Originally posted by Nellinator
A) We have the history of the Jewish people written by Josephus and probably completed in 93 AD. In the Testimonium Flavianum it says:
"When Pilate, upon hearing hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him."Then we have the Roman Tacitus in 115 AD who wrote:
"Christus from whom the name had its origin (this is a reference to Christians), suffered the extreme penalty (ie. crucification) during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate..."
That is two very different sources (neither friendly to the Christians) from outside the Bible indicating the death of Jesus by crucifiction. The Bible itself is amazing historically accurate adding to the credit of this story.
B) The name is important because in the name (ie. that is one name) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit we are to be baptized according to the gospel of Jesus. We are also commanded to pray daily in the name of Jesus. The name is extremely important.
C) Not really. If I understand Muslim theology, there is nothing really about forgiveness, just the balancing of deeds.
A) Both sources are things quoting the events later on and telling them from a Christian perspective... Thus obviously telling the story of the crucifixion's because that's the story they have heard from Christians. Seeing as crucifying people was not uncommon it's very unlikely that they would have checked up on facts/
B) I don't see why, like I said most people won't even know the name of God. I doubt God would care about how you call Him, and if He did then God really is shallow. Not to mention that so many other things have been changed throughout history. We celebrate the birth of Jesus on the wrong freaking date. That seems like a pretty important event in the Christian religion doesn't it?
C) Even if that's true that doesn't mean that Muslims assume God can not forgive. Nor does it change anything.
They way they read the scriptures is quite irrelevant to the fact that they worship the same God. Catholics and Protestants newer sects and the Orthodox religions all worship God in different ways. As did the now extinct Gnostic sects... They still all worshiped the same God.
Originally posted by Nellinator
How then are they similar in any way if they teach different things and go by different names?
They all worship the God of Abraham... The original Jewish God.
Originally posted by Fishy
A) Both sources are things quoting the events later on and telling them from a Christian perspective... Thus obviously telling the story of the crucifixion's because that's the story they have heard from Christians. Seeing as crucifying people was not uncommon it's very unlikely that they would have checked up on facts/B) I don't see why, like I said most people won't even know the name of God. I doubt God would care about how you call Him, and if He did then God really is shallow. Not to mention that so many other things have been changed throughout history. We celebrate the birth of Jesus on the wrong freaking date. That seems like a pretty important event in the Christian religion doesn't it?
C) Even if that's true that doesn't mean that Muslims assume God can not forgive. Nor does it change anything.
They way they read the scriptures is quite irrelevant to the fact that they worship the same God. Catholics and Protestants newer sects and the Orthodox religions all worship God in different ways. As did the now extinct Gnostic sects... They still all worshiped the same God.
They all worship the God of Abraham... The original Jewish God.
B) Christmas really isn't that important, nor are dates as important as the purpose of the celebration (celebrations we aren't commanded to keep). However, when commandments of the Bible directly hinge on the name of God, we had best stick to one name. Deviation from that is deviation of God's command. So if you think this makes God shallow then God is shallow.
C) They don't read the scriptures, they don't believe anything in them. I'm actually confused as to what of the New Testament they do believe. The Bible shows many different ways to worship God, however, it also shows ways of worship that are detested by God (such as Gnostic practices).
The Bible clearly says that Jehovah is the God of Abraham, not Allah.
Originally posted by Nellinator
How then are they similar in any way if they teach different things and go by different names?
They are not at all similar but all three religions trace themselves back to abraham and the god that contacted him
if you look at the religious texts of all three it is very clear that the god they are talking about is meant to be the same entity
we know jesus was jewish and that he didn't have to explain about this being a new different god to the jews so one can assume he refered to the same one that they alreadly new
as for muslims I'll appeal to muslimscholar's expertise (or any other muslims on KMC) but I'm pretty sure the Koran actally states that they follow the god of abraham (ie Jehova)
Originally posted by Templares
I wouldnt count Josephus as a credible outside source for Christianity. For one, the emperor Vespasian is Josephus' messiah. Second, the Crucifixion passages in his Antiquities are considered corrupted by most scholars.
Originally posted by Nellinator
It is considered credible by a massive majority of scholars. The corrupted parts (called interpolations) are obvious and have been identified and I left them out. I gave the credible authentic account of Josephus.
Meh. There is no such thing as an undisputed, "authentic" Josephus account on Christianity's Jesus even if you left out the corrupted/tampered/interpolated parts. The only general consensus among scholars is that Josephus' account on Jesus is one near hopeless mess of alterations to the original text. The Testimonium Flavianum(Flavianus? sp) has as much historical credibility as a Japanese textbook on WWII.
Apparently you know very little of scholarly opinion on this subject. The interpolations are obvious as the language used in them is not consistent with the language he uses in other parts of his work. The part I quoted is not debated. If you want to discuss the entire passage and the debated parts I would be happy to as it an interesting topic.
Originally posted by Nellinator
A) Not a Christian perspective. Josehpus was Jewish, he did not believe in Jesus and he was alive when Jesus was crucified. His source is more likely from the Talmud, the Jewish temple writings that talk about Jesus as a healer (which is why the Jews do believe that Jesus existed making your previous statement to the opposite false). Read the Tacitus statement again, or look up the entire passage. Tacitus would not have drawn on Christian resources and instead went by Roman records of the office of Pontius Pilate. Christianity was not widespread at the time of Tacitus or Josephus.B) Christmas really isn't that important, nor are dates as important as the purpose of the celebration (celebrations we aren't commanded to keep). However, when commandments of the Bible directly hinge on the name of God, we had best stick to one name. Deviation from that is deviation of God's command. So if you think this makes God shallow then God is shallow.
C) They don't read the scriptures, they don't believe anything in them. I'm actually confused as to what of the New Testament they do believe. The Bible shows many different ways to worship God, however, it also shows ways of worship that are detested by God (such as Gnostic practices).
The Bible clearly says that Jehovah is the God of Abraham, not Allah.
So your entire argument is that they don't worship the same God because they interpreted the books in a different way? Catholics and Protestants worship God in different ways too what does that make them? Jews worship God in a different way as well, what does that make them? And if it's all about the name then you would have thousands if not millions of Christianity who are not worshiping the same God as you are, even if they are sitting in the same church.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, as long as you have someone else do your killing, you are ok? There are judges in US history that were known as hanging judges, but there never killed anyone.
they did justice to those who are criminals if you see now in Britain there is no capital punishment so a murderer gets 15 years and gets out on bail and commits another murder is that good?
Originally posted by muslimscholar
they did justice to those who are criminals if you see now in Britain there is no capital punishment so a murderer gets 15 years and gets out on bail and commits another murder is that good?
Unless of course the one sentenced is innocent, or actually comes out a better person after 15 years of punishment. And instead of murdering another person becomes a loving father/husband/mother/wife gets a good job and whatever.
One mistake no matter how terrible should not always mean the end of somebody his life, perhaps when he or she is guilty without any doubt, not just without reasonable doubt but just without doubt and the person feels no remorse and has said that he or she will kill again, then it might be worth taking them out. And even then I would prefer life in prison.
Point is, one crime does not mean somebody is a criminal for the rest of his life.
Besides Muhammad may have been betrayed by these people, he wasn't exactly nice to conquer them and force them into a new religion to begin with.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The fact that even until today, on KMC, Christians and Muslims will still insist the other's religion is wrong, just shows how far away we are from true peace with each other.
I wouldn't go thaaat far though there is some truth to what you say.
The bottom line is there are rotten apples on both sides of the fence.
But, yes...that an obscure chat board like this has evidence shows how long a way both sides need to go.
Peace.