Jesus (pbuh) - failed Prophet

[Muslimwoman]

[quote=Saltmeister;128462]When he died, he didn't go back to the earth as the rest of us do, but went back to heaven to have eternal life. Jesus came here so he could share his heavenly privileges with the rest of us.[quote]

Wonderful explanation, thank you SM. We Muslims accept that Jesus was taken to heaven by G-d but we disagree about the dying on the cross bit (well it wouldn't be religion if we all agreed ).

To me it is unimportant if Jesus (pbuh) was created by G-d in heaven or on earth, as we know he had no father so he was individually created by G-d, making him very special.

However I just cannot accept that he is literally G-d, as he was created by G-d. G-d is one and should be worshipped as such. Jesus (pbuh) was a sign, a gift from G-d, a path to travel to Him. We must be thankful for that but not worship it.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Quite ironic don't you think? Those who have more knowledge and experience than us are close-minded? The more you know the less open-minded you become? I guess then, that I'd prefer to be innocent and simple than to be a sage. I'd therefore like to say, greetings MW, as you, too, seem like an innocent-minded person.

Very ironic indeed. I am more than happy to be in the simple minded club. Anyone else want to join? I just feel that for anyone, no matter how much knowledge they have, to state they have the concrete answer to what G-d is and how we reach Him is either very arrogant or seriously deluded.

Something I have been mulling over the last few days are the words of Jesus(pbuh) "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Should this not also apply to our faith? Should we not be perfect worshippers before we criticise other for their beliefs? Anyone think they are perfect? (I need a good laugh ).

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I guess it's because we must follow the footsteps of those who have come before us. We can't understand the path they walked unless we understand the lives of those people, and therefore, the world in which they lived . . . and finally . . . how they conceptualised their relationship with God.

Okay now here I have a huge issue. What if those that came before were wrong? What if they were right but the historians incorrectly recorded their lives? I understand what you are saying because obviously with the life of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) you must understand the times he lived in, the political wranglings, etc but I just have a problem saying centuries of scholars say to push people off cliffs so we should do it, even though our scriptures say nothing of this.

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

I meant it like you're never going to be able to clear-cut rationalize how 3 are 1 in trinity, some part of it is always going to be beyond us even if we do see it as part of the divine message and therefore truth, that's why it is called a mystery.

I shall have to just accept that I am never going to understand the trinity concept.

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

We Muslims accept that Jesus was taken to heaven by G-d but we disagree about the dying on the cross bit

then we are not talking about the same jesus, so whatever attributes another religion puts on this alternate jesus doesnt matter or make it ok. the true Jesus died on the cross for all of us, rose again defeating death, taken back up in glory he had with the father, he is the lamb of god as proclaimed by the prophets, by john the baptist, the father, and the holy spirit. he is salvation, and he is eternal life.

You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.

[madeinrussia89]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I shall have to just accept that I am never going to understand the trinity concept.

Although, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to understand it.

[madeinrussia89]

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

The plurality of God is truth (father, son, holy spirit). It may be beyond man's natural intellect (those who say they see, but are blind), but not spiritual intellect (those who were blind, but now see). Accepting, believing and trusting in Christ, and being guided by the Spirit allowing him to dwell within you allows these things to be revealed.

This reminded me of a time at church when we were having a discussion about reading the Bible and what to do if we don't understand what we're reading, and my priest put it this way from a text we were reading that sometimes "what the mind doesn't understand, the heart will".

That's basically what I go with.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

I think you misunderstood me.

I meant it like you're never going to be able to clear-cut rationalize how 3 are 1 in trinity, some part of it is always going to be beyond us even if we do see it as part of the divine message and therefore truth, that's why it is called a mystery.

The plurality of the Godhead is a truth, but beyond created intellect.

I wasn't insinuating that we can't have a relationship with God, of course we can, what kind of Christian would I be if I said something like that.

Hey don't get me wrong. I know what it means when someone says the Trinity and God are mysteries. I've seen lots of ways of seeing the Christian concept of God. I don't see Christianity as a religion whose purpose was to introduce mysteries, though I understand what people mean when they say it.

The Trinity is a tradition that tries to make sense of the fact that the three names, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are found together in some places in the New Testament. It tries to make sense of Jesus' relationship with God.

It's a mystery to us because we don't understand what the early Christians believed. We are looking into the past and trying to rediscover the beliefs of our ancestors. It may be a mystery to us, but less likely to have been a mystery to the early Christians.

