Jump to content
Islamic Forum
andalusi

Muslim-Christian Debate, Here

Recommended Posts

 

All of Jesus' oneness with the Father statements, on the other hand, must be read in the context of the entire Gospel of John, which begins with the explicit assertion of his divinity as the pre-existent Word of God: "In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God and the Word was God" (John 1:1). This same Word (the pre-incarnate Son) became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14).

 

 the Word was God

 

this is translated wrong, it should be the Word was divine, not God.

 

 

 

1) Mistranslation of the text:

 

In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), "The Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos{C}" (The Divine/The God). A more faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word{C} was with God, and the Word was divine" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording).

 

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{C} (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 and many others.

 

 

What was "The Word"?

"O people of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from him so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say not "Three," desist! It will be better for you, for Allah is one God. Glory be to him. Far exalted is he above having a son. To him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs."

The noble Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):171

In the Qur'an we are told that when God Almighty wills something he merely says to it "Be" and it is.

"Verily! Our (Allah's) Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only that We say unto it "Be!" - and it is"

The noble Qur'an, Al-Nahil(16):40 (please also read chapter 14)

This is the Islamic viewpoint of "The Word." "The Word" is literally God's utterance "Be." This is held out by the Bible where thirteen verses later in John 1:14 we read:

"And the Word was made flesh".

In the Qur'an, we read:

"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam{C}; He created him from dust, then said to him: 'Be.' And he was."

The noble Qur'an, Aal-Umran(3):59.

Regarding what is meant by Allah by "a spirit preceding from him" I shall simply let Allah Himself explain:

"And [remember] when Allah said to the angles: 'I shall create a human (Adam{C}) from sounding clay, from altered mud. So when I have fashioned him and have breathed into him of my spirit, then fall down in prostration before him'"

The noble Qur'an, Al-Hijr(15):29

 

 

so you are taking wrong translations as proof for your claim and you are not aware of that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

 

On the son of God could you give me a quote. I checked Genesis and couldn't find where Adam was called son of God. 

 

 

 Luke 3:38 

the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

 

 

 

For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God's plan . . .

 

 

so you have two gods now???????????

 

so God jesus was conceived according to God's plan

 

and jesus said

 

Mark 12:29 Jesus replied, "The most important commandment is this: 'Listen, O israel! The LORD our God is the one and only LORD.

 

cant you see how illogical you are???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

andalusi I thank you for your time but I think that we have a problem of English not being your primary language or you not being raised in Christianity so unable to understand what it is that I am asking about. 

 

I am not looking to get into the debate that seems to be going on with you and heavens fire. 

 

ps.

questioning someone's status as something and saying that you don't believe they ever were is not a good way to bring them back.  It is more likely that they will stay gone out of a strictly emotional response than anything else.

 

I have messaged Saracen soldier for assistance on the matter, thank you again

Edited by abdullahfath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Word was God

 

this is translated wrong, it should be the Word was divine, not God.

 

 

 

1) Mistranslation of the text:

 

In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), "The Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos{C}" (The Divine/The God). A more faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word{C} was with God, and the Word was divine" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording).

 

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{C} (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 and many others.

 

 

What was "The Word"?

"O people of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from him so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say not "Three," desist! It will be better for you, for Allah is one God. Glory be to him. Far exalted is he above having a son. To him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs."

The noble Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):171

In the Qur'an we are told that when God Almighty wills something he merely says to it "Be" and it is.

"Verily! Our (Allah's) Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only that We say unto it "Be!" - and it is"

The noble Qur'an, Al-Nahil(16):40 (please also read chapter 14)

This is the Islamic viewpoint of "The Word." "The Word" is literally God's utterance "Be." This is held out by the Bible where thirteen verses later in John 1:14 we read:

"And the Word was made flesh".

In the Qur'an, we read:

"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam{C}; He created him from dust, then said to him: 'Be.' And he was."

The noble Qur'an, Aal-Umran(3):59.

Regarding what is meant by Allah by "a spirit preceding from him" I shall simply let Allah Himself explain:

"And [remember] when Allah said to the angles: 'I shall create a human (Adam{C}) from sounding clay, from altered mud. So when I have fashioned him and have breathed into him of my spirit, then fall down in prostration before him'"

The noble Qur'an, Al-Hijr(15):29

 

 

so you are taking wrong translations as proof for your claim and you are not aware of that....

 

Actually I am quite aware of disagreements on translation.  But as this post will show you, it matters not. 

First off John did speak Greek and there is evidence he wrote his gospel. Here is an article on it if you are interested. 

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-john-write-his-gospel

 

Now on on the rest of your argument. Much of what follows is an edited version of a Christian reply to the originator of argument. He did a lengthy reply to a book written by Al-Kadhi, in which he presented your argument. I have spliced together parts of his argument and added my own spin on it towards the end. If you want the whole article go to google and search

 

 "What Indeed Did Jesus Say?

A Rebuttal to

What Did Jesus Really Say?"

 

It should be the first article. Unfortunately I can't post the link because the website contains several anti Islamic articles. Trust me though, at least in the portions I read, there was nothing offensive to Islam or Muslims. Here is the argument. 

 

Al-Kadhi says: "The Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos" (The Divine/The God). A more faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine"

 

It first should be noted that all of known manuscripts and fragments of John's gospel contains this passage without any variation. It should also be noted that John 1:1 was quoted on several occasions by early Christian theologians and Church Fathers.

 

The Greek text (with translation):

 

En arche en ho Logos:

kai ho Logos en pros ton theon:

kai Theos en ho Logos:

 

In the beginning was the Word

and the Word was with/towards the God

and God was the Word.)

 

Clearly, there is no "ton theos", in this text as Al-Kadhi and Deedat claim. Both sentences have the phrase "ton theon". "Ton theon" is used because it is the accusative case (the nominative case is "ho theos" = "the God",) In this case we must use the accusative case, since the text uses the preposition "pros" which means "with" in this context.

 

The first clue to John's meaning comes from the Greek word used, en. This is the imperfect tense form of the Greek verb, eimi. The word en implies continous existence or action in the past. Just how continuous depends on the context itself.

 

In the case of John 1:1, en is used to denote the Word's continous past existence before the very beginning of creation. For the Word to precede the beginning of all things, including time, implies that the Word is timeless, having no beginning or end. This makes the Word eternal which implies that the Word eternally existed with the Father. This also implies that the Word eternally existed as God, or existed in the nature of God from eternity. At no point in time did the Word not exist in the nature of God.

 

This is precisely what Trinitarians believe, that the eternal Word of God existed alongside the Father, being distinct from him but equal to him in nature.

