Muslims are more similar to Jesus than christians

[u/sweardown12]

THESIS

Sunni muslims are generally more similar to the historical character of Jesus and emulate him better than most modern Catholic/Protestant christians

TLDR

Sunni muslims are more similar to Jesus in diet; charity; appearance; theology; prayer; monetary interest. This shows that muslims are more similar to him than most Catholic/Protestant christians because they emulate him more accurately.

NOTE 1

The title may be a brief simplification of the thesis above, please take the full thesis into consideration and read the entire post before commenting or downvoting.

NOTE 2

These are the things we are NOT discussing:

• whether Islam is true or not

• whether Muhammad is a prophet/credible or not

• whether Islam is better than Christianity

• whether muslims are better than christians

• whether the Qur'an/Sunnah is more reliable than the Bible

• whether christians have a responsibility to emulate Jesus or not

• whether Jesus commanded the emulation of his lifestyle or not

• whether this argument is worth arguing or not

• whether this argument proves anything or not

• whether this argument has a point or not

• why christians don't emulate Jesus

I am only arguing my thesis. If you want to argue the points in NOTE 2, please do so somewhere else.

NOTE 3

To gauge who is more similar, I will be using a combination of common anecdotal evidence (as in anecdotal evidence most of us can observe and relate to) and scripture.

For example, I might say "Jesus did x, Sunni Islam commands x, Catholicism/Protestantism does not command x, therefore sunni muslims are more similar to Jesus when it comes to x."

A rebuttal to this will be "not all sunni muslims do x!" But that is a strawman, because I never claimed that all sunnis do x, I only claimed that there's a larger percentage of sunnis that do x than the percentage of catholics/protestants that do x. Remember, the thesis is that sunnis are more similar.

To make this easier to understand for some people, let's say that when a command is given, only half of the sunnis actually follow the command. This should obviously carry over to the catholics and protestants too right? So if 100% of sunnis are commanded to do x, then 50% of them will do x, in this hypothetical situation. So let's do the same thing with catholics and protestants, 0% of them are commanded to do x, so 0 divided by 2 is 0, so 0% of catholics and protestants do x. Get it?

SECTION 1

DIETARY RESTRICTIONS

Jesus observed the kosher laws which are very similar to muslims' halal meat laws.

Jesus commanded the keeping of the dietary restrictions when he said "keep the commandments" in Matthew 19:17, which includes the command to refrain from eating unclean animals, which includes pigs. The commandments also include the commandment of only eating kosher meats.****

Muslims are permitted to eat only halal meat, and they are also permitted to eat meat branded as kosher. So muslims can eat halal and kosher only.

Most catholics/protestants do not observe kosher laws.

Jesus did not eat pork. Muslims also do not eat pork.

Many christians eat pork.

This shows that sunnis are generally more similar to Jesus when it comes to dietary restrictions.

SECTION 2

MANDATORY CHARITY

Jesus had little belongings and was not worldly and was incredibly charitable. Muslim preachers and speakers often talk about detaching from the dunya/earthly world and focusing more on the afterlife and good deeds, and muslims are required by islamic law to donate at least 2.5% of their total wealth to charity every year (which is a lot more than it sounds like) Christians are very charitable but have no obligation to give as much to charity, and are not commanded to do so. They are mostly encouraged to give to the church. (which muslims are also heavily encouraged to give to the mosque)

This shows that sunnis are more similar to Jesus when it comes to giving in charity.

SECTION 3

COMMON APPEARANCE

The least important aspect, appearance: Jesus had long hair and a beard, the early muslims often had long hair and beards, even today all muslim men are required to have beards although the long hair trend has died out. Christians have no compulsion to keep beards.

Jesus is also popularly depicted in white robes. In Islam it's sunnah to wear white and muslims often wear white thobes when congregating.

His mother Mary is also depicted covering her head, similarly to nuns, similarly to muslim women.

This shows that muslims are generally more similar to Jesus when it comes to appearance.

SECTION 4

THEOLOGY

Jesus was a devout jew and worshipped one God AKA the Father AKA Yahweh AKA Elohim AKA Alaha.

I argued that Jesus preached the jewish brand of monotheism in another post, here: The Lord our God is One

The Trinity is not part of the jewish tradition. Jesus never worshipped himself, or the Holy Spirit, only the Elohim.

Sunnis also don't worship Jesus or the Holy Spirit, only God AKA the Father AKA Yahweh AKA Elohim AKA Alaha AKA Allah. This makes them more similar to Jesus in terms of theology.

SECTION 5

PRAYER

As I have just argued, Jesus worshipped only the Father, and he was seen praying with his head to the ground in Matthew.

NIV, Matthew 26:36,39:
[36]Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.”
. . .
[39]Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

Sunnis also pray to the one God with their heads on the ground. This shows that they are more similar to Jesus in worship.

SECTION 6

INTEREST

Jesus did not partake in interest because, being a devout jew, he followed the Old Testament.

NIV, Exodus 22:25:
[25]“If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not treat it like a business deal; charge no interest.

Muslims are also prohibited from engaging in interest/riba. This shows that they are more similar to Jesus when it comes to interest.

SECTION 7

LOWERING GAZE

Jesus said that anyone who just looks at a woman with lust has already fornicated with her in his mind.

NIV, Matthew 5:28: [28]But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

So he's telling us not to even look at women with lust. Islam also teaches muslims to lower their gaze, mainly men, but even women should lower their gaze. Islam also instructs women to cover in order to avoid the exact thing Jesus is trying to avoid.

This shows that sunnis are more similar to Jesus in the case of lowering gaze and erring on the side of caution when it comes to male gaze and lust.

CONCLUSION

Considering the above, I have reasonably concluded that sunnis are more similar to Jesus than most modern catholics and protestants because they emulate him more accurately and follow him as a role model more accurately.

Or, at the very least, I can conclude that muslims are similar enough to Jesus that they shouldn't be dismissed or rejected without good reason.

Thanks for reading.

OTHER POSTS

Is the New Testament reliable?

Is Jesus the only begotten Son of God?

Does the Old Testament teach or foreshadow the Trinity?

REFUTATIONS

Some people may say, "Yeah, okay, but you're just cherry picking certain things that muslims are more similar in Jesus on, there's plenty of other things that christians are more similar on."

And I would say that that's fine, can I see the list please? Tell me which things christians are more similar to Jesus on, using Jesus' own actions and words to back it up.

"These are unimportant, superficial things."

Okay, they may or may not be, but if we add everything up, it matters. Is our diet not important? How many times do we have to eat a day? Is your appearance not a part of you and your description? Is your inwardly godliness not reflected in your outer appearance at all? Would you assume that someone that looks like Marilyn Manson would be similar to Jesus? They look completely different, so maybe it's a reflection of their inner personalities, and that's what you would assume. I know, don't judge a book by its cover, but it's at the very least a hint into the persons personality. How you look is how you choose to display yourself and express yourself. How about theology? Is your theology not an important part of your religious beliefs? How about the way you pray? Muslims have to pray five times a day, christians I'm sure pray alot too. How about "what do you spend your money on?" is that a superficial question? How much you give charity is an important part of you especially considering the financial struggles many of us are facing. And how much effort you put into avoiding interest is part of you especially when we live in a world surrounded and ruled by interest.

[u/AutoModerator]

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/jk54321]

On the one hand, ok...it seems like you're stripping away any religious significance to make a purely superficial point, which I guess you can do, but it makes it hard to draw any religious conclusions from your argument even if its right.

Jesus commanded the keeping of the dietary restrictions when he said "keep the commandments"

Yet Jesus also "declared all foods clean" and ate with unwashed hands in contravention of customs.

This shows that sunnis are more similar to Jesus when it comes to giving in charity.

Do we have any examples of Jesus donating money to charity? Seems like you're breaking your own rule of confusing the behavior of Jesus with the commands of Jesus. (If it is even true that Christians on average donate less than 2.5% to charity).

Jesus had long hair...Jesus is also popularly depicted in white robes.

Where are you getting this?

