• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

How Jesus ended up as God

nightsafari

Alfrescian
Loyal
In the moslem religion, the real god is muhammad. This 'allah' is but a figurehead who will endorse any of muhammad's actions. It's like the chink history of 3 kindoms. Everyone knows who the child emperor is, and everyone knows that the real power behind the throne is the fiend Cao Cao. It's the same with allah and muhammad.

I doubt that. moslems kill critics of muhammad partly because of religious precedents such as this.

SARIYYAH OF `UMAYR IBN `ADI Then (occurred) the sariyyah of `Umayr ibn `Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against `Asma' Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. `Asma' was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses.

Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest until it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No two goats will butt together about her". This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him `Umayr, "basir" (the seeing).[8]
John, you certainly have me beat backwards and forwards with regards to knowledge of the Koran, but I don't think for Muslims the real god is Mohammed.

Instead, I think it's the clerics and the scribes who defined and continue to define it that are the real gods. As far as I am concerned, the Koran and Mohammed are two separate entities. 1 of those entities always uses the other to justify it's existence. The other is or was not even concerned or aware of it's existence. I'm sure you can figure out which is which.
 

tanwahtiu

Alfrescian
Loyal
Chinese were the first bullshitters of creation.

Go along this line and make yrlf rich.


self-knowledge is knowledge of God; the self and the divine are identical.

Second, the “living Jesus” of these texts speaks of illusion and enlightenment, not of sin and repentance, like the Jesus of the New Testament. Instead of coming to save us from sin, he comes as a guide who opens access to spiritual understanding. But when the disciple attains enlightenment, Jesus no longer serves as his spiritual master: the two have become equal–even identical.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/gnostic-gospels/
 

syed putra

Alfrescian
Loyal
Book Review: Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan
2517ba741d849592072baaaaa1adc323
by Rick on April 11, 2020

**** Recommend it

When it first came out in 2013, this book took a lot of heat from religious scholars that did not agree with Reza Aslan’s point of view. I think there were some sour greats too because it shot to the top of the NYTs best seller’s list and the the many works of these scholars’ on the same material did not. One of their main points was that since Reza Aslan was not saying something new about the material, somehow the book had no value. It is the same reaction that scholars give Malcom Gladwell too. These two authors synthesize deep research on complex subjects outside their field and try to make it readable and entertaining for the masses. When you do that, you are going to explain some of the deep-level details wrong or at least with not enough nuance to be completely correct. In other words, instead of writing an entire book on the subject or a chapter, the idea might get a sentence. For a non-scholar like me, I find that valuable.


From my side, the big hit on Aslan’s “research” is that he clearly states in numerous examples that the accepted gospels of the New Testament— Mark, Matthew, Luke and John— and other religious documents written at the same time are pure fiction, but then he cites them routinely to make his points. From his point of view, he would probably say that he was trying to get at the historical meaning of the Gospels by analyzing what they said not as historical truths but by analyzing what they were trying to say. He also states in the foreword that biblical scholars unanimously agree that if a fact is present in all four of the Gospels, then it is likely a historical truth. I find that ludicrous.

But I did find the book fascinating. Aslan gave me some things to think about in areas that I had not considered before.

Here is what I learned:

