Daily reminder that most objective scholars agree Christ was closer to a Muslim than a "Christian" (people who believe...

Daily reminder that most objective scholars agree Christ was closer to a Muslim than a "Christian" (people who believe Christ created the universe). Using objective scholarship, Islam is truer to what Christ taught than Christianity is.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=E9RmAo6XVAA
youtube.com/watch?v=qHCeYSvazY4
youtube.com/watch?v=5RFK5u5lkhA
youtube.com/watch?v=QyQt1bCnDm4
biblehub.com/leviticus/26-1.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay–Rheims_Bible
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Reza Aslan isn't a scholar. He's a creative writing teacher. He has no business writing about history, he isn't a historian.

question: where does the giant cube factor into christ's ministry?

Right because one's current profession means that a person is barred from doing anything else regardless of their entire background. By that fucking logic Eisenhower had no right to be president because he had no previous political office and spent most of his career in the military.

are you suggesting that a person's experience and work quality are unrelated?

He's just presenting academic consensis in an accessible way.

>consensis

So... you believe everything in Leviticus should be applied to your life literally, or only the convenient parts?

>abrahamite shitposting
Sorry, fampai! The dharmic and taotic religions will probably fare better efter first proof of extra terrestial intelligent life. Not that it's a high probability in the near future. But why bet on the wrong horse?

"""academic consensus"""

>Reza Aslan
>most objective scholars
My dear turkposter...
youtube.com/watch?v=E9RmAo6XVAA

Jesus taught us that תוֹרָה and נביאיםis encapsulated by:

>‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

Really? cause most scholars I know think that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher. Comparing him to Islam is absurd.

There are English professors who have written decent history books, but you have to be skeptical of them

It's a totally different situation. Reza Aslan has no training in historiography or understanding of the historical method and isn't familiar with the academic consensus on the topic.

"Jewish apocalyptic preacher" is a lot closer to Islam than Christianity.

How?

Judaism and Islam have way more in common than either does with Christianity. They're both very legalistic religions that have things like dietary code, and both would see the idea of Jesus being God as blasphemous.

And that's not even touching on the Trinity

>Pacman
The nose knows.

In short, Reza's a commercial sensationalist trying to cash in on controversy but the people most involved in discrediting him are Palestinian hating Shlomos and Ameritards still butt flustered over their self done 9/11.

You forgot to mention that the author isn't a historian, but a mere writer.Also, if Jesus was more Muslim than Christian, then he would've married a child, beat her because she is "disobedient", promote the concept of "Holy war" to exponentially increase the number of his supporters and followers.

>Implying Jews aren't instructed to stone their children for being disobedient.

>Christ was closer to a Muslim than a "Christian"

But Jesus didn't rape the woman at the well.

True, but my point still stands.

jesus was like mohammed?

I wanna fuck that remarkable stone.

wtf. Did you even read the book? If anything Aslan argues he was more connected to John the Baptist and followed an anti-roman/anti-occupation/anti-temple priest fervor.

Furthermore, he argues he had more in common with his brother James and what would eventually be the mother assembly.

There is 7 centuries between Islam and Jewish-Christianity. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about OP, and I doubt you even read the book.

He has a BA and and MA on religious studies/theology. His PhD was in sociology, but it was about Islamic extremism. He does have valid credentials as a religions studies scholar.

>He has a BA and and MA on religious studies/theology.

Religious Studies is not Theology.
Religious Studies is the secular study of Religion; Theology is not.

His BA is in religious studies, and he got an MA in theology. That's extremely common for religious studies scholars who study Abrahamic religions; pretty much every religion professor I've had had those credentials. The main difference is that his PhD wasn't in that field, but his thesis was related to religion.

He has valid credentials, if you don't think he does, you probably haven't spend a lot of time around actual religion scholars. Whether or not you like his conclusion doesn't change the validity of his background.

Reza Aslan is most likely not even Muslim. He's secretly a Ba'hai but lies about being Muslim to avoid persecution. I have potential evidence for this claim.

that version doesnt exist

heres a king james:

You shall make no idols nor graven images, neither raise you up a standing image, neither shall you set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.

all you see in church are statues of "jesus" made from stone, saw some pillars too,

so yeah Christianity please fix yourself

...

Jesus Christ, God, believes that satan is God.

kek

Catholicism, and it cannot fix itself.

He's in the basket of deplorable writers like Dan Brown, Bart Ehrman and Richard Dawkins who do nothing but self-promote by hacking at Christianity.

I never said I doubt his credentials. I simply said there is a difference between Religious Studies and Theology.

Christianity has been severely misshapen by Western Egotism and Materialism.

>They're both very legalistic religions that have things like dietary code
Which Jesus discarded.

Islamic scholars are not scholars.

Islam is antithetic to Christ and Christianity.

Nobody believes Christ created the universe.
Those are not to be bowed-down to, they exist to keep Him in mind.

Also, Muslims pray to a literal giant cube.

yes, but the difference is he is qt best hack 10/10 and shares a name with the talking lion from Narnia

why are most christian denominations trinitarians? I can't find any good evidence in the Bible that Jesus is God and that God is a trinity, but on the other hand, I can find a lot of evidence that the Lord God of Israel is God alone (and not a trinity), and Jesus is his son and first creation.

John 20:28

Hebrews 1

John 1:1-3 ("was" is a translation of the Greek which uses a tense for both past and present,sort of like "The Word be with God, and the Word be God")

>In the beginning be the Word, and the Word be with God, and the Word be God.

Also see Proverbs 8 and 9, which talks about the Wisdom of God, which is considered synonymous with the Word of God (only difference is Wisdom is a feminine word in Hebrew and Greek, whereas "Word" is masculine in both languages).

To be precise, "Jewish apocalyptic preacher" is a lot closer to what Muhammad and Jesus were originally all about than what both Islam and Christianity later became. Both men were concerned about social and moral reform on the eve of the end times.

How was Muhammad Jewish or apocalyptic?

>Did you even read the book?
Where do you think we are?

Literally a meme. Even Islamists want to destroy it. But Saudis keep it around for obvious reasons.

He was a leader among an Arabian religious movement that was heavily inspired by Judaism and Christianity, and preached to all three to join in a brotherhood to right the wrongs of society, purge it of things the Abrahamic God disapproved of, all to await the approaching end of the world.

Like Jesus, once this failed to happen, other aspects of his life and message were elaborated upon while Judgment Day got delayed over and over.

How is Islam unlike what Mohammed preached?

Perhaps, but Judaism is even closer.

Not that queer, but he certainly tried to pass himself off as a Jewish prophet, and only turned on the Jews when they tested his claims and found them without merit.

"Judaism", today, refers to Pharisaic Judaism (except for the Karaites, but Jesus certainly wasn't like them, Sadducees would be closer to that), so no, not really.

really, it doesn't make any sense that God would be trinity, if you've read the old testament.

1 corinthians 8:6 claims that there is but one God. also, if Jesus is God, then wouldn't he be lying in matthew 24:36? surely then he must have known the moment himself also.

Because it's a faith whose theology was influenced by the existing religions, cultures, and of course politics of Mesopotamia during the course of the first two or three centuries.

Islam as we know it is a religion mostly compiled and conceived of by 9th century Persian and Arab Iraqis than 7th century Meccans and Medinans - if that's where Muhammad actually lived and preached to begin with.

The Trinity has one will and action, hence one God. Each person just performs different functions of that action (not really incongruent with Isaiah 55:11), the functions being the from, by and in.

So you don't think Mohammed practiced anything like Islam?

No more than Jesus practiced Catholicism or Mormonism.

Okay. So? It's still closer to what he would have believed. If you actually wanted to follow in Jesus' footsteps, it wouldn't be hard to reconstruct 1st century Judaism, all the texts have been preserved, you'd just have to throw out the rabbinical tradition (which would be ironic since Jesus was a rabbi, but you're the one who claimed modern Judaism is nothing like the Judaism of Jesus time)

How do you think his practice different from Islam?

Rabbi just means "master".

see

Doesn't really answer my question

I'm not sure what to make out of your argument, since I cannot see any evidence for the existence of a trinity, but rather it being an ideology that was decided by councils of clergymen centuries after Christ. most denominations seem to have an explanation for the trinity like
>DUDE IT'S A MYSTERY LMAO

You don't think the Old Testament makes a distinction between the Spirit of God and God as someone who the Spirit of is of? You don't think Proverbs 8 makes a distinction of the Wisdom of God as a distinct subsistence?

Have you done that perfectly in your life?

No?

So, still a lawbreaking sinner?

I don't think the Spirit of God is a separate person

I'm sorry you're unsatisfied, but regardless that's my answer to your question. What Muhammad preached was a purge of what he saw as the influence of polytheism among Arab Jews, Christians, and Abrahamics in order to form a religious fraternity that would await Judgment Day.

So you don't see Psalm 104:30 as distinguishing the Spirit?

And that religious fraternity is Islam

He has degrees in theology of some description.

No. That's what it became after his death, and on decidedly different terms than a religious movement not overly concerned with arguing theology beyond the concept of absolute monotheism and inclusive of both Jews, Christians, and Jewish-Christians in Arabia.

Islam really isn't concerned with arguing theology, other than saying God is not a Trinity. Al-Ghazali is famous precisely for knocking down extensive Islam "theology". Islam is more concerned with behaving as Mohammed taught.

The Trinity is a clear pagan innovation.

>You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the ground.

There's no definite theological answer, but there is theological application that the Spirit sends itself and what we make it after that is what's important not so much how we define it

Agree that Catholics and Muslims share identical fates in the afterlife.

How so? It's attested to clearly in both the OT and the NT

that's hardly evidence that the Spirit is a person

Is the Spirit God, or some other subsistence? If the Spirit is God, then he is clearly a distinct subsistence from the subsistence sending him (God the Father)

False. All it says is that God is at the very least 3 parts. God has many abilities, and to limit Him by defining Him is not as good as expediting Him for ourself.

It's evidence that the Spirit is a hypostasis distinct from the hypostasis sending him.

>three parts
No, three subsistences. God has no "parts", he is incorporeal, indivisible, and infinite.

The part about behaving as Muhammad aught IS Islam's theology. Many make the same mistake in thinking Islamic jurisprudence is simple legalism when it is heavily based on theological principles concerning prophethood, divine authority, abrogation, and sinfulness. And all of that is fairly absent in the very earliest sources about him. Al-Ghazali being a late scholarly figure has almost no bearing here besides showing that extensive debates on theology did in fact exist centuries after Muhammad, despite Islam's supposed lack of concern about it. And it would continue long after Al-Ghazali, precisely because other theologians were dismissive of his attempts to smooth over these subjects with Greek tools of logic.

God is God alone, and not part of some pagan piece of puzzle, where Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of God.

Daily reminder that historical Jesus is a ridiculous consensus born from the fact that most historians who study that era have religious bias.
Daily reminder that lack of objectivity like this is why STEM people bully the social sciences.

youtube.com/watch?v=qHCeYSvazY4
youtube.com/watch?v=5RFK5u5lkhA
youtube.com/watch?v=QyQt1bCnDm4

God is infinate. For me to say parts is for you to say "subsistences". The parts are different actions of God acting through Himself.

God is God alone, but to rule it out with personal bias is not the key to understand the Trinity. God is still God alone through the Trinity.

No if. Just focus on God. The best person to understand the Trinity is a person by themselves with God. If you are Muslim and don't believe in the Trinity, that is okay. God is still effective as ever, even if people on earth argue about His power over the internet.

piss off OP you disgusting jew

Richard Dawkins is great at biology and fucking terrible at theology. He is advertised as otherwise and helped inspire a generation of the most biblically illiterate and overly pompous athiestic parrot-like "evangelists" who in turn did more damage to the athiest brand than the fucking soviets. There are reasons why you write within your field and be very cautious otherwise.

there isn't, though

>most objective scholars agree
[scholarly citation needed]

Well that, and David Hume already did all the work for him

this is perhaps the worst b8 ive ever seen on this board, and that's saying something
kill yourself/10

>Nobody believes Christ created the universe.
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him
Colossians 1:16

>Pneumamachi heretics
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:2
How can a power, force or emanation move or 'be upon' something?

It is the Douay-Rheims Bible

biblehub.com/leviticus/26-1.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay–Rheims_Bible

>Babylonianism
absolutely disgusting
The King James Bible is the inerrant word of God

fundie pls

Atheist pls

Yes there is, I have a degree in both.
Do you need me to explain the difference? Or are you just going to troll me?