What is your belief about jesus christ?

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Because his teachings were going against how the authorities wanted people to live.

On the other hand, they might have been afraid of a possible heresy groing strong among the peasants which could have a lot of bad results.

Additionally, Jesus was admittedly able to influence a lot of people; the authorities saw that he started to have a following.

Teenaged

And seeing how the crowd is easily manipulated I am not that surprised by a turn of stance from them at the duration of his trial and finally his crucifiction. The authorities could easily label anyone as heretic or liar.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="mindstorm"] Crowds shouting "Crucify him!" and friends betraying him doesn't sound very much like a strong following. Only after his resurrection did most of his supposed followers believe he was who he said he was.

mindstorm

And seeing how the crowd is easily manipulated I am not that surprised by a turn of stance from them at the duration of his trial and finally his crucifiction. The authorities could easily label anyone as heretic or liar.

I didnt say I dont believe that he indeed claimed to be the son of God. I cant know for sure, but I never refuted that.

The people who were crucified were killed for blasphemy, crimes against the state, etc. Crucifixion was the most horrid way to kill a person. Romans didn't talk about it. Women were crucified backwards so none would have to look upon her face. Crucifixion was left for the worst of crimes like claiming to be God, not telling people to love your neighbor.mindstorm

What, only deities can be murdered by governments? Back in Roman times religion was a method of social control, having one universal religion made it easier for the Roamns to promote loyalty and keep peace. Jews were an exception because they had never threatened Roman authority before. Now Jesus comes along with this new sect of Jews and teaches things that could be considered revolutionary at the time, like give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's and give to god what is god's, or that god is the only real king and all men ruling as kings do so by god's authority. The Romans didn't want to have to make concessions for every new Jewish sect that came along, and they certainly didn't want religion being used to undermine their empire, that's why they crucified Jesus. It had nothing to do with if he was actually a deity or not.

As for the Jewish religious leaders, they probably had much the same reasons. Jesus didn't necessarily conflict with their teachings, but he was making trouble with the Romans. They rightfully feared that if Jesus' teachings became synonymous with Judiasm that all Jews would suffer for what Jesus was teaching.

Jesus was a political casualty, simple as that. That he was executed proves nothing. The Romans also executed Celts, Gauls, Druids, and just about any other person who refused to accept Roman gods and traditions. Does that make all those people deities as well?

theone86

Ah I think we have a misunderstanding. :P

I didnt say I dont believe that he indeed claimed to be the son of God. I cant know for sure, but I never refuted that.

Teenaged

Then he must have been a serious threat to the Roman state. Especially given that the downfall of the Roman state came only a couple hundred years after Christ's birth and the advent of Christianity. He obviously was doing something to piss the Roman's off. If he were just a guy walking around telling people to love their neighbour, I doubt they would have cared.

But the chances of us knowing the real cause of all of this is almost negligible. History has forgotten the actual events it seems.

foxhound_fox

Ah, poor mindstorm. :P

Ah, poor mindstorm. :P

ghoklebutter

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

There is another verse that says you have to marry them.

Anonymous_2

"And whose is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. This is for him among you who feareth to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you." (An-Nisaa': 25)

I'm done here. PM me if you have anymore questions.

[QUOTE="theone86"]What, only deities can be murdered by governments? Back in Roman times religion was a method of social control, having one universal religion made it easier for the Roamns to promote loyalty and keep peace. Jews were an exception because they had never threatened Roman authority before. Now Jesus comes along with this new sect of Jews and teaches things that could be considered revolutionary at the time, like give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's and give to god what is god's, or that god is the only real king and all men ruling as kings do so by god's authority. The Romans didn't want to have to make concessions for every new Jewish sect that came along, and they certainly didn't want religion being used to undermine their empire, that's why they crucified Jesus. It had nothing to do with if he was actually a deity or not.

As for the Jewish religious leaders, they probably had much the same reasons. Jesus didn't necessarily conflict with their teachings, but he was making trouble with the Romans. They rightfully feared that if Jesus' teachings became synonymous with Judiasm that all Jews would suffer for what Jesus was teaching.

Jesus was a political casualty, simple as that. That he was executed proves nothing. The Romans also executed Celts, Gauls, Druids, and just about any other person who refused to accept Roman gods and traditions. Does that make all those people deities as well?

mindstorm

Jesus preached against the Pharisees at times, Jesus aggrivated Jewish religious leaders. I'm not saying they worshipped seperately, I'm saying Jesus' teachings constituted a seperate sect. Romans feared that what Jesus was saying, along with the type of following he was generating would cause unrest. Jewish leaders feares that Jesus' teahcings would be seen by Romans as representing Judiasm as a whole and would turn the Romans against them. There's absolutely foundation in written history, as even before th events of the crucifixtion Roman officials were discussing Jesus and what he meant to future political stability.

