"Islam is essentially a Christian heresy" that "picked up snippets of the Gospels" and other Biblical texts and is now taking "everything that Jesus said" and "transport[ing it] into this fictional Mahdi," a savior figure in Islam.
If I was as crazy as Robertson I might say the same thing about Christianity with respect to Judaism. Where does this guy get this stuff? No functioning human brain can really say something so patently absurd without thinking of the obvious correlation between his own religion and the religion it is based upon. OY FRICKIN VEY! ;-)
8 comments:
Fern, I hope Pat Robertson's "nutness" isn't a newsflash to you. This is after all the lack of a "functioning human brain" that gave us such theological doozies as 9/11 was a divine punishment for the tolerance of homosexuality in New York.
I'm not familiar with the Mahdi theory Robertson is referring to, but, as far as I'm aware, in Islam, Jesus is accorded prophet status and Muslims reject the divinity of Christ and the virgin birth on the grounds that 1) Allah does not copulate with humans, and 2) there is no God but Allah, etc.
I would agree with you that Christianity is in a dubious position, theologically speaking, because while it claims to have completed (i.e. superceded) Judaism (if you're reading Matthew and Paul) through the Messianic intervention of Christ, Islam claims to have completed Christianity through the revelation of Mohammad. The problem of course is that because all three religions base the legitimacy of their doctrine on revelation, there is no way of empirically adjudicating the correctness of either of the three claims.
Now, Dad (via Rabbi Singer) will tell you that the Jewish claim to revelation is the most valid because it was made public to the entire nation of Israel on Sinai instead of private through an individual prophet-figure (i.e. Jesus or Mohammad). However, even accepting the book of Exodus to be a completely accurate historical record of what occurred in the Sinai desert, we know that God only revealed the first two commandments directly to the Israelite people, the other 611 of which were given to Moses privately. Of those two commandments, neither conflicts with the direct self-image of either Christianity or Islam, and so the publicness of their revelation doesn't grant them priveleged epistemological status over later claims to prophetic interpretation. Now, one my debate the case of the second commandment with regards to Christianity, if one doesn't buy the doctrine of the Trinity or believes that in Christianity Jesus is more or just as divine as God. However, Islam's record on the issue is pretty much unimpeachable: we all know how seriosuly some Muslims take the second commandment...
oh, and Pat also claims he can leg press 2000 pounds:
http://www.slate.com/id/2142567/
from what i have read, robertson assessment regarding mahdism is essentially correct. i wish he would not have put it in such incendiary prose (but that is what he does). mahdism as a christian heresy is a stretch to say the least. he uses the word "essentially" which gives him some cover.
nice analysis ryan. (i am glad that rabbi singer's lessons have had a lasting impression). i would however point out that there has been a growing change in christian theological circles away from replacement theology. largely because it is not scripturally justified and the impact of the shoah on christianity has fostered a thourough rethinking of the theology.
as to revelation. i would point out that all three of the monotheistic religions agree that G-d revealed Torah to the jews at sinai. there is no disagreement in muslim or christian circles on this. hence replacement theology, which was developed to deligitimize the jewish claim to revelation by adapting it as their own. this of course tends to legitimize the jewish viewpoint.
i have read in several sources that palestinians consider themselves the 'new israel' and rightfull heir to the land of greater palestine. this replacement theology has cropped up in many circles. (memri.com)
To this topic i would reccomend the reading of: "Standing With Israel," by David Brog (brog is jewish no not a jew for jesus).
dispensationalism in christian circles has grown to the point that in american protestantism it is now the predominate view. in catholic circles replacement theology was denounced at vatican 2 in the early 1960s.
the article linked by fern discusses two ideas. the one regarding mahdism and another that i would have had more significant issue with.
that is that in a discussion of poverty in israel being a surprise because 'jews are such good business people' is the line that causes me consternation. it doesnt make me ballisticlly angry because i am aware that robertson and his organization has donated millions upon millions to aid jews in israel. i just wish he would stop from expressing himself utilizing such charged language.
it is also constructive to note that some of robertsons recent pronouncements have been roundly discredited by southern baptists everywhere. he no longer has the same clout in his community as he once enjoyed, largely because of his off the wall viewpoints.
Wow. I'm really impressed with your (Ryan and Larry) vast knowledge on this topic. I had never even heard of the word "dispensationalism." I'm just trying to get my arms around Judaism, how do you guys have time to learn about Christianity?! :-)
Anyway, for anyone else who was totally lost, I found this Wikipedia article helpful.
Ryan--No, Roberts's stupidity is not new to me. If 9/11 was in fact punishment from G-d, I can think of a lot worse things going on than homosexuality. And, for that matter, other groups more deserving of punishment than a punch of businessmen in New York.
Larry--I thought about highlighting both of Roberts stupid statements, but the "Jews are such good businessmen" statement was so profoundly stupid and without any comedical value that I decided to stick with the statement that I thought was funny. ;-)
i spent a lot of time studying the jewish-christian debate. i have quite a few books on the subject. the debate has gone on in earnest since the 3rd century. there were famous debates during the height of the inquisition...
in its modern form we see it as a result of jews for jesus. there are several organizations that combat j4j.
the rabbi ryan referred to above, r. singer, is the head of outreach judaism. he is a dynamic speaker and has a series of tapes on how to refute, using scripture, that jesus is not the messiah etc....
ryan and i went through the tapes several times. it probably gave him a more thorough understanding of his own bible than he could have learned in a typical hebrew school class. i am sure reading the new testament as literature also assisted his understanding of the subject. i still go over the tapes from time to time....
let me know if you are interested in the subject maybe i can assist.
Larry--Could I borrow those tapes?
Fern, can't think of any group of random people who deserve to be killed en masse by a terrorist attack. Also problematic, is the idea that God is using jihadist fundamentalists to carry out his will on earth. After all, that's exactly what the Bin Ladenites are claiming...
You're probably right Ryan. G-d was apparently willing to save Sodom and Gamora if Abraham could find even one good person amongst them, and I am not sure there is any one geographic location on Earth that doesn't contain at least one innocent soul. That being said, I was just saying that if you were going to prioritize the list of sinful locations, there are worse spots than the twin towers or the pentagon. However, your point about proving the jihadists' point is a good one. I somehow doubt that G-d would use a group of people who murder innocent people and broadcast beheadings on international television as his agents. At least not the G-d I pray to.
Post a Comment