  • The bulk of Aslan’s ideas came from a 1967 book called “Jesus and the Zealots” written by S.G.F. Brandon
  • During Jesus’ ministry (28-30 CE), there were 72 disciples. Some were women and named in the Gospels. But the inner circle, The Twelve, were the principal bearers of Jesus’s message—the apostoloi, or “ambassadors”—apostles sent off to neighboring towns and villages to preach independently and without supervision. They would not be the leaders of Jesus’s movement, but rather its chief missionaries. Yet the Twelve had another more symbolic function, one that would manifest itself later in Jesus’s ministry. For they will come to represent the restoration of the twelve tribes of Israel, long since destroyed and scattered.
  • The texts used by scholars to research the historical Jesus were not written by historians. In fact the idea of a historian who checks and triple checks every fact was unknown to these writers. They were trying to craft a consistent message, dogma, or doctrine. They weren’t interested in historical facts.
  • Jesus was not the only messiah running around Jerusalem. Before and after his death, there were boatloads of them. Rome considered all of them seditionists and when they caused enough trouble, Roman leaders would have them crucified.
  • Jesus was not the only miracle worker running around Jerusalem either. There were tons. Magic was a thing back in the day and showmen and miracle workers not associated with religion were legitimate ways to make a living.
  • The two other men crucified with Jesus had a sign on their cross labeled “lestai” which meant bandit or Thief. But these words meant seditionist back in the day, not just simple thievery. Rome reserved crucifixion for revolting slaves as an example to deter. Jesus’s sign reads “ ‘titulus’ meaning KING OF THE JEWS. His crime: striving for kingly rule; sedition. And so, like every bandit and revolutionary, every rabble-rousing zealot and apocalyptic prophet who came before or after him—like Hezekiah and Judas, Theudas and Athronges, the Egyptian and the Samaritan, Simon son of Giora and Simon son of Kochba—Jesus of Nazareth is killed for daring to claim the mantle of king and messiah.”
  • The famous biblical story of Pontious Pilate, washing his hands of the entire matter, is likely pure fiction. He signed the death orders of many jews during his reign and likely didn’t give Jesus a second thought.
  • The biblical story of Mary and Joseph traveling to Bethlehem for the census is likely pure fiction too. Jesus was born in Nazareth, a small backwater. Mary was also likely an unwed mother.
  • The biblical story of Jesus on a rampage inside the Jerusalem Temple represents what Jesus was about compared to the other Messiahs. Rome’s playbook after conquering a land was to appoint local leaders to run things and to collect taxes. They let the conquered people keep their religions. In Jerusalem priests worked for the Romans, not the Jewish people. The poor had no way to even access the temple. You had to pay big money even to get close and most of that went to the local Jewish priests (plus taxes off the top for the Romans.) Jesus thought that anybody in the religion could have access to God without having to pay money. He thought the the Jewish priests were corrupt. The Jewish priests wanted Jesus crucified, not the Jewish people.
  • Jesus’ reign lasted only two years from the time he came into Jerusalem until his death.
  • “Jesus was part of a large family that included at least four brothers who are named in the gospels—James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas—and an unknown number of sisters who, while mentioned in the gospels, are unfortunately not named.”
  • James, Jesus’ brother, became the leader of the movement after Jesus’ death. He was well respected by the Jewish people and devout to the Tora. He followed all the rules as well as preached about Jesus’ way of bringing God to everybody.
  • Paul was a rebel. He preached Jesus’ way but said you didn’t have to follow the Tora Rules.
  • Team James mostly stayed in Jerusalem. They hated what Paul was doing outside of Jerusalem and brought him back a couple of times to chew his ass. When the Romans razed Jerusalem in 70 CE, they destroyed all of the writings of Team James. After the destruction, the bulk of the writings that survived came from Paul as he wrote letters to Jewish leaders outside Jerusalem. His promise that you could be close to God without having to follow the Torah appealed to gentiles especially in Rome and thus became the incipient split of Christianity and Jewish faith.
I enjoyed this book. I never understood why the Jews wanted to crucify one of their own until I read this. I never understood how Christianity split from the Jewish faith. I never understood the relationships between Jesus, John the Baptist, and Paul and I defiantly didn’t know about the significance of Jesus’ brother, James. I recommend it.
 

Patriot

Alfrescian
Loyal
Correct! This is what I have been telling people, but they won't listen. Jesus was just a prophet, a wise man and a great teacher. He never claimed to be God, this was fabricated later. And they also spun the tale of virgin birth, hahaha!:roflmao:


C.S. Lewis > Quotes > Quotable Quote
C.S. Lewis
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
 

glockman

Old Fart
Asset
C.S. Lewis > Quotes > Quotable Quote
C.S. Lewis
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
C.S. Lewis was a christian and wanted to evangelise. By putting forth only two options in his argument, he is compelling people to say Jesus is god. Because Jesus obviously was not a lunatic. Crafty fucker this C.S.Lewis. Hence his view is biased and should be tossed out. We want the opinions of secular, unbiased people.
 

glockman

Old Fart
Asset
I've mentioned this before to people. Not here, so I write now. If you just follow Christ's examples and throw out the rest of the book, it's pretty darn good.

Similarly from what I recently learned about Mohammed's life he seems to always have sought peace. That's all I can ascertain thus far that's from his own hand. This is very understandable because of the region and time in history very turbulent. If he really bring peace to the region, he is to be commended. No debate from me.

That's the reason why I say religion gives rise to the movement away from the original teachers. I dunno whether prophet or not or whatever lah. Not my place, but I think if Mohammed alive and someone insult him you think he will condone killing? I think not. In fact, I think he will outright condemn the people who think of it. His whole life seems to be avoiding killing for whatever reason.

I've been thinking. We seem to agree little bit disagree little bit. I think the reason is that for me, the prophet, god and the religion are all separate things. You can pray to god and not be religious. You can follow Mohammed's teachings and not be religious. You can follow Mohammed and not believe in god. You can believe in god but not Mohammed.

Only religious leaders demand that it be taken together. Religion compels you to buy the whole package. You want afterlife insurance must pay zakat and sembahyang x number of times a day. But most importantly, I've yet to come across any reference where Mohammed or Jesus ownself chop and confirm say that if you don't follow the rules of religion you will go to hell. Not once have I seen this. Only in books written long after they died and cannot argue says this. This my reason lah.
Well said. And to add on briefly, those teachers were merely interpreting the great unknown, and imparting their views on how life should be conducted.

It was the zealots that contaminated their teachings and turned them into religions.
 

Hypocrite-The

Alfrescian
Loyal
Book Review: Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan
2517ba741d849592072baaaaa1adc323
by Rick on April 11, 2020

**** Recommend it

When it first came out in 2013, this book took a lot of heat from religious scholars that did not agree with Reza Aslan’s point of view. I think there were some sour greats too because it shot to the top of the NYTs best seller’s list and the the many works of these scholars’ on the same material did not. One of their main points was that since Reza Aslan was not saying something new about the material, somehow the book had no value. It is the same reaction that scholars give Malcom Gladwell too. These two authors synthesize deep research on complex subjects outside their field and try to make it readable and entertaining for the masses. When you do that, you are going to explain some of the deep-level details wrong or at least with not enough nuance to be completely correct. In other words, instead of writing an entire book on the subject or a chapter, the idea might get a sentence. For a non-scholar like me, I find that valuable.


From my side, the big hit on Aslan’s “research” is that he clearly states in numerous examples that the accepted gospels of the New Testament— Mark, Matthew, Luke and John— and other religious documents written at the same time are pure fiction, but then he cites them routinely to make his points. From his point of view, he would probably say that he was trying to get at the historical meaning of the Gospels by analyzing what they said not as historical truths but by analyzing what they were trying to say. He also states in the foreword that biblical scholars unanimously agree that if a fact is present in all four of the Gospels, then it is likely a historical truth. I find that ludicrous.

But I did find the book fascinating. Aslan gave me some things to think about in areas that I had not considered before.

Here is what I learned:

  • The bulk of Aslan’s ideas came from a 1967 book called “Jesus and the Zealots” written by S.G.F. Brandon
  • During Jesus’ ministry (28-30 CE), there were 72 disciples. Some were women and named in the Gospels. But the inner circle, The Twelve, were the principal bearers of Jesus’s message—the apostoloi, or “ambassadors”—apostles sent off to neighboring towns and villages to preach independently and without supervision. They would not be the leaders of Jesus’s movement, but rather its chief missionaries. Yet the Twelve had another more symbolic function, one that would manifest itself later in Jesus’s ministry. For they will come to represent the restoration of the twelve tribes of Israel, long since destroyed and scattered.
  • The texts used by scholars to research the historical Jesus were not written by historians. In fact the idea of a historian who checks and triple checks every fact was unknown to these writers. They were trying to craft a consistent message, dogma, or doctrine. They weren’t interested in historical facts.
  • Jesus was not the only messiah running around Jerusalem. Before and after his death, there were boatloads of them. Rome considered all of them seditionists and when they caused enough trouble, Roman leaders would have them crucified.
  • Jesus was not the only miracle worker running around Jerusalem either. There were tons. Magic was a thing back in the day and showmen and miracle workers not associated with religion were legitimate ways to make a living.
  • The two other men crucified with Jesus had a sign on their cross labeled “lestai” which meant bandit or Thief. But these words meant seditionist back in the day, not just simple thievery. Rome reserved crucifixion for revolting slaves as an example to deter. Jesus’s sign reads “ ‘titulus’ meaning KING OF THE JEWS. His crime: striving for kingly rule; sedition. And so, like every bandit and revolutionary, every rabble-rousing zealot and apocalyptic prophet who came before or after him—like Hezekiah and Judas, Theudas and Athronges, the Egyptian and the Samaritan, Simon son of Giora and Simon son of Kochba—Jesus of Nazareth is killed for daring to claim the mantle of king and messiah.”
  • The famous biblical story of Pontious Pilate, washing his hands of the entire matter, is likely pure fiction. He signed the death orders of many jews during his reign and likely didn’t give Jesus a second thought.
  • The biblical story of Mary and Joseph traveling to Bethlehem for the census is likely pure fiction too. Jesus was born in Nazareth, a small backwater. Mary was also likely an unwed mother.
  • The biblical story of Jesus on a rampage inside the Jerusalem Temple represents what Jesus was about compared to the other Messiahs. Rome’s playbook after conquering a land was to appoint local leaders to run things and to collect taxes. They let the conquered people keep their religions. In Jerusalem priests worked for the Romans, not the Jewish people. The poor had no way to even access the temple. You had to pay big money even to get close and most of that went to the local Jewish priests (plus taxes off the top for the Romans.) Jesus thought that anybody in the religion could have access to God without having to pay money. He thought the the Jewish priests were corrupt. The Jewish priests wanted Jesus crucified, not the Jewish people.
  • Jesus’ reign lasted only two years from the time he came into Jerusalem until his death.
  • “Jesus was part of a large family that included at least four brothers who are named in the gospels—James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas—and an unknown number of sisters who, while mentioned in the gospels, are unfortunately not named.”
  • James, Jesus’ brother, became the leader of the movement after Jesus’ death. He was well respected by the Jewish people and devout to the Tora. He followed all the rules as well as preached about Jesus’ way of bringing God to everybody.
  • Paul was a rebel. He preached Jesus’ way but said you didn’t have to follow the Tora Rules.
  • Team James mostly stayed in Jerusalem. They hated what Paul was doing outside of Jerusalem and brought him back a couple of times to chew his ass. When the Romans razed Jerusalem in 70 CE, they destroyed all of the writings of Team James. After the destruction, the bulk of the writings that survived came from Paul as he wrote letters to Jewish leaders outside Jerusalem. His promise that you could be close to God without having to follow the Torah appealed to gentiles especially in Rome and thus became the incipient split of Christianity and Jewish faith.
I enjoyed this book. I never understood why the Jews wanted to crucify one of their own until I read this. I never understood how Christianity split from the Jewish faith. I never understood the relationships between Jesus, John the Baptist, and Paul and I defiantly didn’t know about the significance of Jesus’ brother, James. I recommend it.
I wish Christians will be more like mudslimes n call for jihad against blesphemers . Than these ass holes won't sprout shit .. such critics will always keep quiet about mudslimes because no consequences
 

Patriot

Alfrescian
Loyal
C.S. Lewis was a christian and wanted to evangelise. By putting forth only two options in his argument, he is compelling people to say Jesus is god. Because Jesus obviously was not a lunatic. Crafty fucker this C.S.Lewis. Hence his view is biased and should be tossed out. We want the opinions of secular, unbiased people.

"He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse."

You can objectively see from the above quote that there are more than two options.
 

whoami

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I've mentioned this before to people. Not here, so I write now. If you just follow Christ's examples and throw out the rest of the book, it's pretty darn good.

Similarly from what I recently learned about Mohammed's life he seems to always have sought peace. That's all I can ascertain thus far that's from his own hand. This is very understandable because of the region and time in history very turbulent. If he really bring peace to the region, he is to be commended. No debate from me.

