Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus was a Jew. John was a Jew. There is no suggestion that John was creating any new idea about the Baptism. We have to look at this from a Jewish perspective, as both John and Jesus were Jews. Christianity didn't form for quite some time after the fact. And the modern idea of Baptism didn't form until even after that.
I'm pretty sure the Bible states as much as well. And Jesus, being a Jew, who never abolished the law, would have seen it the same way.
I think he actually knows that it is more complicated than that. It is not as simple as you try to make it, which is why there is such a debate. Plus, we have to look at tradition here as well.
That is an assumption. Can you show any reason why we should believe that DNA has anything to do with sin in the first place? Nothing more than an assumption.
Jesus struggles with the idea of being the Messiah. There is no suggestion that he was all of a sudden aware of who he was. That again is an assumption.
Hebrews has nothing to do with the historical Jesus. It is so far distant that it can only tell us what Christians during that time believed.
Jesus was a Jew. His disciples were Jews. His first followers were Jews. Paul was a Jew. Judaism plays a very big part here.
We were discussing the idea of baptism. The baptism of Jesus must be seen under Jewish thought. The reason being that Jesus was a Jew. John was a Jew. They were both practicing Judaism. The baptism that Jesus underwent was a Jewish baptism. You can't take out the Judaism aspect out of the story of Jesus. It plays a very important part.
The Jews weren't boasting about killing Jesus. They were aware that the Romans had crucified Jesus. The idea that the Jews killed Jesus was spread by Christians, or the followers of the Jesus movement which led to Christianity. I am not even aware of any first century Jewish documents that even mentioned Jesus (this is excluding what we find in the NT as it became Christian writings). So since first century Jews never produced those supposed manuscripts that your source is speaking, I wouldn't give it too much credence.
They may be similar, but they are also quite different. The first verse is speaking of a seemingly illusion to fool the Jews. The second is simply stating that God helped. It isn't suggesting that what was done was an illusion at all. It's not claiming that what happened actually didn't happen. The differences are quite large.
They only don't make sense if you interpret the ideas being spoken in the way that you did. Jesus admits that humans had power over him. John may claim that the power was given by God, but that does not take away the fact that those humans still had the power.
It only makes the most sense to you and people who believe like you. The fact that there is still quite a bit of debate about it though suggests that it isn't such an easy task to see what it really meant.
You have no authority to say what Muhammad believed. It is not that simple. That is why there is a debate.
It isn't a contradiction. It never that that Jesus being crucified wasn't a curse. Also, Jewish religious leaders during the time would have had no problem believing it. The Jews never saw Jesus as the Messiah. He was just one more failed messiah nailed to a tree.
Except you ignore what we know historically. Jesus was a criminal in the eyes of Rome. The Romans didn't need some random people telling them that. They say it when Jesus had his scene in the Temple.
Some Christian history would go a long way here. Also, understanding that the other Gospels state different ideas.
Actually, it is not a high probability that the Jews cared what Muhammad was saying. The Jews, during that time, were a small minority, who were, for the most part, without a home. However, we do see Muhammad, at least at the beginning, were decent to the Jews. The Jews actually saw more favor then than they had in a long time. Rarely did the Jews live with the freedom that they did under, at least the first part of Muhammad's rule. With the way in which they were treated, there is little reason to assume that they had a problem with what Muhammad was saying.
Muhammad actually allowed the Jews to keep their own religion. So even though Muslims may have related what they were told to particular, but there is little reason to believe this would have caused those Jews then to start saying that they killed Jesus. There is no reason for them to have done so, and there is no real evidence to suggest it.
In regards to the death of Jesus, we are told that they simply believed, as it looked that way, that they killed Jesus. We are then under the assumption that Jesus in fact did not die, just appeared so. With the case of the Muslims battle, there is no such appearance. The opponents were slewed. We are just told that it was with the help of God, it was through God that they were slewed. That is the difference.
You have to understand the writing style during that time. It is basically the simple. The strange wording you point out isn't really strange at all.
So you have faith in what one person says. That is alright. However, we have done much research since the 1920's, and know much more about what most likely happened. For me, I see no authority of Baha'u'llah's interpretation, and I see no reason to give them much credence on their own, unless backed up. However, seeing that we have moved by leaps and bounds in the scholarly work on the subject since, I see little reason to give credence over what we know now.
If we look at Pilate in general, we know that he needed little to execute insurrectionists, which Jesus would have been considered. I'm not talking about what the Bible or Quran states, as they are not the best historical records. The Bible, in regards to the trial, is very highly contradictory in the first place.
and islām (‘commitment and. As in the case of kufr, those who
L. Michael White's book, From Jesus to Christianity would address part of what I was saying.
I believe they are different, and have stated why. They are addressing to different ideas. Instead of restating why I hold this position, I will just leave it at that.
Since 1920, we have learned much about the death of Jesus. In my opinion, the Quran is completely useless, in this case, to understand the historical crucifixion of Jesus. It is highly removed from the actual events. All that it really can tell us about the crucifixion is what some later believed about it.
The stance of Islam was that Jesus either did not die on the cross, or simply was not crucified. That is the stance. That is not to say that other Muslims state something else, but I simply don't have the effort, or care to really research all of the stances.