| Archive for FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT BREAK THE CHAINS OF IGNORANCE AND FEAR |
| BMZ |
Misinformation & Misreporting in the Gospels.Various authors have penned their own gospels. Many translators have come up with different answers. Let us see how they differ and contradict each other which is obvious from the following examples. The list of misreporting, misunderstanding and errors is not exhaustive.
According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, he said he was the king of the Jews. Luke's variations are interesting. NIV, NLT and Message have multiple views. John says nope. Who to trust? 
BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Re: Misinformation & Misreporting in the Gospels.
John 18: NIV John 33Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" 34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?" 35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" 36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." 37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." John 19: 13When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge's seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). 14It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. "Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews. John 19: 21The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews." 22Pilate answered, "What I have written, I have written." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
Re: Misinformation & Misreporting in the Gospels.
lol! Try to be serious here. Read Jesus' reply carefully, friend. Jesus did not say "I am the King of Jews". He had already clarified that in John 18:36.
The above is just plain mocking, a taunt. It is not a confirmation that Jesus was king of the Jews. Now read John 18 again and see what were the charges made by Annas and Caiaphas? There are no charges mentioned here. All we know is that they wanted to get rid of one man which would have been better for their people. No Son Of God or the King or King-Messiah is mentioned. John, allegedly being the beloved disciple, did not report any accusations or charges. 
What are the charges shown in above? None. What happened when he was sent to Caiaphas, according to John? John forgot to write and off Jesus was bundled to Pilate.  
Now let us take a look at this from John 18:28
According to John in above, when asked about the charges, they gave none. For this, I believe we must believe blindly what others wrote. lol! Caiaphas wanted to execute him and the tell-tale answer is already there in the 2nd part of 31. BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Re: Misinformation & Misreporting in the Gospels.
What do you think Jesus meant when he said: "My kingdom is not of this world"? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AhmedBahgat |
Re: Misinformation & Misreporting in the Gospels.
why don't you tell us what do think about it? let me guess, that Jesus is god? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
Re: Misinformation & Misreporting in the Gospels.
I agree with Ahmed. Why don't you tell us? Do you think we do not understand such a simple thing?
BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Re: Misinformation & Misreporting in the Gospels.[quote="AhmedBahgat"]
Why don't we let BMZ answer the question since it was directed to him.
No. Guess again. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Re: Misinformation & Misreporting in the Gospels.
If it is such a "simple thing," then answer the question. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AhmedBahgat |
Great, it simply means that he is a messenger from God | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Do all messengers of God have kingdoms? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AhmedBahgat |
Of course, but not on this earth rather with God some however was given the temp kingdom on earth yet they still have their perm kingdom with God |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Give Scripture support for your view. Use the Quran if you have to. Which Messengers of God said they had a kingdom not of this world or of any world in the language Jesus used? You still to explain what Jesus meant when he said "my kingdom is not of this world." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
This does not require any scriptural support as this has nothing to so with Scriptures. Other prophets and messengers did not claim kingdoms and neither did people ask them about their kingdoms. You can read the Jewish Holy Scriptures and you will realise it is all about the Kingdom of God Almighty. Jesus, like others, is a pawn, a foot-soldier of God. Jesus did not come to talk about any kingdom of his own. His claim, claimed by others, that he was Son of God was wrong and that put him in trouble. Pilate asked him a simple question,"Are you the king of Jews?" and he simply clarified that he was not. That is already a proof that he never claimed to be a king of Jews or the King of Jews. That is how he talked about the kingdom of God that he belonged to. There is nothing more to it. The sad part is that Jesus was fighting a lone battle and had lots of incompetent and incapable men among his disciples and followers. He did not really trust them and most of the time we find him telling them not to tell anyone what they saw or heard. BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AhmedBahgat |
Well, you have to be at Par with me for me to consider spending time on you, my time is the most precious thing I have and I don't waste it with one liner clowns, but to be fair I will offer you one chance, and you should make all the good you can make of it, if you act like an ignorant jerk then you must be dismissed for good, this challenge I'm praparing especially for you and generaly to all Christians will be posted soon on 3 web sites, you will be welcomed to refute it in here and that is how I will start to know you, I'm working onj this comment for the last 4 hours, almost finsihed it then I decided to do one quick run over it then post it, you can consider that it will be directed at you cheers |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
Quite fair, I must say. I will be looking forward to that and don't forget to post on Free-Isalm.com Cheers, mate BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AhmedBahgat |
Salam BMZ, David and all It's already been posted on FI, here it is, then I will post it on FFI: Today, I’m going to talk Bible, I want to again analyse the allegations by most Christians regarding Jesus divinity, I will look at the most common claims by them then let their Bible destroys it. Firstly, the Bible is clear that the religion of Moses was sent by the One and only God: 4: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: 5: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. 6: And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: 7: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 8: And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. 9: And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates. [Deuteronomy ; 6:4-9] -> See above: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD, it can't be more clearer than that Our Lord is one The One God Whom we were told about through Moses in Deuteronomy 6:4 can not be Jesus this is because when Jesus arrived 1571 years later he informed the Jews that he is a follower of Moses religion: 17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [Matthew ; 5:17] -> See: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. That law is the law of Moses which Jesus was sent to fulfil and according to Matthew 5:17 it was enforced by Jesus: 4: And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. [Matthew ; 8:4] -> See how Jesus was forcing the law of Moses: and offer the gift that Moses commanded, how clear can it be?, that Moses commanded If Jesus was the son of god who was sent by the father to save humanity, then Jesus was sent to save the Jews alone not all humanity: 24: But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [Matthew ; 15:24] -> See: I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel., how come the Christians claim that Jesus was sent to save all humanity while Jesus above proved them wrong? Because Jesus was following and fulfilling the religion of Moses, Jesus confirmed that the God is the One God who is the God of all including Jesus himself: 28: And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29: And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The LORD our God is one LORD: 30: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31: And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. 32: And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: 33: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. [Mark ; 12:28-33] -> See what Jesus said: Hear, O Israel; The LORD our God is one LORD , and that is the exact same as what Moses said in Deuteronomy 6:4, let me put it to you under each other so you can compare: Moses said: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD, [Deuteronomy ; 6:4] Jesus said 1571 years later: Hear, O Israel; The LORD our God is one LORD, [Mark ; 12:28] The problem for those Christians who claim that Jesus is god or a son of god is this: the Bible tells us that God is never been seen by any human: 18: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. [John ; 1:18] -> See: No man hath seen God at any time, see how the Bible corrupters added the words the only begotten Son, after it, I believe it is to imply that Jesus is the son of god, they claim that Jesus is the begotten son of god, well, the New Testament contradicts them big times, let’s have a look: 3: Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. [Hebrews ; 7:3] -> See what it says about our only God: Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life Their claim that Jesus is called the son of God has no merit because the Bible informs us that many were called as such as well the Bible implies that the son of god means nothing but a righteous man, let’s have a look: Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. [Luke ; 3:38] -> See: which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God. [Mark ; 15:39] -> See how that man was called the son of God: he said, Truly this man was the Son of God. However, Luke described the same man in the same event above mentioned by Mark as a righteous man: Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man. [Luke ; 23:47] -> See: he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man. I.e. the son of God means nothing but a righteous man In fact, God is also the father of the all righteous from the Jews: 16: Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting. [Isaiah ; 63:16] -> See: thou, O LORD, art our father Another silly claim by the Christians that Jesus is a God because he came down from the heaven: 23: And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. [John ; 8:23] -> See, they think because Jesus said: I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world, it meant for them that Jesus is god, well this must create a huge problem for them when we read the following passage: 19: If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. [John ; 15:19] -> See what Jesus said to his disciples: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, i.e. according to their flawed understanding to John 8:23, then all the disciples must be gods because they were chosen by Jesus to be not from this world: because ye are not of the world Another silly claim by them that they say Jesus and God are united in one: 30: I and my Father are one. [John ; 1:30] -> See, they think that when Jesus said I and my Father are one, that Jesus must be god, well same argument as the one for John 8:23, under their flawed understanding to John 1:30, then there should be many other gods who are also united in one with Jesus and the one God: 21: That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22: And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. [John ; 17:21:23] -> See what Jesus said: That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, i.e. they must be gods as well according to their flawed understanding, well to be one which means that they believe that Jesus was sent by the one God, this is exactly what Jesus said in the same passage above, see: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. Many Christians claim the Jesus is god himself: 9: Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? [John ; 14:9] -> They think when Jesus said: he that hath seen me hath seen the Father , well but according to John no one saw God, even in the OT which Jesus was following, no one can see God: 20: And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. [Exodus ; 33:20] -> See what God said to Moses: Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. Another silly claim by them that Jesus is god because he had no father, but they also concede that Adam has no father and no mother which must put Adam under their flawed understanding as a more worthy of a god than Jesus They also claim that Jesus is god because he did miracles: Well, if we classify the most impressing miracles under two main groups, the reviving of the dead and the healing of diseases, then we find that Jesus revived 3 humans only: 1) 43: And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. 44: And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. [John ; 11:43-44] 15: And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother. [Luke ; 7:15] 3) 41: And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise. 42: And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment. [Mark ; 5:42] Now, according to their flawed understanding, Ezekiel must be a more worthy of a god because he revived a whole army: 3: And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest. 4: Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. 5: Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: 6: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. 7: So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. 8: And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. 9: Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. 10: So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. [Ezekiel ; 37:3-10] -> See, can these bones live?, then the God made him to: Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD., then he said: I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:, then they started to be revived: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone., And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them., then the God ordered him to : Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live., So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army., this Bible story must put Ezekiel in a must worthy position as a god than Jesus who only revived 3 not a whole army. Elijah also revived the dead: 22: And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived. [1 Kings ; 17:22] -> See: And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived. Elisha also revived the dead: 32: And when Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid upon his bed. 33: He went in therefore, and shut the door upon them twain, and prayed unto the LORD. 34: And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands: and he stretched himself upon the child; and the flesh of the child waxed warm. 35: Then he returned, and walked in the house to and fro; and went up, and stretched himself upon him: and the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes. 36: And he called Gehazi, and said, Call this Shunammite. So he called her. And when she was come in unto him, he said, Take up thy son. 37: Then she went in, and fell at his feet, and bowed herself to the ground, and took up her son, and went out. [2 Kings ; 3:32-37] -> See, the child was dead, and laid upon his bed., then Elisha prayed for the Lord : prayed unto the LORD then put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands: and he stretched himself upon the child; and the flesh of the child waxed warm. , then and the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes., then the widow came and took her son: and bowed herself to the ground, and took up her son, so Jesus was not unique in reviving the dead In another location, Elisha did it again but this time while Elisha was even dead himself: 20: And Elisha died, and they buried him. And the bands of the Moabites invaded the land at the coming in of the year. 21: And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet. [2 Kings ; 13:20-21] -> See, And Elisha died, and they buried him. then later on some people were burying a man And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet., well Jesus never revived anyone while he was dead, this must make Elisha a far wortheir god than Jesus Can you all see that all these miracles of reviving the dead which were done by those righteous prophets were only achieved by the help of God, on their own they can do nothing, exactly as Jesus said about himself, let’s have a look: I can do nothing of my own authority (John 5:30) -> See what Jesus said: I can do nothing of my own authority, this was confirmed by Peter in the Acts: Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited to you by God with miracles, wonders and signs which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know (Acts 2:22) -> See what Peter was telling the other 11 disciples: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited to you by God with miracles, how clear it can be man: Jesus of Nazareth was a man , accredited to you by God with miracles Now, for healing the sick miracles, again this miracle was not unique to Jesus, Elisha healed leprosy: 14: Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean. [2 Kings ; 5:14] In fact Elisha caused another human to be hit with leprosy: 27: The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow. [2 Kings ; 5:27] A very silly claim by the Christians that Jesus was the god that killed himself for the sin of Adam and Eve, they totally forgot that Moses teaching which Jesus was following tells us the following: 16: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. [Deuteronomy ; 24:16] -> See: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers, that is the common sense for anyone with a tiny working brain, why someone pays for the mistakes, faults and crimes of others?, only the dumb should buy it, see what the same passage told us at the end: every man shall be put to death for his own sin., well that is exactly what the Quran said, however the Quran says it in a more friendly and acceptable way, let me show it to you: Every soul with what it earned will be a hostage. [The Quran ; 74:38] كُلُّ نَفْسٍ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ رَهِينَةٌ (3 
