Religious, or religion... that's the question

[keepin_it_real]

first of all,thanks for being so rude and disrespectful. I am a GIRL!!! yeah!
Second why should having proper grammer and junk matter! If i spell it u and u spell it you,doesn't matter samething! PLus ya'll r messed up for doubting the bible. I'm out of this discussion,nuttin can be debated reationally in here. Ya'll take a chill pill ad relax the world ain't ended bcuz u can't Win! NO,i don't want any advice on spelling didn't ask u anyways. :Angry: Sorry ur not familiar with chat talk.

[Unknown_K]

Thats the school system for you.

[GAMER]

Hahahahaha!!! She reminds me of me! Before I became so evidently cool. <---- Me. As for this discussion goes : I like to think there is a reason for us all to be here. I don't like to question why we are, but accept that we are. My theory about dinosaurs and the Adam + Eve story : Dinosaurs were never alive, they were created by god as fossils. I don't like thinking about religion, it makes my head hurt.

GAMER

[Dogbreath]

@Unknown K

God help us all...

keepin_it_real:

i am vry femilyar w1th chat speek. In fact, I'm forced to read it all too often. Writing improperly for the sake of brevity may be acceptable on instant messenger programs, but is certainty inexcusable on a message board where you have plenty of time to compose your ideas.

That doesn't mean you'll be viciously attacked for misspelling a word or two, or forgetting a comma. People won't necessarily consider your opinion worthless because of the way you type, but writing your ideas properly will have a definite impact on the way they affect others. And it's always considered courteous to write in an intelligible manner. 1|= 1 \/\/4|\|73c| 70 1 {0|_|[_|} \/\/|2173 1|\| 1337533|< 4|_|_ |}4y, but I don't.

[AngryDwarf]

I'm a devout athiest.
I feel that all religions with the exeption of the ones void of dieties can be disproved with logic and science.

Right on!

[Amro]

wow wow wow, hold on there science guys... I have read a lot about science, and from what I read, the 'big bang' is impossible because of newton's first law... And even if there was a 'big bang' what caused it? What led to the events that caused it? What let to what led to the events that caused it? you'll eventually hit a wall.

oh and most people here seem to be christian... well, how can you call christianity 'monotheism' if you consider Jesus to be divine? think... Jesus isn't no more god's son than adam. Just his creation, and a prophet.

oh, and I think emmzee mentioned that the new testament is more reliable... Actually, even though I'm not a christian, I believe the new testament isn't too reliable because it was written AFTER jesus's so-called 'death'. (PLEASE correct me if im wrong, im not sure)

well i could write a book on the subject but I g2g... maybe later

[Dopefish]

Yeah the big bang theory leaves a lot to be desired IMO.
Basically a mass of matter and a mass of anti-mater were flying around, colided, and BANG. I want to know how the matter and anti-matter were formed.

I don't think the belief of God creating the universe is more plausable though. It doesn't explain what God was doing before the universe was created, how long God was around before he made Earth, etc. The big bang is at lease based on a possibility.

[emmzee]

And even if there was a 'big bang' what caused it? What led to the events that caused it? What let to what led to the events that caused it? you'll eventually hit a wall.

I agree with you, nothing in our natural world could have caused the "big bang", so if the big bang theory is correct we would have to look to something outside of our natural, observable world ... an uncaused first "cause" to the universe. I think you see where I'm headed here One of the topics of the recent book "Case for a Creator" is how if the the "big bang" theory is true, then it is powerful evidence for Gods existence. But yeah I'm sure that in 50 years there will be a new scientific theory to replace the big bang

oh and most people here seem to be christian... well, how can you call christianity 'monotheism' if you consider Jesus to be divine? think... Jesus isn't no more god's son than adam. Just his creation, and a prophet.

