Is the Old Testament Historically Accurate?

[Brian2]

You know that I don't. Did Jesus teach that he'd come for that reason? No..

Jesus taught that He would suffer and die.
Jesus taught that He was giving His life as a ransom for many.
He was buying back our lives with His life. That is an atoning death for our sins, because sin is the reason death came to humanity.

If that's what you think.
You haven't told me at precisely what age Jesus declared himself to be G-d.

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God when He was 12 years old.
Luke 2:41 Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. 42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom. 43 After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44 Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”
49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

When Jesus was about 30 years old He told a man that only God is good. (Mark 10:18)
He also told Philip, one of His disciples, the following:
John 14:8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.
Jesus also said:
John 5:18 Because of this, the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him. Not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. 19So Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does.

When I put all this together I see that Jesus is good and so must be God whom He is exactly like.
But Jesus did not claim outright "I am God".

 

[muhammad_isa]

Jesus taught that He would suffer and die..

Yes, we see in the synoptic gospels that he would be killed.
Tell me something. If the author of the Gospels believed that Jesus was killed on the cross, wouldn't the words "hung on a cross" , crucified or killed be synonymous?
One cannot say that they are the exact words that Jesus said.
One can claim that, but from an historical viewpoint we can't.

Jesus taught that He was giving His life as a ransom for many.
He was buying back our lives with His life. That is an atoning death for our sinns..

No, that is dogma.

You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
-Mark 10-

There is nothing about crucifxion mentioned here.

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God when He was 12 years old..

Indeed. son of God as in the Jewish Messiah, and not part of a trinity etc.

When I put all this together I see that Jesus is good and so must be God whom He is exactly like.
But Jesus did not claim outright "I am God".

No, he didn't .. and there are many verses in the Bible that lead us to believe that he was NOT God.
It is necessary to concoct a complicated theology to ascertain that Jesus is God.
God the Father praying to God the Son is explained away by something that Jesus never taught .. namely, the trinity.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Moses argues with God begging him to send someone else!

That forty year journey?

Realistically it would take about two weeks if Aron Ra is correct.

 

[Rival]

That forty year journey?

Realistically it would take about two weeks if Aron Ra is correct.

At the burning bush.

 

[Kooky]

That forty year journey?

Realistically it would take about two weeks if Aron Ra is correct.

If that's not an indication that he really didn't want to go then I don't know what is!

 

[Brian2]

Yes, we see in the synoptic gospels that he would be killed.
Tell me something. If the author of the Gospels believed that Jesus was killed on the cross, wouldn't the words "hung on a cross" , crucified or killed be synonymous?
One cannot say that they are the exact words that Jesus said.
One can claim that, but from an historical viewpoint we can't.

Matt 20: 17 Now Jesus was going up to Jerusalem. On the way, he took the Twelve aside and said to them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!”

What does it matter what Jesus said? You do not believe it unless it agrees with what Muhammad said.
In that respect you are like the Baha'is who are the same except their prophet is Baha'u'llah.

No, he didn't .. and there are many verses in the Bible that lead us to believe that he was NOT God.
It is necessary to concoct a complicated theology to ascertain that Jesus is God.
God the Father praying to God the Son is explained away by something that Jesus never taught .. namely, the trinity.

It is made plain in the Bible that Jesus is the Son of God and that His Father was not going to give the glory of being the Father of Jesus to anyone else.
But of course you don't even believe the Bible in the plain things it tells us, like the death and resurrection of Jesus, why would you believe anything about the deity of Jesus or Sonship of Jesus when it does not agree with Muhammad?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What does it matter what Jesus said? You do not believe it unless it agrees with what Muhammad said..

No. It matters very much what Jesus said.
I see that Jesus was "put to death". The Qur'an explains that that is exactly what it appeared to be. The author of Matthew used those precise words, not Jesus.

Why do I believe that Jesus didn't die on the cross?
I believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of G-d. It follows that it can't be wrong. It also makes a lot of sense.
Jesus is not G-d. The Father is G-d. Christianity evolved into a separate religion from Judaism. Force was employed to establish it.
e.g. the burning of Origen's writings and slaughter of so-called Arians

Remember, so-called Arians did not glorify Jesus as to make him G-d. Why?
We are expected to believe that it was a small theological issue, when in fact it was fundamental.
It was fundamental in exactly the same way that Islam is fundamentally different to Christianity.
It is no coincidence that Muhammad appeared when he did.
i.e. immediately following serious persecution by Justinian the Great (527 to 565)

At the very beginning of his reign, he deemed it proper to promulgate by law the Church's belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, and to threaten all heretics with the appropriate penalties, whereas he subsequently declared that he intended to deprive all disturbers of orthodoxy of the opportunity for such offense by due process of law. He made the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan creed the sole symbol of the Church and accorded legal force to the canons of the four ecumenical councils.
...
The civil rights of Jews were restricted and their religious privileges threatened.
-wiki Justinian_I-

 

[Kooky]

It is no coincidence that Muhammad appeared when he did.
i.e. immediately following serious persecution by Justinian the Great (527 to 565)

Why was it not a coincidence?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why was it not a coincidence?

G-d helps the oppressed.
He helped the Israelites, and the Arabs were helped in the same way, as was prophecised in the OT.

G-d has always sent prophets to correct misbelief.
It is misbelief to worship other than YHWH.
It is misbelief to worship a saint or prophet.

The Roman Empire in the time of Justinian was harsh, and were slaughtering true believers.
It was all in the name of empire, and not in the name of Jesus. [peace be with him]

 

[Brian2]

Why do I believe that Jesus didn't die on the cross?
I believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of G-d. It follows that it can't be wrong. It also makes a lot of sense.-

So you believe Jesus was put to death but did not die on the cross if I understand you correctly.
So why do you say Jesus death was not atoning. That is what the followers of Jesus taught and that is what the OT prophets say about His death.

