What is Christianity? How can we understand it better? What don't we understand?

Yes, I do. You also said that I could bring it to this thread.


There's no such thing as Christianity. Jesus never brought Christianity. Someone else, namely St. Paul, brought Christianity in the name of Jesus. But Jesus never brought Christianity himself. Jesus was a Jewish Prophet, sent to the Jewish Nation to redeem men and women of that Jewish Nation. Everything that Christians claim about Jesus is derived from the Apostle Paul's perverse views.


Islam views Jesus as a prophet only. Not God. Not Son of God. Not God in the form of man or any of these far fetched things that Christians themselves attribute to him. Hell, his name wasn't even Jesus. His name was Yashua and the title Christ only means anointed one.

 

Eh, I've heard something similar to this before, as long as he's hostile to the ideas/beliefs rather than other people.

Here's what I put in the thread, if you want to actually discuss this:

What do you think of Jesus' command at his Ascension, to spread the good news to everyone? And what of Jesus healing the friend of the Roman Centurion, declaring the Centurion's faith was greater than any he has found in all of Israel?

What exactly about Paul's views is so perverse? Some of the writings attributed to him contain verses that are unfair to women, I agree, but can you point out what you're talking about.

As for Jesus/Yashua, names morph through time and so many translations and different pronounciations. Like how my grandmother's name was "corrected" from Florentina to Florence, and my grandfather's from Stanislaw to Stanley. That by itself does't mean anything.

Jesus may have considered that part of his ministry to be an outreach to Jews in particular, but he did not just keep it to the Jews, and by the end he was definitely looking at broader humanity, with the whole dying-so-others-may-have-eternal-life thing. There was definitely a debate among the early Christians if you needed to first convert to Judaism and be circumcised before becoming a Christian, but they decided it wasn't necessary, and saw how Jesus intended to spread his message to all men and women and didn't require them to be Jews or Jewish converts first.

Also, I am guessing that you are a Muslim?

 

First thing, I'm not trying to be hostile towards a particular belief system. That's all religion is, a packaged up set of beliefs. Beliefs that are not based on facts but rather by hearsay and stories and they should never be accepted as absolute truth since truth itself is absolute. What I'm saying is Christianity doesn't exist. Jesus, the historical prophet, taught Judaism and was sent to a particular people called Jews. He strictly came to fulfill the law of Moses. Apostle Paul, who wasn't even a disciple of Jesus, and who never even met Jesus claims to have seen Jesus in some vision, and out of this vision forms this bastard religion in the name of Jesus. As far as this dying for our sins thing, there's more EVIDENCE that the Crucifixion is more fiction than fact. Jesus said to teach the Gospel to all Nations, meaning to the 12 tribes of Israel, not the whole world. Prophets are sent only to specific nations at specific times. Even if Jesus did heal a Roman, it doesn't exclude what the Bible redundantly says about him teaching only to the Children of Israel.


And no, I'm not a Muslim. I'm just one of few people who is able to place the Bible under scrutiny in order to see what things really say.

 

I would point out that there very clearly is such a thing as Christianity, such that arguing IF it exists seems rather pointless.

Switching hats...
This thread in general, general policy has been that it's for a discussion of the understanding of Christianity and the beliefs associated with it, not a discussion for disproving Christianity

 

As a non-mod, I don't really have any say on whether it's ultimately appropriate or not. But as one of those who would probably qualify as a more "frequent" poster in this thread over the years, I don't see much wrong with this line of discussion. It's radical in the sense that it's outside the norm. But I don't really see it as overtly hostile. The primary questions he raises, "What was the intended scope of Jesus's message?" and "What role did Paul play in shaping Christian beliefs" are important and interesting ones. I intended to make a post some time this weekend, time allowing.

 

Hmmm...some interesting assertions here. If this thread is about understanding Christianity better, I'd like to respectfully respond to two things in this post.

First, the nature of Jesus. Yes, Muslims view Jesus as only a prophet. So do orthodox Jews. That does not mean that their views are correct. Christians believe that he is God because he himself said that. This is found in multiple places (John 10:30 is a good example). It is also the reason that the Jewish leaders wanted him dead; they did not believe that he was God and tried him for blasphemy (Luke 22:70-71). To say that Jesus was just a prophet is incorrect. Either he was what he claimed, the Son of God, or he was the greatest liar in history and not worthy of being called a prophet or moral teacher.

