is Jesus God?

[mule]

Is Jesus God?
The bible testifies to the fact that Jesus Christ is God. He is God the son, the second person of the trinity. By nature Jesus Christ is not only a man he is God.

Here is a compiled list of why and where the bible claims that Jesus is Jehovah God.


<font color="#OOOOFF"> 1. Jesus is omniscient (all knowing). That means Jesus knows everything from how many hairs are on your head to how many grains of sand there are in the sea. </font>

Colossians 2:2-3 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;

Col 2:3. In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

<font color="#OOOOFF">2. Jesus is omnipotent (all powerful). Nothing is too hard for him. </font>

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
3. Jesus is omnipresent (present everywhere).

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, There am I in the midst of them.

<font color="#OOOOFF"> 4. He is not a God. He is not an angel. He is THE only God of the universe and beyond. He is called the Word. </font>

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Isaiah 43:10 Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me there is no God.

<font color="#OOOOFF">5. As God he has no beginning. He is everlasting.</font>

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

<font color="#OOOOFF">6.God says he is the first and the last</font>

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.

Isa 41:4 Who hath wrought and done [it], calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I [am] he.


<font color="#OOOOFF"> 7.He is the first and the last. He is before and after time. </font>


Revelation 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;


<font color="#OOOOFF">8. God says he made all things himself. </font>

Is. 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

[mule]

<font color="#OOOOFF">9.The bible says that Jesus Christ created everything. </font>


John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

Eph. 3:9 And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Col. 1:15-16 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

<font color="#OOOOFF"> 10.The bible says that only God is the savior: </font>

Is. 43:11 I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour.

Is. 45:21 Tell ye, and bring [them] near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? [who] hath told it from that time? [have] not I the LORD? and [there is] no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; [there is] none beside me.

Hosea 13:4 Yet I [am] the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for [there is] no saviour beside me.

Titus 1:3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

Titus 1:4 To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

<font color="#OOOOFF">11. Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. </font>

1Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,....

<font color="#OOOOFF">12. He is named God by the bible. </font>

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shalt be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, THE everlasting father, The Prince of Peace.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

<font color="#OOOOFF"> 13. Jesus is named God by his disciples.</font>

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

<font color="#OOOOFF"> 14. Father God himself names him God. </font>

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.

[mule]

<font color="#OOOOFF">9.The bible says that Jesus Christ created everything. </font>


John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

Eph. 3:9 And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Col. 1:15-16 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

<font color="#OOOOFF"> 10.The bible says that only God is the savior: </font>

Is. 43:11 I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour.

Is. 45:21 Tell ye, and bring [them] near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? [who] hath told it from that time? [have] not I the LORD? and [there is] no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; [there is] none beside me.

Hosea 13:4 Yet I [am] the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for [there is] no saviour beside me.

Titus 1:3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

Titus 1:4 To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

<font color="#OOOOFF">11. Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. </font>

1Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,....

<font color="#OOOOFF">12. He is named God by the bible. </font>

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shalt be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, THE everlasting father, The Prince of Peace.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

<font color="#OOOOFF"> 13. Jesus is named God by his disciples.</font>

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

<font color="#OOOOFF"> 14. Father God himself names him God. </font>

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.

[mule]

<font color="#OOOOFF">15. He himself even claims to be God. </font>

John 10:30-33 I and my Father are one.

31.Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32.Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33. The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy ; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

18. T herefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

<font color="#OOOOFF">16. Jesus tells us to only worship God. </font>

Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

<font color="#OOOOFF"> 17. He was worshipped as God by wise men. </font>

Matthew 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

<font color="#OOOOFF">18. People of the bible worship Jesus. </font>

Matthew 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Mat 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Mat 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

Mat 9:18 While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.

Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

Mar 5:6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,

Luk 24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

Jhn 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

<font color="#OOOOFF">19. Angels with the approval of God the Father worship him. </font>

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

<font color="#OOOOFF"> 20. As God Jesus is prayed to. </font>

Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

[mule]

<font color="#OOOOFF">15. He himself even claims to be God. </font>

John 10:30-33 I and my Father are one.

31.Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32.Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33. The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy ; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

18. T herefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

<font color="#OOOOFF">16. Jesus tells us to only worship God. </font>

Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

<font color="#OOOOFF"> 17. He was worshipped as God by wise men. </font>

Matthew 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

<font color="#OOOOFF">18. People of the bible worship Jesus. </font>

Matthew 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Mat 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Mat 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

Mat 9:18 While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.

Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

Mar 5:6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,

Luk 24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

Jhn 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

<font color="#OOOOFF">19. Angels with the approval of God the Father worship him. </font>

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

<font color="#OOOOFF"> 20. As God Jesus is prayed to. </font>

Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

[mule]

The bible plainly shows that Jesus Christ is Jehovah God. Jesus Christ is God the Son, the second person of the trinity. He holds all the attributes of God. He is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), and omnipresent (present everywhere). He has no beginning. He is named God by disciples, the bible, and Father God. Jesus Christ is worshipped as God. He is prayed to as God.
The holy bible gives a solid testimony that Jesus Christ is almighty God. It is impossible to read the bible and say that Jesus is not God. He is not only a man he is Jehovah God.

If you are unsure of the verses I have a web bible I can give you the link so that you may read each of the examples in context.

Cheers,
MULE

[mule]

The bible plainly shows that Jesus Christ is Jehovah God. Jesus Christ is God the Son, the second person of the trinity. He holds all the attributes of God. He is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), and omnipresent (present everywhere). He has no beginning. He is named God by disciples, the bible, and Father God. Jesus Christ is worshipped as God. He is prayed to as God.
The holy bible gives a solid testimony that Jesus Christ is almighty God. It is impossible to read the bible and say that Jesus is not God. He is not only a man he is Jehovah God.

If you are unsure of the verses I have a web bible I can give you the link so that you may read each of the examples in context.

Cheers,
MULE

[Vajradhara]

Namaste mule,

er... are you wanting some type of discussion regarding this topic?

i'm sure you are aware that, for people that do not believe the Bible to be correct, posting verses from it do nothing to pursuade.



~compassionately~

[Vajradhara]

Namaste mule,

er... are you wanting some type of discussion regarding this topic?

i'm sure you are aware that, for people that do not believe the Bible to be correct, posting verses from it do nothing to pursuade.



~compassionately~

[mule]

Ronnie wanted them. I offered to email them to Ronnie and he said to post them.

Anyways haven't you ever heard that the Lord word never returns to him void.

Do the verses bother you?

MULE

[mule]

Ronnie wanted them. I offered to email them to Ronnie and he said to post them.

Anyways haven't you ever heard that the Lord word never returns to him void.

Do the verses bother you?

MULE

[mule]

By the verses how do they claim Jesus is?

[mule]

By the verses how do they claim Jesus is?

[The Steadfast]

STOP WITH THE VERSES.... i don't believe in Jesus because a book tells me to....

[The Steadfast]

STOP WITH THE VERSES.... i don't believe in Jesus because a book tells me to....

[Darkyl]

Peace Vajradhara,

<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="1">
i'm sure you are aware that, for people that do not believe the Bible to be correct, posting verses from it do nothing to pursuade.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT>

Well they don't believe the Bible is correct, but they can believe the Bible says Jesus is God.

Some muslims here pointed that not even the Bible says that Jesus is God, I think mule here is trying to convince them of the contrary.

[Darkyl]

Peace Vajradhara,

<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="1">
i'm sure you are aware that, for people that do not believe the Bible to be correct, posting verses from it do nothing to pursuade.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT>

Well they don't believe the Bible is correct, but they can believe the Bible says Jesus is God.

Some muslims here pointed that not even the Bible says that Jesus is God, I think mule here is trying to convince them of the contrary.

[Darkyl]

Peace Steadfast,

<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="1">
i don't believe in Jesus because a book tells me to....
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT>

no offence, but I think that you do.
Of course there are other concurring factors, but the Bible is an essential one.

Peace

[Darkyl]

Peace Steadfast,

<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="1">
i don't believe in Jesus because a book tells me to....
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT>

no offence, but I think that you do.
Of course there are other concurring factors, but the Bible is an essential one.

Peace

[mule]

Ronnie inquired on whether Jesus was God was in the bible. I asked if I could email them and he said no- that I should post them.

MULE

[mule]

Ronnie inquired on whether Jesus was God was in the bible. I asked if I could email them and he said no- that I should post them.

MULE

[Ronnie]

Peace All,

Yes I did inquire about where in the Bible does Jesus say he is God. However, trying to go point by point would lead to an endless debate as many of the verses are interpreted to say Jesus is God. My point is that it can all be explained away (it's a task). Honestly, from what I know about Christianity, Jesus is not God because he is represented as such in the Bible but rather that came later with the development of Christian theology. I'm only going by historical information that I have come across. You read the Holy Bible and see that Jesus is God, I read it and never see that.

Regards

[Ronnie]

Peace All,

Yes I did inquire about where in the Bible does Jesus say he is God. However, trying to go point by point would lead to an endless debate as many of the verses are interpreted to say Jesus is God. My point is that it can all be explained away (it's a task). Honestly, from what I know about Christianity, Jesus is not God because he is represented as such in the Bible but rather that came later with the development of Christian theology. I'm only going by historical information that I have come across. You read the Holy Bible and see that Jesus is God, I read it and never see that.

Regards

[mule]

Did you look at them? I worked on them this afternoon.
Jesus being God is in the Old testament. It is not evolved.

MULE

[mule]

Did you look at them? I worked on them this afternoon.
Jesus being God is in the Old testament. It is not evolved.

MULE

[Ronnie]

Peace Mule,

Because you put your hard work into this and it is a nice presentation I will offer what little I have according to my understanding.

All things related to the worship of Jesus can be explained as a sign of respect. In Japan they bow, in parts (maybe all) of the Middle East to kiss the back of the hand is to honor a person. This could be how the Bible is using the word "worship" when it relates to Jesus. From the Blue Letter Bible:

Worship (proskuneo {pros-koo-neh'-o} -

1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence

2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence

3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication

a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
1) to the Jewish high priests
2) to God
3) to Christ
4) to heavenly beings
5) to demons

from 4314 and a probable derivative of 2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand)

You interpret it as praying, I would interpret it as being a show of respect. You would agree according to this information that all the verses regarding worshipping Christ are not explicit statements of his God-ship?

So points 16-19, imho, do not bolster your argument. We can at least agree that the interpretation can swing either way.

Regards

[Ronnie]

Peace Mule,

Because you put your hard work into this and it is a nice presentation I will offer what little I have according to my understanding.

All things related to the worship of Jesus can be explained as a sign of respect. In Japan they bow, in parts (maybe all) of the Middle East to kiss the back of the hand is to honor a person. This could be how the Bible is using the word "worship" when it relates to Jesus. From the Blue Letter Bible:

Worship (proskuneo {pros-koo-neh'-o} -

1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence

2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence

3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication

a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
1) to the Jewish high priests
2) to God
3) to Christ
4) to heavenly beings
5) to demons

from 4314 and a probable derivative of 2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand)

You interpret it as praying, I would interpret it as being a show of respect. You would agree according to this information that all the verses regarding worshipping Christ are not explicit statements of his God-ship?

So points 16-19, imho, do not bolster your argument. We can at least agree that the interpretation can swing either way.

Regards

[The Steadfast]

Jesus is the Son of god.... the human embodiment of god.... he is 100% human and 100% divine..... now god himself isnt a man....and the holy spirit is the will of god on earth.....

mule~ if Jesus and god were exactly the same.... than jesus wouldnt have prayed to his father.....

I learned about the Jesus in the Bible but why i believe in him today is through personal pray and experiences.....but hey.... what right do you have to tell me why i believe in what i do???

[The Steadfast]

Jesus is the Son of god.... the human embodiment of god.... he is 100% human and 100% divine..... now god himself isnt a man....and the holy spirit is the will of god on earth.....

mule~ if Jesus and god were exactly the same.... than jesus wouldnt have prayed to his father.....

I learned about the Jesus in the Bible but why i believe in him today is through personal pray and experiences.....but hey.... what right do you have to tell me why i believe in what i do???

[Darkyl]

Peace Steadfast,

I apologize if what I said offended you.

I was simply pointing out that the Bible (since mule was quoting it) is an essential element to believe in Jesus, even without ever reading the Bible.

Peace

[Darkyl]

Peace Steadfast,

I apologize if what I said offended you.

I was simply pointing out that the Bible (since mule was quoting it) is an essential element to believe in Jesus, even without ever reading the Bible.

Peace

[mule]

Steadfast,

Ronnie asked for one side of the coin. I know that he was 100%man also. I have the verses that say that.

Ronnie,

Have you ever been a Jehovah's Witness? They wiggle also.


Jhn 5:23 That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.


1Jo 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].

Cheers,
Mule

Where is Believer? I am about ready to hand over the hot seat.

[mule]

Steadfast,

Ronnie asked for one side of the coin. I know that he was 100%man also. I have the verses that say that.

Ronnie,

Have you ever been a Jehovah's Witness? They wiggle also.


Jhn 5:23 That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.


1Jo 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].

Cheers,
Mule

Where is Believer? I am about ready to hand over the hot seat.

[Believer]

Peace all,

"mule~ if Jesus and god were exactly the same.... than jesus wouldnt have prayed to his father....."

Steadfast, Jesus was showing subservience His Father who sent Him. It is not by Jesus's will that He was to die for our sins, but the Father's will. Do you understand?


Blessings

[Believer]

Peace all,

"mule~ if Jesus and god were exactly the same.... than jesus wouldnt have prayed to his father....."

Steadfast, Jesus was showing subservience His Father who sent Him. It is not by Jesus's will that He was to die for our sins, but the Father's will. Do you understand?


Blessings

[Ronnie]

Mule,

"Have you ever been a Jehovah's Witness? They wiggle also.

No. I don't get what you mean by the wiggle thing. What are you implying? I thought we were having a good dialog, no?

The verses you provided regarding the son thing don't prove Jesus' God-ship. A Muslim can easily say that if a person denies Muhammad (and his message) then that means they are denying God. Not that that equates the two but that believing in one is collary to the other. I see it as being that simple. Can we agree on this?

Also, can we agree on what I said about "worship" and the various ways it can be used? I'd rather have these answers before I move on to the other verses.

Regards

P.S. If I have offended you or anyone in anyway do let me know and I will apologize.

[Ronnie]

Mule,

"Have you ever been a Jehovah's Witness? They wiggle also.

No. I don't get what you mean by the wiggle thing. What are you implying? I thought we were having a good dialog, no?

The verses you provided regarding the son thing don't prove Jesus' God-ship. A Muslim can easily say that if a person denies Muhammad (and his message) then that means they are denying God. Not that that equates the two but that believing in one is collary to the other. I see it as being that simple. Can we agree on this?

Also, can we agree on what I said about "worship" and the various ways it can be used? I'd rather have these answers before I move on to the other verses.

Regards

P.S. If I have offended you or anyone in anyway do let me know and I will apologize.

[Believer]

Peace Ronnie,

And to Christians, if you deby Christ as Lords, you deny God.
And you follow a different Jesus Christ.
To us, your Isa al-Masiah is no different from the Mormon Christ, or the JW Christ.

Blessings

[Believer]

Peace Ronnie,

And to Christians, if you deby Christ as Lords, you deny God.
And you follow a different Jesus Christ.
To us, your Isa al-Masiah is no different from the Mormon Christ, or the JW Christ.

Blessings

[mule]

Ronnie,
Do not worry about offending me. I smile a lot. I am sorry if I offended you.
When I have debated the Jw they are very tuff. When I believe that there is no way that they can not see what I believe they find an alternative route. If that makes sense. They even have used the same argument.

Jhn 5:23 That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

when you honour Mohammed do you honour him in the same way as you do God?

This verse says that to honour Jesus you must honour Jesus the same way you honour God the Father.

Matthew 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Mat 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

I find it hard to believe that they would not be worshipping him as God Almighty if they are calling him Son of God and holding him by the feet. How else can I take this? When I greet someone I do not ever hold them by the feet.

Cheers,
MULE

[mule]

Ronnie,
Do not worry about offending me. I smile a lot. I am sorry if I offended you.
When I have debated the Jw they are very tuff. When I believe that there is no way that they can not see what I believe they find an alternative route. If that makes sense. They even have used the same argument.

Jhn 5:23 That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

when you honour Mohammed do you honour him in the same way as you do God?

This verse says that to honour Jesus you must honour Jesus the same way you honour God the Father.

Matthew 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Mat 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

I find it hard to believe that they would not be worshipping him as God Almighty if they are calling him Son of God and holding him by the feet. How else can I take this? When I greet someone I do not ever hold them by the feet.

Cheers,
MULE

[Ronnie]

Mule,

Keep smiling :) No offense at all, I thought maybe I said something wrong. I understand what you mean about the JW's, they and the Mormons come by to chat every once in a while. It's fun and respectful. Sometimes it's just hard for two or more people to look at the same thing and see it the same way. But in the pursuit of Truth one has to attempt to put forth their viewpoint and attempt to understand other's.

You wrote:

"Jhn 5:23 That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

when you honour Mohammed do you honour him in the same way as you do God?

This verse says that to honour Jesus you must honour Jesus the same way you honour God the Father.

See my problem is that you are qualifying what is being said. In return I can qualify it and say it does not mean the "same." It could simply have to do with the reverence of Jesus as a collolary reverence of God. Sort of like if you don't accept Jesus then you don't accept God. But does that make the two equal? I would say no.

You wrote:

Matthew 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Mat 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

I find it hard to believe that they would not be worshipping him as God Almighty if they are calling him Son of God and holding him by the feet. How else can I take this? When I greet someone I do not ever hold them by the feet."

I think you accept this as being "worship" in the prayer sense because of your pre-beliefs (I made that up I think). What I mean is that you already believe Jesus is God therefore this would make sense to you. However, I have already shown that this custom is not strange in many parts of the world. Were not the Jewish priests treated in the same way? I think you gotta' gimmie this one ;)

Regards

[Ronnie]

Mule,

Keep smiling :) No offense at all, I thought maybe I said something wrong. I understand what you mean about the JW's, they and the Mormons come by to chat every once in a while. It's fun and respectful. Sometimes it's just hard for two or more people to look at the same thing and see it the same way. But in the pursuit of Truth one has to attempt to put forth their viewpoint and attempt to understand other's.

You wrote:

"Jhn 5:23 That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

when you honour Mohammed do you honour him in the same way as you do God?

This verse says that to honour Jesus you must honour Jesus the same way you honour God the Father.

See my problem is that you are qualifying what is being said. In return I can qualify it and say it does not mean the "same." It could simply have to do with the reverence of Jesus as a collolary reverence of God. Sort of like if you don't accept Jesus then you don't accept God. But does that make the two equal? I would say no.

You wrote:

Matthew 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Mat 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

I find it hard to believe that they would not be worshipping him as God Almighty if they are calling him Son of God and holding him by the feet. How else can I take this? When I greet someone I do not ever hold them by the feet."

I think you accept this as being "worship" in the prayer sense because of your pre-beliefs (I made that up I think). What I mean is that you already believe Jesus is God therefore this would make sense to you. However, I have already shown that this custom is not strange in many parts of the world. Were not the Jewish priests treated in the same way? I think you gotta' gimmie this one ;)

Regards

[mule]

John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

18. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

[/b]
Mat 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.


when the Jews said that Jesus was the Son of God it was not meant as one in purpose. In this instance it meant deity. So why wouldn't I take this as worship?

In the old testament some of the Jewish Judges were called gods. The bible says the by nature there is but one God and that only him are we to worship.

Since it plainly says that Jesus is God I can read it very plainly.

Cheers,
mule

[mule]

John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

18. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

[/b]
Mat 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.


when the Jews said that Jesus was the Son of God it was not meant as one in purpose. In this instance it meant deity. So why wouldn't I take this as worship?

In the old testament some of the Jewish Judges were called gods. The bible says the by nature there is but one God and that only him are we to worship.

Since it plainly says that Jesus is God I can read it very plainly.

Cheers,
mule

[mule]

Hey Ronnie,
See how stubborn I can be? I am very well named, I think.
Cheers,
MULE

[mule]

Hey Ronnie,
See how stubborn I can be? I am very well named, I think.
Cheers,
MULE

[Ronnie]

Yes I see ;) Just kidding. If it said what you claim I would agree. But quite I honestly what I see is that the Jews accused him of such a thing not that Jesus claimed that for himself. See my point? Jesus wasn't saying I'm the son of God therefore I am God. You have taken two unrelated verses our of their context to try to support the concept.

Wouldn't life just be easier if Jesus said, "I am God, worship me"? Or something more explicit? But then I guess we wouldn't having be this discussion...or would we...hmmm... ;)

Regards

[Ronnie]

Yes I see ;) Just kidding. If it said what you claim I would agree. But quite I honestly what I see is that the Jews accused him of such a thing not that Jesus claimed that for himself. See my point? Jesus wasn't saying I'm the son of God therefore I am God. You have taken two unrelated verses our of their context to try to support the concept.

Wouldn't life just be easier if Jesus said, "I am God, worship me"? Or something more explicit? But then I guess we wouldn't having be this discussion...or would we...hmmm... ;)

Regards

[Believer]

Peace Ronnie,


"Wouldn't life just be easier if Jesus said" I am God, worship me"?"

Yes, and if Jesus broke frrr off that cross with 100000 angels--that would make it alot easier to believe.
But Christ humbled Himself, ultamitely to teach us how God want us
to be. <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>


You doing great job, Mule. <img src=icon_smile_cool.gif border=0 align=middle>

Blessings

[Believer]

Peace Ronnie,


"Wouldn't life just be easier if Jesus said" I am God, worship me"?"

Yes, and if Jesus broke frrr off that cross with 100000 angels--that would make it alot easier to believe.
But Christ humbled Himself, ultamitely to teach us how God want us
to be. <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>


You doing great job, Mule. <img src=icon_smile_cool.gif border=0 align=middle>

Blessings

[ihsan]

Actually, the charge of blasphemy was what the Jews were trying to label on Jesus (AS). They even accused him of calling himself the son of God, to which he replied:

"Is it not written in your law, "I said you are gods?" If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, do you say of him whom the Father has consecrated and sent to the world, "You are blaspheming" because I said "I am the son of God."

(John 10:34)

Jesus (AS) is actually referring to Psalms 82:1, 6-7. What is obviously clear is that the Jews were twisting the words of Jesus to try and accuse him of blasphemy, i.e. to put a halt to his message of proclaiming the kingdom of God, and at the same time lambasting the rabbis for their corruption. Jesus (AS) was very sharp in his usage of parables, such that even the manipulation by the Pharisees of his words could not stain him.

The example of the adulterer, and "He who has sinned, let him cast the first stone" was a response to the claim of the Israelites that Jesus (AS) supposedly went against the law. This answer reveals that it was not the law he was against, but the manipulation of the law by the rabbis.

[ihsan]

Actually, the charge of blasphemy was what the Jews were trying to label on Jesus (AS). They even accused him of calling himself the son of God, to which he replied:

"Is it not written in your law, "I said you are gods?" If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, do you say of him whom the Father has consecrated and sent to the world, "You are blaspheming" because I said "I am the son of God."

(John 10:34)

Jesus (AS) is actually referring to Psalms 82:1, 6-7. What is obviously clear is that the Jews were twisting the words of Jesus to try and accuse him of blasphemy, i.e. to put a halt to his message of proclaiming the kingdom of God, and at the same time lambasting the rabbis for their corruption. Jesus (AS) was very sharp in his usage of parables, such that even the manipulation by the Pharisees of his words could not stain him.

The example of the adulterer, and "He who has sinned, let him cast the first stone" was a response to the claim of the Israelites that Jesus (AS) supposedly went against the law. This answer reveals that it was not the law he was against, but the manipulation of the law by the rabbis.

[mule]

"Actually, the charge of blasphemy was what the Jews were trying to label on Jesus (AS). They even accused him of calling himself the son of God, to which he replied:

"Is it not written in your law, "I said you are gods?" If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, do you say of him whom the Father has consecrated and sent to the world, "You are blaspheming" because I said "I am the son of God."

(John 10:34)

If he wasn't God then it would have been blasphemy.

Here is the whole thing:


Jhn 10:29 My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand.

Jhn 10:30 I and [my] Father are one.

Jhn 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

Jhn 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

Jhn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Jhn 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Jhn 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

Jhn 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father [is] in me, and I in him.