Huge books, and lively discussions have been written on this very topic. Its obvious to me that:
- Christians are monotheists
- Jesus claimed and demonstrated to be God (at least, if the Bible is accurate He did)

One problem people get into when discussing God is anthropomorphism ... ie, we often use human analogies to describe God's nature, but these analogies are merely shadows of the truth. For if God exists, he is infinitely beyond our comprehension. That doesn't mean we cannot comprehend God at all, its just that our understanding will necessarily be limited. I see no reason why we should limit God to showing himself to us in only one way; Christians believe one God has revealed himself to us in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All are fully God ... after all, if God exists, he is infinite, so He could reveal himself to us in many more ways than this, and we would still only have a limited understanding of Him. A little understanding is much better than nothing though

oh, and I think emmzee mentioned that the new testament is more reliable... Actually, even though I'm not a christian, I believe the new testament isn't too reliable because it was written AFTER jesus's so-called 'death'. (PLEASE correct me if im wrong, im not sure)

The New Testament was indeed written after Jesus' death. One of the reasons I've said that its reliable is that it was written very close to the time Jesus died. The earliest letter (Paul's letters were probably all or mostly all written before the gospels) was written about 20 years after Jesus' death. This may seem like a long time, but from what I've read, no historian would claim that such an elaborate myth could be fabricated in such a small time period, considering that Paul's letters and the gospels were written in the same geographical location that the events occured! It's also worth noting that the Jewish culture of the time was an oral culture; that is, they passed on stories by verbally telling them, not usually writing them down, so people had a lot of experience and expertise in memorizing and retelling stories accurately. Supposedly people at the time would memorize many books of the Old Testament and be able to recite them on demand.

The earliest copies of the NT documents that exist today come from approximately 120AD, ie about 90 years after Jesus' death but less than that after they were written. When compared to other ancient writings, no other ancient writing comes even close in terms of how close they were written to the events they describe, how many copies exist of the documents, the detailed historical nature, etc.

The point of all this is that if we are going to say that the NT books are unreliable just because they are old and written a short time after the events that they record occured, we'd also have to throw out pretty much every other historical document from this time period.

I could go into more detail about this subject (the historical nature of the NT is a subject I'm very interested in) but I'd have to look stuff up, this is just what I can think of off the top of my head

[Amro]

How come Jesus died if God Was present in him? Doesn't make sense if
"Jesus claimed and demonstrated to be God (at least, if the Bible is accurate He did) ". God Doesn't die. I believe those demonstations were miracles. Otherwise, God was also present in Moses and many others. I believe that the Bible has been changed from it's original form, most obviously in the fact that there is a "new" testament. Same thing with the Torah. Here is what I beleive:

Torah is ammended -> God Sends Jesus
Bible (chrisitan) is ammended -> God Sends Mohammed

I believe it stops there because a) the Koran has not been changed (in Sunni Islam) and b) it's stated in the Koran that there won't be any more prophets. As far as I know, there have been no more new prophet-based monotheisms after Islam.

oh and, dopefish, belief in God IS more plausible. As emmzee said, God is beyond our comprehension, and, as He is not a bunch of gases, you can eventually ask Him what He was doing.

And even if you find proof for the big bang, there's still the question of how life started. This is where science can't go any farther without invoking Spontaneous Generation, which, as far as I know, has been considered wrong by all scientists since like 200 years. And evolution would not create a human being from mono-cellular organisms.

BTW if you believe that God created everything, you wouldn't worry about what He was doing 'before' creating the Earth because He created time, too. I admit, trying to understand how it 'all' started is confusing. It's like we're 2D shapes, and God is 3D; we can't even begin to understand.

Just send me anything, dopefish, and I'll counter it

[Bobo]

How come Jesus died if God Was present in him?

He died, because God turned his rath against Jesus. When Jesus took on the sins of the world.

God Doesn't die.

Your right, God has the power over death. Yet Jesus died in the flesh, and was "reborn" after three days in the grave. He was "reborn" "heavenly". Sorry I can't really find the right words.

