Trinity

[786]

786,
I appreciate your point, and I even agree with you on some point, such as that Jesus was God's servant. The Jews didn't expect to be the Christ to be anything more than a son or servant of God. But you don't acknowledge what it means to say that in the way that it's written about Jesus. The Bible doesn't make the claims for Jesus that the Quran makes about him or about Muhammed.

It's not special to call Jesus a "son of God" in the Jewish sense, I agree with you. But the question is whether that was all Jesus was. Who is the promised servant describes in Isaiah 42? Jews recognized him as the messiah - not just anyone. Not just a servant, but the servant - God's "chosen one". How many people can be God's chosen one, who can bring justice to the earth?

I did that because the Greek is dio, "wherefore, on account of", but the NIV doesn't make that clear. Some other translations like the NAS do. The word is also found in Matt.27:8, for instance:

"7So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. 8That is why [dio] it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.​

It's one unit of thought. There is no reference to God sending a man, but to the Holy Spirit (how do you explain that, by the way) "overshadowing" (much like it hovered over the waters in Genesis) Mary. You're stretching the context too far.

I agree with you about the role of a servant. But you might as well throw away everything else that was written and known about Jesus if you want to hold onto the idea that He was (and claimed) to be a servant like any other. For one thing, he would not have been accused of blasphemy for claiming to be simply a servant of God.

I can give you an example:

John 10
28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."​

OK. Do you see what Jesus claimed? It wasn't just anything! Nothing about 'just doing what every prophet had always done, nothing special'. He also claimed to forgive sins, something only God had the authority to do. Keep that in mind. Now read on:

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken--what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?​

Jesus connects the two arguments, mine and yours. He says that if God can call even his normal servants his childen and sons, how much more him who was set apart (as He had told them just moments before)? At the very least it is not blasphemy, so consider the implications of what it means to be one with the Father, His chosen servant and only-begotten son, in its fullest sense. If it is true, and if it isn't blasphemy, then...?

Yes, He did serve humanity - God served humanity. He was favouring us. But no glory could go to a mere man, all glory must go to God himself. God always led his people himself, even while Moses or David was in command. But now it is God who is in command himself, there is no King but God, no sacrifices left to make. God loved us personally.

Philippians 2 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death--even death on a cross!"​

First of all, I am not misinterpreting. I am only telling you what the Jewish understanding was.

Second of all we also believe Jesus to be the Messiah. That doesn't prove him as a God. "Choosen one" doesn't make someone a God. I can provide three or five verses which will leave out Jesus as a God. But before I get to that point I will like to make some things clear to you, which I seem to think you do not understand.

In the one verse John 10:30 Jesus says "I and the Father are one", and later on when Jews say that Jesus claimed to be God and were trying to stone him. This verse has been presented the most. So I would like to clearify this as much as possible so no one would ever put forth this verse to claim Jesus as God.

JOHN 10:30 "I and the Father are one [hen]." (NASU)

What did he mean by this declaration? Was he proclaiming that he was co-equal and co-eternal with the Father? Was Jesus saying that he and the Father were of the same essence or substance? Just what exactly was he trying to convey?

First, let's look at the Greek word hen (one).

In Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament, the late Professor Vincent states that hen, the Greek word translated "one" in John 10:30, is "the neuter, not the masculine είς, one person" (p. 197, vol. II).

Regarding this statement by Jesus, the Abingdon Bible Commentary says: "V. 30 does not affirm a metaphysical unity, but a moral, and we must not read the later creeds into the words" (p. 1079).

In A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown write of this verse:

Our language admits not of the precision of the original in this great saying, 'We (two Persons) are One (Thing).' Perhaps 'one interest' expresses nearly, though not quite, the purport of the saying. (p. 414, vol. III, part I)

The use of hen in John 10:30 clearly indicates that Jesus was not claiming that he and the Father were the same being. An examination of how the same Greek word hen ("one") is used in other Scriptures will help us see what Christ did intend to convey by his statement.

Let's look at Jesus's prayer to the Father on the night before his crucifixion. In this supplication, he speaks several times of the state of being "one":

JOHN 17:11 "I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be ONE [hen] even as We are. (NASU)

Here Jesus prays that God the Father would keep his disciples in His name.

How was it possible for Jesus's disciples to be ONE in the same way that Jesus and the Father were ONE? Are you saying that Jesus is asking to make the desciples part of the Trinity? I think you and me, and everyone else knows that that answer is NO!. Well lets not stop here. A litte later. Jesus is praying and says:

JOHN 17:20 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in me through their word; 21 that they all may be ONE [hen], as You, Father, are in me, and I in You; that they also may be ONE [hen] in us, that the world may believe that You sent me. 22 And the glory which You gave me I have given them, that they may be ONE [hen] just as we are ONE [hen]: 23 I in them, and You in me; that they may be made perfect in one [eis], and that the world may know that You have sent me, and have loved them as You have loved me." (NKJV)

I think it is very clear. We now know how Jesus and Father were ONE. If you are still not convinced then ask, I would be happy to deal with this issue. Although I think I have given enough evidence. And BTW you were accusing me of misinterpration when you have done this yourself. Trying to make it mean what you want it to mean. And as for me I didn't misinterpret, I told you what the Jews understanding of "Son of God" was. I was putting translation before interprations. A translation is made on understanding of the word, my friend. So if the "understanding" of Jews of Son of God was as a servent of God, then I put translation before interprations, which you accused me of.

Now the second part about this is, Why were Jews stoning Jesus? And in the verse the jews say "It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God." Very good question. And I'm glad you asked.

“Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him (Jesus), saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, Ye are gods?’ If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken...”

John 10:33-34

In this case we must ask those who say that Jesus (pbuh) claimed to “literally” be “God” to apply their same standard to the rest of the passage and also claim that the Jews too are “literally” “gods”. However, Jesus himself refused taking it literally.

So, Did they understand him correctly or not. Do we understand it now as they intended it. His disciples didn’t seem to know what he was talking about. We are all the way to the 16th chapter of Matthew, before Peter gives some kind of a theological statement, and Jesus congratulates him saying, "You didn’t even know that until it was revealed." Evidently it was not very obvious what Jesus had been saying to that point.

But on the other hand, to the Jews every time he opened his mouth he was claiming to be God. It may well be that the Jews were misunderstanding him. And that is precisely the point of the 10th chapter of John. Where the Jews accused him of blasphemy, claiming equality with God, and the rest of the verses continue on to have Jesus go on and defuse the situation. To show them that if they listened more carefully to what it is he said -- if they read there own scriptures more carefully -- they’d see they have NO grounds for a claim of blasphemy.