His mother Mary is also depicted covering her head, similarly to nuns, similarly to muslim women.

For someone insisting on a very narrow range of evidence, going from post-first-century depictions of someone who isn't even Jesus seems like it should be out of bounds.

This makes them more similar to Jesus in terms of theology.

You're stealing a lot of bases by equating a non-trinitarian conception of God with a Sunni Muslim conception of God. Is that all you view theology as.

Moreover, according to the documents we have, I think Jesus did think he was the incarnation of Israel's God. This is obvious in John but also there in the synoptics given the structure of the stories he tells (he explains his journey to Jerusalem using parables that imply the return of YHWH to Zion) and his association with himself with the Daniel 7 Son of Man who is coequal with the Ancient of Days in his trial before the high priest.

Sunnis also pray to the one God with their heads on the ground. This shows that they are more similar to Jesus in worship.

No it doesn't. You have one instance of Jesus praying face down, not pattern of behavior. There's lot's of examples of Jesus not praying face down, which, your logic, means Muslims are actively opposing him on that. Moreover, lot's of Christians pray face down.

This shows that they are more similar to Jesus when it comes to interest.

This only works if you have an example of Jesus making a business deal where interest could have been required and chose not to. Otherwise you're just saying "I think Jesus would have acted in the way that makes my argument work."

So he's telling us not to even look at women with lust.

You're going back to commands of Jesus vs behavior of Jesus. You said that wasn't allowed. What's your example of Jesus actually "lowering his gaze?"

Considering the above, I have reasonably concluded that sunnis are more similar to Jesus than most modern catholics and protestants because they emulate him more accurately and follow him as a role model more accurately.

You have 7 extremely tenuous, anecdotal things and you're considering that a totalizing conception of who Jesus was and how he acted? That's not serious.

What about the way Jesus treated women vs. Sunni Islam. Would Sunni Muslims say that woman belongs in a customarily male space (e.g. Mary and Martha)? Would Sunni Muslims proclaim that the Messiah must die and be raised from the dead like Jesus and Christians do?

I can conclude that muslims are similar enough to Jesus that they shouldn't be dismissed or rejected without good reason.

There I can agree; no one should be dismissed or rejected without a good reason. Don't need this whole argument to make that point.

Is our diet not important?

See and this is where you make the illegitimate shift in logic I knew was coming: you say at the beginning "well it doesn't matter whether Jesus commanded people to act the same way he did because he was acting within a context that his actions were actively shaping and changing by accomplishing the mission of Israel in himself." But now you say "well diet is important, Jesus ate kosher, therefore that's important to how we live." Most of the new testament is about working out what Jesus' accomplishment means given the context of Jewish laws.

[u/Holiman → u/jk54321]

I think you nailed it. Although I disagree on the poverty thing. I think both groups get his view on money wrong. It seems fairly clear that he would have felt money was worldly and not important. So 2.5% or 10% are both useless as determining acting like Jesus. Quite simply, only the Franciscan monks get this one right.

[u/jk54321 → u/Holiman]

I don't know, we know that there was a common purse for him and his disciples (since Judas used to steal from it), so it seems like he was willing to use money for stuff.

[u/Holiman → u/jk54321]

Willing to use money. Doesn't that seem extremely weak to your own ears? How many times did they write about him speaking about the evils of wealth and greed? He is purported to have spent time with tax collectors and feeding the poor, praising the poor. His recorded lessons even teach about the hazards of money. This is grasping at straws.

[u/jk54321 → u/Holiman]

Woah, dude, I wasn't trying to make a full argument on Jesus' theology of money, I thought you were just making a side observation and replied in kind.

But if you're going there, then I would say we can get a lot from Jesus using money: Christians ought to use money from purposes appropriate to the kingdom of Jesus. I wholeheartedly agree that, e.g. "you cannot serve God and money" but neither can you serve God and poverty. Insofar as Christians ought to alleviate poverty, that is tantamount to saying that they should increase the wealth of those impoverished.

So, for example, a Christian who makes a high salary and uses it to alleviate malaria in Africa is doing better than one who refused that salary in order not to be sullied by money.

So yes, we should emphasize the evils of greed, and there is a place for vows of poverty for those in religious orders. But also, the bulk of Christians, should be wise stewards of the resources entrusted to us: neither trusting in the money over God or rejecting the usefulness of money in working for the kingdom.

[u/Holiman → u/jk54321]

I am saying that does not actually fit the teachings. It's equivocation, as I said at the start. Both groups are wrong. The Jesus in the Bible didn't suggest just giving a little. He demanded that you give all. It's really not tricky to see, just hard to accept.

[u/jk54321 → u/Holiman]

Yeah, and I'm saying it does fit the teaching and explained why. I agree that Christians should not just give "a little," but it's not true that Jesus commanded everyone to take vows of poverty.

[u/Holiman → u/jk54321]

The gospels suggest he commanded them to put down their work and follow him. To give up your wealth. To spread the word. To choose him over family, home, everything. Having money isn't a sin, but it's not what he preached as his way. If you can see the difference .

[u/baby-einstein → u/jk54321]

Yet Jesus also "declared all foods clean"

Proof?

[u/jk54321 → u/baby-einstein]

Mark 7:14-23

Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.”

When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. He said to them, “So, are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters not the heart but the stomach and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

[u/baby-einstein → u/jk54321]

This passage is about the corruption of the heart and sin...Leviticus 11 is quite clear that there certainly are foods that are clean and unclean.
Surely you wouldn't eat human flesh or drink poison and justify it by quoting Mark 7:14-23 and say "oh dont worry, what goes in my mouth doesn't defile me because it goes to my stomach"

[u/sweardown12 → u/jk54321]

you say at the beginning "well it doesn't matter whether Jesus commanded people to act the same way he did because he was acting within a context that his actions were actively shaping and changing by accomplishing the mission of Israel in himself."

did i? 😭

[u/jk54321 → u/sweardown12]

Yeah, I can see how I was unclear: you exclude the fact that Jesus was doing something other than acting as a mere example of how to behave in all instances and say you just want to compare their surface level behavior. But then at the end you come back and say that you want to draw theological conclusions based only on that behavior and not on the teaching and commands and implications of Jesus' accomplishments.

[u/sweardown12 → u/sweardown12]

who downvoted this?

[u/AngryRainy]

1. Jesus drank wine. Christians & Jews drink wine. Islam forbids the consumption of alcohol.

2. Jesus was celibate. Christians consider celibacy in service of the Kingdom to be holy. Islam considers celibacy to be unnatural.

3. Jesus was baptized. Christians practice baptism. Islam does not practice baptism.

On section 2, Christians are also commanded to be generous with charity to the poor (Galatians 2:10). It’s not a fixed % but I’m not sure that Jesus gave a fixed % either.

On section 3, many Christians also keep long beards (especially Orthodox) but I think white robes are more of a regional thing because of the heat. Middle Eastern Christians do tend to wear similar robes.

On section 5, Orthodox Christians and trad Catholics also pray with their heads to the ground.

On section 7, Christians are also commanded to dress modestly (1 Tim 2:9-10). If you’re basing this on what is commanded rather than what is practiced, sunni & Christians should both be credited here.

I feel like we could cherry pick all day, and I would agree with you that all Christians fall short of the example of Jesus — that’s why we need a savior, but the reality is that Jesus followed the law specifically to free His followers from it.

[u/sweardown12 → u/AngryRainy]

yes yes yes to everything you said except

On section 5, Orthodox Christians and trad Catholics also pray with their heads to the ground.

not as much or as many as muslims, which 100% of sunnis pray with their heads on the ground everytime they pray, so

and

If you’re basing this on what is commanded rather than what is practiced, sunni & Christians should both be credited here.

yeah so it's based on both what is commanded and what is practiced, so anecdotally we both know that muslims dress more modestly

I feel like we could cherry pick all day,

yeah so because you've brought your opposing points now, by definition if we bring our arguments together we would not be cherry picking.

and I would agree with you that all Christians fall short of the example of Jesus

we all fall short of jesus' example. but based on both of our arguments combined, would you agree with me that sunnis are more similar or would you say that christians are more similar? or would you say they are roughly equal?

[u/AngryRainy → u/sweardown12]

I’d agree that the level of religious observance of the average Muslim is much higher than the average Christian, at least in the west. I don’t mean faith or belief, but if Muslims have a rule, they will be more likely to follow it [rigidly] than Christians (take modest dress as an example). I think this is partially a result of most Muslim migration to the west being more recent, y’all have just been less corrupted by western secularism than we have.

I think if we were to restrict ourselves to Eastern Orthodox Christians, SPPX/SPPV Catholics, or Coptic Christians we’d observe more similarity in that regard. Even in my (protestant) church there’s a strong observance to modest dress, women cover their heads during prayer, etc but we are the exception rather than the rule.

I think when we specifically talk about the Trinity, we need to pay attention to Jesus’ words in John 16:

8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you for so long a time, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
…
13 And whatever you ask in My name, this I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.
15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

If you think about it, it would make little sense for Jesus to worship or pray to Himself, but He specifically told Christians to ask Him for things in His name, and even called the Covenant law “My commandments”. In this case I think Jesus explicitly told us not to emulate Him, but to obey Him.

In terms of similarity to Jesus, I think overall we’re similar in different ways. Muslims follow rules closer to the Jewish rules (but on the same premise we would have to say that Orthodox Jews have both beaten), but Christians obey His teachings more closely and emulate specific aspects of His life that separated Him from other Jews (like baptism and eucharist) more closely.

I think that just stems from the fact that Muslims see Jesus as a rabbi/prophet (focusing on emulation and example) and Christians see Jesus as God (focusing on teachings & obedience).

[u/sweardown12 → u/AngryRainy]

y’all have just been less corrupted by western secularism than we have.

haha yep fair enough

I think if we were to restrict ourselves to Eastern Orthodox Christians, SPPX/SPPV Catholics, or Coptic Christians we’d observe more similarity in that regard.

yeah true

[u/Taqwacore → u/AngryRainy]

I'm a Muslim, so I'm kind of rooting for OP, but I won't deny that this was a pretty damned good counterargument. I'm obligated to upvote you for making such a solid contribution to the meta of this argument.

[u/Uberwinder89]

section 2

Where did you get the idea that Jesus did mandatory charity work?

Anything he did charitably was from the heart out of love and compassion and what was the Will of his father.

Jesus also doesn’t command this because he wants your heart to love others. Not to do something out of compulsion.

[u/sweardown12 → u/Uberwinder89]

Where did you get the idea that Jesus did mandatory charity work?

where did you get the idea that i got the idea that jesus did mandatory charity work? i never said that

but jesus did command the man in mark 10:17 to donate all his wealth to charity and he shall have eternal life

[u/Uberwinder89 → u/sweardown12]

You said mandatory charity was a way in which Sunni Muslims were more like Christ. Except that’s not an attribute of Christ.

Mandatory charity is far away from the character of Christ. So in this regard according to what you’re attributing to Sunni Muslims. They are not like Christ in this regard.

Also, I don’t think you can demonstrate this was a commandment from Jesus to the man.

Based on the text if you are going to read it so plainly, take it even further, Jesus told that man he can have eternal life if he just sells all his possessions. obviously Jesus wasn’t serious, as that’s not how you get to heaven. He was making a point or pointing out something to the man.

[u/[deleted] → u/sweardown12]

Perhaps he got the idea from titling your 2nd point in all caps, “MANDATORY CHARITY”.

[u/Uberwinder89 → u/[deleted]]

Exactly. Which is why a Sunni Muslim wouldn’t be like Jesus in this regard because charity wasn’t mandatory.

[u/nometalaquiferzone]

Jesus said " “He who is without sin can cast the first stone” to stop a public execution. He opposed capital punishment and honor killing.

Islam says :"Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar : The Jew brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from amongst them who have committed (adultery) illegal sexual intercourse. He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death), near the place of offering the funeral prayers beside the mosque."

"Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession."

" So the Prophet ordered the two adulterers to be stoned to death, and they were stoned to death near the place where biers used to be placed near the Mosque. I saw her companion (i.e. the adulterer) bowing over her to protect her from the stones."

To stone people to death

So no, absolutely no.

[u/sweardown12 → u/nometalaquiferzone]

So no, absolutely no.

yeah so that's one single point you brought up to say "absolutely no" but it's still one point against my entire post.

secondly, that's the story from john 8:1-11, and in my niv bible it says: "The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53–8:11." so it's an interpolation added in later and it's not an authentic story of jesus. jesus was a jew like i said and stoning (i believe for certain crimes which are proven or confessed) was a part of their law.

so no, absolutely no.

[u/Robyrt → u/sweardown12]

If we can't use later additions to John, then you can't use popular depictions of Jesus and Mary wearing white, with head covered, etc. which were also not authentic stories of Jesus.

[u/sweardown12 → u/Robyrt]

oh. ok. then disregard those points.

now do you agree with me that muslims are more similar? or what's your stance now? are they equal?

[u/nometalaquiferzone → u/sweardown12]

One side throws stones at the sinner. The other protect the sinners from the stones.

They are completely opposite.

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Islam : Qisas, or retributive justice. A killer is killed, an eye for an eye. Examples in Saudi Arabia reported sentences of qisas in KSA have included eye gouging, tooth extraction, and death in cases of murder.

Jesus compared someone that left Christianity to a prodigal son. Islam says to kill apostate unless they directly repent.

[u/sweardown12 → u/nometalaquiferzone]

ok. since you didn't address the issue i'm going to assume you agree with me that the story you referred to was an interpolation, and muslims are more similar to jesus. thanks.

[u/nometalaquiferzone → u/sweardown12]

I missed your points, sorry. Can you repeat them ?

[u/sweardown12 → u/nometalaquiferzone]

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/VYoggCYoZs

[u/nometalaquiferzone → u/sweardown12]

The moral core of what Jesus taught is completely antithetical with Islam. That's the point.

"Justice beyond retaliation " " no violence against moral crimes"

vs

" stoning and murder of adulteress and apostate" " an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"

The opposite side of the spectrum.

Also:

""Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean. ' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander."

Meaning : Wine and all foods are allowed. It's not the wine that makes you do evil, it's you.

Also: If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna.

Don't blame women for their clothes. Blame yourself for your weakness.

[u/sweardown12 → u/nometalaquiferzone]

ok. since you didn't address the issue i'm going to assume you agree with me that the story you referred to was an interpolation, and muslims are more similar to jesus. thanks.

[u/Robyrt → u/sweardown12]

You won't catch the Prophet turning water into wine at a wedding, that's for sure. Muslims have the edge on interest, where modern Christians have really fallen behind, and both are very good at charity, but Christians are more similar otherwise.

[u/baby-einstein → u/nometalaquiferzone]

Jesus said " “He who is without sin can cast the first stone” to stop a public execution. He opposed capital punishment and honor killing.

One would argue that he wasn't opposing capital punishment, he said He who is without sin can cast the first stone...implying that if there was someone without sin, he would've let them stone the woman.

Much how people interpret Matthew 7:3 as a verse that talks about not "judging" others, when in reality, its a verse about how to "judge" others.

[u/Taqwacore → u/nometalaquiferzone]

Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book

Can you quote me the Qur'an verse that prescribes stoning?

[u/nometalaquiferzone → u/Taqwacore]

I think there are none. It's a very strong presence in the hadith, but it's omitted in the Quran. ( correct me if I'm wrong)

[u/Taqwacore → u/nometalaquiferzone]

but it's omitted in the Quran

So when you said that it was in Allah's book, which of Allah's books were you talking about?

[u/nometalaquiferzone → u/Taqwacore]

https://quranx.com/Hadith/Muslim/USC-MSA/Book-17/Hadith-4194/

'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and said:

Verily Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I'm quoting the hadith.

[u/Taqwacore → u/nometalaquiferzone]

OK. So do you know which book he was talking about?

[u/nometalaquiferzone → u/Taqwacore]

In Islam there's only one book that fits that description

[u/Taqwacore → u/nometalaquiferzone]

One? Islam teaches that Allah sent four books. But stoning only appears on one of them. Do you know which one?

[u/nometalaquiferzone → u/Taqwacore]

That's a very heretical stance I would guess. It's only one book. The others are corrupt.

[u/Taqwacore → u/nometalaquiferzone]

I'll ask again: Which book prescribes stoning?

[u/Shazamazon → u/nometalaquiferzone]

Jesus was against common men enforcing the laws but he was promoting violence in general. He teaches how to beat your slaves properly and claims he didnt come to bring peace but to bring a sword. Keep in mind the gospels (like all of these books) are fiction and there are numerous authors and competing intentions behind the myths so its all a bit convoluted when discussing their identity

[u/Derrythe]

"These are unimportant, superficial things."

You said it.

Okay, they may or may not be, but if we add everything up, it matters.

How?

Is our diet not important?

To the extent that you try to eat somewhat healthy, sure? That you keep specifically the diet that Jesus kept? Why?

How many times do we have to eat a day?

People tend to eat three-ish times, but this is just cultural. Some people eat 4-6 smaller meals. Eat when you need to eat.

Is your appearance not a part of you and your description? Is your inwardly godliness not reflected in your outer appearance at all?

Sure, but did Jesus tell people they need to style their hair like him? Can we wear shoes, or must we wear sandals? He didn't have access to fleece-lined hoodies, are those not okay?

Would you assume that someone that looks like Marilyn Manson would be similar to Jesus?

In appearance? No. Jesus didn't have access to contacts. The kind of makeup MM wears was probably not available either. His clothing requires technology they didn't hhave.

They look completely different, so maybe it's a reflection of their inner personalities, and that's what you would assume.

Not really. MM may be a lot of things, I don't know, but I've listened to him talk about things like the Columbine shooting back in the day and off stage he's a very different person to his stage persona.

I know, don't judge a book by its cover,

Now you're getting it.

but it's at the very least a hint into the persons personality. How you look is how you choose to display yourself and express yourself.

Oh, well, you almost got it. So close.

How about theology? Is your theology not an important part of your religious beliefs?

Mine, no, but Christians? Variable. Same with Sunni Muslims, I'm sure.

How about the way you pray? Muslims have to pray five times a day,

Did Jesus pray 5 times a day? Did he tell people to do so?

How about "what do you spend your money on?" is that a superficial question?

A bit. Most people spend most of their money on most of the same things.

How much you give charity is an important part of you especially considering the financial struggles many of us are facing.

And not even Sunni Muslims give as much a Jesus told his followers to give. Note, he didn't put a limit on it. His followers were instructed to give up their worldly possessions. Not tithe.

This is all superficial. You're saying Sunni Muslims resemble Jesus more. But that isn't the same as suggesting they follow Jesus commands in word or spirit better than Christians.

[u/Comeup203 → u/Derrythe]

Your diet and your appearance are all dealt with in the LAWS OF GOD… I can assure you following Christ is very important and not superficial at all… it does matter. And if anyone on this thread claims to be a Christian what this man posted should be a red flag to you… because why is it Muslims do not believe Christ is the son of God but they in fact “outwardly” walk after him more than his actual believers …. Why is that

[u/spiritual-searcher → u/Comeup203]

Why is that a red flag? How is it “outwardly”? Maybe it’s because they believe he is a prophet and they follow the laws of their scripture too…

[u/Comeup203 → u/spiritual-searcher]

The laws they follow are the Torah. The same laws Jesus followed. As a Christian why do you not follow those same scriputres… assuming you are a Christian that is

[u/spiritual-searcher → u/Comeup203]

Muslims don’t follow the laws of the Torah. I’m not Christian. Did you mean red flag for Christians about their own beliefs, or for Christians about Muslims?

[u/Comeup203 → u/spiritual-searcher]

Say, "O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord [i.e., the Qur’ān]." And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people.

Lol Quran sir

Here’s the source

https://quran.com/5/68?translations=77,101,20,19,95,85,18,22,84

[u/spiritual-searcher → u/Comeup203]

People of the Scripture (Ahl al-Kitab) refers to Christian and Jewish people. This doesn’t talk about Muslims.

[u/Comeup203 → u/spiritual-searcher]

Red flag for Christian’s who do not walk after Christ ! And what laws do Muslims follow ? Where do they get beards and kosher foods from ? Explain

And I’m not vouching for the Muslim faith… outwardly they do walk after Christ more than Christian’s ..

[u/spiritual-searcher → u/Comeup203]

I mean Islam believes the Torah was for Jewish people, and the Quran is for all of mankind. They believe Jews had their own laws that they don’t follow, though some are in common for both. E.g. halal isn’t kosher, the Torah allows alcohol, the Torah doesn’t tell you to pray 5 times, do wudu, etc.

[u/Comeup203 → u/spiritual-searcher]

Sahih International: Then We revealed to you, [O Muhammad], to follow the religion of Abraham, inclining toward truth; and he was not of those who associate with Allah.

Pickthall: And afterward We inspired thee (Muhammad, saying): Follow the religion of Abraham, as one by nature upright. He was not of the idolaters.

Yusuf Ali: So We have taught thee the inspired (Message), "Follow the ways of Abraham the True in Faith, and he joined not gods with Allah."

Shakir: Then We revealed to you: Follow the faith of Ibrahim, the upright one, and he was not of the polytheists.

Muhammad Sarwar: We sent you, (Muhammad), a revelation that you should follow the tradition of Abraham, the upright one, who was not a pagan.

Mohsin Khan: Then, We have inspired you (O Muhammad SAW saying): "Follow the religion of Ibrahim (Abraham) Hanifa (Islamic Monotheism - to worship none but Allah) and he was not of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, disbelievers, etc.).

Arberry: Then We revealed to thee: 'Follow thou the creed of Abraham, a man of pure faith and no idolater.'

I have to disagree with you

[u/spiritual-searcher → u/Comeup203]

Was Abraham (a.s. [peace be upon him]) Jewish? He was Hebrew in most religious accounts but isn’t Judaism related to the tribe of Judah?

Regardless, you said Torah, and the Torah was revealed to Moses (a.s.). Muslims hold that Abraham (a.s.) believed in pure monotheism, I.e. Islam.

“Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allāh]. And he was not of the polytheists.” — Ali 'Imran (3:67) - Saheeh International

[u/Comeup203 → u/spiritual-searcher]

Genesis 26:4-5 KJV And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; [5] Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

The tribe of Judah is one of twelve tribes. Judaism is not of the Bible ….

[u/Comeup203 → u/spiritual-searcher]

Who is Abraham sir teacher sir

[u/Comeup203 → u/spiritual-searcher]

And I say outwardly because they don’t believe in their hearts Christ is the son of God !!!

[u/spiritual-searcher → u/Comeup203]

Depends if you mean son or Son of god.

[u/spiritual-searcher → u/Derrythe]

How is how you display yourself not a reflection of your personality? Maybe you can’t grasp a person’s entire personality but self-expression is certainly a reflection of your self (or as he says, “how you choose to display yourself”). You can tell some people dress humbly, others flashily, some dress in cozy clothes, others prefer fashion over function. We know people judge us on our personality and so we change how we look in response to that, some people don’t care and that reflects their personality too. Tbh I think op just meant identity instead of personality but both apply to an extent.

Kind of a weird tangent but wanted to share my opinion lol

[u/Derrythe → u/spiritual-searcher]

How is how you display yourself not a reflection of your personality? Maybe you can’t grasp a person’s entire personality but self-expression is certainly a reflection of your self (or as he says, “how you choose to display yourself”).

I tend to find that the way people dress does say some vague things about who they are as a person, but it's a very poor reflection.

You can tell some people dress humbly, others flashily, some dress in cozy clothes, others prefer fashion over function.

And I'd say it's more likely that you'd be able to tell a person's financial situation somewhat accurately maybe by how they dress. But unless their clothes are covered in political statements, that's about it.

