The meaning of Yahweh...

Society Religion & Philosophy
41

“That Colossians is a genuine letter Paul is not usually disputed. In the early church, all who speak on the subject of authorship ascribe it to Paul. In the 19th century, however, some thought that the heresy refuted in ch. 2 was second-century Gnosticism. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1813)”
To bad the commentators of the NIV Bible don’t have enough confidence as you do. They say that it was assumed that Paul was the one who wrote the Book.

Lets assume that the author was Paul. Please do me a favour and go to the link given below to find out what the Historians have to say about this “Inspired Author”
http://www.answering-christianity.com/paul_docs.htm

Now don’t tell me that the basic concept of God in Christianity is based on this doubtfull book written by a doubtfull author, Paul who is not in the good books of the historians.
Jesus didn’t equate himself with God. On the contrary he asked the people to stop calling him “good” because there is only one “good” and that is God. Jesus didn’t equate himself with God. Paul equated Jesus with God.
Funny, you trust Paul and the Jews but you don’t trust Jesus (PBUH).

Old Man, you forgot to give these verses of Genesis Chapter 1: (Who is clutching at straws? :slight_smile: )

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

According to the Bible, MAN is created in God’s image. So Jesus’ being an image of God is no big deal, because according to the Bible, WE ALL ARE AN IMAGE OF GOD. Now would you start worshipping every man because every man is an image of God.
In verse it is said that Jesus is an image of God. In another verse it is said that MAN is an image of God. Both these verses prove that Jesus was a MAN, because Man is an image of God(according to the Bible).

Even the Quran teaches that Jesus will come and rule the world. That makes him a Judge. Not a God.

Jesus is subservient to the Father in that concept of a Tri-une God which is never spoken about by Jesus nor is it present in the Bible.

A word does not HAVE to be in the Bible before you can use it, unless the word is the basis of the christian religion. But a verse has to be present in the Greek manuscripts before it is translated into other languages. How can some one translate a verse which never existed. BTW I am still wondering, who could have put 1st Epistle of John 5:7 in the present english Bibles if it doesn’t exist in the original greek manuscripts.

My dear OLD MAN, that is the exact reason why this fraud of Trinity was invented by the later Christians. The best way to understand an unexplainable verse is to use an unexplainable concept.

Who is stopping you? Go ahead and give all the reasons. It won’t change the fact that Jesus never claimed divinity. Nor will it change the fact that he never equated himself with God.

Especially if the “ANOTHER” is looking forward to a “logical” reasoning.

In Islam, it is God who convinces people.

That’s nice.

42

This issue is slowly snowballing and I therefor will attempt to only address some issues.

  1. Axiom wrote: So now you are calling him a God on the basis of what he MIGHT come and do in the future

Please don’t put words in my mouth that I did not use when you have no better argument..

  1. Axiom wrote: please don’t try to decieve us by making false claims like these due to lack of knowledge.

Nice way to do a debate when one self can but cut and paste without giving the sources. Maybe dishonest thyself? :slight_smile: My knowledge of the Bible and interpretation thereof can speak for itself. What I paste on this forum comes mainly from myself.

I stand on my previous explanation. You doubt the accuracy, go do some proper research by asking a good Greek scholar yourself without relying so heavily on others’ work. Just for the record: I see Dr. James Moffatt agrees with me (divine = God); 2Cor.4v4 the subject “god” does have the article therefor “the god”. Don’t let me explain elementary Greek to you.

  1. Axiom wrote: Now why do you follow what the Jews THOUGHT and reject what Jesus(PBUH) SAID ?

:rolleyes”: Again laying words in my mouth. Issue is that the Jews understood that Jesus equated himself with God (John.10v33). BTW. The translation of the verse you quote is incorrect. It should read “God” not “a God”. Go look at the Greek. Does let me wonder if you are not using The New Word Translation of the Jehova Witnesses? I hope you know that to this date they refuse to divulge the names of their translators because they do not have a good Hebrew/Greek background?

  1. Axiom wrote: That is why the people laugh at the Christians when the Christians say that Jesus said “I and my father are one” because it is imposible (as you accepted yourself).

It is written For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are saved it is the power of God - 1Cor.1v18. BTW: I did not accept that it is foolish for Jesus to say he and the Father is one - again your words put in my mouth. Jesus stated his hand is as strong as the Fathers hand. His followers’ hands will never be equal to the Fathers’, it clearly show a difference in “oneness”.

  1. Please show verse where Jesus condemned those who worshipped him.

  2. The NIV Bible Commentary is but a commentary as there are many others that do not agree with them. The people that contributed do not have any tie with the translators of the NIV Bible Translation itself. If they don’t like Revelations, then it is their choice alone. Revelation is in the Bible and that’s that. You don’t like it, hump it!

