• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

When Jesus does return will Christians even recognize him?

Wow, I guess there really aren't any Christians (other than Tom Skylark) still lurking around here on the JREF forums. I never imagined that I would be able to start a thread which clearly shows Jesus to be much more in alignment with the teachings of Islam than to those of Christianity (using Bible verses to support each claim) and not hear even an ounce of opposition, not so much as a peep.

*Minus the issue of whether or not to keep or to cut the foreskin, which has mainly been raised by atheists.

Where have all the Evangelist and defenders of the faith gone?
 
mikeb768 said:
Wow, I guess there really aren't any Christians (other than Tom Skylark) still lurking around here on the JREF forums. I never imagined that I would be able to start a thread which clearly shows Jesus to be much more in alignment with the teachings of Islam than to those of Christianity (using Bible verses to support each claim) and not hear even an ounce of opposition, not so much as a peep.

*Minus the issue of whether or not to keep or to cut the foreskin, which has mainly been raised by atheists.

Where have all the Evangelist and defenders of the faith gone?
Click to expand...

I am not one any more, but I know there are a few Christians still around here, but not all of them will strike at your bait.
 
mikeb768 said:
I'm not really that interested in the circumcision conspiracy theories, and cherry picked materials of you and your compadres.
Click to expand...
Awww, look at the frantic evasion and denial. It's almost cute. :D
mikeb768 said:
Although Here is a statement from the AAP's website<repetitive silliness snipped>
Click to expand...
So you decline to look at the vastly greater weight of evidence that contradicts your opinion? How typical.

HansMustermann said:
So, let me get this straight... if ONE organization kinda supports circumcision, but even their position is that it's not worth recommending, while a dozen organizations like the British Medical Association or the Paediatric Society of Germany are against it... your conclusion is that HE is cherry picking? Heh. Just heh.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

HansMustermann said:
No, seriously, the stupidity and dishonesty of that are downright comical.

But really, who cares what you're not interested in? As evidence goes, you have an empty bag, and as appeals to authority go, you have an empty bag too. Not only the majority is against your position, but again, even those you cherry-picked are not recommending it. 'RandomInternetBeliever1234567 chooses to believe only what confirms his retarded 7'th century book of lies' isn't exactly what's gonna settle which doctors are right.
Click to expand...
Well his faith is weak so he needs some evidence he can distort to support his position, no matter how poor it's quality.
 
mikeb768 said:
Wow, I guess there really aren't any Christians (other than Tom Skylark) still lurking around here on the JREF forums. I never imagined that I would be able to start a thread which clearly shows Jesus to be much more in alignment with the teachings of Islam than to those of Christianity (using Bible verses to support each claim) and not hear even an ounce of opposition, not so much as a peep.
Click to expand...

While I gather that that may have been the intention in the OP, I don't see any evidence that it is so. In fact, I don't even see some reasonable effort at handwaving in that direction.

Far from being a case of winning the argument by default... you know it deserves an F for effort when it's not even recognizable as an argument at all. Having an argument is kinda like being a lady: if you have to spell it out, because otherwise nobody was figuring it out, then it probably isn't the case :p

It's at best just some unsupported postulates, and even those more like implied than stated. At best that's a statement of personal faith, not an argument.

And most of those are wrong anyway. E.g., calling god "Elah" not only would be wrong for a 1st century Aramaic speaker (not the least, because as far as I can tell, that would be a FEMININE form of El, so it's saying he prayed to the GodDESS), but would be not matching the etymology or meaning of "Allah" in Arabic either, so it's just pure nonsense all around. E.g., praying by touching his head to the ground is not supported anywhere in the Bible, nor makes any sense for the culture there at the time, and is not supported as a custom by any contemporary writers either. E.g., Christians expecting Jesus to be uncircumcised is wrong, given that not only it's doctrine that he was, but the holy prepuce was one of the most revered relics of Xianity, historically speaking. Etc.

So why should I believe your version? You gave no reason why anyone should. You just stated your own delusional beliefs. At which point, really, who cares?

