New Testament or Koran

[polonius]

Most of the world's major religions have a Holy Book of some sort. Some claim it is divine in origin.

The world two largest religions are Christianity and Islam. They both have Holy Books: the New Testament or the Koran.

Are both books divinely inspired (1), the New Testament not inspired but the Koran inspired (2), the Koran not divinely inspired but the New Testament is (3), or neither are divinely inspired (4).

A divinely inspired book should not contain errors or contradiction unless it be believed that God is imperfect.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

God had to use men to write these books . These books were written in the relativities and cultural conventions of the Greeks and the Arabs. Each worshiping the same God in their own ways. So regardless of the differences both are unique true ways pointing to God.

QUESTION: But how does that establish their accuracy, or are they just stories?

[1213]

The "Old" Testament as well as the Quran contradicts the Pauline theology of human blood sacrifice in order to enable God to forgive sins.

I think it is good to notice, Jesus had right to forgive sins before his death. That is why I think the human blood sacrifice requirement is wrongly understood.

[Elijah John]

The "Old" Testament as well as the Quran contradicts the Pauline theology of human blood sacrifice in order to enable God to forgive sins.

I think it is good to notice, Jesus had right to forgive sins before his death. That is why I think the human blood sacrifice requirement is wrongly understood.

That is an excellent point, that Jesus proclaimed the forgiveness of the Father before his death, and with no mention of blood.

But I would be very interested in hearing your understanding of the "human blood sacrifice" requirement please, as you often have a thoughtful, refreshing interpretations.

[1213]

But I would be very interested in hearing your understanding of the "human blood sacrifice" requirement please, as you often have a thoughtful, refreshing interpretations.

Thanks, in this case I don’t have much to say. It would be easier, if you give the scripture that speaks about the human blood sacrifice requirement.

But first I think it is good to see:

1. The reason why Jesus came on earth is to declare forgiveness:
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, Because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed, And to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
Luke 4:18-19

2. And the reason why people wanted to kill him is that he forgave sins:
The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

Jesus declared that message, even though it meant he will be killed. That is why it can be seen that he sacrifices his life for us. He used his life for that we could be saved from the judgment. And it can be seen as sacrifice. However, sacrifice was not the point, declaring the message was. It led to death and it creates the image of sacrifice, although it is only result of the job, not the actual job or thing that saves.

Jesus himself says:

It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63

That should make it clear that it is his words that are the point. But his words can be seen metaphorically the blood, because they act like the sacrificing blood. And I think that is why Jesus says:

So Jesus told them, “Truly, truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves.
John 6:53

Because of the John 6:63, I think the meaning is, if you don’t receive his words, you don’t have life in yourselves. I think that is confirmed also by these:

Truly, truly I tell you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death at all.�
John. 8:51

But he answered, “It is written, ‘One must not live on bread alone,but on every word comingout of the mouth of God.’�
Mat. 4:4

If anyone listens to my sayings, and doesn't believe, I don't judge him. For I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects me, and doesn't receive my sayings, has one who judges him. The word that I spoke, the same will judge him in the last day.
John 12:47-48

Because Paul was deep in this teaching, he may have spoken also metaphorically. That is what I believe, but obviously it may be possible that Paul had misunderstood. In any case, if person is a disciple of Jesus (“Christian�) it would be reasonable to follow Jesus rather than Paul, if they are really in contradiction.

I think it is good to understand that blood can have at least 3 meanings in the NT.
1. Actual physical blood of Jesus. Disciples didn’t really drink the actual physical blood, so I think it is not the thing.
2. The word of Jesus, as said in previous text. This I think is the strongest option, because of the John 6:53 and John 6:63.
3. The wine that they drank in the last supper. Jesus said that the wine is the blood of the covenant that God made through Jesus.

Then he took a loaf of bread, gave thanks, broke it in pieces, and handed it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Keep on doing this in memory of me.� He did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, poured out for you.
Luke 22:19-20

Many people think that those are the actual blood and body, but maybe it would be reasonable to take that as Jesus says it, the wine is the blood. So, blood was needed to confirm the deal, but in this case the wine is the blood. And I believe the wine and bread are a metaphor to the teachings and spirit of Jesus.

I hope this was not too difficult.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

God had to use men to write these books . These books were written in the relativities and cultural conventions of the Greeks and the Arabs. Each worshiping the same God in their own ways. So regardless of the differences both are unique true ways pointing to God.

According to Old Testament claims........who wrote the 10 commandments on tablets?...............(ahem) claimed with his very finger................God.

So if God is claimed to do transcribing there.......why not for other "revelations"?