Is Christianity a syncretic religion?

[URAVIP2ME]

I'm trying to better understand the concept of religious syncretism. The term is often used pejoratively where adherents of one faith are accused of blending two incompatible religious ideologies.
Christianity for example is founded on the Teachings of Christ as recorded in the four Gospel accounts and elaborated by the apostles. These Gospel accounts and Apostolic letters form the basis of the Christian 'New Testament.' However Christians also use most of the Hebrew Bible which includes the central sacred scriptures of Judaism. These works are called the 'Old Testament', a term that has derogatory connotations as this book is viewed by many Christians as having been superseded by the New Testament (Hebrews 8:13). Of course this doesn't sit well with adherents of Judaism who reject the idea their Covenant with the God of Abraham has been superseded by the Covenant allegedly established through Jesus. Further, aspects of Christian theology such as the Divinity of Christ, the Sonship of Christ, the triune nature of God and the fulfilment of prophecies in the Hebrew Bible, are perceived as being in contradiction to what Judaism teaches.
Wikipedia addresses the issue of religious syncretism generally, and an issue for Abrahamic Faiths specifically:
Religious syncretism exhibits blending of two or more religious belief systems into a new system, or the incorporation into a religious tradition of beliefs from unrelated traditions. It is contrasted by the idea of multiple religious belonging and polytheism, respectively.
This can occur for many reasons, and the latter scenario happens quite commonly in areas where multiple religious traditions exist in proximity and function actively in the culture, or when a culture is conquered, and the conquerors bring their religious beliefs with them, but do not succeed in entirely eradicating the old beliefs or, especially, practices.
Religions may have syncretic elements to their beliefs or history, but adherents of so-labeled systems often frown on applying the label, especially adherents who belong to "revealed" religious systems, such as the Abrahamic religions, or any system that exhibits an exclusivist approach. Such adherents sometimes see syncretism as a betrayal of their pure truth. By this reasoning, adding an incompatible belief corrupts the original religion, rendering it no longer true. Indeed, critics of a specific syncretistic trend may sometimes use the word "syncretism" as a disparaging epithet, as a charge implying that those who seek to incorporate a new view, belief, or practice into a religious system actually distort the original faith. The consequence, according to Keith Ferdinando, is a fatal compromise of the dominant religion's integrity. Non-exclusivist systems of belief, on the other hand, may feel quite free to incorporate other traditions into their own. So what is religious syncretism to you and should the phrase be used in regards Christianity? Thanks for your considered thoughts.

What is religious syncretism...... used in regards to Christianity___________
After the first century ended ( Acts 20:28-30) fake 'weed/tares ' Christians entered into ' wheat ' Christianity.
Thus, creating a fusion or mixing of different belief systems resulting in new teachings or belief system that is Not reconciled to biblical Christianity of the first century.
The secular thus became blended with the sacred.
The result of introducing those foreign or non-biblical ideas created 'Christendom' (so-called Christian) to evolve and take on a life of its own.
This 'new' never replaces the 'old' ( 1st-century teachings ) but merely continues to evolves by the philosophies and whims of men over Scripture.
Myths outside of Scripture, but taught as being Scripture, is Now so deeply ingrained in people's minds that even when exposed people still insist on keeping that religious mirage alive.

 

[Tambourine]

Cool! Yeah, that is true, but really my picture was such a broad one that it was meant to represent a variety of centuries and even the general expectations one would have for how religions tend to operate, where the majority of ordinary folk have usually been illiterate and dealing with very loose magical folk concepts more than they are deeply familiar with theology. In some of the earliest stages, Paul seems to have been slightly disturbed or annoyed by how easily major issues and differences could occur in communities that were just at a little distance than others, due to a lack of constant monitoring or control, where a diversity of ideas and behaviors which were not expected or sanctioned would creep in or were feared to have creeped in. There seems to be evidence at least that the regular population throughout the centuries were a much larger quantity of people than the particular theologians attending councils, and that the dispersal of news from such councils may not have always been easy to make everyone aware of.

That is a good point and I largely agree with you on that. I believe in terms of religious beliefs and practices, but also in terms of the social stratification of its followers, early Christianity was probably a very diverse and inclusive affair compared to centralistic efforts to stamp out aberrant practices.

The majority of the people are poor, of a lower class than the smaller population of academics and elites and nobles.
The majority of the people are prone to magical thinking, are more familiar with traditions and superstitions than with theological nuances.
The majority of the people know very little of the Bible or theological discourses or council decisions or whatever, but are mainly ignorant people.
They worship a cosmic and magical folk Jesus who has miraculous powers simply called upon by name like a Bodhisattva, but is God or connected to God in some fashion. They also know of various Biblical stories and characters, but only vaguely, and unlikely to know straight scriptures.
The clerics keep reciting things ritualistically and like mantras to the illiterate masses with a poor grasp on linguistics or meaning even, and this continues even when the languages become increasingly archaic or foreign as Christianity spreads.
People would send some of their children to positions or educations if they could, to raise their status, it is more than likely these children entered into networks of systematic abuses and controls which only allowed certain secret keeping members to continue and succeed, and these networks of abuse and control were sometimes embedded almost as traditions for very long spans of times with generations of abusers and their abusing heirs, which may have forced many of the children sent into these systems to not have much real influence to save the majority of their communities or remain loyal to such, but some families were able to excel more with the help of such, but needed other members to do certain things to, I'm thinking of families which had this as part of their plan, usually led by a strategic sort of elder male of the family who uses his children like pawns.

