1y ago

Religion is a trilogy

You're viewing a single thread.

65 comments

Isn’t Jesus the messiah in the Quran? Muhammad was just the messenger. In the Quran Jesus is literally called Al Masih, the messiah, and will ,according to the Quran, return to earth on the day of reckoning as the savior of Muslims.
- Well, the summary above is a little shaky there. The Quran just doesn't believe that the person that was written about is the actual Messiah but another prophet. The same I believe with the Jewish faith. They're both still awaiting the Messiah, whereas Christians are awaiting the second coming of the Messiah.
  I haven't really looked into these religions in over a decade so my own memory could also be faulty, so take with a grain of salt.
  
  Jesus 2, Torah drift
  
  Jesus 2 Bigot Boogaloo
  
  Mission Impossible 2: Jesus Rises
  
  My understanding was that in Islam, they do believe Jesus was the messiah, and that he will come back in the end times, but not that he was God/the son of God. And that he wasn’t delivering Gods final message, which is where Muhammad comes in
  But like you it’s been years since I put Islam under a microscope so I could be off too
  
  Damn it Hollywood, just let the franchise die already.
  
  Whether he is the messiah or not I don't know, but all you said is correct.
  
  That's how I understand it, as well. Muslims hold Jesus in high regard as a holy prophet, and even have more stories about miracles he performed that aren't in the New Testament. But he's not considered the Messiah.
  
  But Jesus is called Al Masih in the Quran. Which literally means the Messiah. So which is it?
  
  I know I heard somewhere that the name Jesus shows up more in the Koran than it does in the Bible.
  
  Jeebus wasn’t in the Old Testament so that’s half the book (idk if it’s half by volume) without that character.
  
  Well yes but don't let the Bible literalists hear you say that, haha. They still consider Isaiah to be the fifth gospel and Daniel to be referencing him.
  The NT is smaller than the OT and the letters of Paul (pretend that he wrote all of them which he didn't) make up over half of it. Paul does talk about Jesus but a lot of it was in the form of an entire page with one mention of the man by name, plus all the other stuff like how church should be run. With that and Acts+Revelations we pretty much exhaust all the chances of Jesus showing up.
  
  Lol don’t I feel like a dope! You obviously know your stuff. Does the NT add to the OT, or is it a soft reboot like the new Star Wars sequel trilogy?
  
  TL:DR the authors of the bible got some details of the OT wrong, Jesus was made to quote Jewish thought that wasn't in the OT, and you could argue that since Paul invented so much it is basically a reboot.
  Don't feel that way. An atheist shouldn't have to know this stuff, feel bad if you are a Christian. The answer is yes-and-no.
  The authors of the NT didn't have the entire (for what we call now) OT, they had parts of it. There are about 17 (the exact number is debatable) writers of the 27 books of those only one could read Hebrew and probably had all of it. Why is this important? It is important because you see them, and Jesus, not aware of certain books and filling in gaps with what they wanted. Paul for example certainly acts like he didn't know the book of Micah. This is an example of retroconning by omission. Which isnt the worse I admit.
  And we also have deliberate retrocons. Like the 1st Gospel of Matthew changing the genealogy to get the same ancestor distance between Moses and David and David to Jesus.
  We also have plain mistakes. Matthew has Jesus get basic quotations from the Torah incorrect, Mark mixes up some historical details etc.
  The big thing is that Paul was the one who threw out the Moses commandments. To him they no longer applied. He also invented ideas not really found in the OT explicitly stated. Original sin, the importance of baptism, the perfext sacrifice. So again a sorta reboot since the practice and ideas are now totally different.
  Jesus in the Gospels incorporates ideas that were part of Jewish culture but weren't in the OT. You got to understand, the man most likely didn't exist, so the people talking about him could make him say what they wanted. The golden rule is not in the Bible but it is found in the writings of Hillel (rabbi who died half a century earlier) so they made Jesus say it. All those arguments he supposedly had with the Pharisees? Those were Pharisee debating positions of the time. In that sense I would say it is an add on.
  Sorry a bit long. Did this all make sense? I prefer to think of it as a branch off of Judaism rather than a continuation. A branch off led by a con about a fake brother that got out of control.
  Edit: oh shoot I forgot to add the most obvious one. The 4th Gospel, and people who love it, basically retroconned the Genesis story. The whole in the beginning there was the word and it was with God thing.

65 comments