Second, the view that Paul was responsible for bringing Christianity in the name of Jesus is incorrect. Paul did not write any of the gospel accounts. Two of the authors were eye witness apostles, one was a younger disciple who was an eye witness to many of those events, and the fourth was a doctor who gathered his information from eye witnesses. Christians' primary source of information on Jesus' teachings are found in these gospels, not in Paul's writings. Paul's epistles to the churches are meant to explain more about Jesus and His gospel and then apply that to Christian living. But what he wrote is in agreement with other New Testament writers including the apostles John and Peter, and Jesus' brother James.

 

I agree with Jabba-wocky, it doesn't seem wrong to me. I've actually heard a similar argument before, and it was a topic that was fiercely debated among the original Apostles (IIRC from religion class at my Catholic high school).

Many, many people here scrutinize the Bible. Including me, and I'm a Christian. (And no one here would say there's anything wrong with being a Muslim, there's a couple that visit here occassionally and I always wish more would come). Also, beliefs can be based on a mix of facts, reason, and personal experiences. Not just hearsay and stories.


Christianity does exist. True, it started off as more of a reform movement within Judaism. But it quickly separated from Judaism, in the time of the original Apostles, I believe.

Jesus didn't come to just fulfill the old laws and prophecies, but also to create a New Covenant that is personal and direct which offers forgiveness and eternal life.

Tell me, while Paul was obviously a very significant early influence, how exactly did he distort Christianity? (also, to be clear, Paul wasn't an Apostle, just a disciple).

What evidence says the crucifixion is not true? That's a really remarkable claim, even the Jews and Muslims believe there was a crucifixion.

Why makes you say that "spread the Gospel to all nations and to every corner of the Earth" is somehow supposed to be limited only to the 12 tribes?

Who told you that "Prophets are sent only to specific nations at specific times"?? Who told you that? Why do you believe that? I think that's a Muslim belief, but you just said you're not a Muslim. So, why do you believe this, and what evidence do you have, and how do you know Jesus wasn't sent to the entire world?

Yes, Jesus did heal a (likely gay) Roman centurion's lover, at the centurion's request. Jesus gave the centurion the greatest compliment in all the Gospels, that his faith was greater than any he had found in all of Israel. There is also the famous parable of the Good Samaritan. So, how exactly do you twist yourself like a pretzel around these facts to say they're really only about the Jews?

 

Apologies, as this is off the topic of your post, but it's outrageous. How are we concluding that the person healed was the centurion's "lover?" Let alone that he was "likely gay?" There's nothing at all to suggest this.

 

I've discussed this before in the homosexuality thread, when I used to argue with Bubba_the_Genius, BandofClones, WormieSaber, and the rest of them in there about how you can be a Christian and still believe homosexuality is not sinful.

The short version, IIRC, is that the word the Centurion uses to describe his friend is "pais," which was also used in the New Testament to refer to lovers/spouses of someone who is of lower class or rank. Like I think Haggar is described in the New Testament somewhere as Abraham's "pais." There's also other historical data to back that up, I think most Roman centurions were unmarried. And the Roman centurion in the story does seem to really care for his "pais" and be really desperate, if he is asking not only a Jew, but a wandering Jewish "heretic" who has every reason to dislike the Romans and their occupation (especially when there were false rumors going around at that time that Jesus wanted to overthrow the Romans, with misinterpretation of his claim to be the Messiah). There's probably other facts I'm forgetting, that's jsut what I recall off the top of my head, but all the facts point to the Roman Centurion being gay and his "servant" (as its currently translated) to really be his lover, and Jesus not only said he would heal the man but also gave this centurion the greatest compliment in all the Gospels.

 

The nature of Jesus is flesh and blood just like you and me. Jesus was a prophet. The Jews in the Gospel said so. Jesus never claimed to be God or even desired people to worship him. It would be laughable to assume that a man could pray to himself, doesn't it?

