Muslims and Gender Identity by Daniel Haqiqatjou

A wonderful talk

Advertisements


Categories: Homosexuality, Islam

23 replies

    • Bill W

      I agree that the Gospel writers were aware of each others writings as you know the standard view amongst NT scholars is that the three Gospels are dependant on each other, however your analogy fails because it simplifies the problem. Its not just that three people are telling the same story in their own way but rather that you have three people who were eyewitnesses having contradictory accounts on major events such as how long Jesus was on the cross, who carried the cross, and who was there when Jesus resurrected. Not only this but also that the three witnesses have their own agenda when telling the story, even alterating details in order to fit their narrative such as Jesus’ profession of ignorance with the fig tree and his denial of him being good.

      Finally you have a fourth witness who tells an entirely different story in which the lead character speaks and acts in an entirely different manner with incidents which no other eyewitness speaks about.

      This is why we need to be more critical when reading the Gospel accounts as you can see the issues are deeper than you believe them to be.

      Like

    • Patrice

      “you have three people who were eyewitnesses having contradictory accounts on major events such as how long Jesus was on the cross, who carried the cross, and who was there when Jesus resurrected.”

      Those are major events? That is unpersuasive.

      As for each gospel writer having a different agenda – so what? That is another example of poor reasoning – having a different agenda is does not make their testimonies false. And, again, this is easily explained by each gospel writer having a different relationship with Jesus.

      Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that details were altered to fit a narrative.

      As for a fourth witness telling a different story, who is this? Again, each apostle had their own type of relationship with jesus. Since people are different, each would have had a slightly different insight into Jesus’ words and life. Again, that doesn’t mean that they are conflicting or deliberately altered – that is more poor reasoning.

      All four gospels to various degrees describe jesus as divine and agree on this count.

      Like

    • What exactly do you mean when you say the gospels agree that Jesus was divine?

      Like

    • Bill W

      It is when that agenda is the focus of their testimony, remember your analogy? So the three people telling the same story have different agendas and this is based on their personal relationship to the person whom the story is about? Hardly a good start to a reliable testimony. But would those relationships affect their telling of who visited the tomb, when Jesus was crucified, and changing his statements in order to fit that agenda?

      If you would like some examples here are two:

      “The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.” – Mark 11:12-14

      “Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.

      When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked.

      Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.” – Matthew 21:18-22

      …and the second example:

      “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone. – Mark 10:18

      “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” – Matthew 19:17

      The Fourth person i am referring to is the Gospel of John. He tells a very different story where Jesus speaks and acts very differently to the Synoptics. Also the events described therein are completely different from the others.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Patrice

      “It is when that agenda is the focus of their testimony, remember your analogy? So the three people telling the same story have different agendas and this is based on their personal relationship to the person whom the story is about? Hardly a good start to a reliable testimony. But would those relationships affect their telling of who visited the tomb, when Jesus was crucified, and changing his statements in order to fit that agenda?”

      That is complete nonsense. The agenda of the gospel writers was to convey their experience of jesus as accurately as possible. Dude, I’ve got to say that your reasoning just keeps getting worse.

      There is no logical reason to presume that conveying personal experience makes testimonies less reliable – that is just poor reasoning. The gospels don’t disagree on any major issue – at least none that you have mentioned – and since we both agree that the gospel writers were probably aware of the existence of other testimonies, the gospels should be viewed as each gospel writer adding their own experience to the body of work.

      As for your examples – what is your point? And what is the issue here? Any differences – and they are pretty much irrelevant in my opinion – are easily accounted for by the idea that each gospel writer was adding their own witness to the body of information.

      So, again, these objections are really non-issues.

      As for John – a different style of writing doesn’t make his gospel less reliable. That again is completely illogical, and a non-sequitur. More importantly, any differences are minor.

      Like

    • Bill W

      This response demonstrates a significant lack of awareness of what critical NT scholarship has to say on the four gospels. To start with the Gospels are aware of each other not because they are other testimonies because this assumes they were written independently of each other, this is not true. It is well attested to by modern NT scholars that Mark based his writing on a source of stories about Jesus known as ‘Q’ and that Matthew and Luke based their writing on both this source and that of Mark due to how closely the stories parallel each other. The Gospels are roughly dated to have been written between 70CE (Mark) to 100CE or later (John).

      The intent of the Gospel writers as distinct is rather obvious when one reads the texts themselves closely. Matthews intent is on articulating why Jesus is the Messiah and he makes extensive use of the Tanakh and Jewish culture to articulate this point. Mark is intending to proove that Jesus is Gods son and articulates this point largely to a non Jewish crowd however does not articulate the resurrection or even the crucifixion which much significance (Matthew redacts several statements from Mark as i have demonstrated in order to overcome embarrasement wherein Jesus demonstrates ignorance and denys he is good). Lukes purpose is to provide a more full account on the life of Jesus based on whatever sources he had available, namely Mark and (potentially) Matthew, Q etc…

      His writing was intended to be for the Roman artistocracy trying to proove that the message of Jesus is not a threat to them, however he also focused on Jesus’ ethical teachings and particularly his teachings on the poor. Luke changes the speeches of Jesus namely the Sermon on the Mount in order to make this point. Johns sole purpose is to convince people of his view of Jesus as a divine being and presents an entirely different account on his life, different events, sayings (longer speeches and a completely different tone). John has no relationship to the synoptics at all due to these significant differences. All the Gospels were written generations after Jesus and after many of the eyewitnesses had died. The actual names attached to the Gospels are also not part of the original but were rather added later through Church tradition, there is no evidence to suggest that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote their purported biography. They are not eyewitnesses by anonymous writers who have no perceivable relationship to Jesus.