BTW, "Jesus died because the religious leaders accused him of blasphemy...They killed him based on the Pharisaic religious laws of that day." That's called politics.

There is some historical evidence that points toward a man named Jesus Christ, that is all.

I believe in A god, just not in a catholic way.

Let's think it through logically. We know through historical proofs and historians that a popular man named Jesus of Nazareth did in fact exist. He was crucified, then the rest gets sketchy historically speaking.

Now we could say maybe he was just crazy. If he was crazy why did so many people follow him. He would have shown signs of being crazy and people would not have given up their lives to follow and believe in him.

Now we could say he was a liar. Why kind of person is a good enough liar to put on a 3 year ruse that ends in one of the most excruciating tortures, and deaths. would he have stood by his beliefs after all he had to go through.

So logically he was telling the truth, there is a small chance that one of the other things could have been a possibility but it's small.

ferrari2001

Jesus preached against the Pharisees at times, Jesus aggrivated Jewish religious leaders. I'm not saying they worshipped seperately, I'm saying Jesus' teachings constituted a seperate sect. Romans feared that what Jesus was saying, along with the type of following he was generating would cause unrest. Jewish leaders feares that Jesus' teahcings would be seen by Romans as representing Judiasm as a whole and would turn the Romans against them. There's absolutely foundation in written history, as even before th events of the crucifixtion Roman officials were discussing Jesus and what he meant to future political stability.

BTW, "Jesus died because the religious leaders accused him of blasphemy...They killed him based on the Pharisaic religious laws of that day." That's called politics.

theone86

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

Lol I got that verse wrong sorry. :P

You were allowed to marry slave women, but since slavery is abolished in most parts of the world, this ruling is now unimportant. Just like the verse about not praying when drunk.

Anonymous_2

Let me stress on this, you could only marry them, and it obviously had to be mutual, because Islam forbids forced marriage in any form.

ghoklebutter

The verses are there clearly telling you to have sex with your "captives". I mean lets not ask for their consent in becoming a captive but sure we are going to ask them for sex mutually.:lol:....:|

Muhammad IS the best role model according to our belief. That doesn't mean you take everything 100% literally.

People back then treated slaves like animals, then when Islam came slavery itself was eventually abolished in that area.

Islam says slavery is wrong. If Islam prohibits it, then that law about marrying slaves is unimportant.

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]

Let's think it through logically. We know through historical proofs and historians that a popular man named Jesus of Nazareth did in fact exist. He was crucified, then the rest gets sketchy historically speaking.

Now we could say maybe he was just crazy. If he was crazy why did so many people follow him. He would have shown signs of being crazy and people would not have given up their lives to follow and believe in him.

Now we could say he was a liar. Why kind of person is a good enough liar to put on a 3 year ruse that ends in one of the most excruciating tortures, and deaths. would he have stood by his beliefs after all he had to go through.

So logically he was telling the truth, there is a small chance that one of the other things could have been a possibility but it's small.

dkdk999

[QUOTE="theone86"]What, only deities can be murdered by governments? Back in Roman times religion was a method of social control, having one universal religion made it easier for the Roamns to promote loyalty and keep peace. Jews were an exception because they had never threatened Roman authority before. Now Jesus comes along with this new sect of Jews and teaches things that could be considered revolutionary at the time, like give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's and give to god what is god's, or that god is the only real king and all men ruling as kings do so by god's authority. The Romans didn't want to have to make concessions for every new Jewish sect that came along, and they certainly didn't want religion being used to undermine their empire, that's why they crucified Jesus. It had nothing to do with if he was actually a deity or not.

As for the Jewish religious leaders, they probably had much the same reasons. Jesus didn't necessarily conflict with their teachings, but he was making trouble with the Romans. They rightfully feared that if Jesus' teachings became synonymous with Judiasm that all Jews would suffer for what Jesus was teaching.

Jesus was a political casualty, simple as that. That he was executed proves nothing. The Romans also executed Celts, Gauls, Druids, and just about any other person who refused to accept Roman gods and traditions. Does that make all those people deities as well?

mindstorm

Jesus need not be a crazy delusionist to be wrong. In the words of the great new testament scholar Albert Schweitzer, he could have merely been "trying to move the wheel of history, but couldn't and so he threw himself upon the wheel of history, but got crushed" (In esssense, in trying to bring about the kingdom of God, he got crucified)

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]What, only deities can be murdered by governments? Back in Roman times religion was a method of social control, having one universal religion made it easier for the Roamns to promote loyalty and keep peace. Jews were an exception because they had never threatened Roman authority before. Now Jesus comes along with this new sect of Jews and teaches things that could be considered revolutionary at the time, like give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's and give to god what is god's, or that god is the only real king and all men ruling as kings do so by god's authority. The Romans didn't want to have to make concessions for every new Jewish sect that came along, and they certainly didn't want religion being used to undermine their empire, that's why they crucified Jesus. It had nothing to do with if he was actually a deity or not.