Jhn 10:39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,


MULE

[mule]

"Actually, the charge of blasphemy was what the Jews were trying to label on Jesus (AS). They even accused him of calling himself the son of God, to which he replied:

"Is it not written in your law, "I said you are gods?" If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, do you say of him whom the Father has consecrated and sent to the world, "You are blaspheming" because I said "I am the son of God."

(John 10:34)

If he wasn't God then it would have been blasphemy.

Here is the whole thing:


Jhn 10:29 My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand.

Jhn 10:30 I and [my] Father are one.

Jhn 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

Jhn 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

Jhn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Jhn 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Jhn 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

Jhn 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father [is] in me, and I in him.

Jhn 10:39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,


MULE

[Believer]

Peace Ihsan,

"He who has [never] sinned, let him cast the first stone"

Jesus said this because He wanted to make it known that all of us sin, and that we mustn't kill another because he commits a sin.

Also, if Jesus wasn't the Son, then He would of said that when He was being questioned by the cheif priest.
The cheif priest asked Him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Living God?"
Jesus replied, "Yes, you have said it"
Because of this, he was condemned to death for blaspemy by the Jews.
Jesus died because of His answer.

Now, Ihsan, if Jesus wasn't the Son, He would have said
"No, that would be blashempemous"
And they would of let Jesus go, and everyone lives a happy life.


Blessings

[Believer]

Peace Ihsan,

"He who has [never] sinned, let him cast the first stone"

Jesus said this because He wanted to make it known that all of us sin, and that we mustn't kill another because he commits a sin.

Also, if Jesus wasn't the Son, then He would of said that when He was being questioned by the cheif priest.
The cheif priest asked Him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Living God?"
Jesus replied, "Yes, you have said it"
Because of this, he was condemned to death for blaspemy by the Jews.
Jesus died because of His answer.

Now, Ihsan, if Jesus wasn't the Son, He would have said
"No, that would be blashempemous"
And they would of let Jesus go, and everyone lives a happy life.


Blessings

[ihsan]

Peace Ihsan,

"He who has [never] sinned, let him cast the first stone"

***Jesus said this because He wanted to make it known that all of us sin, and that we mustn't kill another because he commits a sin.***

If one studies the life of Jesus (AS), as portrayed in the Old Testament, it becomes abundantly clear that the Rabbis, Sadducees, and other 'learned' men were trying to halt the propagation efforts of the Nolbe Soul. They tried this through a series of means, including manipulating the words of Jesus (AS), and accusing him of blasphemy and abrogating the law. Of course none of this was true, and as Jesus (AS) explains in many of his speeches, they were trying to manipulate what he says.

The incident in question is related to this very point. All of these statements of Jesus (AS) happen when the rabbis have confronted Jesus (AS) in the public. They tried to put him in a position where he would have his back against the wall. Jesus (AS), as is clear from his speeches, told men how these learned were manipulating the law and destroying the very spirit it was meant to entail. This particular case the Jews tries to make Jesus (AS) say he did not believe in the law. Though Jesus (AS) was calling for the reform of the Israelites to perceive the moral nature of the law, he was confronted by these rabbis to 'expose him'. In this very smart answer, Jesus (AS) never denied the punishment of adultery, but made a statement that put the rabbis to shame. They were not implementing the law out of righteuousness, but hypocrisy, i.e. for their own benefit. The situation was not even where people realized the truth about religion, so how could they be punished?

***Also, if Jesus wasn't the Son, then He would of said that when He was being questioned by the cheif priest.
The cheif priest asked Him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Living God?"
Jesus replied, "Yes, you have said it"
Because of this, he was condemned to death for blaspemy by the Jews.
Jesus died because of His answer.***

The Jews TRIED TO KILL HIM FOR BLASPHEMY. The very incident quoted was the result of a situation similar to the above. The Jews, inorder to quell the message of jesus, tried to manipulate the meanoing of the word 'son of God'. There are two points that need to be made here:

1) The incident teaches that the Jews were allowed by the Romans to implement their own punishments. This very case, the Jews even tried to stone Jesus. Jesus (AS) replied with the very statement above, denying the usage of the word 'son of God' as implying divinity.
The Jews could not level the accusation directly that Jesus (AS) claimed he was divine, because he never did. But it was the intention of the Jews to actually try to do it so that they could put him to death. One needs to rememebr previously that they were involved in the murder of John the Baptist (AS) and previous Prophets (AS).

2) The NT teaches that Jesus (AS) was killed by the ROMANS, not the JEWS. Now obviously the attempt to kill him meant that it was not because he claimed divinity, but for some other reason. The Romans were not people who killed others because of this fact. They considered many men gods, including Caesar, and to perceive they punished Jesus (AS) because of this ia sburd in toto. It was the Jews who tried to kill Jesus (AS), and that is why in the Quran they claimed they achieved it. If they were successful in accusing him of blasphemy, then as the NT testifies, they themselves would not have needed the Romans to perform their work. The Romans allowed them to judge according to their own law.


***Now, Ihsan, if Jesus wasn't the Son, He would have said
"No, that would be blashempemous"
And they would of let Jesus go, and everyone lives a happy life.***

Anybody that reads the NT deeply would understand that Jesus (AS) never answered DIRECTLY when it came to his confrontation with the rabbis. This is simply because they were tring to subvert the meaning of his words to accuse him of blasphemy.

[ihsan]

Peace Ihsan,

"He who has [never] sinned, let him cast the first stone"

***Jesus said this because He wanted to make it known that all of us sin, and that we mustn't kill another because he commits a sin.***

If one studies the life of Jesus (AS), as portrayed in the Old Testament, it becomes abundantly clear that the Rabbis, Sadducees, and other 'learned' men were trying to halt the propagation efforts of the Nolbe Soul. They tried this through a series of means, including manipulating the words of Jesus (AS), and accusing him of blasphemy and abrogating the law. Of course none of this was true, and as Jesus (AS) explains in many of his speeches, they were trying to manipulate what he says.

The incident in question is related to this very point. All of these statements of Jesus (AS) happen when the rabbis have confronted Jesus (AS) in the public. They tried to put him in a position where he would have his back against the wall. Jesus (AS), as is clear from his speeches, told men how these learned were manipulating the law and destroying the very spirit it was meant to entail. This particular case the Jews tries to make Jesus (AS) say he did not believe in the law. Though Jesus (AS) was calling for the reform of the Israelites to perceive the moral nature of the law, he was confronted by these rabbis to 'expose him'. In this very smart answer, Jesus (AS) never denied the punishment of adultery, but made a statement that put the rabbis to shame. They were not implementing the law out of righteuousness, but hypocrisy, i.e. for their own benefit. The situation was not even where people realized the truth about religion, so how could they be punished?

***Also, if Jesus wasn't the Son, then He would of said that when He was being questioned by the cheif priest.
The cheif priest asked Him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Living God?"
Jesus replied, "Yes, you have said it"
Because of this, he was condemned to death for blaspemy by the Jews.
Jesus died because of His answer.***

The Jews TRIED TO KILL HIM FOR BLASPHEMY. The very incident quoted was the result of a situation similar to the above. The Jews, inorder to quell the message of jesus, tried to manipulate the meanoing of the word 'son of God'. There are two points that need to be made here:

1) The incident teaches that the Jews were allowed by the Romans to implement their own punishments. This very case, the Jews even tried to stone Jesus. Jesus (AS) replied with the very statement above, denying the usage of the word 'son of God' as implying divinity.
The Jews could not level the accusation directly that Jesus (AS) claimed he was divine, because he never did. But it was the intention of the Jews to actually try to do it so that they could put him to death. One needs to rememebr previously that they were involved in the murder of John the Baptist (AS) and previous Prophets (AS).

2) The NT teaches that Jesus (AS) was killed by the ROMANS, not the JEWS. Now obviously the attempt to kill him meant that it was not because he claimed divinity, but for some other reason. The Romans were not people who killed others because of this fact. They considered many men gods, including Caesar, and to perceive they punished Jesus (AS) because of this ia sburd in toto. It was the Jews who tried to kill Jesus (AS), and that is why in the Quran they claimed they achieved it. If they were successful in accusing him of blasphemy, then as the NT testifies, they themselves would not have needed the Romans to perform their work. The Romans allowed them to judge according to their own law.


***Now, Ihsan, if Jesus wasn't the Son, He would have said
"No, that would be blashempemous"
And they would of let Jesus go, and everyone lives a happy life.***

Anybody that reads the NT deeply would understand that Jesus (AS) never answered DIRECTLY when it came to his confrontation with the rabbis. This is simply because they were tring to subvert the meaning of his words to accuse him of blasphemy.

[ihsan]

To mule,

You have it reversed. It was the Jews who were trying to accuse Jesus (AS) of claiming divinity so that they could punish him. Jesus (AS) points to the OT to prove that this usage is not something new, and in fact, is used by these very rabbis in Psalms. Jesus (AS) is pointing to the fact that He has been sent by God, but this does not entail he is divine.

Othewrise, as is clear, the Jews could have found it very easy to stone him. This is what the whole context is about, the manipulation of Jesus' statements to try and convict him of blasphemy, and thus the punishment of death.

Read the context.

[ihsan]

To mule,

You have it reversed. It was the Jews who were trying to accuse Jesus (AS) of claiming divinity so that they could punish him. Jesus (AS) points to the OT to prove that this usage is not something new, and in fact, is used by these very rabbis in Psalms. Jesus (AS) is pointing to the fact that He has been sent by God, but this does not entail he is divine.

Othewrise, as is clear, the Jews could have found it very easy to stone him. This is what the whole context is about, the manipulation of Jesus' statements to try and convict him of blasphemy, and thus the punishment of death.

Read the context.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste mule,

nope, the verses don't bother me in the least :) thank you for your concern though.

darkyl, you are correct. what i meant to indicate was that if one doesn't share the belief already, quoting scritpure is insufficient for intersubjective proof. it's perfectly valid as proof for a believer though.

that's the thing, really... every religious group has sacred texts that they can quote from.. and the only people that it convinces are those that are predisposed to believe it or those that already hold those views.

for some, this poses a challenge that must be resolved... for me, i see it as a wonderful reflection of the spiritual jewels that are ours to inherit.



~compassionately~

[Vajradhara]

Namaste mule,

nope, the verses don't bother me in the least :) thank you for your concern though.

darkyl, you are correct. what i meant to indicate was that if one doesn't share the belief already, quoting scritpure is insufficient for intersubjective proof. it's perfectly valid as proof for a believer though.

that's the thing, really... every religious group has sacred texts that they can quote from.. and the only people that it convinces are those that are predisposed to believe it or those that already hold those views.

for some, this poses a challenge that must be resolved... for me, i see it as a wonderful reflection of the spiritual jewels that are ours to inherit.



~compassionately~

[Ronnie]

Peace All,

I agree with the both of you Vajradhara and Darkyl but I want to shed some light on the issue. Mule wasn't trying to prove that Jesus is God from the Bible, but rather, that the Bible supports the concept of Jesus' God-ship. This came about because of several discussions, in which in a reply to something some person said, I said that the Bible does not support the God-ship of Jesus. Mule naturally disagreed and offered to email me the verses. I thought that it would be more productive if we could see why and what Christians use to base this belief on.

So he wasn't trying to convince us that Jesus is God from the Bible but that the Bible supports the idea that Jesus is God. I obviously disagreed with him (and still do).

I think this is a fruitful dialog because it allows us into the minds of the believers of a certain doctrine. See, Vajradhara, Drakyl, me etc... we look at that scripture and don't see what Mule, Believer, NR etc... see. But in an exchange of ideas we may be able to appreciate each others concepts. Maybe it wasn't such a good idea. I'm trying to get people to interact cordially about their agreements and disagreements.

Regards

[Ronnie]

Peace All,

I agree with the both of you Vajradhara and Darkyl but I want to shed some light on the issue. Mule wasn't trying to prove that Jesus is God from the Bible, but rather, that the Bible supports the concept of Jesus' God-ship. This came about because of several discussions, in which in a reply to something some person said, I said that the Bible does not support the God-ship of Jesus. Mule naturally disagreed and offered to email me the verses. I thought that it would be more productive if we could see why and what Christians use to base this belief on.

So he wasn't trying to convince us that Jesus is God from the Bible but that the Bible supports the idea that Jesus is God. I obviously disagreed with him (and still do).

I think this is a fruitful dialog because it allows us into the minds of the believers of a certain doctrine. See, Vajradhara, Drakyl, me etc... we look at that scripture and don't see what Mule, Believer, NR etc... see. But in an exchange of ideas we may be able to appreciate each others concepts. Maybe it wasn't such a good idea. I'm trying to get people to interact cordially about their agreements and disagreements.

Regards

[Believer]

Peace Ihsan,

The Saducees were trying to trick Jesus with the adulteress they caught. Jesus did two things a once: He left the Saducees speachless, and He saved the life of thie woman. Jesus told her to discontinue her sins. Jesus came to save others' life, not to allow them to be killed. Also, Jesus was often preaching and teachings the prostitutes and sinners.

"The NT teaches that Jesus (AS) was killed by the ROMANS, not the JEWS"

The Romans didn't want anything to do with Jesus, but the Jews pushed for His death. They despised Him so much, they wanted Him to suffer slowly and painfully in a crucifiction.

Also, it had to be this way for the Prophecies to be fulfilled.

Here is Isaiah 53

"1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression [1] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [2]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [3] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [4] and be satisfied [5] ;
by his knowledge [6] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [7]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, <img src=icon_smile_8ball.gif border=0 align=middle>
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors. "

Do you believe in the Prophecies for Jesus Christ, Ihsan?

Blessings

[Believer]

Peace Ihsan,

The Saducees were trying to trick Jesus with the adulteress they caught. Jesus did two things a once: He left the Saducees speachless, and He saved the life of thie woman. Jesus told her to discontinue her sins. Jesus came to save others' life, not to allow them to be killed. Also, Jesus was often preaching and teachings the prostitutes and sinners.

"The NT teaches that Jesus (AS) was killed by the ROMANS, not the JEWS"

The Romans didn't want anything to do with Jesus, but the Jews pushed for His death. They despised Him so much, they wanted Him to suffer slowly and painfully in a crucifiction.

Also, it had to be this way for the Prophecies to be fulfilled.

Here is Isaiah 53

"1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression [1] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [2]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [3] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [4] and be satisfied [5] ;
by his knowledge [6] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [7]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, <img src=icon_smile_8ball.gif border=0 align=middle>
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors. "

Do you believe in the Prophecies for Jesus Christ, Ihsan?

Blessings

[Lady Fatima]

Peace and Blessings,

Mule there's really no point in trying to prove that Jesus is God from your Bible because as you know Muslims do not believe in the Bible (in its present form). Before you start quoting from your Bible, it should be asked, is your Bible in its original form as taught by Jesus? Now that's where the debate lies! I'm too busy to engage in such a debate because I will be entering my High School finals, but when I have completed them, then God willing, we shall commence our debate.

However, before I go I would like you to turn your attention to a verse in the Bible, in where Jesus says:

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" (Matthew chapter 7, verse 22)

So I'm asking you why would Jesus, tell the Christians ( not the Muslims) to depart from him even though you preformed miracles in his name, and drove out demons in his name etc...? Not only will he tell them to depart from him, but that, according to Jesus they will be among the evil doers, even though, they have done all this in his name.

Peace be to the believers
----------------------------------------------------------





This nation will get sick but it does not die
And will doze but it does not sleep
So do not lose your hope, you will return your glory.

[Lady Fatima]

Peace and Blessings,

Mule there's really no point in trying to prove that Jesus is God from your Bible because as you know Muslims do not believe in the Bible (in its present form). Before you start quoting from your Bible, it should be asked, is your Bible in its original form as taught by Jesus? Now that's where the debate lies! I'm too busy to engage in such a debate because I will be entering my High School finals, but when I have completed them, then God willing, we shall commence our debate.

However, before I go I would like you to turn your attention to a verse in the Bible, in where Jesus says:

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" (Matthew chapter 7, verse 22)

So I'm asking you why would Jesus, tell the Christians ( not the Muslims) to depart from him even though you preformed miracles in his name, and drove out demons in his name etc...? Not only will he tell them to depart from him, but that, according to Jesus they will be among the evil doers, even though, they have done all this in his name.

Peace be to the believers
----------------------------------------------------------





This nation will get sick but it does not die
And will doze but it does not sleep
So do not lose your hope, you will return your glory.

[Believer]

Peace Lady Fatima,

Don't think so! Jesus will say this to you because you have rejected the true Jesus Christ. You follow your Isa, the Islamicized version of Jesus--like the Mormons and JW's have their own version of Jesus.

Our book is not corrupt, you are only judging it from the Quran's persective. This really isn't the right approach.

The Bible begins with Genesis and ends with Revelations.
This proves our book is the Beginning and the End.
No other books are inspired by God.

You just don't want to believe the Bible.
You know, there are many prophecies in the Bible that show Jesus as the Lord and Redeemer. God speaks to us through the Bible in more than one way.

Do well on you finals. <img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle>

Blessings

[Believer]

Peace Lady Fatima,

Don't think so! Jesus will say this to you because you have rejected the true Jesus Christ. You follow your Isa, the Islamicized version of Jesus--like the Mormons and JW's have their own version of Jesus.

Our book is not corrupt, you are only judging it from the Quran's persective. This really isn't the right approach.

The Bible begins with Genesis and ends with Revelations.
This proves our book is the Beginning and the End.
No other books are inspired by God.

You just don't want to believe the Bible.
You know, there are many prophecies in the Bible that show Jesus as the Lord and Redeemer. God speaks to us through the Bible in more than one way.

Do well on you finals. <img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle>

Blessings

[Ronnie]

Because people are constantly repeating why Mule created this topic I have reposted my comments. Please understand.

Peace All,

I agree with the both of you Vajradhara and Darkyl but I want to shed some light on the issue. Mule wasn't trying to prove that Jesus is God from the Bible, but rather, that the Bible supports the concept of Jesus' God-ship. This came about because of several discussions, in which in a reply to something some person said, I said that the Bible does not support the God-ship of Jesus. Mule naturally disagreed and offered to email me the verses. I thought that it would be more productive if we could see why and what Christians use to base this belief on.

So he wasn't trying to convince us that Jesus is God from the Bible but that the Bible supports the idea that Jesus is God. I obviously disagreed with him (and still do).

I think this is a fruitful dialog because it allows us into the minds of the believers of a certain doctrine. See, Vajradhara, Drakyl, me etc... we look at that scripture and don't see what Mule, Believer, NR etc... see. But in an exchange of ideas we may be able to appreciate each others concepts. Maybe it wasn't such a good idea. I'm trying to get people to interact cordially about their agreements and disagreements.

Regards

[Ronnie]

Because people are constantly repeating why Mule created this topic I have reposted my comments. Please understand.

Peace All,

I agree with the both of you Vajradhara and Darkyl but I want to shed some light on the issue. Mule wasn't trying to prove that Jesus is God from the Bible, but rather, that the Bible supports the concept of Jesus' God-ship. This came about because of several discussions, in which in a reply to something some person said, I said that the Bible does not support the God-ship of Jesus. Mule naturally disagreed and offered to email me the verses. I thought that it would be more productive if we could see why and what Christians use to base this belief on.

So he wasn't trying to convince us that Jesus is God from the Bible but that the Bible supports the idea that Jesus is God. I obviously disagreed with him (and still do).

I think this is a fruitful dialog because it allows us into the minds of the believers of a certain doctrine. See, Vajradhara, Drakyl, me etc... we look at that scripture and don't see what Mule, Believer, NR etc... see. But in an exchange of ideas we may be able to appreciate each others concepts. Maybe it wasn't such a good idea. I'm trying to get people to interact cordially about their agreements and disagreements.

Regards

[mpriest]

Salaam

Ronnie I agree with you,the interfaith dialogue
should mosly reflect different views.This is one way
for us to share with each other,what we believe in.

matthew missionary priest

[mpriest]

Salaam

Ronnie I agree with you,the interfaith dialogue
should mosly reflect different views.This is one way
for us to share with each other,what we believe in.

matthew missionary priest

[nr]

The claim that Jesus made in John when he says "I am the way; I am truth and I am life; no one comes to the Father except by me."
should be sufficient to prove that he is God as it follows from the pre-existance of truth.

[nr]

The claim that Jesus made in John when he says "I am the way; I am truth and I am life; no one comes to the Father except by me."
should be sufficient to prove that he is God as it follows from the pre-existance of truth.

[Lady Fatima]

Peace,

Believer:

“Don't think so! Jesus will say this to you because you have rejected the true Jesus Christ. You follow your Isa, the Islamicized version of Jesus--like the Mormons and JW's have their own version of Jesus.”

What I suggest you do Believer is re-read the verse. It states that those who prophesied in his name, drove out demons in his name and preformed many miracles using his name will be among the evil-doers. Now how in earth can that apply to us Muslims? We don’t do anything in Jesus’ name, only in Gods. I mean this is simple English. I can’t believe I have to explain your own Bible to you. See the problem is Believer, you see it but you just don’t want to believe it. That I can’t help you with.


“This day have I perfected you religion for you and completed my favour to you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion” (The Qur’an)
-------------------------------------------

This nation will get sick but it does not die
And will doze but it does not sleep
So do not lose your hope, you will return your glory.

[Lady Fatima]

Peace,

Believer:

“Don't think so! Jesus will say this to you because you have rejected the true Jesus Christ. You follow your Isa, the Islamicized version of Jesus--like the Mormons and JW's have their own version of Jesus.”

What I suggest you do Believer is re-read the verse. It states that those who prophesied in his name, drove out demons in his name and preformed many miracles using his name will be among the evil-doers. Now how in earth can that apply to us Muslims? We don’t do anything in Jesus’ name, only in Gods. I mean this is simple English. I can’t believe I have to explain your own Bible to you. See the problem is Believer, you see it but you just don’t want to believe it. That I can’t help you with.


“This day have I perfected you religion for you and completed my favour to you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion” (The Qur’an)
-------------------------------------------

This nation will get sick but it does not die
And will doze but it does not sleep
So do not lose your hope, you will return your glory.

[carol_au]

Peace to you all,

I recognize some of you from other forums we have met on, and I am looking forward to sharing here as well as in other forums. I've read this thread with interest, and notice that though, you are hesitant to accept what the Bible says regarding Jesus and His being God, you are not sure of what the history books say.

I respectfully ask that you read these carefully. They are the historians responses to Jesus's claims, and date back to just after the crucifixion. None of them are quotes from the apostles or others of Jesus's companions.. but they do show what the early church from the time of the apostles believe. I wrote this in response to a similar question on another forum. May it bring some understanding to this discussion.

Although the Council of Nicea specifically discussed the concept of the Triune Godhead, it was already a well entrenched and believed doctrine at the time of the council.

At the time of Muhammad your Prophet, there were many around denying this truth and many heresies. Muhammad heard many of these and many of his revelations spoke against these heresies and both Christian and Muslim would agree with many of them.

Please read now what the early church said of the doctrine of the Triune Godhead.. that is One God , yet God the Father, God the Son and the God the Holy Spirit


"Someone somewhere in the forums has written that the Doctrine of the Triune God head began at the Council of Nicea in the fourth century AD.(325 AD). This is not unique to Muslim understanding, but so called christian sects (who are really not christian at all) who deny the Deity of Christ, have said the same thing.

Without relooking at all the Old Testament credentials for the One and Only God, to have three distinct Persons .. Father, Son and Holy Spirit, here is what the early church said ...

To know what the early church said of Him, we need to look at the period immediately after and within the first century of his death and resurrection.

1. Ignatius (died 117 AD).. a disciple of the apostle John and Bishop of Antioch who died a martyrs death in Rome by being thrown to wild animals

He wrote four letters to the churches which are not part of the Bible but which in their opening sentences say "... Jesus Christ Our God" Each letter, to the Ephesian church, the church in Rome, Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp, another disciple of John, has multiple references to the fact of Jesus is God.... for example


To the Ephesians: Ignatius opens his first epistle by telling the Ephesian church it is ". . . united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our GOD" (introduction). He commends them for ". . . having your hearts kindled in THE BLOOD OF GOD" (1:1 compare Acts 20:28).

Next comes a very interesting passage, "There is one only physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, GOD IN MAN, true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord" (7:2).


