The Old Testament is completely Trinitarian. Genesis 18 even claims Abraham washed God's feet. Please see videos on the Trinity on my site: atavistbiblicalchurch.com
So the Old Testament is completely Trinitarian, but the Jews did not get it at all for 2000 years? Please note in religious scriptures, metaphors are used and washing God's feet means serving God with all your heart and soul. If Abraham washed God's feet then another verse of the Bible is contradicted in which God says, no human can see Him and then remain alive. It would be blasphemous for a Jew to attribute human characteristics to God.
To Aslan's point that Jesus never intended to claim that he was "man/God" because it was anathema to being a Jew is an egregious assumption. Jesus' claim that he was God was precisely why he was so vehemently rejected in his day and IS oftentimes despised by most modern-day Jews, religious and even, most strangely, the secular. Aslan is trying to make a dull, scared, easily influenced man out of Jesus/Yeshua. Now THAT'S ANATHEMA. Aslan's line of reasoning that Jesus does not then fit into a Jewish mold, and hence, the reasoning that the New Testament THEN must be fairy tales, is truly a hopeless position . Breaking News: Jesus was the ultimate outsider, the coolest rebel who despised empty religion and wasn't too crazy about weak analyses--but who am I to judge... :)
"Jesus' claim that he was God was precisely why he was so vehemently rejected in his day" Jesus wasn't vehemently rejected in his day according to the gospels. The High Priest and the Sanhedrin rejected him - that's about 70 people plus the crowd that shouted for Barabbas instead of Jesus to Pilate who were probably mainly Pharisees. So that's a total of maybe 600 people. Jesus supposedly had crowds in the thousands following him around and listening to him preach. Of the fairly small number that did reject Jesus, most of them would have been Pharisees and it's easy to guess why they would have rejected him. He was hugely critical of them in public - insulting in fact. It wasn't about Jesus claiming to be God. I don't think that Jesus did claim to be God - neither did 3 out of the 4 gospel authors. Even in the 4th gospel there are only a couple of ambiguous lines that could possibly be interpreted as Jesus claiming to be God and in John 10:36 Jesus confirms that he is claiming to be the Son of God - not God.
When did Jesus say he was God? Are you referring to John 10:30? He clearly separates himself from the Father throughout the entire chapter. He responded to the accusations with scripture from the 82nd Psalm "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High." Once again Religions have chosen to twist Jesus's teaching to serve their interests. Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man, in other words, the servant of mankind, which according to many of his teachings, would place him in a very high status in the Kingdom of God.
Even though the historical facts are more known now, thanks to the methods of rigorous critical scholarship and could perhaps be interpreted to add up the way Aslan claims, he essentially has borrowed most of these ideas from various known scholars in these fields (reading a man named John Painter will be most instructive, as a great example). My biggest problem here is Aslan does not come off as sincere at all when he speaks from the heart-- knowledgeable when recounting many facts to be sure-- but there's still an interpretation that has to be rendered that all the facts add up to, and here I find the author fails miserably. Few of the facts are know for sure, they are instead the most likely educated guesses based on what IS KNOWN as fact about the milieu of 1st century Palestine.. yet he lays claim to them professorially and authoritatively-- which is so odd. Most peer-reviewed scholars would speak in terms of "most likely(s)" instead of the tone here--so he comes off as hubristic in a way. Nothing seems sincere about him to my listening, which definitely weakens his message and his overall arguments in the end. The INDEX at the back of Aslan's book, on the other hand, is full of GREAT sources-- other books and author/scholars to read up on for anyone who truly takes this subject seriously and wants to know "what actually happened".
Haven't read the book yet but he seems to make many assumption about what the writers of the gospel wanted to do and what Jesus was doing. I guess in the end its just another interpretation of the bible.
Articulate yes, but plagued with erroneous assumptions. For one, you don't go to a catholic priest to learn about Jesus. Also the Torah, with it sacrifices, Passover, and predictions, is like fitting the glove to the hand when you add Jesus. If he digs deeper he will realize that Islam itself was a creation of the Vatican gone wrong.
I would never serve a God who would instruct me to kill people who do not want to believe what I believe. If this God is not big enough to handle people who do not line up with my beliefs... he is a rather insignificant god to begin with, and certainly not worthy of following.
Reza Aslan is a tremendous speaker much like Charles Murray and much like Charles Murray you are swept away into believing he must be right by the confidence in which he speaks. But then there is this fact, the very first Christian writings come from James the brother of Christ. That is a truth that Aslan and other Christian scholars always acknowledge. So it begs to be asked, why would James his brother be literate and Christ be illiterate? Once you add back literacy to Christ he is much more sophisticate then Aslan portrays. Yes much of the New testament is not factual, the virgin birth and quite likely all the miracles are enhancement to sell a story. But the teachings of Christ, they are real. There was a purpose to Christ using the word Hypocrite over 30 times. Nor is it by accident he taught judging yourself more critical then others. The power of that teaching was evident in how the disciple's carried it forward and lived. The resurrection is an act of faith, but the real teachings of Christ were that of a forward thinker and a person who was ripping the superstition out of the old testament. That makes him far less a Zealot then Aslan paints. His risk to the Jews of the time was not that he was teaching the same thing, it was that he was teaching something different. He taught the use thought, not just following blindly. He was a pacifist, as he never set up an army. He was a socialist as he taught all of their responsibility to the poor, and most likely he was the biggest liberal to change the world by defying the teachings of the establishment which turned them against him. Maybe the biggest thing Christians today need to understand is they have be taught a pagan influence Christianity.
