Religion in America

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

In the gospel of John, 8th chapter, 12th verse, Jesus makes an astounding declaration about himself: “I am the light of the world.” Who in their right mind would say that? How could a mere man make that claim? It makes me wonder if anyone else down through the annals of history has ever said that or anything similar.

Really?
There have been quite a few cult leaders as well as political leaders who've made similar grandiose statements...heck, whole lot of kings claimed divinity.

Which isn't to say that Jesus is simply such as they, but for that matter, we don't really know that he used those words or that they were translated accurately, we don't really even know for sure who wrote the Gospel of John.

I'm not arguing the veracity of the statement, I'm just saying that I don't see it as persuasive in and of itself. Certainly not unique.

I'll amend my comment/question and make it more specific: Has anyone ever said, "I am the light of the world" ?

Other mortals have claimed divinity but their lives proved anything but.

Jesus also claimed that his shed blood would forgive sins:

"And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.'" (Matt 26.27, 28)

Has anyone in history ever claimed that their death and shed blood would forgive sin?

Also--when you say "we" in reference to the Gospel of John and what "we" don't know--who are you referring to? Who are the "we"?

[PizzaSnake]

In the gospel of John, 8th chapter, 12th verse, Jesus makes an astounding declaration about himself: “I am the light of the world.” Who in their right mind would say that? How could a mere man make that claim? It makes me wonder if anyone else down through the annals of history has ever said that or anything similar.

Really?
There have been quite a few cult leaders as well as political leaders who've made similar grandiose statements...heck, whole lot of kings claimed divinity.

Which isn't to say that Jesus is simply such as they, but for that matter, we don't really know that he used those words or that they were translated accurately, we don't really even know for sure who wrote the Gospel of John.

I'm not arguing the veracity of the statement, I'm just saying that I don't see it as persuasive in and of itself. Certainly not unique.

I'll amend my comment/question and make it more specific: Has anyone ever said, "I am the light of the world" ?

Other mortals have claimed divinity but their lives proved anything but.

Jesus also claimed that his shed blood would forgive sins:

"And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.'" (Matt 26.27, 28)

Has anyone in history ever claimed that their death and shed blood would forgive sin?

Also--when you say "we" in reference to the Gospel of John and what "we" don't know--who are you referring to? Who are the "we"?

Jeebus was a Jew. Are you familiar with Yom Kippur? The sacrifice of Jesus, a god, would yield an atonement that was good for ever, obviating the need for the Temple and the Jewish priesthood. Politics, plain and simple.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur

[MDlaxfan76]

we don't really know that he (Jesus) used those words or that they were translated accurately, we don't really even know for sure who wrote the Gospel of John.

Are there any ancient historical documents/manuscripts you consider accurate? If so, which ones?

Define "accurate".

Do you mean the translation or that a specific manuscript has been accurately dated or that we know, without a shadow of a doubt, who the author was, or whether what the author 'reported' was an eye witness account...or whether even that such account was merely what the author perceived?

I just visited the Louvre. Pretty confident that the Hammurabi laws stone stele is 'accurately' dated to his era and very likely reflects the code at that time, as approved by him. Has it been 100% accurately translated? Probably pretty darn close, but then no one today is claiming these are the words of God himself, so any slight errors are not that crucial.

Problem with the Gospel of John is that we're pretty darn sure this a second hand account at best, so a direct quote from Jesus some 4 or more decades later, as then translated over the years from there, may or may not actually be what Jesus said...might be close, might not be...

Heck, we're not even 100% sure that all of Shakespeare's plays were written by a single fellow...

If we want to look at a higher likelihood of a religious document being what the prime figure in that religion intended, I'd suggest the Koran, in Arabic...written by Mohammad himself, not by others remembering what he may have said...on the other hand, Mohammad's claims that these are actually Allah's words and instructions may or may not be "accurate"...

By accurate I mean true, reliable, trustworthy. How do we know Christopher Columbus sailed the seas and what the names of his ships were? How do we know for certain sure that Alexander the Great existed? Can we trust the writings of Thucydides? Socrates? Plato? How can we tell if an ancient manuscript is reliably accurate?