 

Further evidence for the absolute deity of the Word comes from John 1:3-4,10:

 

"Through him (the Word) all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men... He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him."

 

According to John, the Word was not a creature but the Eternal Creator. For John to affirm that the Word was the Creator of all things implies that the Word is Yahweh, since the Old Testament teaches that it was Yahweh alone who created all things:

 

"I am the LORD, who has made all things, who ALONE stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by MYSELF." Isaiah 44:24

 

For Yahweh to be the sole Creator, and for the Word to have created all things, must mean that the Word is Yahweh God. Add to this fact that from eternity the Word existed alongside another Person called God, and yet the Bible clearly teaches that there is only one God, implies that this one God is a multi-personal being.

 

 

In addition the scholars you mention as translating it as divine, agree that the Word was Jesus and was with God.

 The word theos is used to designate the gods of paganism. Normally the word with or without the article designates the God of the Old Testament and Judaism, the God of israel: Yahweh. But the character of God is revealed in an original way in the NT; the originality is perhaps best summed up by saying that God reveals Himself in and through Jesus Christ. The revelation of God in Jesus Christ does not consist merely in the prophetic word as in the OT, but in an identity between God and Jesus Christ. Jn 1:1-18 expresses this by contrasting the word spoken by the prophets with the word incarnate in Jesus. In Jesus the personal reality of God is manifested in a visible and tangible form. In the words of Jesus and in much of the rest of the NT the God of israel (ho theos) is the Father of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title ho theos, which now designates the Father as a personal reality, is not applied in the NT to Jesus Himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). This is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun is applied to Jesus a few times. Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated `the Word was with God [= the Father], and the Word was a divine being.' Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the Father, `My Lord and my God' (Jn. 20:28). `The glory of our great God and Savior' which is to appear can be the glory of no other than Jesus.

This is what John Mckenzie says on the matter. 

 

And here is Mofatt. 

"The Word Was God... And the Word became flesh," simply means "The Word was divine... and the Word became human." The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man... 

 

Both agree that despite the differing translation that it still refers to Jesus as the word of God. Mofatt even upholds the Nicene Creed. 

 

Here are several other Greek scholars on the meaning of the text. 

 

Author Dr. James R. White states:

 

"The tense of the verb expresses continuous action in the past... as far back as you wish to push `the beginning,' the Word is already there. The Word does not come into existence at the `beginning,' but is already in existence when the `beginning' takes place. If we take the beginning of John 1:1, the Word is already there. If we push it back further (if one can even do so!), say, a year, the Word is already there. A thousand years, the Word is there. A billion years, the Word is there. What is John's point? The Word is eternal. The Word has always existed. The Word is not a creation. The New English Bible puts it quite nicely: `When all things began, the Word already was.'" (White, The Forgotten Trinity - Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief [Minneapolis, MN; Bethany House Publishers, 1998], pp. 50-51)

 

Frederick Louis Godet indicates:

 

The imperfect en, was, must designate, according to the ordinary meaning of the tense, the simultaneousness of the act indicated by the verb with some other act. This simultaneousness is here that of the existence of the Word with the fact designated by the word beginning. `When everything which has begun began, the Word was.' Alone then, it did not begin; the Word was already. Now that which did not begin with things, that is to say, with time, the form of the development of things, belongs to the eternal order... The idea of this first proposition is, therefore, that of the eternity of the Logos. (Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John [Grand Rapids; Zondervan, n.d.], vol. 1, pp. 244-245 emphasis ours)

 

Murray J. Harris concurs,

 

In itself John 1:1a speaks only of the pretemporality or supratemporality of the Logos, but in his conjunction of... en (not egeneto) John implies the eternal preexistence of the Word. He who existed `in the beginning' before creation was himself without a beginning and therefore uncreated. There was no time when he did not exist. John is hinting that all speculation about the origin of the Logos is pointless. (Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus [Grand Rapids; Baker Book House 1992], p. 54 emphasis ours)

 

Robert M. Bowman Jr. elaborates,

 

Had John wanted to say that the Word was the first creation of God, or even simply say that the Word existed before the rest of creation, there are a number of ways he could have said so clearly and without any possibility of misunderstanding. He could have written, `from the beginning,' using the word apo instead of en, as he did repeatedly in his writings in the expression ap' arches (John 8:44; 15:27; 1 John 1:1; 2:7, 13,14, 24; 3:8, 11; 2 John 5,6). This would trace his existence back to the beginning without telling us anything about his existence `before' the beginning (if such existence were possible). Or, he could have written, `In the beginning the Word came into existence,' substituting for the word en the word egeneto, which occurs repeatedly in the Prologue (John 1:3,6,10,14,17). This would have settled the debate forever in favor of the JW interpretation of the text, since it would be an explicit affirmation of the creation of the preincarnate Jesus. Yet John wrote neither of these things. Instead, he wrote what most naturally would be (and as a matter of historical record has been) interpreted as a declaration of the eternality of the Word. `In the beginning the Word was'; the verb was is the imperfect past tense verb en, here unquestionably used of durative, continuing existence. To continue existing at the beginning of the time is to be eternal by definition. (Bowman, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ & The Gospel of John [Grand Rapids; Baker Book House, 1995], p. 23 emphasis ours)

 

Modern Greek scholar, Randolph Yeager, concludes:

 

Thus the Word existed before the beginning, since He has always existed. With Him there is no beginning. He is eternal and everlasting... It is impossible to avoid the force of John's grammar. (Yeager, The Renaissance New Testament [Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1973], vol. 4, p. 2)

 

But as before even with this textual and scholarly evidence for Jesus being the Word, it comes down to your interpretation vs mine. Thus we must both look back to the disciples of the apostles and see how they interpreted it. The reply is unanimous. 

 

"[T]he ever-truthful God, hast fore-ordained, hast revealed beforehand to me, and now hast fulfilled. Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen." Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 

 

"For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, 'Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;' He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,20:1 

 

Polycarp was taught by John. The same John who wrote the Gospel. He was also the teacher of Irenaeus. Polycarp says Jesus was the son of God and Irenaeus says that he is the Word. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

show me only one evidence when did this holy spirit came to disciples and talked about future events??? never

 

so jesus lied or what???

 

but look here how much Muhammed talked about future

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/740416-signs-of-the-judgment-day-muhammed-prophecies-about-future/

Here is where the Holy Spirit caused the Apostles and other disciples to prophesy on the last days. http://www.conventhill.com/endtimes/

I reccomend looking at the 9 signs. Some may have been seen some may not have been. In the end we must wait and they will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how can Word of God, a book inspired by God contain errors?????? how can you be sure that it does not contain other hidden errors???