That's the reason why I say religion gives rise to the movement away from the original teachers. I dunno whether prophet or not or whatever lah. Not my place, but I think if Mohammed alive and someone insult him you think he will condone killing? I think not. In fact, I think he will outright condemn the people who think of it. His whole life seems to be avoiding killing for whatever reason.

I've been thinking. We seem to agree little bit disagree little bit. I think the reason is that for me, the prophet, god and the religion are all separate things. You can pray to god and not be religious. You can follow Mohammed's teachings and not be religious. You can follow Mohammed and not believe in god. You can believe in god but not Mohammed.

Only religious leaders demand that it be taken together. Religion compels you to buy the whole package. You want afterlife insurance must pay zakat and sembahyang x number of times a day. But most importantly, I've yet to come across any reference where Mohammed or Jesus ownself chop and confirm say that if you don't follow the rules of religion you will go to hell. Not once have I seen this. Only in books written long after they died and cannot argue says this. This my reason lah.

God, Scripture and Prophet can never be separated. All are interlink. The prophet/messenger had to warn the people, to be good and not evil. He had to bring the people together and worship the creator and not to go astray. Prophet cant live forever. But the message is eternal i.e. Quran.
 

whoami

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Well said. And to add on briefly, those teachers were merely interpreting the great unknown, and imparting their views on how life should be conducted.

It was the zealots that contaminated their teachings and turned them into religions.

Definitely not the Quran. Its mentioned explicitly Islam is a religion.
 

glockman

Old Fart
Asset
"He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse."

You can objectively see from the above quote that there are more than two options.
Yes, madman or something worse like the devil. So what's your point? To me, he presented two options : either he's the son of god or he's rubbish (in which case, he is a lunatic/devil). Hobson's choice? He could've presented a third option, Jesus was a wise teacher of morals. But then, that would conflict with his religious beliefs.
 
Last edited:

whoami

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
hwah jialat! Islam is confirmed man-made then:eek::biggrin:

Even if all the Quran were to be perished fm this earth, the messages (Quran) will still be alive and intact in the hearts of the faithful i.e. hafiz. Tats why the Quran itself is a living miracle from Allah azzawajal. It will only disappear come Judgement day.
 

glockman

Old Fart
Asset
Even if all the Quran were to be perished fm this earth, the messages (Quran) will still be alive and intact in the hearts of the faithful i.e. hafiz. Tats why the Quran itself is a living miracle from Allah azzawajal. It will only disappear come Judgement day.
ok bang, and may you always be a moderate muslim.:thumbsup:

vector-illustration-allahu-akbar-arabic-260nw-320327609.jpg
 

JohnTan

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
John, you certainly have me beat backwards and forwards with regards to knowledge of the Koran, but I don't think for Muslims the real god is Mohammed.

I don't so too. But they know who their god listens to. It's like a puppet who is officially the emperor and the real power behind the throne.
That's why moslems don't get so upset if you criticize their allah, but they go bananas if you criticize mahomet.

As far as I am concerned, the Koran and Mohammed are two separate entities. 1 of those entities always uses the other to justify it's existence. The other is or was not even concerned or aware of it's existence. I'm sure you can figure out which is which.

And the hadith. It was the final moslem book, compiled about 150 years after the first version of the quran came out. What we do know of muhammad or mahomet, and of islam, comes largely from the hadith.
 

JohnTan

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

This is the part Christians miss. Jesus did not come to enact new laws but uphold the laws of the previous prophets.

So which part was missed?

They have strayed so far from the prophets path ends up polytheistic with 3in1 and idol worship in their churches.

moslems strayed so far from the path of God when they endorsed pedophilia, banditry and idolatory.

Here's picture of moslems bowing before the idol in mecca, stampeding to touch and lick the stone. Idolatry.

1606823721045.png
 

Attachments

  • 1606823683809.png
    1606823683809.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 109

Hypocrite-The

Alfrescian
Loyal
So which part was missed?



moslems strayed so far from the path of God when they endorsed pedophilia, banditry and idolatory.

Here's picture of moslems bowing before the idol in mecca, stampeding to touch and lick the stone. Idolatry.

View attachment 97523
N these mudslimes see Christians as infidels because of idolatry. They should look in the mirror
 
Top