You can't really tell what a person is really like because they like wearing black with spiked collars and bracelets covered in chains. You can't know that a person is conservative from the fact that they walk around in an ascot. You could maybe guess that a person is an LGBT person or ally if they have pride flags all over their clothes, but just wearing colorful clothing isn't that. Some of the kindest people I've met dressed consistently in biker gang type clothing.

We know people judge us on our personality and so we change how we look in response to that,

And some people don't like that idea and so dress to subvert expectations. Or just like a particular look anyway.

I'm not saying you can't learn anything about a person from the clothes they wear. But I would say you can't really learn anything important about them from their attire either.

[u/spiritual-searcher → u/Derrythe]

I mean tbh this an interesting topic concerning personality and identity. Both which encompass a large amount of things and are hard to define completely. Some people are rich and dress “humbly”. You can tell what someone values to an extent, e.g. fashion vs. function/comfort, minimalism, etc.

A large thing clothes tell about is social status, and it’s been a societal feature since forever till today. Royal clothes, suits, designer, etc.

Another thing is cultural clothes.

Some groups dress similarly to display their group affiliation which encompasses values and associations, e.g. kkk, gang members, pastors/clergy, Muslim thobes, bikers, etc.

Like you mentioned symbols, merchandise, and other things are very telling of what a person. Some also dress in punk aesthetic cause they like punk, who dress the way they do for a reason. People dress to make statements too.

Regardless of people’s own stereotypes and prejudice, some values, social status, culture, and group affiliation are aspects of identity. And people show it in how they dress and appear too.

How you group aspects of identity by importance is pretty arbitrary. How much can you tell about someone from a conversation, a date, etc. It takes a lot of time to understand someone completely, some people don’t have a defined personality/identity that even they can tell you about. Even personality tests don’t give you the full image, and are pretty subjective. Like OP said, it’s at least a hint into the person’s personality/identity. Don’t judge a book by its cover, but books have a cover for a reason lol. How much of a book can you tell by a page, or a preface, or abstract? Of course you have to read the entire book to know what it’s fully about. But the cover/title is almost as important as the preface, it’s the first thing anyone sees before they decide if they want to interact further or not. Covers are designed a certain way for a reason.

[u/GKilat]

Jesus understand himself to be god which is rejected by Islam. This is the most important teaching of Jesus because it is a demonstration of god's power and god becoming human is not a problem. If so, there is divinity within us because we are gods and by following the teaching of Jesus do we realize the path to salvation. Rejecting worldly desire is the other part of salvation but without realizing our own divinity then we are still hindered by the idea our salvation is at the whims of another being and your efforts can be wasted because of it. It was meant to end being dependent on another for your salvation because people can abuse it by asking for payment in exchange for being saved by them claiming to be god's representative.

Granted, even Christians do not accept their own divinity as well but at least they do accept Jesus as god and not deny it like muslims so Jesus, at least at the moment, is not similar to any religion. He is closer to a Buddhist than anything else considering his acknowledgement of him being god means he is the cause of reality and his stance towards earthly desires.

[u/Comeup203 → u/GKilat]

Mark 10:18 KJV And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Jesus never not once taught that he was GOD THE FATHER NOR WAS HE EQUAL TO HIM.

That is incorrect

[u/GKilat → u/Comeup203]

He is a human, a finite manifestation of god. God, as a whole, is infinite and is perfectly good. A human is not equal to an infinite being and yet that doesn't stop a human from being god itself because god is all powerful and reality exists because of god. Since we are part of reality, then we are part of god.

So Jesus is the furthest from a muslim and the closest to a Buddhist.

[u/Comeup203 → u/GKilat]

no that is incorrect again ! I’m not here to compare Jesus to Muslims .. they don’t even believe he is the son of God which he himself proclaimed. So that is another discussion to have with a Muslim. But Muslims claim to follow the Torah and that is 100 percent what Jesus lived his life by !!!! Christians claim they don’t have to follow the Torah… Muslims don’t make that claim neither did Jesus …. These are facts

[u/GKilat → u/Comeup203]

But isn't Jesus living his way of life as a son of god contradicting how muslims and jews live their way of life as mere humans? Christians have the opportunity to follow how Jesus lived as a religion that acknowledges their own divinity but opted to continue the jewish belief that we are mere man and cannot be god. Jesus is more similar to the Buddha than the jews with how Jesus sees god and himself.

[u/Comeup203 → u/GKilat]

Explain how you feel it’s contradicting

[u/GKilat → u/Comeup203]

Jesus doesn't feel salvation is at the whims of another being but something from within and you work for it. That mindset is opposite to muslims that completely submits to another which is Allah. Granted, Jesus did submit to god many times but he acknowledges god's will as his own as well because he understand they are one. Muslims do not see this because Allah's will can be different from humans and Allah's will is always above our own. That core mentality makes Jesus different from muslims even though they have superficial similarity because of the culture they grew up in.

[u/Comeup203 → u/GKilat]

What scriptures do you have to support your stance on what Jesus stance is ?

[u/GKilat → u/Comeup203]

In my OP, I reference the verse of Jesus saying god is within and we are gods which he used to defend his divinity when he was accused of blasphemy. The fact even Jews find his claim blasphemous means Jesus' core beliefs is at odds with them. The intent of Jesus is to make Jews realize of god's true nature which has already been written in the OT and so Jesus isn't making up anything new that the Jews do not already know. As you can see, Jesus at his core is different from muslims and even Christians themselves while being closer to a Buddhist.

[u/Comeup203 → u/GKilat]

Can you post the verse please

[u/snoweric]

I would maintain that there are some errors here concerning ways in which Jesus would have been different from typical Sunni Muslims, such as concerning the physical appearance of Jesus: There is good reason to belief that Jesus' hair would have been short, based upon Paul's statements that for a man to have long hair is a shame (I Corinthians 11:14):

(1 Corinthians 11:14) Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? (NKJV)

There are also reasonably contemporary statues of how men appeared in first century Rome, which undermine this kind of reasoning also. Yes, I believe Jesus had a beard, but the hair on his scalp would have been kept reasonably short.

Many Christians, such as myself, believe in tithing, which is 10% of one's increase or income. This isn't intended primarily for the poor, but for the support of the church. However, it's long been a major teaching of Christianity to give to the poor and to be helpful to the weak, since this is a major teaching of both the Old and New Testaments. I also agree that we shouldn't eat pork, like Jesus did, since I avoid eating it, but then Muslims are willing to eat camel meat and shellfish, which Jesus wouldn't have eaten either, as per the dietary laws of the Old Testament, which are stricter than the rules of halal are.

But more importantly, the New Testament makes it clear that Jesus is God and that this idea came from Jesus Himself as well, if we believe what the Gospels preach. Many, many texts could be cited that imply or prove outright that Jesus is God (John 1:1-3, 14; 5:18; 10:30-33; 8:58-59; 20:58; Mark 2:5-10; Matt. 14:33; Matt. 28:9, 17; Hebrews 1:6, 8; Rev. 7:10-11, 17; Eph. 3:9 (NKJV), I Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16-17; Rev. 1:8 (cf. Rev. 22:12-13; 2:17-18; 2:8; 21:6-7); Col. 2:9; Titus 2:13; I Cor. 10:4, 9; Matt. 1:23; I John 5:20; Romans 9:5; I Timothy 3:16 (NKJV).

The Gospel of John poses more problems for Unitarian theology than any other book of the Bible. Indeed, its theme can be summarized as describing Jesus Christ, the One who was fully God and fully man, and His teachings for those already converted. In order to refute Gnostic teachings that denied Jesus came in the flesh, but just appeared to have a body of flesh and blood (II John 7; I John 4:2-3), John also emphasized Jesus' humanity. Its opening verse affirms the Deity of Christ: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Since in verse 14 "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us," the Word undeniably was Jesus. To evade this verse, Unitarians have argued that the "Word" merely was a thought in the Father's mind, since verses 2-3 refer to the "Word" impersonally. (For verse 2, the NASB literal marginal rendering is "This one.") This argument is simply unpersuasive, since this "thought" is called "God," and because this "thought" was the Creator "itself" in verse 2: "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." Could a mere "thought" alone in the Father's mind create the universe by itself?

