993
edits
User:CPO675/Sandbox 1: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→The Historical Jesus
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
=== Other Traditions === | === Other Traditions === | ||
Alongside the main consensus from Biblical Scholars that Jesus was really an eschatological | Alongside the main consensus from Biblical Scholars that Jesus was really an eschatological preacher in the early first century AD who believed the Earth would end during his time and therefore couldn't be the Muslim Jesus, there are many other of the most considered authentic teachings of Jesus that clash with Islam considering the message of Messenger Uniformitarianism (cite Durie - reuse 51 citation),<ref>Durie, Mark. ''The Qur’an and Its Biblical Reflexes: Investigations into the Genesis of a Religion (pp. 135-142) (pp. 281-294 Kindle Edition)''. 5.3 Messenger Uniformitarianism. Lexington Books. 2018.</ref> where all messengers from God/Allah are outside of minor variations said to essentially preach the same thing. | ||
While the large differences between the New Testament / Gospels / Christian Jesus and the [[Isa al-Masih (Jesus Christ)|Muslim Jesus]] are clear to anyone who has read both the Qur'an and NT, (which takes from apocrypha considered inauthentic by NT scholars,<ref>Sanders, E.. ''The Historical Figure of Jesus (pp. 78-79)''. Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition. | While the large differences between the New Testament / Gospels / Christian Jesus and the [[Isa al-Masih (Jesus Christ)|Muslim Jesus]] are clear to anyone who has read both the Qur'an and NT, (which takes from apocrypha considered inauthentic by NT scholars,<ref>Sanders, E.. ''The Historical Figure of Jesus (pp. 78-79)''. Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition. | ||
..(Gnosticism was a world view that held everything material to be evil; the god who created the world was a bad god, and the creation was wicked. Gnostics who were also Christians held that the good God had sent Jesus to redeem people’s souls, not their bodies, and that Jesus was not a real human being. The Christians who objected to these views finally declared them heretical.) ''I share the general scholarly view that very, very little in the apocryphal gospels could conceivably go back to the time of Jesus. They are legendary and mythological. Of all the apocryphal material, only some of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas are worth consideration.'' This does not mean that we can make a clean division: the historical four gospels versus the legendary apocryphal gospels. There are legendary traits in the four gospels in the New Testament, and there is also a certain amount of newly created material (as we saw just above)..</ref> and [[Parallels Between the Qur'an and Late Antique Judeo-Christian Literature|later Christian thought/writings]] ) | ..(Gnosticism was a world view that held everything material to be evil; the god who created the world was a bad god, and the creation was wicked. Gnostics who were also Christians held that the good God had sent Jesus to redeem people’s souls, not their bodies, and that Jesus was not a real human being. The Christians who objected to these views finally declared them heretical.) ''I share the general scholarly view that very, very little in the apocryphal gospels could conceivably go back to the time of Jesus. They are legendary and mythological. Of all the apocryphal material, only some of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas are worth consideration.'' This does not mean that we can make a clean division: the historical four gospels versus the legendary apocryphal gospels. There are legendary traits in the four gospels in the New Testament, and there is also a certain amount of newly created material (as we saw just above)..</ref> and [[Parallels Between the Qur'an and Late Antique Judeo-Christian Literature|later Christian thought/writings]] ) are too large to list here, a summary of some of the most likely authentic traditions from Biblical historians (using historical-critical methods not Christian or Muslim theologians) are shown here as an example of the clashes. | ||
- m but clearly differences to anyone familiar (usually put down to biblical corruption?) as new and late antique ideas take over, however even if one accepts biblical corruption idea, looking at the most likely saying from a historical critical view, | |||
<s>- m but clearly differences to anyone familiar (usually put down to biblical corruption?) as new and late antique ideas take over,</s> however even if one accepts biblical corruption idea, looking at the most likely saying from a historical critical view, notes many that are likely truly said by the real historical figure (biblical scholar 0 n skin in the game with Islam) For example - list them out here | |||
Why - different to time and context, across all early sources etc. | Why - different to time and context, across all early sources etc. | ||
| Line 57: | Line 58: | ||
[number these and link rebuttal below somehow? - only quote the traditions that are | [number these and link rebuttal below somehow? - only quote the traditions that are | ||
Dale/Allison (2009) notes that Jesus' banning divorce was an important teaching that <s>stood out</s> to early Christians, in contrast to Judaism ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2024%3A1-4&version=NIV Deuteronomy 24:1-4]) and Islam e.g. Quran 2:228-232, Q65:1-7, (Q4:19 https://quranx.com/hadiths/4.19 & Q4:35), Q33:49 ) | |||
<nowiki>-----------------------------------------------------------------</nowiki> | <nowiki>-----------------------------------------------------------------</nowiki> | ||
{{Quote|Dale C. Allison Jr.. <i>The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Kindle Location 841-848).</i> Kindle Edition.|2=Working through the tradition in the way I suggest leads to a large number of conclusions. Jesus must have been an exorcist who interpreted his ministry in terms of Satan's downfall. He must have thought highly of John the Baptist. He must have repeatedly spoken of God as Father. <b>[Durie differences in metaphor and understanding of relationship from Hebrew to Arab society = markedly different]</b> He must have composed parables. He must have come into conflict with religious authorities. All of this may seem obvious, but the procedure is not trite, for it also issues in some controversial verdicts. As I have argued elsewhere, for example, ample, the quantity of conventional eschatological material in our primary sources almost necessitates that Jesus was an eschatological prophet.' The reconstruction of Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar is for this reason alone problematic. Even more controversial is what my approach leads me to infer about Jesus' self-conception. Consider these Synoptic materials: | {{Quote|Dale C. Allison Jr.. <i>The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Kindle Location 841-848).</i> Kindle Edition.|2=Working through the tradition in the way I suggest leads to a large number of conclusions. Jesus must have been an exorcist who interpreted his ministry in terms of Satan's downfall. He must have thought highly of John the Baptist. He must have repeatedly spoken of God as Father. <b>[Durie differences in metaphor and understanding of relationship from Hebrew to Arab society = markedly different]</b> He must have composed parables. He must have come into conflict with religious authorities. All of this may seem obvious, but the procedure is not trite, for it also issues in some controversial verdicts. As I have argued elsewhere, for example, ample, the quantity of conventional eschatological material in our primary sources almost necessitates that Jesus was an eschatological prophet.' The reconstruction of Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar is for this reason alone problematic. Even more controversial is what my approach leads me to infer about Jesus' self-conception. Consider these Synoptic materials: | ||