I'd say that we have a spectrum of confidence in each case, based upon lots of reinforcing evidence in most of those instances...now, what Alexander the Great actually said after a particular battle, not so much...

My point about what you wrote about The Gospel of John being an exact quote as actually spoken by Jesus, and accurately recalled and translated, is that we have very little direct confirmatory evidence of those words, though we do have a number of reports, at least second or third hand, that appear to be roughly the same tale...but an exact quote? Nah...that's a much lower confidence. And we certainly don't know if the claim, as you implied, is "true" simply from the gospels...we can 'believe', have 'faith' in such, but that's the limit...which, at least IMO, is just fine. As I said, we, as followers, imbue these texts and tales with meaning based upon our choice to do so. We can't know for certainty, but we can choose to believe. Or not.

In the instance of Mohammad, we do have much greater confidence, based upon the evidence, that the words as written in Arabic actually were the work and words of a single prophet...how "true" they are beyond that is a matter of faith for Muslims. I, for one, don't think that the fact that we know that Mohammad wrote those words as repeatedly transcribed over the ages necessarily makes them more "true" than the Gospel of John, or vice versa. But they are indeed what Mohammad wrote, not someone else later (an aspect of the Gospel of John's recounting that makes it problematic). Nor does it make them more "trustworthy" other than as an "accurate" transcription of what Mohammad wrote. But I'm not Muslim, so I don't share that specific faith, while I do respect it.

[MDlaxfan76]

In the gospel of John, 8th chapter, 12th verse, Jesus makes an astounding declaration about himself: “I am the light of the world.” Who in their right mind would say that? How could a mere man make that claim? It makes me wonder if anyone else down through the annals of history has ever said that or anything similar.

Really?
There have been quite a few cult leaders as well as political leaders who've made similar grandiose statements...heck, whole lot of kings claimed divinity.

Which isn't to say that Jesus is simply such as they, but for that matter, we don't really know that he used those words or that they were translated accurately, we don't really even know for sure who wrote the Gospel of John.

I'm not arguing the veracity of the statement, I'm just saying that I don't see it as persuasive in and of itself. Certainly not unique.

I'll amend my comment/question and make it more specific: Has anyone ever said, "I am the light of the world" ?

Other mortals have claimed divinity but their lives proved anything but.

Jesus also claimed that his shed blood would forgive sins:

"And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.'" (Matt 26.27, 28)

Has anyone in history ever claimed that their death and shed blood would forgive sin?

Also--when you say "we" in reference to the Gospel of John and what "we" don't know--who are you referring to? Who are the "we"?

Jeebus was a Jew. Are you familiar with Yom Kippur? The sacrifice of Jesus, a god, would yield an atonement that was good for ever, obviating the need for the Temple and the Jewish priesthood. Politics, plain and simple.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur

Sound point.

ONW is obviously making an argument based on personal faith, which makes it quite personal and subjective.

And yes, ONW, other figures have claimed various levels of divinity throughout history. And have claimed all sorts of grandiose capacities.

While I, as a follower, consider the Jesus story to be especially compelling, I dunno that we necessarily know with sufficient certainty that his "life" was actually more holy than other claimants of divinity...I choose to believe so, but hey, that's my tradition and I find that the story resonates powerfully for me. On the other hand, it's also quite possible that Jesus, his life and death, his 'words', were not actually as later composed by those who wrote the story down. Other gospels purporting to tell the same story of Jesus had different takes, some of which contradicted those that ended up being adopted much later as holy scripture by men with decidedly political purposes in doing so.

By "we", I mean historians and those who are looking at the facts, best they can, not from a position of faith, but rather based on evidence. And that "we" is pretty darn sure, based on evidence, that the Gospel of John is a second hand account at best. Not eyewitness, though the story as told to those who ultimately wrote it down, amended it, etc, may well have been from an original eyewitness. But 4 decades of 'telephone tag' and the writing is bound to include the perspective of the writers, not simply 100% accuracy.

That said, I totally respect your beliefs, and, if you are true to them, all the better.

[DocBarrister]

In the gospel of John, 8th chapter, 12th verse, Jesus makes an astounding declaration about himself: “I am the light of the world.” Who in their right mind would say that? How could a mere man make that claim? It makes me wonder if anyone else down through the annals of history has ever said that or anything similar.

Really?
There have been quite a few cult leaders as well as political leaders who've made similar grandiose statements...heck, whole lot of kings claimed divinity.

Which isn't to say that Jesus is simply such as they, but for that matter, we don't really know that he used those words or that they were translated accurately, we don't really even know for sure who wrote the Gospel of John.

I'm not arguing the veracity of the statement, I'm just saying that I don't see it as persuasive in and of itself. Certainly not unique.

I'll amend my comment/question and make it more specific: Has anyone ever said, "I am the light of the world" ?

Other mortals have claimed divinity but their lives proved anything but.

Jesus also claimed that his shed blood would forgive sins:

"And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.'" (Matt 26.27, 28)

Has anyone in history ever claimed that their death and shed blood would forgive sin?

Also--when you say "we" in reference to the Gospel of John and what "we" don't know--who are you referring to? Who are the "we"?

Jeebus was a Jew. Are you familiar with Yom Kippur? The sacrifice of Jesus, a god, would yield an atonement that was good for ever, obviating the need for the Temple and the Jewish priesthood. Politics, plain and simple.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur

Sound point.

ONW is obviously making an argument based on personal faith, which makes it quite personal and subjective.

And yes, ONW, other figures have claimed various levels of divinity throughout history. And have claimed all sorts of grandiose capacities.

While I, as a follower, consider the Jesus story to be especially compelling, I dunno that we necessarily know with sufficient certainty that his "life" was actually more holy than other claimants of divinity...I choose to believe so, but hey, that's my tradition and I find that the story resonates powerfully for me. On the other hand, it's also quite possible that Jesus, his life and death, his 'words', were not actually as later composed by those who wrote the story down. Other gospels purporting to tell the same story of Jesus had different takes, some of which contradicted those that ended up being adopted much later as holy scripture by men with decidedly political purposes in doing so.

By "we", I mean historians and those who are looking at the facts, best they can, not from a position of faith, but rather based on evidence. And that "we" is pretty darn sure, based on evidence, that the Gospel of John is a second hand account at best. Not eyewitness, though the story as told to those who ultimately wrote it down, amended it, etc, may well have been from an original eyewitness. But 4 decades of 'telephone tag' and the writing is bound to include the perspective of the writers, not simply 100% accuracy.

That said, I totally respect your beliefs, and, if you are true to them, all the better.

As a matter of faith, the faithful may believe what they want.

However, for those who insist that Jesus actually existed, the evidence is sparse to nonexistent.

So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... t-hold-up/

DocBarrister

[MDlaxfan76]

In the gospel of John, 8th chapter, 12th verse, Jesus makes an astounding declaration about himself: “I am the light of the world.” Who in their right mind would say that? How could a mere man make that claim? It makes me wonder if anyone else down through the annals of history has ever said that or anything similar.

Really?
There have been quite a few cult leaders as well as political leaders who've made similar grandiose statements...heck, whole lot of kings claimed divinity.

Which isn't to say that Jesus is simply such as they, but for that matter, we don't really know that he used those words or that they were translated accurately, we don't really even know for sure who wrote the Gospel of John.

I'm not arguing the veracity of the statement, I'm just saying that I don't see it as persuasive in and of itself. Certainly not unique.

I'll amend my comment/question and make it more specific: Has anyone ever said, "I am the light of the world" ?

Other mortals have claimed divinity but their lives proved anything but.

Jesus also claimed that his shed blood would forgive sins:

"And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.'" (Matt 26.27, 28)

Has anyone in history ever claimed that their death and shed blood would forgive sin?

Also--when you say "we" in reference to the Gospel of John and what "we" don't know--who are you referring to? Who are the "we"?

Jeebus was a Jew. Are you familiar with Yom Kippur? The sacrifice of Jesus, a god, would yield an atonement that was good for ever, obviating the need for the Temple and the Jewish priesthood. Politics, plain and simple.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur

Sound point.

ONW is obviously making an argument based on personal faith, which makes it quite personal and subjective.

And yes, ONW, other figures have claimed various levels of divinity throughout history. And have claimed all sorts of grandiose capacities.

While I, as a follower, consider the Jesus story to be especially compelling, I dunno that we necessarily know with sufficient certainty that his "life" was actually more holy than other claimants of divinity...I choose to believe so, but hey, that's my tradition and I find that the story resonates powerfully for me. On the other hand, it's also quite possible that Jesus, his life and death, his 'words', were not actually as later composed by those who wrote the story down. Other gospels purporting to tell the same story of Jesus had different takes, some of which contradicted those that ended up being adopted much later as holy scripture by men with decidedly political purposes in doing so.

By "we", I mean historians and those who are looking at the facts, best they can, not from a position of faith, but rather based on evidence. And that "we" is pretty darn sure, based on evidence, that the Gospel of John is a second hand account at best. Not eyewitness, though the story as told to those who ultimately wrote it down, amended it, etc, may well have been from an original eyewitness. But 4 decades of 'telephone tag' and the writing is bound to include the perspective of the writers, not simply 100% accuracy.

That said, I totally respect your beliefs, and, if you are true to them, all the better.

As a matter of faith, the faithful may believe what they want.

However, for those who insist that Jesus actually existed, the evidence is sparse to nonexistent.

So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... t-hold-up/

DocBarrister

well, I'd suggest that it would take one heck of a wide conspiracy to make it all up out of whole cloth, no prophet named Jesus at all...

Much easier to believe that the 'story' as told is not 100% historically accurate, based on all sorts of reasons to ultimately tell the evolved tale as they did. But to say that his "historical existence" eg as a prophet put to death, is 'outright improbable' does not sound reasonable given the many sources claiming otherwise.

[DocBarrister]

In the gospel of John, 8th chapter, 12th verse, Jesus makes an astounding declaration about himself: “I am the light of the world.” Who in their right mind would say that? How could a mere man make that claim? It makes me wonder if anyone else down through the annals of history has ever said that or anything similar.

Really?
There have been quite a few cult leaders as well as political leaders who've made similar grandiose statements...heck, whole lot of kings claimed divinity.

Which isn't to say that Jesus is simply such as they, but for that matter, we don't really know that he used those words or that they were translated accurately, we don't really even know for sure who wrote the Gospel of John.

I'm not arguing the veracity of the statement, I'm just saying that I don't see it as persuasive in and of itself. Certainly not unique.

I'll amend my comment/question and make it more specific: Has anyone ever said, "I am the light of the world" ?

Other mortals have claimed divinity but their lives proved anything but.

Jesus also claimed that his shed blood would forgive sins:

"And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.'" (Matt 26.27, 28)

Has anyone in history ever claimed that their death and shed blood would forgive sin?

Also--when you say "we" in reference to the Gospel of John and what "we" don't know--who are you referring to? Who are the "we"?

Jeebus was a Jew. Are you familiar with Yom Kippur? The sacrifice of Jesus, a god, would yield an atonement that was good for ever, obviating the need for the Temple and the Jewish priesthood. Politics, plain and simple.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur

Sound point.

ONW is obviously making an argument based on personal faith, which makes it quite personal and subjective.

And yes, ONW, other figures have claimed various levels of divinity throughout history. And have claimed all sorts of grandiose capacities.

While I, as a follower, consider the Jesus story to be especially compelling, I dunno that we necessarily know with sufficient certainty that his "life" was actually more holy than other claimants of divinity...I choose to believe so, but hey, that's my tradition and I find that the story resonates powerfully for me. On the other hand, it's also quite possible that Jesus, his life and death, his 'words', were not actually as later composed by those who wrote the story down. Other gospels purporting to tell the same story of Jesus had different takes, some of which contradicted those that ended up being adopted much later as holy scripture by men with decidedly political purposes in doing so.

By "we", I mean historians and those who are looking at the facts, best they can, not from a position of faith, but rather based on evidence. And that "we" is pretty darn sure, based on evidence, that the Gospel of John is a second hand account at best. Not eyewitness, though the story as told to those who ultimately wrote it down, amended it, etc, may well have been from an original eyewitness. But 4 decades of 'telephone tag' and the writing is bound to include the perspective of the writers, not simply 100% accuracy.

That said, I totally respect your beliefs, and, if you are true to them, all the better.

As a matter of faith, the faithful may believe what they want.

However, for those who insist that Jesus actually existed, the evidence is sparse to nonexistent.

So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... t-hold-up/

DocBarrister

well, I'd suggest that it would take one heck of a wide conspiracy to make it all up out of whole cloth, no prophet named Jesus at all...

Much easier to believe that the 'story' as told is not 100% historically accurate, based on all sorts of reasons to ultimately tell the evolved tale as they did. But to say that his "historical existence" eg as a prophet put to death, is 'outright improbable' does not sound reasonable given the many sources claiming otherwise.

Well, not saying he didn’t exist … just that the evidence is sparse to nonexistent.

By comparison, the evidence of the historical existence of Pontius Pilate, while minimal, is far more solid than for Jesus.

DocBarrister

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

If we want to look at a higher likelihood of a religious document being what the prime figure in that religion intended, I'd suggest the Koran, in Arabic...written by Mohammad himself, not by others remembering what he may have said...on the other hand, Mohammad's claims that these are actually Allah's words and instructions may or may not be "accurate"...

I have far less confidence in the Qur’an being historically accurate. One glaring error is the denial of Christ’s crucifixion.

“They killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them … for of a surety they killed him not.” Sura 4:157

Jesus told his disciples multiple times that he was going to be killed (Matthew 16.21; Mark 8.31, 9.31; Luke 9.22) but that it was necessary to accomplish the redemption that was prophesied many times in the Old Testament (Luke 24.44-47).

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

If we want to look at a higher likelihood of a religious document being what the prime figure in that religion intended, I'd suggest the Koran, in Arabic...written by Mohammad himself, not by others remembering what he may have said...on the other hand, Mohammad's claims that these are actually Allah's words and instructions may or may not be "accurate"...

I have far less confidence in the Qur’an being historically accurate. One glaring error is the denial of Christ’s crucifixion.

“They killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them … for of a surety they killed him not.” Sura 4:157

Jesus told his disciples multiple times that he was going to be killed (Matthew 16.21; Mark 8.31, 9.31; Luke 9.22) but that it was necessary to accomplish the redemption that was prophesied many times in the Old Testament (Luke 24.44-47).

I would also add that Mohammad is a poor example due to the despicable treatment of women that he espoused. Jesus was a friend to women who were despised in his day. He lifted them up and called attention to them, whereas Mohammad taught subjugation and relegation to 2nd class citizens. Jesus had mercy on the woman caught in adultery where Mohammad ordered a woman who confessed to her sin to be executed after she weaned her illegitimate child.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I am working through some other responses to some other inquiries/questions posed. A lot to get to around work and other responsibilities but I will try to respond as time goes along.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I wanted to include the beautiful story of how Jesus dealt with the woman caught in adultery here. I quote the King James version as I find the wording touching in the old English:

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Gospel of John, 8th chapter, verses 1-11

[MDlaxfan76]

ONW, I'm not asking you to believe something you don't.

Nor am I suggesting that you should consider the Koran/Quran (whatever spelling is used) to be "historically accurate" in the sense of an exact recount of history. As in your example, like whoever wrote the gospel of John, Mohammad wasn't there. Whether Jesus was indeed crucified as the gospels recount, or not, is unknowable.

Muslims are called to believe that Mohammad's words are as Allah instructed, Christians are called to believe Jesus was crucified and resurrected.

We don't believe the same things in this respect, obviously.

But we have no way, other than our own chosen beliefs, to know which is more likely to be "accurate" or "true".

We do have greater confidence that the Koran actually was written by Mohammad and that the words he used have been passed down "accurately" (at least in the original language). We don't have that sort of confidence about who wrote much of the New Testament, much less the Old.

I would also caution that much of the text in each should be read as poetic and/or in historical context. The exact meaning of these texts is avidly debated by scholars and by religious leaders over the centuries. There simply isn't a single answer that we can know is correct.

And I'd also caution that the texts themselves have all sorts of contradictions and that selecting just one or two pieces of text to support a point, particularly in our own context, and ignoring the rest, is fraught with bias and very likely not the 'whole story'.

I'm also not going to debate the relative pluses and minuses of the teachings of Jesus or Mohammad, much less debate particular text.

It's clear that these texts and the teachings of these two men, as adopted by other men, have done both great good and great evil throughout history.

What I will also 'testify' to is that there are many people in each faith tradition who have chosen to find positive inspiration for good. Others have, IMO, misused these text and teaching to do evil. Both faiths.

The latter is often characterized by an exclusive approach to seeking salvation, an impulse to power, that is easily perverted (IMO) inconsistent with what I believe is the best from Jesus' teaching, my own faith tradition.

To me, such exclusive claim is a "tell", a warning sign.
Not in and of itself dispositive, but a warning.

[MDlaxfan76]

I wanted to include the beautiful story of how Jesus dealt with the woman caught in adultery here. I quote the King James version as I find the wording touching in the old English:

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Gospel of John, 8th chapter, verses 1-11

I, too, appreciate that story.
Would that all Christians take heed of it.

[MDlaxfan76]

If we want to look at a higher likelihood of a religious document being what the prime figure in that religion intended, I'd suggest the Koran, in Arabic...written by Mohammad himself, not by others remembering what he may have said...on the other hand, Mohammad's claims that these are actually Allah's words and instructions may or may not be "accurate"...

I have far less confidence in the Qur’an being historically accurate. One glaring error is the denial of Christ’s crucifixion.

“They killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them … for of a surety they killed him not.” Sura 4:157

Jesus told his disciples multiple times that he was going to be killed (Matthew 16.21; Mark 8.31, 9.31; Luke 9.22) but that it was necessary to accomplish the redemption that was prophesied many times in the Old Testament (Luke 24.44-47).

I would also add that Mohammad is a poor example due to the despicable treatment of women that he espoused. Jesus was a friend to women who were despised in his day. He lifted them up and called attention to them, whereas Mohammad taught subjugation and relegation to 2nd class citizens. Jesus had mercy on the woman caught in adultery where Mohammad ordered a woman who confessed to her sin to be executed after she weaned her illegitimate child.

As I warned, interpretation of these texts and teachings is not so simple. But it makes a huge difference how subsequent generations have done so, often for good, too often for evil as well.

https://muslim.sg/articles/4-beautiful- ... ured-women

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/muhammad ... b_12638112

http://inspiredbymuhammad.com/womens_rights.php

[Seacoaster(1)]

This passes as religion in America. Praying to Jesus to defeat the left?

https://mobile.twitter.com/misstessowen ... Oy7JYrAAAA

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

The meaning of the words and the context have to be correctly understood. Also, Hebrew and greek have concepts that are not equivalent and for which there is no neat package to move from one to a other. Jesus taught as a Jew. The NT gospels were written long after his resurrection at a different time.

I agree—context is critical. In the eighth chapter of John where this statement was made by Jesus—I am the light of the world—he was addressing a group of people in the temple (verse 2).

Early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him; and he sat down, and taught them.

In context—His full statement in the twelfth verse:

I am the light of the world: he who follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

At that point, the Pharisees, the religious leaders of the day, called Jesus out on this statement (verse 13). They had a good idea what he was saying as they knew the sacred writings of the Old Testament. As the point/counter point discussion continues to the end of the chapter, it was clear Jesus was claiming to be the eternal God in verse 58. Not a god—The One True God.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

In the partial genealogy showing the line of Christ from Abraham in the first chapter and 17th verse of Matthew’s gospel, 42 generations separated Jesus from Abraham, which is well over 1000 years previous. The Pharisees understood what Jesus was claiming with their response in verse 59 where they took up stones to kill him. Jesus used the same name that God gave to Moses--I AM. As the Pharisees knew from the Torah (the law of the Old Testament) there were only a handful of reasons to execute a person within the clear guidelines of the law, and blasphemy was one of them. Jesus’s claim to have existed before Abraham, making himself God, was a blasphemous statement for a man to make. Blasphemous that is, unless it was true.

As far as the languages go, Hebrew, (which the Old Testament was written in), and Greek, (which the New Testament was written in) are still written and spoken today—living languages, if you will. It’s logical to conclude that we can know of a certainty what the words in Hebrew and Greek mean today. Jesus often spoke of basic aspects of life and work which are common in any culture at any time like farming and wildlife, etc.

The gospels weren’t written that long after Jesus’s death and resurrection. According to at least two eminent archeologists (William Albright, Sir William Ramsay) all four gospels were written in the first century, mere decades after Christ walked the earth.

[Farfromgeneva]

I learned about christianity from this!

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0120655/

[OCanada]

Outta

Hebrew is generally considered to have four stages of development.

1 Biblical or Classical Hebrew until around 3rd century B.C., when most of the Old Testament was written
2 Mishanite Hebrew, the language of Mishna consisting of literature of Jewish traditions written about A.D.200 This form of Hebrew was never a spoken language among people.
3 Medieval Hebrew from about the 6th century A.D. to 13th century A.D.
4 Modern Hebrew, the language of Israel in modern times.

They have significant variations. Link is simply one of many possible

https://zinglanguages.com/hebrew-language-evolution/

Assuming Jesus died in 33 CE. A century or so passed before the first gospel. In today’s terms not that long in those times an eternity. There was no printing press nor books or pamphlets. His teachings were not recorded or transcribed. There were transmitted orally with all that can mean for error. Originals were copied by hand and over time various scribes added their own “ edits” or corrections to what they received. Add to that the dejudaization the Church performed over the first three centuries or so.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Jesus was a Jew. Are you familiar with Yom Kippur? The sacrifice of Jesus, God the Son, would yield an atonement that was good for ever, obviating the need for the Temple and the Jewish priesthood.

With a couple of changes to what you wrote above, yes--I agree. I am familiar with Yom Kippur. And I agree--the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross did away with the need for the temple, the priesthood and all sacrifices for sin. That is correct.

It is addressed in the New Testament multiple times. Here is one such time where the author goes into greater detail:

Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place. Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant; and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat.

Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle performing the divine worship, but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Letter to the Hebrews, selected passages from the 9th chapter

Politics, plain and simple.

I'm not sure what politics has to do with it. If you could explain your thinking here I will be able to better understand where you're coming from.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I'd say that we have a spectrum of confidence in each case, based upon lots of reinforcing evidence in most of those instances...now, what Alexander the Great actually said after a particular battle, not so much...

My point about what you wrote about The Gospel of John being an exact quote as actually spoken by Jesus, and accurately recalled and translated, is that we have very little direct confirmatory evidence of those words, though we do have a number of reports, at least second or third hand, that appear to be roughly the same tale...but an exact quote? Nah...that's a much lower confidence. And we certainly don't know if the claim, as you implied, is "true" simply from the gospels...we can 'believe', have 'faith' in such, but that's the limit...which, at least IMO, is just fine. As I said, we, as followers, imbue these texts and tales with meaning based upon our choice to do so. We can't know for certainty, but we can choose to believe. Or not.

In the instance of Mohammad, we do have much greater confidence, based upon the evidence, that the words as written in Arabic actually were the work and words of a single prophet...how "true" they are beyond that is a matter of faith for Muslims. I, for one, don't think that the fact that we know that Mohammad wrote those words as repeatedly transcribed over the ages necessarily makes them more "true" than the Gospel of John, or vice versa. But they are indeed what Mohammad wrote, not someone else later (an aspect of the Gospel of John's recounting that makes it problematic). Nor does it make them more "trustworthy" other than as an "accurate" transcription of what Mohammad wrote. But I'm not Muslim, so I don't share that specific faith, while I do respect it.

Would it be fair to conclude from what you say here that you believe there is no absolute truth in the Universe? That whatever any individual believes is true? If so, may I ask what you believe will happen to you when you die, for instance? And if you have a definite belief and hope in that regard, what do you base it on?

I also have another question. What are the tests that you apply to any ancient historical document (or any piece of ancient literature, for that matter) to determine if it is accurate or reliable? Is there an established criteria that you apply? If so, what is it?

(I have more to respond to in what you've written here but I don't want to get ahead of myself. I'm slowly working my way through the questions and statements of not only yourself but others who have weighed in, as well.)