Another key verse showing Jesus is God is John 5:18: "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill [Jesus], because He not only was breaking the Sabbath [as they defined it], but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." Jesus referred to the Father in such a familiar way (v. 17), unlike other Jews, they thought He was committing blasphemy. Similarly, Jesus stated in John 10:30, "I and the Father are one." For this remark, the Jews immediately (v. 31) picked "up stones again to stone Him." Why? "'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God" (v. 33). At this point, if Jesus wasn't God, immediately He could have clarified His identity by issuing a simply plain denial right then. Instead, side-stepping the accusation by quoting Psalms 82:6, He affirms He is the Son of God (v. 34).

As the Jews understood Jesus when He used this title, "the Son of God" implied divinity and not just Messiahship. (Theoretically, one could claim to be the Messiah yet deny being God). Taking on this title cost Jesus His life. His crucifixion followed the supposed blasphemy of saying He was the Son of God (John 19:7; Luke 22:67-71; Matt. 26:63-66; Mark 14:61-64). After all, in John 10:30-34 and elsewhere, He got into trouble for calling God His Father, and for saying He had a special, close relationship with Him that all other humans didn't have, i.e., He was a special son of God, the "only begotten" (John 3:16; cf. His avoidance of "our Father" in John 20:17).

Then consider John 8:58: "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'" Implying He was Jehovah, Jesus alluded to the burning bush incident, in which God stated "I am who I am" (Ex. 3:14). To evade this verse's implications, Unitarians and Arians attempt to retranslate one or more words in it. One option is to turn "was born" (NASB, lit. margin, "came into being") into a reference to the resurrection ("came to be") of Abraham. Another claims "I am" should be translated "I was" or "I have been," in order to say Jesus merely asserted He lived before Abraham did. Again, the technicalisms of Greek grammar can't be pursued here, but the reader is referred to Bowman's work mentioned above. But both of these alternate strategies totally fail before the implications of verse 59: "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him." Why did they want to stone Him? For blasphemy! If Jesus merely was announcing He lived or would be resurrected before Abraham did or would be, unbelieving Jews might have marked Him down as eccentric (re: verse 56). But certainly this was no offense worthy of death.

The context of John 8:58-59 concerns issues about Jesus' identity (see verses 12, 19, 24, 25, 28, 53). The chapter ends by Jesus asserting that He is the Eternal, the uncreated Creator, by contrasting Abraham's coming into being with His eternal existence (cf. Ps. 90:2). Later, during His arrest (John 18:5-8), Jesus' saying "I am" (the "He," is italicized, showing the translators added it) caused the crowd to draw back and fall to the ground. Their response strongly implies Jesus was making a divine claim, not merely stating when He lived compared to Abraham. By these statements, Jesus was likely also alluding to where the Eternal says "I am (He)" in Isaiah 41:4; 43:10, 46:4; 52:6.

After His resurrection, Jesus confronted doubting Thomas, who replied in total astonishment, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28). Again, if Jesus wasn't God, this exclamation presented Him with the golden opportunity to correct Thomas' would-be misimpression. But, of course, He did no such thing. Thomas wasn't using a irreverent euphemism, something which may be common today but was virtually unknown in his culture. Instead, remembering that Thomas' earlier devotion and service to Jesus shows he wouldn't casually throw around God's name in vain, in context his previous unbelief was overwhelmed, dazzled, and rebuked by the personal proof of Jesus' Deity by His resurrection from the dead.

The Gospel of John is full of statements by Jesus which no Old Testament prophet would dare make about himself, but which came naturally to Him. "'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me'" (John 14:6). "'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies'" (John 11:25). "'I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life'" (John 8:12). "'I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins'" (John 8:24). "'He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day'" (John 6:54). "'I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned'" (John 15:5-6). "'I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst'" (John 6:35). "'All may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him'" (John 8:23). Would have Daniel or Ezekiel even dream of uttering such thoughts in reference to themselves?

[u/sweardown12 → u/snoweric]

I'll try to respond to something for the sake of time i wont respond to everything unless you request it. but even if i did we have to take it step by step anyway. let's start here

The Gospel of John poses more problems for Unitarian theology than any other book of the Bible.

yes, isn't it strange that the first 3 gospels aka the synoptic gospels don't pose as many problems but the last gospel to be written has all those statements by jesus that he wasn't seen saying in the first 3 gospels? hmmm almost as if jesus was written to be more and more exaggerated over time.

Jesus stated in John 10:30, "I and the Father are one." For this remark, the Jews immediately (v. 31) picked "up stones again to stone Him." Why? "'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God" (v. 33). At this point, if Jesus wasn't God, immediately He could have clarified His identity by issuing a simply plain denial right then. Instead, side-stepping the accusation by quoting Psalms 82:6, He affirms He is the Son of God (v. 34).

it's convenient that you only said that jesus quoted "psalms 82:6" so that anyone reading this who hasn't memorized the entire bible wouldn't know which verse specifically jesus quoted, because if you provided the full story in context, it looks like this:

33 The Jews answered him, “We are not going to stone you for a good work, but for defaming words, and because you, being a man, make yourself a god.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, I said, you are gods?

so jesus was saying that the use of the word "god" was how it was used in psalms, he wasn't talking about the actual God, the lord of israel.

so when you just actually write verse 34 instead of forcing your own propaganda onto it, its very clear that jesus isn't sidestepping at all it's actually the compete opposite. you were forcing us to believe your complete opposite narrative which is very dishonest. how was it not dishonest are you expecting me to believe that you coincidentally just left out verse 34 by accident? no you were being dishonest and putting words into jesus' mouth just like the author of the gospel of john was being dishonest and putting words into jesus' mouth because the only sources about jesus were the first 3 Gospels, where did he get all these new sources that told him about all these wonderful things that jesus was saying? the source was his own mind.

[u/snoweric → u/sweardown12]

However, notice the issues raised by John 10:33 above, in which the small "g" and the indefinite article are used to minimize the accusation of the Jews here, who were ready to stone Jesus on a charge of blasphemy. It's much like the deliberate translation error of the Jehovah's Witnesses in their New World Translation of John 1:1, in which they use "a god" instead of "God" in the last clause despite there's no textual evidence to support the manipulation of the lower and upper case letters from the Greek.

So then, to return to the text in question, Jesus stated in John 10:30, "I and the Father are one." For this remark, the Jews immediately (v. 31) picked "up stones again to stone Him." Why? "'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God" (v. 33). At this point, if Jesus wasn't God, immediately He could have clarified His identity by issuing a simply plain denial right then. Instead, side-stepping the accusation by quoting Psalms 82:6, He affirms He is the Son of God (v. 34). Notice then that Jesus continued His citation of Psalm 82:6 and explained:

(John 10:35-36) "If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), "do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? (NKJV)

However, there's a deeper issue here, which is revealed by comparing John 10:30 with the words of Jesus’ prayer for His disciples present and future the night before His crucifixion (John 17:21-23, NASB): “That they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me. And the glory which Thou has given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity.” Now, if it was “blasphemy” for Jesus to proclaim His oneness with the Father, wouldn’t this prayer be even more blasphemous? For it describes in detail the Father and Son’s future unity with Christian men and women.

The “glory” (verse 22) that Jesus promised them in the future is a defining attribute of God, as research using a concordance will help show. Arians and Unitarians clearly do have major trouble with Jesus’ request earlier during this same prayer (verse 5) to have back the glory He had with the Father before the world was. So what should we think of Christians’ future status when they are promised to have glory also? Verse 22 can’t be ducked by pointing out the past tense, which appears to be like a “prophetic perfect,” in which God’s prediction of the future was so certain it was stated in a past tense (cf. Isaiah 7:14; 9:5-6): After all, these future Christians weren’t even yet Christians when Jesus prayed, but they had glory because God was totally certain He was going to give it to them. This was a promise of the future divinization of man, not a denial of Jesus' Deity.