[Dopefish]

Why did God inflict his wrath on Jesus? Coudn't he have just not gotten all wrathful on anyone?

[emmzee]

How come Jesus died if God Was present in him? Doesn't make sense if
"Jesus claimed and demonstrated to be God (at least, if the Bible is accurate He did) ". God Doesn't die.

Interestingly I was reading about this very issue this morning before church ... from the beliefs statement of my church (a Salvation Army church, but most other churches would readily agree):

"We believe that in the person of Jesus Christ the Divine and human natures are united, so that He is truly and properly God and truly and properly man."

This is one of those instances where, if Jesus really IS God, then we shouldn't be expected to fully understand how Jesus was fully God and fully human at the same time. (God=Infinite thus impossible to fully understand). I think this quote from Max Lucado's "Next Door Savior" talks about this issue quite well:

If [the Bible is] factual, if the claim of Christ is actual, then he was, at once, God and man. There he was, the most significant man who ever lived. Forget MVP; he is the entire league. Head of the parade? Hardly. No one else shares the street. ..... Don't we need a God-man Savior? A just God Jesus could make us but not understand us. A just man Jesus could love us but never save us. But a God-man Jesus? Near enough to touch. Strong enough to trust. A next door Savior."
(Max Lucado, Next Door Savior, p.5)

I believe those demonstations were miracles. Otherwise, God was also present in Moses and many others.

Remember, not only Jesus did miracles. Moses did miracles, and even Jesus' disciples did miracles. The difference between Jesus' miracles and those of others is that Jesus himself took credit for his miracles, whereas his disciples (who also performed similar miracles to Jesus) never took credit for their own miracles.

An example of the difference: When Peter heals a man, he says to the spectators Why look at us as though we had made this man walk by our own power and godliness? For it is ... the God of all our ancestors who has brought glory to his servant Jesus by doing this. (Acts 3:12,13) Jesus healed people too, but look at Mark 2 ... first Jesus says to the paralized man "Son, your sins are forgiven.", forgiveness of sins being something only God can do. Then, to demonstrate that He himself is God, "Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins ... I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." Here he is taking credit for doing the work himself, whereas Peter clearly attributes it to God alone.

I believe that the Bible has been changed from it's original form, most obviously in the fact that there is a "new" testament. Same thing with the Torah. Here is what I beleive:
Torah is ammended -> God Sends Jesus
Bible (chrisitan) is ammended -> God Sends Mohammed

I will admit I do not know a lot about Islam. But what I do know is this: (And someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Islam considers the Old and New Testaments as part of their scriptures ... but they also believe that they have become corrupted, and that Jesus is not really God. This is contradictory to me: How can a group claim to include the OT and NT as part of their scriptures if they believe that they are corrupted? That Jesus is God is the #1 absolutely essential belief of Christianity. Islam is not a progression of Christianity, it is a new faith entirely that borrows from Christianity whenever it is convenient and ignores it when it contradicts what the Koran teaches.

I believe it stops there because a) the Koran has not been changed (in Sunni Islam) and b) it's stated in the Koran that there won't be any more prophets. As far as I know, there have been no more new prophet-based monotheisms after Islam.

A comment on b) above ... I think that the New Testament states quite difinitively that there will be no more prophets after Jesus ... after God himself came to earth, sending more prophets would seem like a rather empty gesture!

BTW if you believe that God created everything, you wouldn't worry about what He was doing 'before' creating the Earth because He created time, too. I admit, trying to understand how it 'all' started is confusing. It's like we're 2D shapes, and God is 3D; we can't even begin to understand.

That is a good analogy! I thought of a similar one when I read a book called "Flatland". It's about a world that is 2D, and what happens when a visitor from the 3D realm visits the 2D realm and tries to convince one of the people in the 2D realm that the 3D realm exists. It's by "Edwin A Abbott", the el-cheapo version of the book costs only $1.50 at Amazon. Althought its a short and tiny book, its quite worth it, I enjoyed it

Why did God inflict his wrath on Jesus? Coudn't he have just not gotten all wrathful on anyone?