Remember, so-called Arians did not glorify Jesus as to make him G-d. Why?
We are expected to believe that it was a small theological issue, when in fact it was fundamental.
It was fundamental in exactly the same way that Islam is fundamentally different to Christianity.

It is a big theological issue. Attacks on the nature of Jesus and the Gospel seem to be central to many heresies and attacks on Christianity.

At the very beginning of his reign, he deemed it proper

to promulgate by law the Church's belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, and to threaten all heretics with the appropriate penalties, whereas he subsequently declared that he intended to deprive all disturbers of orthodoxy of the opportunity for such offense by due process of law. He made the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan creed the sole symbol of the Church and accorded legal force to the canons of the four ecumenical councils.
...
The civil rights of Jews were restricted and their religious privileges threatened.
-wiki Justinian_I-

That was one of the problems with Christianity being politicised. If the Arians had won the day it would have been the same violence but against the Trinitarians and no doubt the Jews, but the Jews are a different issue.
What Origen wrote was also contrary to the teachings of the Arians, so poor Origen's writings may have suffered the same fate if the Arians had won the day.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..If the Arians had won the day it would have been the same violence but against the Trinitarians and no doubt the Jews, but the Jews are a different issue..

I don't agree. If we look into the history of Roman Emperors, we see that that it is the Nicene Emperors that forced the issue by getting councils to state "what the faith is".
The Arians did not do this. They also did not burn writings.

What Origen wrote was also contrary to the teachings of the Arians, so poor Origen's writings may have suffered the same fate if the Arians had won the day.

No it wasn't. It only appears to be the case, as we only have the Latin version to examine.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The only time the OT seems to name actual confirmed historical persons is about 1000 BC.

 

[metis]

I don't agree. If we look into the history of Roman Emperors, we see that that it is the Nicene Emperors that forced the issue by getting councils to state "what the faith is".
The Arians did not do this. They also did not burn writings.

There was a creed before the Nicene Creed was penned, and that was and is the Apostle's Creed.

BTW, the Nicene Creed has a little-noticed "slip" in it so as to bring the Arians into the fold, which was successful.

 

[Kooky]

G-d helps the oppressed.
He helped the Israelites, and the Arabs were helped in the same way, as was prophecised in the OT.

G-d has always sent prophets to correct misbelief.
It is misbelief to worship other than YHWH.
It is misbelief to worship a saint or prophet.

The Roman Empire in the time of Justinian was harsh, and were slaughtering true believers.
It was all in the name of empire, and not in the name of Jesus. [peace be with him]

So nobody has been oppressed since the Fall of the Caliphate?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So nobody has been oppressed since the Fall of the Caliphate?

I've no idea what you mean.
The Qur'an is intact. It hasn't been altered. Nor has the core creed changed.
i.e. there is no G-d but YHWH / Jehovah / Allah

 

[Brian2]

I don't agree. If we look into the history of Roman Emperors, we see that that it is the Nicene Emperors that forced the issue by getting councils to state "what the faith is".
The Arians did not do this. They also did not burn writings.

I think if you look into the history you will see that at times the pro trinity side won and at other times the arians won the battle for the supreme christianity in the roman empire. It did not matter which side was the winner, both sides took their turn to do what we would see as nasty things to the other side.
It just so happens that the trinitarians won the day in the end after some indecision alone the way from emperors

No it wasn't. It only appears to be the case, as we only have the Latin version to examine.

It sounds like you are imagining what Origen said.
It is interesting that Jesus does submit to the will of His Father but Origen seems to have taken it further and said that Jesus is less that the Father.
The Bible does teach that Jesus did not come into existence but created all things however and that He is the Son, having the same nature as His Father.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It just so happens that the trinitarians won the day in the end after some indecision alone the way from emperors..

In 397, Rufinus published a Latin translation of Origen's On First Principles. Rufinus was convinced that Origen's original treatise had been interpolated by heretics and that these interpolations were the source of the heterodox teachings found in it. He therefore heavily modified Origen's text, omitting and altering any parts which disagreed with contemporary Christian orthodoxy.
-wiki Origenist_Crises-

..just before Muhammad was born, The Emperor Justinian I, denounced Origen as a heretic and ordered all of his writings to be burned.
The "trinitarians won the day", yes. They employed deceitful means.

The Bible does teach that Jesus did not come into existence but created all things however and that He is the Son, having the same nature as His Father.

If that's what you believe..

 

[Brian2]

In 397, Rufinus published a Latin translation of Origen's On First Principles. Rufinus was convinced that Origen's original treatise had been interpolated by heretics and that these interpolations were the source of the heterodox teachings found in it. He therefore heavily modified Origen's text, omitting and altering any parts which disagreed with contemporary Christian orthodoxy.
-wiki Origenist_Crises-

..just before Muhammad was born, The Emperor Justinian I, denounced Origen as a heretic and ordered all of his writings to be burned.
The "trinitarians won the day", yes. They employed deceitful means.

I don't know what Origen has to do with Muhammad.
If what we have is heavily altered Latin translation of his writings and even they do not agree fully with what was considered orthodox teaching, then I guess the originals did not agree even more.

If that's what you believe..

Yes from what I can see that is what the Bible teaches.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't know what Origen has to do with Muhammad..

You might not see what Jesus has to do with Muhammad, either.
Origen was an early Christian scholar (c. 184 – c. 253), who was highly regarded in his time, but was later demonised by the Roman church.

We are all a product of our environment and society we live in.
G-d knows best why we all believe what we believe.

I certainly don't trust organised religion to decide for me.