Do you remember the verse where one of his disciples called Jesus "Good Master" and Jesus replied "Why thou callest me good? There's no one good but God?" Jesus also said that the Father is greater than him. (John 14:28) Again, Jesus speaks about himself being separate from the Father. (John 8:29) Jesus is not God, but only his righteous servant. And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him. (Luke 2:40) These are not the attributes of anything supernatural. Jesus was like all other men and his prophethood is mentioned throughout the Gospels. So, to state that Jesus was more than a man, a prophet, or a righteous servant is going outside the bounds of sound reality and entering into grave superstition.


The Christianity that is practiced today is more Paulism that Jesusism. Jesus taught Judaic teachings and concepts within a Jewish community in Palestine. Paul didn't write any of the Gospels is correct, but after persecuting Christians he became a self proclaimed disciple of Jesus because of some vision. And from there he started teaching in the name of Jesus to Gentiles, a people that Jesus told his disciples to stay away from. He never learned directly from Jesus. Paul also never even met Jesus. He made up this religion after Jesus had left.

Christianity, truthfully, was derived out of Ancient Egyptian teachings. The first trinity was Isis, Osiris, and Horus. The notion of the crucified savior also comes from out of Ancient Egypt. If you look at many paintings today of Mary

 

Darth Kruel

The nature of Jesus is flesh and blood just like you and me. Jesus was a prophet. The Jews in the Gospel said so. Jesus never claimed to be God or even desired people to worship him. It would be laughable to assume that a man could pray to himself, doesn't it?

Yes, Jesus was flesh and blood, just like us. What makes you think he was only a prophet? Which Jews said so, and how is their word more trustworthy than those who said otherwise? Jesus accepted the title. Jesus prayed/conversed with the Father, you do not seem to understand the Trinity.

Do you remember the verse where one of his disciples called Jesus "Good Master" and Jesus replied "Why thou callest me good? There's no one good but God?" Jesus also said that the Father is greater than him. (John 14:28) Again, Jesus speaks about himself being separate from the Father. (John 8:29) Jesus is not God, but only his righteous servant. And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him. (Luke 2:40) These are not the attributes of anything supernatural. Jesus was like all other men and his prophethood is mentioned throughout the Gospels. So, to state that Jesus was more than a man, a prophet, or a righteous servant is going outside the bounds of sound reality and entering into grave superstition.

Yes, Jesus is the Son, separate from the Father... but still God. You do not seem to understand the Trinity, or the Incarnation. Jesus was both fully human, and fully God (specifically the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son).

The Christianity that is practiced today is more Paulism that Jesusism. Jesus taught Judaic teachings and concepts within a Jewish community in Palestine. Paul didn't write any of the Gospels is correct, but after persecuting Christians he became a self proclaimed disciple of Jesus because of some vision. And from there he started teaching in the name of Jesus to Gentiles, a people that Jesus told his disciples to stay away from. He never learned directly from Jesus. Paul also never even met Jesus. He made up this religion after Jesus had left.

Jesus went beyond Jewish teachings, see the Sermon on the Mount.

Jesus didn't say stay away from Gentiles, but to spread the gospel to everyone. There was debate if you had to become Jewish before you became Christian, but the original Apostles decided you didn't need to be Jewish first.

Where do Paul's epistles conflict with the Gospels?

Please respond to my other post sometime too.

Christianity, truthfully, was derived out of Ancient Egyptian teachings. The first trinity was Isis, Osiris, and Horus. The notion of the crucified savior also comes from out of Ancient Egypt. If you look at many paintings today of Mary and Jesus, it's a direct duplication of Isis and her son Horus.

No.

There are many instances of resurection throughout myths and legends because the Fear of Death, and hope of Eternal Life, have been with us probably as long as there has been humans. The Ancient Egyptians aren't the only ones.

And the idea of a mother and baby being depicted is, obviously, not helpful at all to your argument since a mother and child being painted together is a really common and ordinary thing. I have pictures of me as a baby with my mother, does that mean we were copying Jesus/Mary or Horus/Isiris, by being in a picture together? That's a lousy argument.

But how many historical figures, not mythical characters, have been claimed to be resurrected? Especially withint their own time?

Also, the resurrection by itself is not what makes Jesus special. Do they say Osiris have the same message and teachings as Jesus? Did Osiris also hang out with the social outcasts of his time? Was Osiris tried and tortured, and then given a painful and humiliating death, along with two criminals? Did Osiris die to give humanity the opportunity of eternal life, out of selfless love for eve

 

Just making quick hits for now. My actual opinion will come later.

This just displays a deep ignorance of ancient Egyptian religion. While you happened to have randomly named three deities, the Egyptians didn't really recognize them as a "trinity." They did, on the other hand, appreciated numerically significant groupings of deities like the Ogdoad; that, though, was eight, not three, and had its zenith in the Old Kingdom. Further, even if they had, it is still ridiculous to suggest that having three separate, individual deities is the same thing as having three persons/aspects to one single deity that heads a monotheistic religion. To miss the point that one religion is monotheist and the other isn't is inexcusable. Further, to compare the story of Osiris to that of Jesus also misses the significance of either one or both stories. The former made no willing sacrifice, he was murdered. Nor were the consequences primarily to humanity's spiritual well-being. Instead, it was literal royal succession crisis, with the only effects on mankind being felt through the disruption of maat, a whole body of concepts that Christianity does not even entertain. Nor yet was Osiris resurrected by his own divine power. Instead, his body was recovered, reassembled, and re-vivified using magic spells; this bears more similarity to the creation of Frankenstein's monster than to the resurrection of Jesus. To circle back to the point about maat, though, that really is the final nail in the coffin. The two belief systems were widely divergent. They shared little in common, outside of a few near universal elements common to all religions and extremely superficial elements in story. Both the core spiritual concerns and how they should be expressed by practitioners of the religion were entirely different. Never mind that it is improbable that a Jewish Roman citizen should somehow receive knowledge of New Kingdom era religious practices (which by that point had been out of practice for some centuries), and use it to sway other Jews as well as the Gentile inhabitants of modern-day Turkey and Syria. Are you even thinking about how this is supposed to work?

Ghost: I'm deeply skeptical. In the first place, a lot of your analysis about "desperation" seems off the mark. While there were lots of rumors being bandied about, it's clear that the Romans perceived him as no real threat. After all, look at his treatment by Pilate and Herod Agrippa. They seemed more bemused by the notion of someone with magic powers than they did concerned that he was some sort of rebel (which almost never came up at all). Secondly, why should they care if he was considered a "heretic" within a religion they didn't follow? Indeed, accounts from Josephus make it pretty readily apparent that they had quite a dim understanding of Judaism to begin with. Further, the Romans were syncretic in their belief system, and I don't see any reason why they might have rejected using a local healer or diviner out-of-hand to begin with. As to the issue of the servant, I don't speak Greek, so I can't address the point directly. The problem, though, is that within Roman society, masters had the right to sexually exploit their slaves. And Hagar was literally Abraham's servant. The fact that the term is sometimes used to describe someone with whom a master had a sexual relationship shouldn't imply that all uses of the term are sexual. Further, Roman slavery was not the chattel slavery of the Antebellum South. They often lived in the same house as their master's family, formed long term relationships there, and had important portfolios (for instance, managing most of the household). It doesn't require much imagination to see how someone in this situation could be cher

 

There's too much here to really give a good in depth answer to everything you've said. But I want to respond to the idea that Jesus never claimed to be God. To make this statement one has to believe that the gospels were completely fabricated accounts of Jesus' life. The Gospel of John in particular deals with Jesus' nature as both man and God. Again I go back to the passage I mentioned earlier.

John 10:25-38
"25 Jesus answered, ?I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father?s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father?s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.?

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, ?I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me??

33 ?We are not stoning you for any good work,? they replied, ?but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.?

34 Jesus answered them, ?Is it not written in your Law, ?I have said you are ?gods??? 35 If he called them ?gods,? to whom the word of God came?and Scripture cannot be set aside? 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ?I am God?s Son?? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.?

Jesus claimed to be God, the Son that God sent into the world, and that the miracles he did were proof of that. The same is true here...

John 14:8-11
8 Philip said, ?Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.?

9 Jesus answered: ?Don?t you know me, Philip, even after I ha

 

Let

 

No, there is a difference between sons of God and the Son of God. This refers to his relationship to God the Father; God's Son conceived by Mary through the Holy Spirit, named Emanuel "God with Us". I and the Father are One is referring not to "one in purpose", but "one in power and essence". The context and the original Greek support this in these passages.

The Jews reacted against Jesus by trying to stone him, "Because you, a mere man, claim to be God" (John 10:33). This happened multiple times. If Son of God referred to a Jewish theology already in place at that time, and if I and the Father are One was understood as "a strong unity", these Jewish religious leaders would not have reacted by trying to stone him for blasphemy. And when they told him why they wanted to stone him, Jesus did not try to explain some misunderstanding, but went even further saying "The Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John 10:38).

 

That is true, but if so then that would make those instances in the gospel accounts false, therefore historically inaccurate and unreliable. But if he did not say those things, the Jewish leaders would have had no reason to want to kill him. And he was reported saying those things by eye witnesses (the apostles and other disciples). Peter wrote in his second epistle "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, ?This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.? We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain" (2 Peter 1:16-18).

 

The idea that Paul was the one who invented Christianity is also inaccurate. Paul did not become a Christian until after the 12 apostles had already been preaching in Jerusalem, Samaria, and the surround area for some time. It was Peter who first preached that people must believe in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. Paul wrote extensively about the Christian life and the gospel message, but the church was already firmly established by the time he became a convert.

Jesus also intend this message to go beyond Israel, since he told his disciples in Acts 1:8 to be witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Samaria was not a part of Israel, and Samaritans were hated by the Jews). "Ends of the earth" can be understood as all the world when compared to Jesus' statement in Matthew 28:19 when Jesus commanded that they "go and make disciples of all nations".

 

Jesus was a seen as a prophet by some, but he made it clear that he was not just a prophet.

He was the Messiah, or Christ in the Greek (multiple references throughout the gospels, especially Matthew)

Matthew 16:15-17 "But what about you?? [Jesus] asked. ?Who do you say I am??
Simon Peter answered, ?You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.?
Jesus replied, ?Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven."

He was the sacrificial Lamb of God...

John 1:29 "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, 'Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!'"

He was sent by God and had been with God before the creation of the world...

John 17:1-5 "After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: 'Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.'"

He was a member of the Trinity, equal in power and authority,

Matthew 28:19 "[Jesus commanded them] Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

He was king of a heavenly kingdom...

John 18:37-38, Jesus said, ?My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.?
?You are a king, then!? said Pilate.
Jesus answered, ?You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.?

 

If Jesus was God, he would have literally said, "I am Yahweh. Bow down and worship me for I am your God." But Jesus never said that. The above verses in the Gospel of John that you make reference to simply means Jesus spiritual nature. All men are capable of having this profound spiritual nature. All of the great avatars had a deep spiritual nature. Jesus was not the only one. Muhammad, Guatama Buddah, and many other sages. Jesus called this spirit Father, which would be Abba in Hebrew- a personal description that a man would identify as the Creator of all things. If Jesus was above anything human as Christian dogma claims, then he would not have been born or grew into an adult as nature dictates. Like I said in my above post, Jesus was nothing more than a prophet to Israel. Jesus was not conceived by any holy spirit. His father was Joseph the carpenter, who in fact was of the physical lineage of King David.

 

This is just flatly incorrect. Isis did not have a "virgin birth." She impregnated herself using her dead husband's semen. That's no more a virgin birth than someone who goes to a fertility clinic. The idea is completely different. Likewise, to compare a sun disc to halo bespeaks a deep ignorance of Egyptian theology. The latter is an expression of goodness, which is why not only Jesus and Mary, but a whole variety of saints and prophets also sport halos in Christian art. The former is a reflection of the fact that any number of Egyptian gods are in fact aspects of the major Egyptian sun gods.

Again, this is a stupid suggestion. The idea that someone "came back to life" is not at all what made Christianity unique. That had happened already in the Torah, besides in probably every other culture in existence. It is unique in attaching the importance it did to the death and resurrection of a specific individual, and giving that act repercussions for all of humanity within a specific ethical rubric.

Are you going to respond to any of these points about how wildly incorrect every single one of your points about Egypt has been?

 

The Christianity of today is Paulism, due to Paul's influence. Nothing of what Jesus taught in the Gospels are manifested in this bastard religion. Let's say Peter was the first before Paul? What difference does it make? Christianity as we know it today is 100% Paulism. There's a huge difference between Christianity and the teachings of Jesus.

 

I never said that Jesus wasn't the Messiah. I said that he's neither the son of God or God. That only leaves him as a prophet of God.