Good question! I don't know if I can give a satisfying answer in just a few sentences, but I'll give it a shot.

Assumption: Evil acts must necessarily be punished. (ex. even if you forgive someone for, say, killing your son, they still should be punished, ie serve their sentence.)

Based on the above, God cannot simply forgive everyone. A God that would not be angry at evil behavior, and demand punishment for evil, is not a God that I want to believe in. At the same time, I would not want to believe in a God that is not merciful. Both justice and mercy collided with Jesus' death on the cross. Jesus is both the just and merciful sacrifice to reconcile us with God.

Hopefully that makes sense I'm talking off the top of my head and am rather tired atm!

PS. I am not quoting Bible verses to try to prove what I am saying, only to demonstrate by using its own text that the Bible really does say what I'm claiming it says.

[Dogbreath]

Why did God inflict his wrath on Jesus? Coudn't he have just not gotten all wrathful on anyone?

Should God be angry at child molesters and murderers? The Bible teaches that God is absolutely just. We expect him to strike down the evil doers and so forth, but then turn around and assume that all of our transgressions should be overlooked. God cannot be upset at one sin without being upset at ALL sin. And, when compared to a perfect creature, the very best of human beings appears to be filthy and perverted.

"Isaiah 64:6 All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away."


God couldn't simply say "okay, I'll forgive you because you only lied 5 times, but since Brother Harry did 6 he'll burn forever in hell." It would be a double standard to let some sinners off Scot free while others received full punishment. So he poured out the full punishment of everyone who desired forgiveness on Jesus.

Back in the day Jesus lived, when one had a mortgage against his property the record of that wasn't kept at the bank, as the province of Israel had no central banking system. Instead they would carve the record of your payments on the door for the collectors to keep track of. Once, however, you had finished paying the debt they would carve on the door "tetelestai," Greek meaning "it is paid in full."

When Jesus died the last words he spoke are recorded in John 19:30: "Iesous eipen 'tetelestai.'" It has been finished, it is paid in full. God has taken 100% of the debt and placed it on the shoulders of Jesus Christ.

A normal mortgage would take years to pay, in the parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matthew 18) our debt to God is compared to 10,000 talents, which wouldn't taken over 400 years to pay off. Presumably, our debt would take forever to pay off on our own, simply because we are infinitely flawed in comparison to God. The only person who would be able to pay that debt perfectly would be someone who was perfect, who had never sinned against God. The only person who could fill that role was the son of God.

So God sacrificed his own son because he loved humanity with such a passion that he wanted us to spend eternity in fellowship with him. So that if anyone will accept his sacrifice, allow Jesus to take the burden of their sins for them, and humbly surrender their will to his calling, their debt will be paid in full.

That is a very basic understanding of the process; many people debate it for years on end. IMO, the important part is accepting that regardless of *how* it works, it does.

[Amro]

On the subject of the NT and OT and Islam: Islam doesn't consider either a part of its scriptures (especially the NT) but:

"All those who would believe, believe in God, and His angels, and His Books, and His prophets, and the Last Day..."

This is in the Koran im not sure exactly where. His books are the Torah, Bible, Koran, and another (i'm not sure what it's called). Basically, muslims believe that there was a christian bible, and that, at a time, it was the 'right' religion, but ignore its teachings because it has been corrupted (as I said earlier, it's the cause of Mohammed's sending). Same with the Torah, and the fourth book has been lost. At least I've never heard of it existing in our time.

emmzee you're confusing me: you're saying that Jesus is God yet God inflicted His wrath upon Jesus. And why would God be fully human or even partially, even temporarily? Btw dogbreath is saying Jesus is God's son and you said he IS God.

"Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins ... I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home."

Im confused

A comment on b) above ... I think that the New Testament states quite difinitively that there will be no more prophets after Jesus ... after God himself came to earth, sending more prophets would seem like a rather empty gesture!

