The Erroneous Islam

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to wodey

jesus was neither a fundamentalist or religious, he was try to bring to the people, a new consciousness, and that is why the jews at the time, who were the priestly class, got upset, because he didnt honour their ritualistc religious ways, and said, i have come to forfill the law.

any way he got too popular with the people, and the jews conspired with the romans to do away with him, then he was martyd

cheers vishvahetu

But Christ said that the prophets spoke of him. How is this not a fundamentalist position conerning the scriptures?

Please note that Christ specifically said he did not come to "do away with" the laws of the prophets. What he came to do was to fulfill the law as you say. So how did he accomplish this?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Fundamentalism is a state of the heart, in my opinion.

Originally posted by whodey
Explain.

Christian fundamentlists has told me so. I think it's the same with other religious fundamentalists as well. And all other fundamentalists too.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Christian fundamentlists has told me so. I think it's the same with other religious fundamentalists as well. And all other fundamentalists too.

Sorry, I have no idea what this means. What is a fundamentalist in your opinion?

Originally posted by whodey
Sorry, I have no idea what this means. What is a fundamentalist in your opinion?

"I am right! Therefore you must be wrong. And if I am right, then I am superior, and you are inferior. And if you are inferior then you have no value."
Something like this.

Originally posted by whodey
But Christ said that the prophets spoke of him. How is this not a fundamentalist position conerning the scriptures?

Please note that Christ specifically said he did not come to "do away with" the laws of the prophets. What he came to do was to fulfill the law as you say. So how did he accomplish this?

to whodey

as i said before, jesus was not religious or fundamental, he was bringing a new consciousness to the people, becuase the way it was, was ritualistic empty ceromonies, with no spirit of the truth, only the letter of the truth.

anyway, this new consciouness was a spiritual consiousness which is demonstrated through the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law, this is how he forfilled the law, by bringing this change.

cheers vishvahetu

Originally posted by whodey
But Christ said that the prophets spoke of him. How is this not a fundamentalist position conerning the scriptures?

Please note that Christ specifically said he did not come to "do away with" the laws of the prophets. What he came to do was to fulfill the law as you say. So how did he accomplish this?

Well who says Christ said these things? Was it not Matthew, writing a Century later and wishing to write an account which would place Jesus in the Jewish tradition as a Messiah, who conveniently wrote into his account whatever suited his opinion? Jesus never wrote a word, or if he did it has been lost.

Originally posted by whodey
Sorry, I have no idea what this means. What is a fundamentalist in your opinion?

One decent account of Fundamentalism is by Karen Armstrong and called "The battle for God." The key point she makes is that fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon and has limited historical justification if any. It is, if anything, a reaction against modernism among people who find this a threat. In the case of Islamic fundamentalism, which of course fits this account and is in her book, there is an important link (which she does not discuss) with Christian fundamentalism in the States through the right wing philosopher Strauss who explicitly saw religion as a tool to manipulate the masses. He formed his opinions in the same context as an Egyptian Muslim studying the in the States at that time who took his version of this approach back to Egypt - I forget his name alas.

Originally posted by finnegan
Well who says Christ said these things? Was it not Matthew, writing a Century later and wishing to write an account which would place Jesus in the Jewish tradition as a Messiah, who conveniently wrote into his account whatever suited his opinion? Jesus never wrote a word, or if he did it has been lost.

Well who says Christ said these things?
The Bible, which was written on the basis of eyewitness testimony.

Was it not Matthew, writing a Century later and wishing to write an account which would place Jesus in the Jewish tradition as a Messiah, who conveniently wrote into his account whatever suited his opinion?
Matthew, His disciple, writing 100 years later? What would that make him: 150 years old?
Matthew, the tax collector who was an outcast from society? He had designs on how to fashion the life of the Lord Jesus Christ into what he perceived to be the Jewish tradition--- that somehow was missed completely by the Jews of His day?

Jesus never wrote a word, or if he did it has been lost.
Possible, but, just as in His day, He continues writing in the dirt.

Originally posted by finnegan
One decent account of Fundamentalism is by Karen Armstrong and called "The battle for God." The key point she makes is that fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon and has limited historical justification if any. It is, if anything, a reaction against modernism among people who find this a threat. In the case of Islamic fundamentalism, which of course fits t ...[text shortened]... tes at that time who took his version of this approach back to Egypt - I forget his name alas.

Fundamentalism, like any other emotional reaction to perceived threat, always starts off well-intended. That which was propagated here in the States back when the 20th century was new was directly influenced by the 'threats' coming from Germany and other centers of academia. The leaders in theology at that time had no response to the revelations being uncovered by the likes of higher criticism--- it was like the other side was playing chess while they were still stuck on checkers.

So what did they do to protect themselves? Bunkered down. Brilliant. It makes about as much sense as the movement that became the Amish: when life and its evolving inquiries get too close to your idols, stop time!