-> See the beauty if the Quran in telling us that important message which applies to all: Every soul with what it earned will be a hostage. what a beauty man, let me put those Bible and Quran message under each other so you can see the difference with clarity: The Bible says: .., every man shall be put to death for his own sin., [Deuteronomy ; 24:16] The Quran says: Every soul with what it earned will be a hostage., [ The Quran ; 74:38] What a difference, I tell ya. Now anyone who breaks the commandment of God must pay for his/her own sin: 31: Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him. [Numbers ; 15:31] -> See, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him., how clear is that?, well here it is again: his iniquity shall be upon him. The responsibility of any sin must be paid off by its committer, not anyone else as we have read above, this was confirmed again: 20: The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 21: But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22: All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. 23: Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? 24: But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. [Ezekiel ; 18:20-24] -> See, The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son, and again: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. -> For the sinner, the only way to be saved is to repent and do what the God told him/her to do: But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die., All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live., again the same is said in the Quran, let me bring it in here: 70: Except him who repented and believed and did a good deed; then those are the ones of whom Allah changes their evil deeds to good ones; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 71: And whoever repented and did good, he surely relents to Allah a (good) relenting. [The Quran ; 25:70-71] إِلَّا مَن تَابَ وَآمَنَ وَعَمِلَ عَمَلًا صَالِحًا فَأُوْلَئِكَ يُبَدِّلُ اللَّهُ سَيِّئَاتِهِمْ حَسَنَاتٍ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا (70) وَمَن تَابَ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَإِنَّهُ يَتُوبُ إِلَى اللَّهِ مَتَابًا (71) -> In Ezekiel 18:23 we read: Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?, again that was said in the Quran: مَّا يَفْعَلُ اللّهُ بِعَذَابِكُمْ إِن شَكَرْتُمْ وَآمَنتُمْ وَكَانَ اللّهُ شَاكِرًا عَلِيمًا (147) It is not for Allah to make you suffer if you were grateful and believed, and Allah is all-Thankful, all-Knowing [Al Quran ; 4:147] -> And finally in Ezekiel 18:24 we read But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live?, he can not be saved of course: All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. See, a human is either a righteous or a wicked; Jesus could not have been killed for the righteous ones (it makes no sense), he had to be killed for the wicked, i.e. according to the Christians flawed understanding, the wicked are forgiven and blessed by the father because he sent his only son to be killed for their wickedness but the Bible tells us something else about the wicked, here it is again: But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live?, he can not be saved of course: All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die., [Ezekiel 18:24] Salam |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MrInquisitive |
Yo,
"My kingdom is not of this world"? Is very clearly and simply, absolutely imagined. Not of this world. There's nothing to imagine in this world. This world is real!... Asparagus are not Bambú! One can never be the other! OTOH, we can "come up" with some "new" CULTure, and call it "our kingdom". Right? Right! As you can see I do have a very difficult time with religion. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Baal |
Hello Ahmed, just a note, do not confuse the god of the OT asking you to worhip him, with him claiming he is the only God.
Most Christians & jews do not realize this but, the god of the OT does not claim: "I am the Only God". He only claimed "Only Worhip me or Else". Only Jesus in the NT hints that there is only One Father and of course Allah, after disowning his Three daughters claimed he is a one and only god. Can you believe those guys Ahmed? Everybody worships something different, even Two brothers of the same religion, in the same house, will worship different ideas of whatever they think god is, yet we have those Two clowns claim they are the One and only gods "La Shareeka Loh". Kossomohom both wouldn't you agree? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
That was a great work and I appreciate the time and energy you spent on the masterpiece. The post can be news to many Christians who have not read their OT as thoroughly as we have done. They have not even carried out a parallel reading of their OT with the original Jewish Holy Scriptures to note the changes made by Christians.
They will now realise that Jesus did not do any wonder or miracle with his own power. He did it only when God wanted to show the miracle. Jesus himself had no power to do anything. This will also be news to many who would be shocked to know that others, before Jesus, had brought back dead to life with God's power or force known as the Holy Spirit behind them. I don't think any Christian can deny the facts written and presented by you. Regarding Deut 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.", I just hope no one tries to put the spin of composite one or composite unity on the One. lol!! Salaams BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
I see you need some help. "Kingdom of God" is best understood as the kingship, or sovereign and saving rule, of Israel's God, as celebrated in several Psalms (e.g. 99.1) and prophecies (e.g. Daniel 6:16f.). Because YHWH was the creator God, when he finally became king in the way he intended this world would involve setting the world to rights, and particularly rescuing Israel from its enemies. "Kingdom of God" and various equivalents (e.g. "No king but God!) became a revolutionary slogan around the time of Jesus. By the phrase "my kingdom is not of this world" Jesus meant that his kingdom is not connected to earthly political and national entities, nor does it have its origin in the evil world system that is in rebellion against God. If his kingdom was of this world, he would have fought. The kingships of this world preserve themselves by fighting with force. Messiah's kingdom does not originate in the efforts of man but with the Son of Man forcefully and decisively conquering sin in the lives of his people and someday conquering the evil world system at his second coming when he establishes the earthly form of his kingdom. His kingdom was no threat to the national identify of Israel or the political and military identify of Rome. It exists in the spiritual dimension until the end of the age. Jesus' kingdom (Yes, he agrees he has a kingdom. Pilate seizes on this). His kingdom doesn't come from this world. Jesus, after all, taught his disciples to pray that God's kingdom would come on earth as in heaven. The point is that Jesus' kingdom does not come FROM this world. The world in the Gospel of John is the source of evil and rebellion against God. Jesus is denying that his kingdom has a this-worldly origin or quality. He is not denying that it has a this-worldly DESTINATION. That's why he has come into the world himself (verse 37), and why he was sent, and will send, his followers into the world (17.18; 20;21). His kingdom doesn't come from this world, but it is FOR this world. In particular, as Jesus points out, if his kingdom were of the normal type, his followers would fight to stop him being handed over. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Yes, there is only one God. All Christians believe there is one God and one God only. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Duplicate post deleted. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Yes, Jesus did not destroy the law, he fulfilled it. What do you think Jesus meant by saying he had come to fulfill the law? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Put verse 3 in context: Hebrews 7: 1This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means "king of righteousness"; then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace." 3Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever. Verse 3 is speaking of Melchizedek, not God. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Matthew 8: 1When he came down from the mountainside, large crowds followed him. 2A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean." 3Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately he was cured of his leprosy. 4Then Jesus said to him, "See that you don't tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them." The reason Jesus sent the man he cured of leprosy was not to offer a gift in itself. It was because the Temple priests had to declare the man clean. Otherwise he would never have been permitted back into the Temple. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
And do Christians believe that Jesus is that God? Yes or No? A simple Yes or No will do. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Let's take another look. It was necessary for Jesus to minister personally among the Jews with signs and wonders in order to confirm to them that he was the long-awaited Messiah, the Blessed One, the Anointed One whom God had sent to redeem His chosen people. For this reason during his personal ministry, Jesus instructed his disciples to go only to the Children of Israel. They were to hear the message first. This was to be their privilege because they were the people of God's covenant, the promise of blessing. And yet Jesus went into Samaria. Sat at the well and against custom spoke with a woman who had multiple husbands. This woman came to believe that he was the Messiah, and her testimony was believed by many. The Samaritans asked Jesus to stay and he did for two days. And many more believed on him and were saved... John 4:1-43 What is the testimony of Samaritans regarding Jesus? "...and they were saying to the woman, "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this one is indeed the Savior of the world." John 4:42 You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. Acts 1:8 "15He [Jesus] said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:15-16 45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Luke 24:45-47 For ALL nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Jesus spoke to the Jews, because the message was FIRST to the Jews. Jesus then commanded His disciples to "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." and promised that all who believe "and is baptized will be saved". Not just the Jews, but people in "all the world". The Quran agrees: 21:91 And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples. Waallatee ahsanat farjahafanafakhna feeha min roohinawajaAAalnaha waibnaha ayatanlilAAalameena 19:21 He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us':It is a matter (so) decreed." Qala kathaliki qalarabbuki huwa AAalayya hayyinun walinajAAalahu ayatan lilnnasiwarahmatan minna wakana amran maqdiyyan |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
JESUS - SON OF GOD! AN EXPLANATION FOR MUSLIMS By Abdullah Ibrahim Christians do not believe that Jesus is the son of God in a physical sense. God forbid that he should take a wife! That would be blasphemy. However, they do believe that Jesus is the Son of God in a spiritual sense. Arabs, for example, are commonly known as "sons of the desert". Nobody would ever think that the desert would have given physical birth to the Arabs. No, the term "sons of the desert" has to be understood in a spiritual sense. Arabs know the desert in and out; they are one with it, that is why they are called "sons of the desert." In the same way the Quran calls a wayfarer a "son of the road", "ibn as sabeel" (Surah 2, Al Baqarah, verse 177) The Arabic word "ibn" is used in a figurative sense as opposed to "walad" which is used in a physical way. Besides having many other titles, such as "Messiah" or " Son of man", Jesus calls himself "Son of God" because he knows Him in a profound way, he is one with Him in essence. They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He (Jesus) replied, "You are right in saying I am." (Luke 22:70) Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father..." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father ... Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?" (John 14:8-10) Because God is so much greater than man, He chooses to express Himself in human terms so that we can understand Him. When Surah 22, Hajj, verse 61 says that Allah sees and hears, it does not mean He has ears and eyes. Rather He is expressing a spiritual truth in such a way that we can understand that He is All-knowing. Similarly, behind the title "Son of God" is a spiritual truth expressed in human terms. The Bible calls a number of people "sons of God" but Jesus is addressed as such in a particular way: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16) The Greek word for "one and only son", "mono-genes", means literally, "one in kind, unique" and has sometimes been incorrectly translated into English as "only begotten". This rendering is wrong because "Mono-genes" is also used in Hebrews 11:17 to describe Isaac as Abraham's "one and only son", namely the one who was promised by God to Abraham and his wife Sarah. (Genesis 15) Since Ishmael too was Abraham's son, but through his servant Hagar (Genesis 16), the term "one and only" distinguishes Isaac as being uinque in his kind but not as the only begotten. Furthermore, the Hebrew word used to describe Isaac in the Old Testament story as "only son" in Genesis 22:2 is completely different from the word "begotten" used, for example, in Psalm 2:7: I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father (or, I have begotten you). "In the ancient Near East the relationship between a great king and one of his subject kings, who ruled by his authority and owed him allegiance, was expressed....also by "father" and "son"." (N.I.V. Studybible, Zondervan Bible Publishers, U.S.A., 1985, footnote) Psalm 2:7 is applied to the relationship between God and Jesus in a filial not in a carnal sense in Acts 13:33 as having been a fulfilled prophecy through his resurrection. Just as other people are called "one and only sons" in the Bible because of their uniqueness in some ways, Jesus too is called exclusively "one and only son of God." On a number of occasions he made statements to prove this fact: All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Luke 10:22) Nobody else has ever used such language to speak about himself! (For more examples see: John 5:22-23, Luke 20:9-19, Matthew 3:17) Jesus, the Son of God, has come to show us what God is like: No-one has seen God; but God's only Son, He who is nearest to the Father's heart, he has made him known. (John 1:1
http://www.arabicbible.com/islam/son.htm |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Who says that Jesus is God because he had no father? I've never heard that one. You do have to wonder why God chose Jesus to be conceived in a human mother without the aid of a human father though. Why do you think God chose Jesus to be born this way? God had no choice with Adam, but he had a choice with Jesus. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Who says that Christians claim Jesus is God because he did miracles?