Well, you said it yourself, NT is after Jesus... So why should you take what it says seriously? Maybe some of the people put it there to make sure christians wouldn't convert to another prophet-based faiths if there were more.

[emmzee]

On the subject of the NT and OT and Islam: Islam doesn't consider either a part of its scriptures (especially the NT) but:

"All those who would believe, believe in God, and His angels, and His Books, and His prophets, and the Last Day..."

This is in the Koran im not sure exactly where. His books are the Torah, Bible, Koran, and another (i'm not sure what it's called).

Hmm this just shows I have more to learn when it comes to other faiths, so I thank you for clearing this up for me

Is it possible the fourth book is the Hadith? I have heard of this second book of Islam ... however it seems from what I've read that it is not considered on the same "level" as the Koran by Muslims, so it would not technically be considered unerring scripture. I think this is because while the Koran states clearly that Mohammad did not work any miracles, the Hadith (which came after the Koran) and later writings do talk about Mohammad working miracles.

Basically, muslims believe that there was a christian bible, and that, at a time, it was the 'right' religion, but ignore its teachings because it has been corrupted (as I said earlier, it's the cause of Mohammed's sending). Same with the Torah, and the fourth book has been lost. At least I've never heard of it existing in our time.

I do not understand how Muslims can say that the NT has become "corrupted". First of all, we have very early copies of the NT books, and they are the same (except for minor variations which do not change any teachings) as the books we read today. To say that the NT had become corrupted would mean that ALL of the NT documents were SYSTEMATICALLY corrupted within a few years of being written, in the same place that they were written, while the people who had actually met Jesus were still alive. All would have to have been corrupted, because there are no surviving "originals" that confirm the corruption theory. They would have had to be systematically corrupted because all the NT documents are all in agreement with eachother.

Also, I question the "wisdom" of any God who would sending a prophet (Jesus) only to have his teachings totally misunderstood and/or his writings corrupted a few years after his death ... and then have millions of people follow these corrupted teachings before sending a second prophet to correct the first one.

emmzee you're confusing me: you're saying that Jesus is God yet God inflicted His wrath upon Jesus. And why would God be fully human or even partially, even temporarily?

I'm saying that, essentially, God took the wrath upon himself. Dogbreath already talked about this at length in his post, and probably did so better than I could, so please check out his post.

Btw dogbreath is saying Jesus is God's son and you said he IS God.

Tomatoes, toMAToes. Jesus is called Lord, Son of Man, Son of God, Son of David, Messiah, etc. The Holy Spirit is also God, for that matter. Christians believe that the single God has revealed himself to us through the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but all of these are equally God.

Im confused

Maybe reading the full story would help:

The Message translation: http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bib ... ersion=MSG

Essentially, Jesus said to the paralyzed man "Your sins are forgiven." Then the religious teachers of the time complained, saying rightly that "He can't talk that way! That's blasphemy! God and only God can forgive sins." So Jesus healed the man's paralysis: "Well, just so it's clear that I'm the Son of Man and authorized to do either, or both ..." He himself took credit for the healing. (As I showed above no other person took credit for such miracles.) If he himself can miraculously heal someone, then he also has authority to forgive sins, for only God can do either.

Well, you said it yourself, NT is after Jesus... So why should you take what it says seriously? Maybe some of the people put it there to make sure christians wouldn't convert to another prophet-based faiths if there were more.

The New Testament is a historical document. It was written after the events that it records because it records history. Luke says at the beginning of his gospel "Since I have investigated all the reports in close detail, starting from the story's beginning, I decided to write it all out for you" History is necessarily recorded after the events occur that it records So I'm not sure I understand this objection.