2. Polycarp (69-155 AD)

Polycarp was alive only 30 years after Jesus walked on the earth. He wrote letters to the churches and was later burned at the stake for his faith. Polycarp in his letter to the church at Phillipi, told them to read what Ignatius had written before hand and then said to them..". . . may He (God the Father) grant unto you a lot with and portion among His saints, and to us with you, and to all that are under heaven, who shall believe on our Lord and GOD Jesus Christ and on His Father that raised Him from the dead

Both of these men were contemporaries of the apostles and they had no hestitation in acknowledging what the early church believed.. that Jesus is God.

Now.. before we move on.. a question!! With such specific references to Jesus being God, why did not the various councils that decided on the specific books to be included in the Canon of Scripture, not include these specific references to Jesus being God, if the Christian Bible and Gospel in particular has been corrupted by those wanting to make Jesus look like God? Wouldn't it have been far easier to just include letters such as these instead of supposedly corrupting obscure passages in the Gospels as they appear now?

3. Justin Martyr lived from 100-166AD. He was martyred by beheading for his faith. Justin Martyr was the first and most respected Christian apologist (defender of the faith) against Paganism ( and particularly worship of a plurality of gods). Doesn't it seem strange, that he who spoke loudest against the worship of many other gods and idols should himself proclaim in his published work "First Apology of Justin Martyr"

that the Church proclaims, ". . . the teachings of the Logos, because he is divine." In reference to the Logos, he writes, "It is only reasonable that we worship him and later he declared , ". . . the Father of the universe has a Son, who--since He is the First-Begotten Logos of God--is true Deity"

Now let's look at some of the later church fathers before the Council of Nicea

4. Melito, bishop of Sardis during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and who died in 190AD, wrote a "homily on the passion" and declared "he rose from the dead as GOD, being by nature GOD AND MAN. This is Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory to the ages, Amen."

The fourth century historian Eusibius, lists several books that were written by Melito, and one of these was called "GOD in Bodily Form" (Eusebius p. 186).

5. Iraneaus (120-203 AD)

Iraenaeus was a pupil of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. He wrote a book called "Against False Gnosis". Irenaeus asserts that the Church believes "in one Christ Jesus, our Lord, the Son of God, was incarnate for our salvation". Iranaeus also wrote "So God became Man and the Lord Himself saved us, giving the sign of the Virgin". (Eusibius p 212)

6. Tertullian (160-220AD) was another early and strong defender of the faith in the second century. His major work was called "The Apology". Tertullian wrote at a time when the church was being accused of worshipping a mere human being. This was his response

"We must make, therefore, a remark or two about Christ's divinity."

He continues, "He is the Son of God and is called GOD from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit . . . . Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit and GOD OF GOD . . . . in His birth GOD AND MAN united". Later in the book, he asserts, "Surely Christ has a right to reveal Deity, which was in fact His own essential possession"

In another book "Against Praxes" he said " "this One was sent by the Father into the Virgin, and was born of her, MAN AND GOD, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and called Jesus Christ"



Now.. it's important to understand, that as the original Apostles began to die, the understanding of the Deity of Christ began to be denyed. This teaching was began by a man known as Artemon. A response to his denial of the Lordship of Christ was written in a book written by an unknown author called "The Little Labyrinth" (c 200AD). Eusebius states that that this book shows that "the heresy of the Saviour being only human, is exposed in this book as a recent invention" (Eusebius p 235)


This suggestion might perhaps have been credible if in the first place Holy Scripture had not presented a very different picture; and there are also works published before Victor's time (bishop of Rome 189- 199), written to defend the truth against both pagan criticism and current heresies--I mean by Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, and many more. In every one of these Christ is spoken of as GOD. For who does not know the books of Irenaeus, Melito, and the rest, which proclaim Christ as GOD AND MAN, and all the psalms and hymns written from the beginning by faithful brethren, which sing of Christ as the Word of God and address Him as GOD? (Eusebius, pp. 235f).



So you see, and I'll enlarge on this later.. the early church only knew Jesus as God.. the heresy of his being only man was first introduced in the early second century. And the end result of this heresy was the coming of a later "prophet".. Muhammed who would introduce another faith as a result of the spreading of this heresy about Jesus... namely Islam.


"Search, then, and see if the divinity of Christ be true.
If it be of such nature that the acceptance of it transforms
a man, and makes him truly good, there is implied
the duty of renouncing what is opposed to it as false"
(Tertullian).

my friends.. I look forward to sharing more with you on this topic in the coming days.







Edited by - carol_au on 10/08/2003 03:34:15

Edited by - carol_au on 10/08/2003 03:36:11

[carol_au]

Peace to you all,

I recognize some of you from other forums we have met on, and I am looking forward to sharing here as well as in other forums. I've read this thread with interest, and notice that though, you are hesitant to accept what the Bible says regarding Jesus and His being God, you are not sure of what the history books say.

I respectfully ask that you read these carefully. They are the historians responses to Jesus's claims, and date back to just after the crucifixion. None of them are quotes from the apostles or others of Jesus's companions.. but they do show what the early church from the time of the apostles believe. I wrote this in response to a similar question on another forum. May it bring some understanding to this discussion.

Although the Council of Nicea specifically discussed the concept of the Triune Godhead, it was already a well entrenched and believed doctrine at the time of the council.

At the time of Muhammad your Prophet, there were many around denying this truth and many heresies. Muhammad heard many of these and many of his revelations spoke against these heresies and both Christian and Muslim would agree with many of them.

Please read now what the early church said of the doctrine of the Triune Godhead.. that is One God , yet God the Father, God the Son and the God the Holy Spirit


"Someone somewhere in the forums has written that the Doctrine of the Triune God head began at the Council of Nicea in the fourth century AD.(325 AD). This is not unique to Muslim understanding, but so called christian sects (who are really not christian at all) who deny the Deity of Christ, have said the same thing.

Without relooking at all the Old Testament credentials for the One and Only God, to have three distinct Persons .. Father, Son and Holy Spirit, here is what the early church said ...

To know what the early church said of Him, we need to look at the period immediately after and within the first century of his death and resurrection.

1. Ignatius (died 117 AD).. a disciple of the apostle John and Bishop of Antioch who died a martyrs death in Rome by being thrown to wild animals

He wrote four letters to the churches which are not part of the Bible but which in their opening sentences say "... Jesus Christ Our God" Each letter, to the Ephesian church, the church in Rome, Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp, another disciple of John, has multiple references to the fact of Jesus is God.... for example


To the Ephesians: Ignatius opens his first epistle by telling the Ephesian church it is ". . . united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our GOD" (introduction). He commends them for ". . . having your hearts kindled in THE BLOOD OF GOD" (1:1 compare Acts 20:28).

Next comes a very interesting passage, "There is one only physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, GOD IN MAN, true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord" (7:2).


2. Polycarp (69-155 AD)

Polycarp was alive only 30 years after Jesus walked on the earth. He wrote letters to the churches and was later burned at the stake for his faith. Polycarp in his letter to the church at Phillipi, told them to read what Ignatius had written before hand and then said to them..". . . may He (God the Father) grant unto you a lot with and portion among His saints, and to us with you, and to all that are under heaven, who shall believe on our Lord and GOD Jesus Christ and on His Father that raised Him from the dead

Both of these men were contemporaries of the apostles and they had no hestitation in acknowledging what the early church believed.. that Jesus is God.

Now.. before we move on.. a question!! With such specific references to Jesus being God, why did not the various councils that decided on the specific books to be included in the Canon of Scripture, not include these specific references to Jesus being God, if the Christian Bible and Gospel in particular has been corrupted by those wanting to make Jesus look like God? Wouldn't it have been far easier to just include letters such as these instead of supposedly corrupting obscure passages in the Gospels as they appear now?

3. Justin Martyr lived from 100-166AD. He was martyred by beheading for his faith. Justin Martyr was the first and most respected Christian apologist (defender of the faith) against Paganism ( and particularly worship of a plurality of gods). Doesn't it seem strange, that he who spoke loudest against the worship of many other gods and idols should himself proclaim in his published work "First Apology of Justin Martyr"

that the Church proclaims, ". . . the teachings of the Logos, because he is divine." In reference to the Logos, he writes, "It is only reasonable that we worship him and later he declared , ". . . the Father of the universe has a Son, who--since He is the First-Begotten Logos of God--is true Deity"

Now let's look at some of the later church fathers before the Council of Nicea

4. Melito, bishop of Sardis during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and who died in 190AD, wrote a "homily on the passion" and declared "he rose from the dead as GOD, being by nature GOD AND MAN. This is Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory to the ages, Amen."

The fourth century historian Eusibius, lists several books that were written by Melito, and one of these was called "GOD in Bodily Form" (Eusebius p. 186).

5. Iraneaus (120-203 AD)

Iraenaeus was a pupil of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. He wrote a book called "Against False Gnosis". Irenaeus asserts that the Church believes "in one Christ Jesus, our Lord, the Son of God, was incarnate for our salvation". Iranaeus also wrote "So God became Man and the Lord Himself saved us, giving the sign of the Virgin". (Eusibius p 212)

6. Tertullian (160-220AD) was another early and strong defender of the faith in the second century. His major work was called "The Apology". Tertullian wrote at a time when the church was being accused of worshipping a mere human being. This was his response

"We must make, therefore, a remark or two about Christ's divinity."

He continues, "He is the Son of God and is called GOD from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit . . . . Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit and GOD OF GOD . . . . in His birth GOD AND MAN united". Later in the book, he asserts, "Surely Christ has a right to reveal Deity, which was in fact His own essential possession"

In another book "Against Praxes" he said " "this One was sent by the Father into the Virgin, and was born of her, MAN AND GOD, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and called Jesus Christ"



Now.. it's important to understand, that as the original Apostles began to die, the understanding of the Deity of Christ began to be denyed. This teaching was began by a man known as Artemon. A response to his denial of the Lordship of Christ was written in a book written by an unknown author called "The Little Labyrinth" (c 200AD). Eusebius states that that this book shows that "the heresy of the Saviour being only human, is exposed in this book as a recent invention" (Eusebius p 235)


This suggestion might perhaps have been credible if in the first place Holy Scripture had not presented a very different picture; and there are also works published before Victor's time (bishop of Rome 189- 199), written to defend the truth against both pagan criticism and current heresies--I mean by Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, and many more. In every one of these Christ is spoken of as GOD. For who does not know the books of Irenaeus, Melito, and the rest, which proclaim Christ as GOD AND MAN, and all the psalms and hymns written from the beginning by faithful brethren, which sing of Christ as the Word of God and address Him as GOD? (Eusebius, pp. 235f).



So you see, and I'll enlarge on this later.. the early church only knew Jesus as God.. the heresy of his being only man was first introduced in the early second century. And the end result of this heresy was the coming of a later "prophet".. Muhammed who would introduce another faith as a result of the spreading of this heresy about Jesus... namely Islam.


"Search, then, and see if the divinity of Christ be true.
If it be of such nature that the acceptance of it transforms
a man, and makes him truly good, there is implied
the duty of renouncing what is opposed to it as false"
(Tertullian).

my friends.. I look forward to sharing more with you on this topic in the coming days.







Edited by - carol_au on 10/08/2003 03:34:15

Edited by - carol_au on 10/08/2003 03:36:11

[Yahya Sulaiman]

I've noticed that none of your references are from the actual time in which Jesus lived and taught people. That, to me, is what is important, not what came a century later. We know very little for sure about Jesus from the standpoint of secular history, and similarly, we don't know much about what the very first Christians believed, the people he personally taught. My personal guess is that he was an itenerant Rabbi who gave teachings only faintly resembling those described in the Gospels later on, and he aggravated the Pharisees and Saducees one time too many and so they set forth a conspiracy to have him executed by the Romans. Then, a lot of legends sprang up about him after his death (although some also came from during his lifetime).



Edited by - American Deist on 10/08/2003 03:47:49

[Yahya Sulaiman]

I've noticed that none of your references are from the actual time in which Jesus lived and taught people. That, to me, is what is important, not what came a century later. We know very little for sure about Jesus from the standpoint of secular history, and similarly, we don't know much about what the very first Christians believed, the people he personally taught. My personal guess is that he was an itenerant Rabbi who gave teachings only faintly resembling those described in the Gospels later on, and he aggravated the Pharisees and Saducees one time too many and so they set forth a conspiracy to have him executed by the Romans. Then, a lot of legends sprang up about him after his death (although some also came from during his lifetime).



Edited by - American Deist on 10/08/2003 03:47:49

[carol_au]

Please forgive me for yet again posting an answer I wrote elsewhere, but I am going to be going away for the weekend and I'm busy packing whilst I am writing to this forum.

These quotes come from earlier sources and I will present sources from within the New Testament in the post to follow.

I promise that on my return next week, I will reply more personally with new posts to the thread with specific answers. May this enlighten all who read a little to why true Christians are so sure of the Deity of Christ

"Most secular historians discount the Bible and the Qur'an as corrupted, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, look at these claims from non religious peers of Jesus at the time of the early church in the first century.

1 Flavious Josephus, a Jewish Priest in the first century, retells the story of Jesus' trial and death in Antiquities 18:63, written in AD 93-94:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him, at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named after him, are not extinct at this day."

Fellow Jews considered Josephus a traitor. He had sympathised with Jesus and given credibility to Christ's actions. The Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish Council, which protected the religious laws of Israel, supported Josephus' facts when it said "as nothing was brought forward in Jesus' defence, he was hanged on Passover Eve."

Pliny the Younger, governor of Pontus and Bithynia, provides more relevent information about from the view of Christ's Disciples, some of who had direct contact with the historical Jesus. In a letter to the Emperor Trajan in AD 96, he explains His first encounter with the Christian sect and their view of the risen Saviour.

"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accostomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as God, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food, but ordinary innocent food." Pliny the Younger, Letters 10:96-97

These Christians he was describing, were only two generations (60 years) removed from the historical Christ, and they worshipped Him as God in songs of Praise."

Please read this and consider it's implications.. then I will go and find my final post.. the evidence within the NT itself.

[carol_au]

Please forgive me for yet again posting an answer I wrote elsewhere, but I am going to be going away for the weekend and I'm busy packing whilst I am writing to this forum.

These quotes come from earlier sources and I will present sources from within the New Testament in the post to follow.

I promise that on my return next week, I will reply more personally with new posts to the thread with specific answers. May this enlighten all who read a little to why true Christians are so sure of the Deity of Christ

"Most secular historians discount the Bible and the Qur'an as corrupted, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, look at these claims from non religious peers of Jesus at the time of the early church in the first century.

1 Flavious Josephus, a Jewish Priest in the first century, retells the story of Jesus' trial and death in Antiquities 18:63, written in AD 93-94:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him, at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named after him, are not extinct at this day."

Fellow Jews considered Josephus a traitor. He had sympathised with Jesus and given credibility to Christ's actions. The Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish Council, which protected the religious laws of Israel, supported Josephus' facts when it said "as nothing was brought forward in Jesus' defence, he was hanged on Passover Eve."

Pliny the Younger, governor of Pontus and Bithynia, provides more relevent information about from the view of Christ's Disciples, some of who had direct contact with the historical Jesus. In a letter to the Emperor Trajan in AD 96, he explains His first encounter with the Christian sect and their view of the risen Saviour.

"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accostomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as God, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food, but ordinary innocent food." Pliny the Younger, Letters 10:96-97

These Christians he was describing, were only two generations (60 years) removed from the historical Christ, and they worshipped Him as God in songs of Praise."

Please read this and consider it's implications.. then I will go and find my final post.. the evidence within the NT itself.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

"These Christians he was describing, were only two generations (60 years) removed from the historical Christ, and they worshipped Him as God in songs of Praise."

Two generations is a long time. I am concerned with what people thought during the time when Jesus was still alive. And I am interested in secular accounts of this only. On the other hand, if you have evidence to support the authenticity of the stories of Jesus in the New Testament, I would be glad to see it.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

"These Christians he was describing, were only two generations (60 years) removed from the historical Christ, and they worshipped Him as God in songs of Praise."

Two generations is a long time. I am concerned with what people thought during the time when Jesus was still alive. And I am interested in secular accounts of this only. On the other hand, if you have evidence to support the authenticity of the stories of Jesus in the New Testament, I would be glad to see it.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

By the way, I know that you are addressing Muslims here and not deists, but I think we have some common ground when it comes to doubting the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus and etc. etc.


Edited by - American Deist on 10/08/2003 04:07:15

[Yahya Sulaiman]

By the way, I know that you are addressing Muslims here and not deists, but I think we have some common ground when it comes to doubting the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus and etc. etc.


Edited by - American Deist on 10/08/2003 04:07:15

[carol_au]

peace and blessing to all who are reading this forum. In my first two posts I tried to present what the early church, and indeed non Christian historians had written about Jesus, from the time of his ministry on earth, until the Council of Nicea.

Please allow me now to show you some internal evidence of the Deity of Christ. Some of these things some of you have raised questions and made comment about. I pray that this will provide some answers and broaden our discussion on this central Christian doctrine

"John 5:16-18

"For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him, not only was he breaking the sabbath, but he was calling God his own Father, making Himself equal with God.

By his very words and actions, Jesus was deliberately showing Himself to be equal to God.. yet he then goes on to show them something else

John 5:19
Jesus gave them this answer "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by Himself, He can only do what He sees His Father doing, because whatever the Father does, the Son does."

John 5:22 "moreover, the Father judges no-one, but has entrusted all judgement to the Son. that all may honour the Son, just as the honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son, does not honour the Father who sent Him. "

Jesus claimed to be equal with the Father again after talking to them about the testimony and work of John the Baptist

I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has Himself testified concerning me. You have never heard His voice, nor seen His form, nor does His word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one He has sent. You study the Scriptures because you think by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me."

I do not accept praise from men, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me, but if someone else comes in His name, you will accept him. How can you believe if you accept praise from one another., yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from God.

But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?

Now let's look at John 10:30-33

"I 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".



Let's look now in John 14:5-11

Jesus is now talking to His Disciples, who are also questioning His Deity. Remember they too were Jews. Hear His words to them

"Philip said "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered. "Don't you know me Philip, even after I have been among you for such a long time? How can you say "show us the Father" Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not JUST my own. Rather, it is the Father living in me, who is doing His work. Believe me when I say, that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves."

And if there is a God sitting on the throne, and a lamb.?

Does it make sense?

It only makes sense if they are one and the same.. and the Scriptures do state they are

Revelation 1:7-8

Look, He is coming with the clouds and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him, and all peoples of the earth will mourn because of Him. So shall it be. amen!"

and John 20:24-30

Now Thomas (called Didymus) one of the twelve, was not with the Disciples when Jesus came (this was after the resurrection). So the Disciples told him "we have seen the Lord."
But He said to them, Unless I see the nail marks in His hands and put my fingers where the nail prints were, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe it."

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said "Peace be with you." Then He said to Thomas "put your finger here in my hands, Reach out your hand and put it into my side". Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to Him "My Lord and my God".




Jesus declared Himself many times to be God

If they are one and the same, how comes they exist in 2 places at the same time?

He wasn't in two places at the same time. John 1:1-2, 14 states it as it is

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the Beginning. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

For those few short years of Jesus life, God became flesh and dwelt amongst us, but never did He cease to be God. Phillipians 2:8-9 says "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."

Now, this ability for God to take on temporary physical appearances and yet remain the Transecendent, Omnipresent God is not unusual. Two occasions in the Old Testament where he did this are in

Genesis 18:1-15 speaks of the three visitors who come to visit Abraham and Sarah and tell them that they will have a son. The passage clearly speaks of THE LORD being one of those visitors.

Exodus 3:3-4:16 speaks of God appearing to and speaking to Moses as a burning bush in the desert.

There are others.

I have more things to show you, but I'd appreciate responses to the ones I have already posted.

Blessings

Carol

[carol_au]

peace and blessing to all who are reading this forum. In my first two posts I tried to present what the early church, and indeed non Christian historians had written about Jesus, from the time of his ministry on earth, until the Council of Nicea.

Please allow me now to show you some internal evidence of the Deity of Christ. Some of these things some of you have raised questions and made comment about. I pray that this will provide some answers and broaden our discussion on this central Christian doctrine

"John 5:16-18

"For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him, not only was he breaking the sabbath, but he was calling God his own Father, making Himself equal with God.

By his very words and actions, Jesus was deliberately showing Himself to be equal to God.. yet he then goes on to show them something else

John 5:19
Jesus gave them this answer "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by Himself, He can only do what He sees His Father doing, because whatever the Father does, the Son does."

John 5:22 "moreover, the Father judges no-one, but has entrusted all judgement to the Son. that all may honour the Son, just as the honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son, does not honour the Father who sent Him. "

Jesus claimed to be equal with the Father again after talking to them about the testimony and work of John the Baptist

I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has Himself testified concerning me. You have never heard His voice, nor seen His form, nor does His word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one He has sent. You study the Scriptures because you think by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me."

I do not accept praise from men, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me, but if someone else comes in His name, you will accept him. How can you believe if you accept praise from one another., yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from God.

But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?

Now let's look at John 10:30-33

"I 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".



Let's look now in John 14:5-11

Jesus is now talking to His Disciples, who are also questioning His Deity. Remember they too were Jews. Hear His words to them

"Philip said "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered. "Don't you know me Philip, even after I have been among you for such a long time? How can you say "show us the Father" Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not JUST my own. Rather, it is the Father living in me, who is doing His work. Believe me when I say, that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves."

And if there is a God sitting on the throne, and a lamb.?

Does it make sense?

It only makes sense if they are one and the same.. and the Scriptures do state they are

Revelation 1:7-8

Look, He is coming with the clouds and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him, and all peoples of the earth will mourn because of Him. So shall it be. amen!"

and John 20:24-30

Now Thomas (called Didymus) one of the twelve, was not with the Disciples when Jesus came (this was after the resurrection). So the Disciples told him "we have seen the Lord."
But He said to them, Unless I see the nail marks in His hands and put my fingers where the nail prints were, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe it."

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said "Peace be with you." Then He said to Thomas "put your finger here in my hands, Reach out your hand and put it into my side". Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to Him "My Lord and my God".




Jesus declared Himself many times to be God

If they are one and the same, how comes they exist in 2 places at the same time?

He wasn't in two places at the same time. John 1:1-2, 14 states it as it is

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the Beginning. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

For those few short years of Jesus life, God became flesh and dwelt amongst us, but never did He cease to be God. Phillipians 2:8-9 says "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."

Now, this ability for God to take on temporary physical appearances and yet remain the Transecendent, Omnipresent God is not unusual. Two occasions in the Old Testament where he did this are in

Genesis 18:1-15 speaks of the three visitors who come to visit Abraham and Sarah and tell them that they will have a son. The passage clearly speaks of THE LORD being one of those visitors.

Exodus 3:3-4:16 speaks of God appearing to and speaking to Moses as a burning bush in the desert.

There are others.

I have more things to show you, but I'd appreciate responses to the ones I have already posted.

Blessings

Carol

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Carol, it looks to me like you either haven't seen my responses or that you're deliberately ignoring them. I'd like to see some feedback to what I said.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Carol, it looks to me like you either haven't seen my responses or that you're deliberately ignoring them. I'd like to see some feedback to what I said.

[carol_au]

American Deist,

What I hope you will understand is that by second generation, I'm referring to the children of those who were listening to Jesus's words and claims. During 60AD many of the apostles were still alive and the Gospels were already in circulation. Now, if we were talking 200 years, as in the time of the prophet Muhammad, I could understand that the information would be important.. The words of those I have quoted who were alive at the time of Christ,, are the most respectable and still available quotes from history.

It is said that 500 people saw Him after his resurrection, but I have no witness to their testimony, save the Bible itself. That Jesus is perhaps the most researched person in history, is not supposition.

The foundation of the world's largest faith stands and falls on this central doctrine that Jesus is God.. that as God, He provided the only means man can have of assurance of salvation. The death and resurrection of Jesus.. God come in the flesh.

I would refer you to several books for a fuller treatment: Frank Morrison, Who Moved the Stone?; J.N.D. Anderson, The Evidence for the Resurrection; and Daniel Fuller, Easter Faith and History (pp. 145-262)

Frank Morrison is the only one of the three I have personally read. In his foreword he says "It seemed to me, if I could come at the truth of Why this man died a cruel death at the hands of the Roman Power, How He Himself regarded the matter and especially how he behaved in the test, I should be very near the to the true solution of the problem.. "did he really rise from the dead?". "Such, briefly was the purpose of this book, which I had planned, to take this last phase of the life of Jesus, ... to strip it of it's overgrowth of primitive belief and dogmatic suppositions, and to see this supremely great person as He really was." His book is very fascinating and highly recommended American deist.

The famous Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, concluded:

"The resurrection of Christ was one of the best-supported events in history, according to the law of legal evidence administered in courts of justice. Some examples of this can be found in this evidence

Let’s examine some of the evidence

* For thousands of years the Hebrew people had held their Sabbath tradition on a Saturday (which was the 7th day of week). Then a group of early Christians who were Jews changed this day of worship from the 7th day to the 1st day of the week (Sunday). What else could have accounted for their abandoning of such a strong cultural tradition?
* Then there is the fact of Easter. This was a replacement for the Jewish festival of the Passover. Why did the Jews who held the Passover to be the most significant event in the history of their nation—abandon it in favor of the celebration of Easter? 11 What other fact than that of the resurrection can explain the existence of the festival of Easter, which traces itself all the way back to the time of the early church?
* There is also the fact of Christian art. Archeologists have found in the catacombs of Rome, from the time of the persecutions, representations of the resurrection of Christ carved into the walls…this must have been a part of the very earliest beliefs of the Christians.
* Then there is the undeniable fact of the Christian church. Many people have not made the connection between the church and the resurrection—but the majority has. The Christian church is the largest institution that exists or has ever existed in the history of the world. More than one billion people this day profess to worship Jesus Christ as the living and risen Son of God. An institution of this size was not formed by the ideas or imaginations of men. It is known by all historians that the Christian church can be traced back to the city of Jerusalem in A.D. 30, which is the very time of the death and resurrection of Christ. All Scripture, the testimony of believers as well as non-believers and hostile enemies of Christianity declare that the church was spread everywhere because of this teaching, that Christ had risen from the dead. It is a fact that the church of Jesus Christ came into being because the apostles (His closest followers) declared He rose from the dead.
* We are confronted with the fulfillment of the prophecies of the resurrection of Christ in the Old Testament; of the predictions of Christ Himself that He would be taken and scourged and would be crucified, and on the 3rd day would rise again from the dead. If we suppose that He was involved in some conspiracy—we are confronted with the very character of Jesus Himself…this man who is declared to be the greatest, the most ethical, the most pure, the most honest man the world has ever known.
* We are confronted with the empty tomb and with the grave-clothes—you see the clothes were found still rolled up! They had simply collapsed and were still in their place—but with nothing inside them. It was at this moment that John believed (John 20:8). It would have been impossible to remove the body without disturbing the clothes with which it had been bound. No man could be responsible for what had taken place. Nor could any natural process of decay reduce a body to nothing so quickly. This was the effect of divine intervention. A miracle had taken place!
* We are also confronted with the testimony of the eye witnesses (Acts 10:39); with the twelve different occasions when Christ appeared to people, with more than 500 people who saw Him risen, with the nature of these appearances in the morning and afternoon and evening, inside and outside, in which they handled and touched Him.
* We are confronted with the tremendous transformation of the apostles from fearful, timid cowards to bold proclaimers of the gospel. The apostle Peter, who one day was afraid of a servant girl (because she said that he was a follower of Christ), but a few days later he was confronting the entire Sanhedrin (the ruling body of the Jews), affirming to them that he could not help but declare that which he had seen and heard. Then we have the faithfulness, the character, the suffering, and the death of these witnesses—most of whom sealed their testimony with their blood.
* There is the undeniable fact of the tremendous conversion and transformation of the apostle Paul from Saul, the persecutor and murderer of Christians, to Paul, the greatest apostle in the history of all Christianity (Saul, before his conversion was like the Hitler of our day).
* The apostles’ testimonies are trustworthy…because of those 12 men—11 died martyrs’ deaths on the basis of two things: the resurrection of Jesus Christ and their belief in Him as the Son of God. They were tortured and flogged and finally faced death by some of the cruelest methods known to men at that time.

* Peter—crucified (upside-down)
* Andrew—crucified
* Matthew—the sword
* John—boiled in hot oil and left to die on a deserted island
* James—crucified
* Peter—crucified
* Simon—crucified
* Thaddaeus—killed by arrows
* James, brother of Jesus—stoned
* Thomas—spear thrust
* Bartholomew—crucified
* James—the sword



* This is a very important fact. In the history of psychology it has never been known that a person was willing to give up his or her life for what they knew to be a lie.

"Men will die for what they believe to be true…though it may actually be false. They do not, however, die for what they know is a lie."—Paul Little

3 alternatives are possible:

* This was a fraud and the apostles all lied
* They were deluded, deceived and in error
* Christ did rise from the dead

I'm digressing slightly from the thread, but to believe in the resurrection, you have to believe that Jesus is God, so it's not really a digression.

I leave you with lots of reading until next week.

[carol_au]

American Deist,

What I hope you will understand is that by second generation, I'm referring to the children of those who were listening to Jesus's words and claims. During 60AD many of the apostles were still alive and the Gospels were already in circulation. Now, if we were talking 200 years, as in the time of the prophet Muhammad, I could understand that the information would be important.. The words of those I have quoted who were alive at the time of Christ,, are the most respectable and still available quotes from history.

It is said that 500 people saw Him after his resurrection, but I have no witness to their testimony, save the Bible itself. That Jesus is perhaps the most researched person in history, is not supposition.

The foundation of the world's largest faith stands and falls on this central doctrine that Jesus is God.. that as God, He provided the only means man can have of assurance of salvation. The death and resurrection of Jesus.. God come in the flesh.

I would refer you to several books for a fuller treatment: Frank Morrison, Who Moved the Stone?; J.N.D. Anderson, The Evidence for the Resurrection; and Daniel Fuller, Easter Faith and History (pp. 145-262)

Frank Morrison is the only one of the three I have personally read. In his foreword he says "It seemed to me, if I could come at the truth of Why this man died a cruel death at the hands of the Roman Power, How He Himself regarded the matter and especially how he behaved in the test, I should be very near the to the true solution of the problem.. "did he really rise from the dead?". "Such, briefly was the purpose of this book, which I had planned, to take this last phase of the life of Jesus, ... to strip it of it's overgrowth of primitive belief and dogmatic suppositions, and to see this supremely great person as He really was." His book is very fascinating and highly recommended American deist.

The famous Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, concluded:

"The resurrection of Christ was one of the best-supported events in history, according to the law of legal evidence administered in courts of justice. Some examples of this can be found in this evidence

Let’s examine some of the evidence

* For thousands of years the Hebrew people had held their Sabbath tradition on a Saturday (which was the 7th day of week). Then a group of early Christians who were Jews changed this day of worship from the 7th day to the 1st day of the week (Sunday). What else could have accounted for their abandoning of such a strong cultural tradition?
* Then there is the fact of Easter. This was a replacement for the Jewish festival of the Passover. Why did the Jews who held the Passover to be the most significant event in the history of their nation—abandon it in favor of the celebration of Easter? 11 What other fact than that of the resurrection can explain the existence of the festival of Easter, which traces itself all the way back to the time of the early church?
* There is also the fact of Christian art. Archeologists have found in the catacombs of Rome, from the time of the persecutions, representations of the resurrection of Christ carved into the walls…this must have been a part of the very earliest beliefs of the Christians.
* Then there is the undeniable fact of the Christian church. Many people have not made the connection between the church and the resurrection—but the majority has. The Christian church is the largest institution that exists or has ever existed in the history of the world. More than one billion people this day profess to worship Jesus Christ as the living and risen Son of God. An institution of this size was not formed by the ideas or imaginations of men. It is known by all historians that the Christian church can be traced back to the city of Jerusalem in A.D. 30, which is the very time of the death and resurrection of Christ. All Scripture, the testimony of believers as well as non-believers and hostile enemies of Christianity declare that the church was spread everywhere because of this teaching, that Christ had risen from the dead. It is a fact that the church of Jesus Christ came into being because the apostles (His closest followers) declared He rose from the dead.
* We are confronted with the fulfillment of the prophecies of the resurrection of Christ in the Old Testament; of the predictions of Christ Himself that He would be taken and scourged and would be crucified, and on the 3rd day would rise again from the dead. If we suppose that He was involved in some conspiracy—we are confronted with the very character of Jesus Himself…this man who is declared to be the greatest, the most ethical, the most pure, the most honest man the world has ever known.
* We are confronted with the empty tomb and with the grave-clothes—you see the clothes were found still rolled up! They had simply collapsed and were still in their place—but with nothing inside them. It was at this moment that John believed (John 20:8). It would have been impossible to remove the body without disturbing the clothes with which it had been bound. No man could be responsible for what had taken place. Nor could any natural process of decay reduce a body to nothing so quickly. This was the effect of divine intervention. A miracle had taken place!
* We are also confronted with the testimony of the eye witnesses (Acts 10:39); with the twelve different occasions when Christ appeared to people, with more than 500 people who saw Him risen, with the nature of these appearances in the morning and afternoon and evening, inside and outside, in which they handled and touched Him.
* We are confronted with the tremendous transformation of the apostles from fearful, timid cowards to bold proclaimers of the gospel. The apostle Peter, who one day was afraid of a servant girl (because she said that he was a follower of Christ), but a few days later he was confronting the entire Sanhedrin (the ruling body of the Jews), affirming to them that he could not help but declare that which he had seen and heard. Then we have the faithfulness, the character, the suffering, and the death of these witnesses—most of whom sealed their testimony with their blood.
* There is the undeniable fact of the tremendous conversion and transformation of the apostle Paul from Saul, the persecutor and murderer of Christians, to Paul, the greatest apostle in the history of all Christianity (Saul, before his conversion was like the Hitler of our day).
* The apostles’ testimonies are trustworthy…because of those 12 men—11 died martyrs’ deaths on the basis of two things: the resurrection of Jesus Christ and their belief in Him as the Son of God. They were tortured and flogged and finally faced death by some of the cruelest methods known to men at that time.

* Peter—crucified (upside-down)
* Andrew—crucified
* Matthew—the sword
* John—boiled in hot oil and left to die on a deserted island
* James—crucified
* Peter—crucified
* Simon—crucified
* Thaddaeus—killed by arrows
* James, brother of Jesus—stoned
* Thomas—spear thrust
* Bartholomew—crucified
* James—the sword



* This is a very important fact. In the history of psychology it has never been known that a person was willing to give up his or her life for what they knew to be a lie.

"Men will die for what they believe to be true…though it may actually be false. They do not, however, die for what they know is a lie."—Paul Little

3 alternatives are possible:

* This was a fraud and the apostles all lied
* They were deluded, deceived and in error
* Christ did rise from the dead

I'm digressing slightly from the thread, but to believe in the resurrection, you have to believe that Jesus is God, so it's not really a digression.

I leave you with lots of reading until next week.

[carol_au]

American Deist,

My apologies. I had seen your responses to my posts and was trying to answer them. It was taking me a long time to find the answers and you were posting between them. I am sorry and hope that my last post answered your questions. I know they are not specific, but I am very busy today with much happening, but I did want to answer your questions in as full a way as possible, and don't know if I have really done them justice. Please bear with me till next week if I have n't and I'll devote more time to answering them specifically.

May God grant peace and blessing in our discussions

Carol

[carol_au]

American Deist,

My apologies. I had seen your responses to my posts and was trying to answer them. It was taking me a long time to find the answers and you were posting between them. I am sorry and hope that my last post answered your questions. I know they are not specific, but I am very busy today with much happening, but I did want to answer your questions in as full a way as possible, and don't know if I have really done them justice. Please bear with me till next week if I have n't and I'll devote more time to answering them specifically.

May God grant peace and blessing in our discussions

Carol

[Yahya Sulaiman]

"Now, if we were talking 200 years, as in the time of the prophet Muhammad, I could understand that the information would be important.. The words of those I have quoted who were alive at the time of Christ,, are the most respectable and still available quotes from history."

I doubt very much that they were alive at that time. Remember that people didn't live very long in those days.

"For thousands of years the Hebrew people had held their Sabbath tradition on a Saturday (which was the 7th day of week). Then a group of early Christians who were Jews changed this day of worship from the 7th day to the 1st day of the week (Sunday). What else could have accounted for their abandoning of such a strong cultural tradition?"

Huh? I don't understand this line of reasoning at all.

"Then there is the fact of Easter. This was a replacement for the Jewish festival of the Passover. Why did the Jews who held the Passover to be the most significant event in the history of their nation—abandon it in favor of the celebration of Easter? 11 What other fact than that of the resurrection can explain the existence of the festival of Easter, which traces itself all the way back to the time of the early church?"

How about people believing in the Resurrection even though it didn't happen?

"There is also the fact of Christian art. Archeologists have found in the catacombs of Rome, from the time of the persecutions, representations of the resurrection of Christ carved into the walls…this must have been a part of the very earliest beliefs of the Christians."

I'd like to know more about this. In any case it isn't evidence for the Resurrection.

"Then there is the undeniable fact of the Christian church. Many people have not made the connection between the church and the resurrection—but the majority has. The Christian church is the largest institution that exists or has ever existed in the history of the world. More than one billion people this day profess to worship Jesus Christ as the living and risen Son of God. An institution of this size was not formed by the ideas or imaginations of men."

You just committed two fallacies at once: the appeal to authority and the appeal to the masses.

"It is known by all historians that the Christian church can be traced back to the city of Jerusalem in A.D. 30, which is the very time of the death and resurrection of Christ. All Scripture, the testimony of believers as well as non-believers and hostile enemies of Christianity declare that the church was spread everywhere because of this teaching, that Christ had risen from the dead. It is a fact that the church of Jesus Christ came into being because the apostles (His closest followers) declared He rose from the dead."

If they say it, then somehow it's automatically true?

"We are confronted with the fulfillment of the prophecies of the resurrection of Christ in the Old Testament; of the predictions of Christ Himself that He would be taken and scourged and would be crucified, and on the 3rd day would rise again from the dead. If we suppose that He was involved in some conspiracy—we are confronted with the very character of Jesus Himself…this man who is declared to be the greatest, the most ethical, the most pure, the most honest man the world has ever known."

Since I don't take the Gospels at face value historically, I don't think it should raise an eyebrow if in their narration Jesus fulfills propecies (assuming that this is even the case).

"It would have been impossible to remove the body without disturbing the clothes with which it had been bound. No man could be responsible for what had taken place. Nor could any natural process of decay reduce a body to nothing so quickly. This was the effect of divine intervention. A miracle had taken place!"

If that actually happened, and I don't know that it did.

"We are also confronted with the testimony of the eye witnesses (Acts 10:39); with the twelve different occasions when Christ appeared to people, with more than 500 people who saw Him risen, with the nature of these appearances in the morning and afternoon and evening, inside and outside, in which they handled and touched Him."

I don't just take the Bible's words for granted the way you do.

"We are confronted with the tremendous transformation of the apostles from fearful, timid cowards to bold proclaimers of the gospel. The apostle Peter, who one day was afraid of a servant girl (because she said that he was a follower of Christ), but a few days later he was confronting the entire Sanhedrin (the ruling body of the Jews), affirming to them that he could not help but declare that which he had seen and heard. Then we have the faithfulness, the character, the suffering, and the death of these witnesses—most of whom sealed their testimony with their blood."

There have been martyrs for all sorts of different, contradictory beliefs. Obviously, they can't all be right.

"There is the undeniable fact of the tremendous conversion and transformation of the apostle Paul from Saul, the persecutor and murderer of Christians, to Paul, the greatest apostle in the history of all Christianity (Saul, before his conversion was like the Hitler of our day)."

Just because he converts doesn't mean he's right in doing so.

"The apostles’ testimonies are trustworthy…because of those 12 men—11 died martyrs’ deaths on the basis of two things: the resurrection of Jesus Christ and their belief in Him as the Son of God. They were tortured and flogged and finally faced death by some of the cruelest methods known to men at that time."

And people can't be tortured and killed over beliefs they hold that are still incorrect?

"This is a very important fact. In the history of psychology it has never been known that a person was willing to give up his or her life for what they knew to be a lie."

What if they didn't know it to be a lie, but it still was a lie?

[Yahya Sulaiman]

"Now, if we were talking 200 years, as in the time of the prophet Muhammad, I could understand that the information would be important.. The words of those I have quoted who were alive at the time of Christ,, are the most respectable and still available quotes from history."

I doubt very much that they were alive at that time. Remember that people didn't live very long in those days.

"For thousands of years the Hebrew people had held their Sabbath tradition on a Saturday (which was the 7th day of week). Then a group of early Christians who were Jews changed this day of worship from the 7th day to the 1st day of the week (Sunday). What else could have accounted for their abandoning of such a strong cultural tradition?"

Huh? I don't understand this line of reasoning at all.

"Then there is the fact of Easter. This was a replacement for the Jewish festival of the Passover. Why did the Jews who held the Passover to be the most significant event in the history of their nation—abandon it in favor of the celebration of Easter? 11 What other fact than that of the resurrection can explain the existence of the festival of Easter, which traces itself all the way back to the time of the early church?"

How about people believing in the Resurrection even though it didn't happen?

"There is also the fact of Christian art. Archeologists have found in the catacombs of Rome, from the time of the persecutions, representations of the resurrection of Christ carved into the walls…this must have been a part of the very earliest beliefs of the Christians."

I'd like to know more about this. In any case it isn't evidence for the Resurrection.

"Then there is the undeniable fact of the Christian church. Many people have not made the connection between the church and the resurrection—but the majority has. The Christian church is the largest institution that exists or has ever existed in the history of the world. More than one billion people this day profess to worship Jesus Christ as the living and risen Son of God. An institution of this size was not formed by the ideas or imaginations of men."

You just committed two fallacies at once: the appeal to authority and the appeal to the masses.

"It is known by all historians that the Christian church can be traced back to the city of Jerusalem in A.D. 30, which is the very time of the death and resurrection of Christ. All Scripture, the testimony of believers as well as non-believers and hostile enemies of Christianity declare that the church was spread everywhere because of this teaching, that Christ had risen from the dead. It is a fact that the church of Jesus Christ came into being because the apostles (His closest followers) declared He rose from the dead."

If they say it, then somehow it's automatically true?

"We are confronted with the fulfillment of the prophecies of the resurrection of Christ in the Old Testament; of the predictions of Christ Himself that He would be taken and scourged and would be crucified, and on the 3rd day would rise again from the dead. If we suppose that He was involved in some conspiracy—we are confronted with the very character of Jesus Himself…this man who is declared to be the greatest, the most ethical, the most pure, the most honest man the world has ever known."

Since I don't take the Gospels at face value historically, I don't think it should raise an eyebrow if in their narration Jesus fulfills propecies (assuming that this is even the case).

"It would have been impossible to remove the body without disturbing the clothes with which it had been bound. No man could be responsible for what had taken place. Nor could any natural process of decay reduce a body to nothing so quickly. This was the effect of divine intervention. A miracle had taken place!"

If that actually happened, and I don't know that it did.

"We are also confronted with the testimony of the eye witnesses (Acts 10:39); with the twelve different occasions when Christ appeared to people, with more than 500 people who saw Him risen, with the nature of these appearances in the morning and afternoon and evening, inside and outside, in which they handled and touched Him."

I don't just take the Bible's words for granted the way you do.

"We are confronted with the tremendous transformation of the apostles from fearful, timid cowards to bold proclaimers of the gospel. The apostle Peter, who one day was afraid of a servant girl (because she said that he was a follower of Christ), but a few days later he was confronting the entire Sanhedrin (the ruling body of the Jews), affirming to them that he could not help but declare that which he had seen and heard. Then we have the faithfulness, the character, the suffering, and the death of these witnesses—most of whom sealed their testimony with their blood."

There have been martyrs for all sorts of different, contradictory beliefs. Obviously, they can't all be right.

"There is the undeniable fact of the tremendous conversion and transformation of the apostle Paul from Saul, the persecutor and murderer of Christians, to Paul, the greatest apostle in the history of all Christianity (Saul, before his conversion was like the Hitler of our day)."

Just because he converts doesn't mean he's right in doing so.

"The apostles’ testimonies are trustworthy…because of those 12 men—11 died martyrs’ deaths on the basis of two things: the resurrection of Jesus Christ and their belief in Him as the Son of God. They were tortured and flogged and finally faced death by some of the cruelest methods known to men at that time."

And people can't be tortured and killed over beliefs they hold that are still incorrect?

"This is a very important fact. In the history of psychology it has never been known that a person was willing to give up his or her life for what they knew to be a lie."

What if they didn't know it to be a lie, but it still was a lie?

[carol_au]

american deist..

my responses

1. " doubt very much that they were alive at that time. Remember that people didn't live very long in those days"

I think we have a misunderstanding here.. I know they didn't.. which is why when we talk about 60AD as some of my quotes were, we are talking about the 30 year old children of those who were 30 at the time Jesus died. So the quotes are from those who would have heard the gospel from some who were still alive at the time they wrote, and others who would have heard from the respected elders of the time, who themselves were contemporaries of Jesus. Muslims accept the oral memories of the Companions of the prophet , so why not hold the oral memories of those alive at the time of the resurrection?

2.""For thousands of years the Hebrew people had held their Sabbath tradition on a Saturday (which was the 7th day of week). Then a group of early Christians who were Jews changed this day of worship from the 7th day to the 1st day of the week (Sunday). What else could have accounted for their abandoning of such a strong cultural tradition?"

The Christian faith was born in the midst of a very Jewish cultural heritage. So strong was it that when the Gospel was first preached, the apostles tried to send it in a Jewish packaging to the gentiles.. until God Himself intervened and reminded them that it was the Gospel for all people and not Jewish at all.

But this cut right across the pride of the Jewish converts who really struggled with the change in life style that becoming Christians imposed on them. It was the revelation that Peter had and the testimony of the Apostles that challenged and changed their thinking. Jesus though had already confronted that attitude with the scribes and Pharisees and Jewish religious leaders and also with the Woman of Samaria. He showed His disciples, though they were not at that point ready to listen, that He was the God of all people, not just the Jews.

3. to answer the others.. let me summarise, as I'm not meant to be here :-)

It has to be agreed, even if you can't accept the fact of a resurrected Jesus, you have to agree that his life and death and the reports of his resurrection, have changed the world as we know it. As a believer, I think of all history as HIS- story. You see, the coming of Jesus wasn't a random event in history.. it was the act of Almighty God, who had planned it before even man was created. So, all the revelations to the prophets were all leading up to the coming of God the Son, to earth to do what only God could do.

After His resurrection and ascension.. history continues to head towards the climax of history that both Christians and Muslims agree on.. the return of Jesus and the Judgement Day.

If you take the Bible and see it as random stories which have no reason for existance, you come to the conclusions that Muslims and others who don't accept the Bible as the Word of God come to, and justifibly so... but if you see it as a historical record of God's dealing with man, leading to the climax of the cross.. and now heading to the climax of the return of Christ.. then it makes perfect sense.

If you take what the Bible says of the claims of Jesus, of his life, death and resurrection ( and one thing you can never do is just look at the Qur'an for that information.. it just isn't there.) and add to it what people were still saying at the Council of Nicea about him.. and what people are still saying today.. there is no contradiction.. the same great doctrine is still the central reason for the church's existance.

You see American Deism, it's easy to look at all the evidence and come up with all manner of words from your own understanding to try and say what is written in many sources affirming and confirming the existance of Jesus and his claims to Deity and the belief of those of his contemporaries.. but does that make your words any truer than what you are denying is truth?

Why not do look at the whole story of Jesus asking the same question pilate asked at his trial "what is truth". Frank Morrison asked that question, I asked that question, and we all left our earlier understandings and belief systems and embraced what we could not deny.. this Jesus is not just a man of history.. and His life and death and resurrection lead us to bow the knee and acknowledge him as God.

My greetings for a peaceful weekend.

Carol

[carol_au]

american deist..

my responses

1. " doubt very much that they were alive at that time. Remember that people didn't live very long in those days"

I think we have a misunderstanding here.. I know they didn't.. which is why when we talk about 60AD as some of my quotes were, we are talking about the 30 year old children of those who were 30 at the time Jesus died. So the quotes are from those who would have heard the gospel from some who were still alive at the time they wrote, and others who would have heard from the respected elders of the time, who themselves were contemporaries of Jesus. Muslims accept the oral memories of the Companions of the prophet , so why not hold the oral memories of those alive at the time of the resurrection?

