Jesus.... From all perspectives - Page 2

[Nikki74]

Quote:

Originally Posted by umsami 

Muslim standpoint.. a lot of similar things as in Christianity but the big gigantic cannot compromise on difference is that Jesus is not God.  Muslims are strictly monotheist (as are Jews)... no Trinity... no 3-in-1, 4-in1, etc.  One God.  Period. No footnotes in the 10 commandments.  There's a reason why Jesus mentions the shema as one of the two great commandments. Muslims do believe in Jesus's virgin birth (well, that's the party line--what people's real views are ;)).  Born to Maryam (Mary)... whole book on her in the Qur'an. Jesus was a great prophet... one of the greatest in a long line of prophets including Abraham, Adam, Moses, Noah, David (as in King David), etc.  God gave Jesus the Injeel (Gospel) however Muslims have doubts on how valid the things are in the NT are because it was written so long after Jesus's death (even the earliest book is at least 60 years).  He is believed to have done miracles.  Muslims believe that Jesus was not the one crucified, it was actually Judas who was made by God to look like Jesus.  Most Muslims believe that Jesus will come back and will play a big part on the Day of Judgement.  He comes back and defeats the Antichrist, or lack of a better term.  Jesus... definite good guy and well revered in Islam.

Muslims call Jesus, Isa (like Isa the Iguana on Dora).  On a side note, I'm assuming most Christians know that Jesus was not Jesus's "real" name? (O course Isa isn't very close to the original Aramaic either. ;))

 

Don't Muslims believe that when Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus) returns, he will convert the world to Islam?  I have heard this.

[umsami]

Originally Posted by Nikki74 

Quote:

Originally Posted by umsami 

Muslim standpoint.. a lot of similar things as in Christianity but the big gigantic cannot compromise on difference is that Jesus is not God.  Muslims are strictly monotheist (as are Jews)... no Trinity... no 3-in-1, 4-in1, etc.  One God.  Period. No footnotes in the 10 commandments.  There's a reason why Jesus mentions the shema as one of the two great commandments. Muslims do believe in Jesus's virgin birth (well, that's the party line--what people's real views are ;)).  Born to Maryam (Mary)... whole book on her in the Qur'an. Jesus was a great prophet... one of the greatest in a long line of prophets including Abraham, Adam, Moses, Noah, David (as in King David), etc.  God gave Jesus the Injeel (Gospel) however Muslims have doubts on how valid the things are in the NT are because it was written so long after Jesus's death (even the earliest book is at least 60 years).  He is believed to have done miracles.  Muslims believe that Jesus was not the one crucified, it was actually Judas who was made by God to look like Jesus.  Most Muslims believe that Jesus will come back and will play a big part on the Day of Judgement.  He comes back and defeats the Antichrist, or lack of a better term.  Jesus... definite good guy and well revered in Islam.

Muslims call Jesus, Isa (like Isa the Iguana on Dora).  On a side note, I'm assuming most Christians know that Jesus was not Jesus's "real" name? (O course Isa isn't very close to the original Aramaic either. ;))

 

Don't Muslims believe that when Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus) returns, he will convert the world to Islam?  I have heard this.

Nikki--Honestly, I don't know.  I'm not familiar with that--but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  (End of times stuff is not a big interest of mine.)  I'm guessing that the Muslim view may be along the lines that when Jesus comes back...and He himself can clear up any misconceptions about his divinity or lack thereof... as well as the view of Mohammed...then people would follow Islam (submission to God)... but I really don't remember reading anything like that.  I also don't remember anything along the lines that everybody becomes a Muslim in the end, because there are always people whose hearts are hardened against any belief in God. Maybe it just refers to "People of the Book" (Jews & Christians)?  No idea.  I do remember when Jesus comes back it is a time of peace... I want to say for 40 years, but know that 40 is the nice Middle Eastern way of saying a really long time.  Think 40 days in the desert... rained 40 days and nights... Muslims are told to be nice to our neighbors (of all faiths) which is 40 houses on either side, etc.

Hopefully some Muslim Mamas with better knowledge will pop in. :)

[confusionincan]

I wonder about this too. My cousin, a devout muslim did tell me that on the Day of Judgement (in the Islamic view) that all of the people will basically line up behind their leader. So Muslims behind Mohammad, Jews behind Moses, Christians behind Jesus. Thought that gave an interesting visual.

Another thing I found interesting about our conversation was that she said basically the only major requirement to get into heaven (This is obviously simplified) is that you believe in One God. So we kind of got into talking about Eastern religions and she started talking about how Hindu's worship animals, etc. (which I am not 100% sure on) and how that isn't good, etc. And I said, "How is it their fault that they believe in something when it is the only thing they have been taught, it is all they know. Why should God judge them for that when they are innocent." And basically she said that Muslims feel that is is our job to question things, and strive to learn more.

Just another note :)

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by confusionincan 

I wonder about this too. My cousin, a devout muslim did tell me that on the Day of Judgement (in the Islamic view) that all of the people will basically line up behind their leader. So Muslims behind Mohammad, Jews behind Moses, Christians behind Jesus. Thought that gave an interesting visual.

Another thing I found interesting about our conversation was that she said basically the only major requirement to get into heaven (This is obviously simplified) is that you believe in One God. So we kind of got into talking about Eastern religions and she started talking about how Hindu's worship animals, etc. (which I am not 100% sure on) and how that isn't good, etc. And I said, "How is it their fault that they believe in something when it is the only thing they have been taught, it is all they know. Why should God judge them for that when they are innocent." And basically she said that Muslims feel that is is our job to question things, and strive to learn more.

Just another note :)

No, Hindu's don't worship animals.  They aren't really even polytheistic properly speaking, or at least educated Hindus aren't.

[PatienceAndLove]

I am trying to remember my History of Christianity class (taken at a public state university and taught by a Pagan- so it was fantastic and covered everything!) but I recall there being record of a Jeshua-bar-Joseph being crucified during the time the Bible records Jesus dying.  Also, I believe there are Talmud references to Jesus.

According to the Biblical Gospel of Matthew- Jesus was born of the Davidic line, via Joseph- his adoptive father.  It is also hypothesized that Mary was also of the Davidic line, thus causing Jesus to actually be BORN of the Davidic line.

Though it is Wikipedia- this article covers everything we discussed in my History of Christianity class

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove 

I am trying to remember my History of Christianity class (taken at a public state university and taught by a Pagan- so it was fantastic and covered everything!) but I recall there being record of a Jeshua-bar-Joseph being crucified during the time the Bible records Jesus dying.  Also, I believe there are Talmud references to Jesus.

According to the Biblical Gospel of Matthew- Jesus was born of the Davidic line, via Joseph- his adoptive father.  It is also hypothesized that Mary was also of the Davidic line, thus causing Jesus to actually be BORN of the Davidic line.

Though it is Wikipedia- this article covers everything we discussed in my History of Christianity class

Yes, I remember a reference to that record too, but no other details.  Oh well.

[2xy]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Originally Posted by 2xy 

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Originally Posted by Liquesce 

Non-pious documentation?

Non-pious?

Documentation outside of religious texts.

Even the religious documentation of which you speak has been scrutinized and debated about for years, since none of it was written by anyone who actually knew Jesus.

Off the top of my head I can think of Tacitus and Suetonius, and Josephus was I think the earliest - there were a few others.  And there is a fair bit by those who knew the apostles directly.  There was some popularity for a while in saying there was no evidence Jesus even existed, but as far as I am aware there are no serious scholars who maintain that, whatever their religious persuasion.

None of those people were alive while Jesus was alive, so none of them knew Jesus. That is my point. They wrote down things they had heard from others. And scholars have thought for quite some time that the writings of Josephus were tampered with, since the man was a Pharisiac Jew and wouldn't have recognized Jesus as a messiah. I believe Josephus was born some 40 years after Jesus alleged death.
 

[kittywitty]

Well, if Google is reliable there were no contemporaneous references to Jesus indicating his existence.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by 2xy 

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Originally Posted by 2xy 

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Originally Posted by Liquesce 

Non-pious documentation?

Non-pious?

Documentation outside of religious texts.

Even the religious documentation of which you speak has been scrutinized and debated about for years, since none of it was written by anyone who actually knew Jesus.

Off the top of my head I can think of Tacitus and Suetonius, and Josephus was I think the earliest - there were a few others.  And there is a fair bit by those who knew the apostles directly.  There was some popularity for a while in saying there was no evidence Jesus even existed, but as far as I am aware there are no serious scholars who maintain that, whatever their religious persuasion.

None of those people were alive while Jesus was alive, so none of them knew Jesus. That is my point. They wrote down things they had heard from others. And scholars have thought for quite some time that the writings of Josephus were tampered with, since the man was a Pharisiac Jew and wouldn't have recognized Jesus as a messiah. I believe Josephus was born some 40 years after Jesus alleged death.
 

Ok.  So, what exactly is your point?  That because we don't have any contemporary records, he likely didn't exist?  That means first you would actually have to dismiss the religious texts as evidence, which would be difficult to justify.  And if we demand contemporary accounts for believing that a person existed, we would be disbelieving in many other people too.  The study of ancient history would be in a shambles.  There are a lot of the early Greek philosophers that we don't have such records of, and we only know about what they wrote from fragments quoted by other later writers - but no one disbelieves in those people.  There is a lot more evidence for Jesus than for many other figures in ancient history that most people, and historians, think existed.  So I am just not at all sure what you are getting at?

Josephus was born rather earlier than you suggested as far as I know, less than ten years after Jesus' death.  You are being very misleading about the idea that his writings were tampered with.  As far as the passages that mention Jesus, two are widely accepted as authentic, and there are more questions about the other one, though it is accepted by many as well - it may be that it was a marginal addition, or that part of the sentence was dropped, or some have even suggested that he as actually a Christian, though that seems unlikely to me.

[Purple Sage]

[Christopher]

Originally Posted by eclipse 

Originally Posted by merpk 

Am always a little confused about the Christian view of Jesus' lineage.  The tribal affiliation, etc., went through the father.  According to Christians, Jesus didn't have a human father, right?  Joseph was just kind of along for G!d's ride, Christian-theology-wise, right?  So how could he be "the son of G!d" while at the same time claiming tribal lineage through the father? 

I'm an atheist, but I've studied a lot of different religious perspectives, and this one has always confused me, too. I've never really gotten an answer that makes any sense (to me, anyway. It clearly makes sense to Christians!). So. . .any Christian takers on this one?

Some Christians steer neatly around this issue by tracing Jesus's lineage through Mary.  This gave rise to the beatification of Mary, and her cult of Marionites.

You see, if you want to support miraculous claims, you simply have to eliminate all natural explanations to the contrary.  And what better way to do that than by claiming something that can neither be proven or disproven?

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by Nikki74 

Don't Muslims believe that when Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus) returns, he will convert the world to Islam?  I have heard this.

What Umsami said, more or less.  Insofar as I know from the original sources, at least, there is not really a mass conversion element to the story so much as there is an element of his presence confirming the Islamic account of his life and basic nature, and of believers in god who disputed these things effectively "seeing the light" to that extent.  There is talk of him (however literally or figuratively as one cares to take it) destroying the symbolism of the cross, for example.  But that doesn't mean the whole world suddenly turns Muslim.

"End of times" stuff is sort of hobbyist theology in Islam, though ... the details aren't particularly critical to the faith, so rather like in Christianity it's been a matter for a lot of -- sometimes contradictory, often theatrical -- storytelling for people who are just interested in that sort of thing. There may well be versions of events put out there in which (a) Jesus enacts a mass conversion, and (b) a mass conversion would actually mean something.  I'm pretty sure Shia theology is somewhat more invested in that period, for example, and IME tends to be more comfortable with imaginative, symbolic storytelling, so perhaps there is something to that effect to be found there (?).  We Sunnis tend to be bigger sticks in the mud about all that sort of thing.  

[2xy]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Ok.  So, what exactly is your point?  That because we don't have any contemporary records, he likely didn't exist?  That means first you would actually have to dismiss the religious texts as evidence, which would be difficult to justify.

My point is that a man named Yeshua might have existed, might have lived in Biblical times and might have been crucified. There is no evidence, at this time, to prove that any of this is so. And even if it is so, there is no way to tell how much the stories might have been altered or embellished over the centuries.

The whole reason I initially brought this up was to refute a claim that there is evidence of Jesus' crucifixion. There is not. First, one would have to prove that Jesus was a Historical figure and not a mythical figure. As of yet, that has not been accomplished.

If you're going to cite religious texts as evidence.....there are many other religious texts in the world. There are ancient Greek hymns that honor Apollo and Zeus. Ancient Egyptian texts write about helping the Pharaoh climb ladders into the afterlife. Are these texts evidence of the existence of Zeus and afterlife-ladders?

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by 2xy 

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Ok.  So, what exactly is your point?  That because we don't have any contemporary records, he likely didn't exist?  That means first you would actually have to dismiss the religious texts as evidence, which would be difficult to justify.

My point is that a man named Yeshua might have existed, might have lived in Biblical times and might have been crucified. There is no evidence, at this time, to prove that any of this is so. And even if it is so, there is no way to tell how much the stories might have been altered or embellished over the centuries.

The whole reason I initially brought this up was to refute a claim that there is evidence of Jesus' crucifixion. There is not. First, one would have to prove that Jesus was a Historical figure and not a mythical figure. As of yet, that has not been accomplished.

If you're going to cite religious texts as evidence.....there are many other religious texts in the world. There are ancient Greek hymns that honor Apollo and Zeus. Ancient Egyptian texts write about helping the Pharaoh climb ladders into the afterlife. Are these texts evidence of the existence of Zeus and afterlife-ladders?

They are certainly evidence of something.  In the cases you mention though are not intended as an historical narrative.  The Greeks considered their stories about the gods in a rather different way than the Gospels are understood.  They were stories given to the poets by the muses - although people believed them, they were not claiming to have either experienced them personally, or even that anyone else had.  They were more like mystical material.  And not everyone believed them either - Plato is quite clear that the stories of the poets contain lies about the gods.  That being said, historians think there is real historical memory preserved in those texts.  For a long time the possibility of a real Trojan War was ridiculed, but these days most agree that there was a real war, and have even identified a likely city.

A better comparison might be some religious texts telling about the life of the Buddha. I don't think there is really much controversy about his existence, though I don't think in his case that the stories were written down until quite some time later.

Religious texts are not generally dismissed by historians as containing possibly accurate information.  A lot depends on the nature of the text.  And there are actually ways to look at how the accounts in any kind of text have been treated over time - its called philology.  It has its limits of course, but that is true of all history.  It is pretty much impossible to prove any historical fact.

[bluebirdiemama]

What an interesting conversation!

I am going to chime in in response to the original question of "who is Jesus? ".   The difference has already been stated but I want to go into more detail about what the significance is in that difference of perspective.  From the Jewish and Islamic view I think there is really no reason why Jesus would have any significance in anything, any more than any other intelliegent, educated, possibly ordained teacher.  Even from the "christian" perspective, which is so "prevalent", it's hard to get a clear idea of why He is significant. I heard so much babbling on and on about Jesus, sin, the cross, etc, my whole life and didn't know a thing about it until a few years ago.

This is who I now know Jesus to be;  born of a virgin; by the power of the Holy Spirit, and thus God's son; fully God; fully man; aware of His purpose and willing to submit to it; fulfillment of all Old Testament prophesies of the Mesiah; born in a "low", dishonorable position; living His life in a dishonorable position; living a sinless life (in perfect accordance with God's law); allowed Himself to be tortured and killed on the cross; offering His perfect, sinless blood as a sacrifice to restore mankind to God's original design for him; was dead; rose; has attained victory over everything that keeps man from God's original design for him; wishes to cover all man's sin with the blood He shed, restoring all men and women, setting them free; gives us the Holy Spirit when we accept the sacrifice He made for us; will return to judge the world.

What does Jesus have to offer if He didn't exist at the creation of the world, or if He didn't die on the cross, or rise from the dead. What would it matter? He would have left some insightful teachings.  But if Jesus is the Son of God, everlasting, conquerer over death and sin, than that is something that could change your life. When someone embraces a wordly philosophy or perspective, they can within their own power, change their life.  But when someone embraces the Son of God, the one who created the heavens and the earth, lived a human life and resisted every temptation, has already defeated all powers of evil.... that makes them an entirely new person.  And it is a much lighter load, because none of it is within our power.  All the power comes from our submission.

Anyway.  This is my attempt at an explanation.  If you are genuinely seeking clarity on who Jesus is, and you are ready for the answer, ask Him!

"Ask and it will be given to you. Search and you will find. Knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks recieves, and the one who searches finds, and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."      Matthew 7: 7-8

These are Jesus' words. If you want to know the truth about who Jesus is, ask the Lord to reveal it to you.

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by bluebirdiemama 

From the Jewish and Islamic view I think there is really no reason why Jesus would have any significance in anything, any more than any other intelliegent, educated, possibly ordained teacher. 

...

What does Jesus have to offer if He didn't exist at the creation of the world, or if He didn't die on the cross, or rise from the dead. What would it matter? He would have left some insightful teachings. 

The Islamic view is that he was a prophet; that is not insignificant.  That puts him on the same level as Muhammad before us.  The same can not be said of just any, even uniquely brilliant, teacher.

To really understand what that means in an Islamic context one would have to perceive that the message transmitted from god to man in Islam is as sacred as the body and being of Jesus in Christianity -- that the Qur'an is not for Muslims equivalent to the Bible so much as it is equivalent to the Christ.  That any message given to prophets by god could never be summed up simply as insightful teachings, and that the person chosen to carry it, while fully human, is revered and idealized and loved in ways like no other people on earth.  The concept of prophecy and of prophets in Islam is a very emotional thing for believers.  The degree to which it is emotional can be, and has often proven to be, very difficult for non-Muslims to grasp.

[homestyle]

Just thought I would pass along a couple helpful links for some point-for-point answers on why Jesus isn't moshiach -- from the Jewish perspective. This website (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/) is of a Jewish anti-missionary group, and has a lot of very clearly laid out info on the claims of various christian groups, and why they don't square with our scriptures. Here's the address directly to their FAQ section: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&id=3&Itemid=480 and to a section specifically about moshiach criteria: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=374:messiah-the-criteria&catid=68:the-jewish-messiah&Itemid=481

hope that's helpful.

ETA: a link, and to say that I certainly haven't read everything in this website. we have a relative who is into this jews-for-jesus stuff, unfortunately, and our questions lead us (dh and I) to this website. the website writers are very, um, passionate about their feelings on these issues. but it's still good info. 

[mirlee]

This is what Torah.org, http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=300,  has to say on the topic:

" A person named Yeshu ha-Notzri (Jesus the Nazarene?) is mentioned several times in the Talmud, but the content of these references is not consistent with the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament. In Sanhedrin 43b there is a reference to a Yeshu who was hung (crucified?) on the day before Passover, and who was a member of the royal family; but the Talmud states that his execution was announced 40 days in advance (to allow any evidence of his innocence to be submitted), so this reference doesn't fully match the New Testament story. It is further stated there that Yeshu had five disciples, named Matai (Matthew?), Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah, all five of whom were also executed -- again, not in agreement with the New Testament. In Sanhedrin 107b and Sotah 47a the Talmud tells about a Yeshu who was an unworthy disciple of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachiah; but this was more than 100 years too early to be the Jesus of the New Testament. Thus there is no evidence in the contemporary Rabbinical sources that corroborates the New Testament story of Jesus"

[Dancianna]

Originally Posted by confusionincan 

Hi everyone,

I am hoping to learn a little more about Jesus from different religious perspectives.

I come from a Roman-Catholic and Muslim background. Non-practicing parents, but I was exposed a little bit to both (actually more to Muslim, though we celebrated all Christian holidays)

Now I am a mother, and a couple of years ago found myself searching for more. I have been taken by Judaism, and have been studying it off & on for about a year.

The one subject which I am hoping to hear more about is Jesus. Being from such a different background, I am super confused about what I believe about him.

I know a bit about the Muslim perspective, and obviously have read the Jewish perspective, but I am hoping to learn more about where exactly the line was drawn between Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Thanks!! I hope this makes sense!
 

I have a super book to recommend to you.  It has some good info. about the historical Jesus, but altogether the perspective about Jesus is very respectful (author is Christian and a professor at Harvard.  I've read something else of his that was excellent.) The book also has a lot to do with Jesus' practice as a rabbi in his time.  It's called When Jesus Came to Harvard: Making Moral Choices Today  (I may have the subtitle wrong.)

Let me know, if you read it, what you think! 

-Dancy

[AlaaJ]

Jesus in Islam: middle path btwn Christianity & Judaism --

He [Jesus] said: "Verily! I am a slave of Allah, He has given me the Scripture and made me a Prophet;

And He has made me blessed wheresoever I be, and has enjoined on me prayer, and charity, as long as I live.

And dutiful to my mother, and made me not arrogant, unblest.

And Salam (peace) be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!"

Such is Jesus, son of Mary.

It is a statement of truth, about which they doubt. It befits not (the Majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glorified (and Exalted is He above all that they associate with Him). When He decrees a thing, He only says to it, "Be!" and it is.

Jesus said: "And verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord. So worship Him (Alone). That is the Straight Path."

Quran, Chapter of Mary (19:30-36)

Originally Posted by confusionincan 

Hi everyone,

I am hoping to learn a little more about Jesus from different religious perspectives.