Interpretation is modern as it is from someone living. Current knowledge of the times may help or provide a different view but doesn't certify definitive statements. Especiallly on the part of the art of literature its intent or meaning. And especially when you are talking about literature most likely retold, rewritten and layered through various authors and translated through various cultures. In the end the interpretation is just that created by anothers modern view and thought of the subject.
He lies about being a Christian but a Muslim which is fine. He revealed his lie on this recoding and claim he is just a. Christian follower…author got nerve to lies 360 degrees
Ah, smell that Fresh Air, me loves my Terry G. And the Anointed One who sits at the right hand of the Father and will show up late for the curtain call. So says this occupied territory of Jesus. Love this Dude. Newberg the demons call me now. Yodi! Wow wee!
Articulate people, I was just wondering, whether any of you here have published numerous works to critical acclaim... Thought not. Everyone has an opinion.
Compare to the interpretation of The Qur'an using The Bible in "Unveiling The Qur'an, by Love". Muhammad admitted being the beast of Revelation in The Qur'an and the author proves his claim is true, including the 4 date prophecies for the first beast. He also proves how Islam was created by demons lead by Satan. "Unveiling The Qur'an, by Love" (Volume 1 and 3), a "Look Inside" Volume 3 is on Amazon.
![ILLSLICK X YOUNGOHM - We're The same [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yUJNkobYR0E/mqdefault.jpg)
Zealot...one of best books to read
Is this NPS's Terry Gross interviewing him????
Go read the Reddit discussion he opened after it went viral... it's even funnier, and loads smarter, thanks to Mr. Aslan's great sense of humor.
Can i translate?
He hits the nail on the head!
Now I have to read the book!
Where is Trinity reflected in the Old Testament?
The Old Testament is completely Trinitarian. Genesis 18 even claims Abraham washed God's feet. Please see videos on the Trinity on my site: atavistbiblicalchurch.com
So the Old Testament is completely Trinitarian, but the Jews did not get it at all for 2000 years? Please note in religious scriptures, metaphors are used and washing God's feet means serving God with all your heart and soul. If Abraham washed God's feet then another verse of the Bible is contradicted in which God says, no human can see Him and then remain alive. It would be blasphemous for a Jew to attribute human characteristics to God.
its not. ancient israel was largely henotheistic, but thats a far cry from believing in a trinity.
There is no trinity in the Old Testament. And because of that Jews don’t believe in it
To Aslan's point that Jesus never intended to claim that he was "man/God" because it was anathema to being a Jew is an egregious assumption. Jesus' claim that he was God was precisely why he was so vehemently rejected in his day and IS oftentimes despised by most modern-day Jews, religious and even, most strangely, the secular. Aslan is trying to make a dull, scared, easily influenced man out of Jesus/Yeshua. Now THAT'S ANATHEMA. Aslan's line of reasoning that Jesus does not then fit into a Jewish mold, and hence, the reasoning that the New Testament THEN must be fairy tales, is truly a hopeless position . Breaking News: Jesus was the ultimate outsider, the coolest rebel who despised empty religion and wasn't too crazy about weak analyses--but who am I to judge... :)
"Jesus' claim that he was God was precisely why he was so vehemently rejected in his day"
Jesus wasn't vehemently rejected in his day according to the gospels.
The High Priest and the Sanhedrin rejected him - that's about 70 people plus the crowd that shouted for Barabbas instead of Jesus to Pilate who were probably mainly Pharisees. So that's a total of maybe 600 people. Jesus supposedly had crowds in the thousands following him around and listening to him preach.
Of the fairly small number that did reject Jesus, most of them would have been Pharisees and it's easy to guess why they would have rejected him. He was hugely critical of them in public - insulting in fact. It wasn't about Jesus claiming to be God.
I don't think that Jesus did claim to be God - neither did 3 out of the 4 gospel authors. Even in the 4th gospel there are only a couple of ambiguous lines that could possibly be interpreted as Jesus claiming to be God and in John 10:36 Jesus confirms that he is claiming to be the Son of God - not God.
@@TheSmithDorian can you elaborate? Im pretty sure he said that whosoever looks upon his face has seen the face of God
Wow, Looking forward to read this book
'' ZEALOT ''
Fox news interview with REZA ASLAN was hilarious :D
When did Jesus say he was God? Are you referring to John 10:30? He clearly separates himself from the Father throughout the entire chapter. He responded to the accusations with scripture from the 82nd Psalm "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High." Once again Religions have chosen to twist Jesus's teaching to serve their interests. Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man, in other words, the servant of mankind, which according to many of his teachings, would place him in a very high status in the Kingdom of God.