2.""For thousands of years the Hebrew people had held their Sabbath tradition on a Saturday (which was the 7th day of week). Then a group of early Christians who were Jews changed this day of worship from the 7th day to the 1st day of the week (Sunday). What else could have accounted for their abandoning of such a strong cultural tradition?"

The Christian faith was born in the midst of a very Jewish cultural heritage. So strong was it that when the Gospel was first preached, the apostles tried to send it in a Jewish packaging to the gentiles.. until God Himself intervened and reminded them that it was the Gospel for all people and not Jewish at all.

But this cut right across the pride of the Jewish converts who really struggled with the change in life style that becoming Christians imposed on them. It was the revelation that Peter had and the testimony of the Apostles that challenged and changed their thinking. Jesus though had already confronted that attitude with the scribes and Pharisees and Jewish religious leaders and also with the Woman of Samaria. He showed His disciples, though they were not at that point ready to listen, that He was the God of all people, not just the Jews.

3. to answer the others.. let me summarise, as I'm not meant to be here :-)

It has to be agreed, even if you can't accept the fact of a resurrected Jesus, you have to agree that his life and death and the reports of his resurrection, have changed the world as we know it. As a believer, I think of all history as HIS- story. You see, the coming of Jesus wasn't a random event in history.. it was the act of Almighty God, who had planned it before even man was created. So, all the revelations to the prophets were all leading up to the coming of God the Son, to earth to do what only God could do.

After His resurrection and ascension.. history continues to head towards the climax of history that both Christians and Muslims agree on.. the return of Jesus and the Judgement Day.

If you take the Bible and see it as random stories which have no reason for existance, you come to the conclusions that Muslims and others who don't accept the Bible as the Word of God come to, and justifibly so... but if you see it as a historical record of God's dealing with man, leading to the climax of the cross.. and now heading to the climax of the return of Christ.. then it makes perfect sense.

If you take what the Bible says of the claims of Jesus, of his life, death and resurrection ( and one thing you can never do is just look at the Qur'an for that information.. it just isn't there.) and add to it what people were still saying at the Council of Nicea about him.. and what people are still saying today.. there is no contradiction.. the same great doctrine is still the central reason for the church's existance.

You see American Deism, it's easy to look at all the evidence and come up with all manner of words from your own understanding to try and say what is written in many sources affirming and confirming the existance of Jesus and his claims to Deity and the belief of those of his contemporaries.. but does that make your words any truer than what you are denying is truth?

Why not do look at the whole story of Jesus asking the same question pilate asked at his trial "what is truth". Frank Morrison asked that question, I asked that question, and we all left our earlier understandings and belief systems and embraced what we could not deny.. this Jesus is not just a man of history.. and His life and death and resurrection lead us to bow the knee and acknowledge him as God.

My greetings for a peaceful weekend.

Carol

[Yahya Sulaiman]

"You see American Deism, it's easy to look at all the evidence and come up with all manner of words from your own understanding to try and say what is written in many sources affirming and confirming the existance of Jesus and his claims to Deity and the belief of those of his contemporaries.. but does that make your words any truer than what you are denying is truth?"

It means that I am taking a rational approach to the matter. The absolute truth of it may never be known, so what you do is form the most logical assumption you can.

"Why not do look at the whole story of Jesus asking the same question pilate asked at his trial "what is truth". Frank Morrison asked that question, I asked that question, and we all left our earlier understandings and belief systems and embraced what we could not deny.. this Jesus is not just a man of history.. and His life and death and resurrection lead us to bow the knee and acknowledge him as God."

Truth is what you call it when something conforms to reality. That's the only answer I think is appropriate.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

"You see American Deism, it's easy to look at all the evidence and come up with all manner of words from your own understanding to try and say what is written in many sources affirming and confirming the existance of Jesus and his claims to Deity and the belief of those of his contemporaries.. but does that make your words any truer than what you are denying is truth?"

It means that I am taking a rational approach to the matter. The absolute truth of it may never be known, so what you do is form the most logical assumption you can.

"Why not do look at the whole story of Jesus asking the same question pilate asked at his trial "what is truth". Frank Morrison asked that question, I asked that question, and we all left our earlier understandings and belief systems and embraced what we could not deny.. this Jesus is not just a man of history.. and His life and death and resurrection lead us to bow the knee and acknowledge him as God."

Truth is what you call it when something conforms to reality. That's the only answer I think is appropriate.

[mule]

Hey Carol,

You have made some very wonderful posts. God Bless You. Welcome to the Board.

MULE

[mule]

Hey Carol,

You have made some very wonderful posts. God Bless You. Welcome to the Board.

MULE

[carol_au]

I guess my only reply would be, that sometimes it's easy to miss what is very obvious, because it is so obvious. I have shown you much information from extra biblical sources to prove that Jesus was more than just a rabbi. You have chosen to suggest that it is logical to disregard that evidence as "not logical" and therefore not truth.

"Truth is what you call it when something conforms to reality. That's the only answer I think is appropriate."

I think you are from the US and therefore you would accept that Christopher Columbus discovered America and that the pilgrim fathers left Plymouth to settle in the US. Now, the only way you know that that actually happened, is that it is recorded in history. You were not there, yet, the historical books, and your history teacher taught you it was, so on that basis you accept what they said.

So the extra biblical historical evidence, as well as the biblical evidence asserts Jesus claimed to be God and was worshipped as God. The world is still influenced dramatically by his one life, regardless of what you think of him. So, is this not just a glimpse of the truth that conforms to reality?

The problem is.. maybe the evidence that demands a verdict is so clear, it's easy to over look it , in the search for something that is not obvious. Please, over this weekend, can I urge you to look again at each of my posts very carefully and ask yourself if the truth is not obvious and why, if it is truth, it's so difficult to accept.

I see from your history that you left Islam and are here to try and find out if the faith you left might not be the true faith after all. You are therefore in the realm of a seeker of truth.. so please, whilst you are searching for truth, don't disregard the claims of Christians, that Jesus is the Messiah.. but search out the evidence and see if you, like me, find you can do nothing except bow in submission and worship of the one true God.

Respectfully yours

[carol_au]

I guess my only reply would be, that sometimes it's easy to miss what is very obvious, because it is so obvious. I have shown you much information from extra biblical sources to prove that Jesus was more than just a rabbi. You have chosen to suggest that it is logical to disregard that evidence as "not logical" and therefore not truth.

"Truth is what you call it when something conforms to reality. That's the only answer I think is appropriate."

I think you are from the US and therefore you would accept that Christopher Columbus discovered America and that the pilgrim fathers left Plymouth to settle in the US. Now, the only way you know that that actually happened, is that it is recorded in history. You were not there, yet, the historical books, and your history teacher taught you it was, so on that basis you accept what they said.

So the extra biblical historical evidence, as well as the biblical evidence asserts Jesus claimed to be God and was worshipped as God. The world is still influenced dramatically by his one life, regardless of what you think of him. So, is this not just a glimpse of the truth that conforms to reality?

The problem is.. maybe the evidence that demands a verdict is so clear, it's easy to over look it , in the search for something that is not obvious. Please, over this weekend, can I urge you to look again at each of my posts very carefully and ask yourself if the truth is not obvious and why, if it is truth, it's so difficult to accept.

I see from your history that you left Islam and are here to try and find out if the faith you left might not be the true faith after all. You are therefore in the realm of a seeker of truth.. so please, whilst you are searching for truth, don't disregard the claims of Christians, that Jesus is the Messiah.. but search out the evidence and see if you, like me, find you can do nothing except bow in submission and worship of the one true God.

Respectfully yours

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

needless to say, Leif Ericksson was the first european to find North America... well prior to the disease bringing Christopher 'i'll enslave you all' Columbus.

*sorry for the rant.. i'm not such a fan of mr. columbus.*


~compassionately~

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

needless to say, Leif Ericksson was the first european to find North America... well prior to the disease bringing Christopher 'i'll enslave you all' Columbus.

*sorry for the rant.. i'm not such a fan of mr. columbus.*


~compassionately~

[ihsan]

Since the topic turned to Josephus, i.e. the source for the claims of Jesus in the 1st century, there are some simple things that need clearing. The works attributed to Jospehus are NOT direct, but have come to us through Christina sources. There are various versiosn of it, including the Greek and the Arabic.

To quote:


***The so called Testimonium Flavianum. This is the only direct discussion of Jesus to be found in the writings of Josephus. Unfortunately, the text as we have it in extant copies of Josephus' Antiquities appears to have been dramatically re-written from a Christian point of view. (The writings of Josephus were brought down to us from antiquity not by the Jewish community, but by the Christians). The second column contains an Arabic quotation of the Josephus passage that has a much less Christian flavor. Some scholars have argued that the Arabic version has a more likely claim to originality. Although that is a strong possibility, it should be noted that even the Arabic version is a good deal kinder to Jesus than Josephus usually is to messianic claimants. In addition it is harder to see why the Christian scribe would feel so compelled to change it. It is possible that the original may have been much more insulting, in keeping with Josephus' normal pattern, and that the Greek and Arabic versions are simply two different recensions of a Christian rewrite. R. Eisler has made an effort to reconstruct an 'original' that might have, given Christian revision, served as a base for the version that survives in Greek. It is, of course, entirely hypothetical, and no textual evidence exists to support it, but it does fit in better with Josephus' usual pattern and language, as well as the general context of the passage.

On the other hand, it may be possible to 'save' the Arabic version. Particularly if we remove the last sentence (accordingly ...wonders) as a pious expansion, we are left with a non-committal report on the martyrdom at Roman hands of a pious Jew. This would not be at all inconsistent with Josephus' style, particularly if he discounted as later followers' embellishments the claims made by Christians that Jesus was the Messiah. This last suggestion is to some extent crippled by the less controversial reference in Antiquities 20 if it is genuine (see below).***

The greek version reads:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not cease. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life. For the prophets of God had prophesied these and myriads of other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still up to now, not disappeared."

The Arabic reads:

"Similarly Josephus the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance of the Jews:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

And the Reconstructed version:

"Now about this time arose an occasion for new disturbances, a certain Jesus, a wizard of a man, if indeed he may be called a man, who was the most monstrous of men, whom his disciples call a son of God, as having done wonders such as no man has ever done.... He was in fact a teacher of astonishing tricks to such men as accept the abnormal with delight.... And he seduced many Jews and many also of the Greek nation, and was regarded by them as the Messiah.... And when, on the indictment of the principal men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to the cross, still those who before had admired him did not cease to rave. For it seemed to them that having been dead for three days, he had appeared to them alive again, as the divinely-inspired prophets had foretold -- these and ten thousand other wonderful things -- concerning him. And even now the race of those who are called 'Messianists' after him is not extinct."

Further,

"The only usually undisputed allusion to Jesus in Josephus is actually only a passing reference in the context of the trial of James. James is identified, not as James son of ???? as one would normally expect but as brother of Jesus. While this passage is more likely to be authentic than the one above, it is not without problems. Origen knows and cites this passage, and is unaware of the 'Testimonium Flavianum' above, providing some evidence for its presence in the Antiquities before its Christian reworking. On the other hand, Origen's version contains the unlikely addition in which Josephus also says that it is as punishment for the execution of James that Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed. The possibility suggests itself that even Origen's Josephus has undergone Christian reworking, simply of a different variety, in which, perhaps, the insulting Testimonium has been expunged, and James has been introduced as a pious Jewish hero."


Thus, it becomes abundantly clear that the source is not so UNDISPUTED.

[ihsan]

Since the topic turned to Josephus, i.e. the source for the claims of Jesus in the 1st century, there are some simple things that need clearing. The works attributed to Jospehus are NOT direct, but have come to us through Christina sources. There are various versiosn of it, including the Greek and the Arabic.

To quote:


***The so called Testimonium Flavianum. This is the only direct discussion of Jesus to be found in the writings of Josephus. Unfortunately, the text as we have it in extant copies of Josephus' Antiquities appears to have been dramatically re-written from a Christian point of view. (The writings of Josephus were brought down to us from antiquity not by the Jewish community, but by the Christians). The second column contains an Arabic quotation of the Josephus passage that has a much less Christian flavor. Some scholars have argued that the Arabic version has a more likely claim to originality. Although that is a strong possibility, it should be noted that even the Arabic version is a good deal kinder to Jesus than Josephus usually is to messianic claimants. In addition it is harder to see why the Christian scribe would feel so compelled to change it. It is possible that the original may have been much more insulting, in keeping with Josephus' normal pattern, and that the Greek and Arabic versions are simply two different recensions of a Christian rewrite. R. Eisler has made an effort to reconstruct an 'original' that might have, given Christian revision, served as a base for the version that survives in Greek. It is, of course, entirely hypothetical, and no textual evidence exists to support it, but it does fit in better with Josephus' usual pattern and language, as well as the general context of the passage.

On the other hand, it may be possible to 'save' the Arabic version. Particularly if we remove the last sentence (accordingly ...wonders) as a pious expansion, we are left with a non-committal report on the martyrdom at Roman hands of a pious Jew. This would not be at all inconsistent with Josephus' style, particularly if he discounted as later followers' embellishments the claims made by Christians that Jesus was the Messiah. This last suggestion is to some extent crippled by the less controversial reference in Antiquities 20 if it is genuine (see below).***

The greek version reads:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not cease. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life. For the prophets of God had prophesied these and myriads of other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still up to now, not disappeared."

The Arabic reads:

"Similarly Josephus the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance of the Jews:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

And the Reconstructed version:

"Now about this time arose an occasion for new disturbances, a certain Jesus, a wizard of a man, if indeed he may be called a man, who was the most monstrous of men, whom his disciples call a son of God, as having done wonders such as no man has ever done.... He was in fact a teacher of astonishing tricks to such men as accept the abnormal with delight.... And he seduced many Jews and many also of the Greek nation, and was regarded by them as the Messiah.... And when, on the indictment of the principal men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to the cross, still those who before had admired him did not cease to rave. For it seemed to them that having been dead for three days, he had appeared to them alive again, as the divinely-inspired prophets had foretold -- these and ten thousand other wonderful things -- concerning him. And even now the race of those who are called 'Messianists' after him is not extinct."

Further,

"The only usually undisputed allusion to Jesus in Josephus is actually only a passing reference in the context of the trial of James. James is identified, not as James son of ???? as one would normally expect but as brother of Jesus. While this passage is more likely to be authentic than the one above, it is not without problems. Origen knows and cites this passage, and is unaware of the 'Testimonium Flavianum' above, providing some evidence for its presence in the Antiquities before its Christian reworking. On the other hand, Origen's version contains the unlikely addition in which Josephus also says that it is as punishment for the execution of James that Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed. The possibility suggests itself that even Origen's Josephus has undergone Christian reworking, simply of a different variety, in which, perhaps, the insulting Testimonium has been expunged, and James has been introduced as a pious Jewish hero."


Thus, it becomes abundantly clear that the source is not so UNDISPUTED.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste ishan,

thank you for the post.

i agree with you.. Josephus is unreliable, though many people like to cite him as an objective observer... when he was neither.

could you post the link to the source as i'd like to read it in it's entireity.



~compassionately~

[Vajradhara]

Namaste ishan,

thank you for the post.

i agree with you.. Josephus is unreliable, though many people like to cite him as an objective observer... when he was neither.

could you post the link to the source as i'd like to read it in it's entireity.



~compassionately~

[ihsan]

* Then there is the fact of Easter. This was a replacement for the Jewish festival of the Passover. Why did the Jews who held the Passover to be the most significant event in the history of their nation—abandon it in favor of the celebration of Easter? 11 What other fact than that of the resurrection can explain the existence of the festival of Easter, which traces itself all the way back to the time of the early church? ***

1. The timing of the celebration of Easter was officially chosen by the Council of Nicea, and it coincided with the spring equinox. The early Church was influenced by the paganistic society. In fact, one can find traces of the debates between faith versus law all over the Paulinian gospels, i.e. there was a strong tendency to subvert Jewish tradition with Gentilians tradition.

2. Your assumption is grounded in the notion that many Jews, i.e. those that followed Jesus, abandoned the Jewish law. We find the exact opposite, in the letters attributed to Paul and James. Even the topic of circumsicion was in the forefrunt.

***It is known by all historians that the Christian church can be traced back to the city of Jerusalem in A.D. 30, which is the very time of the death and resurrection of Christ. All Scripture, the testimony of believers as well as non-believers and hostile enemies of Christianity declare that the church was spread everywhere because of this teaching, that Christ had risen from the dead. It is a fact that the church of Jesus Christ came into being because the apostles (His closest followers) declared He rose from the dead.***

What is the proof that the Christian church can be traced back to Jerusalem 30 AD?

[ihsan]

* Then there is the fact of Easter. This was a replacement for the Jewish festival of the Passover. Why did the Jews who held the Passover to be the most significant event in the history of their nation—abandon it in favor of the celebration of Easter? 11 What other fact than that of the resurrection can explain the existence of the festival of Easter, which traces itself all the way back to the time of the early church? ***

1. The timing of the celebration of Easter was officially chosen by the Council of Nicea, and it coincided with the spring equinox. The early Church was influenced by the paganistic society. In fact, one can find traces of the debates between faith versus law all over the Paulinian gospels, i.e. there was a strong tendency to subvert Jewish tradition with Gentilians tradition.

2. Your assumption is grounded in the notion that many Jews, i.e. those that followed Jesus, abandoned the Jewish law. We find the exact opposite, in the letters attributed to Paul and James. Even the topic of circumsicion was in the forefrunt.

***It is known by all historians that the Christian church can be traced back to the city of Jerusalem in A.D. 30, which is the very time of the death and resurrection of Christ. All Scripture, the testimony of believers as well as non-believers and hostile enemies of Christianity declare that the church was spread everywhere because of this teaching, that Christ had risen from the dead. It is a fact that the church of Jesus Christ came into being because the apostles (His closest followers) declared He rose from the dead.***

What is the proof that the Christian church can be traced back to Jerusalem 30 AD?

[Yahya Sulaiman]

"I guess my only reply would be, that sometimes it's easy to miss what is very obvious, because it is so obvious. I have shown you much information from extra biblical sources to prove that Jesus was more than just a rabbi. You have chosen to suggest that it is logical to disregard that evidence as "not logical" and therefore not truth."

What I'm suggesting is that I see no logic in looking into extra-biblical sources that are not FROM THE TIME WHEN JESUS HIMSELF WAS ALIVE. That's what I'm concerned with.

"I think you are from the US and therefore you would accept that Christopher Columbus discovered America and that the pilgrim fathers left Plymouth to settle in the US."

No, Christopher Columbus invaded America, and he was not the first foreigner to find it either. And I'm not sure if the pilgrims left Plymouth or not, but from what I know, they called the place where they landed Plymouth.

"So the extra biblical historical evidence, as well as the biblical evidence asserts Jesus claimed to be God and was worshipped as God. The world is still influenced dramatically by his one life, regardless of what you think of him. So, is this not just a glimpse of the truth that conforms to reality?"

It's a glimpse of people's beliefs, which may or may not be true. A lot of people are still influenced dramatically by the Buddha's life, regardless of what I think of him. So, is this not just a glimps of the truth?

"The problem is.. maybe the evidence that demands a verdict is so clear, it's easy to over look it , in the search for something that is not obvious. Please, over this weekend, can I urge you to look again at each of my posts very carefully and ask yourself if the truth is not obvious and why, if it is truth, it's so difficult to accept."

I read your posts once, and that is enough. I've seen your points, and I find them flawed. I would rather the discussion continue than regress.

"I see from your history that you left Islam and are here to try and find out if the faith you left might not be the true faith after all. You are therefore in the realm of a seeker of truth.. so please, whilst you are searching for truth, don't disregard the claims of Christians, that Jesus is the Messiah.. but search out the evidence and see if you, like me, find you can do nothing except bow in submission and worship of the one true God."

I'm always willing to hear arguments for any religion. I will not by any means discriminate between the different religions in that respect.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

"I guess my only reply would be, that sometimes it's easy to miss what is very obvious, because it is so obvious. I have shown you much information from extra biblical sources to prove that Jesus was more than just a rabbi. You have chosen to suggest that it is logical to disregard that evidence as "not logical" and therefore not truth."

What I'm suggesting is that I see no logic in looking into extra-biblical sources that are not FROM THE TIME WHEN JESUS HIMSELF WAS ALIVE. That's what I'm concerned with.

"I think you are from the US and therefore you would accept that Christopher Columbus discovered America and that the pilgrim fathers left Plymouth to settle in the US."

No, Christopher Columbus invaded America, and he was not the first foreigner to find it either. And I'm not sure if the pilgrims left Plymouth or not, but from what I know, they called the place where they landed Plymouth.

"So the extra biblical historical evidence, as well as the biblical evidence asserts Jesus claimed to be God and was worshipped as God. The world is still influenced dramatically by his one life, regardless of what you think of him. So, is this not just a glimpse of the truth that conforms to reality?"

It's a glimpse of people's beliefs, which may or may not be true. A lot of people are still influenced dramatically by the Buddha's life, regardless of what I think of him. So, is this not just a glimps of the truth?

"The problem is.. maybe the evidence that demands a verdict is so clear, it's easy to over look it , in the search for something that is not obvious. Please, over this weekend, can I urge you to look again at each of my posts very carefully and ask yourself if the truth is not obvious and why, if it is truth, it's so difficult to accept."

I read your posts once, and that is enough. I've seen your points, and I find them flawed. I would rather the discussion continue than regress.

"I see from your history that you left Islam and are here to try and find out if the faith you left might not be the true faith after all. You are therefore in the realm of a seeker of truth.. so please, whilst you are searching for truth, don't disregard the claims of Christians, that Jesus is the Messiah.. but search out the evidence and see if you, like me, find you can do nothing except bow in submission and worship of the one true God."

I'm always willing to hear arguments for any religion. I will not by any means discriminate between the different religions in that respect.

[carol_au]

Greetings,

Please let me show you some quotes from Josephus's works..

"Josephus - An Eyewitness to Christianity
Josephus was a historian who lived from 37 A.D. to about 100 A.D. He was a member of the priestly aristocracy of the Jews, and was taken hostage by the Roman Empire in the great Jewish revolt of 66-70 A.D. Josephus spent the rest of his life in or around Rome as an advisor and historian to three emperors, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. For centuries, the works of Josephus were more widely read in Europe than any book other than the Bible. They are invaluable sources of eyewitness testimony to the development of Western civilization, including the foundation and growth of Christianity in the 1st Century.

Josephus - Biblical Accounts Outside the Bible
Josephus mentions New Testament events and people in some of his works. For many skeptics, this is viewed as significant evidence against the myth and legend theories that plague early Christianity. Here are some excerpts:
Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 (this paragraph is so phenomenal, that scholars now debate the authenticity of some of the more “favorable” portions of this text):
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Josephus mentions John the Baptist and Herod in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 5, paragraph 2:
"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."
Josephus mentions James, the brother of Jesus, in Antiquities, Book 20, chapter 9, paragraph 1:
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."
Josephus mentions Ananias, the High Priest, who was mentioned in Acts 23:2:
“Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money.”


Now, they are but a few of the quotes from Josephus's works. It's interesting that Josephus is highly respected by the non christian world, yet, those who are skeptics draw questions on his reliability, as it is probably the most reliable source outside of the Bible for the life and work of Christ.

You see, that Jesus existed is beyond debate, that Jesus was something other than just a rabbi is something both Muslim and Christian would agree on.. if Jesus is more than a prophet is where our discussion should end and begin..

contrary to evidence our friend submitted earlier to show that there are inconsistencies in Josephus's writings, may I please draw your attention to this site and ask you to read it carefully

This source is Jewish and not Christian, though it appears on a christian site. To reproduce the article would be wrong, so please read it for yourself and let us discuss it's implications when I am able to return during the weekend. This article does not support his writings without critisism so I feel it is a worthy article to submit to this discussion.

http://www.centuryone.com/josephus.html

My greetings continue with you all

[carol_au]

Greetings,

Please let me show you some quotes from Josephus's works..

"Josephus - An Eyewitness to Christianity
Josephus was a historian who lived from 37 A.D. to about 100 A.D. He was a member of the priestly aristocracy of the Jews, and was taken hostage by the Roman Empire in the great Jewish revolt of 66-70 A.D. Josephus spent the rest of his life in or around Rome as an advisor and historian to three emperors, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. For centuries, the works of Josephus were more widely read in Europe than any book other than the Bible. They are invaluable sources of eyewitness testimony to the development of Western civilization, including the foundation and growth of Christianity in the 1st Century.