 

a book of God should not have errors at all. like Quran does not have errors.

 

 

 

you dont understand, when he say "you" it also means you or your future generations, in same language spoke Muhammed also.

 

 

 

muhammed lived in their minds, jesus foretold him and talked about him, so they knew a lot about him.

 

 

 

 

i dont know if you ever read my post. i clearly showed you that according to bible spirit can also mean prophet, false spirit is false prophet, spirit of truth is prophet of truth.

 

evidence:

1 John 4:1

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

 

here is spirit synonime to prophet

 

 

 

If you looked at the link I provided you would see that the error is there because of a miscopy.

 

Your other error example is for Joseph's dad. In one version it says Heli. That's another way to say Joachim, the name of Mary's Father. Obviously that is tracing Mary's lineage. She legally was under Joseph and so it does the lineage under Joseph's name. Both were descended from David. Thus Jesus was biologically and legally David's successor.

 

You say "a book of God should not have errors at all. like Quran does not have errors."

 

Except, you know, Mary being part of the trinity. Here is the verse.

 

And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, 'Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. [Qur'an 5:116]

 

I'm sure you and other Muslims have been shown this before so please explain.

 

I agree with you on your point on Jesus and Muhammad's language, so let's move on.

 

If Jesus did talk about Muhammad often, as you claim, then Jesus chose some pretty bad Apostles. Based on the writings on Irenaeus and Polycarp the comforter is called the Holy Spirit. Why wouldnt the apostles pass on such important info? Probably because it was never told to them.

 

Here is Irenaeus.

"For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, 'Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;' He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,20:1 (A.D. 180).

 

He says that Jesus and the Spirit were with God since always. If the Holy Spirit is Muhammad, then does that mean Muhammad is part of the Trinity?

 

Also in these bible verses it says blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Only God can be blasphemed against.

 

Matthew 12:31-32

New International Version (NIV)

31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Luke 12:10 New International Version

And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

 

 

That verse means that spirits should be tested lest false prophets go forth. Jesus is saying to test all spirits so men don't become false prophets. Read about Manichee. He founded a weird Zoroastrian-Christian hybrid based off an angels advice. He obviously didn't test the angel.

Edited by Heavens Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luke 3:38

the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

 

 

 

 

so you have two gods now???????????

 

so God jesus was conceived according to God's plan

 

and jesus said

 

Mark 12:29 Jesus replied, "The most important commandment is this: 'Listen, O israel! The LORD our God is the one and only LORD.

 

cant you see how illogical you are???

As it says in the John verse we were discussing earlier, Jesus and God are one so I don't see your problem. They also arent two seperate God's but one.

 

Also could you give me biblical quotations on the other prophets you mentioned being the sons of God. Like Moses and the others you mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed Andalusi no gymnastics required. Jesus was referencing Psalms. Jesus was quoting Psalm 22, a messianic psalm that vividly describes the agony the suffering servant would endure. God the Father did not abandon his Son in his Son’s suffering but allowed him in his humanity to experience the sense of divine abandonment that humans often feel during times of need, and especially when in sin. Just as we often feel that God has abandoned us when we are suffering (even though this isn’t the case), so the Son of God in his humanity experienced that.aspect of human suffering as well. He died for our sins, and the weight of those sins—and thus the feeling of abandonment—must have been exceedingly heavy at that point.

 

By quoting this psalm, Jesus shows that he is the fulfillment of that prophecy and that he will be vindicated, which is evident in the psalm’s triumphant ending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is evidence for divinity??? son you have missunderstood bible completely, i dont know what they teach you in the church , but i will explain to you these texts and this has nothing to do with divinity.

 

actually it was not Jesus who preformed miracles, it was God

 

evidence:

 

Acts 2:22

New International Version (©2011)

"Fellow israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

 

not jesus as you see

 

but what does this words mean

 

the Father is in me and I am in the Father

 

let have a look what jesus about these words

 

Also let us look at verse John 17:20-22 "That the ALL may be made ONE. Like thou Father art in me, I in thee, that they may be ONE in us. I in

them, they in me, that they may be perfect in ONE". In this verse, the same word ONE used, the Greek, HEN is used, not only to describe Jesus and the Father but to describe Jesus, the Father and eleven of the twelve disciples of Jesus. So here if that implies equality, we have a unique case of 13 Gods.

 

Question: In John 10:30 Jesus says, "I and the Father are one [hen]." Doesn't this show that they are one in essence?

 

This statement does not suggest either a dual or triune deity. What John's Jesus meant by the word hen ("one") becomes clear from his prayer concerning the apostles: "That they may be one [hen], just as we are one [hen]" (John 17:22), which means that they should be united in agreement with one another as he (Jesus) is always united in agreement with God, as stated: "I [Jesus] always do the things that are pleasing to Him [God]" (John 8:29).

There is thus no implication that Jesus and God, or the twelve apostles are to be considered as of one essence.

 

as you can see you have missunderstood completly what jesus meant by

the Father is in me and I am in the Father

 

 

 

 

26A 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!" 27Then he (Jesus) said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

 

Thomas doubted that Jesus (pbuh) was alive, so Jesus (pbuh) shows him his hands and asks him to put his hand into his (Jesus’s) side and stop doubting and believe that he is still Alive. This was surprising to Thomas, So Thomas exclaimed.

 

28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

 

This was a mere exclamation by Thomas. In day-to-day life, we utter things like “Oh My God! What have I done?” “Oh My God ! Its so late” Does it mean I am calling my hearer a God?

 

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

 

Believed what? Believed that he is God? No !! Believe that Jesus (pbuh) is still alive and NOT dead. Din’t Thomas see Jesus (pbuh) before the alleged “crucifixion”? Of course he did ! If Jesus meant, that you have believe that I am God, so why is Jesus saying that you have seen me and believe? He had already seen him before.

 

This explanation is sufficient to Prove that Jesus (pbuh) did not claim divinity. It was only an exclamation by Thomas.

 

 

 

 

according to bible, Adam, david, jacob are sons of God, so what is special with jesus, biblically son of God is righteous person, not physically son of God.

 

 

 

no he did not show any divinity, but i saw you missrepresenting or missunderstanding what he really said and meant.

 

 

God said in bible

 

Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man

 

Bible

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

 

Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man

 

if God is not a man, and jesus is man, then jesus is not God, simple fact

 

 

Bible

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God

 

but people have seen Jesus, that is why jesus is not God.

 

 

If jesus was God, what kind of God is this

 

God that does nor know stuff?

 

Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

 

What kind of God is this who can't do anything?