Aziom wrote: In fact The “Alpha and Omega” doesn’t even exist in the original Bible!

Please quote the original Bible’s verse. :slight_smile: Because I know you are just fishing/lying…

  1. Axiom wrote: To bad the commentators of the NIV Bible don’t have enough confidence as you do.

See my statement at point 6 above. There are many theologians that want to scrap the whole of the New Testament and replace it with only the Gospel of Thomas. They are not necessary correct.

8 and 9 you accept now I see, or you don’t refute it anymore, at least. This make three points you accept now (with 5).

  1. Axiom wrote: Old Man, you forgot to give these verses…

I purposely did not give the verses intended as there are more than one. God created Man the image/likeness of God, i .e. Body, Soul, Spirit just as God is made up of Jesus (Body), Father (Soul), Holy Ghost (Spirit) in a sense. In Genesis God clearly created (“bârâ” Hebrew word for create from nothing) three things, the rest was made from something (“âsâh”). God created first the earth (firm body), then living creatures with a soul (they have emotion, intellect, etc.), then Man (with God’s Spirit blown into him causing him to be the only creature on earth that search for and worship God/gods). This Three-ship of God get’s stated in so many places and ways in the Bible, it is absolutely impossible to ignore it. Obviously if one does not believe the Bible as true…

Axiom wrote: The best way to understand an unexplained verse is to use an unexplained concept

:slight_smile: Still clutching at straws :rolleyes:

Axiom wrote: Especially if the “ANOTHER” is looking forward to a “logical” reasoning

It is written: Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling-block to the Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength - 1Cor.1v22-25.

43

Foolishness and weakness? Are we talking about god here? if he is god then on what grounds are there foolishness and weakness? Compared to what, Human Beings? What kind of a god holds himself accountable to his creations...

44

[QUOTE]
This issue is slowly snowballing and I therefor will attempt to only address some issues.
[/QUOTE]

Are you sure it is so? Or are we out of Straws :) .

[QUOTE]
Please don't put words in my mouth that I did not use when you have no better argument..
[/QUOTE]

I didn't push words in your mouth. Your exact words are :

[QUOTE]
Jesus' physically rule still to come (see Revelations).
[/QUOTE]

SO I still say what I said before:

"So now you are calling him a God on the basis of what he MIGHT come and do in the future."

[QUOTE]
Nice way to do a debate when one self can but cut and paste without giving the sources.
[/QUOTE]

Nice way to debate when you don't even read the sources I have already given. I can't force you to read the Sources. All I can do is give them again.

[QUOTE]
Similarly, in "The New Testament, An American Translation" this verse is honestly presented as
"In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."
The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173
And again in the dictionary of the Bible, under the heading of "God" we read
"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God =the Father], and the word was a divine being.'"
The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317
In yet another Bible we read:
"The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine"
The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James Moffatt
Please also see "The Authentic New Testament" by Hugh J. Schonfield:
[/QUOTE]

Next time, make sure you read a post before replying to it. And don't decieve people by making false claims.

[QUOTE]
Maybe dishonest thyself?
[/QUOTE]

We have already seen who is dishonest.

[QUOTE]
My knowledge of the Bible and interpretation thereof can speak for itself. What I paste on this forum comes mainly from myself.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah right! 1+1+1 = 1 speaks for itself :)
By the way, in Christianity is it a crime to cut and paste? If so, then what is the punishment for it? If not then why do you accuse me for doing something which has got no punishment.

[QUOTE]
I stand on my previous explanation. You doubt the accuracy, go do some proper research by asking a good Greek scholar yourself without relying so heavily on others' work.
[/QUOTE]

So you decide to go against the scholars given above.

[QUOTE]
Just for the record: I see Dr. James Moffatt agrees with me (divine = God); 2Cor.4v4 the subject "god" does have the article therefor "the god".
[/QUOTE]

Well if Divine = God
Then (according to 2 Corinthians 4:4) The Devil = Divine

If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word (ho theos) that was used in John 1:1 to describe God Almighty is now used to describe the devil.

So now you are giving The Devil a Divine status. And then you say that I put words in your mouth.

[QUOTE]
Don't let me explain elementary Greek to you.
[/QUOTE]

You know Greek? Well why didn't you say you. I would have written my posts in Greek. Then atleast you would have read them.

[QUOTE]
:rolleyes": Again laying words in my mouth. Issue is that the Jews understood that Jesus equated himself with God (John.10v33). BTW. The translation of the verse you quote is incorrect. It should read "God" not "a God". Go look at the Greek. Does let me wonder if you are not using The New Word Translation of the Jehova Witnesses? I hope you know that to this date they refuse to divulge the names of their translators because they do not have a good Hebrew/Greek background?
[/QUOTE]

The issue is that The Jews MISSUNDERSTOOD that Jesus equated himself with God (John.10v33).
So Jesus removed this misunderstanding of the Jews in the verses 34-36.
I already gave you a link of the Bible I refer to. You didn't read that link too?

45

It is also mentioned that the Bible is meant only for the “LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL”. So this verse and the Bible is not meant for the Non-Jews and the Non-Christians. It is only meant for The Jews and Christians :

A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, ‘Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession. Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, ‘Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.’ He [Jesus] answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.’ The woman came and knelt before him. ‘Lord, help me!’ she said. He [Jesus] replied ‘It is not right to take the children’s [Jews] bread [blessings and miracles reserved for them] and toss it to their dogs [the Canaanite, or the Philistines].’ ‘Yes, Lord’ she said, ‘but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.’ Then Jesus answered, ‘Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.’ And her daughter was healed from that very hour. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 15:22-28)"

“These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ‘Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.’ (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 10:5-6)”

I quote my question again:

Some one forgot to give the reference.

My father is greater than I (John 14:28)
Can God be greater than himself ? This verse shows that God and Jesus are two separate entities. Someone cannot be greater than himself.

My father is greater than all (John 10:92)
This shows the similarity in oneness. The Father is greater than Jesus just as He is greater than all.

  1. And, behold, one came and said unto him, “Good Master what thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
    And he said unto him," Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God; but if thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments." (Mat 5:17-20)

2.“…and the word which ye hear is not mine, But the Father’s which has sent me.” (John 14:24)

  1. The verses of (John 10:34-36) in which he tells the jews that he did not claim divinity. I have already quoted them before.

Let me remind you that this commentary is written by the scholars who are supposed to be guided by the Holy spirit.

NIV BIBLE Version information:
The New International Version (NIV) is a translation made by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It was conceived in 1965 when, after several years of study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals, a trans-denominational and international group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and agreed on the need for a new translation in contemporary English. Their conclusion was endorsed by a large number of church leaders who met in Chicago in 1966. Responsibility for the version was delegated to a self-governing body of fifteen Biblical scholars, the Committee on Bible Translation, and in 1967, the New York Bible Society (now International Bible Society) generously undertook the financial sponsorship of the project.
The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars, and the work was thoroughly reviewed and revised at various stages by three separate committees.The Committee submitted the developing version to stylistic consultants who made invaluable suggestions. Samples of the translation were tested for clarity and ease ofreading by various groups of people. In short, perhaps no other translation has been made by a more thorough process of review and revision.
In 1973 the New Testament was published. The Committee carefully reviewed suggestions for revisions and adopted a number of them, which they incorporated into the first printing of the entire Bible in 1978. Additional changes were made in 1983.
SOURCE:New International Version (NIV) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com
So, when are you releasing your version of the Bible,if you plan to release one. Untill then, lets refer to the best available Bible.

You want me to quote something that doesn’t even exist. :slight_smile:
I know you don’t believe me. That is why I also posted this:

Don’t tell me you didn’t read this too.

46

Yes but those many theologians don’t write the Bible which is read by all the Christians as a word of God.

"The International Bible Society said Monday that America’s best-selling modern Bible is about to get an update using gender-neutral wording, despite past criticism of that idea from conservatives.

The revision will be called Today’s New International Version, or TNIV. The original New International Version, which has sold more than 150 million copies worldwide since 1978, will remain on the market."
SOURCE: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/01/28/new-bible.htm
If you don’t agree with the NIV bible then you don’t agree to the 150 million christians who read it and take it to be the word of God. I am sorry but the odds are very high. 1 against 150 million.

Huh? When did I agree to points 5,8,9 ? Let me give you the points again:

I agreed with the first part of the sentence that people worshipped Jesus (Some still do), but I didn’t agree to the second part that Jesus never corrected them. I showed you evidence proving that Jesus DID correct them, to which you didn’t reply. So it means that you accepted that point 5 cannot be used to claim that Jesus is divine.

I showed the verse in which it is said that God created Man as an image of God. Jesus was also created as an image of God(according to the verse you gave) . I asked a question. Will you consider every man to be God, because Man was created as an image of God just like Jesus was created as an image of God? You didnot respond to this either, meaning you accept that point 8 cannot be used to claim that Jesus is God.

I showed this verse:
Please read John 5v.30. It says:
"I can on my ownself do nothing. As I hear, I judge, and my judgement is just because I seek not my will but the will of the Father who has sent me.

This verse clearly says that Jesus could do nothing on his own, not even judging. He judged according to what he heard from The Father(as the Christians call Him). This also proves that Jesus was not God because he couldn’t do anything without God’s will. Does God seek some else’s will.
You tried to respond to this post by using the concept of Tri-Une God which I proved to be false. It means you accept that point 9 cannot be used to claim that Jesus is God.