I think this view of things in the ancient and medieval period of Christianity coincides with the view of the Christian elite on their contemporary status quo, but for exactly that reason I'm also highly skeptical as to how accurate it really is.

The earliest Christians attracted followers primarily from the urban populations of the Roman Empire, from both Jewish and Gentile communities, which were in general more likely to be literate than people from the countryside, and from seemingly all social classes. (Roman authors seem to have mentioned it being particularly attractive to women and the lower classes, but we don't know if that was an accurate assessment, or simply a roundabout way of trying to smear this emerging new religious movement, given Roman attitudes towards either group).

Now, as Christianity became more centralized and more and more the domain of social elites, I would agree that we see a greater stratification of religious practice and theology (with lower class superstitions being treated as residual paganisms to be stamped out). But as soon as we see a resurgence of urban life in cultural and economic terms, we see people from a newly literate urban class trying to push their own beliefs in a quite self-confident manner.

The emergent poverty orders such as the Franciscans, but also influential heresies such as the Waldenians or the Albigensians, show that there were a) literate people outside the clerical class, who b) had their own, often very divergent, ideas about Christian theology and religious practice. This only lets up during the Plague, but comes back with a vengeance in the 15th and 16th century when the printing press can now cheaply and efficiently circulate new theologies, with a correspondent surge in literacy among the urban upper and middle class.

Of course, the Christian elite would push back, and muster staggering levels of violence and oppression against these diverse Christian beliefs and practices unseen since the days of Constantine. But my point is not that these were not violently stamped out, but that even at a time when the Church had an effective monopoly on legitimate Christianity, there existed literate classes with their own competing Christian theologies.

Christians mainly don't syncretize, but if they do, it could be said (not very seriously), that many people who identify in some way as Christian, also generally accept the norms of the governments they live under, society, modernism, science, etc, with only minorities resistant to such, and so Christianity has mainly syncretized with the mainstream culture and mainstream mythology, where we all basically know of the same characters and sayings. Furthermore, other people identifying as other religions are also mostly part of the modern norms and culture, which is largely regulated or has the ideas dispersed through the media, the internet, and vast cross cultural contact, imitation, production, and distribution, as well as easy access and availability. We are, contrary to what people may think, closer to a One World Culture than has ever been the case in the past, and it could be considered in some ways a synthesis of many things, a syncretism, where everyone basically accepts the same ideas, thinks that God means generally the same God whether they accept it or deny it, talk about the same Jesus even if they are from other religions, and know about Spiderman and Superman, even Hitler as a villain and whatever as well as ideas very widespread across the whole globe now.

I agree, a lot of people in the West believe in what is essentially a syncretic religion that mixes traditional Christian rituals and beliefs with Capitalist Prosperity Doctrine and 20th century US pop culture, but just who believes these things can differ a lot from region to region, or country to country.

While Christian-Capitalist syncretism is without any doubt a widespread folk religion in the US, here in Europe I would argue it is actually more prevalent among the urban and literate populations than it is among the countryside, where more traditionalist Christian practices are still more prevalent, and in the last 50 years have actually become a source of rural identity in opposition to the urban middle class.

And I believe that outside Europe or the US, things are yet different in this regard, with Christian elements tending to lose traction among those populations not familiar with them, and Capitalist or Pop Cultural elements becoming more influential.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

That is a good point and I largely agree with you on that. I believe in terms of religious beliefs and practices, but also in terms of the social stratification of its followers, early Christianity was probably a very diverse and inclusive affair compared to centralistic efforts to stamp out aberrant practices.



I think this view of things in the ancient and medieval period of Christianity coincides with the view of the Christian elite on their contemporary status quo, but for exactly that reason I'm also highly skeptical as to how accurate it really is.

The earliest Christians attracted followers primarily from the urban populations of the Roman Empire, from both Jewish and Gentile communities, which were in general more likely to be literate than people from the countryside, and from seemingly all social classes. (Roman authors seem to have mentioned it being particularly attractive to women and the lower classes, but we don't know if that was an accurate assessment, or simply a roundabout way of trying to smear this emerging new religious movement, given Roman attitudes towards either group).

Now, as Christianity became more centralized and more and more the domain of social elites, I would agree that we see a greater stratification of religious practice and theology (with lower class superstitions being treated as residual paganisms to be stamped out). But as soon as we see a resurgence of urban life in cultural and economic terms, we see people from a newly literate urban class trying to push their own beliefs in a quite self-confident manner.

The emergent poverty orders such as the Franciscans, but also influential heresies such as the Waldenians or the Albigensians, show that there were a) literate people outside the clerical class, who b) had their own, often very divergent, ideas about Christian theology and religious practice. This only lets up during the Plague, but comes back with a vengeance in the 15th and 16th century when the printing press can now cheaply and efficiently circulate new theologies, with a correspondent surge in literacy among the urban upper and middle class.