 

John 5:30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

 

Jesus was a man acredited by God, not that he is God?

 

Acts 2:22 "Men of israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

 

if jesus was God, what kind of God is jesus when he need to be acredited by another God

 

Jesus God have another God???? 2 Gods?

 

John 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

 

and jesus himself said this

 

Mark 12:29 Jesus replied, "The most important commandment is this: 'Listen, O israel! The LORD our God is the one and only LORD.

 

 

What kind of God prays to another God?

 

Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed

 

this is evidence from your own bible that jesus was not God

 

 

 

 

I am going over the verses at the end.

 

I already covered Hosea so now I will cover John1:18. Andalusi, you or whoever you got the verse from cut off the end. Here is the whole verse.

." No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."

This actually seems to go against your points. It says that the Son is God. As I have shown earlier Jesus is called the Son of God.

 

On your next verse here is what CARM replies. I personally dislike CARM but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

CARM: Matt. 24:36 says, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." As a man, Jesus cooperated with the limitations of being a man. That is why we have verses like Luke 2:52 that says "Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." Therefore, at this point in his ministry he could say He did not know the day nor hour of His return. It is not a denial of His being God, but a confirmation of Him being man.

 

Also, the logic that Jesus could not be God because He did not know all things works both ways. If we could find a scripture where Jesus does know all things, then that would prove that He was God, wouldn't it?

 

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus *said to him, "Tend My sheep" (John 21:17 - NASB).

 

Jesus did not correct Peter and say, "Hold on Peter, I do not know all things." He let Peter continue on with his statement that Jesus knew all things. Therefore, it must be true.

 

But, if we have a verse that says that Jesus did not know all things and another that says he did know all things, then isn't that a contradiction? No. It is not.

 

Before Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection He said the Father alone knew the day and hour of His return. It wasn't until after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection that omniscience is attributed to Jesus. As I said before, Jesus was cooperating with the limitations of being a man and completed His ministry on this earth. He was then glorified in His resurrection. Yet, He was still a man (cf. Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5). After Jesus' resurrection, He was able to appear and disappear at will. This is not the normal ability of a man. But, it is, apparently, the normal ability of a resurrected and glorified man. Jesus was different after the resurrection. There had been a change. He was still a man and He knew all things.

 

CARM also gives a reply to your next verse.

 

CARM: Jesus was fulfilling his ministry completely as a man. He was made under the law (Gal. 4:4) and operated under the law. He fulfilled his ministry having emptied himself (Phil. 2:5-8) and was completely subject to the Father (Luke 22:42). Therefore, since he was under obligation to fulfill the law (which included complete dependence upon the Father), and since he had emptied himself and was working in cooperation with human limitations, he would naturally do nothing of himself. Jesus did not come to do his own will, but the will of the Father. "Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done, ' (Luke 22:42). 'I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me," (John 5:30).

 

On your Acts quote. Here is the verse in context.

Acts 2:22 "Men of israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

 

This obviously means that Jesus was killed and resurrected. I think that goes against your beliefs. In addition here are some more verses shortly after that one.

 

 

Acts 2:36 "Therefore let all israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah."

 

 

Acts 3:14 You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. 15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

 

Who but God can be called Lord and author of Life?

 

For your John 20 verse, CARM again has a reply.

 

CARM: Basic Christian theology teaches that Jesus was both God and man. He had two natures. He was both divine and human at the same time. This teaching is known as the hypostatic union; that is, the coming-together of two natures in one person. In Heb. 2:9 states that Jesus was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . ." Also in Phil. 2:5-8, it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . ."  Col. 2:9 says, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." Jesus was both God and man at the same time.

 

Therefore, since he was a man (though not only a man) and since he was made under the law, and lower than the angels, it is natural to conclude that he would have someone that he would call God. In this case, it is God the Father.

 

But we must make a clarification. To say that Jesus Christ is God is not as clear a statement as it needs to be. Christianity teaches that God is a Trinity; that is, God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To say that Jesus Christ is God is almost like saying that he is the Trinity, and that would make no sense. When the Christian says that Jesus is God, he really means that Jesus is divine in nature. Since God is three persons, and since Jesus is the second person in the Trinity, he shares the same divinity with the Father and Holy Spirit.

 

Having explained this, when Jesus says "Our God" it must be understood that Jesus is speaking as a man. But it does not mean he does not possess the divine nature as well.

 

CARM also replies to your final verse.

 

 

Again, the answer is simple. Jesus has two natures. He is divine and human. He was made under the law (Gal. 4:4), lower than the angels (Heb. 2:9), after having emptied himself (Phil. 2:5-8) even though he was the Word of God, which was God, and was made flesh, (John 1:1,14). Therefore, as we have stated before, Jesus would properly pray to God the Father.

 

 

These verses you give hardly disprove Lord Jesus' divinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree pretty much with everything you said except I am not sure about the part were you say God didn't sacrifice Jesus especially when you consider God asking Abraham to sacrifice his only son of promise which was a type and shadow. You are making it sound like Jesus is God the father, and that can be very confusing to people especially Muslims. Moreover, another Scripture that comes to mind is: "It please God to bruise Him." We understand from Scripture that Jesus is all that God is but not all there is to God.

 

Jesus according top the Bible and the Quran is the word of God. Jesus is the word God used to speak all things into existence. If Jesus is the word of God it necessarily follows that the word of God is eternal and uncreated. There is only one God who exists as a trinity. I don't know why Muslim says God has no son. I ask Muslims: If Adam wasn't God's son, what was he? The Bible states that Jesus is the last Adam. Sin and death were introduce through the first Adam but through the last life is given to us but we have to accept God's gift. Every on bears their own sin we are not punished for our father's sin. We choose whether we want to accept life or death by what we do with Jesus. I believe you are on the right track for the most part.

Well since God and Jesus are both one, wouldn't that mean that when Jesus sacrificed himself, God sacrificed Jesus? So in a way couldnt it be both?

 

Thanks for your corrections. I was worried I might misrepresent important Christian doctrine. It's nice to know I haven't yet.

Edited by Heavens Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe you're misrepresenting Christian doctrine as long as you understand that even though they are one they are also different persons in the God head. Jesus said the father is greater than I, but of course He was greater in position, office and function Jesus was a man (the word incarnate) but they are one in nature or equal in character and essences. That is why Jesus said to Philip "If you have seen me, you have seen the father." Jesus is the exact representation of all that God is, but he is not the father He is the son. If you agree with this, than you are not misrepresenting important Christian doctrine.

