Muslims & Christians: Same God?

[Geo]

@GeoFee

I am glad you are citing the New Testament texts to support your view. This means we can speak about this on an equal plane.

If you read that entire passage, you'll find that Jesus specifically speaks in parables to those whose hearts have become callous, and who would not listen or be open to his message of salvation anyway. He does however, speak clearly to those who are willing to listen. When asked about the meaning of the parables, he spoke clearly to the disciples about what they meant - therefore, no longer utilizing allegory to convey certain messages. Luckily for us, this dialogue was recorded in scripture as well.

And so as I said before, it is easy to determine when Jesus is speaking in parables or not.

 

[GeoFee]

I have much appreciated this proverb:

"As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another."

I also appreciate the narratives noticing the relationship of David and Jonathan in the days of Saul. They are capable warriors in a challenging context. I picture them sparring rigorously and by this each is strengthened for encounter with the common adversary.

I also notice the deep and committed companionship each offers to the other.

George

 

[GeoFee]

@GeoFee

If you read that entire passage, you'll find that Jesus specifically speaks in parables to those whose hearts have become callous, and who would not listen to him anyway. He does however, speak clearly to those who are willing to listen. When asked about the meaning of the parables, he spoke clearly to the disciples about what they meant - therefore, no longer utilizing allegory to convey certain messages. Luckily for us, this was recorded in scripture as well.

Indeed, after posting I did read the verse in context. Quickly realizing pretty much what you observe above.

Thanks for your capable and considerate participation as we press forward the hope given in the name of God.

George

 

[GeoFee]

Hi Geo...

Do you understand parable to be allegory exclusively?

George

 

[Geo]

@GeoFee

Only inasmuch as "allegory" is taken to be synonymous with "parable".

Parable: "...a short story that teaches a moral or spiritual lesson; especially : one of the stories told by Jesus Christ and recorded in the Bible"

- Merriam Webster Dictionary

My point above is simply that there are times when Jesus speaks in parables, and other times when he doesn't.

 

[Luce NDs]

and you've definitely got your deep end diving ticket :3
(as well as caving, fresh & salt water, night & wreck diving)

Doctrine is good to stir the pool though to see if there are some thinking phesh there ... perhaps trolls?

 

[Luce NDs]

If dealing with callous gods you have to speak in parables and allegories as the truth really get the hardest ones Piece doff!

They are stoic to the point of masonic foundations ...

 

[BetteTheRed]

@GeoFee

Only inasmuch as "allegory" is taken to be synonymous with "parable".

Parable: "...a short story that teaches a moral or spiritual lesson; especially : one of the stories told by Jesus Christ and recorded in the Bible"

- Merriam Webster Dictionary

My point above is simply that there are times when Jesus speaks in parables, and other times when he doesn't.

And what is it that tells you that all stories ABOUT Jesus are NOT parables?

 

[Luce NDs]

Par able ... parallel abilities as both sides of the mind begin to harmonize? Being as the mind is an abstract thing ... it could cast a shadow of doubt over realists! Thus they wouldn't be allowed to think or ponder such dark depths!

 

[Geo]

@BetteTheRed

Simply upon viewing the New Testament texts as what they are - a collection of ancient historical documents, most of which are comprised of historical accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus as well as the early church (gospels/Acts); or letters written to the churches for practical use. Of course, both the letters and the gospels are necessarily replete with claims about the person of Jesus and his actions, based on real events that occurred in history.

It is important not to confuse literary devices such as parables with historical accounts. A historical account can be filled with parables (as they are, since they record many of Jesus' parables), but it is not a "parable" itself. As such, claims made about Jesus in the gospels and letters are not parables. Reading these historical accounts, we can see that Jesus didn't always speak in parables either. He often spoke clearly, making radical claims to deity among other things. But the historical accounts also record events such as miraculous healings, food multiplication, and even the bodily resurrection itself as real events that occurred in history.