Of course, the Christian elite would push back, and muster staggering levels of violence and oppression against these diverse Christian beliefs and practices unseen since the days of Constantine. But my point is not that these were not violently stamped out, but that even at a time when the Church had an effective monopoly on legitimate Christianity, there existed literate classes with their own competing Christian theologies.



I agree, a lot of people in the West believe in what is essentially a syncretic religion that mixes traditional Christian rituals and beliefs with Capitalist Prosperity Doctrine and 20th century US pop culture, but just who believes these things can differ a lot from region to region, or country to country.

While Christian-Capitalist syncretism is without any doubt a widespread folk religion in the US, here in Europe I would argue it is actually more prevalent among the urban and literate populations than it is among the countryside, where more traditionalist Christian practices are still more prevalent, and in the last 50 years have actually become a source of rural identity in opposition to the urban middle class.

And I believe that outside Europe or the US, things are yet different in this regard, with Christian elements tending to lose traction among those populations not familiar with them, and Capitalist or Pop Cultural elements becoming more influential.

Thank you! That was great writing! I personally don't know how things were, but what I presented seems to be the kind of impression given by writers and historians if sort of composited and compiled and made into a very general sort of assumption, and I agree that I like the picture of the diverse Christianities and that is one of my favorite areas of study, increasingly brought to light by academics today. Those things I said about Christianity, since they are supposed to be a sort of broad assumption about how things are believed to work out in many different contexts, can also be made to apply to numerous other cultural developments and religions. Again, it may not always be the case, nor may it have ever been the case, since even if I was a witness to such things myself, I wouldn't know if I were just seeing it that way or if it was as it appears or was assumed to be. For example, I am right now a witness to this contemporary age and events going on through access to various media and looking outside my window, but I am only really making the assumption that everyone around me is poor. All I know for certain is that I'm using two Amazon boxes as tables for my food, another Amazon box as a column for my laptop, and I'm not wearing any pants.

 

[1213]

In the meantime, if it isn't too much trouble, I'd like to know your points about why you disagree with what they wrote and how Paul preaches something completely in line with the Tanakh or Old Testament theology, ...

Paul says for example:

But we know that the law is good, if a man uses it lawfully,
1 Tim. 1:8

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

So what is religious syncretism to you and should the phrase be used in regards Christianity? Thanks for your considered thoughts.

Religions evolve. All of them do. Syncretism is impossible to avoid.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Paul says for example:

But we know that the law is good, if a man uses it lawfully,
1 Tim. 1:8

Why did the Jewish people, or at least now, seem to reject Paul and moreover the worship of Jesus Christ as God?

 

[1213]

Why did the Jewish people, or at least now, seem to reject Paul ...?

I think there can be tree reasons:

1. They don’t know well what Paul said.
2. They don’t understand what Paul said.
3. They don’t like the message.

I also think it would be good, if Jews would know that Paul said:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

And Jesus said:

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

By what Jesus and Paul tells, there is only one true God that is greater than Jesus. Jews do well, if they remain in that teaching.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

I think there can be tree reasons:

1. They don’t know well what Paul said.
2. They don’t understand what Paul said.
3. They don’t like the message.

I also think it would be good, if Jews would know that Paul said:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

And Jesus said:

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

By what Jesus and Paul tells, there is only one true God that is greater than Jesus. Jews do well, if they remain in that teaching.

I think maybe Jews, and Muslims also now, seem to reject the idea of Jesus as a mediator or middle-entity in between mankind and God, but believe instead that every person faces God and Judgment without any true mediator between a man and God, so they might think things like "that is between me and God". The Jews, and the Muslims, also seem to reject the idea that Jesus is God incarnate as a man on Earth, and finally also they seem to reject the idea of the Trinity, that God is simultaneously God the Father, God the Son as the Word and Jesus the incarnate God in Earthly life, and God the Holy Spirit. They both took to saying that God is not Three but only One, indivisible, without parts or forms really, not having a body or being made of things like creatures.

Did Jesus or Paul, according to what remains in the New Testament or whatever else, teach that Jesus is God and that Jesus should be worshipped because Jesus is God? Did Jesus or Paul teach that Jesus is the literal biological product of a literal biological God? Did Jesus or Paul teach the Trinity and that God is The Father, while Jesus is God as The Son, and the Holy Spirit is the third form of God simultaneously? These seem to be the notions, or misunderstandings, which Jews and Muslims disagree with, but maybe you could clarify these. The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah and say he failed to fulfil the prophecy of the one they expect. The Muslims say that Jesus was the Messiah sent to the Jews but is not God incarnate, and the Muslims also typically say he did not really die on the cross, nor did he thus descend into Hades through death or become resurrected. The Muslims also don't believe that the shedding of the blood of an innocent being can forgive the sins of other people, but that everyone carries their sins (unless they repent to God directly, and then God can decide to forgive them or not) which will be brought forth on Judgment Day.