Correct. Look what you left out of Peter's speech: 22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. And let's not forget what Peter said here in the same Chapter. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. And finally this: 38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Again from Peter. Acts 4: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. 12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Peter is telling you that you cannot be saved under any name but the name of Jesus. Not Moses's name, not David's name, not Yahweh's name, not Muhammad's name and not Allah's name. No name but Jesus' can save you, which is pretty much what Jesus said. "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AhmedBahgat |
David
why don\'t you answer this simple question: Is Jesus: 1) a human like me and you 2) a god 3) a son of god ? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Jesus is human. Hardly like you and me though. Jesus is without sin. You and I and the rest of the human race sin all over the place.
Jesus is not a god. Jesus is the incarnate Word of YHVH.
Jesus is the unique, one of a kind son of God. Unlike any other son of God. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AhmedBahgat |
well, I didn't ask ya if he was a sinless man, I ONLY ASKED YOU IF HE WAS A HUMAN LIKE ME AND YOU are you a human like jesus? when I ask you, are you a sinless human like jesus?, that is a differenet issue, don't try to be smart with me pal
then you will be classofied by most charistians as a confused one because most of them claim that Jesus either god or begotton his son
i.e. he was a uniquely righteous human, right? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
Nothing wonderful. The seed had malfunctioned. Plenty of people were claiming to be messiahs from the so-called promised seed. Thus a man without the seed was created to show that the so-called seed was done away with. That is all there is to it.
Why, what and how so? By the way, you have not answered my simple question. You still owe me an answer. BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Jesus is fully human and all that entails. He had to eat and sleep, etc. And Jesus is righteous. He obeyed the Father perfectly. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AhmedBahgat |
great, now you are not like the main stream christians, many of them will classify you as a kafir, that is the same with me btw, I'm not like the main stream Muslims and will be classified as a kafir in their eyes now what you wanted to debate me with if the whole point I'm making that Jesus is a human? well I agree 100% that he was a very righteous man, I have no probs to believe that he was even SINLESS cheers |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Mainstream Christians do believe that Jesus is human. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, Ahmed, but mainstream Christianity would not consider me a kafir. I would be considered a true believer. BTW: You are the one who wanted this debate.  Only if I was on a par with you though.
I'm curious, how you differ from mainstream Muslims to the point they would consider you a kafir. Care to share with me? Ahmed, have you ever debated Islam and Christianity on a Christian site? I think you might get something out of exchanges with more Christians than just one. If you are interested I'll try to find one for you. Just let me know. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
I have been to Christianity.com, CARM and some others but I get banned when we discuss like we are doing here. Please let me know if you find one. I find it easier to discuss on All_Brains' site, FFI (have to wriggle through proxy-servers to serve the FFI goons right) and the Council of ex-Muslims (on which I don't write anymore as it is full of kids) Good Night BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
I just spent 30 minutes looking for a site to recommend. It should be a big one. Some are only for Christians. In fact, most are. christianity.com is OK. It is large, but there isn't an Islam section. Carm is also large and it does have an Islam section. I found one with Christians who are very knowledgeable but the site is too small and doesn't have an Islam section either. Some Christian sites are only for certain demoninations. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AhmedBahgat |
Hmmm, mate I need no crap, again the main stream christians believe that jesus is a god and they worship him instead of god do you wotship Jesus?
You really are not, this is because you need to reply to MY WORDS, one after the other, it seems you have not seen me debating before, sure will pass some links to you
well, the main stream muslims believe in crap called hadith, exactly as the main stream christians who believe that jesus is god
No, but I debtaed them face to face for years in Egypt, I was raised between them and I even wanted to marry of them
Nothing new really, all lame excuses and same appolgies do you worship Jesus? and did he die for your sins? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
No, mainstream Christians do not believe that Jesus is A god; they believe Jesus is the incarnate Word of THE God, Yahweh. No, mainstream Christians do not worship Jesus INSTEAD of God. No, mainstream Christians believe that Jesus is 100% human and 100% divine.
I worship Yahweh. Read John 1.
So, you are a Quran only kind of a guy?
Fine, but I think you need to debate Orthodox Christians on a Christian site.
Why don't you try it. If you are as good as you think you are, you will have nothing to lose.
Answered above.
Yes. You see, Ahmed, by your questions I can readily see you do not understand Christianity. Maybe the Christians you debated didn't understand it either. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AhmedBahgat |
are you bloody fooling me or fooling yourself?, you better do it with yourself because yuo can't fool me pal, when I go home I will show you how the main stream christians worship Jesus as god, here is a starter for you on faithfreedom web site, same thread by myself, see how your christian pals are confused: http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=52028
haha, very funny indeed, wait till i get home and I will prove that you are blind not to admit it
here is a quote for you by a hard core christian:
see, she said, Jesus is not 'a' God, HE IS GOD
lol, I did read it, it is the main stream christians who know nothing about their own bible
under my understading of Quran only Muslim, yes I'm and it simply means that I accept anything even by Darwin as long as it does not contradict the Quran the slightest, and that is what Quran only means for me
just admitting that you follow a christian sect, shows that you are confused, there is not sects in christianity nor Islam btw, you remind me by those sunni and shia
I don't say that I'm good, I ony claim that my knowledge is good
but most christians do
maybe they don't, however it seems that you don't eaither, this is because your bible says no human dies for others sin, right pal? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
I find your thoughts very interesting, David. All Christians, with whom I had discussions and exchanges, confirmed, when pushed to the limits, that Jesus IS The God. I guess you are not a trinitarian. Would you care to explain your belief in simple words? Shall I take it confirmed by you that Jesus IS NOT the God of Christians? Thanks BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
I believe in the trinity. The Christian God is Yahweh. John 1: 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. Jesus of Nazarus was born 2,000 years ago. It is God's Word that is eternal. Jesus had two natures. It is called the hypostatic union. Jesus is fully God (God's Word) and fully human in nature. Jesus of Nazareth is the name of the human incarnation of the Son. The Son is Eternal as YHWH but only temporal as Jesus of Nazareth. In other words, the Son as YHWH has no begining but the Son as Jesus of Nazareth has a definite start point in history but will have no end point in history. The Son exists Eternally as YHWH but only everlastingly as Jesus of Nazareth. Because people don't bother to think through their theology and so articulate it in a very sloppy (and totally wrong) way everyone gets confused. Jesus of Nazareth (i.e. the human incarnation) is not eternal but the One who incarnated (i.e. the Person of the Son) is Eternal. The other point that I need to make is that the Incarnation is not simply the 'manufacture of a human body for a Divine Person ('God in a gorrilla suit')'. That is not what is meant by the Incarnation. By means of the Incarnation the Son has been able to become an authentic human being (not just 'climb into' a human body) and now has two natures, a Divine and a human nature. This means that the Son simultaneously exists as both the Eternal Divine Creator and a temporal human creature and all the things that he is able to achieve by means of either nature can be attributed to the ONE Person who is TWO natures. Therefore the Messiah is both the Divine Creator (though not by means of His human nature) and the atoning 'Lamb of God' who takes away the sin of the world (though not by means of His Divine Nature). Because the Messiah is both Infinite and finite his atoning sacrificial death upon the cross is of Infinite worth in atoning for the sin of the world (1Jn.2:2). The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Not 3 Gods, but one Being (one God) in 3 persons. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
AhmedBahgat,
diotima64 and I agree. Read up on the hypostatic union. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mutley |
Muslims never seem to correctly understand the concept of the trinity. But then again, neither did their profit. He thought it meant God, Mary and Jesus.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AhmedBahgat |
holy crap david let me do this one more time: 1) was jesus a human like me and you? 2) was jesus a god 3) dis jesus change from a god to human and vice verse? 4) do you worship Jesus? I almost got you pal |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AhmedBahgat |
no more bones, dog come back later |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
That was another trinity, a pre-315 one. Seriously speaking, can you explain the post-300 trinity in your own words?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| All_Brains |
Well, it seems then that the Quran resources were outdated considering it was revealed almost a couple of centuries after 315??? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
Hypostatic union is not the base upon which 'God' came down as his own 'Son' Jesus.