It is also worth mentioning that just because Jesus often spoke to people in parables, doesn't make the truths being revealed by those parables any less binding on humanity, any more "relative", or any less meaningful. The truths being presented in the parables can only be understood by those who have "ears to hear".

I think there are a lot of common misconceptions about the vast kinds of literature in scripture, and even about what parables are really meant for.

 

[chansen]

@BetteTheRed

Simply upon viewing the New Testament texts as what they are - a collection of ancient historical documents, most of which are comprised of historical accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus as well as the early church (gospels/Acts); or letters written to the churches for practical use. Of course, both the letters and the gospels are necessarily replete with claims about the person of Jesus and his actions, based on real events that occurred in history.

*blinks*

Where do I begin?

They aren't even eyewitness accounts. They were written down decades after the supposed events. Claiming the New Testament is a historical document just doesn't make it so. I know you really want it to be, but even a lot of Christians will tell you the same thing.

 

[Geo]

@chansen,

You are correct in saying they aren't direct eyewitness accounts. However, they are directly based on eyewitness accounts. You are also right in claiming that many books were written "decades" later. It is commonly accepted that Mark, the earliest gospel, was written in 70AD/CE - a little under 40 years after Jesus died. However, it is directly based off of Peter's testimony of Jesus' life, and Peter obviously knew Jesus.

However, you are not correct in your assessment that many books of the New Testament are not historical documents. In reality, the gospels are the most well-documented, reliable ancient documents in the world, for which we possess many early copies of today. The same cannot be said of any other ancient documents, such as the teachings of Plato and Aristotle for instance. Of course, most people (presumably yourself included) would have no problem accepting that we can trust those documents.

And finally, I fail to see the merit of your point that other "Christians" will tell me the same thing as you. Even if that were true, use of the ad populum fallacy wouldn't change the reality that they would still be wrong about the historicity of the New Testament texts. And from what I remember about you, I'm surprised you would add such a pointless statement!

Now. Many letters to the church were written earlier than all of the gospels. For instance, 1 Corinthians was written in the mid 50s AD/CE - only 20 years after Jesus' life. In this letter, we already find the beliefs of the early church about Jesus clearly established in a creed of sorts. Moreover, Paul claims the majority of the people who were "eyewitnesses" to the life and resurrection of Jesus are still alive. You simply cannot invite others to verify such claims in such way without them being true. Otherwise, the early church would have never gained ground. Especially in a society that was so hostile to it initially.

I invite you to review the following passage (1 Corinthians 15:3-8):

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

I don't know about you, but over 500 eyewitnesses of an event is a fair number. You couldn't hope to conjure that many eyewitnesses for virtually all modern high profile criminal cases on the best of days!

 

[Luce NDs]

You cannot convince those of dark myths the cloudy nature of them and the silver lining unless you can drag your ass into de light .... other wise you must, save, sanctify and repeatedly justify the re iterations of the myth that have grown into stories of which there are only rarebits of experience these days as most of the eternal is still out there ... sort of ethereal ... like ET (root word of ethics that stir the moral's ID) ...

Pure metaphysics Watson ... rather dark to the paradigm that is like but not as par-able ... one must Pix and choose meme-son?

 

[BetteTheRed]

@Geo, when you rely on numbers of people who witnessed something, according to the gospels, you weaken your argument, I think. Numbers are among the most allegorical of instruments in the holy texts of all religions, between regular "hidden meanings" (i.e. 500 could be anything more than 20 to the largely innumerate) and mystical numerological systems like kabbalah.

Also, please explain what Paul was an eyewitness to?

 

[chansen]

@chansen,

You are correct in saying they aren't direct eyewitness accounts. However, they are directly based on eyewitness accounts. You are also right in claiming that many books were written "decades" later. It is commonly accepted that Mark, the earliest gospel, was written in 70AD/CE - a little under 40 years after Jesus died. However, it is directly based off of Peter's testimony of Jesus' life, and Peter obviously knew Jesus.

