Did Jesus Die On The Cross?

Repeat:

The Christian understanding is not so simple as God can't be divided. It's more subtle. It is the Muslims who insist that it's that simple. But they do not know the Christian scriptures or the Christian understanding of how the Trinity applies to the relationship between God and man.

Muslims believe God speaks through a book and places all humans as servants of God; Christians believe God manifests as the Christ and places humans as children of the Father.

The Christ manifest in the perfect, sinless and virgin born Jesus -- is God manifest as man, fully God the Son but with all the pain and joy and all the doubt and temptation of man. It is a wonderful revelation. Tinkering with words doesn't change it.

So there can be no agreement. However it is rather irritating for Christians to face a constant lecturing by (some) Muslims* from a superior level, while at the same time trying not to mirror the same performance back at them, but to continue to treat their faith and belief with respect.

And there it ends, with the thread veering off away into the long grass ... which is nothing new, lol

* @Grandad not directed at you

 

On the subject of tawhid [ the Oneness of God ]. it seems not.

You simply don't agree with Jews and Muslims, who quote the foundation of faith:

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4)"
"There is no god but The God, who has no partners" (Qur'an)

Jews and Muslims do not claim Moses or Muhammad are "a subtle" part of God.
I honestly can't see how when it has been pointed out to Christians repeatedly that Jesus didn't come to
change the law, but to fulfil it, how the most important law of all could be compromised / replaced with
a creed that does not include it

Apostles Creed:
1. I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth,
2. and believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
3. who was conceived from the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary,
4. who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried,
5. descended into hell, rose again from the dead on the third day,
etc.

It doesn't emphasise the shema at all. It immediately contradicts it.
Why can't you see it from my point of view?

 

Even if historically he never called himself "the only" Son of God (cf. John 1:14, 18; John 3:16, 18), Jesus presented himself as Son and not just as one who was the divinely appointed Messiah (and therefore "son" of God). He made himself out to be more than only someone chosen and anointed as divine representative to fulfil an eschatological role in and for the kingdom. Implicitly, Jesus claimed an essential, "ontological" relationship of sonship towards God which provided the grounds for his functions as revealer, lawgiver, forgiver of sins, and agent of the final kingdom.
-wiki - Son_of_God -

You see what believing in "the only son of God dying on a cross" leads to. Jesus becomes "forgiver of sins"" which
is a serious misbelief in Judaism and Islam. A major sin in itself !

We see from the following that "son of God" is understood by Jews to mean other than divinity:

The term "son of God" is used in the Hebrew Bible as another way to refer to humans who have a special relationship with God. In Exodus, the nation of Israel is called God's firstborn son. Solomon is also called "son of God". Angels, just and pious men, and the kings of Israel are all called "sons of God."
- wiki Sons of God -

This is, of course, why the term "only" was insisted upon
We only find the modifier "only" in John.
Only in John we find phrases like "our man speaks the truth".
..yet again, so..

 

.

Glad to hear it!

 

32 Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed.
33 When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him there, along with the criminals—one on his right, the other on his left.
34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
- Luke 23 -

Clearly, God (the Father) can forgive sins. Jesus prays to God, just like everybody else.
Jesus asks God's forgiveness, just like everybody else.

Jesus did not say that he was like "the Father", or you could pray to "the Son", if you wanted too.
That would be us humans. Some Muslims pray to Muhammad in a similar fashion .. but it is TOTALLY wrong.
No prophet told their followers to worship them, or ascribe them as partners to God.

Yes, I don't consider myself to be a strict salafi .. but on the above point, there is
no room for compromise WHATSOEVER

---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is interesting to note that in Madina, where the Prophet SAW is buried, Muslims
visit his grave, and the Saudi sheiks that guard their treasure [ Muhammad's grave ]
become annoyed if people raise their hands in prayer, and "move them along".

Of course, it is quite possible that people are asking God to bless him..
..but just in case

 

Ok. I'm not going to fight and argue

 

As has been said before, IO is a forum for discourse, not for telling others they're wrong.

 

What is God's law? Is it the Divine principle, or is it a set of laws written in men's books, requiring all sorts of clothing and diet and hand-washing and other ritual demands?

What law did Christ come to fulfil: the former or the latter?

New thread here:
What is God's Law
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19896/

 

Nor do Christians.

I rather think you are mistaken.

Shema: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4)"
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty ..." Nicean Creed (325)
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty ..." Nicene–Constantinopolitan Creed (381)
"I believe in God the Father almighty ... " Apostles Creed (5th century)

Because you're misconstruing Christian doctrine.

 

Not purposely..

God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit — three distinct persons sharing one essence.

Why did you previously say "what" ?
Is the above wrong?

..I don't think the shema is saying that there is one essence and three distinct persons.
Nor does Jesus say that anywhere in the Bible.

Surely, it's a major contradiction. If it was so important [ part of the correct creed ],
Almighty God would have made the first commandment more clear, and told us
about the trinity.

What's to stop somebody else claiming that there are only 2 parts, or all the angels are "part of the essence"
etc. etc.

 

OK.

OK.

It's not wrong.

Referring to my previous 'what', it was to do with context:
Me: We do not say that God died on the Cross.
You: No .. you say that Jesus was crucified [ ie. killed by hanging on a cross ]
..and then, of course, you say that Jesus is One of three:
God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit — three distinct persons sharing one essence.
..so

So my 'what?' was in the context of what do you deduce from your previous statements. In Christian doctrine that Jesus is the Hypostatic Union of the Divine and the human. The suffering, death and resurrection refers to His humanity, not His divinity.

To be fair, I don't think the shema is saying anything about the nature of God at all.

God knows best what He chooses to reveal.

One might ask why God does not simply effect some incontrovertible revelation that no-one could ignore or deny?

Nothing. They'd have to reason it, though, to be accepted.

 

I'll have to disagree with you there..

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4)"

Why is that the first commandment?
What is the point of it?

Is it purely saying that "I'm the only god, but I won't tell you any more, as it's a secret" ?
No .. it's saying that He is the only authority.
Any other authority only comes from his permission.
Where does Jesus claim to be part-divine, and part-human?
What could that even mean?

To me, it's like saying that he is not human and is human simultaneously.
Philosophical gobldigook dreamt up by humans with a political agenda.
It makes religion incomprehensible, imo.

Almighty God cannot be seen. He is not physical.
Yes, it is true that God is able to do all things.
He can appear to be human if he so wishes.
However, that would lead to all kinds of problems.

I know you will say that Jesus is his ONLY son, meaning God only appears as
Jesus and nobody else.
However, if this were true, why isn't it made CRYSTAL CLEAR in the Bible, with Jesus
saying it many times clearly .. not just vague prose that you insist means He is God etc.

It does not add up. It is political rhubarb imo, decided upon, and enforced centuries after his death.
[ I'm talking about hypostatic union ]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No .. God says He is One!
One means One, and that is His wisdom, so that we don't get fooled into following
other than Him.

Errr .. I think you know the answer to that.
If people wish to deny truth, they are free too. It makes no difference what he reveals to us.
Many people say if God makes it obvious, and / or shows Himself etc, they will believe then.

That is simply not true.
Only people with good intentions can see the truth.

When God Almighty sends "His son", the Messiah, back to this world,
that will be a CLEAR sign, yet many people will deny Jesus. They will plot to kill him
yet again.
Why should you think otherwise?
However, it will be quite different from the Messiah's first appearance.
He will have billions of followers. God, the Most High, is the Best of Planners.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is why we are all here. To see which of us will strive to please God,
or only care about the here and now.
Some people are liars .. they even lie to themselves.
[ i.e. convince themselves that they are righteous, and are not liars ]

 

I am a little concerned that this implies that atheists don't believe in God because they have bad intentions. I don't think that's true.

I do think that there are some people who claim to be atheists who stop praying, celebrating holidays, attending religious services, etc. because they're angry at God, and I can see how this applies to those folks, but actual atheists aren't going to be angry at a God that they don't believe exists. I think most atheists reason their way into their (lack of a) position, just as many people reason their way into any number of religions or beliefs. I disagree with their reasoning, but I do think that most of them are acting in good faith.