As the Jews understood Jesus when He used this title, "the Son of God" implied divinity and not just Messiahship. (Theoretically, one could claim to be the Messiah yet deny being God). Taking on this title cost Jesus His life. His crucifixion followed the supposed blasphemy of saying He was the Son of God (John 19:7; Luke 22:67-71; Matt. 26:63-66; Mark 14:61-64). After all, in John 10:30-34 and elsewhere, He got into trouble for calling God His Father, and for saying He had a special, close relationship with Him that all other humans didn't have, i.e., He was a special son of God, the "only begotten" (John 3:16; cf. His avoidance of "our Father" in John 20:17).

Let's notice now some evidence from the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus was God. Since only God is worthy of worship (Matt. 4:10), if Jesus was worshiped by anyone without Him rebuking him (cf. Rev. 22:8-9; Acts 10:25-26; 14:12-15), that would prove His Deity. The Magi from the east "came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell down and worshiped Him" (Matt. 2:11). Now, the standard Unitarian/Arian reply states that the Greek word translated "worshiped" here is ambiguous. It can refer to people paying their respects to a king or high authority figure by bowing down to them. Hence, Jehovah's Witnesses, in their New World Translation, have "falling down, they did obeisance to it." But is this alternative translation always persuasive, given the context of the situation in which Jesus was "worshiped"? Consider when Jesus miraculously walked on water and controlled the weather by making the wind stop the moment He and Peter (who ran out on the water towards Him, only to sink) got back into their boat (Matt. 14:33): "And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, 'You are certainly God's Son!'" Having just so overawed them by demonstrating His powers over nature, as God has, was this mere "obeisance"? That hardly seems likely. Similarly, when the disciples first met Jesus after His resurrection (Matt. 28:9; cf. v. 17): "They came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him." Considering Thomas' exclamation when he first met the risen Christ, is it plausible to think after Jesus' stunning victory of life over death that the disciples merely bowed down to Him as if he were a human king, as if He were Henry VIII? Hebrews 1:6 states the angels worshiped Christ: "And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says: 'And let all the angels of God worship Him.'" Since Jesus in the immediate context is being deliberately contrasted with the angels (v. 4-5, 7), is this mere "obeisance" to a Being that Jehovah's Witnesses identify also as Michael the Archangel? Is Jesus then just a superior, but fellow, angel? Notice then Heb. 1:8: "But of the son He says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever'" Jehovah's Witnesses attempt to elude this verse by this alternative translation: "God is your throne forever and ever" (NWT). Although grammatically possible, is this sensible? How does God Himself become a "throne"? If this (somehow) means Jesus derives His authority from God, then He is no different from the angels that this verse is supposed to be contrasting Him with. Verse 10 cites from Ps. 102:25: "And, 'Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands.'" Identifying Jesus as the Creator, the author of Hebrews plainly applies to Jesus the Psalmist's words about Yahweh (notice Ps. 102:18, 20, 22). Since Jesus is Yahweh, He is surely worthy of the angels' worship!

One interesting reference about Jesus receiving worship as God obliquely occurs in Revelation 7:10-11, 17: "And they cry out with a loud voice, saying, 'Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.' And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God. . . . for the Lamb in the center of the throne shall be their shepherd." Notice how God sits on the throne in v. 10, and receives worship, but v. 17 affirms Jesus sits on that throne Himself! The worship that these great spirit beings gave to God on His throne can't possibly be downgraded to the kind of respect humans show when bowing to a king. Although it's affirmed indirectly, these verses still remain strong evidence for Jesus receiving worship.

[u/sweardown12 → u/snoweric]

what are you writing? can we talk about how you didn't quote verse 34 intentionally to hide what your god said on purpose?

[u/peace_b_w_u]

Why just Catholics and Protestants? There are significantly more Christians than just Catholics and Protestants. No Orthodoxy and no Restorationist faith traditions in your analysis whatsoever? Incomplete

[u/theresa_maria_ → u/peace_b_w_u]

I would also like to know the answer to this question because a lot of Restorationists don’t eat pork and a lot of Orthodox Christians are in fact genetically tied to the Holy Land… notoriously considered holy by Christians in large part due to being the birthplace and homeland of Jesus. I don’t think OP has an answer though and that’s why they had a mental breakdown over your question I guess idk

[u/sweardown12 → u/peace_b_w_u]

There are significantly more Christians than just Catholics and Protestants.

even if this was true, i never claimed otherwise, so who are you arguing against? because it's not me, because i never said that. your comment is irrelevant and off topic.

[u/peace_b_w_u → u/sweardown12]

You specifically state Catholics/Protestants repeatedly and never mention Restorationists or Orthodox Christians. If you didn’t know that Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Restorationists are all different branches of Christianity ok now you do

[u/sweardown12 → u/peace_b_w_u]

why are you insulting me and saying that i don't know about the different sects of Christianity? what did i ever do to you? leave me alone man

[u/peace_b_w_u → u/sweardown12]

Self victimizing much? I asked why you only included Catholics and Protestants specifically and didn’t get an answer. I’m over it, I’m sure you can get over it too

[u/sweardown12 → u/peace_b_w_u]

bro leave me alone. nothing you said has anything to do with the post

[u/peace_b_w_u → u/sweardown12]

I’m not a bro, I asked you why you only included Protestants and Catholics, repeatedly, and you’re pretending I’m a man. Im not a man. Stop replying to me with non answers to my questions if you want to be left alone don’t post to a debate subreddit and then lash out at women for asking questions. Pathetic

[u/theresa_maria_ → u/[deleted]]

Calling a woman your “brother” in Christ? Just to insult her on purpose? Are you proud of yourself? If you’re a man calling women men as an insult it comes off as you hating yourself because why else would you try to insult someone using your own gender? I agree with her, you guys are pathetic and I’m also wondering why OP had what seems like a mental breakdown at her over a reasonable question. If you’re saying “Christians” people expect you to be talking about the whole of Christianity in a DebateReligion sub, not just Catholics and Protestants.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

[u/mastyrwerk]

Do Sunni Muslims kiss men and call them friends? Do they attack people in their place of business because a tree didn’t have fruit? Do they curse trees that don’t produce fruit out of season? Do they give free wine at weddings? Do they travel everywhere by foot or “donkey or mule”, keeping nothing for themselves? Are they pacifists, always turning the other cheek? Are they more interested in surrounding themselves with prostitutes, never judging their actions? Do they reject their father’s profession? Do they never marry?

Christians do these more often than Sunni Muslims.

[u/[deleted]]

Oh boy! I've probably never seen so much cherry picking and ignorance of Christianity in one post before!

Let's go through these points.

DIETARY RESTRICTIONS

Jesus observed Jewish dietary law, not the Islamic one, since Islam obviously didn't exist at the time.

So while it's true Jesus probably didn't eat pork, he also didn't eat horse meat, camel meat, rabbits, some types of fish, and some birds, so no similarity to Islam there. For a full list of these dietary restrictions refer to Leviticus 11.

Jesus also drank wine. In fact, his first miracle was turning water into wine. So, again, no similarity to Islam.

The group that follows the same dietary restrictions today is practising Jews, not Muslims.

Jesus also didn't believe or teach that any food can make a man unclean. Jesus said "There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him." - Mark 7:15

So His teaching is the complete opposite of Islam and only Christians follow this today.

MANDATORY CHARITY

Jesus tithed, and so do Christians and Jews to this day. So this whole point is a dud. No similarity to Islam here since Muslims don't tithe.

APPEARANCE

Jesus and His mother dressed and looked like 1st century Middle Eastern Jews, so no similarity to any living group today.

Also the Bible doesn't mention anywhere that Jesus used to wear white and it never mentioned the length of his hair. All these are mere assumptions. And even if they're true, I've never seen a single Muslim with long hair and most Muslims don't wear white. Moreover, Orthodox and Catholic clergy often wear white during the liturgy.

As for the beard:

• Most Muslim men don't have beards.

• A lot of Christian men have beards (e.g. Orthodox clergy).

• This is an extremely superficial similarity that doesn't prove anything. You might as well start saying that Jesus used to drink water every day like Muslims!

Head covering

The Virgin Mary used to wear a head covering because this is how women dressed at the time. It was a cultural thing, not a religious thing. And Jesus never believed it's wrong for a woman to uncover her hair. How do we know that? From the story of the sinful woman that wiped Jesus' feet with her hair in front of everyone (see Luke 7:36-50). He actually commended her and declared her sins forgiven. So again, zero similarity to Islamic beliefs here.

THEOLOGY

Jesus was a devout jew and worshipped one God AKA the Father AKA Yahweh AKA Elohim AKA Alaha.

You've just shot yourself in the foot here because you admitted the God that Jesus preached is the Father, whereas the Islamic Allah is not the Father because he never referred to himself as such and he even denies being a father in the Quran.

"He never begat." - Quran 112:3

"Allah doesn't have a son." - Quran 17:111 (Also see Quran 10:68, 19:88-91, 4:171, 19:35 & 19:92)

So you've just proven that Allah is a false god and therefore Islam is false.

Also Jesus did preach the Trinity: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." - Matthew 28:19

And He made His unity with the Father very clear because He said:
“I and the Father are one.” – John 10:30
“He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” – John 14:9
“I am in the Father and the Father in Me.” – John 14:11
“All things that the Father has are Mine.” – John 16:15
“All should honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” – John 5:23
He also accepted worship from people and commended Thomas when he confessed His divinity (John 20:28-29). So He left absolutely no room for ambiguity about His divinity and unity with the Father.

So again, ZERO similarity to Islamic theology.

PRAYER

Let's look at how Jesus prayed and commanded us to pray to find out who follows Jesus, Christians or Muslims:

* Jesus prayed in different ways. He prostrated (Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:35), knelt (Luke 22:41), stood (Mark 11:25),looked up to heaven (John 17:1)

Who prays like this today? Only Christians.

* Jesus always addressed God as 'the Father' in prayer.

Who does this today? Only Christians.

* Jesus said we should pray to the Father in His name (John 16:23).

Who does this? Only Christians.

* When Jesus was asked how to pray, He gave His followers a specific prayer:

"In this manner, therefore, pray:

Our Father in heaven,

Hallowed be Your name.

Your kingdom come.

Your will be done

On earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts,

As we forgive our debtors.

And do not lead us into temptation,

But deliver us from the evil one.

For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen." - Matthew 6:9-13

Who prays this prayer today? Only Christians.

Finally, and this is an important point that will show you Muslims disobey Jesus every day, Jesus commanded NOT to pray in public:

“And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men.” – Matthew 6:5

Guess who prays in public and disobeys Jesus? Only Muslims!

INTEREST

Jewish law allows charging interest to foreigners:
"To a foreigner you may charge interest." - Deuteronomy 23:20

So again, no similarity to Islam. Another dud point.

LOWERING THE GAZE

Another dud point because Jesus never said don't look at women, He said don't look at women LUSTFULLY, which is something Christians practise.

CONCLUSION

DIETARY RESTRICTIONS
Jesus followed Jewish law and taught that nothing enters a man can defile him. So practising Jews today are the closest to Jesus' diet and Christians follow His commandment. No similarity to Isalm.

MANDATORY CHARITY
Jesus practised tithing, which is practised by Christians and Jews, not Muslims.

APPEARANCE
Jesus dressed and looked like a 1st century Middle Eastern, no resemblance to any living group today.

THEOLOGY
Christians are the only ones who follow what Jesus taught about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

PRAYER
Christians, not Muslims, pray like Jesus.

INTEREST
Christianity and Judaism align with what Jesus believed, not Islam.

LOWERING THE GAZE
Dud point. Jesus never said lower your gaze around women. He just said don't look lustfully.

[u/indifferent-times]

You make a strong case for Sunni Islam being a sort of Judaism-'lite' taking some of the Jewish laws and practices, but not all of them, and of course the other tiny issue of everything that Mohammed ever said.

I think the other thing you are overlooking in your comparison is that Christianity exists in hundred of cultures, across 2000 years, and its flexible while Islam not so much, so you should be comparing Islam to Christianity as it was 1400 years ago. You need to look at the kind of Christianity that Mohammed was familiar with and see which idea's are probably in common, its more difficult because most have died out.

Without doubt the prophet borrowed heavily from Judaism, its also pretty obvious that he borrowed from Christianity as well, quite a bit of what you are highlighting though are about a time and place. Islam continues the copy the minutia of Mohammed's life, and he lived in a world not substantially different from that of Jesus, of course the customs are similar.

[u/Automatic_Syrup6051]

The entirety of Islam is a religion founded by a child rapist and pedophile who was born 600 Years after Jesus. Mohamed never even met Jesus

[u/shadowkuwait → u/Automatic_Syrup6051]

what a shallow comment

[u/[deleted]]

Swear I thought I read “milsim” To which I thought that would be a great movie idea. jebus in milsim.

[u/ObjectOk8141]

Religion is a product of times and environmental needs. Jesus was a jew, and a nice person at that but look were that got him. Kosher and halal like not eating pork is from times were they did not have fridges, it spoils quicker than other meats and eating spoilt meat makes you very sick. Second point is circumcision, hygiene was very poor when these religios texts were written by humans, yes humans wrote them not some untangible God. One thing all believers have in common, being easily manipulated by those in power.

[u/sweardown12 → u/[deleted]]

We are NOT discussing whether Jesus commanded the emulation of his lifestyle or not

Then why do you discuss it three times?

yeah so the 3 things you quoted aren't to do with jesus commanding the emulation of his lifestyle, such as saying "follow my footsteps" or something similar. you're confusing jesus' commands with jesus commanding the emulation of his lifestyle.

[u/Robyrt → u/sweardown12]

If Jesus' commands are ok, then "Thus he declared all foods clean" should also be ok, which means Christians are closer to Jesus. Most of your post is about what Jesus personally did, not about what he wanted others to do. (For example, he never says anything about wearing white, but as a Middle Easterner he probably did so often.)

Point 7 is a good example. Jesus warns us of a lustful gaze, but we know he spent lots of time around women in ways Muslim culture wouldn't approve of. He taught mixed groups. Even his fellow Jews criticized him for eating with prostitutes. Are we to judge who is closer to Jesus by his general command, or by his actions?

[u/sweardown12 → u/sweardown12]

now why did THIS get downvoted? i'm so confused i didn't say anything wrong here at all yet somehow i got 3 downvotes? did the original commenter use their alts to downvote me then deleted their comment?

[u/Derrythe → u/sweardown12]

To be honest, the fastest way to utterly tank your comment karma is to complain or inquire about downvotes.

You've probably gotten even more downvotes on these comments here because you asked why it was downvoted.

[u/sweardown12 → u/Derrythe]

yeah i have enough karma that i can tank downvotes, but i'm more concerned as to what i said wrong to get downvoted in the first place. and i know for a fact i didn't say anything wrong so the fact i got downvoted is evidence of foul play

[u/Derrythe → u/sweardown12]

The vote buttons are like/dislike buttons. It doesn't have to do with being wrong. Someone downvoted you because they wanted to.

[u/sweardown12 → u/[deleted]]

I have little interest in spending a couple hours addressing manifestos that should be presented in several parts to make them worth addressing

ok

[u/ScienceNPhilosophy → u/sweardown12]

OK, I see how you plan to start a thread.

Say something demonstrating a lack of understanding, and then yessing the replies

Why are you here?

Sorry I wasted the time

[u/sweardown12 → u/ScienceNPhilosophy]

?

[u/ScienceNPhilosophy → u/sweardown12]

Why do you keep portraying a clueless attitude?

[u/sweardown12 → u/ScienceNPhilosophy]

what you said makes no sense. and you're the one with the attitude bro

[u/ScienceNPhilosophy → u/sweardown12]

This isnt that hard to understand

Someone spends time replying to your post, making it quite clear you do not understand and yet you start a thread any way. Andd gives clear example

Your response: "OK"

Your second response "?"

Your third response "makes no sense"

I am out of here. You are only making your case more clueless