However, you are not correct in your assessment that many books of the New Testament are not historical documents. In reality, the gospels are the most well-documented, reliable ancient documents in the world, for which we possess many early copies of today. The same cannot be said of any other ancient documents, such as the teachings of Plato and Aristotle for instance. Of course, most people (presumably yourself included) would have no problem accepting that we can trust those documents.

And finally, I fail to see the merit of your point that other "Christians" will tell me the same thing as you. Even if that were true, use of the ad populum fallacy wouldn't change the reality that they would still be wrong about the historicity of the New Testament texts. And from what I remember about you, I'm surprised you would add such a pointless statement!

Now. Many letters to the church were written earlier than all of the gospels. For instance, 1 Corinthians was written in the mid 50s AD/CE - only 20 years after Jesus' life. In this letter, we already find the beliefs of the early church about Jesus clearly established in a creed of sorts. Moreover, Paul claims the majority of the people who were "eyewitnesses" to the life and resurrection of Jesus are still alive. You simply cannot invite others to verify such claims in such way without them being true. Otherwise, the early church would have never gained ground. Especially in a society that was so hostile to it initially.

I invite you to review the following passage (1 Corinthians 15:3-8):

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

I don't know about you, but over 500 eyewitnesses of an event is a fair number. You couldn't hope to conjure that many eyewitnesses for virtually all modern high profile criminal cases on the best of days!

This is bordering on insane.

 

[Luce NDs]

@Geo, when you rely on numbers of people who witnessed something, according to the gospels, you weaken your argument, I think. Numbers are among the most allegorical of instruments in the holy texts of all religions, between regular "hidden meanings" (i.e. 500 could be anything more than 20 to the largely innumerate) and mystical numerological systems like kabbalah.

Also, please explain what Paul was an eyewitness to?

Are numbers too numinous compared to icons and avatars as symbols that God spoke of ... a given sign of Gracie? GEO Ji would be pleased ...

Then heh'd probably play the part of God ...

 

[Geo]

@BetteTheRed

Quite the contrary. Having specifics such as numbers as well as other fine points (such as smells that were said to "fill the room") in historical documents only strengthens their credibility.

What needs to be understood is that the Bible isn't just a single, cohesive unit. It is a collection of various types of ancient literature, written by many different authors over a broad period of time. Some literature is poetic, some metaphorical, some apocalyptic, some historical accounts, etc. Therefore you simply cannot, for instance, read historical literature as metaphor, nor metaphorical literature as history. The authors would not have intended that. This could lead to problems.

For instance, reading the creation accounts in Genesis as historical accounts would be erroneous. One needs to be sensitive to the kind of literature they are reading in order to make accurate claims about them.

Read this passage, from the beginning of the gospel of Luke:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

The author of the document tells his readers how he wants it to be read.
..............

Paul was allegedly an eyewitness to the risen Christ as well, who "appeared to him" last of all. We know that the event radically transformed a man who was bent on the destruction of the early church, whose sole mission was to persecute the early Christians to death. He also knew the disciples personally.

 

[Geo]

This is bordering on insane.

That's a counter argument? Come on chansen...that's all I get??

 

[Neo]

@chansen,
...

I don't know about you, but over 500 eyewitnesses of an event is a fair number. You couldn't hope to conjure that many eyewitnesses for virtually all modern high profile criminal cases on the best of days!

Ha, ha, ha, ... what lame argument.

Plaintiff: "Your Honor, I have 500 eyewitnesses to the event I describe."
Judge: "I see. Are they here today? Do you affidavits from them? What are their names?"
Paintiff: "Well no, but I saw them there. I counted them all. Isn't that enough?"

 

[chansen]

That's a counter argument? Come on chansen...that's all I get??

It deserves no more. It's not only a circular argument, it forms the tightest circle possible. Your claim is the bible is an historical account because it says it has 500 eyewitnesses who agree that it's historical.

If you want me to take that seriously, I'm gonna need strong pharmaceuticals and time to find the correct dosage to achieve that level of credulity.