There also appears a noteworthy conversation between Jesus Christ and Jews. Jesus did acknowledge before this angry crowd (see verse 36), that:

a) He was "sanctified" by God.
(This act cannot be performed unless there are "two distinctly independent entities or parties". One party was doing the act of "sanctifying" while another was being "sanctified").

b) He was "sent " by God.
(This text proves; One entity was "the sender", while the other was "the sent").

c) He was "son" of God.
(This text proves; Jesus who had earlier quoted a verse from the Psalm to his contenders, was only asserting to be "the children of the Most High". He was referring to Psalms 82:6 “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High..”).

Now your last comment is that "But no glory could go to a mere man, all glory must go to God himself." Absolutely true. This is exactly what Jesus said himself.

I am (he), and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me,
I speak these things." (John 8:28).

Read the above verse. Jesus is giving all the glory to his God. He says "I am doing nothing of myself:but as my Father hath taught me." So who is he giving the glory to? God, not himself. Another question which raises from this verse is. "Father hath taught me." Read it very carefully. How do you teach someone? Father doesn't need to "teach" his Son if they are both God, or the same. Do you not see that? It shows that they are two "different" beings. One doing the teaching and the other learning. This is simple logic.

And as for him being "begotten". First of all we do not believe that he was his begotten son. But now lets see when was he begotten. If he was a God then he would be for eternity, right?

For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have begotten thee"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"? Hebrews 1:5

Read the verse. It says "You are my Son; today I have begotten thee". So if the Son was begotten "today" then he couldn't have existed yesterday. Simple logic. Meaning he was NOT ETERNAL. Meaning NOT A GOD.

And the second point of the same verse is "will be". This is future tense. Thus meaning that Jesus "will be" his son. So he is not his son right now. "I will be his Father". So God will be his Father, he isn't right now.

So right here we see again that Jesus in not Eternal, and that he had a beginning. I guess that screws up the co-eternal part doesn't it.

As for the quote from Phillipians. I don't get why you provided me the verse. Could please just tell me, so I may be able to give you the answer if that verse is refering to something.

Peace be unto you

 

[Jenyar]

First of all, I am not misinterpreting. I am only telling you what the Jewish understanding was.

No you're not, you have no evidence for what the Jewish understanding was. You are presenting your understanding of a supposedly "Jewish" understanding of a text that says only what it says: that Jesus would be called "son of God" because of God's special involvement in his birth (and later also his life, message, and resurrection).

You might recall I quoted the JewishEncyclopedia on the term "Son of God":

Term applied to an angel or demigod, one of the mythological beings whose exploits are described in Gen. vi. 2-4, and whose ill conduct was among the causes of the Flood; to a judge or ruler (Ps. lxxxii. 6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" seem to be equations; comp. Ex. xxi. 6 [R. V., margin] and xxii. 8, 9); and to the real or ideal king over Israel (II Sam. vii. 14, with reference to David and his dynasty; comp. Ps. lxxxix. 27, 28).​

Do you deny that Jews also thought the term "Son of God" could have special meaning? How do you think that destinction was made, if the term always meant the same thing? Jesus wasn't an everyday man or even just a prophet - neither in death or in birth. Prophets don't forgive sins, and they aren't condemned for blasphemy. Although Jesus was fully human, He was from God, not from the union of human parents. It's not his messiahship that is the problem, nor his sonship, his servanthood, his shephardship, his prophetship or his royal claims, but all these things in conjunction.

Let me ask you this, even if you don't believe Jesus to be the Son of God as his disciples did, do you believe that His claims were justified? Why could He expect to be resurrected and "sit at God's right hand"?

JOHN 17:11 "I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be ONE [hen] even as We are. (NASU)

Here Jesus prays that God the Father would keep his disciples in His name.

How was it possible for Jesus's disciples to be ONE in the same way that Jesus and the Father were ONE? Are you saying that Jesus is asking to make the desciples part of the Trinity? I think you and me, and everyone else knows that that answer is NO!.

Your (or should I say, your source's) explanation of John 10:30 is incomplete. Look at Jesus' argument:

1)I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; (v.28)
2)no one can snatch them out of my hand. (v.28)
3)no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. (v.29)
4)I and the Father are one. (v.30)

...Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."​

Now compare that with your claim that we can be "one" with each other in the same way that God is "one" with God. Are we also unable to act on our own? Are we wholly dependent on each other for being ourselves? But the spiritual union Jesus prayed for is no less significant than his reasoning. How can we be one (among each other) like Jesus and God is one (!!), unless we are either a)able to make the same claim on our own behalf, in our own name also be "one with God", or b)able to make the same claim in Jesus' Name, by "the Name God gave him". That's the way Jesus is in those who believe his words. Did he say he was in everybody, or in the world? Specifically not.

Can we ask in our name what Jesus asked in the Name God gave him? Does God give everyone the title "son of God" by their own merit? Your source suggest we can: that we can be one with God - either literally or figuratively - because when Jesus said it, it didn't have any special meaning.

Matthew 11:27
"[Jesus said] All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.​

Why don't you make that claim?

Another question which raises from this verse is. "Father hath taught me." Read it very carefully. How do you teach someone? Father doesn't need to "teach" his Son if they are both God, or the same. Do you not see that? It shows that they are two "different" beings. One doing the teaching and the other learning. This is simple logic.

It's human logic. God taught Moses as well. So what Israel learned from Moses actually came from God. We are all taught by God. Remember, we don't reject that Jesus was human and needed to learn. That's probably what he did the 30 years before he started preaching. This is not one of the verses that indicate Jesus' special relationship, it just supports that He received his mission from God himself, directly and indirectly.

Galatians 4:6
Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father."​

And as for him being "begotten". First of all we do not believe that he was his begotten son. But now lets see when was he begotten. If he was a God then he would be for eternity, right?

For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have begotten thee"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"? Hebrews 1:5

Read the verse. It says "You are my Son; today I have begotten thee". So if the Son was begotten "today" then he couldn't have existed yesterday. Simple logic. Meaning he was NOT ETERNAL. Meaning NOT A GOD.

And the second point of the same verse is "will be". This is future tense. Thus meaning that Jesus "will be" his son. So he is not his son right now. "I will be his Father". So God will be his Father, he isn't right now.

So right here we see again that Jesus in not Eternal, and that he had a beginning. I guess that screws up the co-eternal part doesn't it.

First of all, he quotes from Hebrews, which refers to words spoken at other times. "Today I have begotten thee" was said in Psalm 2:7, as you know, and "I will be his Father, and he will be my son" reflects 2 Samuel 7:14 and 1 Chron. 17:13, which record God's promise to David: that his throne and kingdom will be eternal, and God's love with him forever. God fulfilled his promises to David in Jesus (Acts 13).

And I thought I had already explained the use of "today": it meant that that was the day of God's decision, it obviously does not indicate either David's or Christ's day of birth; David was not born on that day, and neither was Jesus. That's the nature of the word 'begotten'. It also carries overtones of 'anointing'.