 

[1213]

I think maybe Jews, and Muslims also now, seem to reject the idea of Jesus as a mediator or middle-entity in between mankind and God, but believe instead that every person faces God and Judgment without any true mediator between a man and God, so they might think things like "that is between me and God"…

Yet, Quran says:

…The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah …believe in Allah and His messengers. ..
Surat An-Nisā' 4:171
Surah An-Nisa [4:171]

I think messenger is same as mediator.

The Jews, and the Muslims, also seem to reject the idea that Jesus is God incarnate as a man on Earth, and finally also they seem to reject the idea of the Trinity, …

Luckily Trinity is not what Bible teaches.

…teach that Jesus is God and that Jesus should be worshipped because Jesus is God? …

I don’t think so.

Did Jesus or Paul teach that Jesus is the literal biological product of a literal biological God? …

Bible teaches Jesus was conceived by God’s spirit, but I think it is not as man would do it, because according to the Bible, God is spirit.

….The Muslims also don't believe that the shedding of the blood of an innocent being can forgive the sins of other people, …

Also, Bible tells that sins could be forgiven before Jesus death and it was not required to kill Jesus, to forgive sins.

The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

Whoever's sins you forgive, they are forgiven them. Whoever's sins you retain, they have been retained."
John 20:23

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Yet, Quran says:

…The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah …believe in Allah and His messengers. ..
Surat An-Nisā' 4:171
Surah An-Nisa [4:171]

I think messenger is same as mediator.



Luckily Trinity is not what Bible teaches.



I don’t think so.



Bible teaches Jesus was conceived by God’s spirit, but I think it is not as man would do it, because according to the Bible, God is spirit.



Also, Bible tells that sins could be forgiven before Jesus death and it was not required to kill Jesus, to forgive sins.

The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

Whoever's sins you forgive, they are forgiven them. Whoever's sins you retain, they have been retained."
John 20:23

So, just to clarify one thing mentioned up there, you said you think of the word messenger as similar to or otherwise meaning the same thing (synonymous) with the word mediator. I agree, it could be understood that way, as the messenger might be thought of as someone in the middle who is communicating on behalf of God, but in the Qur'an, the idea of mediators seem to be related to the term "intercessor" meaning someone who can intercede or come in between man and God and protect man from God or have some power over God or control or tame God, and this idea is pretty strongly rejected by the Qur'an. The Qur'an says "Who could stop God from destroying Jesus and his Mother" or something like that, making them out to be pretty much nothing before God except easily eradicated or re-created nothings and nobodies.

So the Qur'an seems to strongly insist on the idea that between God and Man there is no one who can save them or intercede on their behalf or protect them, and so Messiah doesn't mean anything but "anointed", selected for a task, and even Cyrus is called Messiah in the Bible I think, so it doesn't really directly have to do with having the power or authority to influence God or be God or anything like that.

So since you are a non-trinitarian, what is your denomination or variety of Christianity? The mainstream Christian sects are almost all trinitarian and insist that Jesus Christ was God incarnate as man on Earth, so that Jesus and God are synonymous, Jesus was and is God according to them, which Jews and Muslims reject. Muslims say Jesus was the Messiah which does not mean anything more than the selected messenger and leader that the Jews were awaiting. The Jews say Jesus was not the Messiah and failed to fulfil their expectations for what the Messiah is, and even if Jesus was the Messiah, he would not be God incarnate, since that is not what a Messiah is to them (as far as I am aware, but maybe someone has some information about that if they do think the Messiah is supposed to be God as a man on Earth the way that mainstream Christians think and say that Jesus was).

 

[1213]

…but in the Qur'an, the idea of mediators seem to be related to the term "intercessor" meaning someone who can intercede or come in between man and God and protect man from God or have some power over God or control or tame God…

Ok, I think in that Bible and Quran agree, because according to the Bible, God is greater than Jesus and Jesus speak what God has commanded him to speak.

the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous; because I don't seek my own will, but the will of my Father who sent me.
John 5:30

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak."
John 12:49-50

…So since you are a non-trinitarian, what is your denomination or variety of Christianity? …

I think I am a disciple of Jesus. I believe what the Bible tells and I want to live as Jesus taught.

…The Jews say Jesus was not the Messiah and failed to fulfil their expectations for what the Messiah is, and even if Jesus was the Messiah, he would not be God incarnate, since that is not what a Messiah is to them (as far as I am aware, but maybe someone has some information about that if they do think the Messiah is supposed to be God as a man on Earth the way that mainstream Christians think and say that Jesus was).

I think it is interesting what Jews think who Messiah will be. At least it is so that long time ago, some Jews really thought Jesus fits to the idea of Messiah. I think Jesus is the Lord of David.

Yahweh says to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, Until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet."
Ps. 110:1

But, I think Jews are correct in that there is only one true God, as it is taught also in NT.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Ok, I think in that Bible and Quran agree, because according to the Bible, God is greater than Jesus and Jesus speak what God has commanded him to speak.

the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous; because I don't seek my own will, but the will of my Father who sent me.
John 5:30

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak."
John 12:49-50



I think I am a disciple of Jesus. I believe what the Bible tells and I want to live as Jesus taught.



