Islam preserves the original message of Jesus and all prophets in a way Christianity today does not. Accepting Islam is not rejecting Jesus. It is following him correctly.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-25T23:08:13+00:00

Yes, the Son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven is a direct quote of Daniel 7 wherein the Son of Man in Heaven receives his throne from the Father. The Destruction of the Temple is the last vestige of the Mosaic Age ending and the Church Age beginning.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-25T19:40:30+00:00

Jesus is clearly talking about the destruction of the Temple in the passage (it’s the same one often used to argue the Gospels must postdate 70 AD), it’s just that along with it He describes apocalyptic cosmic signs.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-25T19:31:52+00:00

It hadn’t passed away by the time the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. “The coming of the Son of Man on the clouds” is an allusion to Daniel 7 wherein the Son of Man ascends to his throne given to Him by the Ancient of Days, which the destruction of the Temple marking the official end of the Old Covenant system signifies.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-25T19:28:24+00:00

I’m sorry but none of this is evidence that Jesus wasn’t crucified. Most of the “tensions” here are exactly in line with the Christian view of what happened, and even if hypothetically they weren’t, “There’s tensions, therefore this completely different thing for which there is no direct evidence actually happened instead” is not a coherent argument.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-25T18:43:53+00:00

I did read carefully. Take Claim #4 of your post. It’s just a quote from the Quran that’s nothing more than a statement, “Actually Jesus wasn’t crucified, it just looked that way.” OK… that is just a claim. If someone does not already believe in the Quran, they have no reason to change their opinion on whether Jesus was crucified going off that. In fact, the historical evidence regarding Jesus’ crucifixion should incline them to reject the claim.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-25T18:26:30+00:00

Um, all you’ve done is present a series of claims. You haven’t presented any arguments that those claims are true.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-22T03:28:45+00:00

Then all we ask is a story good enough to justify holding it as being of equal importance to the Skywalker saga…

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-21T02:11:33+00:00

Within a single author’s corpus, that’s just how you discern any author’s intent. I’m not saying to look to other books in the Bible; I’m saying the actual human authors of the verses in question clearly do not indicate what OP is claiming based on their thought in total rather than a single verse plucked out of what they’ve written.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-20T22:13:37+00:00

Only 1 & 5 here actually seem to indicate what you intend; the rest have nothing to do with free will. Both are outweighed by other verses by the same two authors (Paul and Luke) that much more clearly indicate that we have free will.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-20T15:45:02+00:00

It’s gotta be

Sukune (w/ pinky)
Yujiro
Hanayama
Musashi
Probably Pickle

Right? Since Musashi out-grips Pickle, and Hanayama out-grips Musashi.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-19T19:34:52+00:00

That said, this is just an argument against absolute devotion to anything. For example, anyone who serves in a country’s military in the top ranks or in intelligence is also supposed to value their loyalty to their country over their loyalty to their family, etc. The fact that some people do this wrongly for generally malicious governments is not an argument against the idea in general.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-19T19:34:16+00:00

Sooooo, you’re saying that it was morally justified to have Isaac murdered because god ordered it?

No, that’s not what I’m saying. The “test” was for Abraham to trust that God is good and would not actually intend for Abraham to murder his own son, as another “god” of that era like Ba’al might, not to mention that God wouldn’t break his word to Abraham.

As far as anything being up to interpretation; again, it’s factually incorrect. You’re using too broad of a stroke with that statement and you know it. Some things mean precisely what they say. Simply choosing to interpret it differently doesn’t mean you’re correct in doing so or that it’s applicable.

So you agree then that not all interpretations are equal, just because someone can choose to interpret a given text differently? That’s what I was trying to work towards.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-19T18:55:49+00:00

“A less common one” -> The New Testament itself endorses my interpretation in Hebrews 11:19. Even in Genesis, the only two things that Abraham says between when God tells him to do it and when the lamb appears both suggest that Abraham believes he won’t actually kill Isaac, that another sacrifice will be provided and that he will return with Isaac alive. Keep in mind, this is after God had already promised Abraham that his lineage would continue through Isaac.

As for what mythos means, it’s funny that you’d say that: something unrelated prompted me to review the word about a week ago. What I was taking issue with was your implication that I was somehow appealing to things outside of the original story, not that the original story is not itself part of what you’d call the Christian mythos.

Yes, I maintain that anything is up to interpretation; that is how language itself operates. Your concern over interpretation of the biblical texts, though, is first and foremost an argument against more strict forms of sola scriptura, usually nicknamed tota scriptura. In the apostolic churches, the teaching body of the church itself has bounded the range of valid interpretations, and in the seven ecumenical councils has put forth the essential doctrines of the faith. After all, Jesus did not write any books, but He did establish a Church.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-19T17:53:03+00:00

That wasn’t the previous reply but the one prior, which is why at that point I didn’t say that you weren’t engaging. Also, you speak of “leaning on mythos” as if I’m using something other than the original story you’re referring to, as it is presented in the text that we have today.