The doctrines of Hypostatic union, Incarnation, Trinity, Sin, etc., have nothing to do with the mainstream and direct teachings of Jesus. Even Jesus was unaware of these doctrines. Although they were concoted, they prove nothing and instead show a very poor example of a poor manifestation, which in itself is wrong. If you read John 1:1-3 carefully, you will realise that those were not the words from Jesus' own mouth and Jesus never said that. Period! BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
Good question. A_B. Back in those days after Jesus was gone, lots of stories were flying around and hundreds of Bishops had their own little 100-brick churches. The Trinity finalised in 315 wasn't there at all. There were varieties of di-unity and the other holy family trinity along with the confusing and confounding start-up of the latter day Trinity. I am sure you are aware of Arius, Athanasius and many others who fought their disputes and are also aware of the key differences between the various sects, Eastern Orthodox and the Church in Rome. Qur'aan has covered all the angles and in particular that God has no son and has not taken any son. It defines the Rooh (Ruach) clearly as a separate being, which reduces the Holy Spirit of Christianity to a naught/nada/zilsch. Common sense dictates clearly that Holy Spirit is nothing but simply the Power or the Force of God. It goes on denying and rejecting that Jesus was a son of God. All sorts of trinities are covered under that rejection. Mary is the Mother of God, a title which the Christians cannot deny. lol! And that was covered too. This was an added coverage by a Divine taunt, saying."How can God have a son when God has no Sahiba (Consort or Wife)?" BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
What has trinity got to do with above which vaguely talks of a "di-unity", i.e., a God with God? Why do you believe in trinity when John shows only two. There is no trinity shown in that verse. Yes, I know you believe in Yahweh but the Jews don't believe in the Christian Yaweh.
lol! What nature Jesus had when he was on Earth and what nature is he having now, assuming he is alive in Heaven? You have to choose one nature for him when he was on Earth for even God cannot have two natures at the same time. Please don't show me God can do anything Card.
So you are saying that God the Father never incarnated in Jesus, the man but it was the other God (the Word) who incarnated the human. Is that what you are saying? Anything from John on the Holy Spirit, the third God? I have not seen John talking a word about the Holy Spirit in the Beginning, his opening line.
And yet that is One Person?
BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tvebak |
Hi BMZ I'm not well-versed in the history of the christian church or the history of christology, but concerning this
I've read that ideas of trinity, as in father, son and holy spirit is started fairly early, ie. before 315. You can see some on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_of_the_Church_Fathers and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity I might have misunderstood what you meant, but it seemed that you argued that the idea of trinity as father, son and holy spirit did not exist before 315 A.D. Peace |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
You are right in saying that. I did not make that point very clear. Sorry for writing in a haste. I meant various ideas were floating around before 315 and the fianlised trinity was also there before it's final stamping. Cheers BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Jesus is 100% human, but also 100%God.
No, Jesus is God's Word incarnate. Not A God, but THE God.
No.
I worship Yahweh. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
John 1:1-3 is John's understanding of Jesus based on what Jesus said and did and it is a thoroughly Jewish understanding. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
The concept of the trinity is biblical. It was the understanding that Jesus is divine from day one.
Arius believed Jesus was a god.
"Son of God" is another title for the Messiah. There are Christians who do not believe in the trinity who do believe Jesus is the Son of God/Messiah. Allah didn't understand it. But the Quran does call Jesus the Messiah.
The Holy Spirit is a person. Jesus said so. The Holy Spirit is Yahweh in action.
I do not say that Mary is the Mother of God. RC's have their reasons for this term. How does Allah have a son when he has no wife? It is easy for God. After all, Mary had a son without a husband. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
Biblical from which Bible? The Jews do not have and never had any such concept. They had the Holy Scriptures and the knowledge for 1,500 years before Jesus was born and never uttered anything but the LORD God Almighty. And come in some guys, who had just heard gospel stories and cooked up the concept of trinity. For thirty years, Jesus was an unknown man and his so-called "divinity" was claimed long after he was gone.
What kind of god did Arius believe Jesus was?
You have been misinformed, David. Son of God and Son of Man are neither titles nor the criterion for the Messiah. Please read the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Qur'aan does not call him The Messiah, just messiah, which simply means the annointed one or a prophet. Qur'aan does not even call him the king messiah.
Please show me where Jesus said that the Holy Spirit is a person? Holy Spirit is simply God's Power or Force. God can do anything but God cannot become a man or an animal like a lamb or ram. BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
I will tell you why do the Catholics say that and why do the Protestants and some others do not. According to Catholics and Protestants, Jesus IS God. Catholics revere Mary and call her the Mother of God. Protestants believe she was just a carrier of Jesus in her womb. BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
The whole Bible.
It is there. They just deny it. Don't forget the Messianic Jews.
The Hebrew Scriptures speak of the Messiah, along with God Almighty.
Not true. It comes from Jesus. Not the term "trinity" but the concept itself.
You wish. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
A created one. Arius believed that the Messiah was "God" and the "Son of God." Arius insisted that although Jesus was "God" by a process of divine adoption. He was nevertheless a created being. He believed that God desired to create the world, and he brought the son into being for this purpose. Arius was willing to say that Jeus was God, but he was not willing to say the Jesus was of the same essence or substance with the Father. It was the Arian crisis of the fourth century that demonstrated so clearly the need for precise formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. It wasn't that they did not believe that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit were God from the beginning, it was that they needed to get this doctrine down on paper and define what the trinity actually is. Keep in mind that if the New Testament did not support the divinity of Jesus, the church would not have had these discussions in the first place. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
I read the Hebrew Scriptures. Don't assume that I don't. The Quran calls Jesus the Messiah. Jesus Christ was known by that time and certainly well before that time as one name for Jesus. Jesus, the Messiah. Jesus Christ. The Messiah in eartly first century referred to the king Messiah. The reason the Quran does not call Jesus the king Messiah is because Allah did not understand what "Messiah" meant in terms of Jesus. Even some Muslim scholars are not sure what the word "messiah" means in the Quran in terms of Jesus. In practice "Messiah" is mostly restricted to the notion, which took various forms in ancient Judaism, of the coming king who would be David's true heir, through whom Yahweh would rescue Israel from pagan enemies. "Son of God" originally was a title for Israel (Exodus 4:22) and the Davidic king (Psalm 2:7). By the New Testament period it was already used as a messianic title, for example, in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There, and when used of Jesus in the gosples (e.g. Matthew 16:16), it means, or reinforces, "Messiah." "Son of David" is an alternative, and infrequently used, title of Messiah. "Son of Man" is a divine title which Jesus claimed for himself. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
contradicted by:
BMZ, God is not a man and God cannot become a man, but God can incarnate a man. He can come to earth and incarnate a man's body. Even some of God's angels came to earth in the form of a man. If angels can do that, so can God. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
This one is the most famous. There are others. John 14:26 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. And further: John 16:7-14 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. 12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. Jesus said the Helper was the Holy Spirit. He is called the Spirit of Truth. His mission includes fulfilling the role of our Teacher. He is sent by both the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit teaches, leads, and speaks to us through the Word and with the Word, not aprt from or against the Word. The Holy Spirit is a person. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Let me add this to further explain: We must distinguish between the word, i.e. the audible sounds coming forth from the mouth of God and when "Word" is used as a euphemism for God himself. Here from the Jewish Encyclopedia, part of the article on “Memra.” מאמר/memra in Aramaic word means “word.” The Targums were Aramaic translations of the O.T., began during the Babylonian captivity about 700 BC. In this citation there are at least eighty examples where the name יהוה/YHWH was replaced, in the Targums, with” מאמר/memra.” When John, the Jew, said to his Jewish audience, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God.,” he was not saying anything strange or new. Remember this is not a Trinitarian source, it is the Jewish Encyclopedia prepared by Jewish scholars showing the faith, beliefs, and practices of the ancient Jews. Some interesting quotes from the below article, all from the Targums, before the Christian era, note the parallels with the N.T.. “The Word brings Israel nigh unto God and [The Word] sits on [God’s] throne receiving the prayers of Israel.” cf. Re 3:21 Re 22:3, N.T. ca. 70 AD. “His Word has laid the foundation of the earth.” cf. John 1:3, N.T. ca. 70 AD. “So, in the future, shall The Word be the comforter.” cf. John 14:26, N.T. ca. 70 AD. “In The Word redemption will be found.” cf. Luke 21:28, N.T. ca. 70 AD. “My Word shall be unto you for a redeeming deity.” cf. Col 1:14, Heb 9:12, Heb 9:15, N.T. ca. 70 AD. Jewish Encyclopedia Memra-In the Targum: In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity. Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," [The Word] instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra [The Word]," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). " I will cover thee with My Memra, [My Word] " instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra [My Word] shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 1 . "The voice of the Memra, [The Word] " instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes "a sign between My Memra [My Word] and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra [His Word] has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). [i]It is the Memra, [The Word] not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).
Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra [The Word] brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" " (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). . . So, in the future, shall the Memra [The Word] be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra [My Word] shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12). The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra [The Word] the redemption will be found " (Targ. Zech. xii. 5). http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=399&letter=M |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
The Jewish Bible or the Christian Bible? TheJewish Bible has no sign of any trinity.
No, there is nothing in the Jewish Sriptures. Messianic Jews is another name for Christians and they are Christians disguising as Jews.
No, they don't. Please prove that.
Not true. Jesus did not give an iota about trinity. Nothing comes from Jesus about trinity. BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
Divinity claim is a different issue. It arose because of confusions. Do you believe that the Doctrine of Trinity was precisely formulated and finalised at the Council in 325 AD? BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
So, what did the Holy Spirit teach, speak and tell what he heard and declare to people after Jesus? Anything recorded? How did he glorify Jesus and what did he take of what was Jesus' and declare to people. Surely there must have been something. You can exclude the alleged event at Pentecost.
BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tvebak |
Hello BMZ Different christians have different concepts of this. SO far I've understood some argue that the "holy spirit" is doing "his" work all the time guiding peoples hearts, just like the qur'anic "god" is active in veiling or guding peoples hearts all the time, ie. the "holy spirit" is a continious working in progress showing people the way of Jesus, or something. Others argue that the bible is the product of the "holy spirit", others again argue that the continious different theologians is being guided by the "holy spirit, fx Thomas Aquinas and the like, and by that is showing the way of Jesus. There's numerous different understandings of it and some in another judeo-christian sect believes that this "holy spirit" was manifested in a book called the qur'an. You might know it
Basicly there's different interpretation on what those lines in the bible is refering to. And some christians believe that the work of the "holy spirit" is not necessarily manifesting in any observable subject fx a book, but that it's the guidance of each and every person. Peace |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fathom |
In my opinion, although Christians deny it, Jesus was indeed a polytheist. He defined the entities of the Father and the Holy Spirit as being seperate entities, and both being gods. With claims of his being the son of God, this means that he is if the same essence as God, and means that he is a god also.
In an argument with the Jews beginning in John 10.30, Jesus replied in John 10.33 to their accusation of him referring to himself as a god and son in John 10.32. Then, in 10.34 Jesus replied with a quote from Psalm 82.6: Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, "I said, You are gods?" Psa 82:6 I have said, You are gods; and all of you sons of the Most High. Jesus went on to argue that since the Jewish holy books illustrated that other people from the past had been referred to as "gods" and "sons of the Most High" by God Himself, then why would the Jews have a problem with Jesus referring to himself in this manner also. Judaism is more polytheistic than it wants to admit, and Christianity follows suit. All through the bible we find evidence of more than one god, and of others being referred to as gods or sons of God. As a matter of fact we have these gods themselves using the plural when referring to themselves as early as the first page of the bible in Genesis 1.26: Gen 1:26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth. Although Jesus himself in the Gospel often states that God is "one," the understanding of that statement is open to wide speculation. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
Fathom, I have emboldened and italicised two words within your post. Notice something unusual? 'Man' and 'them'? See Fathom, it was all bad grammar, bad choice of words, bad description and poor translation which has caused all the confusion. Those who heard and understood the original message were just told that God created man. Genesis 1:26 is not really any statement from God. It is a narrator's statement. God did not make men to like those whom God was talking to. Could it be believable that there were creatures and others who looked like Chinese, Plynesians, Blacks, Whites and Brownies sitting in front of God? Christianity is in a different pickle. All of it's books were written many years later and polemics guided the narrators and the writers in the production of the gospels, which were edited when necessary and hence the confusions. Jesus and the Jews were adversaries in terms of the knowledge of scriptures. Jesus was basically a teaser when it came to tu quoques and mocking. It was all polemics between the two that resulted in splitting God into many by the later Christians, who did that after Jesus was long gone. Neither the Jews nor Jesus believed in polytheism. The entire confusion came from the unispired writers of the gospels. BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
For once I agree with you. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fathom |
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to confirm anything you have said here? Or are you merely expressing an opinion? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
The entire statement in my post, is in itself an evidence. I have given all the info based on conclusions drawn from the bibilical scriptures. Let me ask you this: Weren't Jesus and the Jews, good at tu quoques? Do you agree or not? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fathom |
Your question is non sequitor. You cannot use an opinion as evidence. You have provided no evidence whatsoever to justify your obvious opinion. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fathom |
One of the key problems with translating the original Koine Greek texts into any other language including English is the translation of what is known as the "idiom." The word "idiom" means a language, dialect, or style of speaking peculiar to a people or culture.
This can lead to serious problems in comprehension which in turn can lead to the translator being mislead in his interpretation of the text. You see, no language is ever truly translated, but instead it must be "interpreted." This is precisely why we see the title of "Interpretor" for people who relay the message of one language into another in such organizations as the United Nations, for example. Yet, in the case of ancient texts such as the Koine Greek, another problem which exists with the translation of the Gospels is the fact that the Koine Greek language became all but extinct 1500 years ago, and really bears no resemblance at all to modern Greek. What this means is that the translators of the gospel were faced with the daunting task of attempting to interpret from an extinct language while in possession of minimal knowledge of that language, as well as the idiom of the people of 1st century Jerusalem and Greece. Yet, due to modern discoveries such as the Nag Hammadi Library and other ancient Greek texts, a greater knowledge of the multiple meanings of specific Koine Greek words and phrases has enabled us to re-examine the translation/interpretation of specific bible verses by virtue of modern scholarship verses 16th century scholarship, such as the King James version translation. Therefore, I will attempt to provide a little education for those of you who read this and share with you what I have learned over the years. Listed below you will find verses 10.30 to 10.36 from the Gospel of John as seen in the King James modern version: Joh 10.30 I and the Father are one! Joh 10.31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Joh 10.32 Jesus answered them, I have shown you many good works from My Father; for which of these do you stone Me? Joh 10.33 The Jews answered Him, saying, We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself God. Joh 10.34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, "I said, You are gods?" Joh 10.35 If He called those gods with whom the Word of God was, and the Scripture cannot be broken, Joh 10.36 do you say of Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God? Now we will look at each verse independently and examine the idiom, particularly for John 10.30. In John 10.30 the key words to understand the idiom properly are "Father" and "one." In first century Jerusalem when anyone used the word "Father" and "one" in reference to a relationship with themselves such as Jesus did with the use of "I," it literally meant "of the fold," or "of the family." Therefore, with Jesus using "I" in conjunction" with "Father" and "one," what the idiom should be interpreted as in John 10.30 should literally be understood as meaning, "I am the Son of God." Thus, the meaning behind John 10.30 is literally "I am the Son of God." Further understanding of the idiom also should be as so; whenever you are the son of someone, you are also of that same substance of your father. Therefore, when Jesus said "I am the Son of God," it means that his substance is of God. It doesn't mean he is God himself, but of the substance of God, since he called God the "Father." This would make Jesus "a god," as opposed to making him the Supreme Being as in the "Father." As we examine the verses immediately following, you will see precisely how and why the meaning of "I am the Son of God" should be what you accept as what Jesus intended you to understand in regards to John 10.30, and also the fact that for Jesus to call himself the Son of God he is making himself out to be a "god" himself. Now let us examine 10.31 to 10.33: Joh 10.31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Joh 10.32 Jesus answered them, I have shown you many good works from My Father; for which of these do you stone Me? Joh 10.33 The Jews answered Him, saying, We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself God. One of the biggest problems with the verses above is found in the very last word of John 10.33. The capitalized use of the word "God" is very misleading, since in the original Koine Greek text no capitalization is evident whatsoever. Also, in the Koine Greek, in all examples where the word "God" is used to describe the Supreme Deity it is always preceded by a word representing the definite article which translates to the simple word "the." In other words, the definite article preceded the word "God" whereas it literally translated to "the God." This denotes the one and only God; the supreme being. However, if the definite article of "the" does not precede the word "God," then the word "God" does not denote the Supreme Deity, and in John 10.33, the definite article of "the" is not present. What this means is that the word "God" being capitalized is incorrect because in English it will be understood as the Supreme Deity, when it fact it literally means "a god." Therefore, the verses so far from John 10.30 to John 10.33 should be understood as so: John 10.30: "I am the Son of God." John 10.31: Then the Jews picked up stones again to stone him. John 10.32: Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father; for which of these do you stone me?" John 10.33: The Jews replied, " We do not stone you for any good works but because you blasphemy because you, being a mere man, have made yourself out to be a god." So now how do we verify that the interpretation of the words "a god" are what is required for proper comprehension? Well, we need look no further than the following verse uttered by Jesus: John 10.34: "Jesus replied, "Is it not written in your law 'I have said you are gods?'" Look closely at John 10.34 and how Jesus replied to the accusation from the Jews in John 10.33. Ask yourself this question: Q: Why would Jesus reply to the Jews' accusation in John 10.33 with the use of "gods" if the "the God" was the actual meaning in John 10.33? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever for Jesus to reply with "gods" if the intended meaning in John 10.33 was "the God." On the other hand, it makes perfect sense for Jesus to use "gods" as a reply if the intended meaning of John 10.33 was "a god." So let's put those two verses together so you can then clearly see the intended meaning: John 10.33: The Jews replied, " We do not stone you for any good works, but because you blasphemy because you, being a mere man, have made yourself out to be a god." John 10.34: John 10.34: "Jesus replied, "Is it not written in your law 'I have said you are gods?'" Do you see now how it makes sense? Jesus responded with the lower case use of "gods" as a reply to the previous lower case use of "a god" as used in John 10.33. If John 10.33 had intended the meaning to be "the God," then Jesus' reply would have addressed "the God" whereas he would have said, "Is it not written in your law, 'I have said you are God?'" Jesus was responding directly to the use of the words "a god," not "the God," and that is why he used the lowers case "gods." Incidentally the passage that Jesus refers to in John 10.34 with his words of "Is it not written in your law" is the Psalm 82.6, which when read in its entirety also reveals even more about the true meaning of John 10.30. Here is the Psalm: Psa 82.6 I have said, You are gods; and all of you sons of the Most High. If you look at what I have underlined above, and all of you sons of the Most High, you will not only see the "law" which Jesus was referring to in John 10.34, but you will also see yet another confirmation as to the true meaning behind John 10.30, since that Psalm confirms both the use of "gods," and the fact that the sons of the Most High are known to be referred to as "gods," as opposed to "the God." This Psalm alone completely confirms what I have said regarding the meaning of John 10.30, and also the proper use of "a god" at the end of John 10.33, as also confirmed by the very words of Jesus himself in John 10.34. But that's not all. When we look at verses 10.35 and 10.36, we will see once again irrefutable evidence that the meaning of John 10.30 is "I am the Son of God." Here are those verses: John 10.35 If He called those gods with whom the Word of God was, and the Scripture cannot be broken, John 