Boaz,

Below is a Deedat lecture on 'Christ in Islam' in an open forum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4XeUOi-sPs

Interested in your views.

Peace

Robert,

We are agreed on the matter of Jesus in the godhead and the OT horrors. Well, what does expect of a tribal volcano/war god? If goes is at one with, then he carries the OT baggage.

Also,

"The Saviour was born in the middle of the night between Saturday and Sunday, 24th and 25th of December, 272 BCE, and according to those who believed in Him from an Immaculate (Anahid) Virgin (Xosidhag) somewhere not far from lake Hamin, Sistan, Lived for 64 years among men, and ascended to His Father Ahura Mazda in 208 BCE." - Moghdan [Professor of Iranian Studies]

Jesus: If god or not god, seemlingly a plagarist :).

Oliver, that's old territory for BD and I. Probably a pointless response, we've been over it so many times before. BD finds it convenient to put aside the OT when he wishes to bag Islam for the violence in the Quran. Whilst there may be christains who don't believe in the trinity and Jesus having a place in the godhead I don't think that BD is one of them.

For those who do believe that Jesus is one with the god of the OT and who accept verses like Malachi 3:6 "I the Lord do not change" claiming that Jesus had no history of violence or bloodshed at best displays a poor understanding of the consequences of the idea of the trinity. That seems unlikely in a bretho who is a former missionary.

R0bert

Not at all Robert. I've told you umpteen times that the incidents in the O.T. were specific judgements by God...not by man. That is the diff. The violence of 'possessing the land' must be seen against the backdrop of the level of inhumanity and sin among the peoples displaced. Sodom and Gomorrah are just 2 examples.

Oliver.

You said

1. It was Church directed miltiary politics. Yes, quite right I'm sure. Now.. all you need to show is how the 'Church' of the day in question, relied on the Lords own life and words to justify it, and we have solved the problem.

2. Yes, Jesus, said "I and the Father are one" .. correct. So, in that sense, Jesus was indeed involved in the judgements in the Old Testament, but from the position of the Godhead. "The glory which I had with you before the foundation of the world" he also said.
The events in the Old Testament, need also to be seen in the light of the unfolding story of salvation history.
Abraham-> Isaac -> Jacob-> 12 tribes-> Nation -> Disobedience -> Punishment, Restoration, Remnant, Redemption in the new covenant in Christ. That's a lotttt of history in 2 lines.

Other points ? I cannot adequately debate each one in this limited space. I offer you the blind man :) "I was blind, but now I see"

FH I probably have listened to that Deedat vid, but I'll have another look. I'll get back 2 you on it.
His style is quite untenable. He invents a straw man "Did Jesus ever say "I am God"...worship me" then he attacks it.
cheers.

Hello BOAZ,

"... all you need to show is how the 'Church' of the day in question, relied on the Lords own life and words to justify it, and we have solved the problem."

My point is that the Church didn't adopt a Jesus-like approach and institutionally never has taken his path. Paul Hellenised teachings, Nicaea pick and chose from various threads and borrowed from the Roman Mystery Cults and used the theocrasia [god] model known to many religions, the Serapis godhead being very like that contrived at Nicaea. The Preisthood/Church model usurped the teachings of Jesus and created creed/doctrine. As Wells, puts it Jesus was not a Christian. If so, being a Christian is incompatible with in Jesusism.

2. The History of the OT was one of the exclusiveness of the Hebrews [tribalism], The Law and deliveration. It addressed the God of Abraham and the God of Moses. Moreover, the OT and NT godheads are incompatible.

The historical Jesus seems to have piggy-backed on Jewish Messiahism. These Messiahs were meant to deliver the Jews from being and under the thumbs of occupiers and dominant societies. Sort of the day will come when God will make us the Masters sort of thing. Jesus was a different kind [temper aside] taught about love and the Kingdom of Heaven. He wanted to break the links between the individual and the family, and, individual and the formal church.

His ransom was to make all people are equal [rich and poor] and to replace the family with a greater personhood. The Church was unnecessary: Maybe, if he did a have a following, the higher-ups to notice. If have probably heard teh saying, "suppose they called a war and no body came?". Jesus seems to have been saying, "Suppose they called a Sevice [The Jew Religious Law] and nobody came/observed?" ... I have forgiven everything, everybody and for all time. Why have a sabbath [Saturday of Jews and most Seventh Day Adventists] and Sun-Day [Christianity under the influence of Mithras].

BOAZ,

Both, you see, if he were not god, as genuine teacher or pretender, Jesus did not take a half-way stance, requiring Churches, intercessions, confessions and the like.

3. It would be nice to have you answer my questions, please. Your deferrals to dotted-line links are vague to me.

4. Was Jesus a Christian

Robert,

Thanks. Interesting comment.

Confucius maintained that, "the nail that that stands out is hammered down". Wondering messiahs were apart of the first century countryside. A teacher, say, Jesus with his Merry Band, would not have not have stood out. Except,unless, they were teaching against the Law and saying the powerful institution of the traditionalised religion might have been a threat cultural antecedents maintaining Jewish society. At a deep level, the Jews [especially the zealots] were against Rome. Having someone threatening the status rich and powerful and disunifying the Jews, that is, creating a schism, would have been problematic.

From my point of perspective, Jesus was working from the inside out. Or maybe he intended his message only for the Jews? To the best of my knowledge, he did not make direct attacks on Roman authority. As noted above, he taught, we "all", would become him were one with him and his father, wherein, the conventions of family and church were unnecessary. He was really quite radical, if he existed, and the OT and accretions and theocrasia are ignored. Problem is he seems to have "used" the OT with which his audience would have been familiar as a means to his ends.

Crucified? Maybe. But the circumstances seem embellished.