It's interesting because the Council at Nicea was meeting JUST AFTER all the edicts that allowed for state-sponsored persecution of Christians were eradicated. I've read that they actually were gathering to celebrate this as well...and of course, Constantine made an appearance with all his pomp and circumstance.
To me, the most interesting facet of the emphasis placed on Paul's theology was how closely his writings/interpretation mirrored the common pagan cults of his day - the most glaring one being Paul's utter lack of emphasis on Jesus as human and here on earth. In fact, one can quickly arrive at the conclusion that Paul was unaware that any of the Jesus story actually took place anywhere but the spiritual realm. Much like many of the pagan cults of the day. Similarly, Max kind of glosses by the chosen dates for Easter and it's clever alignment with pagan ceremonies. This could be an extremely long debate - there is ample evidence for either opinion on the role of paganism in the formulation of the early church. Regardless, what really bothers me about it is that it seems to me that much of what made Jesus teachings "revolutionary", if you will, took a back burner to the ideological and sociological warfare that originated at Nicea and peaked during the inquisition. I don't think christianity ever recovered.
I applaud your efforts, and I agree that this is an interesting and worthwhile subject. Since you’re a Muslim I’ll approach this question from a different angle, however. I think it’s useful and interesting to understand the mechanics of how the Bible came to be, but ultimately an underlying question arises that I’m sure you’re familiar with. How do we know that the final book is the one God intended it to be? How do we know that this all happened as it was supposed to happen? These questions are very similar to the ones Islam faces about the Qur’an. The Qur’an came from one man, so how do we know that he got it right? How do we know that he didn’t forget some parts, or that he didn’t remember some parts incorrectly? He was also illiterate, so how do we know that the people who copied his words down did it properly? He wasn’t able to double check what they wrote, after all. Ultimately these questions come down to a belief that God is able to ensure that his word is protected and that the books are as he wants them to be. (Some people take what I might call a narrow logical perspective and say that it’s very unlikely that either book exists now in its original form, and they might further say that the existence of a god is illogical in the first place, but then man’s existence is illogical as well, as is the earth’s existence, and if you pursue these and their related questions I believe you come to an expanded understanding of logic and the nature of who we are, and you come back to God, but this is a separate discussion.) From an Islamic standpoint there is another way to look at this question, however, and that is to look at what the Qur’an says about the Bible. The Codex Sinaiticus referred to here was written in the mid 300s, and the Bible essentially as it exists today was finalized by the late 300s. In 380 Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. It wasn’t until well over 200 years later in the early 600s that the Qur’an was written. By this time there were tens of millions of people in Roman Empire and the Christian religion and its book were well established and very wide spread, and the Qur’an does refer to Christians the book belonging to the Christians and has some very interesting things to say about them: And there are more. There is an additional problem here, however, because traditional Islam does not take these verses at face value, and I believe this brings us more or less to where we were in our last thread Mathloom. On this issue in particular it seems to me that there is a significant disconnect between what the Qur’an says and what traditional Islam teaches. I haven’t been able to find any support at all for the traditional Islamic position on the Bible in the Qur’an, and although I’ve had several extended discussions with some Muslim friends on this subject I haven’t been able to find anyone who can show me one either, at least not yet. Perhaps you know where this belief comes from. Just as background for those who may not know, traditional Islam teaches that these passages and the others like them aren’t talking about the Bible as we know it today, or Christianity as we know it today. It teaches that these passages refer to another book that has been either lost or corrupted. They believe that the Bible as it exists today is either a false or corrupted version of the message Jesus brought. I believe that this is a very wide spread belief in Islam today but it appears to me that it is not supported by the Qur’an, nor does it appear to be a belief that the early Muslims held either. (I did a bit of research a while back on this and what I found suggested that it the belief originated several centuries after the Qur’an was written and possibly originated with a scholar named Ibm Hazm, but again I would be very interested in hearing what a Muslim who is familiar with these issues knows about this.) For non-Muslims this line of discussion isn’t very helpful because for most of them what the Qur’an says about the Bible likely wouldn’t influence their opinion one way or the other, but I thought this might be an interesting approach to the question for the Muslims here. It’s also useful for Christians to know that traditional Islam believes the Bible has been corrupted and is not in its original form. I don’t think this is widely known in the Christian community.
so out of the 3 fiction books/series does the harry potter series, da vinci code, or bible have more printings?
re Matthias The disciples cast lots and came to the conclusion that Matthias was the next chosen apostle although you never hear about him again past that point in scriptures.... They were wrong in doing so, and later we see God chose Paul as the the next Apostle meeting him on the road to Damascus, striking him down and showing himself to him before blinding him. Hope that helps... alot of these posts are interesting and its amazing when you think about it, how the perspective of scriptures were likely different likely even more sincere because all of the letters werent organized and compiled together for everyone to pick up and read.