10.36 do you say of Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God? Look closely at the last statement by Jesus. He used the words, because I said I am the Son of God. Ask yourself this: where previously in this conversation that Jesus had with the Jews did he say "I am the Son of God" in which the words of "Because I said" (past tense) are referring to? Where did Jesus ever previously say "I am the Son of God" to the Jews? There's only one, and it is in John 10.30. Although the word translation says "I and the Father are One," the true meaning of John 10.30 is in fact "I am the Son of God." Therefore, not only do we see Jesus in 10.30 claiming to be the Son of God, we also see him in 10.36 using the precise words of "I am the Son of God" when he refers back to his meaning of John 10.30. Thus, we have in these 6 verses Jesus claiming to be the Son of God twice. And now, I will write out for you the verse from John 10.30 to John 10.36 with the precise idiom meanings so that you will clearly understand the message: John 10.31: "I am, the Son of God!" John 10.32: Then the Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. John 10.33: Jesus then replied to them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father; for which of these do you stone me?" John 10.34: The Jews then replied, "We do not stone you for any good works, but because you blasphemy, and because you, being a mere man, have made yourself out to be a god." 10.35 - 36: Jesus replied, "Is it not written in your law, 'I have said you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High?' If He (God) called those (people) who had the word of God with them as 'gods,' and that scripture cannot be disputed, then why do you say of him (me) who was sanctified and sent out the world 'You blasphemy' because I said (previously) that I am the Son of God?" And now you can clearly see and understand the true meaning of John 10.30, as it is not only verified by modern scholarship and idiom, but also by the very words of Jesus himself. His final statement that he had previously said that he was the Son of God can only lead back to John 10.30 because that is the one and only verse that can ever be understood as meaning "I am the Son of God." To sum it all up, we can say this: In John 10.30, Jesus claimed to be the son of God. The Jews immediately picked up stones to stone him because according to Jewish law, to claim that you are a son of God is blasphemy because it makes you of the same substance of God, and thus makes you a god. Therefore, according to those Jews, Jesus was breaking the 1st Commandment of "I am the Lord your God, you will have no other gods aside from Me." Yet, Jesus responded to those Jews by using a Psalm from the Jew's own holy book to show an example of where God has previously referred to other people in the past as being "gods," and also how God had referred to them as being "sons of the Most High." Jesus then argued that since it was fine for other people in the past to be referred to as "gods" by God himself, and also recognized as sons of God by God himself, then why should those Jews stone him if Jesus also referred to himself as "a god" and a "son of God." In other words, Jesus was basically saying that if it was okay with God, then why do those Jews have a problem with it? After all, Jesus claimed to have been "sanctified and sent into the world by God," and this qualified him to be a "god" and a son of God, just like those who were referred to in this same manner by God himself in the past. Thank you. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Fathom,
I read your 5 page post a couple of times. I suggest that you read an article on this subject before we continue our discussion. It is 8 pages long. I will copy and paste some of it and then give you a link. This passage has been the object of much discussion, commentary, and debate among those with differing views about the Deity of Christ. Some claim that Jesus denies that He is God, taking for Himself the lesser title "Son of God." Others argue that Jesus is asserting that He is God, co-equal with His Father. Still others say that Jesus is neither affirming nor denying His Deity, but rather is answering the specific charge of blasphemy (v. 33). Which of these views, if any, is correct? To answer this question, there are several rather complex issues to unravel. First, we must look to the context. What has Jesus just asserted that roused the Jews to such anger that they would accuse Him of blasphemy? What does He say following this passage? Next, we must determine the meaning of the Old Testament verse Jesus is quoting in His defense. Then we must understand why Jesus quotes this passage - what is it about this passage that counters the accusation of blasphemy? Finally, we must put these pieces together to reconstruct Jesus' argument and place it in context with what precedes and follows. Context This pericope begins with the Jews gathering around Jesus in the Temple portico, asking Him to tell them in plain terms if He is the Messiah (v. 24). Jesus answers by giving two reasons they should already know the answer to this question: His words and His works (v. 25). Jesus says that the reason they do not know He is the Messiah is not because He has failed to speak clearly or to manifest who He truly is through His miracles, but because they lack faith (vv. 25 - 26). Jesus says that His sheep know Him and hear His voice, but the Jews are not His sheep (vv. 26 - 27). To this point, while Jesus may well have provoked his listeners to anger, there is nothing in what He has said that warrants the charge of blasphemy. But then Jesus says, "I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish" (v. 2 . Here Jesus claims for Himself the Divine prerogative of granting life to His sheep. The Jews knew that only YHWH gives life (Deut. 32:39), let alone eternal life. Then Jesus equates His power to keep His sheep firmly in hand with His Father's power to do the same thing (vv. 28 - 29). The Jews knew that the Father was "greater than all," but when Jesus said that He had the same power to preserve His sheep as His Father has, this was a clear claim to equality with God. Jesus further drives the point home with His assertion that He and His Father are "one" (v. 30). It is at this point - and with good reason, from their perspective as unbelievers - that the Jews prepare to stone Jesus. Jesus immediately challenges them by returning to one of the two reasons He has given for making clear that He is the Messiah - His works: "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning me?" (v. 32). This is not an evasive response - and it does not follow that Jesus' subsequent response will be evasive, either. The Jews reply that they are not stoning Him for His works, but for claiming to be God, which is blasphemy, according to their Law (v. 33).
Some have argued that the Jews are accusing Jesus of nothing more than being "a god," on the basis that the Greek word theos ("God") lacks the article in this verse and on Jesus' use of Psalm 82 (see below). While many nouns without the article in Greek are indefinite, many others are not. Context, once again, is our sure guide for determining meaning. If the Jews believed that "a god" could grant eternal life or was equal to the Father in the power to preserve the Sheep, there might be some warrant for theos in this verse being rendered "a god." But this is manifestly not the case; while some might be called "gods," in the OT, none were ever said to have Divine powers such as these. Further, the Law against blasphemy did not pertain to those claiming to be 'a god,' but was specific to defaming the name of YHWH (Lev. 24:16), which any man did who claimed to be God or equated his power with YHWH's power. The Jews would be risking their lives if they were to stone Jesus on the grounds of the Temple for anything other than a Law clearly defined in the Hebrew Scriptures. Source: http://forananswer.org/John/Jn10_34.htm After you have had a chance to read the article we can go forward. Thanks. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Please document your source for this "idiom." I checked with some Jews and they never heard of it. I had never heard this one either. Also, I understand we need to know Jewish idioms. Case in point: David asking Bathsheba's husband to go home and "wash his feet." He was not asking Uriah to go home and take a bath. He was suggesting the Uriah go home and have sexual relations with his wife Bathsheba. We wouldn't know this if we did not understand what "washing his feet" meant in this context. Thanks. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
David, Fathom is right here. It simply meant that Jesus was on God' side and followed God. There is no need to look at or find Jewish idioms. You have to look at the language. Let me put it this way: Bush telling the Press about the mutual understanding and agreement between him and Tony Blair on the invasion of Iraq: "I and Tony Blair are one." It means both stood united on the issue. Also, in good written English, no one uses "I and my wife", instead one uses "My wife and I." In Oriental languages, men will say "I and my wife". That is the way, John and others wrote the gospels as if the Jews understood nothing and were always throwing stones at Jesus. BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
No offense BMZ, but I prefer to discuss this subject with Fathom and Fathom only. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BMZ |
Sorry, I did not realise that. Cheers BMZ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fathom |
I have read the article and they have failed to address two very critical points; 1. The lower case use of "gods" as part of Jesus' response to the word "God" in the previous verse. The use of that Psalm is non sequitur with it's lowers case "gods" if the previous verse did not also use the lower case "god." 2. They did not address the question of: "Since Jesus said in John 10.36 that the Jews had accused him of blasphemy because he had called himself a son of God, where previously in this exchange with those Jews did Jesus say he was the son of God?" In regards to your question regarding the idiom, the sources are internal and contextual. We will begin by examining a quote from Paul:
In the Koine Greek texts, the "one" used here with Paul is identical to the "one" used by Jesus in John 10.30. But in this verse, we will most certainly not understand that the person who is doing the planting and the person doing the watering are the same person. This verse clearly shows a relationship between two different individuals, and the idiom can be easily extracted as to the verse meaning that both the individuals are working towards the same purpose, with that purpose being that they receive a reward for their labors. Therefore, we can conclude that the relationship between the planter and the waterer is not one "of the fold/family", but one of purpose/objective. Now, let us look at another series of quotes from Jesus:
In the verses above, Jesus uses the "one" numerous times. Yet, unlike Paul's analogy, the purpose here is about achieving a state of perfection as a unit. You will note that I underlined some text above to show you that Jesus clearly states that his disciples can be "one" with "Us," meaning one with Jesus and the Father. Therefore, we can argue the following: 1. If the use of "one" in John 10.30 is to be understood that Jesus is saying that he and the Father are the same, then can we also conclude that according to the verses quoted above that the disciples and the Father are also one and the same? If you believe that John 10.30 is telling you that Jesus and the Father are one and the same, then why could you not accept that the verses above are telling you that the disciples, Jesus, and the Father, are all one and the same too? Obviously you will agree that the verses above are not telling you that the disciples of Jesus are all the Father. Therefore, it is no great leap to understand that Jesus' use of "one" in John 10.30 is also not telling you that he is the Father, for if it does, then you must accept that all the disciples of Jesus are also the Father, since the exact same Koine Greek words and terminology are used. The verses above show you that the purpose of the disciples becoming one with Jesus and the Father is to achieve a state of perfection. But also, because the word "Father" is used, which denotes a parental relationship, we can also determine more than just a purpose, but in fact a relationship. It does not follow to call someone your Father if a relationship between yourself and that Father does not exist. Therefore, in the Judaic school of thought, the Father of any family denotes a relationship, and if you are in the family of that Father, then you are indeed "of the family/of the fold." And how is this unlike the family structure of any culture on earth? It isn't. In fact, it's only common sense. If someone is your Father, then you are of his family. It's really that simple. But now let's address John 10.30. Jesus denotes no purpose in his quote of "I and the Father are one." Instead, all he denotes is a relationship. You