      As you can see its not as simple as you are trying to make it out to be.

      Like

  1. it was a typo.

    Now back to the post. Did you actually watch all of it?

    Like

  2. I admit I’m an utter fool and and Islamophobe, but I have such sad life 😦

    Like

    • BLM

      There you are! I was looking everywhere for you! Did you get lost along the way in trying to answer my questions about Jesus’ pre-existence? Well have no fear! I will repost them here just for you 😀

      “According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke; Jesus came into existence at a certain time and received the Holy Spirit from God upon baptism, no mention of his pre-existence. But even if he was, he is still fully human and fully God. Do you then seperate the two and worship one part of Jesus? or do you worship all of him, both God and man? in which case you worship a man.

      You do have four Gospels and only one of them says this about Jesus including all the sayings you have quoted, why don’t the other Gospels quote this material?”

      Come on Bobby no time like the present 😉

      Liked by 2 people

    • Patrice obviously you were not paying attention to the interaction I had with Paul, as I answered that question over and over and over again.

      But I am a TOTAL fool so don’t take anything I say seriously!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Bobby telling the truth for once!

      Liked by 1 person

    • LOL good one Paul.

      I am stupid at times ;(

      Like

    • glad you admit you are a fool 🙂

      Like

    • Patrice

      “You do have four Gospels and only one of them says this about Jesus including all the sayings you have quoted, why don’t the other Gospels quote this material?”

      Why is this a problem?

      Like

    • No you didn’t! You simply had an almighty whinge in your acute failure to properly respond to Erics claim that the worship of Jesus (a man) is understandable only to a Graeco-Roman culture who were one to elevate human beings to godhood which coincidentally has no relationship to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Oops!

      Never mind all this complaining about mens relationships and answer why you worship one! Come on Bobby you can do it, i believe in you! 😀

      Liked by 1 person

    • Bill W

      They are a problem because they don’t reproduce any of this material which you would think if it were known (considering they are meant to be eyewitnesses) don’t you think its rather odd that they don’t give such juicy material a mention?

      I certainly do and i doubt i’m not alone considering the words of scholars like James D.G Dunn. Why doesn’t it bother you?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice

      That is extremely poor reasoning.

      I have no reason to think that the gospel writers weren’t aware of the existence and content of other writings on Jesus’ life and probably saw their own work as adding to the general picture and knowledge of Jesus’ life. It’s like two or three people telling the same story to a friend – they don’t repeat each others words verbatim and add things that the others have not said.

      Furthermore, each gospel would reflect a different relationship that those particular apostles had with jesus and would each have different material. Again, in a group of friends each person does not have exactly the same relationship with each other and would record events specific to their own experience.

      So I don’t see these objections as particularly problematic for christianity.

      Like

  3. quote:
    It’s like two or three people telling the same story to a friend – they don’t repeat each others words verbatim and add things that the others have not said.

    end quote

    if all the friends saw how steve was in control of the situation and spoke words “it is i” which caused the police officers to fall to the ground , how is it possible
    that none of them mentioned what MERE words did to the arresting police officers
    ?

    if two or 3 people tell a story and only one of them mention a version which the others did not mention, who is most likely telling the correct version?

    Like

  4. imagine if jesus became jessica and had to atone for the sins through getting raped

    currently the “divine logos” would not only know how rape is done, but what it FEELS like being raped.

    so there are 3 who’s in the trinity

    2 of them don’t know the feeling of being raped , but one of them does.

    one of them even knows the feeling of being born out of a woman

    this means that the divine logos or WHO has human feelings permanently knitted to his thought process

    his dhat/essence

    this can never go away

    the same person is united in 2 natures and same two natures co-exist within him

    Like

    • in the trinity, currently there exists divine logos/who
      who knows feeling of being nailed

      without feelings a human is disabled or

      verb (used with object), paralyzed, paralyzing.
      1.
      to affect with paralysis.
      2.
      to bring to a condition of helpless stoppage, inactivity, or inability to act:

      so currently jesus or divine logos or who
      knows the feelings of going to the toilet, sleeping, having thoughts either straight or gay , etc etc

      united natures

      divine who has human feelings permanently knitted to his divine essence and it cannot be separated.

      Like

  5. BLM

    Make a resolution for 2017 to stop being an Islamophobe. You’ll be happier.

    Liked by 2 people

Trackbacks

  1. A thread at the blog of Paul Williams, bloggingtheology.net in which I took part | Badmanna's Blog

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: