That makes sense! I've also heard that the Magi were possibly (likely?) Zoroastrian priests. It's quite a fascinating faith; from my studies it appears to be the first significant monotheistic faith that we know of, with the possible (albeit controversial) exception of Atenism.
So, if it's conceived properly? That would make three religions possibly reflect the same answer with different distinctions. Amazing how one verse can have it's own different interpretation of matters, if viewed differently.
Nowhere in the Bible is it recorded that Jesus said, "I am God." At the same time, this does not mean that He did not claim to be God. Is Jesus God? "The Word was God," and in verse 14, "The Word became flesh." This indicates that Jesus became God in the flesh. The text of the Act informs us: "Therefore, hearken to yourselves and to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has appointed you guardians, to shepherd the Church of the Lord and God, which He has acquired for Himself with His Blood." Who paid with his blood for the Church?
Welcome to the forums, @Bafarett. Since this is a thread about our personal beliefs, do you want to answer your question yourself? Also, there's an introductions forum and our Code of conduct. Be sure to pay both a visit, introduce yourself, and agree to our code of conduct.
Similar or dissimilar to any group? We try...we succeed some...we fail some...we continue... Believe or not folks come here with preconceived notions and firmly held personal beliefs ...but an interest in what others believe and think... Everyone has motives and expectations.
The subject derives from the Muslim contention that if Jesus was God, it means there must be two gods and therefore Christian are polytheists in contradiction to the 'shema' first commandment. The discussion has been going on for centuries, and Muslims do not accept the explanations used by Christians. The discussion continues in this thread, and many others on these forums https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20088/page-3 Muslims do not accept that Jesus died on the cross. In the process of trying to prove from the New Testament that Jesus did not die on the cross -- and therefore was not resurrected -- the Gospel of John is usually rejected as 'corrupted' along with the entire Pauline writings, and various selected passages that support the incarnation, imo
I find this interesting because, to me, the crucifixion of Jesus is the only part of the gospel accounts that seems like it probably really happened. It's one of the few events that secular scholars seem to agree on the historicity of. It's the the "minimal facts" Jesus: a Jewish preacher that was executed and came to be regarded as the messiah. I am skeptical of the resurrection, too, but for different reasons.
I wouldn't say "corrupted".. It is just a sectarian text, that was included in the Bible due to its "Christology". It includes a foreword by an author of disputable origin, that is based on a philosophical opinion, and not actual events or reported saying of Jesus. It is not a text "sent down from heaven" .. it is what it is.