 

 

To be honest with you, I don't believe Islam understands the doctrine of the trinity. From reading the Quran one can intelligently infer from the way Allah questions Jesus that that Allah and Muhammad thought the Christianity trinity consisted of the son, Mary and Allah. For instance, Allah asks Jesus "Did you say take you and your mother for two gods besides me?" That makes up the three that Allah said to desist from saying. Well, in that case Christians are not in violation of this unscriptural trinity. Allah never mentions the Holy Spirit as being the third person of the trinity; in fact, they believe Gabriel is the Holy Spirit. Islam doesn't seem to understand that Christians believe there is only one God and we are made in the image and likeness of God. Just like we don't fully understand how we are souls and have a body and spirit, it is even impossible to explain the essences of God so we shouldn't try. He is past finding out.

God bless you.

Excellent. I agree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks to brother Younes my eyes are starting to open and it is beautiful.

 

I post on here a site that I think will help Christians who are really wanting to get to the bottom of things and sincerely are seeking only to follow God as he wants to be followed, as I did:

 

http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation2.html

 

outside of the Jesus is not the messiah section the rest seems relatively sound.  In the above link there is an explanation of blood sacrifice was not the only means of forgiveness, one man cannot pay for the sins of another, etcetera and here is one that will shock Christians: 

 

there was no original sin, man is born without sin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abdullafath

 

I'm still researching the various claims in your articles. I will reply to them later. The only thing I can bring up right now is Isaiah prophesying the Messiah to be a sin sacrifice. Here is an excellent article on the matter. http://www.kingmessiahproject.com/rrj_suffering_king_messiah.html

 

God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abdullafath

 

I'm still researching the various claims in your articles. I will reply to them later. The only thing I can bring up right now is Isaiah prophesying the Messiah to be a sin sacrifice. Here is an excellent article on the matter. http://www.kingmessiahproject.com/rrj_suffering_king_messiah.html

 

God bless.

 

http://www.answering-christianity.com/isaiah53_by_musa.htm  < -  here ya go.... I can post more if you like

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sacrifice was never required for the forgiveness of sin.  In ancient Judaism there was no original sin, man was born without sin. 

 

http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation1.html

 

several Bible verses of the ancient texts of the Bible make it clear that God never wanted human sacrifice and did not condone such things.

 

http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation4.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..

 

Without Jesus it is like going before the judge guilty as charged without an advocate attorney; you will have to represent yourself. Now I have heard lawyers say that people that represent themselves have fools for attorneys. I thank God for Jesus, because I know I don't stand a chance in hell without Him! 

That judge/lawyer example is not applicable, because Allah is The all-Knower.. his knowledge encompasses everything. He is closer to you than your own jugular veins. He is also The Just. You need no lawyer/attorney in front of The Just.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sl:

The link that brother AF posted, http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation2.html is very good.

It reminds us that Allah's message was always the same throughout all messengers. True seeker of the truth can then easily distinguish between the real words of our creator, and the fabricated man-made books. This is very clear when you study the religion before and after Christianity: Judaism and Islam. They both state clearly the same facts: that Jesus is a human prophet, that Allah is one and cannot be divided, that blood sacrifice is of pagan origins, and that you will be accountable for your own sins and no one dies for yours, and that all people are born pure without the so called original sin. The message is the same. But the noble and divine Christian message was corrupted by man, and that is why it says different, weird stuff, but can easily be spotted by both religions before and after it.

 

Islam is the religion that you all should follow now. It is the last version of Allah's consistent message, and it is the only message guaranteed by your creator against falsification till judgement day.

 

If the last version is available to all of you people, why buy an old version, not even guaranteed authentic by its author?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure about that? Satan means the accuser. If what you say is true, an accuser would be out of a purpose. Look at how Satan worked against Job by accusing him before God (The Judge). Look at how God tested Abraham. Then God said, "Now I know..." What you don't understand is that God in His sovereignty as chosen a blind eye when it comes to the will of man; otherwise, we would be simple complaint automatons who are not created in God's image and likeness.

 

God has given us the power to choose outside of His will should we so choose. He could have made us all obedient compliant vessels. Contrary to what you believe, man is not born obedient submitting creatures. Man has to learn obedience through suffering and no purposes are established without time and judgment. You are just speaking from the perimeter limits of your belief system. You are not allowed to think outside of that box, but I can. It is written "Whom the son sets free is free indeed." You don't have or believe in the son of God; therefore, you are not free but a slave of your belief system; I am free. My belief or religion is born from the seed of freedom like Isaac was born of the free woman Sarah. However, Ishmael was born of the slave woman. So what comes from that religion is not free but a slave.There are many things I agree with in the Quran, one of them is "To you be your religion and to me be mine."

 

I am not trying nor am I able to convince you. That is not my job. I just share what God has shown me as a free moral agent in my religion or belief system. I do not hear God speaking to me through your words; therefore, you have nothing of substance to offer me when it comes to spiritual matters. I know that the Scripture that came first is valid, and anything that comes against it, must be rejected; otherwise, we humans would be like the waves of the sea tossed to and fro with every wind and wave of doctrine. The prophet Joseph Smith has deceived millions with his new and latest word from his god and his Jesus. I don't recognized the Jesus in the book of Mormon or the Quran. Their Jesus is different than the Biblical Jesus. If He was the same Jesus, I would submit!

 

Keep in mind when I say my religion, I really mean relationship with God and not religion! Therefore, it is true I am a believer without a religion!

Redeemed has touched on the main issue. Our Jesus and your Jesus don't match up. It's not just the biblical Jesus. It's the patristic Jesus as well. The Church Fathers give us a lens on correct interpretation of scripture. This we can know who Jesus was. Edited by Heavens Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks to brother Younes my eyes are starting to open and it is beautiful.

 

I post on here a site that I think will help Christians who are really wanting to get to the bottom of things and sincerely are seeking only to follow God as he wants to be followed, as I did:

 

http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation2.html

 

outside of the Jesus is not the messiah section the rest seems relatively sound. In the above link there is an explanation of blood sacrifice was not the only means of forgiveness, one man cannot pay for the sins of another, etcetera and here is one that will shock Christians:

 

there was no original sin, man is born without sin

In all the examples given in the article, a sacrifice was still given. Whether jewelry or fasting, something was given up. However as a christain I believe that these sacrifices were not enough. I believe the new covenant is what God will bring to remember israel's sins no more:

 

Jeremiah 31:31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,

“when I will make a new covenant

with the people of israel

and with the people of Judah.

32 It will not be like the covenant

I made with their ancestors

when I took them by the hand

to lead them out of Egypt,

because they broke my covenant,

though I was a husband to them,”

declares the Lord.