I think it is interesting what Jews think who Messiah will be. At least it is so that long time ago, some Jews really thought Jesus fits to the idea of Messiah. I think Jesus is the Lord of David.

Yahweh says to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, Until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet."
Ps. 110:1

But, I think Jews are correct in that there is only one true God, as it is taught also in NT.

What are your objections to Islam? What you are describing sounds like Arian Christianity, which was popular but was condemned as heresy by the various rulings over time and whenever it re-emerges it continues to be condemned by the mainstream Christian groups like the Orthodox and Catholic and Protestants as well.

 

[1213]

What are your objections to Islam? What you are describing sounds like Arian Christianity, ...

Interesting, and I think I just believe what the Bible tells, I don’t think I have my own doctrine. So, is the Bible Arian? It has no Trinity and according to it, there is only one true God.

My objection to Islam is that it seems to me like stone worshiping, because they seem to bow to Black Stone in Kaaba. But otherwise, Quran says that people should believe Jesus, so it is quite OK to me.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Interesting, and I think I just believe what the Bible tells, I don’t think I have my own doctrine. So, is the Bible Arian? It has no Trinity and according to it, there is only one true God.

My objection to Islam is that it seems to me like stone worshiping, because they seem to bow to Black Stone in Kaaba. But otherwise, Quran says that people should believe Jesus, so it is quite OK to me.

I don't know if they Qur'an told them to stone worship, but I think there are incidents in the Bible (Old Testament) where people set up a marker point which represents the direction which they pray towards, this is how people used to direct their coordinated worship towards Jerusalem for example and there is a foundation stone as a place marker for what direction Jerusalem is or its borders. The same goes for the stone in Mecca which is supposed to be a marker stone for the direction that people can point towards rather than pointing in any random direction for coordinated prayers or communal joint worship practices in an organized way. The Qur'an rejects the worship of stones or stones representing God or anything like that, just like the Old Testament. The Qur'an itself is probably better than the picture people have of Muslims and their practices, and you can find it at www.islamawakened.com , I personally think it is a pretty good book and I find it easier to go through and enjoy than the Old Testament even.

I wondered what your objection to Islam is since you basically seem to believe in what they believe in, which is like Old Testament stuff (sanitized) plus Jesus as the Messiah who brought the Word and was miraculously born and all that, but not God or "A God".

The Arian Christians were like the biggest alternative sect in Christianity, but were officially condemned and Christianity became officially about Jesus as God incarnate and to worship Jesus as God. The Qur'an rejects this, while Arian Christianity may find it acceptable to worship Jesus possibly, except they say that Jesus is not God but lesser than God and a different being than God.

So the breakdown is like this:
The Old Testament believers seem to believe the Old Testament teaches One God (or One God and God's various lesser powers and agents, see Michael Heiser for more on that).
The New Testament Believers started talking about Jesus and split into three groups:
The Jews who rejected Jesus was the Messiah said he was nothing but an ordinary man and not the Messiah or a messenger of God.
The Jews who accepted Jesus said he was a messenger of God or the Messiah or both, but argued about Jesus as a divine being, and split into two further groups.
The people who took Jesus as a divine being split into two further groups and were made up of former Jews and Non-Jewish people as well.
The two groups disagreed on a few other things including how closely the Old Testament laws and traditions had to be followed, like circumcision.
One group in this split believed Jesus was God incarnate as Man, the other believed Jesus was another divine being under God, the Second Power in Heaven (an idea already popping in up Second Temple Judaism here and there).
The Jesus is God group became the Orthodox Christians, they split later into Catholics and Orthodox, and split further over various things like how God is also Man simultaneously and things like that.
The group that thought Jesus was a secondary and lesser divine being were the Arians, but there were among them some who took Jesus more as a man under God, and others among them who took him as a kind of second in command or divine being under God, but not God.
The Orthodox became the dominant group and rejected the Arian ideas, and the Arians eventually became less and less, some think that the Arians and similar groups may have later become or joined the Muslims in some cases since Islam said what they wanted basically.

Mainstream Christianity is the idea (officially) that God is a Trinity, and God is Jesus and Jesus is God, One God, Jesus, who is also known as Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
The Qur'an rejects this and almost every point of mainstream Christian theology, and says instead that God is One, and Jesus is not God but God's servant who God can just as easily destroy or bring back and destroy again, freely, God is all powerful, and Jesus can be made into nothing if God so wills. The Qur'an rejects the idea of the blood of an innocent (Jesus) spilled causing the forgiveness of evildoers, but rather says that God can freely and easily forgive whoever asks, and it rejects that Jesus was even crucified, instead suggesting that Jesus was saved by God and people only think that Jesus was crucified and suffered.

The other groups besides those I've mentioned are the literal stone worshippers. They would be people who believe that God or A God or Power inhabits or can enter into an object and inhabit it, others may say that such is a representation of their God which directs their worship from the stone or image towards their God, the Qur'an rejects such things and so does the Bible, so the placement of a marker stone is not meant to be worship of a stone or worship directed to a stone or the stone representing God or God thought to be inhabiting that stone exclusively etc, its just the placement marker for the area so people can turn their faces somewhere together at once, just like they used to do towards Jersusalem.

The Muslim method of worship is similar to that of Ancient people in the past, including Ancient Christians and Ancient Jews, but now is mainly known to be practiced by Muslims for the most part, thought some sects of Judaism and Christianity still carry on worship practices similar to Muslims, even some Buddhists and Hindus and Sikhs and others do as well at times but not as commonly as Muslims who perform formal worship practices as the various periods of the day (and are not worshipping the Sun or Moon either, but God, who is not a human and is non-anthropomorphic, so is not like a human).

So which of these religions do you think you most closely fit with? I learn about all of them, but find that the best and most clear cut framework that is easy to understand is the one presented in the Qur'an, which is simple monotheism, much more straightforward than any of the other scriptures I have examined. I prefer the strongly non-human God who is literally like Nothing except Power and Intelligence as compared to Man-God type ideas or over-glorifying figures like Buddha or Jesus or Guru Nanak or Sai Baba or whatever.

The Qur'an is also the most strongly opposed to any form of image worship or representing of God and is also against any sort of middle-man and mediator who people can pray to instead of God (like some pray to Jesus or Saints or Mary or Angels in various forms of Christianity), there is no intercessor and no one can carry the sins of another, one deals with God directly and there is no real hierarchy.

You can read the Qur'an verse by verse at www.islamawakened.com or chapter (surah) by chapter English translation of holy Quran - surah 1. The Opener - Al-Fatihah of 114

If you do manage to read it, tell me how you like it or understand each verse, and what you might object to. You can compare it to the Bible at Bible Hub, www.bible.cc

 

[1213]

… I think there are incidents in the Bible (Old Testament) where people set up a marker point which represents the direction which they pray towards, …

I would like to see where.

… I personally think it is a pretty good book …

I would like to hear, what do you think is the best teaching in the Quran? Or if not best, just some example of teaching that comes to your mind that is different from what is in the Bible?

Obviously, I have not read the whole book, but that what is good, I think is same that can be found from the Bible, which makes Quran in my opinion not necessary. Is there some part that would be necessary to know? For example, Bible has this idea that sins are forgiven and all people should repent and reject sin and it teaches the way to righteousness, which should be preached to all people. Is there something similar in Quran?

… I wondered what your objection to Islam is ….

I just don’t think there is any reason to choose it. That what is good in Islam is already in Christianity and Judaism and they are older, and so closer to original. I rather choose the original. I think Biblical Christianity is actually Judaism, if Christian means being a disciple of Jesus and Judaism means being a Jew as Bible teaches it.

… The Qur'an rejects this and almost every point of mainstream Christian theology, and says instead that God is One, and Jesus is not God but God's servant who God can just as easily destroy or bring back and destroy again, freely, God is all powerful, and Jesus can be made into nothing if God so wills. The Qur'an rejects the idea of the blood of an innocent (Jesus) spilled causing the forgiveness of evildoers, but rather says that God can freely and easily forgive whoever asks, and it rejects that Jesus was even crucified, instead suggesting that Jesus was saved by God and people only think that Jesus was crucified and suffered.

It is interesting how close they are really, if Christianity would be what the Bible teaches. Unfortunately, Christianity has gone very far from what is taught in the Bible. For example, Jesus had the right to forgive sins before his death, his death was not necessary for to forgive sins, if we believe what the Bible tells. Jesus was saved by God. I think it is sad that people have misunderstood Bible greatly.

… So which of these religions do you think you most closely fit with? I learn about all of them, but find that the best and most clear cut framework that is easy to understand is the one presented in the Qur'an, which is simple monotheism, much more straightforward than any of the other scriptures I have examined. I prefer the strongly non-human God who is literally like Nothing except Power and Intelligence as compared to Man-God type ideas or over-glorifying figures like Buddha or Jesus or Guru Nanak or Sai Baba or whatever.

I want to choose truth, even if it would be difficult. And I believe Bible has the truth. And for me it is clear. And I think religions are not necessary in this, they are usually manmade organizations that serve men rather than God.

I think it is also good to know that according to the Bible, God is spirit.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

And there is only one true God and Jesus is a man.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

Interesting question is, why don’t many Christians really believe what the Bible tells.

… If you do manage to read it, tell me how you like it or understand each verse, and what you might object to. You can compare it to the Bible at Bible Hub, www.bible.cc

Sorry, I probably have no time for that.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

I would like to see where.
I would like to hear, what do you think is the best teaching in the Quran?
Sorry, I probably have no time for that.

You wrote:
I would like to see where.

Response:
Here, you can see its an old tradition to set up stones as the marker places. There was no cube structure there originally in Mecca, or even a city called Mecca necessarily, but it supposedly started out with a marked out well somewhere and then for that sanctuary area a stone was the only thing present which marked out the area, and much later the surrounding structures were built, the brick building was built, then the bigger and bigger surrounding areas which enclosed the original sanctuary marker stone. No one is supposed to be worshipping or bowing down to the stone, the stone was supposedly just set up there by Abraham in the same fashion as these stones mentioned in the Bible, to mark out the place and area as a special one.

Genesis 28:22
This stone that I have set up as a marker will be God's house, and I will give to you a tenth of all that you give me."