 

Where? In my book? What about other religions? Non Abrahamics. Taoists? Hindus? How do I know my book is the only correct one when it comes to what God is or is not? Especially when I don't read other peoples' books

I believe it because I believe it, is the answer?

I might believe it. Others might not. I should not take my own beliefs as base level truth for interfaith discussion?

 

..it depends what you mean by "atheist" ..
There is a difference between people who deny that "God, the Creator" exists and those that
say "I believe in God, the Creator", but when it comes to creed, they are confused and / or not orthodox.
Do you see what I'm saying?

..so are you going to be "with the dajal [beast]", or with Jesus?
..or maybe you will "wait and see" and you are not sure?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is very easy to deny things.
Take the climate-change deniers .. they have a material interest.
That is what Jesus is saying..
24 "And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven"
- Matthew 10 -

I advise people not to VOTE for a "rich man"

An analysis conducted by The Carbon Brief in 2011 found that 9 out of 10 of the most prolific authors who cast doubt on climate change or speak against it had ties to ExxonMobil

 

OK. each to his own.

Your opinion, OK, but it's not a reasonable nor rational argument, I happen to disagree.

As Aquinas said: "(one) can dispute with one who denies its principles (revelation), if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections."
(Summa Theologica, I, I, a8 emphasis mine)

No problem with that.

Again, that's an opinion.

Context is everything ...

The declaration of Surat Al Nisa regarding the crucifixion is NOT CRYSTAL CLEAR, for reasons cited in depth above. You may dispute them, argue them, reason them, but that just makes the point. If Scripture was CRYSTAL CLEAR there would be no need of tafsir.

There's plenty of grist for your mill on wiki

 

On what grounds?
"A leap of faith, in its most commonly used meaning, is the act of believing in or accepting something outside the boundaries of reason"

As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term "mystical union".
- wiki Hypostatic_union -

The Council of Chalcedon, meeting in 451 AD, affirmed that Christ had two natures – human and divine – in hypostatic union.

Politics, man, politics.

 

On what grounds?
Your comment:
"Philosophical gobldigook dreamt up by humans with a political agenda.
It makes religion incomprehensible, imo."

Is an opinion with which I disagree. Grounds? I find it ill-informed, wilfully ignorant of 2,000 years of Christian metaphysics and theology – but then you've dismissed philosophy generally – and your manner mildly abusive, although that's water off a duck's back.

And regarding mystery – you surely do not think that man has the measure of God?

Why the insistence that the crucifixion never happened? As you say, "Politics, man, politics"

 

The term "Great Church" (Latin: ecclesia magna) is used in the historiography of early Christianity to mean the period of about 180 to 313, between that of primitive Christianity and that of the legalization of the Christian religion in the Roman Empire, corresponding closely to what is called the Ante-Nicene Period.
...
The term is contrasted with Jewish Christians who came to be more and more clearly separated from the Great Church.
...
In francophone scholarship, the term Grande Église (Latin: Ecclesia magna) has also been equated with the "more hellenized" as opposed to "Judaizing" sections of the early church, and the Bar Kokhba revolt is seen as a definitive stage in the separation between Judaism and the Christianity of the "Grande Église".
-wiki Great_Church-

The point being, that orthodox Christianity evolved, and the claims of different churches, be they western or eastern,
that only they have the original teachings relies on "a leap of faith". It cannot be shown to be true.

Well then. How can you be so sure that Jesus is part-divine and part-human?
It contradicts the shema. i.e. God is One Lord

What does 'God is One' mean to you?
Dividing God up into different parts doesn't conform to my idea of 'One'
Naturally, a person [ or gentile ] can claim such things, but I would suggest that its roots are in ignorance.
A multitude of gentile bishops making fatwas has little to do with Jesus and Judaism.

 

That's right. Wiki articles hold opinions from people of different or no faith(s).
@Grandad has already shown you why your assertions are false.

I have also shown you that hadith is the same as the Gospels, in as much that they report what Jesus and Muhammad
actually said. They are not necessarily fact, but have a lot going for them

The truth needs to be unravelled.
At the end of the day, we believe what we WANT to believe, and
only God knows why we differ.
Some of us might have sincere beliefs, and others would rather "stick to what they have known since childhood".
..whatever.