Jesus actually taught about how we should live, the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, etc. That would like me saying that the Baha'i Faith teaches that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God who was exiled and imprisoned for 40 years and saying that is what the Baha'i Faith is all about, without even mentioning the teachings of Baha'u'llah.

By teachings of Jesus I mean things like this. Jesus was teaching how to attain eternal life.

Matthew 25:41-46 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.