As for the Jewish religious leaders, they probably had much the same reasons. Jesus didn't necessarily conflict with their teachings, but he was making trouble with the Romans. They rightfully feared that if Jesus' teachings became synonymous with Judiasm that all Jews would suffer for what Jesus was teaching.

Jesus was a political casualty, simple as that. That he was executed proves nothing. The Romans also executed Celts, Gauls, Druids, and just about any other person who refused to accept Roman gods and traditions. Does that make all those people deities as well?

-Sun_Tzu-

I believe that he was two men. 1) An actual living Jewish person who did good things and most likely was a self-proclaimed messiah and 2) the posthumously apotheosized founder of Christianity. I very much highly doubt the actual "Jesus" who lived was anything like he is described in the Bible. Considering that most religious texts never report actual history of events and prefer to create largely over-blown myth and legend to further cement the validity of the person at the centre of the myth and create a more sound parabolic and metaphorical ways of delivering a moral message (and that not even 5% of the Bible is about Jesus).

Just like Shakyamuni Buddha's life was recounted in the Pali Canon. It may have happened, but as far as the texts are concerned, it most likely did not happen that way and was merely reported to happen that way for mythological effect. Its an almost universal aspect of religion. Defunct or living.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]What, only deities can be murdered by governments? Back in Roman times religion was a method of social control, having one universal religion made it easier for the Roamns to promote loyalty and keep peace. Jews were an exception because they had never threatened Roman authority before. Now Jesus comes along with this new sect of Jews and teaches things that could be considered revolutionary at the time, like give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's and give to god what is god's, or that god is the only real king and all men ruling as kings do so by god's authority. The Romans didn't want to have to make concessions for every new Jewish sect that came along, and they certainly didn't want religion being used to undermine their empire, that's why they crucified Jesus. It had nothing to do with if he was actually a deity or not.

As for the Jewish religious leaders, they probably had much the same reasons. Jesus didn't necessarily conflict with their teachings, but he was making trouble with the Romans. They rightfully feared that if Jesus' teachings became synonymous with Judiasm that all Jews would suffer for what Jesus was teaching.

Jesus was a political casualty, simple as that. That he was executed proves nothing. The Romans also executed Celts, Gauls, Druids, and just about any other person who refused to accept Roman gods and traditions. Does that make all those people deities as well?

-Sun_Tzu-

Did you really say that the Sadducees "were not the most religious people in the world"? They were some of the most devout jews in Israel. They were the conservatives of the day. They held to the Pentateuch boldly while the Pharisees incorporated non-torahnic texts.

danwallacefan

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="mindstorm"] Not for the longest time did the Romans acknowledge Jesus to not be apart of the Jews. Not for many years after Jesus death did people treat Christians differently than Jews. They met in the same synagogues, they read the same Scripture, etc. Jesus died because the religious leaders accused him of blasphemy, the only thing the Romans had against him was... well nothing. They killed him based on the Pharisaic religious laws of that day, not because of politics. Anything you say otherwise is purely guesswork and has no foundation in written history.

mindstorm

Citing the Bible as a historical source, and you're accusing me of not being historically accurate.

Did you really say that the Sadducees "were not the most religious people in the world"? They were some of the most devout jews in Israel. They were the conservatives of the day. They held to the Pentateuch boldly while the Pharisees incorporated non-torahnic texts.danwallacefan

They're Both are devout and religious. The sad thing is that their zeal to protect the sabbath end up breaking the other 10 commandments.(Killing, Lying, and so on).

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="mindstorm"] Not for the longest time did the Romans acknowledge Jesus to not be apart of the Jews. Not for many years after Jesus death did people treat Christians differently than Jews. They met in the same synagogues, they read the same Scripture, etc. Jesus died because the religious leaders accused him of blasphemy, the only thing the Romans had against him was... well nothing. They killed him based on the Pharisaic religious laws of that day, not because of politics. Anything you say otherwise is purely guesswork and has no foundation in written history.

danwallacefan

Jesus is the Son of the Living God, second person in the Trinity, and Lord over all of creation. He humbled himself by leaving his throne and taking on the role of a servant, lived, bled, died for my sins, resurrected from the dead, and is now seated in power at the right hand of God. He is my Savior and my Lord. Rawr.mindstorm

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

Muhammad IS the best role model according to our belief. That doesn't mean you take everything 100% literally.