Genesis 28:18
Early the next morning, Jacob took the stone that he had placed under his head, and he set it up as a pillar. He poured oil on top of it,

Genesis 31:46
and he said to his relatives, "Gather some stones." So they took stones and made a mound, and there by the mound they ate.

Genesis 31:45
So Jacob picked out a stone and set it up as a marker.

Genesis 35:14
So Jacob set up a pillar in the place where God had spoken to him--a stone marker--and he poured out a drink offering on it and anointed it with oil.

Joshua 24:26
Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God. Then he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak that was near the sanctuary of the LORD.

Joshua 24:27
And Joshua said to all the people, "You see this stone. It will be a witness against us, for it has heard all the words the LORD has spoken to us, and it will be a witness against you if you ever deny your God."

Genesis 31:48
Then Laban declared, "This mound is a witness between you and me this day." Therefore the place was called Galeed,

Genesis 35:14
Jacob set up a stone pillar at the place where God had talked with him, and he poured out a drink offering on it; he also poured oil on it.

Genesis 28:18
Early the next morning, Jacob took the stone that he had placed under his head, and he set it up as a pillar. He poured oil on top of it,

Genesis 28:19
and he called that place Bethel, though previously the city had been named Luz.

Genesis 31:45
So Jacob picked out a stone and set it up as a pillar,

1 Samuel 7:12
Afterward, Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen. He named it Ebenezer, saying, "Thus far the LORD has helped us."

There may even be more examples than these:
Genesis 12:8
And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the LORD, and called upon the name of the LORD.

These sanctuaries, altars, cities, places of memorial, etc, places of worship, were typically originally marked out by a single stone, and the stone probably had to be one that made it a little memorable or remarkable or else it would just not be found again among all the other stones laying around here and there. Other times, people would build mounds of stone. Now, after a stone was placed, people would then expand and build around it, and sometimes when a place was attacked, it was reaching the foundation stone and holding the area with it that might have meant conquering and victory over the territory by holding the marker point, and in other cases, they might even steal it. So human beings would place some significance on these symbolic markers, but Muslims don't officially worship stones or anything like that, they face Mecca to be coordinated and to distinguish themselves from the people facing in other directions or no direction.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

You wrote:
I would like to hear, what do you think is the best teaching in the Quran? Or if not best, just some example of teaching that comes to your mind that is different from what is in the Bible?

My Response:
The value of the Qur'an is in it being very much more clear in its writing and translation and content than the jumble of information and history present in the Bible which as you can see has apparently confused so many Jews and Christians due to it giving so much room for so many ways around things and not being so easy in its outline about things. It also has a different teaching about the Prophets and role-model figures, and sanitizes their stories tremendously and makes them out to be better and more noble characters than the Bible seems to describe them as, which it claims is the libel and lies of scribes of the Jews (which the Bible seems to admit to as well, that scribes twisted and wrote lies at times).

So the best teaching of the Qur'an is in the Non-Anthropomorphic nature of God (whereas the Bible may confuse people in a matter of a few seconds since "God made man in his image" and "walked in the garden" and "asked" a question and all this, making for a very anthropomorphic idea of God very quickly, and the verses and ideas presented get even more disturbing and confusing all throughout Genesis with angels mating with humans, and its just a mess, so the Qur'an has sanitized away all this troublesome business and presents a clear cut message repeatedly, heavily focused on what to do and why and ethics, written in a direct style which is also not like the style of the Bible, which teaches a more loveable sort of character for each of the Prophets and Messengers, whereas Noah is drunken in the Bible and cursing his own descendants and injustice is all over the place from the patriarchs and role-model and hero figures in the Bible, Abraham lies and basically supports incest or at least deceives and makes his wealth that way, Jacob cheats his brother and profits from cheating and trickery making a mockery of God and blessings as some sort of stupid system of injustice, and then sleeps with a girl he can't see or recognize, Lot's daughters rape him, its just trash after trash, filth really, and then David plots a murder to steal a woman, these are the filthiest and most rotten sort of criminal deviants who are made out to be God's Holy people, so I find the Bible to be a truly wicked book ultimately, and the Qur'an basically doesn't have any of it in there at all and makes it that the Jews just made up lies, and furthermore that they were not ordered to commit atrocious genocides like the killing of suckling babies and mass murders of innocent non-combatant women and children, but were themselves an evil bunch who killed and raped and pillaged and claimed that God told them to or that it was their right to do so when it was not and was evil and all evildoers will be punished for their crimes that they don't repent for, whereas the Bible makes it out to be that God told them to kill babies and do atrocious and wicked things, and now the Jews and Christians who blindly love the Bible make excuses and say well if God ordered those things then those babies were likely needing to be murdered by the hands of humans. I reject all that wickedness because I hate evil and so I can't really stomach the Bible, I find it really the book of the Devil and suited only for the unjust and wicked hearted people who can tolerate such lies without vomiting or feeling nauseated.

You wrote:
Obviously, I have not read the whole book, but that what is good, I think is same that can be found from the Bible, which makes Quran in my opinion not necessary. Is there some part that would be necessary to know? For example, Bible has this idea that sins are forgiven and all people should repent and reject sin and it teaches the way to righteousness, which should be preached to all people. Is there something similar in Quran?

Answer:
The Qur'an has the same stuff, but its important contribution is the style it is written in, a single author rather than a series of books compiled and transcribed over centuries, and its total sanitization of the Bible's content and correcting all sorts of matters to make it a much more clean and ethical book overall, far more clear and easy to read and move through than the Bible, with overall better virtues and ethics, where the Bible can still be considered mostly tribal, even supporting usury in favor of the Jewish interests, where the Qur'an is universally fair and not on the side of any particular ethnicity or tribe or allowing usury and ideas supported in the Bible text. In the opinion or theory presented by the Qur'an, you'll simply never be able to approach or accept the Qur'an if God doesn't want you to, and if God does, you and no one else can stop you from it or it from you.

You wrote:
I just don’t think there is any reason to choose it. That what is good in Islam is already in Christianity and Judaism and they are older, and so closer to original. I rather choose the original. I think Biblical Christianity is actually Judaism, if Christian means being a disciple of Jesus and Judaism means being a Jew as Bible teaches it.

Answer:
Those texts being as old as they are and going through so many generations of scribes and scribal changes has led to variant verses and numbers and words and ideas over the generations, as well as additions and other things which have been identified by those studying the texts carefully, and so its old age and the way its written (the Qur'an is hard to change or add things to because its written in a rhyming rhythmic meter where a single change in the word can ruin the whole flow or sentence or meaning or sense, making it very easy to memorize and also hard to change or break) have led to a lot of possible corruption entering into the texts. The Samaritan Bible differs from the mainstream, the Masoretic Hebrew recreation of the Bible was put together after the Qur'an, and the Greek Septuagint Bible (which is the one I prefer and use) differs even from those in some way, and was created during the time of Alexander's heir Ptolemy to encapsulate the records and stories of the Jews.

You wrote:
It is interesting how close they are really, if Christianity would be what the Bible teaches. Unfortunately, Christianity has gone very far from what is taught in the Bible. For example, Jesus had the right to forgive sins before his death, his death was not necessary for to forgive sins, if we believe what the Bible tells. Jesus was saved by God. I think it is sad that people have misunderstood Bible greatly.

Answer:
That is the issue, the fact that Christianity could stray so far from what the Bible even says, shows that it is so open for confusion and twisting, whereas the Qur'an seems much more clear and difficult to twist and defy as much or as easily as people do with the rather confusing and tedious and arbitrary seeming collection of texts which make up the Bible.

You wrote:
I want to choose truth, even if it would be difficult. And I believe Bible has the truth. And for me it is clear. And I think religions are not necessary in this, they are usually manmade organizations that serve men rather than God.

Answer:
I agree, but how did you come to believe the Bible is the Truth, and what do you think the Qur'an is? The Qur'an claims to be from God, whereas the Bible is known to be a collection of books put together and not really an inspired text, its not even supposed to be an inspired text as far as I'm aware, but was fully understood to be a history and record of the Jewish beliefs put together by them as it was commissioned. The two books differ in style entirely, whereas the Qur'an is speaking TO Muhammed, the Bible is talking about God and other things, not AS God or an angel or anything. So if the Qur'an really is from God, then how would it be to have denied it and rejected it or not had time for a message really from God? That is why I think you should get a copy in English and read it, and then see how you feel about it. It is much shorter than the Bible.

You wrote:
I think it is also good to know that according to the Bible, God is spirit.
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24
And there is only one true God and Jesus is a man.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

Answer:
Yes, but many Christians even think of God anthropomorphically because of the way God is written about, like in Genesis.

You wrote:
Interesting question is, why don’t many Christians really believe what the Bible tells.

Answer:
They think they do, earnestly believe, but this has led to so many variant ideas and understandings and beliefs, and so among Christians, they can not even agree among themselves on many things and are in frequent debate about what this or that really truly means or could mean, and so its pretty chaotic and alienating, with so many sects popping up with differences. The Qur'an claims that such is how God intends it to be for them.

You wrote:
Sorry, I probably have no time for that.

Answer:
Well if you do ever find time to get a copy of the Qur'an in English and read it over a month or a week or two, since its pretty short even, let me know what you thought about it or if you think its not from God while the Bible you think is instead from God and why you think so if you do by the time you read it all, since that interests me quite a bit, how people end up deciding or preferring one or the other.

 

[1213]

...These sanctuaries, altars, cities, places of memorial, etc, places of worship, were typically originally marked out by a single stone, and the stone probably had to be one that made it a little memorable or remarkable or else it would just not be found again among all the other stones laying around here and there. Other times, people would build mounds of stone. Now, after a stone was placed, people would then expand and build around it, and sometimes when a place was attacked, it was reaching the foundation stone and holding the area with it that might have meant conquering and victory over the territory by holding the marker point, and in other cases, they might even steal it. So human beings would place some significance on these symbolic markers, but Muslims don't officially worship stones or anything like that, they face Mecca to be coordinated and to distinguish themselves from the people facing in other directions or no direction.

Thank you, interesting scriptures, but I don’t think they are the same as the Mecca thing.