You didn’t even respond to the fact that the concept of Tri-Une God is a fraud that was added into the Bible by the Later Christians. That means you accepted that point 10 cannot be used to claim that Jesus is a God

All you did was to respond to parts of my posts and wishfully conclude that I accepted something which I never did.

Not responding to my post, as usual. You accept that Man is created as an image of God. You accept that Jesus was created as an image of God. Yet you say that only Jesus is God because he was created as an image of God. According to the Bible, even humans are created as an image of God, so according to this theory of yours every man is a God because every man is created as an image of God. Do you consider every man to be God?

Some one really is clutching at straws :slight_smile:
Genesis chap 1 has got nothing to do with trinity. Please show me which of the verses of Genesis chap 1 can be “alluded” for Tri-Une concept of God.

As Lajawab said:

So now you are saying…no not you, but the Bible is saying that God has Foolishness and Weaknesses which are better than the wisdom and strength of humans?
This is an insult to God. I can’t believe you posted such a verse so proudly.

47

I believe in God, the son, and holy spirit.

The meaning of the Triune God.

The son is Jesus Christ, born of the holy spirt of God. (his angels)

Therefore a son of God.

Like the rest of us. Jesus when he was born of the holy spirit of God taught us that all people are of God. God granted us life and made man in his image. We (all of us) are his people. Each and everyone.

Everywhere you look. Does't matter if you believe it. You don't have to. But its true.

God doesn't mind so much, (that he won't forgive you), if you don't believe, but blesses you if you do.

I know it.

Oh yeah... a JESUS saying.

But I pass no judgement without consultin the Father. I judge as I am told. And my judgement is absolutely fair and just, for it is according to the will fo God who sent me and is not merly my own.

48

Axiom said: So now you are calling him a God on the basis of what he MIGHT come and do in the future.

Again, don't put words in my mouth, please try and be honest. Jesus was part of the Tri-une God from the beginning, but his physically rule is still o come. Obviously he is reigning with the Father and the Holy Spirit right now.

Axiom said: Yeah right! 1+1+1 = 1 speaks for itself.

More like 1x1x1=1, dear fellow!

Axiom said: By the way, in Christianity is it a crime to cut and paste?

The issue is that it is frowned on at Gupshup if you cut and paste without giving sources - funny that the Moderators did not pick up on it. It is also a crime called "plagiarism" if the original author is not credited.

Axiom said: Well if Divine = God, then (according to 2 Corinthians 4:4) The Devil = Divine

Nonsense. If you want to use the word "divine" instead of "god", the verse would still read "The divine of this age..." and it doesn't make the Devil either God or Divine.

Axiom said: You know Greek?

If you would do the effort (which I doubt you will do), I have posted my qualifications on Gupshup and part of it entailed the studying of the classical languages at university level. I don't profess to still be a master of it, but can help myself. You on the other hand has not studied any of the classical languages.

Axiom said: It is also mentioned that the Bible is meant only for the "LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL". So this verse and the Bible is not meant for the Non-Jews and the Non- Christians. It is only meant for The Jews and Christians.

Nonsense. Jesus' first duty was to proclaim the message to the nation of God (Jews) and then to whosoever want to hear. He also instructed his disciples the same way. Jesus told the Jews: I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. - John.10v16-17. Jesus also commanded his disciples (all Jews) as follows: Therefor go and make disciples of all nations.... - Matt.28v19. Jesus' message is for ALL people. In any case, at the time of Jesus there were no Christians!

Axiom said: 1. " And, behold, one came and said unto him, "Good Master what thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" And he said unto him," Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God; but if thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments." (Mat 5:17-20). 2."...and the word which ye hear is not mine, But the Father's which has sent me." (John 14:24). 3. The verses of (John 10:34-36) in which he tells the jews that he did not claim divinity. I have already quoted them before.

Unfortunately still no rebuke by Jesus to any of those while they worshipped him.....

Axiom said: NIV BIBLE Version information: The New International Version (NIV) is a translation made by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.

You are still confused between the NIV Bible and the NIV Bible Commentary. Two different items done by completely different people and the only common denominator is that the people compiling the NIV Bible Commentary based their commentary on the NIV Bible translation and not another translation. I accept the NIV to be presently the best translation available.

BTW> I did some leg exercises (what you should do rather than just rely on cut and paste methods without checking the sources. I went today to a bookshop that have the NIV Bible Commentary on the shelf, photostated the relevant page, and will quote from it. The bold parts it what you conveniently left out:

Four times the author identifies himself as John (1:1,4,9; 22:8). **From as early as Justin Martyr in the second century A.D. it has been held that this John was the apostle, the son of Zebedee (see Mt.10:2). The book itself reveals that the author was a Jew, well versed in Scripture, a church leader who was well known to the seven churches of Asia Minor, and a deeply religious person fully convinced that the Christian faith would soon triumph over the demonic forces at work in the world.*

In the third century, however, an African bishop named Dionysius compared the language of the Apocalypse (Revelation) with that of the other writings of John and decided that the book could not have been written by the apostle John. He suggested that the author was a certain John the Presbyter, whose name appears elsewhere in ancient writings. Although many today follow Dionysius in his view of authorship, the external evidence seems overwhelmingly supportive of the traditional view.*

The NIV Bible commentary people therefor concluded that the author is John! Nice try in spreading disinformation - or was it the cut-and-paste-author's disinformation?

Axiom said: You want me to quote something that doesn't even exist.

Exactly, because you said something without being able to substantiate it. The oldest manuscripts of Revelations do mention "Alpha and Omega". That is my proof. I am sure that the NIV Bible translators would gladly change their translation with a footnote to state that the "Alpha and Omega" does not exist in the oldest/original manuscripts as they have done in various other instances. If you wish to say the originals do not state it, name your manuscript so we can put it to the NIV's translator's or pipe down!

Axiom said: Genesis chap 1 has got nothing to do with trinity. Please show me which of the verses of Genesis chap 1 can be "alluded" for Tri-Une concept of God.

I did - go back and read! :)

Axiom said: So now you are saying......no not you, but the Bible is saying that God has Foolishness and Weaknesses which are better than the wisdom and strength of humans? This is an insult to God. I can't believe you posted such a verse so proudly

Just show how ignorant you people are when it comes to interpreting Scripture. The author asks a rhetorical question about God's foolishness or weakness. The foolishness of God being zero is still more wise than the wisdom of the wisest man! The weakness of God being zero is still more than the strength of the strongest man!

It is written: And we are in him who is true - even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. - 1Joh.5v20

49

Old Man,

Are you catholic?

50

jesu' never claimed to be god.

he worshiped the father.

who is the father?

GOD.

Jesu' only said that he was the son of man.

But God sent his blessing to Mary.

She was a virgin. Jesu' was born of the virgin Mary who was impregnated by God.

God decided this. HE sent his holy angels.

It was his idea.

God's idea.

Jesu always claimed to be a son of man. As he was.

God created man.

He brought forth Jesu' through his Virgin Mother Mary.

God created him.

Just like he created man.

Jesu' said he was the son of man.

And he was.

Son of man.

God's son.

God's idea.

Jesu' said on the cross..

Father please do not forsake me.

God didn't.

He brought him back to life. He rose again on the third day.

And Jesu' is a part of God. Always. Believe that.

Jesu' is son of God, his holiness and God's spirit.

He is a part of God.

Was God's idea.

God's idea.

51

In the New Testament, fourth chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew in the seventh verse, "It is written again, Thou shall not tempt the Lord, thy God."

In the same chapter we read that the devil actually carried the Messiah, and took him from place to place. How can the devil carry God? Does Christianity believe that? Then further on the devil orders him to prostrate before him and worship him and in furthermore tempting him with worldly desires. Can the Christian God be tempted with worldly desires? Astaghfirullah...To this Jesus replied by saying "Thou shalt worship the Lord, thy God, And Him only shlat thou serve." - Matthew 4:10

Hazrat Eesa (AS) never called called himself god or Son of God. He called himself son of man (Mark 2:10). But then, according to the Old and New Testaments, every God-fearing person is called 'Son of God'...We read in Matthew 5:9, "Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be called the children of God."...And in Matthew 5:45 we read, "That ye may be children of your Father which is in heaven..."
Matthew 5:48, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. "
Matthew 6:1, "...Otherwise, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. "

And the greatest insult which the Christians ascribe to our Holy Prophet Hazrat Eesa (AS) is what AvgAmericanGirl pointed out...Supposedly when Jesus was being crucified he shouted in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani...!" What does this mean? Does this mean that Jesus was made a son of god wothout him knowing? Didn't Jesus know what he was getting into? Where we see examples of prophets in the Bible being persecuted, jailed, killed, abused, insulted, assaulted, demeaned, all of them bearing their tortures without a hint of dismay, while the son of god himslef crying out to the common public "Oh Lord, oh Lord, why hast thou forsaken me...!"? How absurd. It seems that Jesus was not aware he would be crucified, and after losing all hope of being saved from a cruel death gave in and cried 'Help, I am forsaken...'...Ridiculous. No Muslim can imagine even the lowliest of Allah (SWT)'s true servant to give up hope like this and moan like that. The Prophets of Islam realized what their position was and realized what was expected of them and realized whatever the outcome, their fate lay with Allah (SWT). When Hazrat Ibrahim (AS) was told by Allah (SWT) to sacrifice a son in His name, Hazrat Ibrahim (AS) did not even flinch...This was a son which was given to him after years and years and years of prayers and very late in life...Yet, the Prophet's beliefs override their anxieties...When Hazrat Musa (AS) was being thrown into the fire by his own tribe, he didn't cry or moan...When Hazrat Younus (AS) was swallowed by a fish for 40 days and nights, he knew his fate lay with Allah (SWT)...Forsaken indeed...

52

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AvgAmericanGirl: *
Old Man,

Are you catholic?
[/QUOTE]

Yes I belong to the Catholic Church but not Roman Catholic Church. Catholic meaning "universal". Every Chirstian belongs to the Catholic Church no matter what denomination.

53

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lajawab: *
In the New Testament, fourth chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew in the seventh verse, "It is written again, Thou shall not tempt the Lord, thy God."

In the same chapter we read that the devil actually carried the Messiah, and took him from place to place. How can the devil carry God? Does Christianity believe that? Then further on the devil orders him to prostrate before him and worship him and in furthermore tempting him with worldly desires. Can the Christian God be tempted with worldly desires? Astaghfirullah...To this Jesus replied by saying "Thou shalt worship the Lord, thy God, And Him only shlat thou serve." - Matthew 4:1

Its true Jesus was tempted. He resisted for 40 days and 40 nights I believe.

Hazrat Eesa (AS) never called called himself god or Son of God. He called himself son of man (Mark 2:10). But then, according to the Old and New Testaments, every God-fearing person is called 'Son of God'...We read in Matthew 5:9, "Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be called the children of God."...And in Matthew 5:45 we read, "That ye may be children of your Father which is in heaven..."
Matthew 5:48, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. "
Matthew 6:1, "...Otherwise, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. "

Not everyone is called son of man..

And no one ever is perfect but God. God decides upon how one lives or dies. It's God's choice. God decides.

And the greatest insult which the Christians ascribe to our Holy Prophet Hazrat Eesa (AS) is what AvgAmericanGirl pointed out...Supposedly when Jesus was being crucified he shouted in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani...!" Means My Father why have you forsaken me?

What does this mean? Does this mean that Jesus was made a son of god wothout him knowing?

Didn't Jesus know what he was getting into? Where we see examples of prophets in the Bible being persecuted, jailed, killed, abused, insulted, assaulted, demeaned, all of them bearing their tortures without a hint of dismay, while the son of god himslef crying out to the common public "Oh Lord, oh Lord, why hast thou forsaken me...!"?

How absurd. It seems that Jesus was not aware he would be crucified, and after losing all hope of being saved from a cruel death gave in and cried 'Help, I am

He said, I am. Jesus had to do what God asked him to. God asked him to die. And promised that he would raise him up and that he would sit at his right side.

Because Jesus was like man, not a god. He acted like a man. A person. He didn't want to die. But God called him, and he knew he was dying, yet he was a son of man, of mankind, and was human when he died.

Anymore Questions?

54

[QUOTE]

He said, I am. Jesus had to do what God asked him to. God asked him to die. And promised that he would raise him up and that he would sit at his right side.
Anymore Questions?
[/QUOTE]

Yes...If he was asked by God to die, then he should have realized that God had a plan in him dying on the cross and he should have accepted that with a smile...Then why did Jesus think that he was forsaken?

55

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lajawab: *

Yes...If he was asked by God to die, then he should have realized that God had a plan in him dying on the cross and he should have accepted that with a smile...Then why did Jesus think that he was forsaken?
[/QUOTE]

Remember, Jesus was a man, like all men. He was suffering. He called out to God, who promised him life everlasting. Jesus was calling on God to take him.

What human would accept dying on a cross with no argument? Would you? Do you know anyone that would?

56

OK…I am now totally confused…Jesus was man, yet was son of god…Yet is god himself, but not god unto himself…He needs the father and the holy spirit to make him complete, without which there would be no Jesus…Mary was ‘impregnated’ by god, yet the Mary who bore Jesus is not divine yet the Spirit which brought Jesus down is divine…Taking Mary out of the equation leaves just the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost…If the holy ghost is divine, then it must have existed before the time of man, yet strangley is not mentioned any other place…If the sole purpose of the Holy Spirit was to bear the spirit of Jesus, then shouldn’t Mary be divine too serving the sole purpose of bearing Jesus?..This is not meant to be sarcasm, please bear this in mind, but these questions do arise…
The Islamic version is much simpler…Nothing fancy. According to Islam, Allah (SWT) said “be” and Jesus was. That’s it. A man born without a father and a prophet of Allah (SWT)…And I attest to this as a Muslim that this is true and place my faith firmly in this belief…
As for your Question AAG, of course I will argue…I will scream and shout and moan and whine if a nail is being driven through my wrists and I am being stabbed in the ribs by this Roman butcher…Probably I’d rip his throat out:hehe:…But we are talking about a Prophet of Allah (SWT) here…Not you or me…:slight_smile:

57

Is confusing.