People back then treated slaves like animals, then when Islam came slavery itself was eventually abolished in that area.

Islam says slavery is wrong. If Islam prohibits it, then that law about marrying slaves is unimportant.

Anonymous_2

Prophet muhammad was a great man yes, only the arrogant haters would say otherwise BUT we are talking about "absoluteness" here "the last and greatest prophet of God", "the final COMPLETE religion". As far as I can see muhammad's morals have defnitely not lived up to that, I see evidence here of him having laid down the morals "himself". He perhaps thought that they are sufficient enough for humanity of all ages to come.

Where does Islam says that slavery is wrong?

Lol, Aisha at 9 years old. Don't even bring that Hadith up because it's much disputed in its authenticity.

Show me evidence that the Prophet had slaves.

The Quran does not say that explicitly. It made laws that weakened slavery, and evetually it was abolished in the area.

They're Both are devout and religious. The sad thing is that their zeal to protect the sabbath end up breaking the other 10 commandments.(Killing, Lying, and so on).

Varemon

But a Catholic priest is more religious than the pharisee and the saducee in my opinion. Since Catholic priest can't marry, and they're mostly got very little money.

*cough* or the account in Scripture is true *cough* :Pmindstorm

Where does Islam says that slavery is wrong?

Anonymous_2

Christianity if you study the bible and the history also does not say that slavery is wrong. In fact, they embrace it as "culture".

He probably did exist. I would say the rest is fiction.

Citing the Bible as a historical source, and you're accusing me of not being historically accurate.

theone86

If something can be proven true within Scripture, why not at least acknowledge some other aspects of Scripture to be true? Let me give you an example, Acts 18 mentions someone by the name of Gallio who was the proconsul of Achaia. The following inscription dates back to the time of Christ and mentions this very man. I'm assuming you can't read Greek, but his name is in the center of this inscription. :P

If something like this is true, then why can't some other parts of Scripture be true?

Edit: Btw, here is something about Gallio.

Other than being used by christians in the latter half of the first millenium as holy scripture, what makes the Gospels and Pauline epistles "religious"?danwallacefan

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="mindstorm"] Not for the longest time did the Romans acknowledge Jesus to not be apart of the Jews. Not for many years after Jesus death did people treat Christians differently than Jews. They met in the same synagogues, they read the same Scripture, etc. Jesus died because the religious leaders accused him of blasphemy, the only thing the Romans had against him was... well nothing. They killed him based on the Pharisaic religious laws of that day, not because of politics. Anything you say otherwise is purely guesswork and has no foundation in written history.

mindstorm

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]*cough* or the account in Scripture is true *cough* :Pfoxhound_fox

Also the Sadducees didn't testify against Jesus before Pilate on religious grounds but rather political grounds.

-Sun_Tzu-

I think it's very possible someone like him existed at one time. He was probably a messiah who was good to people and was supposed to do all these miracles before he was crucified. All stories are based on some truth. However, that he was the son of god, i dont know and nobody ever will.

None of those choices represent the truth.

Fact... Jesus was a real person.

Fact.. mythology made him into a bigger figure than he really was.

Fact.. nobody knows if there is a god or not.. no matter what they tell you.

Actually, I do not believe that's true whatsoever. The only book that I believe can possibly be dated after 100 A.D. is Revelation.

mindstorm

Jesus...

eh hes a pretty cool guy, kills aliens and dosnt afraid of anything

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Because his teachings sought to loosen the power those religiosu leaders and roman officials had over the general population.

mindstorm

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"] Did you really say that the Sadducees "were not the most religious people in the world"? They were some of the most devout jews in Israel. They were the conservatives of the day. They held to the Pentateuch boldly while the Pharisees incorporated non-torahnic texts.

mindstorm

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]Other than being used by christians in the latter half of the first millenium as holy scripture, what makes the Gospels and Pauline epistles "religious"?foxhound_fox

Yes, Christians use them as a source of dogma and ritual (well, actually, most details about christian ritual come from the church fathers), but that doesnt matter. If you're gonna try to discredit an author, you need to give us information about THE AUTHOR, not the audience.

danwallacefan

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"] Yes, Christians use them as a source of dogma and ritual (well, actually, most details about christian ritual come from the church fathers), but that doesnt matter. If you're gonna try to discredit an author, you need to give us information about THE AUTHOR, not the audience.

foxhound_fox