Salvation and Belief

Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by muhammad_isa, Jul 17, 2019.

  1. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    98
    The old meme is: Religion has been the cause of endless wars ---so many people have died due to differences in religion.

    I disagree ---the endless wars were ALL due to coveting. Endless wars were ALL due to stealing what others had.
     
  2. Cino

    Cino Big Love! (Atheist mystic)

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2018
    Messages:
    1,417
    Likes Received:
    637
    Word!
     
  3. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,374
    Likes Received:
    166
    I still take issue with this idea Jesus' death was all about politics. I think he was also a victim of contradictory traditions.

    "But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed" (Matt 27.20).​

    Here's Benedict's commentary on this episode:

    "At the culmination of Jesus' trial, Pilate presents the people with a choice between Jesus and Barabbas. One of the two will be released. But who was Barabbas? It is usually the words of John's Gospel that come to mind here: 'Barabbas was a robber' (Jn 18:40). But the Greek word for 'robber' had acquired a specific meaning in the political situation that obtained at the time in Palestine. It had become a synonym for 'resistance fighter.' Barabbas had taken part in an uprising (cf. Mk 15:7), and furthermore - in that context - had been accused of murder (cf. Lk 23:19, 25). When Matthew remarks that Barabbas was 'a notorious prisoner' (Mt 27:16), this is evidence that he was one of the prominent resistance fighters, in fact probably the actual leader of that particular uprising.

    In other words, Barabbas was a messianic figure. The choice of Jesus versus Barabbas is not accidental; two messiah figures, two forms of messianic belief stand in opposition. This becomes even clearer when we consider that the name Bar-Abbas means 'son of the father.' This is a typically messianic appellation, the cultic name of a prominent leader of the messianic movement. The last great Jewish messianic war was fought in the year 132 by Bar-Kokhba, 'son of the star.' The form of the name is the same, and it stands for the same intention.

    Origen, a Father of the Church, provides us with another interesting detail. Up until the third century, many manuscripts in the Gospels referred to the man in question here as 'Jesus Barabbas' - 'Jesus son of the father.' Barabbas figures here as a sort of alter ego of Jesus, who makes the same claim but understands it in a completely different way. So the choice is between a Messiah who leads an armed struggle, promises freedom and a kingdom of one's own, and this mysterious Jesus who proclaims that losing oneself is the way to life. Is it any wonder that the crowds [and chief priests and the elders] prefer Barabbas?"
    I was considering the above when I read the rest of what you wrote. Essentially they traded one messiah for another, and a far more dangerous one at that.

     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2019
  4. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,374
    Likes Received:
    166
    Somebody down the line fumbled the ball. The Shi'a and Sunni divide over the grammar and syntax of 3.7 is one example.

    The Sunni version reads:

    "But no one knows its hidden meanings [ta'wil] except God. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: 'We believe in the Book, the whole of it is from our Lord.'"​

    The Shi'a version reads:

    "And none knows its interpretation save God and those firmly rooted in knowledge."
    Those who were first charged with memorizing the Qur'an surely didn't memorize it both ways. Why the change? One establishes the religious authority of the Imams and the other does not.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2019
  5. Courage

    Courage Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    4
    That's why the Bible is following a process which is called human witnessing. This same process is employed literally in conveying any kind of truth, including science. We rely on the credibility of an eyewitness account to put faith in order to reach a truth.

    Our scientists act as an eyewitness account for us to know for a fact that say, black holes exist. Our scientists don't need to present the details to each and every single human for him to reach this piece of truth. All other humans need to do is to do a credibility check on the eyewitness account. Our scientists are a reliable and credible source is scientific information. We have faith that they are trying convey a scientific truth that we choose to believe what is said (about black holes in our case).

    Not all kinds of truth are as verifiable as a science. History basically is not verifiable. We believe that at the point when a piece of history was written, humans back then had have a credibility check on the writings for them to convey. However equally possible that a falsehood can also convey because humans today can no longer examine what credibility check had been done by ancient humans. We thus need faith to believe a piece of history, especially regarding to what an ancient individual had said and done.

    The key factor for a truth to convey is thus, 1) it's an eyewitness account of testimony and 2) the credibility of this account of testimony has been examined by humans back to the point when it is composed.

    If this eye-witness is an angel, humans have no way to examine its credibility. There's huge difference here. Moreover, our scientistS (a plural) are a credible source of scientific information because they have composed a multiple account testimony. Not just one scientist has witnessed the existence of black holes. Many of them have done so along the history of humanity since the emergence of our science.

    As a result, how a truth can propagate relies on 1) the credibility of the witness account capable of being examined (by humans back then), and 2) as many eyewitnesses as possible whose credibility can be examined in the same way. They are what have composed our daily news. Our media is a composition of information author by multiple reporters/journalists from the same set of eyewitness origins, regarding to the same piece of daily news.

    Qu'ran doesn't fall into this category of how a truth is testified and conveyed, by the necessary building blocks of human witnessing!
     
  6. Bit of a sting in the tail there!

    Maybe more than one way to skin a cat?

    :)
     
  7. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    200
    You are quite right..
    However, the Gospels don't claim to be written by G-d. The Qur'an does.

    Furthermore, The Gospels that were included in the Bible were not the only ones in existence.
    Many manuscripts were destroyed by the Romans in the time between Jesus' ascension and the declaration by the Romans of state Christianity with their capital Byzantine.
     
  8. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    98
    Cool!

    The Gospels don't claim to be written by G-d.
    The Torah and Qur'an does claim to be written by prophets.

    The Gita is Spoken directly by God in such a smash-mouth way that he is also driving a 4-horse War Chariot for his cousin the Martial Arts Prince Arjuna ---and they made both sides of the civil war armies wait until God finished advising Arjuna etc etc etc.
     
  9. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    200
    This is what the wiki article says:-
    As I say, as time passes, texts get more unlikely to be accurate/reliable.
    G-d does not leave his creation without guidance.
     
  10. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    200
    I don't know where you get your information from.
    Wiki says:-
    wikipedia - Shia view of the Quran

    So the Arabic script is the same. The best explanation is from a person who is well-versed in classical Arabic.
     
  11. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,374
    Likes Received:
    166
    Okay. This is my misunderstanding about the Arabic syntax being different then (because I was thinking the words must have been rearranged); however, after more research, I learned the difference is in where one pauses in the Arabic:

    "And none know its interpretation save God and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, 'We believe in it; all is from our Lord.'"

    "And none know its interpretation save God. And those firmly rooted in knowledge say, 'We believe in it; all is from our Lord.'"
    Still constitutes a difference in my book, because one pause leads to totally different understandings of the text. Well . . . assuming the text was using punctuation it would constitute a textual variant between both groups . . .

    How were pauses captured in old Arabic script? Were pauses even used or represented in the oldest manuscripts? I don't know. I don't know Arabic, but I think it's a fascinating topic.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019
  12. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    200
    Yes .. it's the same with any text. It can be interpreted in many ways.
    Almighty God guides whomsoever He wills :)
     
  13. Cino

    Cino Big Love! (Atheist mystic)

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2018
    Messages:
    1,417
    Likes Received:
    637
    Fascinating, and I can see how one interpretation would be favored by clergy. Thanks, I didn't know about this!
     
  14. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,374
    Likes Received:
    166
    One pause!

    Info from my first search . . .

     
  15. Often we presume it is us.......:)

    Isn't it strange how G!d uses such a corruptible method to communicate "His" light and guide us? Still, He knows best.
     
  16. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    200
    Yes .. arrogance leads to darkness.

    Not to me .. if "the truth" was no longer available on planet earth, or it was in danger of being extinguished, He would send another messenger.
    Some things in the Qur'an might be allegorical, unclear or disputed, but the important things are there.

    As an example, let's take adultery. In the UK, less than 50% of people with children are married o_O
     
  17. You associate "truth" with textual revelation, from texts which assert that they are spoken by G!d. I do not.

    They are there because they are important, they are important because they are there. Circular.

    Make no mistake, I am very familiar with all texts of the various Faiths. I have learnt from them. I would not be without them. But "darkness" is not the necessary result of any of them disappearing. IMO.

    And just to add, my own daughter married when she already had two children. It means nothing to me. Declarations in ancient books notwithstanding.
     
  18. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    200
    Does that mean that you are a deist?
    i.e. there is something responsible for all we see around us, but "it / they" is either incapable or is not guiding us through revelation
     
  19. Sadly, I have gone into great detail of my own faith, of my understanding of revelation, on this very forum, often - if not in direct response to your own posts - on threads we have both been involved in. Obviously, you do not need to agree, but I would have hoped that you at least read them. :(
     
  20. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,374
    Likes Received:
    166
    Apparently there are different line breaks in the classical Arabic text? If so, this contributes to a long-standing Sunni-Shi'a conflict over religious authority. Sorry, I'm still flabbergasted by a single pause. It's one reason why I disagree with Bhaktajan II's conclusion:

     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019

Share This Page