William Baker “servant of God” is how Islam views Jesus
Even though the historical facts are more known now, thanks to the methods of rigorous critical scholarship and could perhaps be interpreted to add up the way Aslan claims, he essentially has borrowed most of these ideas from various known scholars in these fields (reading a man named John Painter will be most instructive, as a great example). My biggest problem here is Aslan does not come off as sincere at all when he speaks from the heart-- knowledgeable when recounting many facts to be sure-- but there's still an interpretation that has to be rendered that all the facts add up to, and here I find the author fails miserably. Few of the facts are know for sure, they are instead the most likely educated guesses based on what IS KNOWN as fact about the milieu of 1st century Palestine.. yet he lays claim to them professorially and authoritatively-- which is so odd. Most peer-reviewed scholars would speak in terms of "most likely(s)" instead of the tone here--so he comes off as hubristic in a way. Nothing seems sincere about him to my listening, which definitely weakens his message and his overall arguments in the end. The INDEX at the back of Aslan's book, on the other hand, is full of GREAT sources-- other books and author/scholars to read up on for anyone who truly takes this subject seriously and wants to know "what actually happened".
Theer, there that's the Tetragrammaton, still can't see it. What a gift.
Haven't read the book yet but he seems to make many assumption about what the writers of the gospel wanted to do and what Jesus was doing. I guess in the end its just another interpretation of the bible.
Articulate yes, but plagued with erroneous assumptions. For one, you don't go to a catholic priest to learn about Jesus. Also the Torah, with it sacrifices, Passover, and predictions, is like fitting the glove to the hand when you add Jesus. If he digs deeper he will realize that Islam itself was a creation of the Vatican gone wrong.
I would never serve a God who would instruct me to kill people who do not want to believe what I believe. If this God is not big enough to handle people who do not line up with my beliefs... he is a rather insignificant god to begin with, and certainly not worthy of following.
Reza Aslan is a tremendous speaker much like Charles Murray and much like Charles Murray you are swept away into believing he must be right by the confidence in which he speaks. But then there is this fact, the very first Christian writings come from James the brother of Christ. That is a truth that Aslan and other Christian scholars always acknowledge. So it begs to be asked, why would James his brother be literate and Christ be illiterate? Once you add back literacy to Christ he is much more sophisticate then Aslan portrays. Yes much of the New testament is not factual, the virgin birth and quite likely all the miracles are enhancement to sell a story. But the teachings of Christ, they are real. There was a purpose to Christ using the word Hypocrite over 30 times. Nor is it by accident he taught judging yourself more critical then others. The power of that teaching was evident in how the disciple's carried it forward and lived. The resurrection is an act of faith, but the real teachings of Christ were that of a forward thinker and a person who was ripping the superstition out of the old testament. That makes him far less a Zealot then Aslan paints. His risk to the Jews of the time was not that he was teaching the same thing, it was that he was teaching something different. He taught the use thought, not just following blindly. He was a pacifist, as he never set up an army. He was a socialist as he taught all of their responsibility to the poor, and most likely he was the biggest liberal to change the world by defying the teachings of the establishment which turned them against him. Maybe the biggest thing Christians today need to understand is they have be taught a pagan influence Christianity.
Interpretation is modern as it is from someone living. Current knowledge of the times may help or provide a different view but doesn't certify definitive statements. Especiallly on the part of the art of literature its intent or meaning. And especially when you are talking about literature most likely retold, rewritten and layered through various authors and translated through various cultures. In the end the interpretation is just that created by anothers modern view and thought of the subject.
He lies about being a Christian but a Muslim which is fine. He revealed his lie on this recoding and claim he is just a. Christian follower…author got nerve to lies 360 degrees
interesting that he understands that spiritual truth doesn't equal fact but rejects Christianity on a technicality re the trinity
Ah, smell that Fresh Air, me loves my Terry G. And the Anointed One who sits at the right hand of the Father and will show up late for the curtain call. So says this occupied territory of Jesus. Love this Dude. Newberg the demons call me now. Yodi! Wow wee!
Articulate people, I was just wondering, whether any of you here have published numerous works to critical acclaim... Thought not. Everyone has an opinion.
Compare to the interpretation of The Qur'an using The Bible in "Unveiling The Qur'an, by Love". Muhammad admitted being the beast of Revelation in The Qur'an and the author proves his claim is true, including the 4 date prophecies for the first beast. He also proves how Islam was created by demons lead by Satan. "Unveiling The Qur'an, by Love" (Volume 1 and 3), a "Look Inside" Volume 3 is on Amazon.
JESUS Christ is the Son of God.
No. Only a prophet
Psalm 89:26-28 david is also son of god