should be aware that there is not one single verse in the NT which shows that the use of the Koine Greek words of "are one" denote the understanding of "one and the same person." All of them denote either a relationship, a purpose, or both. So how can we determine that John 10.30 denotes a relationship? Well, Jesus' use of the word "Father" is obviously one dead giveaway. In the Judaic school of thought, as well as all cultures on earth, the word "Father" denotes a parental relationship. We cannot make this any more simple to understand. So let's go back to my analysis of John 10.30 - 10.36 and take a close up view of what is being said which related directly to the claim of a relationship between Jesus and the Father: The Jews were about to stone Jesus for blasphemy. Jesus responded to their accusation with a quote of a line of a Psalm from King David which, in its entirety, says the following: Psalm 82:6 "I have said you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High." The verse above provides two counterpoints for the Jews from Jesus. You may not be aware, but the Jews had actually made two accusations against Jesus in the previous verse. Let's take another look at it: Joh 10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, "We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself a god." They were stoning him for blasphemy, and they were stoning him because he had made himself out to be a god. The charge of blasphemy comes from Jesus claiming a relationship as a son with the Father in John 10.30, and the charge of him making himself out to be a god is understood by the Jews because if anyone claims to be a son of God, then they are a deity because they claim to be "of the family/of the fold" of God. For example, if you are the son of a lion, then you are also a lion. If you are the son of a tiger, then you are also a tiger. If you are the son of an elephant, then you are also an elephant. Likewise, if you claim you are a son of a god, then you are also a god. Do you see now how simple it actually is? Therefore, by the mere use of "Father, I," and "one" in John 10.30, Jesus is laying claims to a relationship which infers that he is a son of God, and also therefore a god. However, just because the verse should be understood as meaning the lowercase "god" instead of the uppercase "God," it by no means disqualifies the "spirit of Christ" as being God. It only disqualifies the flesh, but not the spirit. My expertise is in the duality principle and the indwelling concepts regarding Jesus, and the Christ within him. But that's another discussion. If you have understood what I have said here, then you will have the answer to the following question: Q: Since Jesus said in John 10.36 that the Jews had accused him of blasphemy with his words of "why do you say of Me, 'You blasphemy,' because I had said (indicating a previous statement) I am a son of God," then where previously in this exchange with those Jews did Jesus ever say he was the son of God? A: John 10.30: I and the Father are one. John 10.30 denotes a relationship, and does not ever imply that Jesus and the Father are one and the same. The "one" implies a relationship because the "Father" implies a parental figure, and the "I" when used in this word configuration which implies a parental figure and a relationship, can only mean "son." Therefore, taken as a whole, the idiom is the claim of a relationship between a son and his Father, and because the Father is understood to be God, the son is laying claim as a deity; a god. David you simply need to understand that people makes mistakes, and one of the biggest mistakes is capitalizing the word "god" in John 10.34. Even your article admits that the definite article of "the" is not present in the Koine Greek, which denotes "the God," Supreme Deity. When the definite article of "the" is not present, then it certainly does not mean the Supreme Deity, but only "a god." This is consistent all through the Koine Greek texts, with only John 10.34 being forced to break the rule, likely because of some over zealous translator who wanted it to be what you currently believe. But the truth is, "the God" just isn't there in the original Koine Greek texts. Even the Muslims on this forum will readily tell you that the name "Allah" means "the God," the Supreme Deity, and to them, the one and only deity. Peace. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AhmedBahgat |
Let them be deluded mate it is not like you will pay the dues instead of those freaks who are making a mere human a god Take care |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fathom |
No one is ever going to pay any dues. Fairy tales are for children, not grown men like yourself. It's time to grow up and be a man. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AhmedBahgat |
Well, if Allah exists, the freaks must pay now don't be a wishful thinking idiot and tell me that He does not exist, this is because we can't know now, whatever you are goiong to say, it will be nothing but wishful thinking that He does not exist, same as my wishful thinking that He does exist now on the days when each one of us dies, we will know for certain whose wishful thinking is right and who was the deluded one the problem here pal, that if I'm deluded, nothing will ever happen to me the propblem if Allah exists is going to be only yours and the like of yours good luck, not many years left |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
Fathom,
I acknowledge receipt of your response and will be back after I have read it. I would not be too concerned about the upper and lower case "g" in God. Most of the translators are Trinitarian Christians and they do this according to their theology -- right or wrong. Unless there is something in the Koine Greek that would justify it. I will have to look into this. Meanwhile, where did you get the idiom you mentioned? (I didn't see it with a quick look-see. ("I," it literally meant "of the fold," or "of the family." ) I have another question: You said: " Further understanding of the idiom also should be as so; whenever you are the son of someone, you are also of that same substance of your father. Therefore, when Jesus said "I am the Son of God," it means that his substance is of God. It doesn't mean he is God himself, but of the substance of God, since he called God the "Father." This would make Jesus "a god," as opposed to making him the Supreme Being as in the "Father." You do know that the Son or Word is not the Father and the Father is not the Son or Word. Right? Trinitarianism does not teach 3 Gods. You know this, right? How can you say that the Son of God is of the same "substance" of God, but not divine? How do you explain John 1: 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. Thank you. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fathom |
Holy cow! A Muslim actually made an intelligent point. Mark this day down in history.
But what if we both know nothing because we are both dead? The dead know nothing, and if we stay dead forever then you will never know who was right or who was wrong.
But that can be equally applied to me.
But that takes you right back to your first statement of wishful thinking, and which you have already admitted that you cannot prove. Therefore, you are believing in something with no proof. If I say the Flying Spaghetti Monster is God, and believe it, then that's the same thing. I can't prove it either, but guess what? Neither can you. But are you prepared of the wrath of the Flying Spaghetti Monster after you die? No? Why not? How is it any less ridiculous than believing in Allah? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AhmedBahgat |
dismissed |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fathom |
David in my previous post you may have read where I brought up the subject of the "duality principle" and the "indwelling concept," but did not elaborate. This is where the duality principle is to be applied. To understand what I mean, all you need to do is to view the two aspects associated with Jesus. 1. There was a man named Jesus. 2. There is a god named Christ. The duality principle can be verified hundreds of times in the Gospel. For example, whenever you read "Son of Man" it refers to the physical human quality of Jesus. But when you read "Son of God" it refers to the spiritual nature of Christ. Let me give you a demonstration of the duality principle being put into practice by Jesus himself. Let us look at some verses which most Christians cannot understand because they do not take the duality principle into consideration.
Let's summarize the verses above. Jesus had asked the Pharisee who's son the Christ would be. The Pharisee had replied that the Christ would be David's son, meaning from the lineage of King David. Yet Jesus put the knowledge of the Pharisee to the test by saying that since David had called the Christ as his "Lord" in the Psalm, how then could the Christ be the son of David? What you need to understand about all this is that Jesus was pointing out to the Pharisee that since David, in his time, had referred to Christ as his Lord during the time of David, it means that the Christ was already in existence during the time of David. So therefore, how can the Christ be coming from the lineage of King David if he was already in existence during the time of King David? I mean, the Lord (Father) could not say anything to David's Lord (my Lord) "Christ" unless the Christ was already in existence, right? So therefore, how could the Christ be David's son? This question confuses Christians to no end for two reasons: 1. Jesus totally denies that the Christ comes from the lineage of King David. 2. The Gospel of genealogy of Jesus shows Jesus coming from the lineage of King David. To any reasonable mind, this would appear like a contradiction. It appears like Jesus is contradicting his own genealogy. But is he? Okay, so let us apply the duality principle, and take another close look at those verses. One thing we can definitely determine from the Psalm is that the Christ was definitely in existence during the time of King David. But does this mean that Jesus himself was in existence during the time of King David? No, what it means is the "spirit of Christ" was in existence during the time of King David, but the physical person of Jesus did not exist for hundreds of years later, when Mary gave birth to him. Christians often fail to look at the separate physical and spiritual natures associated with Jesus. The truth is, the Christ existed long before Jesus was ever conceived, and the Christ is a spirit. The Christ is the Son of God, and the Son of God is a spirit. This can be confirmed according to the teaching of Jesus in the following verses: Joh 4:24 God is a spirit ... Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. In the verses above we can conclude a couple of things. God is a spirit, and that Spirit gives birth to spirit. So what must the Son of God be? If we take Jesus at his word, then the Son of God must be a spirit. And if we understand the Christ as the Son of God, and we see evidence of the Christ in existence long before the birth of Jesus, then there really is no other way to see it. So the big question you are asking is; Was Jesus divine? No, he was not divine as a human being. But Christ? Oh yes, the Son of God is most definitely divine. You see, the physical body of Jesus only represents the Christ, but is not actually the Christ. The actual Christ is the spirit "indwelling" within the physical frame of Jesus, and that particular spirit has always existed. Now I know what you might say. You might say something such as, "But Jesus said this," or "But Jesus said that." But did Jesus really say those things? Or was it the Christ within him doing the talking? Christians should never ignore nor deny the fact that Jesus was a prophet. They like to counter the claim of Jesus being a prophet by saying, "But he was MORE than a prophet." It's fine to believe that, but regardless of whether or not Jesus was more than a prophet, it does not negate the fact that he was still a prophet. He can be a prophet, or he can be more. He can be both. So when you consider the prophethood of Jesus, and consider the nature of all the prophets who came before him, then it requires limited understanding to see that the words Jesus spoke on behalf of God were not his own words, but belonged to God and were spoken exactly the same way as all the other prophets before him. In fact, Jesus tells you this numerous times: Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them and said, My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. Joh 14:24 He who does not love Me does not keep My Words, and the Word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me. So when you have a clear understanding of how it all works, you can say that Jesus was not divine personally, but the spirit of Christ which he carried was most certainly divine. I mean, if Jesus was God personally, do you think that God could die on a cross? Can men kill God? Of course not. But they could kill Jesus easily enough, but they had no hope in hell of ever killing the spirit of Christ Jesus embodied.
The precise rendering of that verse from the Koine Greek is as follows: "In beginning existed the word and the word was with the God and godly was the word." The definite article of "the" is not in the Koine Greek for the second usage of the word "god." Therefore, the 2nd usage can be understood as meaning "a god," "godly," or "pious." And the other ... "And the Word came into being flesh ..." Here's the Greek: ginomai a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be ("gen"-erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become or "come into being", Literally it means the Word came into a flesh being. Koine Greek words: kai = "and" ho = "the" logos = "Word" sarx = "flesh" ginomai = "come into being" Precise word order: And the word flesh came into being. Comprehension: 1. And the Word came to be in the flesh. 2. And the Word came in the flesh. The key word is "into,'" meaning inside; "indwelling." The verse does not say that the Word became as flesh, but literally says the word came INTO the flesh. Even the modern definition of become/became means "to come INTO being." But what the verse does not say is the Word became as flesh. Peace. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fathom |
I tell you the truth, you had better start believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster! If you don't start eating spaghetti every damn day, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL, I SWEAR! Do you think I should start a spaghetti jihad? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AhmedBahgat |
Fathom
respect yourdismissal and stop writing BS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fathom |
You're only saying that because you are afraid of the impending spaghetti jihad. Here's a verse from the Book of Spaghetti: "Oh ye who fail to place meatballs upon thine spaghetti, ye shall be cast down to the pit of eternal damnation! The hell fire will consume thee, and burn the sinning plate of spaghetti until it's noodles fall apart. Then we will place more noodles upon the plate, and burn those off too and repeat this forever and ever. Ye have been warned ..." I'm scared .... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AhmedBahgat |
dismissed |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fathom |
Why? How is it any more ridiculous than having the devil living in my nostrils? I have gotten spaghetti up my nostrils a few times, and that is something i know. So the spaghetti thing is more real than your Allah! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AhmedBahgat |
it seems being polite is not working, hmmm, ok fuk off you jerk of a freak |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fathom |
You'll fry in hell for that ... while I take your spaghetti as booty ... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
The confusion lies in the sloppy and imprecise use of theological terminology used by some Christians. I cringe when I read or hear a Christian say that Jesus was pre-existent. Not so. It is the Messiah who is pre-existent. Jesus of Nazareth is the name of the human incarnation of the Son. The Son is Eternal as YHWH but only temporal as Jesus of Nazareth. In other words, the Son as YHWH has no beginning but the Son as Jesus of Nazareth has a definite start point in history but will have no end point in history. The Son exists Eternally as YHWH but only everlastingly as Jesus of Nazareth. Because people don't bother to think through their theology and so articulate it in a very sloppy (and totally wrong) way everyone gets confused. Jesus of Nazareth (i.e. the human incarnation) is not eternal but the One who incarnated (i.e. the Person of the Son) is Eternal. The other point that I need to make is that the Incarnation is not simply the 'manufacture of a human body for a Divine Person ('God in a gorrilla suit')'. That is not what is meant by the Incarnation. By means of the Incarnation the Son has been able to become an authentic human being (not just 'climb into' a human body) and now has two natures, a Divine and a human nature. This means that the Son simultaneously exists as both the Eternal Divine Creator and a temporal human creature and all the things that he is able to achieve by means of either nature can be attributed to the ONE Person who is TWO natures. Therefore the Messiah is both the Divine Creator (though not by means of His human nature) and the atoning 'Lamb of God' who takes away the sin of the world (though not by means of His Divine Nature). Because the Messiah is both Infinite and finite his atoning sacrificial death upon the cross is of Infinite worth in atoning for the sin of the world (1 John 2:2). The following is what I can give you concerning the Greek in John 1: Text (John 1:1-2): Εν αρχη ην ο λογος, και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον, και θεος ην ο λογος. ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον. Transliteration: En archē ēn ho logos, kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon, kai theos ēn ho logos. houtos ēn en archē pros ton theon. Translation (ESV): In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Analysis (Zerwick): αρχη beginning ; εν αρχη = Gen 1:1,a deliberate allusion, hence "when all things (the universe, v. 3) began". ην imperfect of ειμι, imperfect of duration, was in existence ; the fourfold ην in contrast to εγενετο in v. 3 λογος word, here personal. προς with accusative in Hellenistic Greek = παρα with dative beside, with a person but in John apparently connoting towards (a person). θεος, "the Word was divine", predicate without article insisting on the nature of the Word [BG: "... in the nature of things, the predicate commonly refers not to an individual or individuals as such, but to the class to which the subject belongs, to the nature or quality predicated of the subject; e.g. John 1:1,και θεος ην ο λογος, which attributes to the Word the divine nature (ο θεος ην ο λογος, at least in NT usage, would signify personal identity of the Word with the Father, since the latter is ο θεος). Text (John 1:14): Και ο λογος σαρξ εγενετο και εσκηνωσεν εν ημιν, και εθεασαμεθα την δοξαν αυτου, δοξαν ως μονογενους παρα πατρος, πληρης χαριτος και αληθειας. Transliteration: Kai ho logos sarx egeneto kai eskēnōsen en hēmin, kai etheasametha tēn doxan autou, doxan hōs monogenous para patros, plērēs caritos kai alētheias. Translation (ESV): And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. Analysis (Zerwick): εσκηνωσεν aorist of σκηνοω pitch tent ; dwell in a tent (σκηνη) ; more generally, dwell ; either inceptive aorist took up his abode (incarnation), or constative (global) aorist dwelt among us (earthly life). The latter favored by the following εθεασαμεθα aorist of θεαομαι behold, observe ; see. ως as (in the capacity of), or causal, inasmuch as, because. μονογενης neuter μονογενες (< μονος + γενος) only (child). παρα with genitive of person from, indicating the origin of the Word and of his glory. πληρης often indeclinable in Hellenistic Greek : nominative (referring to ο λογος]) or accusative (referring to δοξαν), or even genitive (referring to μονογενους). χαρις και αληθεια rendering a very frequent OT expression referring to God's merciful love and fidelity to his promises. αληθεια truth, here that revelation of divine reality communicated by Christ's words, deeds, and life. Additional information: The text (NRSV): In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Comment by Carson: More, the Word was God. That is the translation demanded by the Greek structure, theos ēn ho logos. A long string of writers has argued that because theos, 'God', here has no article, John is not referring to God as a specific being, but to mere qualities of 'God-ness'. The Word, they say, was not God but divine. This will not do. There is a perfectly serviceable word in Greek for 'divine' (namely theios). More importantly, there are many places in the New Testament where the predicate noun has no article, and yet is specific. Even in this chapter, 'you are the King of Israel' (1:49) has no article before 'King' in the original (cf. also Jn 8:39; 17:17; Rom. 14:17; Gal. 4:25; Rev. 1:20). It has been shown that it is common for a definite predicate noun in the construction, placed before the verb, to be anarthrous (that is, to have no article [...]). Indeed, the effect of ordering the words this way is to emphasize 'God', as if John were saying 'and the Word was God!' In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been so identifying the Word with God that no divine being could exist apart from the Word. In that case, it would be nonsense to say (in the words of the second clause of this verse) that the Word was with God. The 'Word does not by Himself make up the entire Godhead; nevertheless the divinity that belongs to the rest of the Godhead belongs also to Him' (Tasker, p. 45). 'The Word was with God, God's eternal Fellow; the Word was God, God's own Self.' [Edmund P. Clowney, 'A Biblical Theology of Prayer', in D. A. Carson (ed.), Teach Us to Pray: Prayer in the Bible and the World (Paternoster/Baker, 1990)] — D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Pillar: Eerdmans, 1991). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fathom |
Agreed. They lack the understanding of the depth of those concepts, and instead view things very superficially.
That is precisely what I have been saying. It is the Christ/Messiah who is pre-existent, as opposed to the physical person of Jesus. That's precisely why I used those verses where Jesus was debating the Pharisee regarding the Christ, and who's son he was.
Allow me to show you another perspective. Throughout the Gospels we see two different terms being uttered that are associated with Jesus. One is the Son of God, and the other is the Son of Man. Now, in previous posts I have presented evidence and arguments which described the Son of God/Christ/Messiah as a spirit which had its existence with the Father straight from the beginning. I have also discussed the prophethood of Jesus so that the many attributes surround the man should be taken into careful consideration. So I am going to show you a few verses which will exemplify my direction on this subject. Here are those verses:
Those are just a few, there are indeed dozens more. But what you must understand about those verses and the dozens more is that every last one of them has the appearance of Jesus speaking in the 3rd person narrative. This 3rd person narrative is totally consistent with all prophets from the Judaic school of thought. But what is unique in Jesus' case is that in all these examples it appears like he is speaking about himself. My point is that it is not actually Jesus who is doing the talking. Certainly the words are being uttered from his mouth, but if we can accept and implement the prophethood of Jesus into the equation, then things really begin to take shape. So who is doing the talking? Well, in previous posts of mine regarding this discussion you have seen me again provide evidence and arguments where Jesus had stated numerous times that the words he speaks do not belong to him. Therefore, who do they belong to? According to Jesus' own words, they belong to the Father, as evidenced again in the quote below:
So again we provide evidence supporting the prophethood of Jesus of Nazareth, as the verse above clearly shows who the authority actually is behind the uttered words of Jesus. And in the examples of those verses containing the Son of Man, we see a 3rd person narrative which has a 3rd person entity speaking about the physical person of Jesus. But now let us look at the Son of God. One of the best quotes associated with Jesus to illustrate my point can be seen below:
This quote alone reveals some very startling conclusions: It cannot be Jesus of Nazareth doing the talking because he personally was temporal, while the person who calls God "Father" in the quote above is claiming an existence "before the world was." This shows two complete separate entities at work here. We already see Jesus of Nazareth, the temporal being, but we can also see the "Son" asking the Father to return him to a the state of glorification which he enjoyed before the world was. This cannot be Jesus of Nazareth doing the talking, you see? Indeed I contend that it is the Son of God/Christ who is doing the talking in that verse, while the Son of Man- Jesus of Nazareth- is the instrument for the conversation. So what we see here is an example of the duality principle. What we see here is the Son of Man and the Son of God being identified clearly by merely understanding what we are actually witnessing. Therefore, when you speak that "The Son exists Eternally as YHWH," I in turn show you that the Son Of God/Christ/Messiah is in fact his own entity for numerous reasons: 1. The quote of Christ asking to be restored to his former glory in John 17.5 cannot be YHWH because YHWH would not be speaking to Himself. 2. The glory the Christ asked to be restored to must have been lost at some previous point, otherwise he would not have asked to have it restored. But YHWH could not lose His glory. So therefore, we can determine the following: 1. The Son of Man- Jesus of Nazareth- will exist everlastingly from the point of his temporal existence forward. 2. The Son of God - Christ/Messiah- has always existed eternally, and is complete individual entity other than YHWH. What I am saying is, there are two "sons" involved here; the temporal Jesus, and the spiritual Christ. More later. Excellent conversation David. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| David |
What you are saying is incorrrect. A partial list of occurrences of θεος (theos) without the article in the Gospel of John: John 1:6,. There was a man sent form God [no article], whose name was John. John 1:12-13,. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to becomes children of God [no article]; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God [no article]. John 1:18,. No one has ever seen God [no article]; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. John 3:2,. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher sent from God [no article]; for no one do these signs that you do, unless God is with him." John 3:21,. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that is may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God [no article]. John 6:45,. It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God [no article].' John 8:54,. Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God [no article]." John 9:33,. If this man were not from God [no article], he could do nothing. John 13:3,. Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God [no article], and was going to God ... John 16:30,. Now we know that you know all things, and need none to question you; by this we believe that you came from God [no article]. John 19:7,. The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he had made himself the Son of God [no article]." John 20:17,. Jesus said to her, "Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God [no article] and your God [no article]." More to come. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||