One question at a time answerd. Maybe even a paragraph.

58

First Question.

Yes, most catholic’s consider Mary divine. (Thats why we call her the Blessed Virgin.) Or, Blessed Mother.

And yes, Jesus was a man. Born of the father, and of the father, and of the holy spirit also. But still a man when he died in agony.

59

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lajawab: *
Hazrat Eesa (AS) never called called himself god or Son of God. He called himself son of man (Mark 2:10).
[/QUOTE]

Never? You obviously haven’t read the Gospels, have you? As answer, please read where Jesus Christ calls himself the “Son of God” or accept the title from others:

Matt.16v16-17; 26v63-64; Luk.22v70; Joh.3v16-18, 10v36; 11v4; 17v1

And please don’t forget to read the Scripture where God Almighty Himself calls Jesus his Son:

Matt.3v17;17v5; Mark.1v11; 9v7; Luk.3v22; 4v3,9; 9v35

And please don’t forget to read the Scripture where others in the presence of Jesus call him the “Son of God” and he accepts the inference:

Matt.4v3,6; 8v29; 14v33; 16v16; Mark.3v11; 5v7; Luk.4v41; 8v28; Joh.1v49; 11v27; 19v7

According to Christianity, in Jesus Christ, God became man in a unique but very real sense. Although Jesus never ceased possessing His divine nature, Christ accepted the limitations of human life with one exception - he knew no sin. As Christians we accept that during Jesus’ earthly life he was, as Son of Man, inferior to his Father (John.14v28), but while such inferiority as a man existed, in his divine nature Jesus was always the Father’s equal (John.5v18f) . In short, Jesus is God the Son, the second entity of the Tri-une God, the One who loved us and died for us so that we might live forever in the everlasting presence of God Almighty.

It is written: Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. **But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.** - John.20v30-31

[quote]
But then, according to the Old and New Testaments, every God-fearing person is called 'Son of God'
[/quote]

Quite correct. BUT it is never done in such a way that others will consider it blasphemous. In Jesus’ case he was the Son of God the Father in such a way that it was considered by the Jews as blasphemous.

60

[QUOTE]
Again, don't put words in my mouth, please try and be honest. Jesus was part of the Tri-une God from the beginning, but his physically rule is still o come. Obviously he is reigning with the Father and the Holy Spirit right now.
[/QUOTE]

Old Man, I am not putting words in your mouth. This is the third time you said it. This is what you said:

[QUOTE]
but his physically rule is still to come
[/QUOTE]

The verse says that Jesus will reign over David's Throne. Now I have a simple question. Did Jesus reign over David's Throne? The answer is NO. Even if he comes and physically reigns over David's throne in the future (as you say) then call him a God in the future when this prophecy gets fulfilled. You are calling him a God on the basis of a prophecy which might be fulfilled in the future. Or in other words, you are calling him a God on the basis of what he MIGHT come and do in the future(i.e reign over David's Throne).

Verse number 6 says: "...and the government will be on his shoulders...". The government can only be on his shoulders when he is physically present in this world, governing the people. Jesus was not that PHYSICAL being in the past. He MIGHT be that PHYSICAL being in the future. So call him a God when he comes and Physically reigns over the throne. Don't call him a God in the present when he doesn't fulfill the prophecy.
You are again using this false concept of a Tri-Une God to prove your point. If you want to use this false concept then first try to prove it right.

[QUOTE]
More like 1x1x1=1, dear fellow!
[/QUOTE]

So when did it change from 1+1+1=1 to 1x1x1=1. You change things at your own convinience. Anyway even this new equation is illogical.
According to this concept there is only one God with three forms. But we all know that all the three forms are not equal.
As Old Man said, "Christ accepted the limitations of human life with one exception - he knew no sin. As Christians we accept that during Jesus' earthly life he was, as Son of Man, inferior to his Father (John.14v28), but while such inferiority as a man existed, in his divine nature Jesus was always the Father's equal (John.5v18f)"

So even if we assume that Jesus was the eathly form of God. The Jesus form of God is weaker than The Father form of God. Therefore, if the Father form of God is 1, then the less powerful form i.e. Jesus should be less than 1 (Maybe 0.7). Similarly, the Holy Ghost form of God will be.... say, 0.5. So the equation becomes:
1 x 0.7 x 0.5 = 1 which is illogical.
Sorry oldman, Try again.

[QUOTE]
The issue is that it is frowned on at Gupshup if you cut and paste without giving sources - funny that the Moderators did not pick up on it. It is also a crime called "plagiarism" if the original author is not credited.
[/QUOTE]

That is exactly why I gave references to every thing I posted. Its a completely different matter that you didn't read them. Even the links I gave had the name of the authours written in it.(If you read them, ofcourse.) So I am not Guilty of comitting "Plagiarism".

[QUOTE]
Nonsense. If you want to use the word "divine" instead of "god", the verse would still read "The divine of this age..." and it doesn't make the Devil either God or Divine.
[/QUOTE]

That is why we should read a verse with its context in mind. What is the context about? Its about the devil. The devil is called The God in the verse. If you replace it with Divine then The devil is called Divine.

[QUOTE]
If you would do the effort (which I doubt you will do), I have posted my qualifications on Gupshup and part of it entailed the studying of the classical languages at university level. I don't profess to still be a master of it, but can help myself. You on the other hand has not studied any of the classical languages.
[/QUOTE]

You translate the language yourself, but you are not a Master of it(as you said). So you can make mistakes.I ,on the other hand, refer to those scholars who are Masters of the language. So they usually don't make mistakes. Which one is better?

[QUOTE]
Nonsense. Jesus' first duty was to proclaim the message to the nation of God (Jews) and then to whosoever want to hear. He also instructed his disciples the same way. Jesus told the Jews: I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. - John.10v16-17. Jesus also commanded his disciples (all Jews) as follows: Therefor go and make disciples of all nations.... - Matt.28v19. Jesus' message is for ALL people. In any case, at the time of Jesus there were no Christians!
[/QUOTE]

Well then it is another contradiction in the Bible because (Matthew 15:22-28) cleary says " I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israil.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations.... - Matt.28v19
I was expecting this verse from you.
One question. How many NATIONS existed at that time?
There were very few nations 2000 years ago. People for the most part were divided into either "tribes" or "empires"; like the Persian and Roman Empires. Jesus said Go to all nations. So Christianity is meant only for the nations that existed in that time?

[QUOTE]
Unfortunately still no rebuke by Jesus to any of those while they worshipped him.....
[/QUOTE]

  1. Jesus asked the person not to call Jesus good because there is only one good that is God. GOOD=GOD Jesus said don't call me good. Meaning, don't call me God.

2.Jesus said that the word is not his but the Fathers. We know that the word is God's. Jesus said that the word is Father's. Meaning, that The Father is God. Jesus said that the word is not his. Meaning, Jesus is not the God. Because the word is of God. And Jesus said that its not his word. 2 possibilities arise from here:
1. If you insist that Jesus is God, then The Word is not from God because the word is not from Jesus(as Jesus said himself)
OR
2. If you agree that Jesus is not God, then it means that their is only one Father which is God. Because it is the father's word. So Father is God.
Choose whichever you want to.

  1. I have already explained in detail how Jesus told the Jews that he was not claiming to be divine by calling himself a son of God. Ok I will explain in simple terms what Jesus said to the Jews. This is what he said: " In your own scriptures it is written that "YOU ARE GODS." Does it mean that you are claiming to be divine. You don't claim to be divine when you call yourself to be GODS. I called myself a Son of God which is inferior to what you call yourselves. Yet you say that I claim divinity." Any one looking forward to a logical reasoning will accept that Jesus was trying to prove to The Jews that by calling himself a Son of God he was not claiming divinity.

Simply saying that Jesus didnot rebuke the people who worshipped him won't help. I have presented my argument try and counter it with yours if you can. Or accept my argument.

[QUOTE]
You are still confused between the NIV Bible and the NIV Bible Commentary. Two different items done by completely different people and the only common denominator is that the people compiling the NIV Bible Commentary based their commentary on the NIV Bible translation and not another translation. I accept the NIV to be presently the best translation available.
[/QUOTE]

Some one just doesn't wake up on a fine morning to write the commentary of a Bible. Even if the Commentary is done by some on else then it makes no difference because it has been accepted by the translators. If the translators would have found anything wrong with it then they would have protested. But they didn't implying that they accepted the commentary to be correct.

[QUOTE]
The NIV Bible commentary people therefor concluded that the author is John! Nice try in spreading disinformation - or was it the cut-and-paste-author's disinformation?
[/QUOTE]

Its not the Niv commentary but you who has concluded that the author is John. Here read the conclusion again:
Although many today follow Dionysius in his view of authorship, the external evidence seems overwhelmingly supportive of the traditional view.
It is "The external evidence SEEMS overwhelming supportive". Its not "The external evidence IS overwhelming supportive." There is a huge difference between the two. It means that although the evidence seems to be supporting the authorship of John, the commentators are still in doubt whether the author is John or not. Since it is SEEMINGLY supportive of the doubtful traditional view, the topic is still open to debate. Sorry, but your leg excersise went in vain. It supports my view that the commentatars are in doubt. Don't draw your own conclusions.
Even if we assume that the author is John, it doesn't change the fact that the Alpha and Omega are not refered to Jesus(as explained before, and as explained again below).