But to Jesus, the words "This is my Son, whom I love; with whom I am well pleased" were heard at his baptism (Matt.3:17) and his transfiguration (Matt. 17:5, Luk.9:35, Mark 9:7), and that was what his disciples recorded:

2 Peter 1
16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.​

It's a declaration, just like the decree in Psalm 2:7. It makes something known that wasn't known before, but that doesn't mean it wasn't true before. It says nothing about when David or Jesus was "born", just that God considers David "son", and Jesus "an only son".

As for the quote from Phillipians. I don't get why you provided me the verse. Could please just tell me, so I may be able to give you the answer if that verse is refering to something.

Because it's hard to refute with any arguments. it was written long before the doctrine of a Trinity was "officially" formulated, and it says exactly how Jesus served mankind, in response to your claim that he was just a servant of God like any other, and clarifies Jesus' approach to his ministry:

Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped​

 

[786]

"Son of God". Ok my friend, do you want me to say God has many "sons". Because I can provide you many verses, where God claims someone his son. But you will then they it means "chidren of God". We are all children of God, so we are all his sons. This is the normal meaning.

Now you said the special meaning is "Son of God". Someone sent by God. Like David, like Jesus and many others. These people are chosen over others. That is why you call them prophets. These are the servents of God.

Jesus was NOT resurrected? You want to debate this, I'll be more than happy to.

If one wishes to argue that the word `hen' supports their claim
for Jesus being "co-equal" in status with his Father, attention to the following verse:

Jesus said: "And the glory which Thou hast given me, I have given
to them (disciples); that they may be one,
just as we are one." (John 17:22).

If you was to consider/regard/believe the Father and Jesus Christ
to be "one" meaning "co-equal" in status on the basis of John 10:30,
then that person should also be prepared to consider/regard/believe
"them" - the disciples of Jesus, to be "co-equal" in status with
the Father and Jesus ("just as we are one") in John 17:22.
I have yet to find a person that would be prepared to make the
disciples (students) "co-equal" in status with the Father or Jesus.

The unity and accord was of the authorized divine message that
originated from the Father, received by Jesus and finally
passed on to the disciples. Jesus admitted having accomplished
the work which the Father had given him to do. (Jn.17:4)

This is not fair to make the meaning of "one" change when talking of Jesus, and then change it when talking of desciples.

Jesus said: "I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I."
(Jn.14:28). This verse unequivocally refutes the claim by any one for
Jesus being "co-equal" in status with his Father.

The above verse is an EXTREMELY EXPLICIT verse. EXTREMELY EXPLICIT.

Now in the verse of Phillipians. The Greek word used for "form" is `morphe' (3444) which means; shape, fig, image, appearance. Hence, the phrase simply means,

"in the image of God", as it reads in 2 Corinthians 4:4,
"...Christ, who is the image of God."

One may be tempted to say; "the image of God" is no different
from God. I suggest, please read Genesis 1:26 where it says;
*man* was made in the image and likeness of God.
Man though an image of God is not God, nor the God is man.

In the New English Bible the word `morphe' is translated as
"nature". The text conveys; Jesus had the Divine nature.

The very notion of regarding "equality with God" is contrary
to the basic fundamental concept of "monotheism". Jesus had to
be regarded either as "The God" or "Not God". A few verses after
the verses under scrutiny, it reads; "God highly exalted Jesus"
after his death. This conclusively proves Jesus was not equal
or even "highly exalted" before that date.

Here is an interesting statement reproduced from the K.J.V.'s
commentary on the verses under scrutiny;

"What is to be understood here is that Christ merely
relinquished His glory which He had due to the fact that He
was deity. Prior to His death, He asked the Father to glorify
Him in a position next to God with the glory which He had even
before the world was created (John 17:5)."

The phrase "a position next to God" clearly tells us Jesus did not
have the "equality with God" during his ministry or before or
after.

You are saying that Jesus "acted as a bond servant" to avoid heresy. Was
the righteous Jesus then also "acting" or intentionally misleading
his disciples, when he said; "the Father is greater than I"?
(Jn.14:28). The fact that Jesus did act as "a bond servant",
because he was "a bond servant". Read Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27 NASB.

"and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God."
1 Corin. 3:23

If you consider yourself a bond servant of Jesus, so was Jesus a
bond servant to God.

These verses, below, are EXTEMELY EXPLICIT. They show you: that Jesus is God's servent, which you have trouble believing. They show: that God and Jesus are not 1 in the same, but different. They show: that God is greater than Jesus not co-equal. They show: God is the head of Jesus. They show: Jesus has a God, he himself is not God. They show: Only True God. They show: Jesus, is whom God sent. They show: Jesus gets his powers from God. They show: that Jesus prays to God. They show: that Jesus doesn't know everything. They show: Jesus and God have seperate will. They show: That God's will is stronger than Jesus's. They show: that Jesus in not good, nor is anyone else, except God. They show: Calling Jesus Lord will not get you eternal life.

1. "...I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I."
John.14:28

2. "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every
man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of
Christ." 1 Corin. 11:3

3. "Behold, My servant whom I have chosen; My Beloved in whom My
soul is well pleased; I will put My Spirit upon him, and he shall
proclaim justice to the Gentiles." Matthew 12:18

4. "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers,
has glorified His Servant Jesus..." Acts 3:13.

5. "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy
holy Servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint..." Acts 4:27.

6. "For you first, God raised up His Servant, and sent him to bless
you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways." Acts 3:26

7. "And you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God."
1 Corin 3:23.

8. "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee the only true
God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." John 17:3

9. "And Jesus said to him, `Why do you call me good? No one is good
except God alone." Mark 10:18

10. "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of
heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." Matthew 24:36

11. "Jesus said to her, `Stop clinging to me; for I have not yet
ascended to the Father; but go to my bretheren, and say to them,
`I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.'"
John 20:17

12. "And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and he
knelt down and began to pray, saying, `Father, if Thou art willing,
remove this cup from me; yet not my will, but Thine be done."
Luke 22:41-42


Look at number 11. Jesus says "I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God."

"Then Jesus said to him, `Begone, Satan! For it is written,
'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'"
Matthew 4:10

Jesus said; "Not every one that says to me; `Lord, Lord,' will
enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of
my Father, who is in heaven." (Mt.7:21).

So in other words crucifixion doesn't save you.

Jesus had a "God", he himself was not a God. EXTEMELY EXPLICIT.

If you cannot understand a VERY EXPLICIT VERSE then I feel sorry for you.

Peace be unto you

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: Excellent post, 786! Your argument is rock solid, and I know I appreciate your effort to provide Jenyar with the truth. But you know how Christians are. When anyone other than a Christian (and even when a Christian) interprets the bible, they always say it is taken "out of context." Believe me, they have an excuse about everything spoken about the bible by a non-Christian.