There isn't even anything to debate, essentially.

ETA: Plus, even if I did get some brain damage and just believed your bare postulates, the fact is still that Jesus ain't quite behaving like a Muslim in other aspects. E.g., all four gospels and Paul agree that not only he drank wine, he made his followers drink wine too.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
(snip), so it's just pure nonsense all around. E.g., praying by touching his head to the ground is not supported anywhere in the Bible, (snip)
Click to expand...

What are you ranting about? The passage which I referenced was taken directly from the Bible.

[Matthew 26:39] "Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, 'My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.'”
I also mentioned the fact that the passage indicates that Jesus states that he was not following his own will, but surrendering his will to the will of his creator. Which happens to be the exact meaning of Islam.

Meaning of Islam: Islam is derived from the Arabic root "Salema": peace, purity, submission and obedience. In the religious sense, Islam means submission to the will of God and obedience to His law.


ETA: Plus, even if I did get some brain damage and just believed your bare postulates, the fact is still that Jesus ain't quite behaving like a Muslim in other aspects. E.g., all four gospels and Paul agree that not only he drank wine, he made his followers drink wine too.
Click to expand...

I also disagree regarding the idea that Jesus would have provided wine which was alcoholic in nature to the people. I think it is possible that the wine which was provided may have only been grape juice, since the synoptic gospels provide no mention of drunkenness or any individuals being intoxicated, as pertains to this event. Although despite the significant toll and wide spread harm which alcoholic beverages have been shown to have on society, many will no doubt continue to insist that such practices are condoned by Jesus, God, and well rooted in what is commonly referred to as the "Holy Bible".

Alcohol Use Harmful

The Impact of Alcohol Abuse on Society
 
Last edited:
mike

On a point arising

since the canonical gospels provide no mention of drunkenness or any individuals being intoxicated
Click to expand...
Really? You just told me that according to Matthew, Jesus fell on his face. That would be shortly after telling his boys that the best to remember him is to offer a toast.

All the synoptics record Jesus falling down shortly after recommending that toast and shortly before he's rounded up. His "prayer" seems to be a monolog about the cup that's still in his hand. His homies are so loaded that they can't stay awake. Mark says there's a "young man" there in clothes so loose that he slips right out of them when the cops arrive.

And the picture in your mind from all of this is that Jesus is a Muslim? Ok, yeah, I can see how "bottoms up!" fits in here.

Where have all the Evangelist and defenders of the faith gone?
Click to expand...
CARM.
 
Jesus was a Jew. Islam was modeled after Judaism. Therefore it should come as no surprise that there are some similarities.

mikeb768 said:
I also disagree regarding the idea that Jesus would have provided wine which was alcoholic in nature to the people. I think it is possible that the wine which was provided may have only been grape juice, since the synoptic gospels provide no mention of drunkenness or any individuals being intoxicated, as pertains to this event. Although despite the significant toll and wide spread harm which alcoholic beverages have been shown to have on society, many will no doubt continue to insist that such practices are condoned by Jesus, God, and well rooted in what is commonly referred to as the "Holy Bible".
Click to expand...

Please provide a translation or study that says "grape juice" instead of "wine." The fact that you believe alcohol is harmful, and your religion forbids its consumption, doesn't mean Jesus provided "grape juice." I don't drink either, but I still know about the role of wine in ancient cultures. It was often impossible to prevent fermentation, and the process kept pathogens from growing in the water, meaning that alcoholic beverages were often the main source of drink.
 
To the OP, for argument's sake I don't they would recognize him. One thing though, he'd probably end up getting sued by the CoS.
 
mikeb768 said:
I also disagree regarding the idea that Jesus would have provided wine which was alcoholic in nature to the people. I think it is possible that the wine which was provided may have only been grape juice, since the synoptic gospels provide no mention of drunkenness or any individuals being intoxicated, as pertains to this event. Although despite the significant toll and wide spread harm which alcoholic beverages have been shown to have on society, many will no doubt continue to insist that such practices are condoned by Jesus, God, and well rooted in what is commonly referred to as the "Holy Bible".
Click to expand...

