Source/Credit: Ahmadiyya Times
By Jonathan M.A. Ghaffar | January 26, 2011
Anyone sacrificing themselves to save another is always enamored (loved) in the heart of the saved, but with it comes the inferred oath of fealty to that which saved you.
The paradox of Christian belief about the nature of Jesus (as articulated in their theology and expressed by most Christians) is aptly demonstrated in the first verse of the Gospel of John, which (in the King James version) reads:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)This Gospel was written for the Greek-Roman world and its majority population of polytheists, stoics and rationalists, but verse 1 is also a direct allusion to Genesis 1:1 and was meant to attract Hellenized (non-Hebrew literate) Jews to Christianity. Needless to say (so, of course, I’ll say it), the allusion to “In the beginning…” in Genesis would have been completely lost on its mostly Greek pagan audience.
We have no way of knowing how it was received by any of the Greek-speaking Jews of the time, but judging from the near zero conversion rate, not so well. But on to the present day, where, interestingly enough, we find the same near zero conversion rate of Jews to Christianity. But that’s another story…
When discussing beliefs about Jesus (peace be upon him), almost all Christians agree that Jesus is the "Son of God" in the literal, physical sense and the second "person" in the Trinitarian godhead of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But whenever I ask a Christian "So, is Jesus also God as well?" they almost always answer "Yes" based on John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…" and because John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word,” which everyone would naturally assume would be God because that's where He's supposed to be -- in the beginning. Even before the beginning, actually, because God has no beginning or end.
John 1:1 continues: "and the Word was with God"…
Uh-oh, what's going on here! First it says “In the beginning was the Word” but now it's saying God was there along with the Word. OK, that’s a bit of a surprise… I mean, why even start by making us think there was only the Word in the beginning if that wasn’t really the case? Why not just go right to the part where God and the Word were together in the first place?
John 1:1 continues: "and the Word was God."
Awright, what’s going on here! There’s no way George Orwell was alive when the Gospel of John was written! First it says there was just the Word, then it says, No, God was with the Word there in the beginning, too. Then it has the audacity to say "and the Word was God." So what just happened? Grammatically it says that God was alongside the Word at first but then became the Word and there was just God as the Word (or the Word as God, depending on whom you believe became and/or supplanted whom).
Now, at least the Jehovah’s Witnesses translate that whole unintelligible, illogical mess of Greek so it still makes some sense overall by saying "and the Word was a god." At least they're being honest and keeping everyone in their place and the math up to snuff. And that's just verse one of the Gospel of John!
It doesn’t get any better when you look at John 1:2 "And the same was in the beginning with God." What, there were two beginnings? You could certainly read it that way. And what "same" is John talking about?
The next verse doesn’t clarify anything. John 1:3 reads “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” This is equally confounding, if only because you aren't sure and aren't told exactly who the "him" is. By the prior (attempted) definition, you would assume it was the dual-entity Word-God.
So where is the Holy Spirit in all of this? Aren't they all supposed to be "three-in-one"? All together all the time, indivisible, etc. etc.? Nope, no mention of the Holy Spirit in there. Again, at least the Jehovah's Witness version gives them an extra "entity" (and the Word was a God) to explain how the Holy Spirit was there with the other two in the beginning. But the JW's aren't really Christians anyway, according to all the Christians I've ever met and all the books about Christianity I've read.
In fact, the Book of John only makes sense when you start reading from verse 6: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John." The irony, of course, is that this "John" is John the Baptist -- not the John ascribed as the author of the Book of John. But even that sentence suffers from ambiguity because it could be interpreted that "John" was the name of God, from "...sent from God, whose name was John." You would think after 400 years in the English language, this sentence could be corrected to: "There was a man named John, who was sent by God." Maybe the new-fangled translations print it that way; but I tend to stick to the King James because it’s still the most well known.
And while some Christians may believe that Jesus is not God (but how could that be, based on John 1:1 and 14?) the confusion in such fundamentals of doctrine which Christians have never been able to correct or overcome makes the dissemination of what is considered "standard" Christian belief contradictory and often alienating to the recipient. And you wonder why the usual answer is "Oh, just don't think about it" or "It's a mystery, so don't try to understand it -- you can't -- but you have to believe it or else you go to hell. Forever." And that, dear reader, is one reason why I am not a Christian. I refuse to be strong-armed into my salvation at the expense of my reasoning and rationality.
The difference between the Christian creed and the Islamic creed is that Christians can't adequately define, explain or defend theirs -- they can't even agree on what it is. Just look at the complaints by Christians to a Muslim rapper's recent YouTube video “Why I hate religion but love Jesus – Muslim version” which is in response to a Christian’s nearly 15-million-hits YouTube video on why he hates religion but loves Jesus. The comments to the Muslim version decry supposed inaccuracies in presented Christian beliefs, yet every point made about Christian doctrine can be readily substantiated by Biblical verses or some mainstream interpretation of that belief. The fact that these often contradict each other, often within the same source (take Paul’s letter to the Romans, for instance) is hardly surprising and understandably exasperating.
In comparison, the Islamic creed -- "There is no god except Allah [Elohim in Hebrew], and Muhammad is the messenger of God” -- is crystal clear and has been perfectly understood by everyone who has professed it to become a Muslim since it was codified at the start of Islam 1400 years ago,
Of course, everyone is entitled to believe in their religion in whatever way they like, but for presenting it to others for the purpose of winning them over to it, you need to have a consensus of opinion on what the central beliefs are, and then said beliefs must be able to withstand logical criticism and theosophical argument. Christianity fails spectacularly on both fronts. This is because the "glue" that holds everything together is made almost entirely from the emotionalism and indebtedness revolving around the idea that God became Jesus so he could die for your sins. Anyone sacrificing themselves to save another is always enamored (loved) in the heart of the saved, but with it comes the inferred oath of fealty to that which saved you.
And Christianity even says this explicitly. You must accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. The Lord part refers to Jesus being your boss while you are alive on Earth and your Savior when you die so you will be "saved" from going to hell. And it's not a "free gift" as Christianity promises. If it were free, a person could convert to Christianity and keep on being a Muslim or a Jew or an atheist and when they die, they would still get to go to heaven -- even if they didn't believe there was one! Now that would be a loving God indeed.
---------------------------------------------
Jonathan M.A. Ghaffar is an essayist, poet, speechwriter, journalist, author, editor, radio show co-host and graphic designer. He writes on many subjects including socio-political issues, comparative religion, Islam, Christianity and the historical Jesus. He lives in Chino, Calif., and can be reached via his e-mail at: JonathanMAG@Gmail.com
-- The paradox of Christian belief in light of John 1:1 and 1:14
-- Ahmadiyya Times
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments. Any comments irrelevant to the post's subject matter, containing abuses, and/or vulgar language will not be approved.