Have you ever noticed in Jenyar's posts, that they are always so defensive? I guess that's why Christians are called 'apologists.' If they're always 'apologizing' for their religion, then there must be something WRONG with it!
*************
786: Jesus was NOT resurrected? You want to debate this, I'll be more than happy to:
*************
M*W: At the very most, Jesus was hung on a cross for a short period of time, and was resuscitated. I doubt that Jesus ever made it to the cross. The connection between Barabbas and Jesus proves to me that Barabbas was a stand-in for Jesus. Barabbas means 'son of the father' in Aramaic. So, Jesus died for no one. That's why Christians believe in 'blind faith!'
*************
786: So in other words crucifixion doesn't save you.
*************
M*W: No, you're right. The crucifixion of Jesus probably didn't happen, so, no, the crucifixion doesn't save anybody. It was a story conjured up by Paul, and the gospel writers (whoever they were -- no one really knows for sure) followed Paul's writings that came before the gospels were written.

 

[path]

You guys can get so excited arguing over who is worshipping the correct myth

 

[everneo]

hmm.. i am also the son of God. But Jesus is the big brother and might surely care to protect me when the Daddy bounce on me for my petty sins. ..and get all the beating meant for me.

*****just easing out the hot debate. you guys plz go ahead with the debate.

 

[Jenyar]

I'll start where you stopped:

Jesus had a "God", he himself was not a God. EXTEMELY EXPLICIT.

If you cannot understand a VERY EXPLICIT VERSE then I feel sorry for you.

Peace be unto you

Peace be with us all. You don't have to feel sorry for me, however. My faith rests not on VERY EXPLICIT VERSES alone.

"Son of God". Ok my friend, do you want me to say God has many "sons". Because I can provide you many verses, where God claims someone his son. But you will then they it means "chidren of God". We are all children of God, so we are all his sons. This is the normal meaning.

Now you said the special meaning is "Son of God". Someone sent by God. Like David, like Jesus and many others. These people are chosen over others. That is why you call them prophets. These are the servents of God.

So the highest calling for a son is to be a servant, and for a servant is to be prophet? Can God not raise a son from prophets? Prince of princes, king of kings. Isn't that who God is? Who is Son of sons, prophet of prophets?

Isaiah 9
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.​

Jesus was NOT resurrected? You want to debate this, I'll be more than happy to.

Maybe some other time. You won't get that from the Bible, though.

If one wishes to argue that the word `hen' supports their claim
for Jesus being "co-equal" in status with his Father, attention to the following verse:

Jesus said: "And the glory which Thou hast given me, I have given
to them (disciples); that they may be one,
just as we are one." (John 17:22).

The word itself supports nothing, it is a word in a sentence in a context. That's why I make an effort to show not only where and how words are used, but also what they imply.

For all your arguments I have one question, related to the one you didn't answer: who is Christ to say this?

If you was to consider/regard/believe the Father and Jesus Christ
to be "one" meaning "co-equal" in status on the basis of John 10:30,
then that person should also be prepared to consider/regard/believe
"them" - the disciples of Jesus, to be "co-equal" in status with
the Father and Jesus ("just as we are one") in John 17:22.
I have yet to find a person that would be prepared to make the
disciples (students) "co-equal" in status with the Father or Jesus.

The unity and accord was of the authorized divine message that
originated from the Father, received by Jesus and finally
passed on to the disciples. Jesus admitted having accomplished
the work which the Father had given him to do. (Jn.17:4)

Who was Jesus that God would give it to him? Was he simply enlightened and no more? Who says to God "just as we are one"?

This is not fair to make the meaning of "one" change when talking of Jesus, and then change it when talking of desciples.

Jesus said: "I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I."
(Jn.14:28). This verse unequivocally refutes the claim by any one for
Jesus being "co-equal" in status with his Father.

The above verse is an EXTREMELY EXPLICIT verse. EXTREMELY EXPLICIT.

Yes. It explicitly states that Jesus didn't consider equality with God to be grasped, or something to boast in. This isn't just "humility", though. Jesus is on earth, a human being: He goes to the Father, not the Father to him. His kingdom is in heaven, not on earth. With that phrase Jesus is saying something profound about his life and work on earth, of great significance to his disciples, which is why the full context of the words is:

John 14:28 "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe.​

Once again: Who says "I am going to the Father and coming back"?

Now in the verse of Phillipians. The Greek word used for "form" is `morphe' (3444) which means; shape, fig, image, appearance. Hence, the phrase simply means,

"in the image of God", as it reads in 2 Corinthians 4:4,
"...Christ, who is the image of God."

One may be tempted to say; "the image of God" is no different
from God. I suggest, please read Genesis 1:26 where it says;
*man* was made in the image and likeness of God.
Man though an image of God is not God, nor the God is man.

2 Cor. 4:5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.​

You throw the phrase "image of God" around as if it's obvious what that implies. Surely we were not created in God's physical image? Who was Adam shaped after unless God had some "image" in mind? But it's speculation either way. Who are we to call ourselves the image of God? Only by the grace of God and support of Scripture - not any evidence we can gather for ourselves. It's a significant statement because we testify that God has no physical image. And if it's not a physical image we're talking about, then it must be a spiritual one. And we can conform to a spiritual image only if we have an ideal: a law, commandment, something to measure ourselves by. They are shadows.

Colossians 2:16
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.​

In the New English Bible the word `morphe' is translated as
"nature". The text conveys; Jesus had the Divine nature.

The very notion of regarding "equality with God" is contrary
to the basic fundamental concept of "monotheism". Jesus had to
be regarded either as "The God" or "Not God". A few verses after
the verses under scrutiny, it reads; "God highly exalted Jesus"
after his death. This conclusively proves Jesus was not equal
or even "highly exalted" before that date.

"Jesus had the divine nature". What does this mean? And "contrary to the basic fundamental concept of 'monotheism' "? Only if the text says what you are trying to prove it says, not if it says what it says. That we're not speaking of a different God, or another God, but the nature and work of the One and Only God.

It might be worth realizing that a monotheistic religion isn't more correct than others by its own merit, but because that's who God revealed himself to us. We're not judging God by a standard we set! That's why it's important for me to know who you think Jesus was according to himself and his disciples.

Here is an interesting statement reproduced from the K.J.V.'s
commentary on the verses under scrutiny;

"What is to be understood here is that Christ merely
relinquished His glory which He had due to the fact that He
was deity. Prior to His death, He asked the Father to glorify
Him in a position next to God with the glory which He had even
before the world was created (John 17:5)."

The phrase "a position next to God" clearly tells us Jesus did not
have the "equality with God" during his ministry or before or
after.

"Next to God" refers to "at the right hand of God", a reference to authority that would clearly be understood by people familiar with monarchy and rulership. Does it mean he was of lesser status, power or authority?