33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of israel

after that time,” declares the Lord.

“I will put my law in their minds

and write it on their hearts.

I will be their God,

and they will be my people.

34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,

or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’

because they will all know me,

from the least of them to the greatest,”

declares the Lord.

“For I will forgive their wickedness

and will remember their sins no more.”

 

What covenant? What sins? Are they still waiting for this covenant? We aren't. Let's look at Hebrews.

 

Hebrews 9:7 But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

 

11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!

 

15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

 

Let's look at Psalm 40

6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire—

but my ears you have opened—

burnt offerings and sin offerings[d] you did not require.

7 Then I said, “Here I am, I have come—

it is written about me in the scroll.[e]

8 I desire to do your will, my God;

your law is within my heart.”

 

Notice how David proclaims here that God does not desire sacrifices and sin offerings even though they are in accordance with the law? Why is it that God wants sacrifices but He doesn't want sacrifices? How does this make sense that everything needs to be sprinkled with blood, and yet nothing needs to be? Simply because it isn't enough, it isn't sufficient. Let's look at what Hebrews says on the matter:

 

Hebrews 10:8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

 

11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

 

So yes, the Jews and Muslims are right when they say that blood offerings are not needed and yet God commands that they be done. Why? A prelude to what was to come; the ultimate sacrifice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.answering-christianity.com/isaiah53_by_musa.htm < - here ya go.... I can post more if you like

 

Quote:

Fifth, Isaiah. Isaiah 53 is not prophesying about the Messiah. Isaiah 52 is but not 53. The Jews only have 16 messianic prophesy in the entire OT.

Here's where things are very tricky. Isaiah 53 was most likely accepted as a Messianic Prophecy but is now rejected among Jews. The problem with Isaiah 53 is it so obviously points to Jesus, so now Jews must reject it. The same goes for Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

 

The Jews say that Almah can and should be translated as young woman, however based on Matthew's translation of the Septuagint the word is translated to, "virgin." A Christian apologist can argue that a young woman having a son and naming him "God with us" is not really a big deal. A virgin giving birth however is a very big deal. That's why the Bible says, "The Lord will give you a sign." And clearly states the boys name will be, "God with us." IE: Jesus. My point here is that Jews will in no way accept the translation, "virgin" 2000 years after Christ's birth, because it would be an argument in favor of Christianity.

 

But back to Isaiah 53 on this point. Can I prove that Isaiah 53 was probably a Messianic Prophecy? Well, the Muslim fellow said it himself that, "Isaiah 52 was, but 53 isn't." Here we have a slight problem. How does one know when Isaiah 52 ends and 53 begins? The books were put into chapters (and verses) much later. Let's see how Isaiah 52 ends:

 

13 See, my servant will act wisely;

he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.

14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him

his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being

and his form marred beyond human likeness

15 so he will sprinkle many nations,

and kings will shut their mouths because of him.

For what they were not told, they will see,

and what they have not heard, they will understand.

 

Immediately the Muslim's claim falls flat, as they don't believe Jesus could have possibly been marred beyond human likeness or His appearance disfigured beyond that of any human being. Let's go back to Isaiah 53 and watch how well 52 flows into it:

 

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 mankind,

a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.

Like one from whom people hide their faces

he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

 

Notice how well 52 flows into 53?

 

 

Here is The Suffering and Glory of the Servant from Isaiah.

 

13 See, my servant will act wisely;

he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.

14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him[c]—

his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being

and his form marred beyond human likeness—

15 so he will sprinkle many nations,[d]

and kings will shut their mouths because of him.

For what they were not told, they will see,

and what they have not heard, they will understand.

 

53 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 mankind,

a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.

Like one from whom people hide their faces

he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

4 Surely he took up our pain

and bore our suffering,

yet we considered him punished by God,

stricken 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 on him,

and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,

each of us has turned to our 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 its shearers is silent,

so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression[e] and judgment he was taken away.

Yet who of his generation protested?

For he was cut off from the land of the living;

for the transgression of my people he was punished.[f]

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[g] his life an offering for sin,

he will see his offspring and prolong his days,

and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

11 After he has suffered,

he will see the light of life[h] and be satisfied;

by his knowledge[j] my righteous servant will justify many,

and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[k]

and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[l]

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.

 

It continues on about the servant almost without pause.

 

Quote:

Isaiah 53:3 says that "Jesus" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses).

Blatant lie. It does not say He was despised by "all men." Let's look closer at the Hebrew:

נִבְזֶה֙ וַחֲדַ֣ל אִישִׁ֔ים אִ֥ישׁמַכְאֹב֖וֹתוִיד֣וּעַ חֹ֑לִי וּכְמַסְתֵּ֤ר פָּנִים֙ מִמֶּ֔נּוּ נִבְזֶ֖ה וְלֹ֥א חֲשַׁבְנֻֽהוּ׃

 

Translated: "Was despised and forsaken of men A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief hide their face at was despised did not esteem. http://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/53-3.htm

 

I have no idea what translation has the word "all" in it, but this is a massive error.

 

Here is a Christian apologists reply to Osamah on this.

"1 - Isaiah 53:3 says that "Jesus" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses).

First of all, Isaiah is describing the status of the servant in his suffering. In the case of Yeshua that would be during his trial and his death. He carried the suffering alone, with no one to aid or assist him. Second, I’m looking at the Hebrew of Isaiah 53:3 and I see nothing about the servant being despised by “all” men. Can you tell me where the Hebrew word for “all” is in the text? Seeing you made the claim that Isaiah 53 is mistranslated, I take it your understanding of the text must be in accordance with what actually is written in the Hebrew text. As far as I’m concerned, the word “all” isn’t even in the text.

Quote:

In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away one might assume this is the death of Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED not killed. But let us go with killed for your arguments sake. This is not what this verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is exactly what happened. And again, the verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was never killed.

 

So wounded means He was not killed? This is a stretch, and one must ignore all of Isaiah 53 to pull that off.

 

Verse 8 says he was “cut off from the land of the living”,

Verse 9 speaks of his grave and his death

Verse 10 speaks about giving his soul as an asham (guilt offering)

Verse 12 says he bore his soul unto death

 

3 - Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are two possible interpretations and answers to this:

 

Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the crucifixion trial. This is obviously wrong because Jesus spoke during his trial with both Pontius Pilot and the Jews. And we all know Jesus' famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when he said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!", which translates: "My GOD my GOD, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So wrong. He did open his mouth.

 

Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is also wrong, because again, Jesus cried during the crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me?", and he also prayed ENDLESSLY to GOD Almighty on the night of the crucifixion to not get crucified! (Matthew 16:39, Matthew 26:36-44, Luke 6:12) He even bowed down his face to Allah Almighty in worship endless times begging Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did object.

How about a third: He never objected to his accusers. Which is the exact understanding that becomes obvious to anyone who has any regard for the context and even for the verse itself. The verse starts out “He was oppressed”. He was oppressed by whom? His accusers. It then goes on to say “like a lamb that is led to the slaughter”. He was led to his execution by whom? His accusers. He didn’t say a word to defend himself before them. Point 3 is also moot!

 

4 - Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and the rich. According to scripturetext.com/isaiah/53-9.htm:

 

in his death" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it should be translated as "in death", making the word a symbolic one as further confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon:

 

in his death

maveth (maw'-veth)

death (natural or violent) [notice not "his death". It only says "death"]; concretely, the dead, their place or state (hades); figuratively, pestilence, ruin -- (be) dead(-ly), death, die(-d)."

 

A lot of points here:

1st: you look at the definition of the word “mawet” and then highlight the “figurative” sense in your article. But you don’t even regard all the other definition that your source put for you to read.

 

2nd: is there a particular reason why you have scratched “his” in the “in his death” phrase in your article?

 

3rd: all the lexicon says about death being figuratively is that it can also be understood to be figuratively. But its foremost meaning is literal death.

 

4th: Since you insist that “mawet” has to be figuratively and cannot in any way shape or form be literally death, can you tell us what the Hebrew word for literal death is that Isaiah should have used to give us the impression that this is a physical death and not a mere figurative death?

 

5th: you then go to translations that aren’t translations at all. The NLT and the CEV are not translations, but paraphrases. You object to the word “mawet” being translated as “death”, yet you subsequently run to other translations that don’t even translate the word “mawet” at all!

 

6th: Even the YLT translates it incorrectly, since the YLT has an improper understanding of the word at hand. The YLT reads the word “bemotaaw” to understood as “bamotaaw”. But this reading is untenable, since “bamot” (high places) are places where idol worship is being practiced. This is not what Isaiah is saying about the servant.

 

7th: The word “bemotaaw” DOES mean “in HIS deaths”. The suffix “-aaw” is third person singular in the masculine form denoting a plurality of possession.3

 

Then you go on to say:

 

1. Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66, Matthew 28)! He was temporarily placed in a tomb and then his body disappeared after that. But he never ONCE was buried under ground as our dead get buried.

 

2. Jesus, who was never buried from the first place, was also NEVER BURIED with the wicked and the rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as recorded in the gospels.

 

Burial in ancient days took place in tombs. There were two burials: stage one was that the body was placed in a tomb to decay so that only the bones were left and then stage two would follow, where the bones were collected out of the tomb and piled up in a small coffin and were buried. So, no, Yeshua was never buried as our dead get buried, because that was never the method that people got buried.

 

As for your second point, since the Hebrew in Isaiah 53 is very poetic, the words of Isaiah are open to interpretation. The words are just as probable to read, that he was buried between the wicked, referring to those surrounding graves with their dead. It can also be referring to his burial by Yosef of Arimathea and all those that were with him, since the servant is described as the Righteous One that suffers for and bares the iniquities of the unrighteous multitude. In addition, you don’t know that the grave was in an isolated area since the Gospels don’t give us that information. All the Gospels say is that the grave was new and unused.

 

5 - In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life and Jesus will live to even see his offspring (his children)! And Christ will see the Light and be satisfied after the suffering of his soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring to the overwhelming fear that Jesus had and the countless cries and Prayers that he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm 91 further speaks clearly on this. Also, Jesus' life was never made long or extended. He only lived for 33 years, so we're told in the gospels, and he certainly never married any woman nor had any child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will live and he will have and see his children.

 

You go on to make the following mistakes:

 

1. You were the one that claim others mistranslate verses. Verse 10 doesn’t say that the servant will see HIS seed (zero) but that he would see seed (zera). It says nothing about the seed being that of the servant.

 

2. Just as in other places the word “zera” can be metaphorical and not referring to physical offspring of the subject. Such as Psalm 22:31 where YHWH is the subject, yet no one will say that the seed is His. And in Isaiah 57:4 where falsehood is the subject, yet no one will say that the seed is the physical product of falsehood.

 

3. If you had any regard for the context of the verse, you would see that the prolonging of his days is after he died, which clearly points to a resurrection from the dead. So this isn’t talking about a person that would live “happily ever after” and become old. This is talking about a person living after he had died.

 

6 - In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be poured unto death. To me, given the Islamic position about Christ never got crucified, and given the symbolic speech in Isaiah 53 chapter that most of it conflicts with what really took place with Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly that Jesus never got crucified such as in the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient texts, then my interpretation of this verse about Jesus' life being poured unto death means to me that Jesus' life will overpower death! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states that not only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will also hear his cries and will send down the Angels to PROTECT HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91 also says that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will HEAR him and HONOR him. Christ would not have been honored if he have died the humiliating death of the cross. And certainly, he would not have been "saved" either by the Angels.

Oh my, where to start:

 

1. There was no Palestine in the first century, the land was israel. Palestine was not invented until well into the second century.

2. The Apocalypse of Peter is not an early authentic text, it is a later apocryphal book!

3. When properly understood, Isaiah 53 only makes sense when applied to the description of the Messiah in the Gospel

4. Your understanding of the servant overpowering death is a correct one. But not as you put it. The chapter speaks of the rejection of the servant, his suffering, his death and his resurrection, which is how he conquers death! But you don’t allow that clear reading because of your illogical position that you have to look at what the Quran allows for and adjust the reading of the text of Isaiah to that.

5. You still haven’t shown us why we should even entertain the thought that Psalm 91 is specifically about Yeshua or even generally Messianic at all. I have challenged you about that reading to prove your point. You haven’t done so to this day. If Psalm is really “indisputably” about the Messiah, please provide the evidence to stop this dispute.

6. You wrote: “Christ would not have been honoured if he had died the humiliating death of the cross. And certainly, he would not have been "saved" either by the Angels”. Which is exactly why your reading is flawed. You, again, start with the illogical position that your reading of Psalm 91 is correct (without anything that remotely looks like evidence that it is), and then judge the Gospels’ claims about the Messiah based on your flawed understanding of one unambiguously non-Messianic Psalm."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sacrifice was never required for the forgiveness of sin. In ancient Judaism there was no original sin, man was born without sin.

 

http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation1.html

 

several Bible verses of the ancient texts of the Bible make it clear that God never wanted human sacrifice and did not condone such things.