The question could be why it wasn't recorded until 20-30 years after Jesus' death. Well, the culture of that time was an oral culture. The normal way of communicating information was speaking/preaching, not writing it down. As I mentioned before, since this was the main way of communicating people were generally very accurate, especially when dealing with religious matters. Remember most of the early Christians were Jews, who were quite used to memorizing large parts of the OT books.

Also, Paul's letters were written even earlier than the earliest gospel (Mark). Paul's letters even contain "creeds" which are from even earlier time periods. When you compare the events recorded in the NT and the events recorded for other historical events from that time period, there's no contest, the NT was recorded much closer to the time the events occurred.

[Amro]

The fourth book was brought by Shu'aib (I think). No, it's not the Hadith... Hadith means conversation, and it's actually Mohammed's sayings, not God's. Thus, they vary in reliability (someone could pretend something is a Hadith when he made it up). Most of them were advice to Muslims and other wise sayings... Many of them have been scientifically proven. One about how one should eat is quoted at a medical institute in Britain.

Also, I question the "wisdom" of any God who would sending a prophet (Jesus) only to have his teachings totally misunderstood and/or his writings corrupted a few years after his death ... and then have millions of people follow these corrupted teachings before sending a second prophet to correct the first one.

So you're saying God should force all humans to believe a prophet? In that case he would do without one

And Mohammed's sending was not just because of the OT being changed (and it's the OT I'm talking about, the NT is not considered). The arabs in Mecca at the time were worshipping idols, and, in fact, the idols were housed the in the Ka'aba (which was constructed by Abraham). They married their own sisters and mothers and buried little girls alive (because they would rather have boys). They were disgustingly horrible.

The New Testament is a historical document. It was written after the events that it records because it records history. Luke says at the beginning of his gospel "Since I have investigated all the reports in close detail, starting from the story's beginning, I decided to write it all out for you" History is necessarily recorded after the events occur that it records So I'm not sure I understand this objection.

The question could be why it wasn't recorded until 20-30 years after Jesus' death. Well, the culture of that time was an oral culture. The normal way of communicating information was speaking/preaching, not writing it down. As I mentioned before, since this was the main way of communicating people were generally very accurate, especially when dealing with religious matters. Remember most of the early Christians were Jews, who were quite used to memorizing large parts of the OT books.

Also, Paul's letters were written even earlier than the earliest gospel (Mark). Paul's letters even contain "creeds" which are from even earlier time periods. When you compare the events recorded in the NT and the events recorded for other historical events from that time period, there's no contest, the NT was recorded much closer to the time the events occurred.

If it's a historical document, why do you consider it a part of the bible? I thought the OT was supposed to be the word of God...

Also, I've read "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown... If you've read it clarify me on that please.

[emmzee]

The fourth book was brought by Shu'aib (I think). No, it's not the Hadith... Hadith means conversation, and it's actually Mohammed's sayings, not God's. Thus, they vary in reliability (someone could pretend something is a Hadith when he made it up). Most of them were advice to Muslims and other wise sayings... Many of them have been scientifically proven. One about how one should eat is quoted at a medical institute in Britain.

I'll take your word for it because I've never read about the fourth book of Islam.

So you're saying God should force all humans to believe a prophet? In that case he would do without one

No, that wasn't my point at all. My point was this:

Jesus was, according to Islam, a great prophet. (Christians believe he is that and much more.) So if Jesus was a great prophet, but not God as written in the NT (as claimed in the Koran) then:
* Jesus' death was useless and accomplished nothing
* Every one of Jesus' followers was really, really wrong about him
* Therefore most of the NT is absolutely wrong
* Jesus' followers were so wrong that God had to send another prophet to fix all the mistakes in the New Testament and Old Testament

It would mean that Jesus was a total, utter failure as a prophet. But the Koran describes him in very favorable terms (although not as God). That just doesn't make sense to me. It also doesn't make sense why God would send such a miserable failure of a prophet to earth; it would mean that God was either dumb or just a failure, which doesn't jibe with Christian or Muslim faith. (Remember that Islam clearly teaches that Jesus was a great prophet.)