(Before reading any posts after this...) To understand what you're saying here.. Jesus PBUH blew the doors of religious Jewish teaching open and brought a new covenant... I have to assume that this means "You are moving away from what Moses PBUH taught and I'm going to weed out any deviations". I think that would be the view of Christianity as well because Moses PBUH received his commands directly from God therefore they can't be wrong, therefore if there was anything Jesus PBUH wanted to remove from Jewish religious practice, it would be only the deviations from what Moses PBUH received and taught during his tenure... right? If Jesus PBUH, as part of the mission, wanted to correct these "deviations", I'm not sure how to make sense of the conclusion that Jesus PBUH was freeing people from "The Law". It may be bias on my part, but it appears to me that the mission was re-establishing (and perhaps expanding on) an old covenant rather than putting forth a new covenant. Ugh. I'm trying to re-word those paragraphs to make them easier to understand. Hmmm. I guess what I'm saying is that Jesus PBUH couldn't have possibly come back and said that Moses PBUH was wrong. The only other alternative I see is that what Moses PBUH received an incomplete law? I understand that this is a touchy interfaith topic. For the record, to everyone, I'm just gathering opinions. I truly would love to hear ANY views on the topic. I think that asking these questions does a lot more good than not asking them. Also, if I'm out of line talking about something, feel completely free to let me know. Thanks
Grizzled, First want to say that I'm itching to discuss your post but beforehand I'll tell you that 95% of what I'd want to say would have to be in another thread. I really want to focus on non-Muslim views of the Bible here. I would love for you to start a thread to discuss comparisons between scripture and degeneration of practices over time. I hope you do as there are several things/details you mentioned which urgently need to be addressed/discussed before they spread to those who are not as experienced with scripture as others. I don't have much time but just to quickly note.. When you say traditional Islam, I believe what you mean is the current practice of Islam. What is practiced today and what was practiced in the time of the Prophet PBUH is fairly different unfortunately. Personally, I use the term "traditional Islam" to describe the Islam practiced by the Prophet PBUH. Will get back later. Please open another thread to discuss your post!!
I hope this helps- Actually God made the covenant with Abraham- The covenant for sake of being brief was simply that if Abraham had faith in God, God would bless Him and be His God. God would use His descendants for a special purpose. God renewed the covenant with certain of Abraham's children- Isaac and Jacob. A covenant was to be kept at the cost of your life. A covenant between two parties required each to fulfill requirements or commitments. At this point there was no Jewish religion. The Laws were given to Moses to confirm or clarify the covenant. There were three distinct aspects to the Laws: 1. The moral Law- this defined right and wrong behavior 2. The ceremonial Law- this defined ceremonies that were examples, metaphors and types of things that could not be understood at the time 3. The religious Law- this would define principles that would apply to future understanding of worship and relationship The Laws given to Moses were the basis for understanding God's character and purpose for Jesus Christ, His Son. The Old Covenant to the Jewish religion consisted of God's covenant with Abraham, the Mosaic Laws that gave instructions to the people, and the words of the Prophets that God sent to explain further God's relationship to His people. The original covenant with Abraham was built upon faith, or a trust relationship. This covenant came before the Laws given to Moses. The Laws given to Moses serve an important purpose to illustrate that faith acheives what human effort cannot acheive in a covenant with God. Faith is a matter of the heart. Keeping the laws a matter of human effort. But Jesus came to get the heart right. Once that happens the purpose and correct application of the laws are second nature. The sum of the laws God wanted in the human heart is easy- Love God with all your heart mind soul and strength and what results is to love your neighbor just as much as you love yourself. This isn't a written law but a change in the inner character of a person. When a Christian grows in faith the result is loving God and others like Jesus did.
Rhester, thanks for the comments, really appreciate it. Could you possibly show me where I can find references to the parts I've bolded?? That would be super helpful. Oh and if it's in the Bible then no need to bother, just mention that it's in the Bible. I'm not quizzing you or anything haha I just want to understand where the conclusive statements come from whether it's law or example or oral tradition or anything.
I didn't mean to gloss by it. Christians wanted converts...and they felt that co-opting pagan holidays was a great way to do it. St. Patrick was the freaking master of that. I think you're unfair to Paul. Paul does talk of the humanity of Christ...but he believes him to be, by nature, God....so that's kinda the point of him writing, in the first place: from Phillipians 2:6-11 6 Christ Jesus, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death–even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is LORD, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:6-11) Paul and others didn't believe Jesus was just another man. I know you believe that, but it's not what they believed. I'm sure you could understand that if these guys truly believed Jesus was, "in very nature God," they'd spend considerable time writing about it.
Absolutely. So convinced were they of his Godhood that they dedicated their lives to preaching Christ crucified and salvation in a time where there was no profit to be made from it (modern churches are blushing) and being a "soldier of the cross" actually meant you would likely lose your life if you spoke up about your beliefs. (Lots of Sunday morning Christians just blushed)
He didn't say Moses was wrong. He said, "you're missing the point." And he claimed to be before Moses. The religious authorities were worshipping The Law. He said (paraphrased) he could sum up all the Law in one statement: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your might; and love your neighbor as yourself." By the way...there were multiple covenants with the Hebrews...Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic...and the Prophet Jeremiah spoke of a new covenant to come. Christian typically believe that Jesus ushered in that new covenant by providing a full and complete atonement for sins which replaced animal sacrifice under the Mosaic covenant. Paul ultimately writes that no one can be righteous by keeping the Law..because none of us can measure up to the perfection of a holy God. He actually says to the Church at Rome that the Law was never meant to be anything other than a guidepost to make us conscious of what sin is. He goes on to say teh following in verses 21-31 of Romans 3: 21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
(Same guy that was asking what the Bible constitutes... that gave some interesting answers. I don't mean to derail this thread, but feel dumb starting a new thread.) Quick 'huh?' questions that I've never quite 'got': 1)I thought Man was in the image of God? Then how was Jesus supposed to be in the image of Man? 2) Jesus = God? Jesus = Son of God? Jesus = Son of God and God? 3) Did Jesus know about Heaven and immortality? If so how was his murder supposed to be a great sacrifice, if he knew he would rise from the grave and go to heaven for all eternity? If he didn't know, that raises some other questions...
I don't really know how to answer this question seriously. It doesn't seem like a serious question. This is one that confuses a lot of people. MadMax may be able to put it into a post, but probably the best thing to do is research "The Trinity-Explained" via google and see what you can come up with. Essays have been written, books have been written, theologians have debated...but to sum it up, yes, Jesus is God and is the son of God and is the son of Man. Have you watched Passion of the Christ? LOL God was completely man on earth (and completely God) and he experienced severe pain and died a physical death.
2. The Trinity is tough. I don't get it. I don't care, really. 3. He took a kick-ass beating he didn't have to take, if he was who he claimed to be. I have faith in my own eternity...but I don't want to go out that way. I don't want to endure that much pain.
Seriously, I mean I know we KNOW that dying on a cross wouldn't be fun, but if you really think about what the man went through, it's pretty awful. Nails hammered through your hands(wrists) and feet? And we aren't talking little nails that you hang a picture with here...
and the Romans were throwing that out like candy back then. in the name of empire. in the name of "protecting its interests." juxtapose that with the sermon on the mount. Jesus is cool.
Thanks, it is in the Bible, The covenant is made using blessings God promised. In other words because of Abraham's faith God promised to bless Him and use Him for future purposes. Rather than use the word renew, the Bible actually explains that the promise of the covenant is made to Abraham and his children. And the proper word is that God kept his covenant with Isaac and Jacob: For instance: Lev. 26:42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. What I meant by 'Jesus came to get the heart right' is that Jesus came to process a reconciliation between God and man (mankind) But the problems between God and man are in man's heart (character)