 

On sacrifice not being required look up to my posting of Aquinas' argument.

 

On original sin.

IN SHORT... Jews do not believe in the existence of Original Sin. The concept of Original Sin states simply that because Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, they brought Death into the world. In this view, every human being dies because the origin of the human race was tainted with sin: Adam and Eve committed a sin, all humans bear guilt of that sin, and are therefore punished with death. However, the Bible describes something entirely different. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden because if they remained, they could eat the fruit of the Tree of Life, which would make them immortal.If Adam and Eve had to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life to become immortal, then they were created mortal. They did not bring Death into the world, and we do not die because they sinned. The first essay on this website explains how, in the view of the Bible, one person cannot die as a punishment for the sins committed by another. We die because Death is a natural part of existence, and has been from the moment the first human beings were created. This explains why, before Adam and Eve ate the fruit from The Tree of The Knowledge of Good And Evil, Gd told the animals to be fruitful and to multiply, since they needed to replace themselves. Gd also said the same thing to Adam and Eve before they ate that fruit as well.

 

The author states "then they were created mortal" when, in fact, God said that if they ate of the Tree of Knowledge that they would surely die. So, they did not have eternal Spiritual Life as the Tree of Life would have given them, but they were NOT subject to death unless they ate of the Tree of Knowledge. So, it's not as simple as this analysis suggests.

 

Also just because the word sin is not used does not mean sin didn't take place. This comes down to what exactly sin is.

 

Here is the best definition of sin I could find.

 

The Bible describes sin as the breaking, or transgression, of God's law (1 John 3:4). It is also defined as disobedience or rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7), as well as independence from God. The original translation means "to miss the mark" of God's holy standard of righteousness.

 

Adam and Eve disobeyed God and so they sinned. Because of their sin(disobeying God) they were evicted from paradise (Eden) to stop them from eating of the tree of life. Because of this eviction and their sin human nature has been damaged. We, while still being In God's image, are flawed and corrupt. I remember reading a study where scientists found babies preferred just puppets to mean bullying puppets. If, even as babies, we know good from bad; why is it that we still do wrong? Why aren't there people out there who never disobey God's law?

 

In the first paragraph of the fist essay you posted in the quoted post there seems to be an error in interpretation. The verse quoted.

 

And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the Etrnl; perhaps I shall make an atonement for your sin. And Moses returned unto the Etrnl, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin...and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And the Etrnl said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them. And the Etrnl plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made. [Exodus 32:30-35]

 

Moses says if you won't forgive them then kill me. I don't see how that helps prove the essays point.

 

On human sacrifice, God did not want us to sacrifice each other. However read John 15:13

 

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends

 

Jesus laid down his life for us. He could have escaped if he wished, but he did not. The Word, incarnate in man, chose to die for us. Whereas Adam chose disobedience, Jesus chose complete obedience and made the perfect sacrifice.

Here's a sermon on it.

http://www./sermons/jesus-the-perfect-sacrifice-rodney-buchanan-sermon-on-cross-agony-45553.asp

 

Also, abdullahfath, you seem to be searching for God. You have gone from Islam to Christianity and seem to be heading back. Do you mind if I pray for you? If you mind I won't.

Edited by Heavens Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Missionaries respond to this glaring problem by explaining that Jesus had long life in his resurrection, where he lives forever. Therefore, they argue, Jesus indeed lived a very, very long life. This response, however, does little to relieve their problem. To begin with, the Hebrew words in this verse ~ymy %yray (ya'arich yamim), meaning "long life" or a "prolonged life," do not mean or refer to an eternal life which has no end, but rather a lengthening of days which eventually come to an end. These Hebrew words are therefore never applied in the Jewish Scriptures to anyone who is to live forever. In Tanach, therefore, God is never said to have long life. In fact, the words ya'arich yamim appear in a number of places throughout Jewish Scriptures, including Deuteronomy 17:20, Deuteronomy 25:15, Proverbs 28:16, and Ecclesiastes 8:13. In each and every verse where this phrase appears, these words refer to an extended mortal life, not an eternal one. When the Jewish Scriptures speak of an eternal resurrected life, as in Daniel 12:2, the Hebrew words ~lw[ yyxl (l'chayai olam) are used.

 

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/changed-life.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Missionaries respond to this glaring problem by explaining that Jesus had long life in his resurrection, where he lives forever. Therefore, they argue, Jesus indeed lived a very, very long life. This response, however, does little to relieve their problem. To begin with, the Hebrew words in this verse ~ymy %yray [/size](ya'arich yamim), meaning "long life" or a "prolonged life," do not mean or refer to an eternal life which has no end, but rather a lengthening of days which eventually come to an end. These Hebrew words are therefore never applied in the Jewish Scriptures to anyone who is to live forever. In Tanach, therefore, God is never said to have long life. In fact, the words [/size]ya'arich yamim appear in a number of places throughout Jewish Scriptures, including Deuteronomy 17:20, Deuteronomy 25:15, Proverbs 28:16, and Ecclesiastes 8:13. In each and every verse where this phrase appears, these words refer to an extended mortal life, not an eternal one. When the Jewish Scriptures speak of an eternal resurrected life, as in Daniel 12:2, the Hebrew words ~lw[ yyxl [/size](l'chayai olam) are used.[/size]

 

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/changed-life.html

This is from a counter counter-missionary site.

 

This is a butchery of grammar. The term יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים (ya'arich yamim) does not mean long life, as the word יַאֲרִיךְ (ya'arich) is not an adjective. It is the imperfect tense or prefixed conjugation of the verb אָרַך (arach, Strong's 748). So the term יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים (ya'arich yamim) does not mean "long life" but "will prolong [his/her/its] days." It means exactly the same thing in Hebrew as it does in English. It means that the days will be made longer. How much longer? Generally, when the term is used in English it refers to a lengthening of days which eventually come to an end. It is very rarely the term we use in English to mean "make someone live forever." Generally we use the term "give eternal life" or perhaps "immortalize" to mean that.

 

When someone has an extra year to live, we say their life has been prolonged. When someone has an extra ten years to live, we say their life has been prolonged more, right? So if God wanted to prolong someone's days to the maximum extent, what would he do? He would give the person eternal life, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He would give the person eternal life, right?"

 

Exactly! And it would have been a lot more poignant had the verse in Isaiah said that the servant's life will prolonged for eternity if it was actually talking about Jesus (pbuh), the Christian version. But I guess that falls into the same category as the "almah" vs. "betulah" issue. There's definitely a lack of poignancy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then what is it talking about if not the Messiah?

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


×