And Mohammed's sending was not just because of the OT being changed (and it's the OT I'm talking about, the NT is not considered). The arabs in Mecca at the time were worshipping idols, and, in fact, the idols were housed the in the Ka'aba (which was constructed by Abraham). They married their own sisters and mothers and buried little girls alive (because they would rather have boys). They were disgustingly horrible.

I don't know much about the history of that area at that time, so Mohammed's teachings would have certainly helped people if they caused people to stop such practices. Of most Christians don't discount all other religious leaders' teachings as being without worth. Certainly there is much wisdom to be found in their teachings. But there's no doubt that Christianity and Islam are in total conflict about their most important doctrines.

If it's a historical document, why do you consider it a part of the bible? I thought the OT was supposed to be the word of God...

It's a historical document because it records history. It's part of the Bible because it records the history of God's work and teaching on earth. Both the NT and the OT are considered the word of God. The OT often records events that happened a long time before, but the NT records history much closer to when it actually occured. The most common way of thinking about it is that God spoke to those who recorded the NT (through the Holy Spirit), similarly to the same way that Muslims believe God spoke to Mohammed.

Also, I've read "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown... If you've read it clarify me on that please.

Disclaimer: I have not yet read The Da Vinci Code. I've heard it's well written and entertaining, but I'm waiting for it to come out in paperback form.

I think there was already a thread somewhere on the forums about this book. The book is "historical fiction". No problem with that. However the book claims on its very first page under the heading "FACT": "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." Many descriptions of these things in the book are NOT accurate, and many people who are not knowledgeable about Christianity or church history may be misled by not knowing where the history ends and the fiction begins.

Example #1: The Dead Sea Scrolls are said, in Da Vinci Code, to contain the earliest Christian documents. In reality, there are NO Christian documents in the Dead Sea Scrolls. None. Old Testament documents and related writings are there, but to say that it represents the earliest Christian history and teachings is absolutely misleading.

Example #2: It's stated that Jesus was not considered to be God until a "relatively close vote" in the fourth century that forced his divinity on people. POPYCOCK! First of all, the gospels themselves testify that the earliest Christians believed Jesus to be God. Secondly, the vote taken at the council was not close, and it was not about whether Jesus is God or not; that fact was not even in debate. The vote was taken about the exact nature of the relationship between the Father & the Son (the semantics of that relationship of course are still in debate today, which I think is a rather pointless discussion, personally.)

It's probably obvious to those reading this thread that I am a Christian. So I was wondering if you could share your beliefs with us, not for the purposes of debate of course, but just so readers of this thread would have a better idea about where we're all coming from (and, frankly, because I'm interested!)

[Amro]

No, that wasn't my point at all. My point was this:

Jesus was, according to Islam, a great prophet. (Christians believe he is that and much more.) So if Jesus was a great prophet, but not God as written in the NT (as claimed in the Koran) then:
* Jesus' death was useless and accomplished nothing
* Every one of Jesus' followers was really, really wrong about him
* Therefore most of the NT is absolutely wrong
* Jesus' followers were so wrong that God had to send another prophet to fix all the mistakes in the New Testament and Old Testament

It's very possible that Jesus's followers misunderstood him. Did he say "I am God"? Or maybe, some of the meanings were lost as history was passed on. Or something. It's not necessary that they 'decided' to make him divine (because if they believed, they wouldn't do that, would they?)

Note: Is Jesus's divinity stated only in the NT? In that case, the above theory would make more sense. And:

God creates humanity -> God is the holy spirit -> God is the holy spirit's offspring -> God dies

?????????????????????????????? (i think i'm wrong somewhere in there)


On the Da Vinci thing, I'm not sure... But read the book... there's a lot more about christianity in it.

[emmzee]

It's very possible that Jesus's followers misunderstood him. Did he say "I am God"? Or maybe, some of the meanings were lost as history was passed on. Or something. It's not necessary that they 'decided' to make him divine (because if they believed, they wouldn't do that, would they?)

That's my whole point!

1) Islam says: Jesus = great prophet, but not God.

2) ALL Jesus' followers say: Jesus = great prophet, and God

3) Therefore, if Jesus is not God: ALL Jesus' followers were wrong (since they all believed he is God and also apparently misinterpreted most/all of his teachings)

4) Thus based on 3): Jesus must have been a really lousy teacher!

5) If the above is correct (as the Koran claims), that means the Koran contradicts itself because if Jesus is NOT God then He was NOT a great prophet!

The Koran is also wrong if Jesus IS God like Christians believe. So either way, what it teaches seems to be wrong.

There's only two options available: Either Jesus was and is God, or he is the biggest liar and fraud the world has ever seen. There's no middle ground where he's a great teacher who was just misunderstood, because anyone who could mislead people that badly (or instill in them such bad morals as to lead them to lie, and then die and be martyred for that lie) was not a great teacher, nor a great man.

As far as Jesus declaring himself to be God, he never said the words "I am God", probably because saying that to 1st century Jews would be like saying "I am Jehovah" which wouldn't make much sense to them. However his divinity is declared implicitly in many ways, including for example:
- He refered to himself by saying simply "I AM" ... ex. John 8:52, others ... which is a reference to when Moses asked God's name in Exodus 3:14 (God replied "I AM")
- He forgave sins, something (as the religious leaders pointed out) only God could do: "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:7)
- He claimed that "I and the Father are one", something that the religious leaders at the time must have thought was a claim to be God, since they wanted to stone him to death for saying it (John 10:31)
- I mentioned before the way He worked His miracles; rather than paying tribute to God (like everyone else in the Bible), he himself claimed to be working them
- He accepted worship (ex. Matthew 14:33) which is something any normal person (and especially a Jewish person!) would abhor (see Peter's reaction in Acts 10:25-26)

God creates humanity -> God is the holy spirit -> God is the holy spirit's offspring -> God dies

?????????????????????????????? (i think i'm wrong somewhere in there)

I'm not sure that the above is totally accurate. I think it's more like this:

- Humans have been given freedom which includes freedom to do bad things
- God is rightly angered by our choices to do these things, since He is just, and the "wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23)
- But God is also merciful, so he decided to take the punishment unto himself
- Only a God-man could do that, someone who was fully human and fully God at the same time
- So Jesus came to (among other reasons) take the punishment for us

People get too hung up on the Trinity stuff. I've seen "1+1+1=3?" so many times its starting to get really old. The fact is that the equation is not even "1+1+1=1" ... it's more like "1+1+1=part of infinity" and that's how we must try (in a limited way) to grasp who God is and what He's done for us.

On the Da Vinci thing, I'm not sure... But read the book... there's a lot more about christianity in it.

There's plenty more examples of how the "history" in the book is as shoddy as the examples I gave above. I will probably still read it as a novel.

Here's a question for discussion (since I'm getting tired of just answering questions throughout this whole thread) ... if God exists, and only "good people" are rewarded after they die, how good is good enough?

[Amro]

When you said earlier that Jesus said to a man "your sins are forgiven", it in no way implies that Jesus himself forgave him his sins.

Either Jesus was and is God, or he is the biggest liar and fraud the world has ever seen

Unless Jesus clearly stated that he is God, that doesn't make him a liar.
All those quotes you gave don't state his divinity implicitly.
Also, please tell me how you can believe that God is almighty, yet got crucified by his own creations and 'sacrificed' himself for us. I mean, is there anything in the bible that states CLEARLY that Jesus IS God? And why would God sacrifice himself for humanity, when the majority of humans are going to hell?

Also, if he is God, then how come he was born? Why didn't he just vaporize the romans?

I've asked this in like every post but you seem to be avoiding it: If you believe that Jesus is God and that Jesus died, then you also believe that God is dead.