The fact of the matter is, unless the question can be answered satisfactorily, new evidence necessarily must be allowed to stay on the table of consideration. The theological leaders of the early 20th century emphatically could not respond to the challenges of that tumultuous time, and the resultant mess we have today is the dichotomous, knee-jerk, hot button issue-driven society we live in today. Want to know if a candidate is 'spiritual?' Ask him what he thinks about abortion, gay marriage, gun control or prayer in schools.

It's embarrassing beyond words.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Fundamentalism, like any other emotional reaction to perceived threat, always starts off well-intended. That which was propagated here in the States back when the 20th century was new was directly influenced by the 'threats' coming from Germany and other centers of academia. The leaders in theology at that time had no response to the revelations being un ...[text shortened]... rtion, gay marriage, gun control or prayer in schools.

It's embarrassing beyond words.

Cautiously, it seems we agree on this specific. Life's not all bad then.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Well who says Christ said these things?
The Bible, which was written on the basis of eyewitness testimony.

Was it not Matthew, writing a Century later and wishing to write an account which would place Jesus in the Jewish tradition as a Messiah, who conveniently wrote into his account whatever suited his opinion?
Matthew, His disciple, wr ...[text shortened]... did it has been lost.[/b]
Possible, but, just as in His day, He continues writing in the dirt.[/b]

Ah - methinks we read different histories. No it was not Matthew the apostle who wrote that Gospel but that drives us into an academic debate - let's just disagree for now because I would only rely on secondary sources (a number of different ones with diverse perspectives but I am not a historian) and you would rely on different ones that you trust and then we go into space.

However, regardless of who may have written it, it was written for an audience by a writer with a particular attitude. It was not a dispassionate, independent work of what we would today consider history. Indeed, the notion of writing dispassionate history was not much heard of in those days, despite some early (debatable) exemplars.

The Gospels were written by early Christians and for their own use - they were not verified by other histories or records. Certainly, in case you want to debate even that, the quotations from Jesus that you rely on have no other sources.

Originally posted by finnegan
Cautiously, it seems we agree on this specific. Life's not all bad then.

And you thought miracles dead!

Originally posted by finnegan
Ah - methinks we read different histories. No it was not Matthew the apostle who wrote that Gospel but that drives us into an academic debate - let's just disagree for now because I would only rely on secondary sources (a number of different ones with diverse perspectives but I am not a historian) and you would rely on different ones that you trust and then ...[text shortened]... you want to debate even that, the quotations from Jesus that you rely on have no other sources.

It's impossible to project our assumed objectivity upon an age so disparate from ours, when the verbal carried so much weight in opposition to the written, which was considered--- at best--- secondary.

That being said, we have more external support for the subjects written about in the first five books of the NT than any other book of antiquity. To say that Christians wrote them for their own use is state an obvious: man has always had a desire to shape thinking, declare reality for others to acknowledge. What is absent in all of the books of both Testaments, however, is the curiosity of the ages; namely, where is the arrogance universally associated with the self-scribed histories of all societies? In these 66 books we see no such arrogance, but it is replaced with forthright renderings of even the authors' own failures.

For instance, assuming Matthew's authorship, why would he include his own abandonment of the leader of 'his' cause? If, instead, others were attributing the work to Matthew, the same holds true. Were I to want to convince anyone of authorship of someone else's doing, wouldn't I at least assimilate sympathy for that person's position/reputation?

As far as not having anything directly from the Lord Jesus Christ, as in "this is from Me, yo," I'd contend this dovetails nicely with the nature of revelation of this age. When under a theocentric dispensation, direct communication (tangible, physical) from God was the order of the day. This Christocentric age, i.e., when His glory is placed into jars of clay, while no less specific in its application of holiness, removes the Shekinah presence from a temple made with hands and transfers Him into the Spirit-prepared heart/soul of man.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It's impossible to project our assumed objectivity upon an age so disparate from ours, when the verbal carried so much weight in opposition to the written, which was considered--- at best--- secondary.

That being said, we have more external support for the subjects written about in the first five books of the NT than any other book of antiquity. To say ...[text shortened]... temple made with hands and transfers Him into the Spirit-prepared heart/soul of man.

Nothing you say directly conflicts with what I say. Apparently, the solution you adopt is to assert divine inspiration and maybe that works for you. It does nothing for me.

To attribute arrogance to those seeking evidence is, however, a step in the direction of confusion and deceit. Whether it is or is not arrogant to apply Reason to any problem is incidental to the validity or otherwise of the evidence deployed and the reasoning adopted, each of which is available for scrutiny and refutation in a way that your humble (presumably?) assertion of divine inspiration is not.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Fundamentalism, like any other emotional reaction to perceived threat, always starts off well-intended. That which was propagated here in the States back when the 20th century was new was directly influenced by the 'threats' coming from Germany and other centers of academia. The leaders in theology at that time had no response to the revelations being un ...[text shortened]... rtion, gay marriage, gun control or prayer in schools.

It's embarrassing beyond words.

Agreed! (Though we so seldom do, that I, like Finnegan, am tempted to a caution that seems unwarranted by your post. 🙂 )