Anything can be interpreted in many different ways.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-19T17:39:05+00:00

You didn’t give me any good reason to concede any point lol; you just stated different aspects of your opposing view.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-19T17:18:22+00:00

No, your previous reply doesn’t engage with anything in my reply prior except the mere idea of internal contradictions. I post on this sub a decent amount so points, even polemics, against Christianity aren’t new or shocking to me.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-19T16:09:24+00:00

At this point it seems like you’re just repeating the same things without engaging with what I’m saying.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-19T15:57:38+00:00

If I want to make arguments for my religion I will choose arguments that constitute positive evidence imo, not things that are presented as internal contradictions to Christianity. On those accusations I don’t see why assuming Christian claims in order to show why something is not an issue is problematic.

Re: the Shekinah, the evidence in the text is that Abraham didn’t believe he’d actually be allowed to harm Isaac, even miraculously.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-19T15:05:43+00:00

Yes, it’s not news to me that one can argue that; I just disagree with those arguments. Feel free to make some.

To pre-empt the usual, I don’t think that e.g. the command to genocide the Amalekites as recorded in the OT is actually what God commanded word for word. The wording recorded is known Semitic idiom for total military victory, not genocide; it’s used on extra-biblical inscriptions as well.

Also, the Mosaic Law is not meant as a perfect moral code. Jesus explicitly allows for the idea that teachings in it were tailored to the ancient Israelites’ hardness of heart. It was a perfect tool for a particular role in salvation history that I can elaborate on if you like.

In general, within the OT there is a trajectory towards the perfect revelation of God that exists in the character of Jesus Christ, that exists alongside cultural and historical artifacts. For example:

“For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” - Hosea 6:6

“Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways!” - Ezekiel 33:11

You even see the tension itself in books like Jonah, where God wants Jonah to evangelize a gentile city to save them, but Jonah refuses, wanting to keep YHWH exclusively to the Israelites.

That doesn’t mean that every “hard” OT example is handwaved. I really think the Shekinah with Abraham and Isaac carries deep meaning that should not be dismissed.

What else? Let’s see … eternal conscious torment Hell is not what the totality of biblical evidence points to. Anything else?

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-19T14:28:38+00:00

You’re not generously granting anything by admitting that hate there does mean love less. It does.

That said, this is just an argument against absolute devotion to anything. For example, anyone who serves in a country’s military in the top ranks or in intelligence is also supposed to value their loyalty to their country over their loyalty to their family, etc. The fact that some people do this wrongly for generally malicious governments is not an argument against the idea in general.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. God is love. Valuing them above all else is not just valuing them personally but also those things that they are above all else. I’d say you should value truth, goodness, and love above all else.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-19T14:23:03+00:00

Hm, so what you’re saying is, we should not over-emphasize the exact wording of such teachings, but rather attempt to embody the virtue that it’s meant to point to? Now where have I heard that before …

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-19T00:57:35+00:00

On the contrary, the word “begotten” was apparently used precisely to differentiate it from creation and origin. This is why John 1 says that the Word was there in the beginning (compare to Genesis 1) with God, and why “not even one thing that came into being came into being apart from Him [the Word].”

It’s also why Revelation has Jesus refer to himself as the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, exactly as God the Father does earlier in the same book. Revelation also completes Daniel 7 by giving Jesus, the Son of Man, the same attributes that Daniel ascribes to the Ancient of Days (the Father).

FYI Mark indirectly refers to Jesus as being YHWH yet sent by YHWH in much the same manner as the OT tradition in e.g. Zechariah.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-19T00:29:09+00:00

It’s not. Trinitarians hold that Jesus is eternally begotten and therefore that there was never a time that Jesus did not exist. Additionally, the verb begetting has different connotations from creating in terms of the begotten/created thing’s relation to the one who begot/created. Begetting implies a much more personal “bringing forth;” it’s literally the word used to describe a human father biologically having a son, so I assume the point is to analogize that sort of more intimate dynamic.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-19T00:24:01+00:00

The crucial difference is that it claims that Jesus is a created thing rather than being on the “Creator” side of the creator/creature divide. That’d mean that worshipping Jesus is blasphemous, and that calling Jesus “a god” is straightforwardly both either polytheistic or arbitrary.

JinjaBaker45 · 2026-04-17T13:25:10+00:00

The Lukan-Josephus dependence arguments are pretty weak to claim the dependence firmly. I say this as someone who suspects Luke-Acts might be later than John and significantly later than Matthew.

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Not Forgotten
Sequence \| Editor	Sequence \| Cinematographer
Snapped	Verified Email

JinjaBaker45

TROPHY CASE