Isaiah 63
Where is he who set
his Holy Spirit among them,
who sent his glorious arm of power
to be at Moses' right hand​

To be at God's right hand is not a small thing. Definitely not where every prophet or servant will sit. But other parallels are less easy to explain away:

Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.​

You are saying that Jesus "acted as a bond servant" to avoid heresy. Was the righteous Jesus then also "acting" or intentionally misleading
his disciples, when he said; "the Father is greater than I"?
(Jn.14:28). The fact that Jesus did act as "a bond servant",
because he was "a bond servant". Read Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27 NASB.

"and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God."
1 Corin. 3:23

If you consider yourself a bond servant of Jesus, so was Jesus a
bond servant to God.

He was leading, not misleading - explaining, not obfuscating. Just stand still for a moment and meditate on the phrase "and Christ belongs to God". Was he a mere memeber of the human race, just another prophet to "show us the way"? Show us the way where? Jesus points to God his Father, God points to Christ his Son, and his son points to us, his brothers; God's children. Why does God add Jesus to the equation? If no mediation was required, why mediate for us and appoint the world to him?

Christ is not salvation from us, but from God. He belongs to God means his life, his identity, his very being, belongs to God. Do you have the confidence to say that? Can you call God Father?

These verses, below, are EXTEMELY EXPLICIT. They show you: that Jesus is God's servent, which you have trouble believing. They show: that God and Jesus are not 1 in the same, but different. They show: that God is greater than Jesus not co-equal. They show: God is the head of Jesus. They show: Jesus has a God, he himself is not God. They show: Only True God. They show: Jesus, is whom God sent. They show: Jesus gets his powers from God. They show: that Jesus prays to God. They show: that Jesus doesn't know everything. They show: Jesus and God have seperate will. They show: That God's will is stronger than Jesus's. They show: that Jesus in not good, nor is anyone else, except God. They show: Calling Jesus Lord will not get you eternal life.

Your list only shows texts that emphasize Christ's position on earth, in relation to us and to God. It shows Jesus being human. But Jesus and the Father are not one and the same because of who God is for us: they show God in a certain loving relationship with humanity. Not a foreigner to his creation, but the defining creator of it. Who Jesus was for us was a humble servant, a shepherd, a king. Why don't we say these are contradictory qualities? Because they were all fulfilled in Him. Jesus could only be Christ in God. Without God he would not even have been born. Neither would we.

Look at number 11. Jesus says "I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God."

Yes, the man they knew as Jesus, who told them about the Kingdom of his Father, had just risen from the grave and was going back to God, whom he had preached about and whom they knew. He was bringing all the threads together - in one God.

"Then Jesus said to him, `Begone, Satan! For it is written,
'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'"
Matthew 4:10

After Satan asked Jesus to worship Satan. Nobody who thinks Jesus belonged to himself or to any other God should even take notice of him. No, only those who had faith in God believed in Jesus.

Jesus said; "Not every one that says to me; `Lord, Lord,' will
enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of
my Father, who is in heaven." (Mt.7:21).

So in other words crucifixion doesn't save you.

The crucifixion saves nobody.

Psalm 68:20
Our God is a God who saves; from the Sovereign LORD comes escape from death.​

 

[786]

Yes your "faith" doesn't lie on Explicit verses, but on implict, which don't even point to Jesus and God being one. For example when Jesus called himself one with Father.

It is amazing to me that when there is something so explicit then you deny it being Jesus, but Jesus as a human. But when there is something so implicit, which doesn't even show Jesus to be God, then you realize is to the "God" Jesus.

The verses I provided show Jesus was not God. But you claimed that it was Jesus's human side. Do you have proof? Show me 1 verse where Jesus claims to be God. Don't give me John 10:30 because I have shown you that they were 1 in message. Jesus asked God to make his desciples 1 in message. God gave the message to Jesus, and Jesus gave to desciples. So they were 1 in goal, message, not 1 being.

"Maybe some other time. You won't get that from the Bible, though." Yes I will

"Once again: Who says "I am going to the Father and coming back"?" Jesus's second coming, if you forgot.

"He was leading, not misleading - explaining, not obfuscating. Just stand still for a moment and meditate on the phrase "and Christ belongs to God". Was he a mere memeber of the human race, just another prophet to "show us the way"? Show us the way where? Jesus points to God his Father, God points to Christ his Son, and his son points to us, his brothers; God's children. Why does God add Jesus to the equation? If no mediation was required, why mediate for us and appoint the world to him?"

He would show us the way to the righteous path. I don't know why you asked this stupid question. "Why does God add Jesus to the equation?" what kind of stupid question is this. I can ask the same question as Why did God add Moses to the equation? God works through people, I would think you should've known this. There is no mediation between God and you. But there is mediation between God's "message" to you. For example Moses gave the message to the Jews. This is mediation. But Jews don't pray to God by Moses, they pray DIRECTLY to God.

Luke 10
25. On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26. "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27. He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' ; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "
28. "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

Read the above verse.

Notice that the man's question was straight forward: "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" No other question can be more straight forward than this!

Notice how Jesus answered this straight forward question: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart......and love your neighbor as yourself......Do this and you will live."

Where does the mediation come from? Amazing that you don't even know your own religion. You must believe in the "message" that Jesus gave. This is kind of the mediation. No mediation is required as to actually praying to God, or other things.

"Christ is not salvation from us, but from God. He belongs to God means his life, his identity, his very being, belongs to God. Do you have the confidence to say that? Can you call God Father?"

BTW everyone belongs to God. We are his creation. Didn't you know that? You think Jesus is God because he called God, "Father". You are literally stupid. Do you go to Church? What do you call the priest? FATHER!. Is he your literal Father? NO!. Please stop asking these stupid questions.

You said your "faith" doesn't lie on Explicit verses. Ok, I got you. Your faith lies on the Entirety of the Bible. Right? So lets see if the Bible is the word of God or not.

"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

Well I don't know what to say, the Bible itself says that the scribes made it into a lie. Oh well. Lets continue a little bit.

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"

Well that sure strenghtens my belief in the Bible. The Gospel of Mark should've ended at 16:8. Where does it end now? You can find out that, yourself.

Now lets move on. You believe that St. John wrote the Book of John. Right? Well lets have a look.

"And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? (From the King James Version Bible, John 1:19)"

"John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; (From the King James Version Bible, John 1:26)"

"For John was not yet cast into prison. (From the King James Version Bible, John 3:24)"

Ok this is confusing. "John answered them". How can he say this. He should've said, "I answered them" if indeed he was the author of the book. This just leads to the fact that John didn't write the book.

Futher more. In 1 John 5:7. The verse says.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1John 5:7 King James Version)

Very explicit. Isn't it? However, as I would later find out, this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. It is now considered as a FABRICATION. Wow! Sure shows the so-called unaltered word of God. Lets not stop here, lets continue.

Below is taken from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm

"IV. TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT

No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author-- all have been in some way altered.[/B] The material conditions under which a book was spread before the invention of printing (1440), the little care of the copyists, correctors, and glossators for the text, so different from the desire of accuracy exhibited to-day, explain sufficiently the divergences we find between various manuscripts of the same work. To these causes may be added, in regard to the Scriptures, exegetical difficulties and dogmatical controversies. To exempt the sacred writings from ordinary conditions a very special providence would have been necessary, and it has not been the will of God to exercise this providence."

Lets just go through that again - "No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author--all have been in some way altered." All have been in some way altered! In view of this blatant admission, how can anyone expect me, or any muslim, to follow an impure book?

Let us not stop and continue.

"Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus," Luke 1:3

First of all you can see he didn't write because of being "inspired" by the Holy Spirit, but because of Theophilus. But there is another interesting part to this story.

The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://newadvent.org/cathen/14625b.htm

http://newadvent.org/cathen/14625a.htm

If Theophilus existed in either the 2nd or the 4th centuries then how could the writer of this gospel be the same Luke who is supposed to be with Jesus in the 1st century.

Maybe he lived to about 200 years..

Let us still continue.

"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus). (Matthew 9:9)"

Did "Matthew" write this about himself? Why then didn't Matthew write for example: "he (Jesus) saw ME, and my name is Matthew. I was sitting at the receipt of custom…" etc.

Let us still continue with this so-called word of God.

There is even similar evidence that at least parts of Deuteronomy were not written by their claimed author, prophet Moses . This can be seen in Deuteronomy 34:5-10 where we read

"So Moses....DIED... and he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses)... He was 120 years old WHEN HE DIED... and there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses....(Deuteronomy 34:5-10)"

Did Moses write his own obituary? Similarly, Joshua too speaks in detail about his own death in Joshua 24:29-33.

"And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, DIED, … And they BURIED HIM … And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that over lived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel ….(Joshua 24:29-33)"

Ok, so you see the people who supposedly wrote these books were not the real authors.

Now lets go to the contradictions.

II Samuel 10:18 talks about David slew the men of 700 chariots of the Syrians and 40,000 horsemen and Shobach the commander.

I Chronicles 1:18 says that David slew the men of 7000 chariots and 40,000 footmen

I Chronicles 9:25 says that Solomon had 4000 stalls for horses and chariots.

I Kings 4:26 says that he had 40,000 stalls for horses

Ezra 2:5 talks about an exile Arah having 775 sons.

Nehemiah 7:10 talks about the same exile Arah having 652 sons.

*Note- Contradictions between Ezra and Nehemiah are enormous, the above is only one example.

II Samuel 24:13 So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?

I Chronicles 21:11 SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

How did Judas die?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matthew 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

Did Michal have any children or not?

2 Samuel 6:23 Therefore MICHAL the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

2 Samuel 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of MICHAL the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to his reign?

2 Kings 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

2 Chronicles 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

Years of the reign of Asa?

26th year of the reign of Asa I Kings 16:6-8

36th year of the reign of Asa I 2 Chronicles 16:1

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

22 in 2 Kings 8:26

42 in 2 Chronicle 22:2

Who was Josiah's successor?

Jehoahaz - 2 Chronicle 36:1

Shallum - Jeremiah 22:11

Therefore I conlude the Bible is NO MORE the Word of God.

Peace be unto you

 

[path]

Here find out what 786 is going to post next answering christianity But god forbid anyone use material from answering islam because that is a hate site

 

[Jenyar]

Luke 10
25. On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26. "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27. He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' ; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "
28. "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"​

He sounds just like you! Always one more backdoor. If you're perfect already, if you understand the Law and apply it perfectly, why ask questions? With that Law, God says: follow me! There's one more example:

Matt.19:
16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
18"Which ones?" the man inquired.
19Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"
20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."​

Read the above verse.

Notice that the man's question was straight forward: "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" No other question can be more straight forward than this!

Notice how Jesus answered this straight forward question: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart......and love your neighbor as yourself......Do this and you will live."

Where does the mediation come from? Amazing that you don't even know your own religion. You must believe in the "message" that Jesus gave. This is kind of the mediation. No mediation is required as to actually praying to God, or other things.

But you have no idea what the message was. You are so intent on discrediting Jesus' words that thee isn't much of the message left, not to mention the implication of his words.

... think Jesus' words had a special political meaning, and that they refer to a view expressed by the zealots who wanted to exclude dissenters from the command of love by such teaching as is found in Abot R. N. xvi., ed. Schechter, p. 64: "Thou shalt not say, I love the sages but hate the disciples, or I love the students of the Law but hate the 'am ha-are [ignoramuses]; thou shalt love all, but hate the heretics ["minim"], the apostates, and the informers. So does the command, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,' refer only to those that act as one of thy people; but if they act not accordingly, thou needst not love them." Against this exclusive principle, Jesus asserted the principle of brotherly love as applied by the liberal school of Hillel to all men. - JewishEncyclopedia: Brotherly Love​

Jesus' answer was exactly what the experts of the law believed: the sum of the Law. And they knew Jesus would answer that, because he had another question ready: who was his neighbour? Only other Jews, only other Christians, only other Muslims? Then Jesus told him what those laws meant in practice. More than that, he implied that the expert was the one in need, and that his most hated enemies, the Samaritans, are his neighbour.

Jesus is telling me, Jenyar, that Muslims are my neigbours - that I should love them. He is telling you, 786, that Christians are your neighbours. Do you love them?

Would the expert of the law be able to do what it takes, let go of his prejudices and prized possessions and actually follow the commandments - follow God? Maybe... But Jesus came for those who couldn't - who were making themselves guilty of everything but divine love - those who weren't perfectly able to follow the laws, who barely knew this God of Israel or his justice.

Are we "good"? Will God consider us good if only He is good? Will He ever consider us perfect, and if sin makes us less than perfect, how will we ever inherit the eternal life God promised?

And path is right. You're not interested in the solution, only the problem. It feels like I'm talking to a website. You haven't answered my question:

Why don't you call God Father?

 

[Jenyar]

786, Maybe a practical example of Jesus' use of the Law would help you understand what He meant with "love thy neighbour":

"O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty. (The Noble Quran, 2:178)"

As to the Palestinian suicide bombers today, the religious leaders of the Islamic organizations inside Palestine made it very clear that they are giving the verdict (fatwa) to kill the civilian Jews inside Israel, because (1) the Jews are killing civilians from us; (2) the Jews are building more settlements and are not withdrawing from the lands that they were not supposed to be in since 1991; and (3) the Jews are all armed and dangerous and their civilians do use their weapons against the unarmed Palestinian civilians.

So my answer would be, may Allah Almighty bless our Muslim brothers and sisters in Palestine and grant the Highest Levels of Paradise to its Suicide Bombers.
- Answering Christianity.com: Suicide Bombers​

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5)

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
- Jesus speaking to everyone​

Do you still think no mediator is required? Certainly, God forgives our sins. But what of justice?

 

[786]

786, Maybe a practical example of Jesus' use of the Law would help you understand what He meant with "love thy neighbour":

As to the Palestinian suicide bombers today, the religious leaders of the Islamic organizations inside Palestine made it very clear that they are giving the verdict (fatwa) to kill the civilian Jews inside Israel, because (1) the Jews are killing civilians from us; (2) the Jews are building more settlements and are not withdrawing from the lands that they were not supposed to be in since 1991; and (3) the Jews are all armed and dangerous and their civilians do use their weapons against the unarmed Palestinian civilians.

So my answer would be, may Allah Almighty bless our Muslim brothers and sisters in Palestine and grant the Highest Levels of Paradise to its Suicide Bombers.
- Answering Christianity.com: Suicide Bombers​

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
- Jesus speaking to everyone​

Do you still think no mediator is required? Certainly, God forgives our sins. But what of justice?

Why are you turning to Islam, when my questions were about Christianity. But ohwell, I will answer your questions.

First question is about the Suicide Bombers. Well if you have read the Quran, which I think you haven't, there is a verse that says "do not be oppressed and do not oppress". What is happening in Israel and Palestine? Palestinians are being oppressed by the Israelis. So the Palestinians have the right to fight them. Although I don't know about people bombing clubs and stuff, but people fighting the Army would Inshallah enter in heaven.

Second question is if we need a mediator. Answer, No!
I have another question about this. The people who were living at the time of Moses had to follow the Ten Commandments, right? But now when Jesus gets crucified you are saved. You people get the easy way out. Now how is this Justice? The early Jews had to follow the law strictly but you don't have to do anything and just have faith in Jesus? This is in not even close to Fair, or JUSTICE.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Here find out what 786 is going to post next answering christianity But god forbid anyone use material from answering islam because that is a hate site

Path-I guess I accidently copied his comments. I was only going to copy the verse from the Bible.

In the case of plagarizing. [Isaiah 37] and [2 Kings 19] are identical word for word. But they are attributed to two different authors, who have lived at different times. Palagrizism in God's book?

Jenyar- you think that Bible is the word of God and it is inspired by God. Just answer 1 question.

How did Judas die?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matthew 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

Did Michal have any children or not?

2 Samuel 6:23 Therefore MICHAL the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

2 Samuel 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of MICHAL the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.

Sons of Arah?
Ezra 2:5 talks about an exile Arah having 775 sons.

Nehemiah 7:10 talks about the same exile Arah having 652 sons.

*Note above are not the question, below is the question I want you to answer?

These are just few of many. But my question to you is:

Jenyar if Bible is the Word of God, then why are there contradictions?

Peace be unto you

 

[Jenyar]

Why are you turning to Islam, when my questions were about Christianity. But ohwell, I will answer your questions.

In order to make the discussion relevant and less one-sided. If you won't judge yourself with the same measure you judge Christianity, you are being prejudiced and can learn nothing.

First question is about the Suicide Bombers. Well if you have read the Quran, which I think you haven't, there is a verse that says "do not be oppressed and do not oppress". What is happening in Israel and Palestine? Palestinians are being oppressed by the Israelis. So the Palestinians have the right to fight them. Although I don't know about people bombing clubs and stuff, but people fighting the Army would Inshallah enter in heaven.

So the violence becomes justified. And it stays violent. Killing continues. Just retaliation against just retaliation. Eyes for eyes until everyone is blind. What happens when justice doesn't serve the ends of justice anymore?

You send in a mediator. An arbiter - a voice of reason. Not to delay justice or deny it, but to give it meaning again:

Second question is if we need a mediator. Answer, No!

No? Shall the killing that started with Cain continue? Shall every death be avenged by man until there are no men left to avenge?

Who forgives first?

When?

I have another question about this. The people who were living at the time of Moses had to follow the Ten Commandments, right? But now when Jesus gets crucified you are saved. You people get the easy way out. Now how is this Justice? The early Jews had to follow the law strictly but you don't have to do anything and just have faith in Jesus? This is in not even close to Fair, or JUSTICE.

They were forgiven, but justice was delayed. Their faith was vindicated by God even before they knew the means of their vindication or the nature of the sacrifice.

We don't get saved because Jesus was crucified. We are saved because we share in his crucifixion, his faith in God. God payed the price and bought us dearly so that we could belong to Him even while we were still sinners. Jesus is the signature at the bottom of the will. A will is only paid out after death. We could only inherit eternal life after the one to whom it was made out to had died.

We lost our inheritance when we sinned, we could not fulfilled the requirements to remain children. Death owned us. Like it own every man, woman and child in Palestine - because of the requirements of justice. It doesn't matter who struck first anymore. God intervened by becoming death for us, catching us in the fall. Not only forgiving, but fulfilling the ends of justice as well. "Nobody escapes God's judgment".

Do you understand this?

Now for the petty bickering:

In the case of plagarizing. [Isaiah 37] and [2 Kings 19] are identical word for word. Yet they have been attributed to two different authors, centuries apart, whom the Christians claim have been inspired by God. This is called plagarizing. But the intersting part is that God plagarized someone else's writings. This is really funny.

God plagiarized from himself? even when God's message is repeated and repeated, but the source is acknowledged, it's far from plagiarism. God licensed certain people with his owrds - that's why we call them prophets. Ask me, I work for a publisher.

If Bible is the Word of God, then why are there the above contradictions?

If you are a son of God, like Jesus. Why don't you know for sure that you will be resurrected like He did? Isn't God your Father, too? We are both creations of God. Why are we opposing each other?

The answers are all similar:
a) Judas died - different accounts of the same thing.
b) Saul had two daughters, Merab and Michal. One had children the other not. We can conclude it was a copyist error. Fortunately we have both versions today - just think of all the wars could have caused!
c) Maybe we should add them up and divide by two. Would you like to count that many sons, and when were they counted? Again, it's lucky we have both numbers, or we might only have only known the wrong one!

786 I know your purpose is to discredit the Bible as God's Word, but pointing to petty differences about one thing isn't the way to do it. If you really have a contradiction that throws doubt on the integrity of everything God did, then you have my undivided attention. Maybe you should ask yourself again: what makes God's creation God's creation - the differences or the similarities? If I am white and another person is black, do we contradict being human?

Don't you think God can preserve what He considers important? Don't you think it's worth preserving what's important, and not worry that much about contradicting yourself every now and again? God's word is something He doesn't go back on. I don't think God spends his time checking that his people got the count of Arah's sons right, remembers it and continues to get it right every time they have to copy what He really wants to get across.

His promises stand, his warnings stand, his justice, salvation and Kingdom, all stand forever. Consider what you're opposing before you try to discredit the people doing God's work.

 

[786]

If you are a son of God, like Jesus. Why don't you know for sure that you will be resurrected like He did? Isn't God your Father, too? We are both creations of God. Why are we opposing each other?

The answers are all similar:
a) Judas died - different accounts of the same thing.
b) Saul had two daughters, Merab and Michal. One had children the other not. We can conclude it was a copyist error. Fortunately we have both versions today - just think of all the wars could have caused!
c) Maybe we should add them up and divide by two. Would you like to count that many sons, and when were they counted? Again, it's lucky we have both numbers, or we might only have only known the wrong one!

786 I know your purpose is to discredit the Bible as God's Word, but pointing to petty differences about one thing isn't the way to do it. If you really have a contradiction that throws doubt on the integrity of everything God did, then you have my undivided attention. Maybe you should ask yourself again: what makes God's creation God's creation - the differences or the similarities? If I am white and another person is black, do we contradict being human?

Don't you think God can preserve what He considers important? Don't you think it's worth preserving what's important, and not worry that much about contradicting yourself every now and again? God's word is something He doesn't go back on. I don't think God spends his time checking that his people got the count of Arah's sons right, remembers it and continues to get it right every time they have to copy what He really wants to get across.

His promises stand, his warnings stand, his justice, salvation and Kingdom, all stand forever. Consider what you're opposing before you try to discredit the people doing God's work.

As to the part of Palestine. I ask you if China starts bombing America. What is America going to do? Sit and watch, or attack back? This is no different from the situation of Palestine.

Now to the contradiction part.

You said. 'Judas died - different accounts of the same thing.'. Which account is correct? He hanged himself or did he fall and die? It is your belief that the authors of the books were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Then how could they write different things?

You said-"Saul had two daughters, Merab and Michal. One had children the other not. We can conclude it was a copyist error. Fortunately we have both versions today - just think of all the wars could have caused!"

So you admit that the Bible has been altered. If you read the verses it explicitly states that Michal had no children, but on the other hand the other verse says Michal had 5 sons. Did the "Holy Spirit" forgot how many children Michal had? BTW which one is correct?

You said. 'Maybe we should add them up and divide by two. Would you like to count that many sons, and when were they counted? Again, it's lucky we have both numbers, or we might only have only known the wrong one!'

Which number is right? So you have the wrong and the right numbers? Do you know which one is right? Weren't the authors inspired by the Holy Spirit. Then how could they get it wrong?

If you look at your answers then you will notice that you are actually accepting that there are some things "altered" in the Bible. Then how do you know which part is true, and which is not?

We are talking about God here. You are willing to DIE for the belief. So your belief lies on guesses, on which is true and which is not?

What I am trying to show you is that the Bible has been altered. The original message of Jesus has been changed. There are even doubts about the authors of the books. DOUBTS! Your whole belief lies on Doubts. Is that how the Word of God is preserved?

That is just pathetic.

Peace be unto you

 

[path]

Path-I guess I accidently copied his comments. I was only going to copy the verse from the Bible.

You are a fake, I did a search on the comments in your posts and found it. When will you start using your own brain and stop being a parrot? There is nothing wrong with questioning anothers beliefs but go find yourself an online bible on a christian site and use that, that way you at least get the content correct and find contradictions on your own. Try infidels.org for annotated bible and quran at least that is a third party.

 

[786]

You are a fake, I did a search on the comments in your posts and found it. When will you start using your own brain and stop being a parrot? There is nothing wrong with questioning anothers beliefs but go find yourself an online bible on a christian site and use that, that way you at least get the content correct and find contradictions on your own. Try infidels.org for annotated bible and quran at least that is a third party.

I didn't present the contradictions without reading the actual verses. And to my amazement the contradictions are really there. I have read the verses from www.gospelcom.net

Peace be unto you

 

[path]

I didn't present the contradictions without reading the actual verses. And to my amazement the contradictions are really there. I have read the verses from www.gospelcom.net

Peace be unto you

Why don't you link and post the verses from there then it will be more credible.

 

[786]

Well I don't think I needed to but Path here are the verses taken directly from www.gospelcom.net. The version is NIV.

"So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself". (Matthew 27:5)

"With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."(Acts 1:18)

There are two contradictions between the two verses.
1. Judas threw the money in the temple in the first verse. In the second verse Judas bought a field.

2. Judas hanged himself and died in the first verse. In the second verse Judas fell headlong and died.

"And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death." (2 Samuel 6:23)

"But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah's daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab, whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite." (2 Samuel 21:8)

In the second verse, it is said Merab. But in the footnotes it says that most ancient manuscripts say Michal. So therefore Michal should be in the verse instead of Merab.

Now the contradiction is that in the first verse Michal had no children, in the second verse Michal (shouldn't be Merab) has 5 sons.

"of Arah 775" (Ezra 2:5)

"of Arah 652" (Nehemiah 7)

The contradiction is that in the "SAME" exile the chapter of Ezra reports that the descendants of Arah were 775 but in the chapter of Nehemiah it reports 652.

So as we can see that the Bible is not the "inerrant" book, which some people suppose. And that it has contradictions, which through you can conclude that it is not the word of God.

Some people say that it is the copyist error. But then we do NOT know what is the truth, so it excludes Bible of being the Word of God.

Peace be unto you

 

[path]

Well I don't think I needed to but Path here are the verses taken directly from www.gospelcom.net. The version is NIV.

"So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself". (Matthew 27:5)

"With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."(Acts 1:18)

There are two contradictions between the two verses.
1. Judas threw the money in the temple in the first verse. In the second verse Judas bought a field.

2. Judas hanged himself and died in the first verse. In the second verse Judas fell headlong and died.

"And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death." (2 Samuel 6:23)

"But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah's daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab, whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite." (2 Samuel 21:8)

In the second verse, it is said Merab. But in the footnotes it says that most ancient manuscripts say Michal. So therefore Michal should be in the verse instead of Merab.

Now the contradiction is that in the first verse Michal had no children, in the second verse Michal (shouldn't be Merab) has 5 sons.

"of Arah 775" (Ezra 2:5)

"of Arah 652" (Nehemiah 7)

The contradiction is that in the "SAME" exile the chapter of Ezra reports that the descendants of Arah were 775 but in the chapter of Nehemiah it reports 652.

So as we can see that the Bible is not the "inerrant" book, which some people suppose. And that it has contradictions, which through you can conclude that it is not the word of God.

Some people say that it is the copyist error. But then we do NOT know what is the truth, so it excludes Bible of being the Word of God.

Peace be unto you

No you misunderstood me I didn't want any definitions from you because I believe the bible and quran are both manmade accounts of formalized mythology (does the mightiest being in the cosmos instruct you on how to wipe your ass ).
I was simply pointing out the falseness of the way you were going about trying to make your point.