The notion of a Trinity did not exist in Judaism. It's unlikely as well that the early Christians believed in a Trinity. If so, why do we not see dialogue and debate about the three-in-one triune God in the New Testament? The epistles, the letters to the churches discussed issues faced by the Christian communities at the time. If someone had been troubled by a three-in-one triune God concept, it would have been discussed. Even if there was no argument among the community, the apostles would at least have mentioned the three-in-one triune God concept, and have warned us against false teachers that were out to assail this valuable truth.

If the three-in-one triune God concept is essential in Christianity, then I would say that Paul, Peter, James and John have all failed to defend one of the most valuable truths in Christianity, though they warned against so-called "false teachers."

Quite obviously, the three-in-one triune God came later when we forgot what the terminology of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit really meant. The early Christians knew what these words meant, but the fact that we have developed hundreds and hundreds of philosophies concerning "the Trinity" is a sign that we are "missing the mark" with regards to what Father, Son and Holy Spirit actually mean.

As I said, the Bible is a piece of literature, and all literature is open to interpretation. A piece of literature has an intended meaning, but can have a hundred many different meanings depending on how you read it. It's our knowledge and experience that allow us to identify the intended meaning. Our reasoning may be wrong, but the insight, exchange and sharing of ideas is far more important than getting the answer right the first time. After 2,000 years, due to cultural influences and lack of an oral tradition, a lot of things get misplaced and distorted. Present creeds and doctrines attempt to preserve the original meaning, but from my point of view, I think a lot of it has become meaningless as the words are repeated over and over again.

I have no problem with the idea that the Bible was written by men. God gave us a mind to think, so he therefore gave us the ability and potential to seek and discover Him. The Bible is therefore a book of miraculous discovery of God through speculation and contemplation with minimal intervention from God. Us discovering God is us reaching our full potential. Those who discredit a sacred text by saying that it cannot be divine material discredit the people who wrote it, who, in turn, are God's creation. Discrediting a text that might indeed contain messages from God, but written by men, could therefore, also be discrediting God.

I have no intention of being an iconoclast. Traditions have their place in our religion as signposts that lead us to God. Some day, however, we are going to have to replace philosophy with reality.

The words identifying Father, Son and Holy Spirit may not even be identifying parts and aspects of God. It may instead be about our spiritual journey in our quest to find God, or the process of spreading the Gospel. The Father refers to something that gives us purpose, the Spirit, something that inspires us. The Son shows us the way. Hence, we are baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The word choice is interesting. Why did the early Christians choose the words "Father" and "Son?" "Son" doesn't necessarily mean "biological child." Back then, a son inherited the property of his father. With a lot of people dying through disease and starvation, it probably would have been really difficult trying to maintain lineage simply through blood sons. So why not adopt?

Could "son" not also mean inheritor? When you die your son inherits everything you own. A son owned everything his father owned. This son may not have been a biological son, and it may have been a common understanding that "son" didn't necessarily mean a biological son. You meet you friend in the market place to do business. Your "son" comes with you. A greeting is exchanged, during which you introduce your friend to your "son."

During the conversation he asks, "is he your real son?"

-- to which you laugh and reply, "No!!! He's adopted!!! I have no real son and need to someone to which I can pass off the fruits of my labour when I die."

If, Jesus, the man from heaven, was "Son of God" on that basis, then I would take that to mean that he inherits a lot from God. In coming to our world he wants to share his inheritance with us. Also, could "Son of Man" not mean "he inherits the earth" by becoming brothers of earthly men and women? ie. We become God's people by becoming Jesus' brother?

As I said, literature is open to interpretation. Literature can mean a hundred different things, but there was only one intended meaning: what the authors actually meant. The three-in-one God concept with co-equal persons is only most accurate as long as we can't find a better, more accurate concept of what the terminology of Father, Son and Holy Spirit meant. It may perhaps do for now. It's a temporary solution to the fact that we can't remember what the early Christians believed. When that happens, we must be ready to discard so-called temporary rationalisations.

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

This reminded me of a time at church when we were having a discussion about reading the Bible and what to do if we don't understand what we're reading, and my priest put it this way from a text we were reading that sometimes "what the mind doesn't understand, the heart will".

The New Testament never said that those who don't believe in the Trinity were heretics. We declare such people as enemies because we have a fear of the unknown. People who discard the Trinity embrace something unknown to us, so we are terribly afraid of them, as people who embrace the unknown may just as well embrace anything. We feel safer with concepts that we know and understand and have an aversion to concepts that are foreign. So we call them heretics. We live in cultures that implicitly encourage conformity.

This is an isolationist attitude that exists in most Christian groups around the world and it has torn us to shreds.

I would instead encourage my fellow Christians here to embrace danger everywhere you go. Facing one's dragons and demons is better than cowering in the basement. You gotta go out there, see the world and explore the dangers!!! Grrrr!!!!!

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

The notion of a Trinity did not exist in Judaism. It's unlikely as well that the early Christians believed in a Trinity.

Not only is the trinity revealed to those in judaism who being excluded find themselves being messianic jews or christians, but it pre-dates judaism from the very beginning of creation, to how god revealed himself in prophecy, in visions, and thru the inspired writings of the holy spirit.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

Not only is the trinity revealed to those in judaism who being excluded find themselves being messianic jews or christians, but it pre-dates judaism from the very beginning of creation, to how god revealed himself in prophecy, in visions, and thru the inspired writings of the holy spirit.

Good for you... Adam was a Son of God, Abraham was a Son of God, Moses was a Son of God... the Holy Spirit verifiably came to Noah... who was a Son of God. So many children of God. I am so amazed that you see it Blazn... maybe I must be mistaken.

In the Gospels Jesus refers to himself as a Prophet and the voice of God refers to him as Son. How many Christians ignore what God and Jesus said... in the gospels, in the bible?

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Good for you... Adam was a Son of God, Abraham was a Son of God, Moses was a Son of God... the Holy Spirit verifiably came to Noah... who was a Son of God. So many children of God. I am so amazed that you see it Blazn... maybe I must be mistaken.

In the Gospels Jesus refers to himself as a Prophet and the voice of God refers to him as Son. How many Christians ignore what God and Jesus said... in the gospels, in the bible?

all children of god, but none are the Son of God as it refers to the only begotten Son and Lamb of God. We are all corruptible men all destined to die, Jesus is incorruptible and only in him may everlasting life be found.

[madeinrussia89]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

The Trinity is a tradition that tries to make sense of the fact that the three names, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are found together in some places in the New Testament. It tries to make sense of Jesus' relationship with God.

The trinity is a truth. Take it or leave it.

It's a mystery to us because we don't understand what the early Christians believed. We are looking into the past and trying to rediscover the beliefs of our ancestors. It may be a mystery to us, but less likely to have been a mystery to the early Christians.

This label of " mystery " isn't time period specific, it applied to the early Christians as well. The message didn't change from then until now. It was probably somewhat less of a mystery for the early Christians since some of them physically walked with Christ than it is for us, but still a mystery.

The notion of a Trinity did not exist in Judaism. It's unlikely as well that the early Christians believed in a Trinity. If so, why do we not see dialogue and debate about the three-in-one triune God in the New Testament? The epistles, the letters to the churches discussed issues faced by the Christian communities at the time. If someone had been troubled by a three-in-one triune God concept, it would have been discussed. Even if there was no argument among the community, the apostles would at least have mentioned the three-in-one triune God concept, and have warned us against false teachers that were out to assail this valuable truth.

How is it unlikely that the early Christians believed in the trinity? Because they never specifically used the word " trinity " until slightly later?

The trinity was the most discussed doctrine besides that of salvation to the early Christians (and us). It is not something the early christians chose to make up as time went along.

And, the trinity is discussed in the early church. Does the first council of Nicaea ring a bell? Nicene creed anyone?

Once you think the Bible is fallible, the entire subject goes out the window, because Jesus is the Logos.

It is deviation from the original message to say " The Bible is fallible", " the trinity has no basis in the Bible", and " the Christianity we have now is WRONG and flawed".

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all Hypostases, there is no " may or may not be ".

The trinity doesn't just " do for now ", it is eternal, and we do remember what the early Christians believe, it's just that some people have chosen to associate themselves with deviations that are popular and widespread.

[bob x]

And, the trinity is discussed in the early church. Does the first council of Nicaea ring a bell?

That's not "early". That's further away from Jesus than the present US is from George Washington.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

The trinity was the most discussed doctrine besides that of salvation to the early Christians (and us). It is not something the early christians chose to make up as time went along.

And, the trinity is discussed in the early church. Does the first council of Nicaea ring a bell? Nicene creed anyone?

Unless I'm mistaken, that was in the fourth century, almost 300 years since the communities brought forth by Paul, Peter, James and John. Unless the early church's oral tradition was strong, its essential meaning would almost certainly have withered away in the 300 years through to the Council of Nicaea. Traditions passed on from generation to generation will almost always lose their essential meaning. What "preserves" Christianity is the New Testament. The New Testament is our chance to rediscover the past. The traditions we've been following in the last 2,000 years are not "oral tradition" but dogmatic tradition, which doesn't have the same essential meaning as "oral tradition." We are missing a vital piece of the so-called "mystery." When we rediscover the essential meaning of our faith, it won't be a mystery anymore. We will actually understand it. That is the challenge that we face. We're on a quest to solve a 2,000 year mystery.

Well, that's at least the theory I have. I just don't think it was meant to be a mystery. Jesus went around telling people that the Kingdom of God was near, that God was accessible. He was telling people that they could actually see the Kingdom. The point was that you could connect with God, connect with the Kingdom if you did it with your heart not your head. You'd then be able to actually feel God, to feel the Kingdom. God and the Kingdom would become a reality.

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

Once you think the Bible is fallible, the entire subject goes out the window, because Jesus is the Logos.

Hey, just because the Bible is "fallible," doesn't mean everything in it becomes invalidated. Yes, it says Jesus is Logos. So why don't we use that? I am sure we can find a hundred other important sayings in the Bible that can help us find God. The Bible is not a machine that falls apart just because one part is faulty. Does God need a machine to take us up to heaven? Infallibility and fallibility should not be a concern. The important thing is content. What does it say? What can it tell us? How can it help us? What did the people back then do so that we can follow in their footsteps?

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

It is deviation from the original message to say " The Bible is fallible", " the trinity has no basis in the Bible", and " the Christianity we have now is WRONG and flawed".

I see the Trinity as progress, but that said, I'd call it a temporary rationalisation that we could, perhaps keep for now. There are thousands of newcomers to Christianity, those born into it, and those introduced to it, that need to learn the basics and I would see a lot of benefits in giving people an experience of one of the many ways we approach the faith. Otherwise, we'd create confusion.

But anyhow, a belief system should not be treated as like a machine that is broken and useless just because one part is "faulty" or "flawed." Imagine that. You had to get the whole machine working otherwise God wouldn't love you. What kind of religion would that be? Do you see Christianity as a machine that you have to get working for you to be one of God's people? One of the benefits of the Trinity is that it "preserves" or "reinforces" our innocence by allowing us to not think so hard about having to define God. It helps us relax and let go. Whether we say it's a mystery or whether we say it's the truth, there is one thing that we are doing in both cases, which is saying, look no further, what you need is right in front of you.

The point here is that God values our innocence. Do you see what I mean? I don't think God even cares whether we get the so-called "Trinity" right or whether we even believe in the Trinity. The important thing is that we are at peace. The reason why we defend the Trinity is to protect others who believe in it. We don't want their innocence violated. At the some time, however, strict conformity and insistence on adherence to a Trinity doctrine could violate the innocence of other people's relationship with God. We've just got to be flexible.

I was not making a point of the Trinity being "wrong." Don't get the wrong idea. My point was that it not be regarded as essential. I would have no problem if all Christians believed in the Trinity. Unfortunately, however, we don't all believe in the Trinity. What I do see as wrong is when we don't all believe in the Trinity and we insist that others believe in it too and enforce it on them, or condemn others for not believing in it.

That would be a violation of their innocence. It is easy to say that one must contemplate the nature of God but what about someone else's state of mind, something that God created? Would God not want His creation to be respected? When we violate someone else's innocence, we do emotional damage. We inflict injury on another. We inflict injury on something God created. Where people are persecuted for their belief in the Trinity, they should be defended. Where the Trinity is used to oppress or gain an advantage over others, the movement should be opposed.

What would you make of Jesus' disciples in Mark 10:13-16 discouraging the little children from coming to Jesus? What's the moral of the story? Is there not a lesson to be learnt here? Were these little kids somehow too young to understand what Jesus had to say? God surely doesn't like idol worship, but any concept of God, no matter how stupid that is formed by an innocent mind, I believe, is acceptable to Him.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by bob x

That's not "early". That's further away from Jesus than the present US is from George Washington.

No, that puts it right about the same distance away. Paul lived past 70 AD, as did Peter. Since Paul did not meet Jesus face to face, let's focus on Peter, who did. Since we do not know the exact dates of Jesus death and Peter's death we round off. And that puts it about 250 years apart from the first counsel. The US began its birth pangs around 1742, and was in full labor by 1760. George Washington was born in 1732 and died in 1799 (he was a two term president starting in 1789). That's about 250 years apart from the US today.

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I see the Trinity as progress, but that said, I'd call it a temporary rationalisation that we could, perhaps keep for now. There are thousands of newcomers to Christianity, those born into it, and those introduced to it, that need to learn the basics and I would see a lot of benefits in giving people an experience of one of the many ways we approach the faith. Otherwise, we'd create confusion.

But anyhow, a belief system should not be treated as like a machine that is broken and useless just because one part is "faulty" or "flawed." Imagine that. You had to get the whole machine working otherwise God wouldn't love you. What kind of religion would that be? Do you see Christianity as a machine that you have to get working for you to be one of God's people? One of the benefits of the Trinity is that it "preserves" or "reinforces" our innocence by allowing us to not think so hard about having to define God. It helps us relax and let go. Whether we say it's a mystery or whether we say it's the truth, there is one thing that we are doing in both cases, which is saying, look no further, what you need is right in front of you.

The point here is that God values our innocence. Do you see what I mean? I don't think God even cares whether we get the so-called "Trinity" right or whether we even believe in the Trinity. The important thing is that we are at peace. The reason why we defend the Trinity is to protect others who believe in it. We don't want their innocence violated. At the some time, however, strict conformity and insistence on adherence to a Trinity doctrine could violate the innocence of other people's relationship with God. We've just got to be flexible.

I was not making a point of the Trinity being "wrong." Don't get the wrong idea. My point was that it not be regarded as essential. I would have no problem if all Christians believed in the Trinity. Unfortunately, however, we don't all believe in the Trinity. What I do see as wrong is when we don't all believe in the Trinity and we insist that others believe in it too and enforce it on them, or condemn others for not believing in it.

That would be a violation of their innocence. It is easy to say that one must contemplate the nature of God but what about someone else's state of mind, something that God created? Would God not want His creation to be respected? When we violate someone else's innocence, we do emotional damage. We inflict injury on another. We inflict injury on something God created. Where people are persecuted for their belief in the Trinity, they should be defended. Where the Trinity is used to oppress or gain an advantage over others, the movement should be opposed.

What would you make of Jesus' disciples in Mark 10:13-16 discouraging the little children from coming to Jesus? What's the moral of the story? Is there not a lesson to be learnt here? Were these little kids somehow too young to understand what Jesus had to say? God surely doesn't like idol worship, but any concept of God, no matter how stupid that is formed by an innocent mind, I believe, is acceptable to Him.

Well, that is a good point. The bible doesn't say to focus on the Holy Spirit, but to let the Holy Spirit guide. And though Jesus allegedly taught us how to pray to the Father, He specifically instructed the faithful to keep their focus on Him.

I'm also thinking of some parallelisms I hadn't considered before. If we insist on new Christians taking in the whole of the Trinity, then things become complicated (too much baggage). Makes it tough to get through the "eye of the needle" (the small door to the side of the city gates). And Jesus said, the only way to get to the Father was through Him. And He implied that the path to Him was straight and "narrow". And He was specific about us having the wonder and "innocence" of a child in order to get to heaven. (keep things simple, not complicated).

And let's face it, without Jesus the Christ as the primary focus...there is no Christianity.

Thanks for the opportunity to consider this Salt.

v/r

Q

[madeinrussia89]

Originally Posted by bob x

That's not "early". That's further away from Jesus than the present US is from George Washington.

325 is prettttty early.

[bob x]

"That's not "early". That's further away from Jesus than the present US is from George Washington.
No, that puts it right about the same distance away. "
Except a little further. Washington died 1799, that's 208 years ago. Jesus died 36 at the latest possible (more often dated 33 or earlier), so Nicaea was 289 years later. The US will be as far from Washington 81 years from now, or longer (when we will all be dead): will that point be "early" in the history of the US?

"And let's face it, without Jesus the Christ as the primary focus...there is no Christianity. "
How about "loving others" as the primary focus? That was what Jesus was talking about, not "look at ME ME ME" as the gospel of John depicts him.