Dude, the idea that it wasn't alcoholic if the bible doesn't then proceed to describe outright drunkenness, is about as stupid as if I were to claim that Jesus never took a crap because nowhere do the gospel authors describe him taking a dump.

Plus, the idea that Jesus wouldn't have provided wine to the people is directly contradicted by John 2:1-10, where Jesus does just that: when a party runs out of wine, he turns water into more wine, to be served to the guests. And yes, the greek word used "oinos" means exactly "wine". And there is John 2:10, where the master of the banquet takes the groom aside and tells him, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.".. which spells it out that the guests would be less discerning after they had too much to drink, which doesn't happen with just juice.

So basically, who cares that you choose to disagree? If it's canon, it's canon.
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
Jesus was a Jew. Islam was modeled after Judaism. Therefore it should come as no surprise that there are some similarities.



Please provide a translation or study that says "grape juice" instead of "wine." The fact that you believe alcohol is harmful, and your religion forbids its consumption, doesn't mean Jesus provided "grape juice." I don't drink either, but I still know about the role of wine in ancient cultures. It was often impossible to prevent fermentation, and the process kept pathogens from growing in the water, meaning that alcoholic beverages were often the main source of drink.
Click to expand...

It was actually flat out impossible to prevent grape juice from fermenting, other than by boiling it into a thick syrup. Not just often, but always. The fungus that ferments it grows on the grapes themselves. So the moment you squashed it, it's already richly mixed with yeast.

Nowadays one can have grape juice or other fruit juice by boiling it AND sealing it in under an atmosphere lacking oxygen. Otherwise, it would just start fermenting anyway.
 
eight bits said:
And the picture in your mind from all of this is that Jesus is a Muslim? Ok, yeah, I can see how "bottoms up!" fits in here.
Click to expand...

Well, once one starts arguing 'when Jesus does return, according to the Quran', I suppose any further silliness can't make it any sillier. I mean, it's like arguing, 'when does Picard get a lightsaber, according to Deep Space Nine' :p
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
Please provide a translation or study that says "grape juice" instead of "wine." The fact that you believe alcohol is harmful, and your religion forbids its consumption, doesn't mean Jesus provided "grape juice." I don't drink either, but I still know about the role of wine in ancient cultures. It was often impossible to prevent fermentation, and the process kept pathogens from growing in the water, meaning that alcoholic beverages were often the main source of drink.
Click to expand...
Well there's Reynolds' "Purified Translation" of the New Testament (link, review), but that's considered a cranky single-issue version even by other god botherers. And of course simply wrong by those with a decent knowledge of Greek.
 
HansMustermann said:
Well, once one starts arguing 'when Jesus does return, according to the Quran', I suppose any further silliness can't make it any sillier. I mean, it's like arguing, 'when does Picard get a lightsaber, according to Deep Space Nine' :p
Click to expand...


Lightsabers were all destroyed during the Temporal Cold War back in the era of the Star Trek: The Enterprise, so even Kirk couldn't have had any let alone Picard or Sisko but some may have survived as part of a weapons stash hidden in the Delta Quadrant by Darth Vader and subsequently found by Janeway.

By the way the mysterious time traveler was Obi-Wan Kenobi himself.
 
mikeb768 said:
Now ask yourself just how surprised/disappointed they will be when they find out the fictitious image which they have been feed for as long as they can remember was nothing more than just that, fiction. And the truth of this matter can be seen in any one of their own holy books the Bible, if only they had taken the time to open it up and actually read the contents therein.
<SNIP>​
Click to expand...
Jesus is God, it says so, in John 20:28
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

So I don't know what you are talking about.
Jesus said ahead of time that he had the ability to lay down his life, and to take it back up again.
Once Thomas was convinced that in fact he had, then he was also convinced of his divinity.