Josephus - Biblical Accounts Outside the Bible
Josephus mentions New Testament events and people in some of his works. For many skeptics, this is viewed as significant evidence against the myth and legend theories that plague early Christianity. Here are some excerpts:
Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 (this paragraph is so phenomenal, that scholars now debate the authenticity of some of the more “favorable” portions of this text):
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Josephus mentions John the Baptist and Herod in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 5, paragraph 2:
"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."
Josephus mentions James, the brother of Jesus, in Antiquities, Book 20, chapter 9, paragraph 1:
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."
Josephus mentions Ananias, the High Priest, who was mentioned in Acts 23:2:
“Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money.”


Now, they are but a few of the quotes from Josephus's works. It's interesting that Josephus is highly respected by the non christian world, yet, those who are skeptics draw questions on his reliability, as it is probably the most reliable source outside of the Bible for the life and work of Christ.

You see, that Jesus existed is beyond debate, that Jesus was something other than just a rabbi is something both Muslim and Christian would agree on.. if Jesus is more than a prophet is where our discussion should end and begin..

contrary to evidence our friend submitted earlier to show that there are inconsistencies in Josephus's writings, may I please draw your attention to this site and ask you to read it carefully

This source is Jewish and not Christian, though it appears on a christian site. To reproduce the article would be wrong, so please read it for yourself and let us discuss it's implications when I am able to return during the weekend. This article does not support his writings without critisism so I feel it is a worthy article to submit to this discussion.

http://www.centuryone.com/josephus.html

My greetings continue with you all

[carol_au]

To all US readers

My apologies for my generalisations in regard to the US and it's history. Here in Australia our history records Captain Cook having discovered Australia, yet, it was actually the Dutch two hundred plus years earlier who did the discovery.

My point in raising history, was not to be accurate in details of American history we don't study here in Australia, but to say that all nations have their history books, which are accepted on good faith, unless new evidence comes to light to prove otherwise. We teach history as truth in our schools, based on books recording history from the perspective of the writer, yet we bring accusations against the historicity of the Bible.. Let's honour the Holy Book with the same regard, we honour history books.

blessings

Carol

[carol_au]

To all US readers

My apologies for my generalisations in regard to the US and it's history. Here in Australia our history records Captain Cook having discovered Australia, yet, it was actually the Dutch two hundred plus years earlier who did the discovery.

My point in raising history, was not to be accurate in details of American history we don't study here in Australia, but to say that all nations have their history books, which are accepted on good faith, unless new evidence comes to light to prove otherwise. We teach history as truth in our schools, based on books recording history from the perspective of the writer, yet we bring accusations against the historicity of the Bible.. Let's honour the Holy Book with the same regard, we honour history books.

blessings

Carol

[Yahya Sulaiman]

"You see, that Jesus existed is beyond debate."

No it isn't. There are some scholars, known as mythicists, who do claim that Jesus did not exist, and while they're in a minority, their position is generally seen at least as having scholarly integrity and possible veracity to it. I myself disagree with the mythicists, but by no means are they disputing something that's beyond debate. Come to think of it, nothing is beyond debate.

"We teach history as truth in our schools, based on books recording history from the perspective of the writer, yet we bring accusations against the historicity of the Bible.. Let's honour the Holy Book with the same regard, we honour history books."

History books are (generally and theoretically) secular writings with no bias in favor of a given religion. The Bible, on the other hand, contains biased accounts of events that definitely have a religious slant to them and often record the miraculous. Also bear in mind that the Gospel of John actually admits to being written "so that ye might believe."

MY SIGNATURE: Follow your heart and follow your head, but when the two conflict, the head should always win.

Edited by - American Deist on 10/08/2003 22:06:49

[Yahya Sulaiman]

"You see, that Jesus existed is beyond debate."

No it isn't. There are some scholars, known as mythicists, who do claim that Jesus did not exist, and while they're in a minority, their position is generally seen at least as having scholarly integrity and possible veracity to it. I myself disagree with the mythicists, but by no means are they disputing something that's beyond debate. Come to think of it, nothing is beyond debate.

"We teach history as truth in our schools, based on books recording history from the perspective of the writer, yet we bring accusations against the historicity of the Bible.. Let's honour the Holy Book with the same regard, we honour history books."

History books are (generally and theoretically) secular writings with no bias in favor of a given religion. The Bible, on the other hand, contains biased accounts of events that definitely have a religious slant to them and often record the miraculous. Also bear in mind that the Gospel of John actually admits to being written "so that ye might believe."

MY SIGNATURE: Follow your heart and follow your head, but when the two conflict, the head should always win.

Edited by - American Deist on 10/08/2003 22:06:49

[mule]

Give me an example of a ancient history book. Where exactly do we get our ancient history?

Cheers,
the mule

[mule]

Give me an example of a ancient history book. Where exactly do we get our ancient history?

Cheers,
the mule

[Vajradhara]

Namaste mule,

how ancient to you want?

Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book 1 roughly 431 BCE.

that's pretty ancient... and it's the first western history book that can be termed a "history book".

you can visit this link for more information:
http://www.archaeonia.com/history/classical/civil_war.htm



~compassionately~

[Vajradhara]

Namaste mule,

how ancient to you want?

Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book 1 roughly 431 BCE.

that's pretty ancient... and it's the first western history book that can be termed a "history book".

you can visit this link for more information:
http://www.archaeonia.com/history/classical/civil_war.htm



~compassionately~

[ihsan]

Peace be upon you,

To Carol:

The issue is not whether Josephus is reliable in the sense he is a historian. The statement that needs clarification is that the statements attributed to Josephus about Jesus have been deemed QUESTIONABLE. They are NOT CONSIDERED AUTHENTIC.

The very verse you quoted regarding Jesus is not transmitted authentically and differ in the various translations. Thus, the point I wanted to convey to you is that what has been handed to us thourhg Josephus, i.e. these alleged claims of Jesus cannot be reliably transmitted by Josephus.

To Vaharadja, the link is available at:

ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/ JewishJesus/josephus.html

I am sure there are plenty others on the web.

[ihsan]

Peace be upon you,

To Carol:

The issue is not whether Josephus is reliable in the sense he is a historian. The statement that needs clarification is that the statements attributed to Josephus about Jesus have been deemed QUESTIONABLE. They are NOT CONSIDERED AUTHENTIC.

The very verse you quoted regarding Jesus is not transmitted authentically and differ in the various translations. Thus, the point I wanted to convey to you is that what has been handed to us thourhg Josephus, i.e. these alleged claims of Jesus cannot be reliably transmitted by Josephus.

To Vaharadja, the link is available at:

ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/ JewishJesus/josephus.html

I am sure there are plenty others on the web.

[ihsan]

Also, as Vahradja pointed out, Josephus was a BIASED observer also. he too had his own personal interests, and his account of facts are skewed also with his biases, whether they relate to religion or not.

[ihsan]

Also, as Vahradja pointed out, Josephus was a BIASED observer also. he too had his own personal interests, and his account of facts are skewed also with his biases, whether they relate to religion or not.

[ihsan]

***contrary to evidence our friend submitted earlier to show that there are inconsistencies in Josephus's writings, may I please draw your attention to this site and ask you to read it carefully ***

To be specific, I did not make a general claim about Josephus. The point of discussion was the use of Jospehus to prove the existence of Jesus. That very paragraph you quoted is disputed.

[ihsan]

***contrary to evidence our friend submitted earlier to show that there are inconsistencies in Josephus's writings, may I please draw your attention to this site and ask you to read it carefully ***

To be specific, I did not make a general claim about Josephus. The point of discussion was the use of Jospehus to prove the existence of Jesus. That very paragraph you quoted is disputed.

[mule]

Vajradhara,
I did not see anything about a book.

MULE

[Vajradhara]

Namaste mule,

er... were you expect that link to go to a book? that was not it's purpose. it was to take you to a site that talked about the war and the book written of it.

however, would that suffice as an ancient history text?

if so, you can go to this link and download the sections of the text:
http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.html



~compassionately~

[Yahya Sulaiman]

As I've said before, what really counts is the testimony of people who personally knew Jesus. What Jesus taught during his lifetime is what counts--thus, Josephus is moot.

MY MOTTO: Follow your heart and follow your head, but when the two conflict, the head should take precedence.

[carol_au]

Peace to everyone,

May I ask Muslims a question, and American Deist, I guess the question is as much for you,as it is for all of us.

Jesus as God, causes all of you some problems, yet I have to ask why? Throughout the OT, God appeared in many different forms to the prophets and they accepted Him. To Adam and Eve He appeared as God. To Moses, he appeared in the Burning Bush. To Abraham He appeared as a man.

That God is Almighty and without comparison is I think something we all agree with.

That God could send Jesus to die to take away our shame and corrupted nature is not beyond the character of the God you give 99 beautiful names too. He is Holy, He is Merciful, He alone is the Judge, He is Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent. He is full of Truth and Grace. He is perfect love

You see, sin to everyone is disputable.. yet, I know that there is a sin in Islam which leaves you without forgiveness. I have not got my books with me to give you the name, but it's the ceremonial clensing that requires no impurity be left when you approach God.

God told Moses that no one could look at God and live.. His Holiness transcends everything. Sin so corrupts us internally, it's not the sin itself that keeps us from being able to approach God and live, it's that the Holiness of God cannot live with our inner shameful nature.. As in the unforgivable act of incomplete clensing is to the Muslim, so to the Christian, what we give the name sin.

The book of Isaiah declares that as humans with a nature that is forever corrupted, we can never do enough good deeds to sway the balance in our favour.. this is what the Christian believes. Without God's intervention, no man would ever be able to approach the throne of the Most High God.

The Bible calls the crucifixion a stumbling block..do you know why? Because, the moment you acknowledge that Jesus is God and that God Himself prepared the only way for any of us.. Jew, Christian or Muslim (or indeed even those who are Deists, atheists, new age) can approach God, we admit our own inadequacies and accountability to a Being higher than ourselves. Isn't this true Al-Islam? Isn't this true Christianity..utter surrender to the Most High God and total dependence on Him?

The Muslim places such high regard on submitting to God, yet on this one issue.. that God Himself should have provided the way you can know you are forgiven, and you will go to paradise, the Muslim cannot believe it.

Why?

Because you think that in so doing, you are worshipping the created man rather than God, and this is a noble thing. True Christians also would NEVER worship anyone but God. You say that God would never allow someone to die for anothers sins, yet you say God has the right to be God and do as he chooses. Can you not see the inconsistencies.

Muslims are to be honoured for their high resolve to put Allah first.. to worship none other.. yet, by refusing to allow, that He might have provided a way for you to escape that deep inner fear that maybe you won't be accepted doesn't have to be.

Allah has provided for you, by coming Himself as Jesus.. the way of salvation. Jesus IS God, He lived on this earth as a human, yet He NEVER ceased to be God. As God only He could do this.. yet in order to honour Him and submit to him, you don't allow yourselves to look at the evidence that abounds, and at least explore that God just might have given you a gift you are rejecting.

I'm not asking you to believe it at this time.. just to agree to allow God to be God..and believe that if He chooses to do something, He can do it, and no amount of attempts to rationalise it from a human perspective will stop it from being true.

You see, if God is Who you Muslims honour Him to be, then this is not too hard for Him. Honour Him enough to seek truth, not based on what you are told in the traditions of faith, but in the inner most being of your relationship with God/Allah. This is where real truth is found.

I will return and may you find peace dear friends

[Yahya Sulaiman]

I would agree with the Muslims (besides, it seems I'm probably going to be one again myself soon) that God does not need an intercessor in order to forgive us if we ask him for forgiveness. POOF! We're forgiven. It's as simple as that. No intercession, no mediation, no sacrifice, no nothing. God is omnipotent and God cares about us, so naturally there should be no extra step.

You're doing what Christians always do, in my experience. They start off offering arguments for their religion, and when they find that their arguments can't withstand debate with someone who knows their stuff, they suddenly lapse into faith and intuition and mysticism, at the rejection of arguments. Either arguments work or they don't: pick one. You can't shift back and forth between the two options as it happens to suit you.

If I seem a little abrupt then I'm sorry. This is just something I've been through many times before since I went to a Lutheran high school, and so I'm getting a little weary of it.

MY MOTTO: Follow your heart and follow your head, but when the two conflict, the head should take precedence.

Edited by - American Deist on 10/10/2003 08:21:30

Edited by - American Deist on 10/10/2003 08:22:20

Edited by - American Deist on 10/10/2003 10:34:18

[nr]

If love is an attribute of God then it would necessitate two distinct beings. If love is not an attribute of God then I would be hard pressed to find a reason for our creation or goodness as one of the attributes of God.

[saffiyya]

Peace Carol,
I am not sure what incomplete cleansing you are referring to, but I can say with certainty that Persistent Disbelief in God (Major Shirk) is the only unforgiveable sin in Islam.
InshaAllah this helps.
saffiyya

[truthlover]

Assalam alekum.

Personnal interpretations aside, it is clear that the Bible presents Jesus as God manifest in the flesh, whether you believe it or not does not change that fact. It might make you unconfortable or angry, but a fact is a fact.

I am amazed to see that many arguments that are used on this forum to discredit the Bible are the same used by many atheists. The anti-Bible crowd engulfs a rather weird crowd. I wonder if most Muslims are aware of this, that by discrediting the Holy Scriptures, they associate themselves with atheists, infidels, pagans, etc?

It is a most grave sin to reject Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as the Lord and Savior.

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36)

You make God a liar concerning His witness that He gave concerning His Son through all the prophets.

“He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.” (1 John 5:10)

You exalt your prophet over all the prophets of the Old and New Testament. I would tremble to say anything against God's Holy revelation for He is a Holy God and a God of Truth. It never lies. His words are true and righteous and eternal. Not one letter for His law can be broken. He has promised to keep his Words from the corruption of man. He is Faithful and keeps His promises.

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth,purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (Psalms 12:6-7)

May the AllMighty God give you grace and wisdom and understanding in His unchanging truth!

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Take a chill pill, truthlover.

Let me clear something up for you: the Muslim belief is that three scriptures in the past contained revelations from God but became corrupted by human copyists and editors (which is something that secular scholars will also tell you, touching somewhat on what you said about our associating ourselves with atheists). The first was the Torah. The second was a book called "the Wisdom" that has a big question mark behind it from our historical point of view. The third was "the Gospel." Which Gospel? There were hundreds, many of which are now as lost as "the Wisdom" theoretically is. The answer: we don't know. It may not be one of the Gospels in the Bible.

The Qur'an, however, contains everything that was important from all three of the earlier works, and is infallible, and uncorrupted. Or such is the Muslim point of view.

Therefore, there's no need for a Muslim to believe anything in the Bible, although some Muslims do study and learn from certain books in it on the side (with a special system of Muslim exegesis, of course). Thus, it doesn't matter to the Islamic point of view whether or not the Bible's Gospels say that Jesus is God, so that controversy is really nothing but a moot point.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

[nr]

Thus, it doesn't matter to the Islamic point of view whether or not the Bible's Gospels say that Jesus is God, so that controversy is really nothing but a moot point.
Well I agree with you here, but truth does have a point. I've found many times that people will put spins on old testament prophesies or some hidden meaning in what already believed was corrupted.

The first was the Torah. The second was a book called "the Wisdom" that has a big question mark behind it from our historical point of view.
The book of Wisdom has no such problem and neither does the Sirach, which was thrown out of Luther's canon, or proverbs. These are sayings and proverbs that men have found useful. They are not, however, prophesy.

The third was "the Gospel." Which Gospel? There were hundreds, many of which are now as lost as "the Wisdom" theoretically is. The answer: we don't know. It may not be one of the Gospels in the Bible.
We have most of the gnostic gospels and they are clearly not of the same tradition of the other four gospels. Other than the gnostic gospels, we have a host of works from other authors who's works were not admited into the canon because they were not written directly by the apostles. These add considerable weight to the bible because these are of just mere expoundations on new testament authors. I must add though that Isaiah says "blessed are those who's feet spread the good news". It does not say blessed is the paper that spread the good news. Thus the gospel is about action and it is not just contained in the paper itself. "So he became their savior in their every affliction. It was not a messenger or an angel but he himself who saved them."(isaiah 63:9)

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Are you sure that the Wisdom of Solomon is the same Wisdom that the Qur'an mentions? I mean, how can we know?

And I am aware of the full meaning of Gospel...I was making a point...but then again, you were probably just saying that for whooever wants to know.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

[mastermind]

Dear Mule

First of all allow us to cordially welcome you to the discussion forum of understanding-islam.org and thank you for taking interest in this discussion.
You can ask as many questions regarding Islam as you can without any hesitation and we will attempt to answer your questions.You have full right to express your views on yours and our religion .

Hospitality is part of Islamic tradition and culture and we muslims invite and welcome our guests in the best way that is possible irrespective of their beliefs.


Read Qur'an because Qur'an gives the criterion which distinguishes between right and wrong.

[nr]

Are you sure that the Wisdom of Solomon is the same Wisdom that the Qur'an mentions? I mean, how can we know?
No I wasn't aware that the Qur'an mentions the book of Wisdom. The wisdom of Solomon isn't usually attributed to Solomon though.

And I am aware of the full meaning of Gospel...I was making a point...but then again, you were probably just saying that for whooever wants to know.
Stuft gets repeated. My point of contention is with the sola-scriptura philosophy.

[786]

[quote]
Is Jesus God?
The bible testifies to the fact that Jesus Christ is God. He is God the son, the second person of the trinity. By nature Jesus Christ is not only a man he is God.
[quote/]

hi <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

[quote]IS JESUS GOD?


JESUS HIMSELF DENIED BEING GOD


LUKE 18:19 “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God”



LUKE 2:52 “Jesus grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men”



JOHN 8:42 “I proceeded forth and came from God, neither came I of myself but he sent me”



GOD IS ALL KNOWING BUT JESUS WAS NOT


Matt 24:36 “but of that day and hour no man know, not the angels which are in heaven, nor the son, but only the father.” But God knows all, since Jesus does not know of the day of judgment he is not all-knowing and therefore not God



Although Jesus performed miracles he admitted that his power was not his own
Jon 5:19 “I can of mine own self do nothing”



Matt 12:28 “I case out devils by the spirit of God”



Luke 22:43 “An angel appeared to Jesus and strengthened him”



God does not have a God but Jesus did have a God.

Jon 20:17 “I ascend unto my father and your father, and to my God and your

God”



Matt 27:46 “My God My God why hast thou forsaken me.”



Luke 6:12 “One day Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray and spent the night praying to God.”



Hebrews 5:7 “During Jesus days on earth, he offered prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him.”



God does not lose power and if someone drains him of power he would know who had done it.

Mark 5: 25-32 “When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering. At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who touched my clothes?” But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it.”





God is an invisible sprit…but Jesus was flesh and blood.



John 1:18 “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only.”





No one is greater than God and no one can direct him…But Jesus acknowledged someone greater than himself.



Jon 14:28 “My father is greater than I.”
[quote/]

bye <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>


many answers (http://themodernreligion.com/comparative.html) deedat (http://jamaat.net/deedat.htm) answering-chritianity (http://answering-christianity.com/ac.htm)

[786]

he similitude of Jesus Before Allah is as that of Adam: He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be": And he was. The truth (comes) From thy Lord alone: So be not of those who doubt.
Holy Quran; Surah 03; Verses 59-60
INTRODUCTION
1. Jesus: COMMON LINK between Muslims and Christians (Love and Respect).

2. Jesus’ nature: main area of DIFFERENCE.

3. Approaches to COMPARATIVE Christology:

a) Examination of Authority and Authenticity of respective holy books.
b) Examination of HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS of dogmas.
c) Examination of both holy books AS THEY ARE.

4. Focus on the approach. Two main Questions:

a) What does the QURAN say about him?
b) What does the BIBLE say about him?

JESUS IN THE QURAN
1. PRAISE FOR MARY (3:36-37,42 and 5:78). Called sister of Aaron (19:28). In the Qur’an "sister of or brother of" means the descendant of or clan of. Aaron, Moses’ brother, was the first in line of Israelite Priesthood. Luke 1:5 calls Elizabeth, John’s mother, as a daughter of Aaron. She was a relative (cousin) of Mary (Luke 1:36). For other passages in the Qur’an where “brother of” is used in non-literal meaning see (7:65,73,85; 11:50,61,84; 27:45; 29:36).

2. VIRGIN BIRTH (3:45-47) Compared with Adam (3:59), John the Baptist (19:1-9).

3. A WORD FROM ALLAH (3:39,45; 4:170). Word is not the “Logos” or the second person in Godhead. It is the creative command of Allah "KON" or "be" ( 2:117, 3:47,59, 6:73, 16:40, 19:35, 36:82, 40:68). "Words" of Allah is used in (18:109, 8:7, 31:27) and others.

4. A SPIRIT FROM ALLAH (4:171) : same applies to other humans (15:29, 32:9, 38:72).

5. HONORED in this life and in the hereafter and among those nearest to Allah (3:45) : used also for others (33:69, 56:11, 83:21,28).

6. A PURE CHILD (19:19) : similarly used for John the Baptist (19:13). According to Islam, all children are born Pure.

7. STRENGTHENED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT (2:87,253, 5:113) : Holy Spirit means Gabriel the Angel of Revelation (16:102).

8. PERFORMED MIRACLES by the permission of Allah (3:49, 5:113,115-118) .

9. TAUGHT what all prophets taught ; worship of Allah alone (2:135-136, 5:119-120, 43:63-64).

10. MISSION specifically TO THE ISRAELITES (3:49, 5:75, 61:6).

11. REJECTION of all forms of deification of Jesus, including worship of Mary (5:119-120) , claiming that Jesus is God (5:75) and Trinity (5:76, 4:171).

12. REJECTED BY THE ISRAELITES (5:81,113, 3:52).

13. Conspiracy to CRUCIFY him FAILED and Allah raised him up (4:157).

a) it was made to “appear to them” as such.

b) No relevance to “respect for prophets” ,other Prophets were killed (2:61, 3:21,112, 5:73).

c) “Mutawaffika” in (3:55) and “Tawaffaytani” in (5:120) refer to “completing” your term or mission on earth. “Tawaffi” is used also in the Qur’an for other than death (6:60, 39:42).

d) Reference to the “death” and “resurrection” of Jesus (19:33) must be understood in the light of (4:157). It refers to death after the second coming and resurrection on the Day of Judgment. Similar terms used to refer to John the Baptist (19:15) . Many Ahadith confirm that.

14. PROPHESIED the advent of the last Prophet Muhammad (61:6, 7:157).

JESUS IN THE BIBLE

No basis in the Old Testament for Trinity or "God-incarnate".

No conclusive uncontradicted statement by Jesus in the New Testament claiming to be God.

5 major grounds for claimed divinity :

I. WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT HIM
Many were deified without claim on their part. Insufficient ground for such a serious matter. Other early witnesses did not share the notion of deification. Many statements are allegorical.

II. HE CLAIMED DIVINITY
FIRST RESPONSE :spiritual , language and Allegory. Examples:

1. THE WAY , THE TRUTH (John 14:6): applies to every prophet in his time.

2. I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE (John 10:30): oneness in purpose , not in essence (John 17:11, 20-23).

3. SEEING HIM IS LIKE SEEING THE FATHER (Jn 14:9): seeing means knowing , as God can not be seen (Exod. 33:20, Jn. 1:18, 5:37, 14:7).

4. BEFORE ABRAHAM I AM (John 8:58): All existed in the foreknowledge of Allah.

5. ACCEPTED WORSHIP (Matt. 14:33): worship means also intense love ( worship of money,.......). Jesus himself did worship God (Luke 5:16).

6. WAS CALLED SON OF GOD: so was Adam (Luke 3:38), E’phraim (Jer. 31:9), Jacob (Exod. 4:22), David (II Sam. 7:14), Solomon (I Chron. 22:10). More than one prophet was called “ first born “ ( eg. Abraham, Jacob, David ). See for Example Ps. 2:7. “ Only Son “ is not used literally in the Bible (Gen. 22:2). “Sons of God “ was also used (Gen. 6:2, Deut. 14:1, Hos. 1:10).

7. CALLED GOD “FATHER” AND “ABBA”: Said also my father and your father (John 20:17). Others may call God “ABBA” (Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:6).

8. CALLED MESSIAH: Means anointed. So was David (Ps. 2:2), Cyrus (Isa. 45:1).

9. CALLED SAVIOR: So was Jeho’ahaz (II Kings 13:5). Used in plural (Obad. Verse 21 and Nehem. 9:27).

10. WAS CALLED LORD: Term does not mean necessarily God. Used in the N.T. to mean “teacher” or “master”.

11. WAS FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT: So was John the Baptist (Lk. 1:15), also Barnabbas (Acts 11:24).

12. SAID THAT HIS WORDS WILL NOT PASS AWAY: He also said that whatever he said was not his, but the father’s (Jn. 14:24).

13. SAID THAT ALL AUTHORITY WAS GIVEN TO HIM: He who gave authority is Greater ( ie. His God ).

14. WAS CALLED “MY LORD AND MY GOD” (Jn. 20:28): Could have been an expression of excitement or “ you are God - like “ Distinction between “ Lord “ and “ God “ is made in Icor. 8:6.

15. JEWS TRIED TO STONE HIM FOR BLASPHEMY (Jn. 10:29-33): Jews were to indict him “ by hook or by crook “, regardless of what he said. They may have considered him a false “ Messiah “. Jesus’ answer was revealing (Jn. 10:34). In Ps. 82:6, humans are called gods, allegorically, Moses was sent as “ God “ to the Pharaoh (Exod. 7:1).

SECOND RESPONSE:

Jesus always expressed his subordination to his God and Creator.

Examples:

1. DID NOTHING ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY (Jn. 5:30, 14:31, Matt. 20:23).

2. SPOKE NOT ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY (Jn. 14:10, 8:28-29).

3. SAID THAT THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN HIM (Jn. 14:28).

4. WAS TEMPTED (Matt. 4:1-11):But God can not be tempted (James 1:13).

5. HE DENIED KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNSEEN (Mk. 13:32, Matt. 24:36).

6. WAS SUBJECT TO CHANGE (Lk. 2:21, 52): But God is Immutable.

7. DID NOT ACCEPT TO BE CALLED GOOD AND DEFERRED TO GOD (Mk. 10:18).

8. PRAYED TO GOD (Mk. 14:32, Lk. 5:16).

9. REFERRED TO HIMSELF AS A PROPHET (Lk. 13:33-34). Others also called him a prophet. (Lk. 7:16, 24:19, Jn. 6:14, Heb. 3:1). Referred to as a servant of God (Acts 3:13, 4:27, 30, Matt. 12:18).

10. MADE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN HIMSELF AND THE FATHER (Matt. 23:8-10).

11. Referred to himself frequently as SON OF MAN (eg. Matt. 8:20). In the book of Acts (2:22), he is described as “a man approved of God”. While he is called Son of God nearly 68 times, not once was he called GOD THE SON. The difference between the Two expressions is like the difference between the Prophet Jesus of history and the CHRIST created in the image of the Church.

III. HIS MIRACLES PROVIDED DIVINITY
FIRST RESPONSE: He admitted that they were not by his own power (Jn. 5:30, 14:31).

SECOND RESPONSE: All had parallels in the O.T. For example:

1. BORN WITHOUT A FATHER (Heb. 7:3).

2. FED THE MULTITUDES (II Kings 4:42-44).

3. WALKED ON WATER: Similar to Moses (Exod. 14:22).

4. HEALED THE LEPERS AND BLIND: So did others (II Kings 5:14, 6:17, 20, Acts 3:7, 5:15-16).

5. BROUGHT THE DEAD TO LIFE: So did others (I Kings 17:22, II Kings 4:34, 13:21, Ezek. 37:1-14).

6. CAST THE DEVILS: Said others can too (Matt. 7:22, 12:27, Lk. 11:19).

7. ROSE FROM THE DEAD: So did others (eg. Ezek. 37:1-14).

8. ASCENDED TO HEAVENS: So did other prophets (Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5, II Kings 2:11-12). This seems to be inconsistent with Jn. 3:13.

IV. MESSAGE OF SALVATION
1. ASSUMES INITIAL PERFECTION OF ADAM AND INHERITANCE OF SIN, which is inconsistent with Deut. 24:16, Ezek. 18:20 and Matt. 7:2.

2. ASSUMES NECESSITY OF BLOODSHED FOR FORGIVENESS. This is inconsistent with Hos. 6:6, Ps. 30:5, 51:15-23, Matt. 9:13.

3. SACRIFICES BY ISRAELITES OR BY ABRAHAM are irrelevant to the concept of the “Crucified God”.

4. WHO DIED ON THE CROSS? God never dies and the death of one man can not atone for all mankind.

5. God’s mercy and justice can be reconciled without bloodshed. He is Most Merciful and Forgiving.

V. MYSTERY AND EXPERIENCE
1. HOW DIFFERENT from other religions or even cults? Experience alone is not an indicator of ultimate truth.

2. Difference between plausible but not fully understood religious truth (eg. eternity of God) and man made, self contradictory and untenable dogmas in the of mystery. The infinite and finite can’t be one and the same.

3. WHY ACCEPT MEN’S INTERPRETATIONS if evidence is overwhelming that Jesus was a great yet finite human? Why change the RELIGION OF JESUS into a RELIGION ABOUT JESUS?

VI. CONCLUSION
1. Old Testament Warns against associating others with God in his divine attributes.

2. Jesus confirmed the same and called the “Father” “MY GOD” (Jn. 20:17).

3. Only through the last divine revelation (the Qur’an) can confusion be removed and pure monotheism be restored.


many answers (http://themodernreligion.com/comparative.html) deedat (http://jamaat.net/deedat.htm) answering-chritianity (http://answering-christianity.com/ac.htm)

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Let's focus on our common ground of our doctrines, rather than the rifts between them. Muslims and Christians agree that Jesus:

1. Was born of a virgin, who was a righteous and blessed woman.
2. Was sinless.
3. Was the "word" of God (which I take to mean "mouthpiece of God")
4. Taught people useful lessons.
5. Established worship of God alone.
6. Performed a number of miracles (such as feeding a large crowd, raising the dead, healing the blind and leprous)

I have no doubt that there are other overlaps that I forgot. Feel free to add them on.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

[Darkyl]

Peace,

This cut&paste posts seem really nonsense to me. Especially when copied from sites like answering-christianity that is, in my opinion, a really poor site.
Not to mention that its only goal seems to be to instigate disrespect and hatred against everyone who is not a muslim.

Why not post your own opinion?
I'm much more interested in listening to what you say than what some sites say.

Peace





Not only it's not practical to post a kilometer long post, but it can

[Yahya Sulaiman]

The guy who runs answering-christianity.com has some sort of mental disease, I'm sure of it. He tries to spread hatred about "Zionism" and seems to have no grasp about the rules of logic and logical fallacies.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

[786]

I THINK YOU NEED TO RUN TO ANSWERING-CHRISTIANITY AND TRY TO FIND THE ABOVE ARTICLE BEFORE ACCUSING ME

yes it is a cut and paste and dont we all do it .......it still contains points!

it just so happen i agree with those points !

why not cut and paste
i would have only been here a few hours trying to copy the thing by hand

as for opnion where did you get your opnion from ......opnions dont just come out of nowhere!

the above is my opnion JESUS IS NOT GOD

why create problems for me ?
why are you trying to get up my nose ?

this is quite funny really <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

this is like an opnion dogfight where you just want to pick fights with somebody ALL DAY LONG straining your eyes bashing away at keys .....for what ?

pure arguement

anyway characters !
i have put forth my OPNION

LIKE IT OR LUMPIT

have a nice day <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>



many answers (http://themodernreligion.com/comparative.html) deedat (http://jamaat.net/deedat.htm) answering-chritianity (http://answering-christianity.com/ac.htm)

[786]

The guy who runs answering-christianity.com has some sort of mental disease,

and surah you dont even know me to be making insults about me

i have no more answers for you

darkill that site is not done by answering christianity it is done by a dr jamal badawi

a very humble fellow that is out to disrespect no one!

i challenge anybody to find something insulting written or said by dr jamal badawi

next time dont be to quick to brandish your beating sticks <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

many answers (http://themodernreligion.com/comparative.html) deedat (http://jamaat.net/deedat.htm) answering-chritianity (http://answering-christianity.com/ac.htm)

[Darkyl]

Peace,


yes it is a cut and paste and dont we all do it

No, not all people do that.


i would have only been here a few hours trying to copy the thing by hand

You're basically stating that you can't elaborate something on your own... you can either cut&past or copy by hand.


as for opnion where did you get your opnion from ......opnions dont just come out of nowhere!

Opinions come from personal elaborations. You read, listen, observe and then come with your own point of view.
Even if you totally agree with what you read, if you elaborate it, something personal will come out. That will not happen by copying.


why create problems for me ?
why are you trying to get up my nose ?

No one is trying to create problems to you. I simply find it useless to post kilometers-long essays written by someone else in a discussion forum.
If someone replied to you cut&pasting from a site like answering-islam (just to make an example), what would be the result? There wouldn't be any interfaith dialogue, just a mess.


this is like an opnion dogfight where you just want to pick fights with somebody ALL DAY LONG straining your eyes bashing away at keys .....for what ?

I actually find the discussions going on on this site very interesting when people express their own opinions with their own words.
When people discuss, maybe they just want to understand each other and increase their knowledge... not "picking fights".

Peace

[786]

i guranteee you that you cut and paste more than me <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

durgill please dont start playing bumper cars with me

i really havent time for your cut and paste debates

all that information is not even opnion !!!!!!!!!!!!
it is reference for the subject for this thread

and youre damn right about opnions thats where i got mine
i just found it easyier to paste

please dont beat me with your stick any further

many answers (http://themodernreligion.com/comparative.html) deedat (http://jamaat.net/deedat.htm) answering-chritianity (http://answering-christianity.com/ac.htm)

[Darkyl]

Peace,


i guranteee you that you cut and paste more than me

I never did that except for quotes from the Quran or the Bible.


and youre damn right about opnions thats where i got mine

That's the point, you "get" opinions from somewhere...

Peace





Edited by - Darkyl on 10/13/2003 00:21:48

[Ronnie]

Peace All,

I would appreciate turning down the rhetoric a notch or two. Let's not start the fights again please. Darkyl only suggested that you communicate your opinions and ideas, that's all. Surah made a comment about someone else not you. Please don't take offense so quickly. Thanks for your cooperation.

Regards

[786]

yes it is true i misread surahs statement and got it twisted

my apologys surah

many answers (http://themodernreligion.com/comparative.html) deedat (http://jamaat.net/deedat.htm) answering-chritianity (http://answering-christianity.com/ac.htm)

[Yahya Sulaiman]

We've gotten pretty far off topic.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

[nr]

Now whether you think Jesus portrayed by the bible is God or not should not matter insofar as you treat his message as comming from God. Yes, it is true that other people have been called savior but always unto the salvation of God. Our view of God is a bit different than yours because we believe that Jesus can do nothing without the Father but this still does not deny his divinity.


IV. MESSAGE OF SALVATION
1. ASSUMES INITIAL PERFECTION OF ADAM AND INHERITANCE OF SIN, which is inconsistent with Deut. 24:16, Ezek. 18:20 and Matt. 7:2. Sin is not inherited. However, the will of God and divine providence has allowed us to taste sin by our free will. We are not born with the full grace of God so that we may preserve and achieve more grace. For as Paul said, where there is sin grace abounds.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

If people are not born sinful, then why is it that everyone is so sinful? Is it just an astronimical coincidence?

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

[nr]

If people are not born sinful, then why is it that everyone is so sinful? Is it just an astronimical coincidence?
You're born into the world and your susceptible to sin. In other words, you do not have original grace. However, a little baby has not obviously commited any sin.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

You didn't really answer my question.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

[truthlover]

Greetings,

Surah said, “The Qur'an, however, contains everything that was important from all three of the earlier works, and is infallible, and uncorrupted. Or such is the Muslim point of view.”

I hear these evading arguments over and over. “We believe in all the prophets, we believe in the former revelations, but we don’t need to listen to what they said, because their words (even though they are God’s words and we believe God’s words are uncorruptible) have been corrupted, but in such and such a verse the Bible prophesied the coming of Muhammed.”

These types of arguments are convenient but not serious at all. You cannot pick and choose when it comes to Truth. You say my Bible is corrupt but you can’t tell me where, how, when. I have to believe YOUR OPINION on the Bible. However, as a believer in the Judeo-Christian God, the Allmighty God who created heaven and earth, I can read the Quran, without fearing that I will lose my soul. And the more I read it, the more I am convinced that it is not God’s revelation and the more my faith in my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ grows. I bow my knees to God’s wisdom and God’s plan of salvation for mankind, including all Muslims. His ways are not our ways. Christ died for your sins and my sins. God is inviting you to repent of your sin of unbelief and put your trust in Christ, the Son of God. By rejecting God’s Son you are agreeing with the judgement of the Sanhedrin of Jesus’ day who wanted him crucified. Why do you continue in unbelief? Why worsen the damnation of your own soul?

“Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son. Whosoever denies the Son, the same has not the Father: but he that acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” (1 John 2:22-23 )

It is a grave sin indeed to base one’s core beliefs on the rejection of previous revelation.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

First, let me reiterate: TAKE A CHILL PILL.

"I hear these evading arguments over and over. 'We believe in all the prophets, we believe in the former revelations, but we don’t need to listen to what they said, because their words (even though they are God’s words and we believe God’s words are uncorruptible) have been corrupted, but in such and such a verse the Bible prophesied the coming of Muhammed.'"

I don't think the Bible necessarily prophesied the coming of Muhammad, although it is an interesting debate. Do not put words in my mouth. Muslims believe that everything the prophets said and did that needed to be recorded is in the Qur'an. The Bible was not "God's words."

"These types of arguments are convenient but not serious at all. You cannot pick and choose when it comes to Truth. You say my Bible is corrupt but you can’t tell me where, how, when."

Maybe I can't (much), but a lot of biblical scholars can. Consult them.

"I have to believe YOUR OPINION on the Bible."

Of course you don't. When did I say you did?

"However, as a believer in the Judeo-Christian God, the Allmighty God who created heaven and earth, I can read the Quran, without fearing that I will lose my soul. And the more I read it, the more I am convinced that it is not God’s revelation and the more my faith in my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ grows."

In that case, why do you read it? To feel more faithful about your own religion by scoffing at another? That sounds pretty insecure to me, and rather nasty too.

"I bow my knees to God’s wisdom and God’s plan of salvation for mankind, including all Muslims. His ways are not our ways. Christ died for your sins and my sins. God is inviting you to repent of your sin of unbelief and put your trust in Christ, the Son of God. By rejecting God’s Son you are agreeing with the judgement of the Sanhedrin of Jesus’ day who wanted him crucified."

I don't understand this line of thinking at all. If I'm not a Christian, that means I think that the blessed Jesus deserved to be killed? Huh?

"Why do you continue in unbelief? Why worsen the damnation of your own soul? 'Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son. Whosoever denies the Son, the same has not the Father: but he that acknowledges the Son has the Father also.' (1 John 2:22-23 )"

I find it offensive that someone has to believe in a specific religion to "have the Father."

"It is a grave sin indeed to base one’s core beliefs on the rejection of previous revelation."

I base them on the Qur'an and what it says. Big difference.

And for the third time: TAKE A CHILL PILL.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

[nr]

You didn't really answer my question.
I'm confused by what you mean. I know that some protestants may have a different interpretation of original sin but the conventual theology is that Adam commited this sin and we are only effected by Adam's sin. We did not actually commit original sin, but we too have the lack of grace that was caused by it. This is divine providence because we are forced to seek His grace more so. It is given freely but we have to seek and ask for it.

It is a grave sin indeed to base one’s core beliefs on the rejection of previous revelation.
It's a mistake to do so but it seems your trying to blackmail someone into believing what you believe. There's ignorance and those who choose to stay in ignorance. If someone has willing remained in ingnorance to serve their greed or tyranny then it is a willfully committed sin but otherwise it's a grievous sin. I will admit though that everyone has the natural law encoded upon them, to which Moses said they would not have to cross a sea or desert to find, not everyone has the doctrin of the Trinity. The volition of will is what usually determines the severity of the crime. If someone is willfully commited to stay in sin and have rejected the conviction of the holy Spirit, only then have they blasphemed against the holy Spirit. Also, there is Jesus' statement in Luke that those who commit sin without knowing their own wrong doing will be punished lightly. Most of the prophets in the old testament did not know what Jesus looked like, much less believe he is God. It is true that Isaiah saw Jesus, but it was not his physical sight that saw him as Lord. If God's mercy is granted to those in the Old Testament, then it's apparant that it can be granted to those in our times.

[nr]

Looks like this message board system has some problems. Surah posted at the exact same time that I did. Yet I have the last post and his post shows up before mine.

[truthlover]

“First, let me reiterate: TAKE A CHILL PILL.”

I’m sorry, I am not completely certain what you mean by this expression. Could you explain further please?

“"I have to believe YOUR OPINION on the Bible."
“Of course you don't. When did I say you did?”

What I meant is that Mohammed demands at face value that Christians(and Jews for the O.T.) believe the Bible is corrupt. No tangible proof, no explanations, no research. That is what I call blind faith.

“In that case, why do you read it? To feel more faithful about your own religion by scoffing at another? That sounds pretty insecure to me, and rather nasty too.”

Actually I hardly read it anymore, except for reference purposes. Also, I would like to state that I am not talking about religion. My personal faith life is best explained by a personal relationship to Jesus the Messiah and endeavoring daily to keep his teachings. Part of His teachings is that, as his disciples, we are to share the good news of God’s salvation to all mankind, till He comes again. I have no personal interest and desire to willingly offend anyone or any religion. If anybody is offended by the Gospel message, than that is another matter. I cannot apologize for God. If I have offended you independently of the Gospel message, I am more than willing to be corrected and humbled, because we are all prone to offend, because of our sinful nature.

“I find it offensive that someone has to believe in a specific religion to "have the Father."

Again, nobody is saved by religion. Religion is based on man’s efforts to get to paradise. However, eternal life is not a wage, not even a reward. We can't earn it. It is God’s free gift to all who believe His salvation. A drowning person has nothing to say in the means used to save him . On the contrary, anything the lifeguard decides to use is fine with him. And so God chose a means to save us from sin and hell. Who are we to argue with God on the means He chose to use, i.e. sending His only-begotten Son to die on the cross for our sins? This message of the cross is indeed an offense to those who perish as the messenger Paul said in 1st Corinthians. But Jesus said, “And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.” (Luke 7.23)

truthllover: "It is a grave sin indeed to base one’s core beliefs on the rejection of previous revelation."

Surah: “I base them on the Qur'an and what it says. Big difference.”

Obviously you do. That is what we call “a priori beliefs”. You blindly reject the Bible on the testimony of one man. You see, as a Muslim you are in a very precarious position. The Qu’ran having arrived on the scene 500-600 years later than the New Testament, and claiming to complete and confirm previous revelations, and being full of contradictions with these, we are asked to believe that the first revelations are corrupt. Your prophet has put the burden of proof on all Muslims to prove this, which they still cannot do even after approx 1400 years! The Bible contains 69 books and they all agree. The Qu’ran comes along claiming the same inspired place but fails the test. So why be offended at us for believing what has already been received and confirmed 600 years before Mohammed comes along? Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, you might be wrong? Will you damn your soul by asking sincere open questions? Is that permissible in Islam? Or does the grip of fear hold your mind too strongly to do that?

“And for the third time: TAKE A CHILL PILL.”

Strange, I thought this was a place for interfaith dialog with the subject of the divinity of Jesus. Or have I veered from the subject?

[Yahya Sulaiman]

"Take a chill pill" is an American expression meaning "calm down." You seem to have pretty much done that, so thank you.

"Eternal life is not a wage, not even a reward. We can't earn it."

I understand that the Christian worldview paints the picture of everyone being unbelievably wretched and undeserving of God's love, but you should understand all but the most miserably cynical non-Christians would readily find this view unnecessarily pessimistic and even insulting to all the obvious high points in human nature, that someone would either deny that they exist or undermine their importance.

"Who are we to argue with God on the means He chose to use, i.e. sending His only-begotten Son to die on the cross for our sins? This message of the cross is indeed an offense to those who perish as the messenger Paul said in 1st Corinthians. But Jesus said, 'And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.' (Luke 7.23)"

I have no quarrel with the blessed Jesus, and part of the implication of this is that I don't think he would be a willing part of any system of mediation, sacrifice or intercession. Once again, Muslims see the issue just as clearly as non-Christians in general do: that it is an insult to God to require of Him some extra step in the issue of forgiveness besides, "Please forgive me" and, "You are forgiven." A crucifixion for the matter would be superfluous at best and barbaric or limiting in God's power and/or mercy at worst.

"You blindly reject the Bible on the testimony of one man."

I do no such thing. I spent three years at a Lutheran high school, so if I were you I wouldn't just assume that I'm blindly rejecting anything. I may not have as good a knowledge of the Old Testament as I do of the New one, but I am at least moderately well versed in the Bible (albeit maybe a little rusty by now).

"You see, as a Muslim you are in a very precarious position. The Qu’ran having arrived on the scene 500-600 years later than the New Testament, and claiming to complete and confirm previous revelations, and being full of contradictions with these, we are asked to believe that the first revelations are corrupt."

If memory serves, the Qur'an itself claims that they are corrupt, but perhaps someone else can give you the exact references because I don't know them off the top of my head. Maybe I'll find them and come post them later. As for contradicting the Bible's revelations, the two books agree at some points and disagree at some points. The idea is that it confirms what is right while omitting what is either wrong or superfluous.

"Your prophet has put the burden of proof on all Muslims to prove this, which they still cannot do even after approx 1400 years!"

I repeat: there's no need for anyone to prove this. For one thing, you technically can't do that anyway, since historical matters never escape at least a tiny bit of controversy, but it is a well known fact in the secular world that the Bible has been corrupted. Something tells me that your sources on the matter have been consistently one-sided, in a protected nook amongst Bible scholars who let their fundamentalist Christian beliefs be the basis of their work rather than have it be the other way around.

"The Bible contains 69 books and they all agree."

Are you sure it's sixty-nine? Don't the Catholics have a lot more than that? Whether they "all agree," whatever that means, is a separate issue altogether. Needless to say, I find a lot of inconsistency in the volume as a whole.

"The Qu’ran comes along claiming the same inspired place but fails the test."

What test? What was your test?

"Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, you might be wrong? Will you damn your soul by asking sincere open questions? Is that permissible in Islam? Or does the grip of fear hold your mind too strongly to do that?"

You're asking some awfully accusatory questions about someone you've never met, have barely talked to even on a message board, and is himself a recent revert. I'm not going to be as presumptuous as you, but I think that you should at least be a little more careful than you seem to have been about pointing out the sliver in your neighbor's eye without noticing the board in your own. You started out with a lot of ranting and raving and shouting that's typical of fanaticism, I've noticed, and even now after you've calmed down you seem to take great comfort in the idea of thinking you know how my mind works or what the basis of my beliefs are. To me, that suggests that you are the one who isn't considering that he might be wrong.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

[Yahya Sulaiman]

I've found passages from the Qur'an that, I hope, make clearer for you the issue of the Qur'an confirming what is true from the Bible as well as clearing up what is false and omitting what is superfluous. These are from Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation.

"And remember God took a covenant from the People of the Book, to make it known and clear to mankind, and not to hide it; but they threw it away behind their backs, and purchased with it some miserable gain! And vile was the bargain they made!" (3:187)

"O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Apostle, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from God a (new) light and a perspicuous Book,-wherewith God guideth all who seek His good pleasure to ways of peace and safety, and leadeth them out of darkness, by His will, unto the light,-guideth them to a path that is straight." (5:15-16)

"To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute." (5:48)

"This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than God; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book-wherein there is no doubt- from the Lord of the worlds." (10:37)

"We did aforetime grant to the Children of Israel the Book the Power of Command, and Prophethood; We gave them, for Sustenance, things good and pure; and We favoured them above the nations. And We granted them Clear Signs in affairs (of Religion): it was only after knowledge had been granted to them that they fell into schisms, through insolent envy among themselves. Verily thy Lord will judge between them on the Day of Judgment as to those matters in which they set up differences. Then We put thee on the (right) Way of Religion: so follow thou that (Way), and follow not the desires of those who know not." (45:16-18)

"It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered an apostle from among themselves, to rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom,- although they had been, before, in manifest error...the similitude of those who were charged with the (obligations of the) Mosaic Law, but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is that of a donkey which carries huge tomes (but understands them not). Evil is the similitude of people who falsify the Signs of God: and God guides not people who do wrong." (62:2-5)

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

[truthlover]

I've read these claims the Qu'ran makes against the Bible, but those very claims are groundless and fly in the face of God himself. On a purely objective standpoint, the Qu'ran contradicts the Bible, and is very far from confirming it. For example, in those surahs you cited, the Qu'ran supposes that God has rejected Israel as His earthly people altogether, which is simply a false accusation. This is what happens when we judge the contents of a book without even having read it, or if we did with an unbelieving heart.

“ For if the casting away of them (Isreal) be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.” (Romans 11:15-36)

AllMighty God is still the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Israel.
"The gifts of God and his calling are without repentance" i.e. God has never repented from his promises he made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and to their descendants, the Jews.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Once again, the Qur'an can contradict the Bible where it thinks the Bible is wrong. It doesn't invalidate an entire book when variant versions of stories are given and a few doctrines, claimed by one book to be insertions in another, are denied. The basic message remains the same, and there are some stories told that are different only in occasional matters of details. You have to stop seeing the comparison of these two books in matters of black and white. They don't agree on everything or disagree on everything, nor do they have to. This is your "purely objective viewpoint".

This quote from you intrigues me: "This is what happens when we judge the contents of a book without even having read it, or if we did with an unbelieving heart." It intrigues me because I still remember this quote: "As a believer in the Judeo-Christian God, the Allmighty God who created heaven and earth, I can read the Quran, without fearing that I will lose my soul. And the more I read it, the more I am convinced that it is not God’s revelation and the more my faith in my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ grows."

'Fore you 'cuse me (or the Qur'an), take a look at yourself.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

[truthlover]

Assalam alékum,

I would of liked to hear your comments on the passage I quoted from Romans in my previous posting.

As for what I said concerning judging the contents of the Bible without having read it (or with unbelief)I was not pointing a finger at you. It is a general statement which I think is pretty accurate of reality. I've talked to many Muslims and all have told me they believe the Bible to be corrupt. When I asked them if they ever read it, most have told me no and that they don't need to. That is one of the reasons why I find it difficult to accept the faith and the teachings of Mohammed. It is OK for man to judge when you have a righteous basis or foundation. But groudless judgment always backfires in the end. I believe that the Qu'ran's accusation towards the Bible is doing just that. Please don't take my words as a personnal offense. I am just trying to share my faith like you. I could be VERY offended towards Islam for what it says against the Bible, against the divinity of Christ, against Christians, against Jews, but my Lord has taught me, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:43-48)

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

hey mule... can i take it you are satisfied with my response... are you reading the book now?



~compassionately~

[Yahya Sulaiman]

"I could be VERY offended towards Islam for what it says against the Bible, against the divinity of Christ, against Christians, against Jews, but my Lord has taught me, 'Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.' (Matthew 5:43-48)"

Perhaps these verses from the Qur'an will reveal some more common ground in respect to that:

"Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of God all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knoweth well those that do right." (Surah 3, Ayat 113-115)

"If only the People of the Book had believed and been righteous, We should indeed have blotted out their iniquities and admitted them to gardens of bliss. If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil...those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." (Surah 5, Ayat 65-69)

"Those who avoid the greater crimes and shameful deeds, and, when they are angry even then forgive; those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance; and those who, when an oppressive wrong is inflicted on them, (are not cowed but) help and defend themselves. The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from God: for (God) loveth not those who do wrong. But indeed if any do help and defend themselves after a wrong (done) to them, against such there is no cause of blame. The blame is only against those who oppress men and wrong-doing and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a penalty grievous. But indeed if any show patience and forgive, that would truly be an exercise of courageous will and resolution in the conduct of affairs." (Surah 42, Ayat 37-43)

"The Sabbath was only made (strict) for those who disagreed (as to its observance); But God will judge between them on the Day of Judgment, as to their differences. Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance. And if ye do catch them out, catch them out no worse than they catch you out: But if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient. And do thou be patient, for thy patience is but from God; nor grieve over them: and distress not thyself because of their plots. For God is with those who restrain themselves, and those who do good." (Surah 16, Ayat 124-128)

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

[Yahya Sulaiman]

http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=297

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

[truthlover]

Concerning your quotes from Dr. Rizwan Haider at http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=297

It grieves my heart to see men trust men instead of God. The Pharisees of Jesus' day were good at it. Most Roman Catholics are good at it too when they trust their priest and the pope and their traditions over God's Word the Bible. All Dr. Haider does is trust in the writings of liberal minded so-called Christians. Their writings might give solace to an already unbelieving heart, but can never give peace to the weary soul in quest of reconciliation with God. Only the rivers of the divine words of life can do that at the feet of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Jesus talked about these people when he said to the Sadducees, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”

I could just as easily quote from conservative Christian scholars who completely disagree with the conclusions of unbelieving commentators and uphold the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. I urge you together with the prophets and Jesus to not trust in man:

“He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition... making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” (Mark 7:6-13)

“And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:19-20)

God’s Word does not need approval from men’s ink and pen. We are treading holy ground. Does who approach flippantly and trifle with its holy contents are doing it to their own harm.

Also, concerning the classical argument that the Bible contains historical narratives, thus cannot be God’s Word: Divine inspiration is not only through prophetic utterance. The Bible contains volumes of these. The Spirit of God is a Spirit of Truth. God knows historical facts better than any top-notch historical scholar. That is why He also has given us accurate historical narratives of past events in order to better understand his divine intervention throughout history, more specifically through his chosen people Israel and the promise of Abraham’s blessing to all the families of the earth through the promised Messiah which has come in the blessed person of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Jesus has sealed the times of the prophets. We are to expect no other prophet after Him. He said, “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) That implies (there are many other verses I could quote) that the times of the law and the prophets came to an end with the coming of Jesus.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

If you want me to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, you're going to have to provide an actual argument for it. Asserting it isn't enough--that was the problem with our ex-member Believer.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

[truthlover]

Greetings and may God reveal His grace and mercy to you!

Surah: “If you want me to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, you're going to have to provide an actual argument for it. Asserting it isn't enough--that was the problem with our ex-member Believer”

If the testimony of God’s Spirit through Moses and the prophets and the Lord Jesus himself cannot convince you then I am afraid nothing will.

“Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is [one] that accuseth you, [even] Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:45-47)

[Yahya Sulaiman]

When I read the Bible, I see some good things and some bad things. I haven't read the entire Old Testament, though Lord knows I've tried. It's just so boring. The New Testament is more interesting, but it contains good teachings and bad teachings. And I notice quite a lot of contradictions and miscellaneous errors in the text. No, I don't go through the text just to look for them, but sometimes they just makes themselves evident. Also, the teachings that the Bible's Gospels allege that the blessed Jesus gave are sometimes good, and sometimes bad, such as when they are racist (Matthew 5:47, 6:7, 6:32, 15:22-28) or extremist (Matthew 5:33-37, 18:21-22), or contain false promises (Mark 11:24, Luke 21:32). (I've heard the attempts Christians make to smooth over these problems, and they look to me like rationalizations that fall apart when applied to the standards of logic and fact.)

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

Edited by - Surah on 10/17/2003 03:08:46

[truthlover]

“When I read the Bible, I see some good things and some bad things.”
Of course, we are dealing with man and his sins. God does not hide reality even though it can be ugly, but He deals with it and will deal with all “undealt” unrighteousness on the Day of Judgment.

“I haven't read the entire Old Testament, though Lord knows I've tried. It's just so boring.”

Sad to hear you say that. You need a revelation from above. Learn from the disciples on the road to Emmaus: “Then he (Christ) said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and ALL the prophets, he expounded unto them in ALL the scriptures the things concerning himself... And they said one to another, Did not OUR HEART BURN WITHIN US, while he talked with us by the way, and while he OPENED TO US THE SCRIPTURES?” (Luke 24:26-27, 32)


“The New Testament is more interesting, but it contains good teachings and bad teachings. And I notice quite a lot of contradictions and miscellaneous errors in the text.”

If the Bible were really (I am supposing for your sake) God’s inspired Word, and that “His thoughts are not our thoughts, neither are our ways His ways” (Isaiah 55:8) “For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?” (1 Corinthian 2:16), would it not be expected to find apparent contradictions, because of our limited fallen mind?

“Also, the teachings that the Bible's Gospels allege that the blessed Jesus gave are sometimes good, and sometimes bad, such as when they are racist (Matthew 5:47, 6:7, 6:32, 15:22-28) or extremist (Matthew 5:33-37, 18:21-22), or contain false promises (Mark 11:24, Luke 21:32). (I've heard the attempts Christians make to smooth over these problems, and they look to me like rationalizations that fall apart when applied to the standards of logic and fact.)”

You use the term “standards of logic and fact” as your ultimate reference point. Are you referring to the Qu’ran? There is a problem with your thinking, however. The question is whose standards? Also, human reasoning is not infallible, be it among the most learned and most unbiased people (do they even exist?). As for facts, there is no problem with the facts themselves, just agreeing among men and substantiating the facts apart from fiction, and that is not always evident either. It usually takes time mainly when we are relating to past events. And there are facts we will probably never know. That is why our human intellect is flawed from the start. Nobody has all the facts. Only God. He has revealed Himself through history. Nature testifies to his eternal existence, power and wisdom. The Bible testifies to his eternal foreknowledge, love and wisdom and faithfulness. Believers have testified and continue to testify of the grace and peace and the freedom from the bondage of sin they experience since they repented and put their trust in the Savior. Whether you accept or reject these tokens of his love to you is your decision.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

"Learn from the disciples on the road to Emmaus: 'Then he (Christ) said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and ALL the prophets, he expounded unto them in ALL the scriptures the things concerning himself... And they said one to another, Did not OUR HEART BURN WITHIN US, while he talked with us by the way, and while he OPENED TO US THE SCRIPTURES?' (Luke 24:26-27, 32)"

I don't think it would be reasonable to expect someone's heart to burn within them as they read pointless geneaologies of long dead, unheard of people, long-winded parables that make no sense, and "historical" accounts of things from a culture they don't find interesting, often stopping for painfully long periods of time to describe the exact details of the appearance of a temple or all the members present at an event.

"If the Bible were really (I am supposing for your sake) God’s inspired Word...would it not be expected to find apparent contradictions, because of our limited fallen mind?"

No. Not at all. I don't see why I should expect that.

"You use the term “standards of logic and fact” as your ultimate reference point. Are you referring to the Qu’ran? There is a problem with your thinking, however. The question is whose standards? Also, human reasoning is not infallible, be it among the most learned and most unbiased people (do they even exist?). As for facts, there is no problem with the facts themselves, just agreeing among men and substantiating the facts apart from fiction, and that is not always evident either. It usually takes time mainly when we are relating to past events. And there are facts we will probably never know. That is why our human intellect is flawed from the start. Nobody has all the facts. Only God. He has revealed Himself through history. Nature testifies to his eternal existence, power and wisdom. The Bible testifies to his eternal foreknowledge, love and wisdom and faithfulness. Believers have testified and continue to testify of the grace and peace and the freedom from the bondage of sin they experience since they repented and put their trust in the Savior. Whether you accept or reject these tokens of his love to you is your decision."

1. It may be only an inductive matter, but when people make up the incoherent nonsense that they do to smooth over difficulties in the Bible and its teachings, the illogic of it is readily apparent to anyone whose mind is not already tainted by a pro-biblical bias.
2. The existence of God is not the question here, nor do we disagree on the matter.
3. The Bible is by no means the only book to testify to those things.
4. Just because a lot of people believe something and get positive effects from it doesn't make it so. (Otherwise a lot of different, contradictory religions would all be true at the same time.


I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

[nr]

contain false promises (Mark 11:24, Luke 21:32).
Since faith is a gift from God and is not irrational belief in something, I think that covers Mark 11:24. In Luke 21:32, I believe that Jesus is refering to the olive trees. Supposivly the garden of Olives have olive trees 2000 or more years but I have not found references to this.

I don't believe that Jesus' references to pagan is racist. First of all, pagans refers to the romans and those who believe in more than one God. In any case, the Quran says worst things about the unbelievers and pagans than Jesus does. Jesus is using pagans as an example to urge the Jews to pray better.

extremist (Matthew 5:33-37, 18:21-22)
I don't see this as being extremist but effective. If people would forgive others more and remain truthful this world would be very different. Jesus is using the number 7 here symbolically because 7 is the perfect number. The effect is that those who want to be perfect should forgive imperfection so that their own imperfection is forgiven.

[nr]

Should be fig trees not olive trees.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

"Since faith is a gift from God and is not irrational belief in something, I think that covers Mark 11:24."

I don't see how it would. That sounds like a total non-sequitur.

"In Luke 21:32, I believe that Jesus is refering to the olive trees. Supposivly the garden of Olives have olive trees 2000 or more years but I have not found references to this."

Well, I have to admit, I've never heard that interpretation before. It seems to me that the olive tree was simply used as a metaphor or parable.

"I don't believe that Jesus' references to pagan is racist. First of all, pagans refers to the romans and those who believe in more than one God. In any case, the Quran says worst things about the unbelievers and pagans than Jesus does. Jesus is using pagans as an example to urge the Jews to pray better."

This is a matter of translation that I'm afraid I don't have the knowledge to answer for certain. But the translation that I most trust from comparing it to other translations and applying logic and what I know, the Revised Standard Version, renders the word you seem to be reading as "pagans" as "Gentiles."

"I don't see this as being extremist but effective. If people would forgive others more and remain truthful this world would be very different. Jesus is using the number 7 here symbolically because 7 is the perfect number."

The exact number of times has nothing to do with my point. My point is that if you repeatedly forgive someone who wrongs you like that, you are in effect letting them walk all over you.

"The effect is that those who want to be perfect should forgive imperfection so that their own imperfection is forgiven."

As far as I can tell, you're saying that the idea is that we should forgive each other or else God won't have any reason to forgive us. What I am referring to is the extremity of forgiving over and over and over again as someone milks you for all you're worth.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

[nr]

I don't see how it would. That sounds like a total non-sequitur.
Unless if God explicitly told someone that he was going to move a specific moutain, someone would not have faith in God moving that mountain. I don't think Jesus speaking of praying for physical things like moving moutains but spirtual things.


Well, I have to admit, I've never heard that interpretation before. It seems to me that the olive tree was simply used as a metaphor or parable.
I've read about some olive and fig trees being over 2000 years. It may even be the very tree of the knowledge of good and evil that Adam ate of and covered herself with the leaves of.


the Revised Standard Version, renders the word you seem to be reading as "pagans" as "Gentiles."
At that time, there were not too many Gentiles who worshiped one God. The emphasis on the racial connotation does not seem to be there though. He seems to be contrasting the Pharisee's hypocrisy with the Gentile's lack of understanding. "Your Father knows what you need before you ask him" may explain the quote about moving mountains.


The exact number of times has nothing to do with my point. My point is that if you repeatedly forgive someone who wrongs you like that, you are in effect letting them walk all over you.
I view forgiveness differently from punishment. Forgiveness is restoring relationship and trust. This is the view taken by the bible. For example, King David is forgiven but is still punished.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

"Unless if God explicitly told someone that he was going to move a specific moutain, someone would not have faith in God moving that mountain. I don't think Jesus speaking of praying for physical things like moving moutains but spirtual things."

I don't know about that...I've seen people have some true, deep faith in some pretty erroneous things...there have been a lot of children who died because they had faith that they could fly.

"I've read about some olive and fig trees being over 2000 years. It may even be the very tree of the knowledge of good and evil that Adam ate of and covered herself with the leaves of."

Let's take a look at the passage in full context:

"And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. And he told them a parable: 'Look at the fig tree, and all the trees; as soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all has taken place." (Luke 21:27-32, RSV)

I think that makes it pretty clear.

"At that time, there were not too many Gentiles who worshiped one God. The emphasis on the racial connotation does not seem to be there though. He seems to be contrasting the Pharisee's hypocrisy with the Gentile's lack of understanding. 'Your Father knows what you need before you ask him' may explain the quote about moving mountains."

I think that Jesus (may God bless him) should have been a little more specific about what he meant, if the text is true, because the Jews already had a very elitist culture, and it would be rather careless of him to put things in such a way that could so easily be misinterpreted as something racist.

"I view forgiveness differently from punishment. Forgiveness is restoring relationship and trust. This is the view taken by the bible. For example, King David is forgiven but is still punished."

What exactly are you saying?

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

Edited by - Surah on 10/18/2003 02:46:30

[nr]

I don't know about that...I've seen people have some true, deep faith in some pretty erroneous things...there have been a lot of children who died because they had faith that they could fly.
Well for the children it's ignorance and not faith. This caused by their pride in their own beliefs correct?

I think that makes it pretty clear.
I don't think so. This kind of stuft has happened before with Jesus :) "So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus had not told him that he would not die, just "What if I want him to remain until I come?""(John 21:23) The referance to summer comming is similar to the one used in Luke 12:55, "and when you notice that the wind is blowing from the south you say that is going to be hot--and so it is..." In light of the prophesies preceding this one in Luke 21:7, I don't think that his disciples living forever is the right interpretation. Perhaps he was constrasting the fig tree that was cursed with the fig trees that standing. Or maybe he's speaking of his disciples after death.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

As for those kids...call it what you want to call it, but they had faith, all right.

I still don't quite understand what you're saying about the tree.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist.

[nr]

Well faith in a non-religious sense maybe. Faith is a gift from God and is nothing but irrational desire without God.

I still don't quite understand what you're saying about the tree.
Yeah, I'll think about it someone. The fig tree symbolizes Israel's decadence while the olive Tree symbolizes spiritual Israel. This is expressed in Hosea,"I will lay waste her vines and fig trees, of which she said, 'These are the hire my lovers have given me.'" which may explain the cursing of the fig tree. Jesus seems to be refering to the book of Enoch when he says "And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" Here's the quote from the book of Enoch

4 Then shall pain come upon them as on a woman in travail,
[And she has pain in bringing forth]
When her child enters the mouth of the womb,
And she has pain in bringing forth.

And one portion of them shall look on the other,
And they shall be terrified,
And they shall be downcast of countenance,
And pain shall seize them,
When they see that Son of Man Sitting on the throne of his glory.
6 And the kings and the mighty and all who possess the earth shall bless and glorify and extol him who rules over all, who was hidden.

The referance "stand erect and raise your heads because your redemption is at hand." is similar to
"Be hopeful, and cast not away your hopes for ye shall have great joy as the angels of heaven. What shall ye be obliged to do ? Ye shall not have to hide on the day of the great judgement and ye shall not be found as sinners, and the eternal 6 judgement shall be far from you for all the generations of the world."

Thus, the generations may be referancing
"1 And I saw written on them that generation upon generation shall transgress, till a generation of righteousness arises, and transgression is destroyed and sin passes away from the earth, and all 2 manner of good comes upon it." So in effect, Jesus is saying we are the last generation to pass away before all sin passes away. Context here might be different. If Jesus was actually pointing to the fig trees, then I think the interpretation would be clear.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

But all sin obviously did not pass away.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist.

[nr]

"I will engrave its inscription, says the LORD of hosts, and I will take away the guilt of the land in one day. On that day, says the LORD of hosts, you will invite one another under your vines and fig trees."(Zechariah 3:10) So our salvation is by asking and seeking it. Satan has already been given a mortal blow, "I will put enmity between you and the women, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel." Going by this interpretation, sin has not passed away completely because we are the collective last generation. Jesus may be also refering to the use of trees as in the book of Enoch.

Chapter 3]
Observe and see how (in the winter) all the trees seem as though they had withered and shed all their leaves, except fourteen trees, which do not lose their foliage but retain the old foliage from two to three years till the new comes.

And again, observe ye the days of summer how the sun is above the earth over against it. And you seek shade and shelter by reason of the heat of the sun, and the earth also burns with growing heat, and so you cannot tread on the earth, or on a rock by reason of its heat.

[Chapter 5]

1 Observe ye how the trees cover themselves with green leaves and bear fruit: wherefore give ye heed and know with regard to all His works, and recognize how He that liveth for ever hath made them so. 2 And all His works go on thus from year to year for ever, and all the tasks which they accomplish for Him, and their tasks change not, but according as God hath ordained so is it done. 3 And behold how the sea and the rivers in like manner accomplish and change not their tasks from His commandments'.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Let's take a look at the parallel passage in chapter 24 of Matthew:

"As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, 'Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?' And Jesus answered them...nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs...And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come. 15 "So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains...For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be...Then if any one says to you, 'Lo, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it...for as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of man. Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together. Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only."

So we can see that he was clearly talking about the end of the world, and saying that it would happen during his own generation, even though he couldn't say during what day or hour.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist.

[nr]

So we can see that he was clearly talking about the end of the world, and saying that it would happen during his own generation, even though he couldn't say during what day or hour.
Which is why I don't think generation in this context is refering to the single lifespan of them. Rather, I believe it is the generation of light spoken of in the book of Enoch And now I will summon the spirits of the good who belong to the generation of light, and I will transform those who were born in darkness, who in the flesh were not recompensed 12 with such honour as their faithfulness deserved. And I will bring forth in shining light those who 13 have loved My holy name, and I will seat each on the throne of his honour. And they shall be resplendent for times without number; for righteousness is the judgement of God; for to the faithful 14 He will give faithfulness in the habitation of upright paths. And they shall see those who were , 15 born in darkness led into darkness, while the righteous shall be resplendent. And the sinners shall cry aloud and see them resplendent, and they indeed will go where days and seasons are prescribed for them.' By using generation here, Jesus is just grouping together those under the new convenant.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

That's fine for that passage, I suppose, but you must place it in the context of the rest of the New Testament, which urges repeatedly that the world will end during the generation in which these revelation were revealed. Please read: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=86

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist.

[nr]

In some respects Peter may have been misled by Jesus' word at first, but he later realized the true meaning of them when he said "But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day. The Lord does not delay his promise, as some regard "delay", but he is patient with you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."(2 Peter 3:8) It is certainly beneficial to us to live every day like the last so this message brought forth.

I'm not sure what the author of http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=86 is trying to say with the book of Revelation being unsealed. Most of the book revelation can be derived by Daniel, Isaiah, Jerimiah, and the book of enoch anyways. The sealed portion of Revelation is the voice of the 7 thunders.

Paul explicitly states the end of the world cannot occur until the gospel is preached to all nations as said in Isaiah.

shall be caught up...in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air!" For Paul there was no doubt that Jesus would arrive before he and the believers he addressed would all be dead."We," including himself, "shall not all sleep" [1 Cor 15:51].
"We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, in an instant, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." Paul is clearly stating that the last trumpet will wake up the dead. It is not a claim of not dying.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Christianity has been preached to all nations by now.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Also, try this one on for size. According to the Bible, the blessed Jesus was a hypocrite:

"Whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire." (Matthew 5:22)

"You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred?" (Matthew 23:17)

"You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also?" (Luke 11:40)

Also, I don't know whether or not you believe the Bible contains any errors at all, but here is the best example of a clear contradiction in the text that I know of:

"When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, 'It is finished'; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." (John 19:30)

"Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!' And having said this he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46)

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist.

Edited by - Surah on 10/20/2003 06:13:41

[nr]

Christianity has been preached to all nations by now.
No, it hasn't been. This has no bearing on the actual prophesy though. The prophesy only says after.

Also, try this one on for size. According to the Bible, the blessed Jesus was a hypocrite:

"Whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire."
Liable for hell. If someone is truely foolish, then there's no repute with saying the truth.

Also, I don't know whether or not you believe the Bible contains any errors at all, but here is the best example of a clear contradiction in the text that I know of:
No, there are clear mistranslations in some places.



"When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, 'It is finished'; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." (John 19:30)

"Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!' And having said this he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46)

I don't see any contradiction in light of the fact that the crucification was observed by only a few Jesus' disciples and there are possible ordering of events that would not make this a contradiction. For example, if "gave up his spirit" meant "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit! And having said this breathed his last" then there's no contradiction. As far as I can tell, the gospels that were not written directly by the apostles were written off of oratations given by the apostles. This is what the fragment of Papias tells us at least. I don't think the apostles were concerned about getting every single detail unrelated to the message right. Thus it is possible that in telling the story minor variations developed.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Okay, so you're not an inerrantist. That's good. Please tell me what you meant by this, because I can't figure it out:

"Liable for hell. If someone is truely foolish, then there's no repute with saying the truth."

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist.