Jump to content
Islamic Forum
BurningLight

The Divinity Of Yeshua

Recommended Posts

When that same body was staked to the cross, it perished and the Spirit left the body. The Spirit came back and caused the original body to disappear. The Spirit manifested itself to the disciples, who did not recognize the form as Jesus Christ. This must signify either it was a different body or something more spiritual. When the disciples broke bread with Jesus Christ, they got it. We know at the Last Supper, the bread Jesus Christ gave to the disciples was said to be His body, yet it literally was not. When Jesus Christ, in this manifestation again broke bread and gave it to them, the disciples remembered the body of Him. They believed that body was Christ and shared it. Again, Jesus Christ appeared in their midst, causing fear. He shows them His body and they believe. He administers to them one last time and ascends to Heaven.

Why would you think that the original body disappeared instead of being transformed, in accordance with Christian doctrine on the subject? Why is this not an option for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
No problem. Although the Trinity is probably one of the most popular topics of Christian theology here, it is also a difficult one to speak about, and easily can go the wrong direction. One of the things I admired about Orthodox theology is its emphasis on negative theology. They believed that it was difficult (or impossible, hopefully someone else can help me there) to speak about what God is, so instead much of theology is developed around defining what God isn't, and to leave what did not fall within heresy a mystery of God.
I can buy that. I really feel like a fish out of water on that topic. It is so much easy saying what God is not than what he is. If Christians cannot explain the trinity that we believe in, we certainly aren't going to listen to an Islamic perspective of what the trinity is or isn't especially when they don't believe the father is mentioned in relation to his son Jesus in the Bible let alone the Holy Spirit (the comforter) coming to glorify Jesus as he comforts us in Jesus' absence. I can tell you for a fact that the Bible alludes strongly to Jesus' deity to where he is subordinate to the father in position, office and function, but very much equal in nature, character and essence and this is where Muhammad and Jesus differ big time to say the least. The Bible says straight that the Holy Spirit is God. Jesus said all sin will be forgiven accept for the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Now calling the Holy Spirit who is God an angel would be considered blasphemy if one knew they were doing it, and they are playing with hell fire not realizing it or knowing that He is God. Edited by BurningLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would you think that the original body disappeared instead of being transformed, in accordance with Christian doctrine on the subject? Why is this not an option for you?

 

I believe in transformation, just not of the physical body. The following from the Bible confirms why I believe this. I underlined points of emphasis.

 

15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

 

15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

 

15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

 

15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

 

15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

 

15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

 

15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

 

15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

 

15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

 

15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

 

15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

 

(King James Bible, 1 Corinthians)

 

3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

 

3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

 

(King James Bible, 1 Peter)

 

Here is a similitude from the Qur'an, Surah 24 ("al Nur" or "the Light")

 

35. Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the East nor of the West, whose Oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light. Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things.

 

36. (Lit is such a light) in houses, which Allah hath permitted to be raised to honor; for the celebration, in them of His name: in them is He glorified in the mornings and in the evenings, (again and again) --

 

37. By men whom neither traffic nor merchandise can divert from the Remembrance of Allah, nor from regular Prayer, nor from the practice of regular Charity: their (only) fear is for the Day when hearts and eyes will be transformed (in a world wholly new) -- ---That Day is the Day of Resurrection. Those are not physical hearts and eyes, it's spiritual.

Edited by Wesley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe in transformation, just not of the physical body. The following from the Bible confirms why I believe this. I underlined points of emphasis.

 

 

Just want you to think about this:

 

John 20:27 and Luke 24:39

 

¨The nail marks demonstrate that Jesus´ risen body is the same body that was crucified only days earlier (CCC 645 or Catechism #645). The evidence for his rising becomes incontrovertible as it mounts from his disappearance (empty tomb), to his various apperances (24:34; 1 Cor 15:4-8), and now to a direct examination of his wounds (Jn 20:27). *Anogogically (St. Ambrose, In Lucam): Jesus´ risen body prefigures the resurrected bodies of the saints. By convincing us of his own Resurrection, he likewise assures us of the PHYSICAL nature of our own resurrection of the Last Day. *Jesus´ risen body is truly physical but NO LONGER earthly, since his humanity is now incorruptible and endowed with spiritual qualities. He for ever reigns in human body, but one that can pass through locked doors (Jn 20:19), vanish at will (Lk 24:31), and is no longer subject to the limitatios of time, space, and the laws of nature (CCC 646, 659). - Ignatius Catholic Study Bible NT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BurningLight you said I had lost you with my ¨equation¨ or ¨formula¨

 

Basically, we humans have one thing in common: OUR NATURE, that makes us one Thing.

YET we are individuals.

 

While GOD´s nature is just IT, ¨I AM who I AM¨

His essence, is the same one in the Son and the Holy Spirit.

BUT all three are three different persons. They can each speak for themselves.

 

So, since we cannot understand ourselves entirely, we cannot understand God our creator.

But we have gone far to understand that we all share the same NATURE, so with that we can relate to in a way understand God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I put links from a catholic website?

I suppose you could, but why not just discuss it here. My question does go a little deeper than just asking for a definition however, but rather questioning the reality and utility of the greek philosophical categories in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe in transformation, just not of the physical body. The following from the Bible confirms why I believe this. I underlined points of emphasis.

That is a good argument, but perhaps you are taking it too far, as Catholic Christian pointed out, there does seem to be some points of continuity with Jesus old body that is carried forward into the new body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose you could, but why not just discuss it here. My question does go a little deeper than just asking for a definition however, but rather questioning the reality and utility of the greek philosophical categories in question.

 

 

I guess you would have to be more specific or just launch what you have under your sleeve :sl:

Because if you ask what is a nature and a person, the best way would be through the definitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess you would have to be more specific or just launch what you have under your sleeve :sl:

Because if you ask what is a nature and a person, the best way would be through the definitions.

Nothing up my sleeve. I just wonder at a doctrine that is so intimately bound to a single philosophical system. I don't mind going through the definitions, but just wanted to warn you that the discussion would probably stray from them quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing up my sleeve. I just wonder at a doctrine that is so intimately bound to a single philosophical system. I don't mind going through the definitions, but just wanted to warn you that the discussion would probably stray from them quickly.

 

We can only go as far as we know being humble and honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just want you to think about this:

 

John 20:27 and Luke 24:39

 

¨The nail marks demonstrate that Jesus´ risen body is the same body that was crucified only days earlier (CCC 645 or Catechism #645). The evidence for his rising becomes incontrovertible as it mounts from his disappearance (empty tomb), to his various apperances (24:34; 1 Cor 15:4-8), and now to a direct examination of his wounds (Jn 20:27). *Anogogically (St. Ambrose, In Lucam): Jesus´ risen body prefigures the resurrected bodies of the saints. By convincing us of his own Resurrection, he likewise assures us of the PHYSICAL nature of our own resurrection of the Last Day. *Jesus´ risen body is truly physical but NO LONGER earthly, since his humanity is now incorruptible and endowed with spiritual qualities. He for ever reigns in human body, but one that can pass through locked doors (Jn 20:19), vanish at will (Lk 24:31), and is no longer subject to the limitatios of time, space, and the laws of nature (CCC 646, 659). - Ignatius Catholic Study Bible NT

 

20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

 

20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

 

20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

 

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

 

Catholic Christian, I definitely don't dispute that Jesus Christ demonstrated what was needed for Thomas to believe, which is the marks on His hands and feet. Prior to this, the disciples were unable to recognize Him in His other appearance. As Ignatius acknowledges, there was something supernatural and quite magnificent going on with all the appearances by Jesus Christ. I believe the body of Christ, was appearing in various forms for each purpose. The end result, is once Jesus Christ ascended to Heaven, the disciples truly believed; they themselves were transformed spiritually. What came of it, as can be read in Acts and past, is that the Holy Spirit was working within them, as if they were the new body of Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But that is rather easily taken care of. If there is this verse that mentions the three, and other verses that associate each name with God, and yet the New Testament argues for only one God, you don't have many other options besides the Trinity.

 

I would expect the word of God to tell me directly as he did in the Jewish shema or as in the Quran; a complete explanation in 1 verse.

 

Don't you think they leave it in there because a case can be made for leaving it in there? Surely they must have some sort of argument. How well have you researched the arguments for and against the inclusion of the three names in this verse?
And my point was that it shouldn't be so easily dismissed. The wording of Matthew 28:19 is in every extant manuscript. There is no text that shows a different wording. There are arguments based on other ancient writings, like that of Eusebius, but before you so quickly accept them, it should be considered whether or not he had an agenda of his own. Eusebius was an early supporter of Arius, in opposition to Trinitarian theology. His claim about the text can be as easily questioned as any supposed Trinitarian interpolation.

 

It is possible that Eusebius had his own agenda. Besides that, are there any other reasons to not dismiss it?

Besides not being in the originals, they say it was added due to the fact that the bible shows the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus only, which follows what Eusebius read at the council of Nicaea.

 

I have found the following passage regarding the verse.

 

The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:

 

The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."

 

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

 

He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

 

20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

 

20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

 

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

 

Catholic Christian, I definitely don't dispute that Jesus Christ demonstrated what was needed for Thomas to believe, which is the marks on His hands and feet. Prior to this, the disciples were unable to recognize Him in His other appearance. As Ignatius acknowledges, there was something supernatural and quite magnificent going on with all the appearances by Jesus Christ. I believe the body of Christ, was appearing in various forms for each purpose. The end result, is once Jesus Christ ascended to Heaven, the disciples truly believed; they themselves were transformed spiritually. What came of it, as can be read in Acts and past, is that the Holy Spirit was working within them, as if they were the new body of Christ.

 

Yep, his old body transformed to a glorified body attributes not of those if earthly ones, but of ETERNAL attributes. But a good text is:

 

1 Thessalonians 4:15 KJV

 

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

 

 

1 Corinthians 15:51-54 KJV

 

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would expect the word of God to tell me directly as he did in the Jewish shema or as in the Quran; a complete explanation in 1 verse.

I think that has more to do with your expectations than it does with whether the doctrine can be supported from Scripture.

 

It is possible that Eusebius had his own agenda. Besides that, are there any other reasons to not dismiss it?

You mean besides the fact that the wording is in every extant text?

 

The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."

You did read the part where it mentions this is the "anti-traditional view", right? I would think this might imply that there is a traditional view as well.

 

He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

So Ratzinger thinks it is a later addition. And yet he hasn't changed it in the Catholic church. How do you know that this doesn't reflect a level of uncertainty in his opinion?

 

I don't mind arguing the legitimacy of the wording with you, but there are only so many facts to argue, and my point isn't that there is a conclusive case in support of the wording, but rather that there is insufficient evidence to remove it when every text you have has those words. It isn't necessary to have a conclusive case in support of the wording, since it is the status quo. What is needed is a conclusive argument against it if you want to remove it. I don't see you able to produce a conclusive argument. You can produce circumstantial evidence, but is this enough to alter the text as you have received it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that has more to do with your expectations than it does with whether the doctrine can be supported from Scripture.

You mean besides the fact that the wording is in every extant text?

You did read the part where it mentions this is the "anti-traditional view", right? I would think this might imply that there is a traditional view as well.

So Ratzinger thinks it is a later addition. And yet he hasn't changed it in the Catholic church. How do you know that this doesn't reflect a level of uncertainty in his opinion?

 

I don't mind arguing the legitimacy of the wording with you, but there are only so many facts to argue, and my point isn't that there is a conclusive case in support of the wording, but rather that there is insufficient evidence to remove it when every text you have has those words. It isn't necessary to have a conclusive case in support of the wording, since it is the status quo. What is needed is a conclusive argument against it if you want to remove it. I don't see you able to produce a conclusive argument. You can produce circumstantial evidence, but is this enough to alter the text as you have received it?

 

You have good points SC. I gave the reasons to why I thought it was added. I thought; the verses in Acts that show the apostles baptizing only in the name of Jesus would have been enough evidence that the verse was expanded /changed. And from the article I read about it. Here's the source of the article, if you would like to have a look at it.

Source: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetonenesspentecostal(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/matt2819-willis.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetonenesspentecostal(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/matt2819-willis.htm[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let me qualify my defense by saying that I actually agree with you, and suspect it was a later interpolation as well. My goal wasn't to prove to you that it should be there, but to demonstrate how a defense could be mounted by those who include it and to demonstrate that such an inclusion was not completely unreasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting link mrhyder. I also find that interesting in that it came from a penticostal. It gives alot to chew on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting link mrhyder. I also find that interesting in that it came from a penticostal. It gives alot to chew on.

I don't believe many orthodox (if you can apply that term) Pentecostals would recognize Oneness Pentecostals. I don't mind him using that source, but we shouldn't think it is an unbiased account of the debate regarding Matthew 28:19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe many orthodox (if you can apply that term) Pentecostals would recognize Oneness Pentecostals. I don't mind him using that source, but we shouldn't think it is an unbiased account of the debate regarding Matthew 28:19.

I agree it was slanted and biassed but interesting none the less. I would of love to seen the quote from then Cardinal Rotsinger/Pope Benedict. I'm sure it is out of context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BurningLight you said I had lost you with my ¨equation¨ or ¨formula¨

 

Basically, we humans have one thing in common: OUR NATURE, that makes us one Thing.

YET we are individuals.

 

While GOD´s nature is just IT, ¨I AM who I AM¨

His essence, is the same one in the Son and the Holy Spirit.

BUT all three are three different persons. They can each speak for themselves.

 

So, since we cannot understand ourselves entirely, we cannot understand God our creator.

But we have gone far to understand that we all share the same NATURE, so with that we can relate to in a way understand God.

Do you mean we are a soul and have a body and spirit and the 3 are one? This is something I don't understand fully about myself. If this is what you mean, you didn't make it clear, but I did. THe Bible says we were made in his image and likeness,

Edited by BurningLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree it was slanted and biassed but interesting none the less. I would of love to seen the quote from then Cardinal Rotsinger/Pope Benedict. I'm sure it is out of context.

I suspect it was also, but since we lack any reference for the remark, it is difficult to know for certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have good points SC. I gave the reasons to why I thought it was added. I thought; the verses in Acts that show the apostles baptizing only in the name of Jesus would have been enough evidence that the verse was expanded /changed. And from the article I read about it. Here's the source of the article, if you would like to have a look at it.

Source: you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetonenesspentecostal(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/matt2819-willis.htm

 

 

This is incredible, please pay attention to what im going to say:

 

That website you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetonenesspentecostal(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/matt2819-willis.htm sites (in bold):

 

¨The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:

 

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."¨

 

If you go to that page 263:

 

you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_oce.catholic(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/oce/browse-page-sc...36a802c&o=g

 

NOWHERE is to be found such QUOTATIONS.....Oh My God!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can´t add links unless have 50 posts....ok 35 to go....

 

You could just type the web address or ask a mod. If you like pm me and I will post them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×