So-called monotheism is a tool of oppression.
True freedom is believing in God as you see fit yourself, without some supposed self-appointed religious authority forcing you to accept their "one and only" god.​
 
Last edited:
Hans

Well, once one starts arguing 'when Jesus does return, according to the Quran', I suppose any further silliness can't make it any sillier. I mean, it's like arguing, 'when does Picard get a lightsaber, according to Deep Space Nine'
Click to expand...
Well, silly yes, but mike made a discussable cherrypick from the Passion, which I think was the direction he had hoped his OP would lead, as opposed to Mr Happy's Haberdashery and the usefulness of wine for making water potable - not that he didn't distinguish himself on those topics as well.

Jews do sometimes kneel or prostrate themselves in prayer, and apparently a larger proportion of them did so more often in the remote past than since the Middle Ages. A First Century Jew praying on the ground, then, is not indicative of being 500 years out of synch with his time. In any case, while all the synoptics place Jesus on the ground for at least his first prayer in the garden that night, only Mattie Two Asses shoves Jesus' face in the dirt.
 
Ethnikos said:
Jesus is God, it says so, in John 20:28
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

So I don't know what you are talking about.
Jesus said ahead of time that he had the ability to lay down his life, and to take it back up again.
Once Thomas was convinced that in fact he had, then he was also convinced of his divinity.

So-called monotheism is a tool of oppression.
True freedom is believing in God as you see fit yourself, without some supposed self-appointed religious authority forcing you to accept their "one and only" god.
Click to expand...

And here in lies one of the many problems with the Bible, the book absolutely lacks integrity.

In John 20:28 Thomas is claimed to have now understood and expressed Jesus as his Lord and his God. But then just a few verses later we are told that the purpose of what is being recorded is so that people "may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God". We are also told in Mark 16:19 that Jesus after speaking to the disciples was "received up into heaven" and sat to the right side of God, or sat to the right side of himself if we accept the gospel of John (as gospel).



Not only that but all four of the gospels do not provide complementary versions of the events which were said to have taken place after the period which Christians believe was Jesus' death, but actually provide in some cases drastically varying accounts. Not to mention the fact that [Mark 16:9-20] is now widely accepted "as a later addition (commonly called forgery) to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The main reason for doubting the authenticity of the ending is that it does not appear in some of the oldest existing witnesses, and it is reported to be absent from many others in ancient times by early writers of the Church. Moreover, the ending has some stylistic features which also suggest that it came from another hand." Despite this being widely published knowledge they continue to print Bibles which contain said questionable verses within. Verses which help to spawn their own teachings, practices and doctrine, some of which could be either partly (or entirely) blamed for actual loss of life.

[Mark 16:17] And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
[Mark 16:18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
*Snake handlers who believe the practice is Biblically based [1], [2], [3].

Imo, most Bible believing Christians are genuinely unaware of the fact that the gospels do not align on many aspects, not just in terms of the death of Christ, the redivivus, Jesus' last words, etc. They often only hear parts of the gospels at various times and commonly in intervals of time which can span many days or much longer. They are also told that the four gospels are complementary, although some parts are many parts clearly are not. The only way in which people would ever come to this conclusion is by taking the time to actually read the text, and not just read it but to compare it (as in read all four gospels across/next to one another).

References:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html

Additional references:
Were the four gospels individually inspired accounts or copied from one another?
Structure of the four gospels
Who were the 12 Disciples of Jesus? + Discussion
Misquoting Jesus - A Scholars attempt to enlighten
 
Last edited:
Well, yes, the four gospels contradict each other, copy from one another (it's pretty much canon that Matt and Luke copied from Mark shamelessly, and depending on who you ask, copied shamelessly from Q too), were tampered with, and the inclusio and chiasm structure (those "Markan sandwiches") show that someone at the very least rearranged the story to have a specific structure, rather than just relating it as it happened. Etc.

Yeah, totally, the gospels seriously aren't the kind of documents you should trust if you're interested at all in what the historical Jesus might have been like. IF one existed at all.

Welcome to the club.

But just because novel X is a work of fiction, doesn't mean novel Y totally is true. Just because Star Trek is fiction, doesn't mean Star Wars is true. And just because the Bible is fiction, doesn't mean the Quran is true. THAT has to be supported separately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom