Is there any Biblical evidence that describes Jesus as God?

[Walter]

Hi Everyone:

The promotion of Jesus as God has been an unnecessary barrier keeping Christians and Muslims apart. I do not believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God. However, there are a group of Christians, called Trinitarians, who believe otherwise. Quite a few threads in this forum degenerate into arguments about the Trinity. This thread is for anyone, especially Trinitarians, to provide any Biblical evidence that shows that Jesus is God, so that we can discuss it honestly in order to learn the Truth.

Those Muslims who believe that Christians and Muslims are not brothers because they believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God, are welcome to present their evidence here also.

Who will be first.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Luke 19
37When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:
38"Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!"[b]
"Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"

39Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!"

40"I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."

Luke 5
20When Jesus saw their faith, he said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven."

21The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

22Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, "Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? 23Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? 24But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." He said to the paralyzed man, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 25Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God. 26Everyone was amazed and gave praise to God. They were filled with awe and said, "We have seen remarkable things today."

John 10
30[Jesus said:] "I and the Father are one."

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Matthew 26
62Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 63But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

65Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66What do you think?"
"He is worthy of death," they answered.

Luke 22
66At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67"If you are the Christ," they said, "tell us."
Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."

70They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?"
He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

71Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips."

One does not have to explicitly state "I am God" to be making a claim to be God. The way that Jesus used the phrase "Son of God" was a claim to diety. This was clearly understood that way by the Jews who used that as sufficient reason with one another to have Jesus put to death. Their charge against him would have been blasphemy. Of course, the Romans could care less about that, so with Pilate they charged Jesus with sedition against the state. That Jesus ascribed to himself diety is so clear that, even today, Jews who read the Gospel label Jesus with the charge of blasphemy.

[Follower]

Sometimes actions speak louder then words - There are times Jesus is worshipped by His follwers and He doesn't tell them to stop.

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...-06/26072.htmlhttp://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...-06/26072.html

Was Jesus Worshipped?


Matt 4:9-10 - Satan asked to be worshipped by Jesus. Jesus reply was that
Yahweh alone is to be worshipped. The word used is PROSKUNEW. This means
"to worship". Within the Semantic range it does include "to give
obeisance", "to pay homage".


Matthew's gospel identifies Jesus as "Immanuel, God with us" (Matt 1:23),
then uses the word PROSKUNEW ten times in respect to Jesus and once in the
"kingdom of heaven" parable of the unforgiving slave when the slave was
before his king (Matt 18:26).

Within these ten uses directed towards Jesus, there are seven which are
probably best to be translated "to give obeisance" or "homage" (Matt. 2:2,
8, 11; 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20). However, the other three seem to be more
than this.

Matt. 14:33 comes immediately after the disciples witnessed Jesus walking
on the water. He tells them to take heart. He identifies himself arguably
by using the name of Yahweh, EGO EIMI (14:27). After Peter's watery attempt
to walk on the water, Jesus entered the boat then the wind ceased. It was
then that the disciples PROSKUNEW - ed Jesus.

Matt. 28:9 is just after the resurrection, when Mary and Mary meet the
Risen Lord. The text tells us that they came and took hold of his feet and
they PROSKUNEW - ed him. Here, PROSKUNEW means more than just "bowed in
respect", for if they had hold of his feet they were already on their
knees. PROSKUNEW here was something done after they were in a bowed
position before Jesus.

The third one from Matthew is 28:17. Here PROSKUNEW must be more than just
an action, because those who PROSKUNEW -ed the Risen Lord was contrasted
with those who doubted. Then Jesus declares the authority that has been
given to him. He commands the disciples to make disciples of the whole
world, in the authority / name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He
(Jesus) commands that they teach the disciples everything that he has
taught them. Matthew ends the story of Immanuel (God with us) with the
assurance that he, Jesus, will be with his disciples till the end of the
age.

The New World Translation translates PROSKUNEW directed towards God as
"worship". Improper PROSKUNEW towards Satan is also translated as
"worship". PROSKUNEW directed to Jesus or other human being is translated
by "to do obeisance", both in the gospel of Matthew and the other uses in
the NT. The Oxford dictionary defines "obeisance" as "1. a bow, curtesy, or
other respectful or submissive gesture, 2. Homage, submission, deference."

On face value this seems fair especially when it comes to Peter in Acts
10.25. But Peter's reaction seems to suggest more than just obeisance. His
objection against being PROSKUNEW - ed by Cornelius is that he is "only a
mortal". So here, just as in at least the three other examples in Matthew,
PROSKUNEW should be understood as "worship". For Peter, who has prime place
amongst the apostles, would not have reacted this way if they were simply
honouring him, but here they clearly were doing more than just an act of
obeisance.

Matthew's use of PROSKUNEW would seem to be at least provocative. There
were other word he could have used if he did not wish to show that Jesus
was worshipped. He could have used the word for honour (Matt 13.57), to bow
down (Matt 27:29), people could have come and kneeled before him (eg. Acts
9.40) or they could have bowed (Rom 11:10, literally "to bend their
backs"). But Matthew, who arguably was originally writing to Jewish people,
chose to use PROSKUNEW which Jesus himself said was only to be directed
towards Yahweh.

Finally, when the end times is seen in a vision by the author of
Revelation, the elders fall down and PROSKUNEW the One Upon the Throne AND
the Lamb. When John falls down before an angel and PROSKUNEW the angel, he
was immediately stopped because the angel is only a fellow servant of
John's (Rev 19:10; 22:8). Also in Revelation, it was seen as an abhorrent
thing when Demons or Satan was the object of PROSKUNEW (Rev 9:20; 13:4;
19:20).

Therefore, the Bible shows us that:

Humans are not to be the object of PROSKUNEW;
Angels are not to be the object of PROSKUNEW;
Demon or Satan are not to be the object of PROSKUNEW;
Jesus was the object of PROSKUNEW; and
God was the object of PROSKUNEW

Therefore is it right that we PROSKUNEW, that is worship Jesus as the Risen
Lord and Saviour. If the Jehovah's Witness recognise Jesus as "a god", then
the Biblical claims concerning Jesus needs to be rethought.

[Walter]

Hi Grace Seeker:

I should have stated one at a time. However, let me address them one at a time.

The first evidence presented is Luke 19:37-40.

37 Then, as He was now drawing near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works they had seen, 38 saying: “‘Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the LORD!’ Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” 39 And some of the Pharisees called to Him from the crowd, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples.” 40 But He answered and said to them, “I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out.” (Luke 19:37-40)

The principal evidence is the part of Luke 19:37 which states: “the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice…” This can be interpreted to mean that the people were praising God by referring to Jesus, or they were praising Jesus as God.

In order to help us arrive at a reasonable interpretation, let us examine how Luke presents a similar passage about praising God. When Jesus raised the widow of Nain’s son, the people’s response was:

Then fear came upon all, and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has risen up among us”; and, “God has visited His people.” And this report about Him went throughout all Judea and all the surrounding region. (Luke 7:16–17)

Given that the people identified Jesus as “a great Prophet”, then a reasonable interpretation is that God is described as visiting His people through His representative. This is interpretation is supported by Luke’s writings in the Acts where he states:

7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. … 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. (Acts 15:7, 13, 14)

So God is described as visiting the gentiles, not directly, but through His representative, Peter, and Peter was not God. Therefore, God visiting His people through His representative, Jesus, is a reasonable interpretation.

Regards,
Grenville

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Walter]

The second evidence presented is Luke 5:22-26.

20 When He saw their faith, He said to him, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.” 21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
22 But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, He answered and said to them, “Why are you reasoning in your hearts? 23 Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise up and walk’? 24 But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the man who was paralyzed, “I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.” 25 Immediately he rose up before them, took up what he had been lying on, and departed to his own house, glorifying God. 26 And they were all amazed, and they glorified God and were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen strange things today!” (Luke 5:22-26)

There are two issues here. The first issue is the Pharisees’ assumption that only God can forgive sins. The second issue is the people glorifying God, and the assumption that they were referring to Jesus.

We have already dealt with the second issue in the last post, where a reasonable interpretation is that they were actually glorifying God and not Jesus.

In seeing to verify the assumption that only God can forgive sins, we see that Jesus told His disciples that they could also forgive sins.

If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (John 20:23)

Therefore, since the disciples were not gods, but they were taught that they could forgive sins, then the assumption that God alone can forgive sins has not been verified.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

The third evidence is John 10:30-33

30 I and My Father are one.” 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” (John 10:30-33)

The Jews interpreted Jesus’ statement “I and my Father are one” to mean that Jesus was making Himself God. However, Jesus appeared to correct them by stating “I said, I am the Son of God” in John 10:36b.

The assumption made is that Jesus being one with the Father means that Jesus is God. In seeking to verify this assumption, we note Jesus’ prayer for future believers.

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. (John 17:20–23)

So Jesus prays that all believers may be one with the Father, just as He and the Father are one. The original Greek word used for one (hĕis) in Jesus’ statement “I and the Father are one [hĕis]”, is the same word used when Jesus prayed that His disciples may be “one [hĕis] in us”. Since believers are not meant to become gods through becoming one with the Father, then Jesus being one with the Father is not sufficient evidence that Jesus is God.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

The fourth evidence is Mathew 26:62-66

62 And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”
64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! 66 What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.” (Mathew 26:62-66)

Here, Jesus confirms that He is the Son of God, which we both agree. Jesus also confirms that He will return “at the right hand of the Power”. The question that must be asked is: Who is this Power? If He is God, then Jesus and God are described as two separate entities. If it is God the Father, then we have two separate beings returning at the same time.

The fifth evidence provided comes from Luke 22:66-71

66At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67"If you are the Christ," they said, "tell us." Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."

70They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am." 71Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips."

Again, there is no dispute that Jesus is the Son of God, and that He will return with “the Mighty God”. Please note that Jesus and God are described as two separate and distinct entities.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Dear Follower:

If the Jehovah's Witness recognise Jesus as "a god", then
the Biblical claims concerning Jesus needs to be rethought.

Why are you and Grace Seeker so obsessed with these Jehovah Witnesses? Are there Jehovah Witnesses plaguing this forum? I am unfamiliar with their teachings, and I have not read their bible. I suggest that you start a thread to discuss the Jehovah Witness' teachings so that we can all be enlightened.

Regards,
Grenville

[malayloveislam]

Peace everyone,

Excuse me for my curiosity Greenville, you seem like a protestant but your view represent those of ancient Christianity, well according to my view and my historical reading of Quranic Interpretation. What is your sect in Christianity? And is it considered as Christianity too? Thanks. A very nice thread, hope everyone enjoy discussing.

[glo]

In addition to what already has been said, the times when Jesus is referred to as God by others and does not deny it, are to me probably the most obvious situations.

Here are a couple:

They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?"
He replied, "You are right in saying I am." (Luke 22:70)

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:23)

For those of us who believe Jesus to have been a devout monotheist, it is unthinkable that he would let such statements stand (if they weren't true).
What would any good monotheist - who believes that there is only one God who is above all else - do in such a situation, if not strongly deny the claims??

Jesus doesn't deny the claims people make about his divinity ...
Why not?
Is he deluded?
Is he a deceiver?
Is he a bad monotheist?
Or is he really God?

Personally I do not believe the first three statements (I guess most people in this forum don't) - so I conclude for myself that the fourth statement must be true ...

Peace

[doorster]

^^ (according to my look-ups) these translations are decidedly dodgy

[Imam]

What would any good monotheist - who believes that there is only one God who is above all else - do in such a situation, if not strongly deny the claims??

Jesus doesn't deny the claims people make about his divinity ...
Why not?
Is he deluded?
Is he a deceiver?
Is he a bad monotheist?
Or is he really God?


Peace

Greetings,

there is another alternative for John 20:28 I highlighted here
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post992271

accepting the text the way it is would create a serious problem been discussed in that thread.

Note: I don't criticize the text for the goal of refuting the trinity proof text, as even if the serious problem accompanied with verse (my lord and my god) is absent, still the problem with the Trtinity exist...... as I showed before the basic points a muslim should be aware of before approaching the matter of the Trinity

here
http://www.islamicboard.com/1125772-post25.html

and here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1135486


I hope that Muslims understand well such issue ......Muslims by no mean are supposed to refute the Trinity so called proof text in order to harmonize them with the Anti-Trinity proof text (As the case of our friend Grenville and what is doing right now in the thread)... HE as a believer that the New Testament from cover to cover to be the truly inspired,inerrant word of God , have to harmonize the contradictory proof text, while we muslims should consider 2 basic points:

1- The statue of the New Testament compared with the Quran in the issue of inspiration and inerrancy.

2- The consistency of the so called trinity proof text(check the post I already linked for details).

glo

as you already mentioned that you consider John 20:28 to be the most obvious ,I invite you to read the thread I already linked and let me know if you agree,disagree with me.......
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post992271

Sometimes actions speak louder then words

yes ... and some of the actions of Jesus in the NT not only speaks loud of him being not God but also an imperfect beacon...

peace

[Follower]

Grenville was it me that said that? If the Jehovah's Witness recognise Jesus as "a god", then the Biblical claims concerning Jesus needs to be rethought.

Either way there is One True GOD, period. Not One true GOD and a lesser god his son.

It is obvious from the Gospel that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 1 unit of being with seperate ways of touching/reaching mankind.

[Follower]

Imam - "Muslims by no mean are supposed to refute the Trinity" Well for one thing the Quran never says the word Trinity it just says 3.

Which by the way I agree we should never say that GOD is 3, but 1. I know of no Christians that would say GOD is 1 of 3!!

Imam - How does the Word of GOD become corrupt if the Word of GOD can not be corrupted?

Link to John 20:28 in Aramaic:
http://www.aramaicpe****ta.com/Arama.../Yukhnch20.pdf

[Follower]

Grenville - If your heart is open to the truth all that should be needed is one statement or one action. There is the one statement yet you still do not see it. Plain and simple, you are not ready.

My acceptance comes more from the back door then a straight forward answer. The Jews wanted Jesus dead, because He was claiming to be GOD.

John 19
6As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, "Crucify! Crucify!"
But Pilate answered, "You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him."

7The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

8When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9and he went back inside the palace. "Where do you come from?" he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10"Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?"

John 5
16So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Jesus knew His mission on earth was to be our gift and so He had to make sure He was sacrificed. Jesus could not come out right there in front of Pilate and say yes I am GOD. The sacrifice would not have happened. Who in their right mind would try to sacrifice GOD?

Either Jesus is GOD or He is a liar and nutcase. Actually I believe that literally Jesus is GOD's WORD made incarnate- I don't know how GOD did it but Jesus is GOD's WORD in the flesh. What better way to fulfill the LAW given to man then to make GOD's words come into the world as His SON, for only GOD can fufill His own LAW.

[doorster]

Stop going round in circles

FYI 3 --> tri --> trinity

Definitions of trinity on the Web:

• three: the cardinal number that is the sum of one and one and one
• the union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead
• trio: three people considered as a unit
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[Follower]

Grenville - please fon't forget to link to the proof that Polycarp's and Ignatuis’ writings were forgeries.

Do you also believe that Polycarp was not martyered for his belief that Jesus was GOD?

Thanks.

[Follower]

Any muslim not just Imam - How does the Word of GOD become corrupt if the Word of GOD can not be corrupted?

[Grace Seeker]

The question that must be asked is: Who is this Power? If He is God, then Jesus and God are described as two separate entities. If it is God the Father, then we have two separate beings returning at the same time.

And if the passage is to be taken as a literal vision rather than a metaphorical one, then we have God having a right hand. Perhaps I am wrong in assuming that you don't see God as having a physical body, but I don't. However, if it is to be understood in the metaphorical sense, it is also best understood as an elevation of Jesus to divine status. I have just recently posted elsewhere to show that the use of the "Son of God" title to refer to Jesus was also an assertion of divinity and was understood that way by all of Jesus' day. If you admit that Jesus saw himself as the "Son of God", then you are either also admitting that Jesus saw himself as divine or are willing to accept only that scholarship which supports your pre-conceived position and means there is no more purpose for any discussion as you are not the truth seeker you told me that you were.

[Walter]

Grenville - If your heart is open to the truth all that should be needed is one statement or one action. There is the one statement yet you still do not see it. Plain and simple, you are not ready.

My acceptance comes more from the back door then a straight forward answer. The Jews wanted Jesus dead, because He was claiming to be GOD.

John 19
6As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, "Crucify! Crucify!"
But Pilate answered, "You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him."

7The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

8When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9and he went back inside the palace. "Where do you come from?" he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10"Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?"

John 5
16So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Jesus knew His mission on earth was to be our gift and so He had to make sure He was sacrificed. Jesus could not come out right there in front of Pilate and say yes I am GOD. The sacrifice would not have happened. Who in their right mind would try to sacrifice GOD?

Either Jesus is GOD or He is a liar and nutcase. Actually I believe that literally Jesus is GOD's WORD made incarnate- I don't know how GOD did it but Jesus is GOD's WORD in the flesh. What better way to fulfill the LAW given to man then to make GOD's words come into the world as His SON, for only GOD can fufill His own LAW.

Dear Follower:

Please present your evidence over at "Is there any evidence in the Bible that teaches that Jesus is God" and I will happily respond.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Dear Malayloveislam:

Peace everyone,

Excuse me for my curiosity Greenville, you seem like a protestant but your view represent those of ancient Christianity, well according to my view and my historical reading of Quranic Interpretation. What is your sect in Christianity? And is it considered as Christianity too? Thanks. A very nice thread, hope everyone enjoy discussing.

Your query has caused me to reflect. Thank you. Allow me to write my reflections both in response to your query, and for my own benefit.

From birth until 7 years, I attended a Baptist church with my parents, until we relocated and attended a Methodist church.

I was not a bad fellow. I was obedient to my parents, and gave no trouble in my community. I read the Bible and prayed from childhood, and yet, things seemed unclear to me. Every Bible story, and sermon, and ritual seemed to be another piece of the puzzle, but I did not know what the final picture was supposed to look like.

After 14 years of church attendance and following the various rituals and traditions, I visited a Pentecostal church and accepted that despite my relatively good behavior, I could never be good enough to earn God’s favor, love, and forgiveness. I realized that I needed God to forgive me for my wrong thoughts, motives, and actions. On 29 August 1979, I asked God to forgive me and accepted whatever Jesus did on the cross as sufficient to bring me closer to God. I felt wonderfully clean. The Bible was like a new book to me, and it seemed easily understandable.

I kept attending the Methodist church on Sunday mornings with my family, and with my parents permission, attended the Pentecostal church on Sunday evenings. A few months later at the Pentecostal church, I raised my hands in praise to God for perhaps the first time, and felt a sort of bubbling from within me which came from around my stomach region and out of my mouth. I spoke a language that I had not known, and I did not want to stop. When I returned home, I knelt by my bed to pray and tried it again, and found that I could speak this new language at will.

That Christmas, my grandparents gave me their first and only gift, a massive concordance, with a Hebrew and Greek dictionary, which my father taught me how to use. That began an almost 30 year study of the Bible, early civilizations, and history.

When I was 16 years old, my father wrote me a letter advising me to be true to myself. He also explained that God has given us tools to use, but it is our responsibility to sharpen those tools. Since that time, I have tried to honestly interpret any evidence, and be as conscientious looking for evidence that does not support my biased views as those that do.

I continued to attend the Methodist and Pentecostal churches for the next two years or so. When I was at university studying Engineering, I attended a Baptist church. For the past 5 years, I have attended, and continue to attend, a Wesleyan Church.

I have found that it is possible to spend your life believing things that are entirely false. That is OK, since there are many things, especially in the natural world, that we can only speculate about. However, the consequences of being wrong on some spiritual things can carry eternal consequences.

Determinations of spiritual matters used to be by evidence. God set the standard of verification very high. He said that prophets predictions must come to pass if He sent them. Therefore, their word was easily verifiable.

As time went on, God’s method of verification was abandoned, and people believed something to be true because someone said so, and enforced their belief with violence and property confiscation.

In the past two hundred years or so, we have returned to verifying assumptions through the scientific method, and the violent enforcement of most beliefs has subsided, at least in the Western world. We are free, to some extent, to investigate evidence and rigorously scrutinize opinions in our efforts to verify the assumptions upon which these opinions rest. We are free to do what God has asked of us, to test and investigate in order to know the truth.

Where there is insufficient evidence to verify the assumptions upon which opinions are based, then conclusive statements about those opinions should be avoided. This is true in every field of study.

We should never be afraid to present our beliefs to the light for scrutiny. Truth should always be able to withstand honest rigorous scrutiny. However, error generally finds comfort in darkness in order to avoid examination.

I have critically examined the Bible for over 30 years, and with the available evidence, I have found it to be true. I have rigorously examined the principal teachings of the Qur’an, and have found that they do not contradict those of the Bible. Therefore, it would seem that the Bible and the Qur’an have a common author.

I am fully aware that most Christians and Muslims do not share this view. I believe it is because their leaders teach their adherents that there are fundamental differences between the Bible and the Qur’an, which I have found not to be the case. Regrettably, there is still the tendency, by adherents, to resort to a violent reaction when their religious traditions are questioned. I am here to simply discuss the evidence.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Dear Follower:

Any muslim not just Imam - How does the Word of GOD become corrupt if the Word of GOD can not be corrupted?

Can you stay on-topic and post this question elsewhere?

Regards,
Grenville

[Imam]

Well for one thing the Quran never says the word Trinity it just says 3.

Imam - How does the Word of GOD become corrupt if the Word of GOD can not be corrupted?

Link to John 20:28 in Aramaic:
http://www.aramaicpe****ta.com/Arama.../Yukhnch20.pdf

Follower,

you know that I have just realized why some members in the LI , somehow have a low opinion of you.

It is not that your posts necessarily flawed but the fact you mess the thread topic and your ideas are not consistent ....

I hope you accept my advice and improve your style by focusing on the matter under discussion as much as you can.....


peace

[Grace Seeker]

malayloveislam, Grenville has told you important parts of his story. We all have faith journeys, sometimes they take us interesting places. Sometimes our beliefs are the same as those places that we travel and sometimes they are not. I will let Grenville represent his own beliefs, but I do think you might want to compare what he says with what the groups he has identified himself as having been a part and see what they express for themselves as their sets of beliefs, for Grenville may or may not believe the same as them. For instance he says that he once attended the Methodist church, a group I know something about as a pastor of a United Methodist Church, and while some of his beliefs are in harmony with our teachings, there are many that are not.

From birth until 7 years, I attended a Baptist church with my parents

Southern Baptist Basic Beliefs

until we relocated and attended a Methodist church.

Foundational Documents of the United Methodist Church

I visited a Pentecostal church and I continued to attend the Methodist and Pentecostal churches for the next two years or so.

There are many different types of Pentecostal churches, some with affiliations with one another and some with no affiliation with any other church whatsoever. As Grenville did not specify any details regarding the Pentecostal church(es) he attended, I will not post a link to a spefice body lest I post incorrectly. There are some websites that provide a more generic understanding of Pentecostals but that doesn't mean that Grenville would relate to any one of them:
www.religioustolerance.org
Wikipedia article
article by Gary Gilley

he book that Grenville continually cites in the thread wherein he proposes a harmony between the Bible and the Qur'an is published by Word Aflame Press, which is the publishing house of the United Pentecostal Church International.
Correction: I was in error in listing this publisher. There are two different books by this title and the one that Grenville is refering to is a different one available on Amazon.com and, according to that link, published by iUniverse.com. I regret the error.

For the past 5 years, I have attended, and continue to attend, a Wesleyan Church.

Wesley Church core values & beliefs


Interestingly, the very first Article of Religion of the Wesleyan Church that Grenville presently attends is:

1. Faith in the Holy Trinity

We believe in the one living and true God, both holy and loving, eternal, unlimited in power, wisdom and goodness, the Creator and Preserver of all things. Within this unity there are three persons of one essential nature, power and eternity — the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Gen. 1:1; 17:1; Ex. 3:13-15; 33:20; Deut. 6:4; Ps. 90:2; Isa. 40:28-29; Matt. 3:16-17; 28:19; John 1:1-2; 4:24; 16:13; 17:3; Acts 5:3-4; 17:24-25; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6; Eph. 2:18; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:16-17; 1 Tim. 1:17; Heb. 1:8; 1 John 5:20.

Yet Grenville objects to this very understanding whenever I present it and he wants me to show him where it is found in scripture. Hint: Just check out the documents at the church you presently attend; they look pretty orthodox to me.

[Walter]

Dear Glo:

You have provided two important pieces of evidence. The first being Jesus’ admission to being the Son of God.

Is Jesus the Son of God?

There is no dispute among Christians that Jesus is the Son of God. It is explicitly and repeatedly stated in the Bible.

The problem arises, as it usually does, when we decide to exceed what the Bible has explicitly stated, and try to make a doctrine out of, not what the Bible explicitly states, but what we try to interpret it to mean. Especially when those assumptions are full of unverified assumptions.

The opinion of Jesus being God from this evidence is based on the unverified assumption that “Son of God” is equivalent to “God”.

The evidence to the contrary includes Jesus calling His disciples His brethren, and Paul confirming that we can also be sons of God. Since you and I are children of God, but not God, then Jesus being called the Son of God is insufficient evidence to conclude that “Son of God” is equivalent to “God”.

Thomas' Exclamation

Regarding Thomas’ exclamation “My Lord and my God.” The evidence is that Jesus did not correct him. The question is: Why not? There are several answers, including that there was nothing for Jesus to correct.

If Thomas was referring to God, the Father, as his Lord and God, or Jesus as his Lord and the Father as his God, then there would be nothing for Jesus to correct. We must remember that Thomas appeared to be in a state of shock, but whatever Thomas meant, the writer John does not dwell on it. Instead, he explains what he expects Christians to believe about Jesus.

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31)

Since you believe, as I, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, then according to the Bible, we are children of God, and you are my sister. The Qur’an teaches that Jesus is the Christ, but Christian religious tradition has erected an unnecessary barrier of “Son of God is equivalent to God”. Thus we have put an unnecessary stumbling block before our Muslim brothers and sisters. Our traditions are not facilitating the reconciliation that Jesus desires.

And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. (John 10:16)

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

The book that Grenville continually cites in the thread wherein he proposes a harmony between the Bible and the Qur'an is published by Word Aflame Press, which is the publishing house of the United Pentecostal Church International.

Oh dear me. Grace Seeker, you are entirely incorrect. You have been reading the wrong book. No wonder you think so ill of me. The correct one is called "Brothers Kept Apart" and can be seen at BrothersKeptApart.com. You can purchase it from Amazon.com or borrow it from your local library.

Regarding the various doctrines, the fundamental one is: the Lord is One, and we are to love God with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves. Any religious belief that is supported by the Bible, I believe. Any that is not, I do not believe. It really is that simple.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Regarding Thomas’ exclamation “My Lord and my God.” The evidence is that Jesus did not correct him. The question is: Why not? There are several answers, including that there was nothing for Jesus to correct.

If Thomas was referring to God, the Father, as his Lord and God, or Jesus as his Lord and the Father as his God, then there would be nothing for Jesus to correct.

Oh, please. The text says explicitly (there's that word you are looking for) "Thomas said to him..." (John 20:28) and the antecedent to the pronoun him is the person that had just spoken to Thomas, i.e. Jesus. You are looking for a different answer in order to reject the clear and obvious one right before you if you don't see this as Thomas speaking to Jesus.

We must remember that Thomas appeared to be in a state of shock, but whatever Thomas meant, the writer John does not dwell on it. Instead, he explains what he expects Christians to believe about Jesus.

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31)

Right. John tells us that his gospel is a book full of signs. The testimony of Thomas was recorded purposefully as one of those signs. It wasn't something that John recorded as an aside, but set forth as an integral part of the church's understanding of who Jesus was and is.

Since you believe, as I, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, then according to the Bible, we are children of God, and you are my sister. The Qur’an teaches that Jesus is the Christ.

Have you checked with our Muslim brethern here on that? Actually Islam does NOT teach that Jesus is THE Christ, and no where is he referred to that way in the Qur'an. Islam teaches that Jesus is a Christ (i.e. a Messiah, but not the only person who ever had that role). And while the term "Christ" is used to refer to Jesus in some English translations it is used as a name and not to designate Jesus position as THE Christ of God. To do so would exalt Jesus above Muhammad.

but Christian religious tradition has erected an unnecessary barrier of “Son of God is equivalent to God”. Thus we have put an unnecessary stumbling block before our Muslim brothers and sisters. Our traditions are not facilitating the reconciliation that Jesus desires.

Whether it is "unnecessary" I'll let others decide. But the religious tradition that equates the terms is not something that was invented by the Church. Rather it was that held and used in common parlance in Palestine in the first century that use of the term "Son of God" was indeed equivalent to a declaration of divine status.

And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. (John 10:16)

Regards,
Grenville

Please don't tell me that you think this passage is an explicit reference to Muslims?

[doorster]

Have you checked with our Muslim brethern here on that? Actually Islam does NOT teach that Jesus is THE Christ, and no where is he referred to that way in the Qur'an. Islam teaches that Jesus is a Christ (i.e. a Messiah, but not the only person who ever had that role). And while the term "Christ" is used to refer to Jesus in some English translations it is used as a name and not to designate Jesus position as THE Christ of God. To do so would exalt Jesus above Muhammad.

tsk... tsk... tsk...

[Tony]

tsk... tsk... tsk...

rampaging elephant on the loose:D

[doorster]

^^ :) not yet (it is still afraid of banishment to land of mice)!

[Grace Seeker]

Stop going round in circles

FYI 3 > tri > trinity

Definitions of trinity on the Web:

• three: the cardinal number that is the sum of one and one and one
• the union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead
• trio: three people considered as a unit
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

You understand that the symbol > means greater than?

So you are saying that the number 3 is greater than "tri" which is greater than trinity. Is that what you mean to say?

[doorster]

You understand that the symbol > means greater than?

So you are saying that the number 3 is greater than "tri" which is greater than trinity. Is that what you mean to say?

I use it as a pointer

P.S. would you like to tutor me on correct use of symbols and a way to describe word relationships?

[Grace Seeker]

Oh dear me. Grace Seeker, you are entirely incorrect. You have been reading the wrong book. No wonder you think so ill of me. The correct one is called "Brothers Kept Apart" and can be seen at BrothersKeptApart.com. You can purchase it from Amazon.com or borrow it from your local library.
Regards,
Grenville

When I make a mistake I will admit it. And indeed I did make a mistake. There is another book by this same name that I found by a different publisher. But the one the Grenville is referring to is NOT by Word Aflame. I apologize for my error.

(Sorry, this title is still NOT in my local library.)

[Grace Seeker]

I use it as a pointer

Glad I asked. It changes the whole understanding of what you wrote.


As I understand you now, what you assert would fit some of those definitions, but would not fit the second of those definitions which specfically states:

"the union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead".

The cause of going around in circles is for someone to tell me not that they disagree with my concept with regard to God, but that they wish to change what I say my concept of God is (that God is just one) to something different than I actually believe (that there are three gods) and then tell me that I believe the latter. Until we Christians are allowed to define what we believe for ourselves, and not have someone else tell us what we mean when we speak of Trinity, we will continue to go round and round.

[Walter]

Hear Follower:

I am very sympathetic to your perspective. You appear to be a juvenile full of zeal, and that is a very good thing. I do not want to discourage you. The Bible teaches that God will give you as much wisdom as you ask Him for. Please ask for an abundance of wisdom, as I have done. I believe that you will be OK. Now to your post.

Grenville - If your heart is open to the truth all that should be needed is one statement or one action. There is the one statement yet you still do not see it. Plain and simple, you are not ready.

My acceptance comes more from the back door then a straight forward answer. The Jews wanted Jesus dead, because He was claiming to be GOD.

Either Jesus is GOD or He is a liar and nutcase. Actually I believe that literally Jesus is GOD's WORD made incarnate- I don't know how GOD did it but Jesus is GOD's WORD in the flesh. What better way to fulfill the LAW given to man then to make GOD's words come into the world as His SON, for only GOD can fufill His own LAW.

Why are you limiting your options? Why must Jesus be either God or a nutcase? Why can’t He simply be the Christ and Son of God as the Bible explicitly and repeatedly states that He is?

Your first evidence is John 19:7.

The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.” (John 19:7)

Since we both believe that Jesus is the Son of God, which is exactly how the Bible describes Him, then we are in agreement.

Your second evidence is John 5:18.

Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. (John 5:18)

The Jews made similar statements 5 chapters later:

The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” (John 10:33)

What is not in dispute is that Jesus is the Son of God. What is also not in dispute is that the Jewish religious leaders interpreted this statement to mean that Jesus was making Himself God. What is in dispute is whether the Jewish leaders’ interpretation is correct.

We should note two things.

Firstly, when the Jews accused Jesus of being God, Jesus appeared to correct them by stating “I am the Son of God”.

Secondly, examine your witnesses. You must be aware that Jesus disagreed with all but one of the Jewish leaders’ interpretations. He not only rejected their interpretations as false, but rejected them for misleading the Jewish people. Jesus’ harshest words were actually reserved for these same people whose testimony you are now offering as evidence. Remember this?

Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. (Matthew 12:34)

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? (Matthew 23:27-32)

Are you sure that you want to build a doctrine upon the foundation of the interpretations of these people whose interpretations and character Jesus severely condemned? Are you sure that you want to do that Follower?

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

When I make a mistake I will admit it. And indeed I did make a mistake. There is another book by this same name that I found by a different publisher. But the one the Grenville is referring to is NOT by Word Aflame. I apologize for my error.

(Sorry, this title is still NOT in my local library.)

Thank you GS. Please send me a link to the library, either here or via PM, and I will facilitate their getting a copy.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Grenville - please fon't forget to link to the proof that Polycarp's and Ignatuis’ writings were forgeries.

Do you also believe that Polycarp was not martyered for his belief that Jesus was GOD?

Thanks.

Dear Follower:

I have already referred you to The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff. It is a valuable a authoritative source which I would recommend to students of the Bible.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Dear Grace Seeker:

Oh, please. The text says explicitly (there's that word you are looking for) "Thomas said to him..." (John 20:28) and the antecedent to the pronoun him is the person that had just spoken to Thomas, i.e. Jesus. You are looking for a different answer in order to reject the clear and obvious one right before you if you don't see this as Thomas speaking to Jesus.

I am not disputing that Thomas was speaking to Jesus. However, it is possible that he was not referring to Jesus. For example:

When Grenville read Grace Seekers response, he said to him “My God Grace Seeker, how could you have misinterpreted the verse so completely!”.

You can either interpret the verse to mean that you are my God, or that the “My God” was an exclamation statement referring to someone else. Since you are not God, then you would have no need to object to that part of my statement.

Right. John tells us that his gospel is a book full of signs. The testimony of Thomas was recorded purposefully as one of those signs. It wasn't something that John recorded as an aside, but set forth as an integral part of the church's understanding of who Jesus was and is.

And what is the purpose of all of those signs?

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31)

Have you checked with our Muslim brethren here on that? Actually Islam does NOT teach that Jesus is THE Christ, and no where is he referred to that way in the Qur'an. Islam teaches that Jesus is a Christ (i.e. a Messiah, but not the only person who ever had that role). And while the term "Christ" is used to refer to Jesus in some English translations it is used as a name and not to designate Jesus position as THE Christ of God. To do so would exalt Jesus above Muhammad.

My concern is not so much with what Islam teaches. I believe that Islamic religious tradition has simply reacted to the Christian religious barrier of Jesus being God. Therefore, they have misinterpreted the name and role of Messiah because they want to stay as far away as possible from even the appearance of polytheism, and rightly so.

Let us not concern ourselves with what Muslims believe, or what Islam religious tradition teaches, but what Muslims are supposed to believe, which is what is stated in the Qur’an.

The Qur’an describes only one person as the Messiah or Christ, and that person is Jesus, who was born of the virgin Mary.

Whether it is "unnecessary" I'll let others decide. But the religious tradition that equates the terms is not something that was invented by the Church. Rather it was that held and used in common parlance in Palestine in the first century that use of the term "Son of God" was indeed equivalent to a declaration of divine status.

Please see my response to Follower on this issue. I agree that the term “Son of God” was interpreted to be “God”, but it was the group of Jewish religious leaders who did so, and their interpretations and character were severely condemned by Jesus.

”And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. (John 10:16)”
Please don't tell me that you think this passage is an explicit reference to Muslims?

I would say, not an exclusive reference to Muslims, but I believe that Muslims are included. Don’t you?

Regards,
Grenville

[coddles76]

NO, there is NO evidence and all evidence that is presented is either assumptions or corrupted.

Peace

[mkh4JC]

What about the beginning of Saint John?

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.

Which were born, not blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.' John 1: 1-14.

It says that in the beginning, ie before the world was formed there was the Word, and the Word was with God (the Father) and the Word was God (the Son). It says all things were made by him and nothing was made without him. It says he was in the world and the world was made by him but the world knew him not. And it also says that the Word (ie Jesus, ie God the Son) became flesh. The only way to dodge what the text says is to completely disregard it.

[malayloveislam]

@Grace Seeker

Thanks, I also don't really know about new Protestant churches in the US. That is quite a knowledge. I still can see that those churches emphasizing on Trinity. So, what is the harmony between the belief of those churches with Islamic belief although they say G-d is One but through the representation of Three elements? We refute Trinity as it is what had been stated in Quran. Still this is a nice thread, I enjoy reading your posts.

[GreyKode]

Have you checked with our Muslim brethren here on that? Actually Islam does NOT teach that Jesus is THE Christ, and no where is he referred to that way in the Qur'an. Islam teaches that Jesus is a Christ (i.e. a Messiah, but not the only person who ever had that role). And while the term "Christ" is used to refer to Jesus in some English translations it is used as a name and not to designate Jesus position as THE Christ of God.

OMG Grace, how can you lie on such an obvious issue.
In the Qur'an it clearly identifies Jesus (pbuh) as the messiah

To do so would exalt Jesus above Muhammad

Again, that's a blatant lie, all muslims believe Jesus(pbuh) is the messiah, and he will be the one who comes in the end of times, and that is mentioned in one OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD's(pbuh) HADITH.

[GreyKode]

edit

[Follower]

All- LOL! Yes I confess that I jump off topic way too many times! So sorry thanks!!

That is one thing that is very good about this forum - you stick to the topic. Many forums wander through many thoughts. I have to do a better job in restraining myself!

Grenville- me a - juvenile full of zeal, I will take that as a compliment:
Matthew 19
14Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Actually Grenville I am old and studied many different religions for short perods of time, Islam for 5 years and Christianity for 40 years.

Grenville - I am not building a doctrine but pointing out that Jewish eyewitnesses of the time believed that Jesus was saying that He was GOD. They believed it to the point of wanting Him dead.

Grenville, what exactly do you believe about Jesus?

As the Son of GOD is Jesus a mere man?

Do you believe that Jesus died on the cross as a Gift of Grace for us from GOD?

Are you saying that you believe that GOD chose Jesus a mere man to carry the weight of the world's sins and die for us on the cross?

[Follower]

OMG Grace, how can you lie on such an obvious issue.
In the Qur'an it clearly identifies Jesus (pbuh) as the messiah

Yes Greykode, but the Muslim definition of what a Messiah is, is different. Doesn't it simply mean annointed one to Muslims?

Messiah
noun 1. the promised and expected deliverer of the Jewish people.
2. Jesus Christ, regarded by Christians as fulfilling this promise and expectation. John 4:25, 26.
3. (usually lowercase) any expected deliverer.
4. (usually lowercase) a zealous leader of some cause or project.
5. (italics) an oratorio (1742) by George Frideric Handel.

[GreyKode]

and no where is he referred to that way in the Qur'an

@Follower
Do you agree with him on this?

Yes Greykode, it is the Muslim definition of what a Messiah is, that is different.

Well from my understanding, there are a few others than Jesus(pbuh) who were referred to as messiahs in the bible. Therefore messiah cannot mean saviour whose death will take away sins.

[Walter]

What about the beginning of Saint John?

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.

Which were born, not blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.' John 1: 1-14.

It says that in the beginning, ie before the world was formed there was the Word, and the Word was with God (the Father) and the Word was God (the Son). It says all things were made by him and nothing was made without him. It says he was in the world and the world was made by him but the world knew him not. And it also says that the Word (ie Jesus, ie God the Son) became flesh. The only way to dodge what the text says is to completely disregard it.

Dear Fedos:

Given the eternal consequences at stake, it is not only wrong, but bordering on evil to disregard relevant evidence. I will expand on this later.

You have mentioned the evidence contained in John. Good. Let us examine it. The following evidence is taken to mean that Jesus is referred to as the Word, who was God.

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

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

What is not in dispute is what is explicitly stated, which is that Jesus is the Word become flesh. What is in dispute is whether Jesus is God.

The evidence does not say that Jesus was God or that the Word is God as has been interpreted by Christian religious tradition. Instead the Bible explicitly states that the Word was with God, and was God in the beginning. Now, let us try to discuss this issue honestly without damaging the integrity of any of the evidence in the Bible.

Fedos, it is possible that words, before they are spoken, can be considered to be part of the person. My words not yet spoken are with me and can be said to be me. However, once spoken, they represent me, but are separate from me. If you agree, then let us see whether this explanation maintains the integrity of the evidence in the Bible.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1–2)

The unspoken Word was with God in the beginning. This unspoken Word was God.

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (John 1:3)

The unspoken Word was spoken and creation was the result. Note that God is the Creator, and all things were made by God through the Word of God. We are essentially calling the “Word of God” the Word that belongs to God and came from God - which happens to be how Jesus described Himself.

In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:4–5)

Once spoken, the Word became a separate entity with a life of His own.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

The Word, separated from God, eventually became flesh. The idea of the Word having life in Himself, and the Word becoming flesh, is consistent with other Biblical teachings.

For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. (John 5:26–27)

Is this the actual interpretation? I cannot say for certain. However, it is a plausible explanation that does not damage any of the evidence and which is consistent with other Biblical teachings. The interpretation that "Jesus was God" or that "the Word is God" damages the integrity of the verse and ancillary verses. We must remember that Paul indicated that there exists an element of uncertainty for the time being.

For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. (1 Corinthians 13:9–12)

Therefore, dogmatic (doctrinal) statements should not be made about inconclusive issues.

Best regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

OMG Grace, how can you lie on such an obvious issue.
In the Qur'an it clearly identifies Jesus (pbuh) as the messiah



Again, that's a blatant lie, all muslims believe Jesus(pbuh) is the messiah, and he will be the one who comes in the end of times, and that is mentioned in one OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD's(pbuh) HADITH.

GreyKode, I may be incorrect, but I am not lying. I'm just reporting what has been shared with me here on that point. I have talked about Jesus as THE Messiah in the past. But I have also on those occassion experiecned that many a time I have had Muslims make a strong point about how Jesus is a messiah, but that there are many messiahs mentioned in the Bible so Christians shouldn't think that he is so unique.

Also, I don't know if English is your native tongue or not. If not, you may not be aware of the difference between the use of the definite article (Jesus is THE Messiah) and indefinite article (Jesus is A messiah). I know that Islam teaches the latter, my comment to Grenville was that I have been told here that it does not teach the former.

Perhaps I have been led astray by others. Can you point me to something that teaches the correct Islamic understanding of Jesus' Messiahship?

[mkh4JC]

Dear Fedos:

Given the eternal consequences at stake, it is not only wrong, but bordering on evil to disregard relevant evidence. I will expand on this later.

I'm well aware of the eternal consequences at stake, having sinned when I first accepted Christ and falling under the discipline and judgements of an almighty God (as it is described in the book of Hebrews- 'For whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth) way back since the Summer of 2002. So you don't have to tell me what is at stake, I already know what is at stake.

You have mentioned the evidence contained in John. Good. Let us examine it. The following evidence is taken to mean that Jesus is referred to as the Word, who was God.

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

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

What is not in dispute is what is explicitly stated, which is that Jesus is the Word become flesh. What is in dispute is whether Jesus is God.

The evidence does not say that Jesus was God or that the Word is God as has been interpreted by Christian religious tradition. Instead the Bible explicitly states that the Word was with God, and was God in the beginning. Now, let us try to discuss this issue honestly without damaging the integrity of any of the evidence in the Bible.

Fedos, it is possible that words, before they are spoken, can be considered to be part of the person. My words not yet spoken are with me and can be said to be me. However, once spoken, they represent me, but are separate from me. If you agree, then let us see whether this explanation maintains the integrity of the evidence in the Bible.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1–2)

The unspoken Word was with God in the beginning. This unspoken Word was God.

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (John 1:3)

The unspoken Word was spoken and creation was the result. Note that God is the Creator, and all things were made by God through the Word of God. We are essentially calling the “Word of God” the Word that belongs to God and came from God - which happens to be how Jesus described Himself.

In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:4–5)

Once spoken, the Word became a separate entity with a life of His own.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

The Word, separated from God, eventually became flesh. The idea of the Word having life in Himself, and the Word becoming flesh, is consistent with other Biblical teachings.

For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. (John 5:26–27)

Is this the actual interpretation? I cannot say for certain. However, it is a plausible explanation that does not damage any of the evidence and which is consistent with other Biblical teachings. The interpretation that "Jesus was God" or that "the Word is God" damages the integrity of the verse and ancillary verses. We must remember that Paul indicated that there exists an element of uncertainty for the time being.

So you basically agree that Jesus is the Word of God and that he is the Son of God but you just disagree that he is God? You ask is this the interpretation, let me ask you, why would God give authority to execute judgement on mankind to a mere man? Isn't it God's job to judge us?

[Walter]

Hi Follower:

Grenville, what exactly do you believe about Jesus?

As the Son of GOD is Jesus a mere man?

Do you believe that Jesus died on the cross as a Gift of Grace for us from GOD?

Are you saying that you believe that GOD chose Jesus a mere man to carry the weight of the world's sins and die for us on the cross?

I believe that Jesus is exactly who the Bible describes Him to be. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and the Word of God. Therefore, He was not a “mere man”.

Jesus was sent as the Messiah to pay the penalty for our sins by being the sacrificial lamb of God on the cross. By receiving this gift of salvation, we can become God’s children (but not gods), and cultivate a personal relationship with God our heavenly Father, who is repeatedly and explicitly described in the Bible as the God of Jesus.

Perhaps you can explain why you believe that it is so necessary for Jesus to be God.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Dear Fedos:

So you basically agree that Jesus is the Word of God and that he is the Son of God but you just disagree that he is God? You ask is this the interpretation, let me ask you, why would God give authority to execute judgement on mankind to a mere man? Isn't it God's job to judge us?

It is not about with what I happen to agree or disagree; but rather, with what is explicitly stated in the Bible.

Does the Bible state that Jesus was a mere man? Of course not. Jesus is described as being born of a virgin, and being the Word of God. Clearly Jesus was not a mere man.

Is it God's job to judge us? Yes. And God has delegated that authority to Jesus. Is it God's job to warn before the judgment? Yes, and God has used prophets to carry out His instructions. Therefore, delegating authority to Jesus is not such a far fetched idea.

Regards,
Grenville.

[Walter]

Yes Greykode, but the Muslim definition of what a Messiah is, is different. Doesn't it simply mean annointed one to Muslims?

GreyKode, I may be incorrect, but I am not lying. I'm just reporting what has been shared with me here on that point. I have talked about Jesus as THE Messiah in the past. But I have also on those occassion experiecned that many a time I have had Muslims make a strong point about how Jesus is a messiah, but that there are many messiahs mentioned in the Bible so Christians shouldn't think that he is so unique.

Also, I don't know if English is your native tongue or not. If not, you may not be aware of the difference between the use of the definite article (Jesus is THE Messiah) and indefinite article (Jesus is A messiah). I know that Islam teaches the latter, my comment to Grenville was that I have been told here that it does not teach the former.

Perhaps I have been led astray by others. Can you point me to something that teaches the correct Islamic understanding of Jesus' Messiahship?

Jesus is the only person described in the Qur’an as the Christ or Messiah. I can understand why some Islamic traditions would try and redefine the term Messiah in reaction to the unnecessary Christian religious traditional barrier of equating Jesus the Christ with God. However, the evidence should come from the Qur’an.

Regards,
Grenville

[Follower]

Greykode - @Follower
Do you agree with him on this?

Here is where the problem begins. You don't know. Does the Quran fully explain it? Muslim looks to tasfir for explanation. Look at what the Quran says to do:

010.094
YUSUFALI: If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.

The following show Jesus to be more then just annointed.

John 18
36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

Which kingdom is greater, a kingdom of this world or the Kingdom of GOD?

Daniel 9
24Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

25Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Jeremiah 23

5 "The days are coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch,
a King who will reign wisely
and do what is just and right in the land.

6 In his days Judah will be saved
and Israel will live in safety.
This is the name by which he will be called:
The LORD Our Righteousness.

[Follower]

Grenville - I believe that Jesus is exactly who the Bible describes Him to be. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and the Word of God. Therefore, He was not a “mere man”.

Yes I believe too that Jesus is GOD's WORD made flesh.


Jesus was sent as the Messiah to pay the penalty for our sins by being the sacrificial lamb of God on the cross. By receiving this gift of salvation, we can become God’s children (but not gods), and cultivate a personal relationship with God our heavenly Father, who is repeatedly and explicitly described in the Bible as the God of Jesus.

Yes I agree.

Perhaps you can explain why you believe that it is so necessary for Jesus to be God.

I am that curious juvenile wanting to know all of Jesus!! Wantng to understand Jesus and GOD as much as I can. Jesus is not mere man and not GOD- then what is He?

Man labels things it is in our nature- look at the 99 names Islam has used to describe Allah's attributes.

What is this amazing and unique [even in the Quran!] Jesus?

[Grace Seeker]

Hi Follower:

I believe that Jesus is exactly who the Bible describes Him to be. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and the Word of God.

I find it incredible that you can say some of these things and NOT see that the Bible also presents Jesus as God. For instance, the Bible doesn't actually explicitly say: "Jesus is the Word of God." That is an inference you draw, correctly I believe, from the text. If you are only going to believe what the Bible explicitly says, you would not believe that Jesus is the Word of God. However, you do because John 1 and other passages present him that way. In the same way, I believe that one can also infer that Jesus is himself God from those same passages. You may have chosen not to, but in my view the evidence for Jesus' divinity is every bit as well founded as the inference that Jesus is the Word of God. So, please, quit saying that I am reading into the text as if to imply that you do not. You do every bit as much as I if you are going to say that Jesus is the Word of God.

[Grace Seeker]

Grenville, may I ask a question of you regarding your belief in Jesus as the Word of God and/or the Son of God? Was it Jesus, the Word of God, the Son of God, the Son, the Christ, or just plain God (not thought of as in any of the previously mentioned ways) who created the world? (Reference John 1:3, Colossians 1:16.)

I guess I'm asking who made the heavens, the earth, the sea?




Also, from your perspective, and based on only what you believe the Bible explicitly teaches, and nothing else, is it permissable, questionable, or impermissable to worship Jesus? Are we only to worship God (allowing for a moment your assumption that Jesus is not God) or might you worship Jesus for some other reason(s)?

[Oleander]

Isn't everything exist on earth and heaven is the word of God?

If we look at the first book of the Bible, we see God creation done by his word "Be", and it was.

Jesus is the word of God so you and I, the mountain, the water, the stars.

If you are not the word of God, then who made you?

[Grace Seeker]

If you are not the word of God, then who made you?

I suspect that there is a difference between being made by the word of God and being the word of God.

But I am particularly interested in Grenville's answer to the question I posed: "who made the heavens, the earth, the sea?" and the other quesitons I posed him. I await a reply.

[Walter]

I am that curious juvenile wanting to know all of Jesus!! Wantng to understand Jesus and GOD as much as I can. Jesus is not mere man and not GOD- then what is He?

Dear Follower:

You have graduated. It is mark of maturity to acknowledge when there is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion. When that level of enlightenment is clear to you, then we can engage in mature discussion in order to find the truth, rather than engage in contentious debates in order to defend our views.

Who is Jesus? As we examine the evidence and seek the answer, let us be careful not to damage the integrity of any evidence.

Regards,
Grenville

[Zafran]

Also, I don't know if English is your native tongue or not. If not, you may not be aware of the difference between the use of the definite article (Jesus is THE Messiah) and indefinite article (Jesus is A messiah).

the only person that is called the Messiah or anoited one is Jesus/Isa pbuh the son of mary in the Quran and Islamic tradition - although i'm sure the understanding of messiah of christainty and Islam is different.

[Walter]

Grenville, may I ask a question of you regarding your belief in Jesus as the Word of God and/or the Son of God? Was it Jesus, the Word of God, the Son of God, the Son, the Christ, or just plain God (not thought of as in any of the previously mentioned ways) who created the world? (Reference John 1:3, Colossians 1:16.)

I guess I'm asking who made the heavens, the earth, the sea?

Dear Grace Seeker:

Once we go beyond what is explicitly taught in the Bible, then we can enter into speculative opinion. However, our speculative ideas should not damage the integrity of any Biblical verses. If we uncover a second and distinct explanation to interpret the evidence, then all we have done is to reveal a second interpretation.

You asked me who made the heavens and the earth. Well, we must try to answer while maintaining the integrity of every verse in the Bible. The Bible states that “the worlds were formed by the Word of God”. Therefore, it would appear that God made the world and all creation by the Word of God.

Also, from your perspective, and based on only what you believe the Bible explicitly teaches, and nothing else, is it permissable, questionable, or impermissable to worship Jesus? Are we only to worship God (allowing for a moment your assumption that Jesus is not God) or might you worship Jesus for some other reason(s)?

Regarding worshipping Jesus, let us see what Jesus required.

For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. (John 5: 22-23)

So Jesus said that we are to Honor Him. The problem is that Christian religious tradition has assumed that “honor” should be equated with “worship”. However, in seeking to verify this assumption, we note the following.

If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honour. (John 12:26)

What does this word Honor mean? It means to value highly. Therefore, we are to highly value Jesus, and God will highly value us.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

So, I want to restate what I've heard you say, just to be sure that I understand you correctly:

1) You would affirm that God created the world and all that is in it. You would even allow that he did so by utilizing the Word of God as an instrument of that creation (and you identify Jesus as that Word of God in the flesh) but still one must distinguish between the Word of God as the instrument of God's agency and God himself was the actual author of creation.

2) I also understand, based on what you have posted above, that you believe Jesus is to be honored, but that he is not God and that only God is to be worshipped.

Do I understand your position correctly?

If not, please, make modifications to or amend my statements till they properly reflect your beliefs.

[Walter]

Dear Grace Seeker:

As I have written repeatedly, I believe exactly what is stated in the Bible. If you are asking me to provide an interpretation to what is not explicitly stated, then I can give you my opinion.

I hold tightly to what is explicitly stated in the Bible. However, I do not hold on too tightly to what is not explicitly stated because I acknowledge that I am not perfect, and that my interpretations may not be accurate.

I am happy to defend my opinions on which there is little scriptural support. However, if I am found to have misinterpreted some extra-Biblical evidence, then I will not be embarrassed, because there is no debate to be won or lost with such inconsequential opinions. I will merely have been enlightened and will happily adopt a better interpretation of the evidence. Not so with explicit doctrinal teachings.

Now on to your questions.

So, I want to restate what I've heard you say, just to be sure that I understand you correctly:

1) You would affirm that God created the world and all that is in it.

Yes. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1)

You would even allow that he did so by utilizing the Word of God as an instrument of that creation (and you identify Jesus as that Word of God in the flesh) but still one must distinguish between the Word of God as the instrument of God's agency and God himself was the actual author of creation.

Yes. “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God” Hebrews 11:3a

2) I also understand, based on what you have posted above, that you believe Jesus is to be honored.

Yes. Why? Because that is exactly how Jesus Himself explicitly stated that He wanted to be treated. I am simply obeying Him.

but that he is not God

There appears to be insufficient evidence from the Bible to conclude that Jesus is God. I have invited all to provide whatever evidence exists, and I will happily examine them all.

and that only God is to be worshipped.

Yes. "Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’” (Matthew 4:10)

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Great!! I just wanted to be sure that I properly understood what you were saying.

May I also ask how you understand Colossian 1:15-20, to whom do the pronouns "he" and "him" refer in this passage?

Colossians 1

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

[Walter]

Hi Grace Seeker:

Before we examine this verse, let us understand that this is Paul’s interpretation of the evidence. With that, let us proceed with Collosians 1.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

This could be Adam or the Word of God. A review of the context will show that it is the Word.

16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

We have already established that God created through His Word.

17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

God gave His word several privileges, eg, to have life in Himself, and to rule.

19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

Now, what does this mean? Christian religious tradition has interpreted this verse for over 1,800 years to mean that Jesus is God. Therefore, since we are reviewing a long helf belief, we need to examine this passage carefully.

The passage is clarified by the same Paul in 2 Corinthians.

Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. (2 Corinthians 5:18–20)

Jesus also clarified that the Father was working in Him and through Him.

Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. (John 14:10–11)

So God was in Christ in order that a specific task should be accomplished, that of reconciling the world to Himself. The assumption made was that if God dwells in or fills someone to accomplish a task, then that person becomes or is God. In seeking to verify this assumption, we note that Jesus prayed that believers would be One with the Father, as Jesus was also One with the Father, in order that specific tasks could be accomplished.

Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. (John 17:11)

I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. (John 17:20–21)

The Bible records that God filled other persons to accomplish specific tasks; however, they were not God.

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: “See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, to design artistic works, to work in gold, in silver, in bronze, in cutting jewels for setting, in carving wood, and to work in all manner of workmanship. (Exodus 31:1–5)

But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God.” (Luke 1:13–16)

Therefore, God filling and working through someone is not evidence of that person being God.

Regards,
Grenville

[Follower]

Yes, this is obviously about Jesus- the WORD incarnate. No mere man can be the invisible image of GOD whether in-filled with the Holy Spirit or not. They are a sinful creature and Jesus is the only sinless one.

These verses are not talking about the physical body of Jesus but, the soul/spirit, the being that makes up the substance of who Jesus is.

Actions speak louder then words, but only because we are sinful creatures. We say one thing but do another and so our words convict us of empty promises.

Look at the power of human words. They can stab the heart or cause pure joy. If someone steals our words it is plagiarism. Our words can stay on the scene long after we are gone. Our words can be windows into our souls.

Words are who we are.

[Walter]

Hi Everyone:

Since we appear to have exhausted all of the evidence that is used to support the idea that Jesus is God, we shall now examine the evidence in the Bible that explicitly shows that Jesus is not God. I posted this on another thread, but it is relevant evidence for this post also.

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.

Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 20-28)

So Jesus has been given authority, by God, to do much. But even He is subject to God who gave Him this authority.

Regards,
Grenville

[malayloveislam]

Peace everyone,

LOL, Islamic teaching do regard all prophets as sinless. Just to share this with Christian friends as I don't want to interrupt your discussions or arguing about who is right or who is wrong. I think that it is still in the right topic but a bit off topic for traditional Pauline Christianity because Pauline Christianity is according to Paul and Church Father's interpretation of the teaching of Jesus regarding the divinity of the people who are sinless.

If Jesus is sinless because he is G-d, then we Muslims would long worship all the prophets including Muhammad as G-d because he is considered as sinless in Islam too. But, we never take any prophets including Muhammad as G-d or Divine which equates them to G-d or His incarnations because it will lead us to Polytheism, we have to stick with strict Monotheism that Abraham was revealed with. G-d represents Himself as G-d, not in any other form. In addition, those prophets including Jesus (according to Islamic teaching) are just humans but protected from sins by G-d.

In Islam, 25 main prophets from Adam to Muhammad, including the persons whose name transliterated in Westerners languages from Greek as Jesus and Moses are all sinless, they sometimes committing errors too as they are human-being, but those errors are not counted as sins by G-d. That is the meaning of ma3soum in Arabic and only prophets or His messengers are Ma3soum. Ma3soum is from the word al-3ismatu means protected (from sins).

G-d will remind them through revelation about the minor errors that happened as in the meaning of educating them and they became our examples today. G-d is the One who educates all the prophets through His revelations. That is the difference between chosen human-being who are the prophets or G-d messengers and ordinary human-being like us in Islam.

This is covered in our third of Six Basic Pillars of Creed, believing in prophets and messengers of G-d from Adam to Muhammad. Believing G-d is the first, believing angels the second and there are uncountable of them created by Holy G-d everyday worshiping and obeying Him in the whole Universe but at least 10 of them we should know, who are Gabriel, Mikhail, Zabaniah, Israfil, Ridhwan, Malik and etc. Then comes to prophets and messengers of G-d, thousands of them according to millenium, but at least 25 of the main God messengers we should know. If we reject one of them including Jesus, we are no more Muslim because they brought the same teaching, I guess this is what Pauline Christians in the West confused with. Believing prophets until Jesus, then we will become Christians, believing prophets and stop at Moses, then we become Jews not Muslim because we Muslim believe and accepting Muhammad prophethood and as the conclusion of the teaching of Monotheism in the period near dooms day. It is a must for us to honor Muhammad and Abraham both in our daily prayers.

With Love

[Walter]

Hi MalayLoveIslam:

Is there any support in the Qur'an of the Islamic religious tradition that God’s prophets are sinless as you describe?

Regards,
Grenville

[malayloveislam]

There are two proofs that prophets and G-d messengers are sinless in Islam:

1) Logical sense that they are sinless

First

Logically, those prophets should be protected from evil acts as their main purpose being ordained by G-d as prophets and G-d messengers is to guide the whole man-kind and also facilitating them to the truth with the tasks under the order of G-d. In fact, the prophets are the ambassadors of G-d to human-being in certain period and millenium to the whole man-kind. G-d always ordaining prophets and sending messengers to correct human-being when they astrayed from the straight path as the sign of His Mercy.

If they are inconsistent with their task in spreading the guidance of the straight path, or not practicing the teaching from the revelation, or opposing their own words based from revelation, other human-being too will evaluate them as not practicing what they preached. As the result, there will be no one who believe in their preach anymore as there is no integrity. The mission will be impossible and incomplete as the task had not been fully delivered.

As to say, the wisdom and blessings of G-d claimed the prophets and G-d messengers to be protected from the sin. It is impossible evil acts coming out from them and they are clean from any sin. They might be careless in certain time or sometimes forgetful but evil acts that may commit sins shall not come out from them. G-d will immediately remind them of their forgetfulness and carelessness and they will quickly seeking forgiveness although they are protected from sins. If they are not protected by G-d from sins, human-being will make assumptions that the prophets too are sinful because they sometimes forget and might be careless in certain time. However they are not the same as ordinary human-being, they are chosen people.

Second

Beside ordained as the messengers of G-d in charge of spreading the contents of revelation and the message of G-d to human-being beside facilitating them to the straight path, prophets and G-d messengers too had been ordained to educate and purifying humans' soul to the highest polished morality stage.

It means that beside teaching and guiding human-being, the prophets had other important tasks, which is to lead and to wholly educate them. The prophets are usually from noble clan and families respected by certain community. They are seen as people with high morality. The highest status that they possess will never be achieved by ordinary people as they are only achieved by people with the highest perfection in their characteristics. They are perfect and flawless in characteristics. The attitude and the manner of an educator is more influential than speeches in morality development process. If we found flaws in prophets characteristics such as in their acts or speeches then, it will be meaningless anymore.

The main purpose of G-d ordained prophets and messengers to lead and educating human-being will be wholly accomplished when they are sinless and protected from sin, free from evil acts and deviation.

2. Proofs from revelation about prophets are sinless

Quran is using the term al-Mukhlas to certain individuals when they are not influenced by any whisper of satan. Devil had sworn to make the children of Adam (humans) falling into sin and dragging human-being into the Hell with him after he was accursed by G-d due to his jealousy. But the people who are mukhlas will never be deceived.

G-d says in Quran:

82. (Iblis) said:"Then, by Thy Power, I will put them all in the wrong."

83. "Except Thy servants amongst them, sincere, and purified (by Thy Grace)."

(The meaning of Surah Saad, by Abdullah Yusuf Ali).

Al-Mukhlas in the meaning of Quran is translated as sincere and pure heart.

It is interpreted as the reason for satans (the followers of Devil) losing hope in deceiving the mukhlas person is because they are pure hearted and protected from sins and evil acts. If they are not pure, the foes will certainly taking advantages to deceive them. And if they are deceivable, the satans will never leave any minutes to discard them from practicing good moralities. Al-Mukhlas is identical to the meaning of Ma3soum. Although, there is no specific argumentation about the al-Mukhlas is the characteristic only for prophets in Quran, but it is undoubtedly that it is the characteristic hold by them.

Al-Quran too had tagged some prophets with the mukhlas characteristic, and of course all of the prophets are equal to each other in Islam:

45. And commemorate Our servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob possessors of Power and Vision.

46. Verily we did choose them for a special (purpose)- proclaiming the message of the Hereafter.

(The meaning of Surah Saad by Abdullah Yusuf Ali)

51. "And mentioned in the scripture (Quran), about Moses. Indeed he is a mukhlas (sincere) messenger and a prophet."

(the meaning of Surah Maryam)

24. And (with passion) did she (the wife of Egyptian king) desire him (Joseph), and he would have desired her, but that he saw evidence of His Lord: thus (did We order) that We might turn away from him (all) evil and shameful deeds: for he was one of Our servants, sincere and purified."

(The meaning of Surah Yusuf by Abdullah Yusuf Ali)

Secondly, is that we have to obey the teaching of prophets and it is obligatory for the whole human-being to obey the prophets as they recited revelation from G-d:

64. We sent not a messenger , but to be obeyed in accordance with the Will of G-d. If they had only, when they are unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked G-d's forgiveness, and the messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found G-d indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful.

(The meaning of Surah an-Nisaa by Abdullah Yusuf Ali)

The obeisance toward the teaching of prophet will only happened if the prophet obeying the Holy G-d and it is in turn that the obeisance of toward the prophets is not denying the obeisance toward G-d. The order to obey G-d and prophets will be opposing the people who commit sins and deviation.

Thirdly, al-Quran had specified the position of G-d to those who are not committing any tyranny acts toward themselves. G-d said when replying to prophet Abraham's prayer about the position of his descendants leadership in religion, "My promise will cover the people who commit tyranny over themselves."

We know that evil and shameful acts are actually a tyranny toward the individual himself. The people who commit evil and shameful acts are referred as the people who had tyrannizing themselves in Quran. Thus, the prophets and G-d messengers are the people with special position in the G-d's view with prophethood and order of spreading the message of G-d, so they should be clean from any tyranny and evil acts.

This is what I can explain, from my limited knowledge. I'm sorry for my bad English, I had tried to use simple structure of sentences because I have to rephrase sentences from my native language in English.

With Love

[Grace Seeker]

Hi Everyone:

Since we appear to have exhausted all of the evidence that is used to support the idea that Jesus is God....

The operative word is "appear". We have hardly exhausted it. I for one sometimes get busy with other things and LI takes a back seat, but we have just begun to scratch the surface of your title question. So, don't read into quietness either exhaustion or lack of interest.

Also, why are you going to clutter your own thread with stuff that is different than the thread's title?

Now as with regards this thread, I thought you might have better answers to some of the questions that have been asked:

Grace Seeker: "May I also ask how you understand Colossian 1:15-20, to whom do the pronouns 'he' and 'him' refer in this passage?"

Grenville: "This could be Adam or the Word of God. A review of the context will show that it is the Word."

Grenville also said: "God filling and working through someone is not evidence of that person being God."


Notice that the second statement doesn't actually address the question. It makes a statement, but it doesn't speak to the issue of the antecedents to the terms that were asked about. It moves on to interpretation of the passage without looking closely enough at the text to have discerned what the text is actually talking about.


With regard to the suggestion that the terms "he" and "him" might refer to Adam, that is untenable as Adam is never mentioned in the entire letter to the Colossians. It is also highly unlikely that it could refer to "the word of God" either as that particular phrase is mentioned on once in the entire letter, and not until after the passage in question. Hence the phrase "the word of God" (Colossians 1:25) could not be the antecedent for the pronouns that are used prior to it (in Colossians 1:15-20).

The best antecedent for the pronounes "he" and "him" (Colossians 1:15-20) is to be found by looking to the verses immediately preceeding where the pronouns are used. In this case we find the antecedent te be "the Son" mentioned in Colossians 1:13. Hence, substituting the noun for the pronoun, we could quite properly read Colossians 1:15-20 as follows:

15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by the Son all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by the Son and for the Son. 17The Son is before all things, and in the Son all things hold together. 18And the Son is the head of the body, the church; the Son is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything the Son might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son, 20and through the Son to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

In other words, it is not some nebulous concept, but the person of the Son who does all of this.

[Follower]

Grenville - there are also the actions of the disciples as Biblical evidence that show they believed Jesus to worthy of worship.

[Walter]

2. Proofs from revelation about prophets are sinless

G-d says in Quran:

82. (Iblis) said:"Then, by Thy Power, I will put them all in the wrong."

83. "Except Thy servants amongst them, sincere, and purified (by Thy Grace)."

Dear Malayloveislam:

You quoted: "Except Thy servants amongst them, sincere, and purified (by Thy Grace)."

Please note that if they are purified, then there must have been a time when they were in a state to need to be purified. Many of God’s prophets in the Old Testament had made major mistakes.

Moses disobeyed God and was not permitted to enter the promised land. The prophet that went from Judah to Bethel disobeyed God and ate in Bethel and was killed by a lion. Jonah disobeyed God and ran from his assignment. Job complained. David committed adultery and murdered the woman’s husband.

According to the Bible, only Jesus was sinless.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Grenville - there are also the actions of the disciples as Biblical evidence that show they believed Jesus to worthy of worship.

Hi Follower:

I dealt with this in another thread.

Given that the Greek word for worship has a range of meanings, including to: kiss, faun, crouch, prostrate, reverence, and adore, we need to examine the context of each usage. Let us examine some evidence.

When satan wanted Jesus to worship him, he prefixed “fall down” to worship so that there would be no doubt as to the intent. Jesus replied that only God should receive this type of worship and did not include Himself as a recipient. If He had, then we would probably not be having this discussion.

We should note that even when the action of falling down is prefixed to worship, it still may not indicate actual worship. Please note Jesus’ parable of the unforgiving servant.

The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. (Matthew 18:26)

I do not believe that Jesus was stating that the servant was worshipping his master as we should worship God. Therefore, we may agree that there are some challenges with making conclusive statements on this issue. Let us continue with some explicit evidence.

In John’s account of Jesus with the woman at the well, Jesus clarified that the Father should be worshipped, and again, did not include Himself as a possible recipient.

After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Jesus’ disciples only talked about worshipping God, not Jesus in their letters.

Therefore, while we have no conclusive evidence that Jesus should be worshipped, we do have explicit evidence that God alone should be worshipped.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

In other words, it is not some nebulous concept, but the person of the Son who does all of this.

OK Grace Seeker:

Since we are into the realm of speculative opinion, when do you think that “the Word became Flesh”? Was it at Jesus’ birth, or some time earlier of later?

Regards,
Grenville

[ragdollcat1982]

One should look at the book of 1 John 5:7

1 John 5:7 (King James Version)

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.



and here is the Arabic translation


5:7 (Arabic Life Application Bible)

7 فَإِنَّ هُنَالِكَ ثَلاَثَةَ شُهُودٍ غفِي السَّمَاءِ، الآبُ وَالْكَلِمَةُ وَالرُّوحُ الْقُدُسُ، وَهَؤُلاءِ الثَّلاَثَةُ هُمْ وَاحِدٌف


I got both translations off of Biblegateway.com that has an online version of the Bible in numerous languages. For those who speak or read Arabic and just want to view for comparative study purposes it can be helpful

[Walter]

One should look at the book of 1 John 5:7

1 John 5:7 (King James Version)

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Dear Ragdollcat:

Thank you for that useful post. Let us rigorously examine the verse, for Truth should be able to withstand rigorous scrutiny.

John appears to identify the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost as one.

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. (1 John 5:7–8)

The following footnote to this passage in the New King James Version of the Bible states that, the portion of text underlined above is not contained in earlier Biblical manuscripts: “NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (verse 7) through on earth (verse 8). Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek.”

Ragdollcat, doctrines should be based on explicit and authentic verses that are not vulnerable to misinterpretation. Therefore, since there is some uncertainty with these verses, the underlined section of this passage should not be used for supporting or establishing Doctrines.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

OK Grace Seeker:

Since we are into the realm of speculative opinion, when do you think that “the Word became Flesh”? Was it at Jesus’ birth, or some time earlier of later?

Regards,
Grenville

At the moment that Jesus was conceived within Mary's womb.


And prior to that the Word was the one who made all things: the heavens, the earth, the sea, even the springs of water, the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, deserts and lakes and forests and you and me.

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Reading the whole of the text up to that point the antecedent for the pronoun "him" in this passage is "the Word".

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

[ragdollcat1982]

Ragdollcat, doctrines should be based on explicit and authentic verses that are not vulnerable to misinterpretation. Therefore, since there is some uncertainty with these verses, the underlined section of this passage should not be used for supporting or establishing Doctrines.

Regards,
Grenville

That of course is your prerogative Grenville. I have met a few Christians who claim that Jesus was not God,but a created being yet still the Son of God. Muslims of course believe Jesus to be a prophet, not the Son of God or God incarnate. They of course are not bound by Chrisitan belief and doctrine.In John 10:30 Jesus says that he and the Father are one. It seems pretty clear to myself and many other Christians that Jesus is saying that he is God in the Flesh. To not believe it would make Christianity a polythesitic religion not monothesitic.

[ragdollcat1982]

At the moment that Jesus was conceived within Mary's womb.

I agree with you 100%.

[Walter]

That of course is your prerogative Grenville. I have met a few Christians who claim that Jesus was not God,but a created being yet still the Son of God. Muslims of course believe Jesus to be a prophet, not the Son of God or God incarnate. They of course are not bound by Chrisitan belief and doctrine.In John 10:30 Jesus says that he and the Father are one. It seems pretty clear to myself and many other Christians that Jesus is saying that he is God in the Flesh. To not believe it would make Christianity a polythesitic religion not monothesitic.

Hi Ragdollcat:

Christians and Muslims believe various things. Our concern should be with what we are supposed to believe. Christians are supposed to believe the Bible and Muslims are supposed to believe the Qur’an. Both the Bible and the Qur'an explicitly state that Jesus is the Messiah.

Regarding the evidence that you have provided about Jesus being one with God, let us examine the context before drawing a conclusion.

“I and My Father are one.” Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (John 10:30–36)

The Jews interpreted Jesus’ statement “I and my Father are one” to mean that Jesus was making Himself God. However, Jesus appeared to correct them by stating “I said, I am the Son of God”.

The assumption made is that Jesus being one with the Father means that Jesus is God. In seeking to verify this assumption, we note Jesus’ prayer for future believers.

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. (John 17:20–23)

So Jesus prays that all believers may be one with the Father, just as He and the Father are one. The original Greek word used for one (hĕis) in Jesus’ statement “I and the Father are one [hĕis]”, is the same word used when Jesus prayed that His disciples may be “one [hĕis] in us”. Since believers are not meant to become gods through becoming one with the Father, then Jesus being one with the Father is not sufficient evidence that Jesus is God.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Hi Everyone:

New evidence was proposed in the sister thread which shall be examined below.

The following evidence is taken to mean that Jesus is referred to as God.

But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.” (Hebrews 1:8)

This is a quotation from the Psalms, which reads:

Verse 6: Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

Verse 7: You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions. (Psalms 45:6–7)

Christian religious tradition identifies Jesus as the subject of “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever”. However, this interpretation leads to confusion later where it states: “Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You”. Who is the God of God?

The integrity of the verses is maintained by assuming that verse 6 is a preamble to verse 7, and that the first part of verse 6 is addressed to God, while verse 7 is addressed to the Son. In seeking to verify this assumption, we note that in the Psalms, the writers normally switch between the first, second and third person without warning. In Psalm 46, which follows the one above, we would not interpret the person who states: “The LORD of hosts is with us” to be God who states: “Be still, and know that I am God”. I have bolded where the switches appear to occur.

Come, behold the works of the LORD,
Who has made desolations in the earth.
He makes wars cease to the end of the earth;
He breaks the bow and cuts the spear in two;
He burns the chariot in the fire.
Be still, and know that I am God;
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth!
The LORD of hosts is with us;
The God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah (Psalms 46:8–11)

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker:
"At the moment that Jesus was conceived within Mary's womb."

I agree with you 100%.

So do I. That is why it is reasonable to assume that before the Word was made flesh, the Word was used by God to, inter alia, create.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Grenville, I believe the testimony that Jesus is presented in the scriptures as God is right before you in your last few posts. Look at them again will you. Jesus is not challenging the Jews' assumption that he has claimed to be God, he is asking why they should accuse him of blasphemy for doing so? After all, it's only blasphemy if he isn't God.

The use of the Psalms by the writer of Hebrews again points to, not away from, Jesus being presented as God.

And as you have declared that it was by the Word that all things were created, the surely Revelation 14:9 "Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water" tells us that we are to worship him.

And there can be no doubt that in Acts 2:36 -- "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." -- Peter is declaring that Jesus is the Lord that David was addressing in Psalm 110. Indeed in verse 39 Peter goes on speak with so much identified of the Lord with God that he uses the terms together saying that the promised forgiveness of sins (something that only God can actually grant) is available to those who are baptized into Jesus name and is for "all whom the Lord our God will call."

[Walter]

OK Grace Seeker, let us respond to each of your assertions.

Grenville, I believe the testimony that Jesus is presented in the scriptures as God is right before you in your last few posts. Look at them again will you. Jesus is not challenging the Jews' assumption that he has claimed to be God, he is asking why they should accuse him of blasphemy for doing so? After all, it's only blasphemy if he isn't God.

Please note that Jesus does not repeat their accusation. They accuse Him of being God, Jesus responds by explicitly (and repeatedly throughout the Gospels) stating: “I am the Son of God.” Jesus NEVER agreed with the Jewish religious leaders when they accused Him of being God.

The use of the Psalms by the writer of Hebrews again points to, not away from, Jesus being presented as God.

Did you not read the interpretation which I provided? What part of it do you not understand or do you disagree?

And as you have declared that it was by the Word that all things were created, the surely Revelation 14:9 "Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water" tells us that we are to worship him.

I believe that you meant Rev 14:7. Let me quote it in its context.

Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people. He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water." (Revelation 14:6-7)

Clearly, the angel is directing people to worship God, not Jesus. We agreed that God made the world by or using His Word. His Word may be the first thing that God gave life to.

For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. (John 5:26-27)

Are you advocating that we worship God the Creator, or the instrument that God used to create?

And there can be no doubt that in Acts 2:36 -- "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." -- Peter is declaring that Jesus is the Lord that David was addressing in Psalm 110. Indeed in verse 39 Peter goes on speak with so much identified of the Lord with God that he uses the terms together saying that the promised forgiveness of sins (something that only God can actually grant) is available to those who are baptized into Jesus name and is for "all whom the Lord our God will call."

You have made the unverified assumption that Jesus being called Lord means that Jesus is God. The Scriptures are clear that God made Jesus Lord, not God. You have actually quoted such, but have interpreted Lord as God. Let us put the verse in its context.

This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:
‘ The LORD said to my Lord,
“ Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:32-36)

Please note the following:
1. God is identified as the Father.

2. A reasonable interpretation is that David said that God (The LORD) said to Jesus (my Lord) … and the Scriptures state that Jesus is seated at the right hand of God.

3. God made Jesus Lord.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Did you not read the interpretation which I provided? What part of it do you not understand or do you disagree?

I disagree with your entire interpretation.




Read what you yourself have quoted.

For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. (John 5:26-27)

Are you advocating that we worship God the Creator, or the instrument that God used to create?

They are one and the same being. That's the whole point. Remember, the Word was God (John 1:1).

You have made the unverified assumption that Jesus being called Lord means that Jesus is God.

Indeed I have. And again it seems to me that this was exactlly Peter's point. Jesus is Lord. Not just a lord, but THE LORD.

2. A reasonable interpretation is that David said that God (The LORD) said to Jesus (my Lord) … and the Scriptures state that Jesus is seated at the right hand of God.

A reasonable interpretation would NOT include the idea that God even has a right hand. That is metaphorical language.

[Great I am not]

Mark 10 v 18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

This seems to indicate that Jesus himself is saying that he is not God.

Regards
DL

[Grace Seeker]

Mark 10 v 18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

This seems to indicate that Jesus himself is saying that he is not God.

Regards
DL

Some have argued such, but I suggest you misunderstand it if that is how you read it.

Just as, when properly understood, Sura 5:51 "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk." doesn't really mean that Muslims can't be friends with Jews and Christians; so too, when properly understood, Mark 10:18 is not evidence of Jesus saying that he is not God.

[alcurad]

^for the record, it doesn't mean friends.

[Great I am not]

Some have argued such, but I suggest you misunderstand it if that is how you read it.

Just as, when properly understood, Sura 5:51 "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk." doesn't really mean that Muslims can't be friends with Jews and Christians; so too, when properly understood, Mark 10:18 is not evidence of Jesus saying that he is not God.

I do not take scripture particularly literally either but in this case regardless of the vagaries of translation from the older languages, we have a direct comparison in the same verse so the translation can be in question of the word good, but the direct comparison that Jesus makes between himself and God cannot. He is clearly saying that God and himself are not the same.

Believe what you want of course but this logic is sound.

If you will not believe what the Bible says then do not ask for Biblcal evidence if no Biblical text is, to you, evidence.

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

If Jesus were God, who was he talking to on the cross when he asked--why have you forsaken me. Was he asking the question of himself? No. He was clearly asking a separate entity. God.

Regards
DL

[Follower]

Greatest I am - you are forgetting that Jesus was GOD and fully human. The body of a human that felt pain and hunger, but being of the very same substance of GOD.

In no way was all of the omnipresent GOD in the human body of Jesus.

[Grace Seeker]

I do not take scripture particularly literally either but in this case regardless of the vagaries of translation from the older languages, we have a direct comparison in the same verse so the translation can be in question of the word good, but the direct comparison that Jesus makes between himself and God cannot. He is clearly saying that God and himself are not the same.

Believe what you want of course but this logic is sound.

If you will not believe what the Bible says then do not ask for Biblcal evidence if no Biblical text is, to you, evidence.

Regards
DL

Yep, read the text and you will say that Jesus makes no comment about himself. So there is no comparison which suggests what you suppose.


On the cross he was quoting the opening line from Psalm 22, a common practice to quickly identify where he was focusing his thoughts. When read in its entirety you will see that this is a Psalm about how God is faithful and never abandons us. And again, use of this Psalm would not mean that Jesus was somehow not God. I'm sorry, you just don't get it, and I don't suppose that you ever will. That's not said to be mean, I think it is just a reality that some can see what Jesus was saying and some cannot. Jesus himself spoke of those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. I would be glad to show you all of those texts that speak to Jesus being God. We've tried to present some of them here. But you only see what you want to see and think that a single verse that shows some distancing between Jesus and God is sufficient proof that he was not. It isn't. That's the whole point. Jesus was both fully divine and fully human. Though he was God, when he came to earth in incarnate form he would voluntarily live as and be bound by his human nature. This did not eliminate his divine nature. I did not mean that God was somehow absent from heaven. And it didn't create multiple gods. But until you accept the reality that while Jesus never used the words "I am God", that he acted in such a way that other people knew he was making such a claim. And he never denied it when they accused him of such a thing and called it blasphemy, even though he well knew the punishment for a human being to claim to be God was death.

If he was just a prophet he was a terribly poor one. His message was one in which he said that he could offer them abundant life. His message was that he was the bread of life. For his message was one in which he called people to eat his flesh and drink his blood. His message was one in which he personally offered people forgiveness of sins. His message was one in which he prophesied his death and his resurrection. His message was one in which he claimed not just identity with the Father, but unity/oneness with him. His message was one in which he claimed to be King of the Jews and to be King of a kingdom that was not of this world. His message was one in which he presented himself as a stairway to heaven. His message was one wherein he promised eternal salvation not to those who followed his command, but to those who believed in him himself as a source of salvation. His message was that he existed and was present with God before Abraham was born. His message was that he was personally worthy of worship.

In other words, in the immortal words of C.S. Lewis, Jesus was NOT just a great teacher:

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher [or merely a prophet]. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

[Zafran]

Some have argued such, but I suggest you misunderstand it if that is how you read it.

Just as, when properly understood, Sura 5:51 "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk." doesn't really mean that Muslims can't be friends with Jews and Christians; so too, when properly understood, Mark 10:18 is not evidence of Jesus saying that he is not God.

That verse doesnt mean friends but protectors -

but more importantly for the thread what does mark 10:18 indicate other then Jesus pbuh is not being God but lower?

[Grace Seeker]

That verse doesnt mean friends but protectors -

I am aware of how it is interpretted by most on this board. I'm using it to point out that the apparent interpretation isn't always the correct interpretation.

but more importantly for the thread what does mark 10:18 indicate other then Jesus pbuh is not being God but lower?

Let's begin by looking at the verse not in isolation, but in context:

Mark 10

17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.' "

20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

26The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?"

27Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

Here is what I see in the passage. While Jesus' reply to the man is rather abrupt, it serves to call the man's attention to his use of langauge.

The man is calling Jesus "good". Does he mean this in some sort of flowery, self-effacing way that doesn't have any substance to it? Or does he truly intend to call Jesus good. For, as Jesus points out what every truly devout Jew of his day should already know, no one is good -- except God alone.

In other words, if this man is really and intentionally calling Jesus good, then he is making a declaration of faith in Jesus as God. If he doesn't really mean that, then he shouldn't be using the term, for that would be in essence to take God's name in vain, a violation of the commandments when he is asking about how to gain eternal life. Doesn't he know the commandments?

The man says that he not only knows them, but keeps them. Jesus says that this isn't enough. That he still lacks something. He lacks the actually following. Now if he is keeping the commandments, how is he not following the commandments. Answer: He is following the commandments. But he needs to do more than that, he also needs to follow Jesus.

But if the man is already following the commandments that God himself gave to Moses, then how does following Jesus aid him any more? Because the purpose of following the commandments is not about doing right vs. doing wrong. It is about following them in such a way that they lead us to God. And here, right before this man, is one who truly can be called good. Does the man recognize this? Or is he just offering empty praise? Well, Jesus puts him to the test. The test isn't as much, "why do you call me good?" the real test is the man's willingness to follow not just the commandments, but to follow Jesus. For, it is in following Jesus that we follow the one who gave the commandments in the first place.

As the Interpreter's Bible commentary writes on this: "Jesus was not giving a theological dogma, but expressing the natural attitude of toward God of every pious Jew." He wanted this man to consider more carefully his words. Were they conventional flattery, for which Jesus had no desire, or were they recognition of who Jesus really was? If they were the latter, Jesus called the man to follow him.

Evidently this man didn't think Jesus was such a good teacher afterall, for he didn't follow the teacher's directions even though he was promised treasure in heaven if he had done so.

[Zafran]

I am aware of how it is interpretted by most on this board. I'm using it to point out that the apparent interpretation isn't always the correct interpretation.

The word is "Awaliya" not "wali" which means friends so Its not a intrepreatation - its actually what the word is.

anyway thanks for the interpretataion although i disagree with it.

[Yanal]

:sl:

How can we trust the bible which was corrupted in the 1500-1600? The original bible before Elizabeth I rule was established but during Elizabeths rule it got changed because of a few Protestants who were just doing good. Elizabeth the first was a avid reader and took interest in every religion and that made her want to make her country pure Catholic became true,however during these times the Catholic church was corrupted. The Church at that time stated "We know and are the only ones that can interupt Gods book" that caused many people to protest and a few of them were great debaters. Such as Erasmus wanted the bible to be vernacular(in different languages) and protested until the Church reformed and until they gave up he kept on trying. He was succesful in making the bible available in all languages but that was what caused the corruption of the bible. The copies spread rapidly in every language.Humanists were against both the Protestants and Church because they believed "We can decide what our destiny is". The Humanists started tearing pages and recopying the bible to lure Christians out and make misunderstanding statements such about Prophet Isa(AS). Prophet Isa (AS) was called out to the heavens long before this occurred and no one could do anything.

:sl:

[YusufNoor]

Hi Everyone:

The promotion of Jesus as God has been an unnecessary barrier keeping Christians and Muslims apart. I do not believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God. However, there are a group of Christians, called Trinitarians, who believe otherwise. Quite a few threads in this forum degenerate into arguments about the Trinity. This thread is for anyone, especially Trinitarians, to provide any Biblical evidence that shows that Jesus is God, so that we can discuss it honestly in order to learn the Truth.

Those Muslims who believe that Christians and Muslims are not brothers because they believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God, are welcome to present their evidence here also.

Who will be first.

Regards,
Grenville

let's assume for a minute that you can read English [and we can also assume that i haven't read the entire thread], can we assume that?

why would "orthodox" Christians have selected the writings that they did as canon if they DIDN'T portray Jesus as such or at the least contain writings that could be interpreted that way? especially quasi-gnostic writings such as what is know as "the Gospel of John" as well as the writings of the Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus.

once the Message that Jesus preached was changed into the Message about Jesus, writings that reveal the former [as most of what is now called "the Gospel of Matthew" does] would be cast aside in favor of those that conform to the latter.

seems silly to discuss it here. it is YOUR book that says:

John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

while those verses APPEAR BINITARIAN and NOT TRINITARIAN, they ARE polytheistic and claim that Jesus is both the son and the creator god!?

don't blame us for that!

:w:

[Walter]

Some have argued such, but I suggest you misunderstand it if that is how you read it. ... so too, when properly understood, Mark 10:18 is not evidence of Jesus saying that he is not God.

In other words, if this man is really and intentionally calling Jesus good, then he is making a declaration of faith in Jesus as God.

Dear Grace Seeker:

This is an unverified assumption. The passage may be "properly understood" after the assumptions on which you base your interpretations are verified. If a conclusive verification cannot be made, then a reasonable one may do.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Post repeated in error.

[Grace Seeker]

OK Grace Seeker:

Can you please explain how it may be "properly understood"?

Regards,
Grenville

Already addressed above. Since you missed it here is the short version:

Jesus does not say that he is not good.
Jesus does not say that he is not God.
Jesus merely asks the man why he uses that term to address him.
For, if the man is doing more than using flowerly speech, then he should understand that he is in essence saying that Jesus is God. If the man really thinks that Jesus has the answer to eternal life -- something that only God could have the answer to -- then he should leave all that he has and follow Jesus, for the answer is not in just keeping the commandments as a lithmus test. The answer is really in learning to submit one's heart to God, for out of a truly submitted heart will flow the truly submitted life.

[Walter]

let's assume for a minute that you can read English [and we can also assume that i haven't read the entire thread], can we assume that?

Dear YusufNoor:

Please read the entire thread.

why would "orthodox" Christians have selected the writings that they did as canon if they DIDN'T portray Jesus as such or at the least contain writings that could be interpreted that way? especially quasi-gnostic writings such as what is know as "the Gospel of John" as well as the writings of the Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus.

Please be advised that the Qur’an does not compromise any teaching, or damage the integrity of any verse in either the Gospel of John or the writings of Paul. If you have any evidence that they do, then please provide it. Ah. I see that you have.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1)

Yusuf, please notice that John does not say that Jesus was God or that the Word is God, but that the Word was with God, and was God in the beginning. Let us try to discuss this issue without damaging the integrity of the evidence.

It is possible that words, before they are spoken, can be considered to be part of the person. My words, not yet spoken, are with me and can be said to be me. However, once spoken, they represent me, but are separate from me. Let us see whether this explanation maintains the integrity of the evidence.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1–2)

The unspoken Word was with God in the beginning. This unspoken Word was God.

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (John 1:3)

The unspoken Word was spoken and creation was the result. Note that God is the Creator, and all things were made by God through the Word of God. We are essentially calling the “Word of God” the Word that belongs to God and came from God.

In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:4–5)

Once spoken, the Word became a separate entity with a life of His own.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

The Word, separated from God, eventually became flesh. The idea that the Word has life in Himself, and the Word becoming flesh, is consistent with other Biblical teachings.

For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. (John 5:26–27)

Is this the actual interpretation? I do not know; but it is plausible. We must remember that Paul indicated that there exists an element of uncertainty for the time being.

For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. (1 Corinthians 13:9–12)

Therefore, dogmatic (doctrinal) statements should not be made about inconclusive issues. Rather, all of the relevant evidence should be examined, and conflicting evidence must be reconciled. No evidence should be ignored in order to reach a favored position.

Again, I urge you to read 'Brothers Kept Apart' at your local library.

Best regards,
Grenville

[Great I am not]

Greatest I am - you are forgetting that Jesus was GOD and fully human. The body of a human that felt pain and hunger, but being of the very same substance of GOD.

In no way was all of the omnipresent GOD in the human body of Jesus.

To be fully human, one must begin from a human sperm and egg. Right?

If you were fully Man and God, would you sit back and let your man half or full part suffer pain? Not likely. Would you let it die? No.

Especially if it just to make him a sacrifice to yourself. Would you cut off you right hand to give it to your left hand.

Only if you are a fool. God is no fool and the idea of accepting the death of an innocent man as a sacrifice is just well, sacriligious.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/vicarious_atonement.htm

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

I see that this debate has deteriorated to all saying that the other does not understand thinks properly.

If I may suggest that we leave quotes behind and look at Jesus in a logical way.

Could Jesus be at the beginning as part of the trinity before his mother was born?
If Jesus was God then is a sacrifice to himself logical.
Would Jesus or God tell man that it is good for us to ride a scapegoat into heaven instead of getting there by our own efforts and not those of an innocent death?

If God or part of God uses an inferior species like woman to reproduce, is that not bestiality? Somewhat like man using some other lower species to reproduce a chimera?

If God on the cross can he really die? If not then where is the sacrifice.

Is it likely that Jesus rose to heaven, a non corporeal place, with his body?

If he saved the whole world with his death then is there a hell?

If God, can you picture Jesus who would not stone a prostitute, go from that benevolence and love to flooding the whole evil world?

Answer some of these to consensus and you all will know if Jesus was divine or not.

Regards
DL

[Grace Seeker]

I see that this debate has deteriorated to all saying that the other does not understand thinks properly.

If I may suggest that we leave quotes behind and look at Jesus in a logical way.

Could Jesus be at the beginning as part of the trinity before his mother was born?

Yes.

If Jesus was God then is a sacrifice to himself logical.

Yes.

Would Jesus or God tell man that it is good for us to ride a scapegoat into heaven instead of getting there by our own efforts and not those of an innocent death?

Most certainly YES. And I may write more on this next week.

If God or part of God uses an inferior species like woman to reproduce, is that not bestiality? Somewhat like man using some other lower species to reproduce a chimera?

An irrelevant question as this is not what Christians say happened with regard the Jesus' incarnation.

If God on the cross can he really die? If not then where is the sacrifice.

Yes. And yet I suspect you're going to read something different into that than what I am actually saying.

Is it likely that Jesus rose to heaven, a non corporeal place, with his body?

It certainly is not impossible, but more likely that he was transformed once he was hidden from the disciples' sight in the clouds.

If he saved the whole world with his death then is there a hell?

He made salvation possible. He does not force people to be joined with God who desire to live independent of God. That in and of itself is hell.

BTW, if you can understand heaven as an incorporeal place, then surely you can understand hell in the same way.

If God, can you picture Jesus who would not stone a prostitute, go from that benevolence and love to flooding the whole evil world?

God has always shown both mercy and judgment and we see that in Jesus' life as well.

Answer some of these to consensus and you all will know if Jesus was divine or not.

Regards
DL

Your questions don't cast any doubt on the divinity of Jesus.

[Walter]

Greatest I am - you are forgetting that Jesus was GOD and fully human. The body of a human that felt pain and hunger, but being of the very same substance of GOD.

In no way was all of the omnipresent GOD in the human body of Jesus.

Dear Follower:

Rather than simply repeating your religious traditions, please provide the evidence from the Bible that supports your assertion that Jesus was fully God.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

To be fully human, one must begin from a human sperm and egg. Right?

If you were fully Man and God, would you sit back and let your man half or full part suffer pain? Not likely. Would you let it die? No.

Especially if it just to make him a sacrifice to yourself. Would you cut off you right hand to give it to your left hand.

Only if you are a fool. God is no fool and the idea of accepting the death of an innocent man as a sacrifice is just well, sacriligious.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/vicarious_atonement.htm

Regards
DL

Dear Greatest I am:

You should not try to define Jesus outside of what has been explicitly revealed about Him in Scripture. Anything else is speculative opinion.

Regards,
Grenville

[brotherubaid]

The Christian creed with regards to the nature of God is a mystery as we often hear from advocates of the divinity of Jesus and his place in the Christian Trinity, such as using this type of title: ‘The Incomprehensible Nature of God and his Son’. Agreed! The Christian creed is incomprehensible, and a mystery. Firstly, no one can explain what the divinity of Jesus really means or how this concept is supposed to work within the Trinity, or where this concept came from or where it is going. Secondly, how can billions of Christians believe in a creed built on an elaborate scheme of, ‘This could mean that; that may mean this; probably; may be; it is possible; we could say’; and so forth? This is where advocates of the divinity of Jesus ‘glue together’ a creed based on vague verses that are twisted and corrupted to mean what they do not mean. Hence, advocates of Christianity need long minutes and substantial effort to prove their creed, because their creed does not exist to begin with. They need substantial time and extensive effort to manufacture a creed based on texts that are at best vague and could mean a host of things. Can we ask Christendom to simply quote Jesus as saying, ‘People: I am God; I created you; worship me; I am one in three and three in one; worship the Holy Ghost; the Holy Ghost is God; Trinity is the creed to follow; I am divine.’ Instead, we always hear the usual blend of verses distorted to force them to mean what they do not mean to support a creed that does not exist in the Bible.


‘Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?’ There are five aspects to discuss here found in the title itself: God; Jesus; The Bible; ‘Twinity’; and God’s True Name.


Is Jesus God?


What is the Biblical proof that Jesus is God? Is it the same old evidence that mankind has been hearing from Christianity for almost 1,700 years? Evidence the Jews vehemently deny exists in the OT, while Muslims and countless Christians vehemently deny it exists in the OT or the NT? Let’s discuss this so-called evidence. Inshaallah (Allah willing), I will mention Biblical texts to prove that the Bible says that Jesus is NOT God. We will assert this fact in different ways.

“God is not a man” (Numbers 23:19).


Agreed! Jesus is a man, as the Bible testifies, “Jesus of Nazareth, a man” (Acts 2:22); “…and being found in fashion as a man” (Philippians 2:8). Therefore, according to the Bible, Jesus is not God.


“God is not a man … neither the son of man” (Numbers 23:19).


Agreed! Jesus, a man, so often said this about himself, “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost” (Matthew 18:11).


Therefore, according to the Bible, Jesus is not God, since God, according to the Bible, is neither a man nor the son of man, while Jesus is a man and the son of man, who was also often called in the Bible, “The son of David” (Matthew 9:27).


“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 God, and the Word was God)” (John 1:1).


John 1:1 is celebrated by Christians worldwide. Does this verse affirm the divinity of Jesus, let alone affirming Trinity?

1. In the first instance, The God is described as, ‘Ton Theon’, while the Word is described as being ‘Theos’.

2. Key-Word: Twinity! The Holy Ghost is not found in John 1:1 yet Christians somehow use it to prove Trinity. It seems that the Holy Ghost was not with The God and the Word from the beginning.

3. The Greek copy of the New Testament I have access to uses ‘Theos’ in both instances where ‘god’ is mentioned in John 1:1. However, the first instance of ‘Theos’ is preceded by ‘Ho’ which makes the reference in it to The God; the second instance is not preceded by ‘Ho’, which makes the second ‘theos’ merely a god.

4. In the Bible Collection Suite, ‘Theos’ is the same term used to describe both the devil and The God, “In whom the god (Ho Theos; Satan) of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God (Ho Theos), should shine unto them” (2 Corinthians 4:4). This verse seems to equate the devil to The God; John 1:1 refers to the Word merely as a god.

5. Somehow, to Christians, ‘Theos’ is God when talking about Jesus, but ‘theos’ is only god when talking about the devil. This is the never-ending capital letters vs. lower case letters game that the modern day Christian world has engaged itself in.

6. However, Jesus did not speak Greek, did not speak in capital letters or lower case letters, and did not speak English.

7. If, as we are told, John 1:1 qualifies Jesus to be a god besides God, the devil would have more right to this title than Jesus: The devil is the ‘ho theos’ of the world, while Jesus is merely a ‘theos’. None deserves to be worshipped, except Allah, Alone without partners.


“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten (Monogenes) Son (Huios), that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).


The NT mentions this very term, ‘Monogenes', while describing Prophet Is`haq (Isaac u), son of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham u), “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son (Monogenes)” (Hebrews 11:17). Of course, Prophet Is`haq (Isaac u) was neither Ibrahim’s (Abraham’s) only begotten son, nor his first begotten son; Prophet Isma`eel (Ishmael u) was as the OT itself attests, “And Abram was fourscore and six years old (86), when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram” (Genesis 16:16). In contrast, Genesis states this, “And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him” (Genesis 21:5). Hajar (Hagar), the mother of Ishmael, was Abraham’s wife as Genesis 16:3 testifies.


‘Monogenes’ does not mean ‘only begotten’. If, ‘Monogenes’, means ‘the only begotten [KJV]’, then, the current copy of the Old Testament is wrong in describing Isaac as being the only begotten son of Abraham; the same is said about the New Testament which used this term to describe Isaac; (Hebrews 11:17). If ‘Monogenes’ means ‘only (New Revised Standard Version of the Bible [NRSV])’, this proves that both the Old Testament and the New Testament were corrupted and changed: the first for contradicting the fact that Isaac was not the only son of Abraham, and the second for being translated as meaning ‘the only begotten,’ when ‘Monogenes’ only means, ‘only’.


The NRSV has expunged ‘begotten’ from John 3:16, because it is an addition; an innovation. The dispute about the true meaning of ‘Monogenes’ is irrelevant; Jesus did not speak Greek, and the author of the Gospel of John is an unknown person who wrote what was never before preached by any Prophet whom Allah sent. This alien idea should not be allowed to overturn the clear Monotheism preached in the Two Testaments and upheld by the Quran.


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


1 John 5:7, a foundation of Christianity, is among the fabricated texts added to the New Testament. The appearance and disappearance of 1 John 5:7 between the Standard and the King James Versions of the Bible expose the little respect Christians have for their own holy book. Even the versions of the Bible that kept this verse almost intact translate it differently, especially the last part of it: “…and these three are one”; “…and the three agree as one”; “…and the three agree in one.”


Before using this fabricated text, Christians should agree among themselves on what is their true Word of God. Christendom has many words of God, such as the American Standard Version of the Bible, which does not have this verse exactly as other words of God do. The Revised Standard Version, The New Revised Standard Version, The New American Standard Bible, The New English Bible, The Phillips Modern English Bible have expunged this verse altogether from their versions of the Bible because it is agreed now that it was a later insertion to the Bible by the church.


Absolutely no one before John wrote this verse ever uttered any statement like it. Not even Jesus said this. No prophet ever said this. This is why it is a fabrication that should not be used as evidence to anything.


The answering Islam team agrees that the KJV contains at least an error, by saying, “This passage is recognized by a majority of Christian scholars as an extrapolation since 1 John 5:7 is not found in any early Greek manuscripts.” Yet, this verse still exists today in the most popular version of the Christian Word of God, the KJV.


“I and my father are one” (John 10:30).


Christians claim that this statement proves that Jesus is one or united with God and, consequently, Jesus is God. However, when Jesus died, he did not give up the Father, he only gave up the ghost, “And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost” (Mark 15:37). This claimed unity was not available to Jesus when he died; what happened to this unity and why did not the Father die when Jesus died, if Jesus and the Father are one? Hopefully, no one will claim that when Jesus said that he and the Father are one, it was Jesus the human not Jesus the divine who said it. It this is suggested, then one would be saying that God is human. And where is the Holy Ghost in John 10:30? He is missing, again. Key-Word: Twinity!


It seems the unity between God and Jesus can include many more people. Jesus is claimed to have said, “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one” (John 17:21-23). If, as we are told, John 10:30 proves that Jesus is God, then, John 17:21-23 prove that the disciples and possibly many other people are also God. Also, if God and Jesus are one, why would Jesus keep calling himself, ‘My God’: “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” (John 20:17)? The Quran states that Prophet `Esa said,


{Never did I say to them aught except what You (Allâh I) did command me to say: “Worship Allâh, my Lord and your Lord.” And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when You took me up, You were the Watcher over them; and You are a Witness to all things.} (5:117)


“Jesus said … Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58).


Christians try to pass this verse as proof of the divinity of Jesus. However, this hardly proves anything, whether ‘I am’ is written in capital or lower case letters. Jesus did not speak Greek, and he did not speak in capital letters or in English. The first handwritten English Bible manuscripts were produced in the late fourteenth century by John Wycliffe, more than thirteen centuries after Jesus supposedly died.


We should also note that in the Greek copy of the Bible, the terms ‘Ego (eg-o') Eimi (i-mee')’ used for ‘I AM’ in John 8:58 are the same terms used by other than Jesus, such as in Matthew 9:13. Yet, some Christians ignore this fact and talk about the ‘I AM’ of Jesus being translated in capital letters. What if Jesus said, ‘I AM’, or ‘I IS’, or, ‘I ARE’, how would one of these make him God?


What about what Jesus said in truth, where is it? Produce the real original copy of what he said in the language he said it in, as recorded by truthful witnesses who passed this information through truthful chains of narration. Instead, the advocates of the divinity of Jesus base their religion on doubt and suspicion, and neither Christians nor Jews can produce any exact replica of any page in the OT or the NT.


“For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee” (Psalm 5:4).


Shocking proof that Jesus is not God: “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple. And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down ... Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.” (Matthew 4:1-11)


If mankind were to believe that Jesus is God, then the devil is a bigger god, since he tempted ‘God’, led ‘God’ around, asked ‘God’ to commit suicide, offered ‘God’, who owns everything to begin with, the kingdoms of the world, and then demanded that ‘God’ worship him! Meanwhile, Jesus never said to the devil, ‘How dare you; I am God; do you offer me the kingdoms which I own and then demand that I, who created you and everything else, worship you?’ Jesus cannot be God according to the Bible, since God cannot be tempted by evil; Jesus was tempted by the devil as the Bible claims.


Either way it looks bad: Someone may suggest that Jesus the human, who was then disconnected from Jesus the divine, was actually tempted by the devil. This is worse; this means that God has a selective amnesia, and Jesus the man was still led by the devil.


“The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool” (Psalm 110:1).


Christian enthusiasts on Psalm 110:1, “Christians believe that Jesus is David’s Lord since he is the Christ. And since Yahweh is David’s Lord, Jesus must therefore be Yahweh God.” So, the Lord spoke to himself and said, ‘My-self, sit at my right hand until I make my enemies a footstool for my feet.” And what happened to the Holy Ghost? Key-Word: Twinity, Jesus and God!


A Christian view on Psalm 110:1, “The words in Hebrew … the above version translates LORD and Lord are actually Yahweh and Adoni, two different words with two obviously different meanings.”


How can Psalm 110:1 prove two distinct persons, ‘Yahweh’ and ‘Adani (or Adown)’, and also prove Jesus (Adoni) is actually God (Yahweh), and consequently, God is actually One God: God, Jesus, Adoni, Christ, the (missing) Holy Ghost, and Yahweh? Psalm 110:1 addresses two distinct, different persons. And Adoni is never used for God in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, how would this make Adoni Jesus and Yahweh and the Christ and the Holy Ghost and the one and only true God?


Gideon said: “My Lord (Adoni), if the LORD be with us, why then is all this befallen us … where be all his miracles … our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt … now the LORD hath forsaken us … delivered us into … the Midianites” (Judges 6:13).


We are told that ‘Adoni’ used for the Angel of Yahweh in Judges 6:13 isn’t a mere creature but a manifestation of God himself. If this is true, then the text would go like this, “Oh my Lord, if YOU be with us, why then is all this befallen us … and where be all YOUR miracles which our fathers told us of … but now you have forsaken us.” All these complaints of promises undelivered!


“For I am the LORD, I change not” (Malachi 3:6).


True, Allah (God) does not change. However, the Bible says that Jesus was with God from the beginning (John 1:1). Then, Jesus was born to a supposedly Jewish woman, grew up from childhood, became a full grown man, grew hair and a beard, and then died, as Christians claim. Then, after his supposed death, Jesus was supposedly resurrected, and now we are not clearly informed about his current nature. The Bible states that Mary was told that, "... she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus" (Matthew 1:21). Jesus was given his name just before he was born. Thus, according to the Bible, Jesus cannot be God, because he changed in profound ways, but, “For I am the LORD, I change not” (Malachi 3:6).


Interestingly, Yahweh of the Old Testament changed his name in the New Testament to, ‘God; Theos’, also used for various gods [even goddesses!]; (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608x.htm; The Bible Collection Suite). He is also called the Father, and we are told, also the Holy Ghost, the son, Adonai (the Lord), etc.


Allegedly, OT God seems to have not fulfilled at least some of his promises: “And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise” (Hebrews 11:39).


“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8).


According to the Bible, John 1:1 to be exact, yester-day, Jesus was with God, and actually was God as John falsely claims. Jesus then became a man to-day, then, became something else to-morrow, after he was supposedly crucified, yester-day.


Therefore, according to Christianity, Jesus was God, or the divine son of God, then a human baby, who grew up to be a man, then became a dead man, then, a resurrected man, then, something else we are still not sure of. According to the Bible, Jesus cannot be God, because he repeatedly changed in essence and in various ways.


It is rather amazing and confusing how Christians can report Hebrews 13:8 as proof to the divinity of Jesus in the midst of their professing that Jesus was born as a human and died as a human. Apparently, in Christianity, the word change changes in meaning dramatically and profoundly!


“God's unchangeability … is referring to God's essence … attributes … purpose … decrees … Jesus is God's eternal Word who became flesh, who became a real human being … Scriptures also teach that Christ is fully God in nature, having all the essential attributes of Deity … Jesus didn't relinquish his Deity … to become man, but retained his divine nature since he can never cease being God … At Christ's Incarnation, there wasn't a subtraction of his Deity, but an addition of humanity.”


Has Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, or Jesus ever utter such an argument which has no basis in the Scriptures?


‘Unchangeability’, we are told, is about God's essence, attributes, purpose, and decrees. Meanwhile, Jesus became flesh, a real human being. Become: “To change or develop into something” (The Encarta World English Dictionary, N. American Edition).


Jesus, fully God in nature as Christians claim, became human and changed in essence, attributes, purpose, and decrees. Jesus never ceased being God, we are told, yet he became a man thus changing in essence and in ‘God-ness’? The Bible says God is not a man; Jesus is a man. God was not a human then developed into a human thus changing in attributes. Now he needed to eat, sleep, and relieve the call of nature, all of which God stands in no need of. God’s purpose changed as a split between the Father and the son had to happen so the son, not God, can die, since God does not die. The son, allegedly still fully God, had to die on the cross to save mankind from sin, a new purpose for God that needed his developing into a human being. Jesus also certainly changed his decrees since, according to the Bible, Jesus was made under the law; God is the law giver.


Humanity, an addition to Jesus’ deity not a subtraction: This is worse and is NOT supported by Scriptures. Add: “To give something a particular quality or more of a particular quality” (Encarta World English Dictionary, N. American Edi.). Jesus, claimed to be fully God, received an added quality he did not have before, changing his nature to become a real human being. ‘Add’ or ‘subtract’ truly implies change from a full God to a full God plus/minus human. And what happened to the Holy Ghost? Key-Word: Twinity. The Holy Ghost is nowhere to appear in this discussion. If Jesus the son is also God the Father, what about the Holy Ghost, is he also Jesus the son and God the Father? The possibilities are staggering.


“God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law” (Galatians 4:4).


Galatians 4:4 clearly establishes Jesus as a creation, made, not divine, under the law, not a law giver, a son, a righteous person, “When the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man” (Luke 23:47). In the Bible, Jesus is described as, “The beginning of the creation of God” (Revelation 3:14). However, in the Arabic copy of the Bible, far older than the English copy, the words for this verse are: ‘Ra-eesu khaleeqati-llah (رَئِيسُ خَلِيقَةِ اللهِ; the chief of Allah’s creation)’. And yes, you heard it right, in the Arabic copy of the Bible the name of God is Allah. Jesus never uttered the word ‘God’ in his entire life. Those who disagree should bring the proof.


Christians may argue that Jesus was with God from the beginning and eternal. The Bible said that Jesus was made. Also, if this argument qualifies Jesus to be God, then Melchisedec is even a bigger God, “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually” (Hebrews 7:2). Jesus had a beginning and an end; according to Christians he died and had another beginning after he was resurrected.


“The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deuteronomy 6:4); “God is one” (Galatians 3:20).


Christians somehow read these clear texts and read the number three in them:

“This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3).
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).


God (Allah) has always been described as One, only One, the Only True God. Christians agree and this is why they call their creed ‘Trinity’, not ‘One-nity’, because they believe in three different gods, three distinct gods with three different jobs and three different personalities, different actions, different roles, different essences, different experiences. How can anyone state that God is only One True God and then go on to defend his faith that one actually means three, one in three and three in one? These three gods are different gods, polytheism in action.


Jesus died, Christians claim; God did not die; the Holy Ghost did not die. John 17:3 agrees Jesus is not God. When referring to God, Jesus said, ‘Thee’, not, ‘Me’. When referring to his own status, Jesus said, ‘Whom though hast sent’, not, ‘Whom I sent’, i.e., “Allah is One True God; Jesus is His Messenger, human not divine.”


Paul said, “But to us there is but one God, the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6).


There is only one God, the Father, and thus, Jesus is not God since even Christians call him the son, not the Father.
This verse says nothing about the Holy Ghost or the son, but states God is one, the Father, only the Father.
If Jesus, the son, is also the Father, then, the Father will also be the son and the Holy Ghost, while the Holy Ghost will also be God the Father and Jesus the son.
Meanwhile, Christians pray to the Holy Ghost, they do not call him the Father, and to Jesus the son, but they do not call him the Father, and to the Father, but they do not call the Father the son or the Holy Ghost. This is utter confusion.
“I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God … Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any” (Isaiah 44:6 & 8).
Allah said,


{Such is Allâh, your Lord! Lâ ilâha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Creator of all things} (6:102).


Truth is that regardless of what some Christians may say, it is not generally accepted among Christians that Jesus the son is also the Father. The majority of Christians believe that God is one in Trinity and the three persons in the Trinity are co-equal.


Jesus said: “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9).


Jesus is not God: He said these words upon the earth, stating that the Father is one and that he is in heaven; Paul said, “But to us there is but one God, the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6). No mention of the Holy Ghost here and no mention of the son.


Some Christians may argue that Jesus is the Father. Matthew 23:9 contradicts this assertion since Jesus only mentioned the Father and said He is in heaven; Jesus is the Christian son of God who said what he said while he was on earth. If God is in heaven and not on earth, how can Jesus be divine when he was on earth when he said this statement?


“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour”(Isaiah 43:10-11).


This text is so very clear in its indication that Allah is the Only God there is, the Only Savior and there is none other than He. No God formed before or after Him. How can Christians read this consistent creed and claim without a shred of evidence that this text is actually about three in one? Have they any proof from anyone in the OT that ‘One’ here actually means three? Did any prophet ever say this? Did any scripture give this explanation to this and other monotheistic texts? How can anyone read this text and read Trinity in it?


This is a mystery of untold proportions that people would read but understand not and would invent a creed which was not once propagated in their holy book, “I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else” (Isaiah 45:21-22).


“No man hath seen God at any time” (1 John 4:12).


We stand confused! This is because Jesus supposedly said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father” (John 14:9). Either, no man has seen God and therefore Jesus, who was seen, is not God, because he was seen. Or, God has been seen by many, even though God has not been seen at any time as the Bible says.


John 14:9 adds to the confusion, because it seems to suggest that he who was speaking then was actually Jesus the divine, since he clearly states that, who has seen him has seen the Father. If it were Jesus the man speaking then, it would not make sense to say that he who has seen Jesus has seen the Father, since the Father is not a man; “God is not a man” (Numbers 23:19).


Colossians 2:9 adds to the confusion in a profound way, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (KJV). This verse claims that all the fullness of God dwells in Jesus BODILY. Thus, it seems that Jesus the man was not only Jesus the divine but also his body was God’s body. Which ‘body’ was allegedly crucified? When Jesus the body was crucified, then God was also crucified, since He fully dwells in Jesus bodily. Belittling God does not seem to have an end with Christianity.


"Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’" (John 20:28).


However, John 20:17 stated that Jesus said to Mary Magdalene, “Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” If Jesus is God, as Christians claim John 20:28 implies, then why would he say, “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God”, instead of saying, ‘I ascend unto me, and I am your father, and to me, and I am your God.”


Jesus is not God: The same term addressed to Jesus in John 20:28 was used to describe Satan in 2 Corinthians 4:4. What astounds one when reading John 20 is that it is clear from the text that Jesus was then a human being in the flesh. The words falsely ascribed to Thomas contradict the Bible itself, which says that God is not a man. Yet, Jesus, a man, was standing next to Thomas who said, ‘My God!’ Thomas touched the man Jesus, we are told, who had human flesh and human form. Thomas must have been worshipping a man, and God is not a man, who died on the cross, and God does not die, but Thomas called a man who died, ‘God!’ This confusion is so profound it calls for the next point.


Paul said about God, “Who only hath immortality” (1 Timothy 6:15-16).


Jesus died, as Christians claim. According to the Bible, Jesus is not God. Or else, God would have died and left the universe to be run by no one, or may be only by two-thirds of himself. Again, the possibilities are endless.
Jesus allegedly died, but Biblical Enoch did not die, “Enoch was translated that he should not see death” (Hebrew 11:5).
Without proof from Scriptures: Someone may claim that Jesus the human not Jesus the divine died. This still proves Jesus is not God since Christians would at least admit that when he died, Jesus was not God.
Meanwhile, John 20:28 claims that after Jesus was resurrected, he was still a human being in the flesh. Thomas is falsely reported to have called that human man, ‘God.’ Key-Word: Confusion!


A Christian Problem: “God can not die by definition … you can not "neatly" separate God and man in Jesus. Jesus is (God who became) man, real man, not just a fake appearance of a human being … this MAN Jesus died. I don't say that is an easy concept. I have not "invented" it.” (Answering Islam team) They invent absurd ideas then say they did not invent them!


Agreed: Christians cannot ‘neatly’ separate Jesus the man from Jesus the God; one died, the other had no idea what went on.
God Himself died for the sins of Christianity? “God's love and mercy moved him to pay himself for it” (Answering Islam team); “Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).
The Holy Ghost paid nothing, did not die even though God allegedly died; the Holy Ghost is not God. Jesus the human who died was created in addition to Jesus the divine. Thus, God paid nothing. Jesus the man died, and therefore, God changed –again- to subtract the human addition he created in himself. This is utter falsehood.
Key-Word: One Strange Family!


“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34).


Christians claim that Jesus is God. But when he was supposedly dying, he said, ‘Eloi’, meaning, ‘My God.’ Thus, Jesus is not God. Unless when God was dying, He was calling upon himself and demanding to know why he forsook his own-self, ‘Me, Me, why have I forsaken me?’


The fact that Jesus was calling on someone else as God is proof that Jesus is not God. Also, Jesus never said he is God, neither did his disciples ever say that he is God. Every text that Christians produce has a host of meanings, and they utterly fail to produce what Jesus actually said in his own language, not Greek or English.


“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).


Muslims bear witness that in his time, Jesus was the best man walking on earth and that those who disbelieved in his Prophethood were truly disbelievers and just as disbelievers as those who denied his Prophethood and instead claimed that he is God.


In Jesus’ time, those who wished to earn salvation had to believe in Jesus’ Messiahship and Prophethood and his being mortal and not divine in any way. If they did, they would have been among the believers who would accompany Jesus in heaven and enjoy all the physical pleasures Allah prepared for the believers in Paradise.


John 14:6 does not mean Jesus is God, but that those who wish to receive Allah’s Mercy have to believe in Jesus as a human prophet from Allah, human not divine.


"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end" (Revelation 21:6).


Jesus was not even speaking here at all, yet some Christians dwell on this verse as if Jesus said it.
Revelation 21: a bizarre dream one might see if one fills his stomach with spoiled food and then goes to bed.
Alpha and Omega do not mean anything.
Many Christian scholars dispute the authenticity of the entire book of Revelation, allegedly written by John.
The Holy Ghost is supposed to be the inspirer of the OT and the NT, but it seems he was busy inspiring a report of a dream which was then narrated in the Word of God and left there.
This chapter’s author was not inspired to write his dream; he unjustly inserted it into the Book of his God.


Revelation 21:18-21: “And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass. And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald. The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolyte; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst. And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.”


“When he was gone forth into the way, there came one running … and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? … Jesus said … Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God” (Mark 10:17-18).


Jesus says that only God is good, and he refused to allow the man to call him ‘good.’ Jesus did not say, ‘Why call me good? There is none good but one, me, or my other me, since whoever is talking to you now is me the human not me the divine.”


Can Christians give Jesus a break? What more does this man have to say to prove to Christians that he is not God? Jesus is not God.


"And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me’" (Matthew 28:18).


Jesus is not God: God owns all authority and does not need to be given it.


Of course, some Christians might say that Jesus the human was given this authority by Jesus the divine. Key-Word: “What are you talking about?”


Biblical Jesus should have recited the news found in Matthew 28:18 to the devil: Satan demanded that Jesus, the Christian God, should worship him. Jesus should have told Satan that he already owns the kingdoms of the world and their glory, if Jesus is God that is. Jesus should have told Satan that he already has all authority in heaven and earth.


“They brought to him a man sick of the palsy … and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy … thy sins be forgiven thee” (Matthew 9:2).


Jesus is God to Christians since only God forgives sins. But, Jesus said, “Thy sins be forgiven thee,” not, ‘Thy sins I forgive thee’.
Matthew 9:8 clarifies: “But when the multitude saw it, they … glorified God, which had given such power unto men.”
Jesus only conveyed the news of forgiveness from Allah to the sick man.


John 20:22-23: Jesus breathed on the disciples and said to them, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them.” It seems that the Holy Ghost, not the son and not the Father, grants the authority to men to forgive. John 20:22 seems to suggest that the Holy Ghost now dwelled in the disciples, and thus, they had the power to forgive sin since they now carry the Holy Ghost within them.


Claiming that Jesus had a divine authority to forgive sin is contradicted by his statement, “I can of mine own self do nothing” (John 5:30). Jesus was given this authority, which he transferred to his disciples.


Confusion: Who forgives sin? Is it the Holy Ghost who delegates this authority to men, or is it Jesus who says he can do nothing on his own? As for the disciples, John 20:23 is clear in that whomever they forgive is forgiven. Thus, it is they who forgive sins, the ones who do the action of forgiving, just like Jesus is claimed to possess the power to forgive.


“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also” (1 John 2:22-23).


Ongoing editing of the Bible: A Christian wrote, “Inspired New Testament record teaches that anyone denying the Father and Son as God is Antichrist.” There is not a single statement in the entire Bible that says what the Christian critic claims here. He is putting words in the mouth of the Holy Ghost the alleged revealer of the OT and the NT.


1 John 2:22-23 says absolutely nothing about denying Jesus being God, but about denying Jesus is the Christ. Christian critics added the statement about denying the son being God.


Muslims believe Prophet Jesus is the Messiah. When someone denies even one prophet from Allah, one denies Allah Who sent the prophets and also denies all the Prophets. The Messiah is not another name for Yahweh or God or the Holy Ghost or Adoni. The ‘Messiah’ does not even sound like ‘Yahweh’.


“Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mark 13:32).


Key-Word: Twinity! Jesus completely excluded the Holy Ghost from the discussion in Mark 13:32.
Jesus referred to himself as the son and denied he has knowledge of the Last Hour.
The alleged unity between the Father and the son has somehow been broken. Jesus did not know when will come the major incident supposed to grant him all glory. Jesus is not God since he did not know when the Last Hour will come. God can never cease being God nor can He relinquish his deity or turn it off.
Absolutely Ridiculous: “Bible teaches … Jesus is God … became man without ceasing to be divine … had both a divine consciousness as well as a human one. In his divine consciousness he was all knowing … In his human consciousness he was not … at times chose not to relay … information he had in his divine consciousness over to his human consciousness.”
Jesus the divine disconnected from Jesus the human: Keep track of which Jesus was speaking on behalf of which Jesus!
Jesus denies any man or angel knows when the last hour will come. Jesus is included in ‘no man’.
Jesus also denies the son knows when the last day will come. The son, in Christendom, is the divine son of God.


Do Christians believe that God is the Messiah?


Jesus is the Messiah; Jesus is God (according to Christians); the Messiah must then be God. Some Christians claim they do not call the Messiah God, “since this implies that Jesus is the entire Godhead … modalism.” If calling the Messiah God may imply that he is the entire Godhead, then, the same must be said about calling Jesus God since this may imply that Jesus is the entire Godhead.


The Father, the son and the Holy Ghost can only share things perfectly if they are one and the same. If they share things perfectly, when one of them dies, the other two have to die as well. Otherwise, they share nothing.


A Christian wrote: “Unlike Muhammad and his family, Jesus and the blessed Mary are the only human beings who were absolutely free from any satanic influence … the only ones whom Satan could not control, could not touch, could not influence.”


I will not comment on the disrespectful words here about Prophet Muhammad, they speak for the author’s character.
Matthew 4:1-11: Jesus was not only touched by the devil, but carried by the devil who flew Jesus around, up and down, here and there, showed him the kingdoms of the world then demanded Jesus worship him.
Bible attests Jesus is not God: God would have crushed the devil for demanding he worship him, “Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom” (1 Chronicles 29:11).
Jesus did not say, “Mine, O ME, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is Mine; Mine is the kingdom, O ME, and I AM exalted as head above all.”
Jesus’ mother must have been tempted too, “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man” (1 Corinthians 10:13). Woman is part of mankind. Temptation is common to man. Consequently, Mary would at least have suffered a similar temptation as Jesus did.
When Muslims invoke Allah’s name upon having sexual intercourse their offspring will not be harmed by the devil, just like Jesus (Bukhari and Muslim).
The touch of the devil upon every newly born (Bukhari and Muslim) is specifically a pinch.


“And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak … there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people” (Luke 7:16).


Therefore, Jesus is only a prophet from God and cannot be God according to the Bible.


This is how Jesus (u, peace be upon him) described himself, “A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house” (Matthew 13:57).


This is also how the people perceived him (u) to be, “And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee” (Matthew 21:11); “Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world” (John 6:14).


Any way one looks at this will find either reasonable explanation in that Jesus was a human prophet and not God. Or else, God would have sent himself to the people and then described himself as being a prophet, from God, who is visiting his people!


“They have not known the Father, nor me” (John 16:3).


In the Bible, Jesus is called the son many tens of times, and the Father is referred to as distinct from the son also many tens of times. The Bible never claimed that the Father and the son are equal or the same or sharing a divine nature or whatever the Christians may claim about them.


Several dozen times, Jesus, the alleged son, and the Father are mentioned in the same verse such as John 16:3, where Jesus says, “They have not known the Father, nor me.”


Jesus distinguished himself from the Father, instead of saying, ‘…they have not known me, nor me.’ And again, what happened to the Holy Ghost here, why did not Jesus mention him here again, since the Holy Ghost is also a Christian God?


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


Key-Word: Twinity! Why does the Holy Ghost keep getting missing or ignored? Here, it seems whoever authored this chapter is claiming that Jesus is not only the son, but also the God of God. In addition, it seems that here, God talks to himself and says to himself that ‘thy’ throne is for-ever. Thus, the son is actually God, so we are told, or is it the other way around, God is the son, since the Father calls his son, ‘God’ and tells him information he already knows since the son is God, so we are told?


Hebrews 1:1-2: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” This is rather confusing! If Jesus is God, then where did the son come from and why would God appoint himself the heir of all things. Did not Paul say, “But to us there is but one God, the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6)? Did not Jesus say, “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)?


How can God who is greater than the son be at the same time the son who is lesser than the Father who is supposed to be one God but is actually three gods? The Bible says Jesus is not God: “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28); “I live by the Father” (John 6:57); “I can of mine own self do nothing” (John 5:30).


“But he continued, ‘You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world” (John 8:23).


Christians celebrate this text which they claim proves Jesus is God since he came down from his Father, God, who is also not of this world.


However, this would also make the disciples of Jesus gods since they too are out of this world, “If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you” (John 15:19).


John 17:14 & 16 explicitly state that the disciples are just like Jesus, in that, “I have given to them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world ... They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.”


Therefore, if Jesus is God because he is not of the world, then the disciples too are gods since they are not of the world.


Jesus said to the Jews, "But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham" (John 8:40).


If Jesus is God, why would he say that he heard from God instead of saying, ‘I heard from me; I said’? In verse 43, the Jews said to Jesus, “We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.” Thus, as usual, the Jews thought that they are the children of God. They still claim the same and quote their OT which they mostly wrote with their own hands.


The Christians made a discount. Instead of making all of the Jews the children of God, they cut the number down to one!


If Jesus is God, why would he protest the intent of the Jews to kill him? God does not die, as the Bible states. Also, if he was sent to die for the sins of Christians, why would he discourage instead of encourage the Jews to kill him?


“Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?” (Isaiah 40:28).


The Bible says Jesus is not God: “Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me ... the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” (Matthew 26:36-46)


Jesus prayed to God not to himself and fell to the ground like Muslims do when they pray. Jesus was weary, fatigued and afraid. God never feels weary or afraid; Jesus is not God. This segment also claims that Jesus wanted out of the game which Christians claim he was sent to play; he sought a way out of drinking from the cup Christians claim he was sent to drink from. Jesus did not seem to be a willing partner in all of this.


Matthew 26 contains a dreadful account of God supposedly being spat on, smacked and mocked, and paraded before the Jews. How dreadful of anyone to think so little of God so that they fulfill their fantastic dream that they can sin all they desire and let someone die for their sin?


“For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God” (Exodus 34:14).


Just like the Quran, the Old Testament consistently and clearly prohibited worshipping anything and anyone, except Allah, Alone, without partners, such as in Exodus 20:3-5 & 23; Deuteronomy 13:1-11 and 17:2-7, etc.


Jesus only worshipped God, not himself, “And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me” (Matthew 26:39); he called to the worship of God, not of himself, “And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name” (Luke 11:2).


“Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God” (Matthew 27:54).


Christians dwell on the NT term ‘Son of God’ and claim divinity for Jesus, capitalizing or lowercasing whatever they wish from their Word of God: Jesus is the Son of God, with a capital letter; someone else is the son of God, a mere lower case.
But, Jesus did not speak English or in capital letters and the Bible does not make such a distinction.
Christians cannot bring any Biblical sentence saying that the son of god that is Jesus is not similar to the son of God that is Adam as Luke 3:38 describes Adam.


The ‘Son of God’ is synonymous to a ‘righteous person’:

“The centurion ... praised God and said, ‘Surely this was a righteous man” (Luke 23:47).
“Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God” (1 John 4:7)
Exodus 4:22 called Israel (Jacob) “My son, even my firstborn.”
Psalms 89:26-27 on David, “He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God … Also I will make him my firstborn.”
Jesus being the son of God indicates an honor he shares with many others, such as Ya`qub (Jacob; Israel u) (Exodus 4:22); Sulaiman (Solomon u) (1 Chronicles 22:10); Ephraim (Jeremiah 31:9); and so forth.
Without proof, Christians want us to believe that the Son of God is not the same as the son of God.


"For in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities-all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:16-17).


This forged statement, even if we take it as being authentic, does not mean Jesus is God. To the contrary, this verse asserts that things were made for Jesus, not that he made them.


One should read the entire first Colossians chapter which clearly differentiates between the Father and the son, thanking the Father for his bounties and praying to him but not to the son; Paul said, “We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you” (Colossians 1:3). Paul gave thanks to God and the Father of Christ, not to Jesus. Therefore, Jesus is neither God nor the Father. Paul said these words about Jesus, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature” (Colossians 1:15). Even Paul said that Jesus is a creature, meaning, created.


“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory … Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matthew 25:31 & 34).


How can this prove the divinity of Jesus, if even on the Day of Resurrection Jesus will be referring to God as his Father, the one who gives the blessings as compared to Jesus, the one who delivers the news of the Father giving the blessings?


The perfect unity we were promised by Christianity never materialized, not when Jesus was alive as a man, since he died after giving up the ghost but neither God nor the Holy Ghost died, and not in the Hereafter, for Jesus will even then refer to his ‘Father’ as an absent person, a different person.


If Jesus is God, Matthew 25:31 & 34 would read like this, “When the Son of man shall come in his glory he will then sit upon the throne of his glory and say, ‘Come, O, blessed of me.’”


Even then, the Holy Ghost is nowhere to be heard of or seen. Key-Word: Twinity.


“Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19)


Here is an example of corrupted texts altered to mean Trinity; the very same statement is mentioned drastically differently in two ‘inspired’ Gospels. The first is mentioned above. Here is the second, “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15).


Two conflicting accounts of the same statement contradict each other, as well as, contradicting a truthful statement uttered by Jesus (u) wherein he clearly asserted that he was not sent to all of mankind, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). Even in English, ‘but’ means ‘but’!


Even though many Christian scholars doubt the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 as a corruption added later to the Bible, it still does not support the divinity of Jesus. Yet, let us suppose that Matthew 28:19 is true. Where does this verse say that the three mentioned in it are God, equal, three in one, so that one may claim that it establishes Jesus as God? This verse, if it were true, only establishes baptism rites, it does not establish Jesus as God.








Other Biblical Verses Allegedly Saying Jesus is God


“According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:2-3).


These two verses do not even say that God is three or that Jesus or the Spirit is God. Rather, they say that God is the Father, the God of Jesus. If Jesus is God, then God is the God of God. These two verses used three different terms to describe the Christian God, son of God and Holy Ghost.


“Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).


This verse describes Jesus as being God using the term ‘theos’ also used to describe both the devil and The God in another verse 2 Corinthians 4:4. Theos does not only mean God, it also means gods and goddesses, teachers, etc.!


Also, the authenticity of Titus is disputed among Christians as they bicker with each other regarding who really wrote it, when and why (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14727b.htm; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...uline_epistles).


“Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost … thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God” (Acts 5:3-4).


This verse does not mention the Father or the son.
If Ananias lied to God, he lied to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, all three of the Christian Triune, not only to the Holy Ghost.
Ananias lied to Peter. Does this mean Peter is the Holy Ghost?
The same word used for God here, ‘theos’ is the same word used to describe Satan and others in the Bible, “In whom the god (Ho Theos; Satan) of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God (Ho Theos), should shine unto them” (2 Corinthians 4:4).
1 Samuel 12:1 & 13, stated, “And Samuel said unto all Israel, Behold … I have made a king over you … the LORD hath set a king over you.” If the Holy Ghost is God because of Acts 5:3-4, then, Samuel is God because of 1 Samuel 12:1 & 13.


Peter said, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36).


How can anyone use this verse to prove Jesus is God? If Jesus is God, he would not be made Lord and Christ, something he already is from eternity. He also would not be made Lord and Christ by God, if Jesus is God, unless Peter was actually saying, “God has made that same God both God and God.”


This verse also contradicts the argument that Jesus would sometimes be Jesus the human not Jesus the divine, because it speaks of Jesus being both Lord and Christ. Both does not mean sometimes, because he is both Lord and Christ at the same time, so the Bible says.


Other NT verses explain Acts 2:36: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you” (Acts 2:22). Jesus is not God; God granted him these things. Peter said: “Unto you first God, having raised up his Servant” (Acts 3:26).


These verses clearly establish Jesus as a prophet not divine, a servant to Allah, an ‘`Abd’, whose miracles he performed were given to him by God.


“And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them” (Mark 6:5).


Mark would want us to believe that Jesus could not do miracles in his own town. May be Jesus the human had not by then mastered switching between Jesus the man and Jesus the divine. Mark also tells about a blind man who was not healed after the first attempt. Jesus had to try a second time to cure his blindness (Mark 8:22-26).


Jesus is not divine. Healing was supposed to originate from the divine, not the human, to impress mankind. Since the divine grants this power to the human, the failure of the human is failure for the divine. Either Jesus the human was infringing on his other divine Jesus’ rights by trying to heal without full support from his other divine self. Or else, Jesus the divine failed.


Muslims believe Allah granted Jesus miracles to heal the blind and the leprous; his true miracles are not contested here. What is contested is Christians alleging a different status for Jesus than he deserved, they claim he is divine for doing what all prophets were granted from Allah.


“O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5).


According to the Bible, Jesus is not God, since he was addressing another person whom he called ‘Father’, who gave Jesus glory.


If Jesus is the lord of eternal glory, why did he not say, ‘O, my-self; I glorified myself before the world was.’ It must be that split personality again. Why would Jesus address himself, if he is God, instead of simply saying, ‘I am God; I sent me; I gave me power; I gave me glory’?


”God spake unto Moses, and said … I am Jehovah. and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them.” (Exodus 6:2-3).


Where did the other names of God come from: If God’s name is Yahweh and this is the name he made known to the prophets, then where did God, Jesus, the Lord, the Holy Ghost, Adoni, the Father, the son come from?













The Validity of the Bible as an Authentic Resource


First, the Bible, which this debate seeks to prove it affirms or rejects the divinity of Jesus, is a unique source to use and rely on, to say the least. This book, that people call the Bible, was compiled over the span of several thousand years. Why is it then that there is NOT a single direct quote from God, the Holy Ghost or Jesus himself, identifying Jesus as the true God or a member of the Christian Holy Trinity? Why did not God simply reveal these secrets to mankind so that they know how to worship Him? Why did He hide from His creation His true identity and his alleged multiple personalities or manifestations? Why did He hide from them that He has or will have a son who is also God, that there is a Triune Council consisting of Him and His son and the Holy Ghost, whatever ‘ghost’ means? Why did He not send His son to die in the beginning of creation so that all of the Children of Adam, including Adam and all the prophets and countless generations that came before Jesus, know what the true faith is and how to save them-selves from God’s Anger in the Hereafter? Why did God keep this vital information hidden even from His own Prophets who were supposed to guide mankind to the true guidance and the true faith?


Adam, who was in heaven and had direct contact with God, never spoke of Jesus being God, nor told his children about his encounters with the Triune Council one of whom is called, ‘Jesus’. Adam spoke directly to Allah (God). Adam never reported meeting the other two gods of Christianity, Jesus and the Holy Ghost; he never said he met God the Jesus; he never said anything similar to what we hear from Christianity or Christians.


Noah never told his children about God consisting of the Father, the Son (with a capital letter) and the Holy Ghost; he said nothing about Jesus being God; he never said anything similar to what we hear from Christianity or Christians.


Abraham never knew God as Christians know Him. Abraham never gave a lecture to anyone where he repeated the point-of-view mankind hears from Christians. It seems that Abraham knew less about God than Christians do. Where did Abraham ever hint that God is Jesus, or ever referred to a Triune Council or that God has or will have a son? Abraham never said anything similar to what we hear from Christianity or Christians.


Did Israel (Ya`qub) ever say what Christians say about God? Did Moses ever describe God as Christians do? Did Jesus ever give his disciples any information or news similar to what mankind has been hearing from Christianity? They never said anything similar to what we hear from Christianity or Christians.


Why did not God just let people know the way to salvation in clear terms? What about those who came before Jesus, why are they condemned even though God never told them the truth, as Christians would have us believe, since the OT says nothing about other than one God, nothing about that One God being three in essence?


We know from Christianity that God already punished mankind and stained them because of a sin they did not commit. This is the doomsday news Christianity has for mankind: You all are ****ed because Adam made a mistake. Those who came before Jesus are in far worse shape than those who were his contemporaries or those who came after him, since those who came before him lived and died unknowing what the true faith is, since God did not reveal to them the true faith in clear terms.


Why did God wait many centuries before revealing John 1:1, which should have been Genesis 1:1, and Genesis should have been revealed to Adam the first human so that he knows and then transfers the knowledge that God is actually three, or even better, two gods: John 1:1 talks about two Gods, the Holy Ghost is nowhere to be mentioned in this verse which Christians somehow use as proof to Trinity.


Dozens, possibly hundreds of people compiled the numerous books contained in the so-called Bible. We are told they were inspired to write what they wrote. However, why were they not inspired to identify themselves? Do we really know for certainty who wrote anything in the Bible, let alone use it as evidence for anything? Christendom is challenged to produce a single exact replica of any page in the Bible? Does mankind know who really wrote the books contained in the Bible? Habakkuk: Who wrote the chapter bearing his name, what is his real name; what is his trustworthiness; in what time-frame did he write this book; what language did he write it in; who copied it; who authorized them to copy it, and how accurate were they in copying it; who are the witnesses who reported the stories contained in this book and how reliable are they?


A Christian master tactician will answer these questions by dancing around them then certainly fail to offer a true clear answer. One will hear tens of minutes of arguments on who could have written what section, who Habakkuk is thought to be, what is the probable date of his writing whatever part of the book popularly ascribed to him. Endless ‘may be’; ‘could be’; ‘probably’; ‘it is thought’; ‘it is said’; and so forth, will be the answer.


Christendom and Judaism do not have a single authentic chain of narration leading to any part of their Holy Books: They inherited books written by numerous authors of unknown trustworthiness and took whatever they found in these books as their creed, a creed based on doubt and suspicion. Christians and Jews have no certain knowledge about any part of any book contained in their Holy Books. This is why mankind should vigorously question the validity of the source itself where Jesus is claimed to have been proclaimed as being God.


Jesus never said he is God or demanded he be worshipped. Some Christians answer this clear challenge by saying that had Jesus said that he is God, the people would not have accepted his statement and would have accused him of blasphemy. This answer is unbelievable. God cannot even say to his own creation that he is God, fearing they will not believe him and call him a blasphemer! Is this why he did not say he is God?


If Christians could fearlessly claim Jesus is God, even though they cannot produce a single statement from Jesus where he clearly says he is God, how can they say that God could not reveal himself to his creation because people would not have believed him! Why did Jesus come to begin with? Did he not come to reveal himself to mankind that he is God, as Christians claim? This is rather confusing. Jesus never said he is God. Christians believe he is God. But, they say he did not say he is God, because people would not have believed he is God. Therefore, Christians admit that Jesus never said he is God, yet they still insist he is.



Key-Word: Twinity!


The title of this debate seems to emphasize ‘Twinity’, since it does not seem rather pressing or important for Christians to also prove that the Holy Ghost is also Jesus and also God, a concept which Muslims and Jews also reject as furiously as they reject the claimed divinity of Jesus. We seek refuge with Allah from disbelief.


I ask the Creator of all things to guide Christians to the true faith that they may finally come to know who Jesus really is, a human prophet from Allah, human, not divine. All thanks and praises are due to Allah, and may Allah’s peace and blessings be on all of His Prophets, starting with Adam and including Nu`h (Noah), Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), and `Esa (Jesus), and ending with Allah’s Final and Last Prophet and Messenger Prophet Muhammad.


Jalal Abualrub

[brotherubaid]

Let me also suggest this

VALIDITY OF BIBLE AS AN AUTHENTIC SOURCE
PART 1 http://islamlife.com/news.php?readmore=222
PART 2 http://islamlife.com/news.php?readmore=223
PART3 http://islamlife.com/news.php?readmore=224
PART4 http://islamlife.com/news.php?readmore=226

[Grace Seeker]

To be fully human, one must begin from a human sperm and egg. Right?

No. And I can cite examples if you insist.

[Follower]

Were Adam and Eve fully human?

[Zafran]

Were Adam and Eve fully human?

:skeleton:

[Muhaba]

what i don't understand is why would God tell people that He is one for centuries and then with the coming of Jesus this supposedly changed and became three-in-one.

If it were true that God was made of three (Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost) don't you think that the prophets before Jesus would have preached about it too? But in the scriptures revealed before Jesus there is nothing about the trinity. In the OT it is written simple: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deuteronomy 6:4).’

What do Christians say about this?

[Grace Seeker]

what i don't understand is why would God tell people that He is one for centuries and then with the coming of Jesus this supposedly changed and became three-in-one.

If it were true that God was made of three (Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost) don't you think that the prophets before Jesus would have preached about it too? But in the scriptures revealed before Jesus there is nothing about the trinity. In the OT it is written simple: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deuteronomy 6:4).’

What do Christians say about this?

First -- Jesus is the human earthly aspect of God the Son. But while God the Son is preexistant, Jesus is not. The human Jesus only came into existence in Mary's womb, when God (the Son) became incarnated in her. So, at that point God took on flesh with all of its limitation, but it would not be appropriate to work backwards to look for Jesus prior to his conception.

Second -- this does not mean that God has not always been Father, Son, and Spirit. Indeed we would hold that God has always existed in Trinity even if people have not always been aware of that truth.

Third -- the teaching of the oneness of God is still the essential message of the Christian faith when speaking of the Trinity. Indeed, the emphasis of the three-in-one nature of God is not on the three persons as individuals, for they are not separate beings, but on the oneness of those three persons as one divine being.

Fourth -- It is not true that in the scriptures revealed before Jesus that there is nothing that might speak to the concepts of the Trinity. Christianity did not invent this idea but actually adopted it from that which was already present in Judaism. They may not have been as fully articulated in the Old Testament as they would eventually become articulated by the Church, but they were present in the personification of the divine Word and of the Spirit of God that one does indeed find in the Old Testament. And yet no one accused the Jews of being ploytheists. This is because the Jews (and the Christians like them) don't understand this as the creating of additional gods but more as distinct expressions of the essence of the one God.

Fifth -- I doubt that anyone who accepts the existence of God would have any argument with the Christian understanding of the Holy Spirit if it were not linked to the Christian understanding of the divinity of the man Jesus. Thus, I don't really think that the Trinity is the issue as much as what another poster here has called the Twinity.

[Muhaba]

Grace Seeker, Thanktyou for your reply.

The coming of Jesus would be a very important event if it were really as you say (which we muslims don't believe). In that case, God would have told from the beginning of time, from the very first revelation, about Jesus, etc as you believe. But although God informs Abraham that He will make a great nation through his progeny and He will raise prophets among his progeny, nowhere does God inform mankind about the coming of Jesus.

don't you think God would have informed mankind about Jesus? If God didn't inform anyone about the coming of Jesus in former scriptures, then don't you think that it might not be as you believe? That Jesus might not be a part of God but a mere human being as the muslims believe?

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker, Thanktyou for your reply.

The coming of Jesus would be a very important event if it were really as you say (which we muslims don't believe). In that case, God would have told from the beginning of time, from the very first revelation, about Jesus, etc as you believe. But although God informs Abraham that He will make a great nation through his progeny and He will raise prophets among his progeny, nowhere does God inform mankind about the coming of Jesus.

don't you think God would have informed mankind about Jesus? If God didn't inform anyone about the coming of Jesus in former scriptures, then don't you think that it might not be as you believe? That Jesus might not be a part of God but a mere human being as the muslims believe?

You're welcome. I am happy to take the time for any who seek to understand where Christians are coming from with regard to these issues.

With regard to your next post: you ask many questions, each of which might be an extended answer in its own right. However, I shall try to keep my answers relatively short (at least for me), yet address each of them in turn.

1) Do I think God would have informed mankind about Jesus?

I believe that God did indeed make his purposes known all the way back in the garden itself:

Genesis 3
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

Christians understand this passage as a forshadowing of the cross.

Christians also understand Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel", as speaking of the coming Messiah. Since Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah that this verse is speaking of, and since the word "Immanuel" means "God with us," it is also one of the reasons that we believe what we do about Jesus.

There are many other prophecies regarding the Messiah in the Tanakh -- the location of his birth, his heritage, the way he would be treated and the things he would accomplish to name a few -- (though today's Jews disagree with us) many first century Jews and all first century Christians believed that these were met in the person of Jesus.


2) If God didn't inform anyone about the coming of Jesus in former scriptures, then don't you think that it might not be as you believe?

I disagree with your assumption that God didn't inform anyone about the coming of Jesus in former scriptures. (Just look above.) Now, if you mean that God didn't mention Jesus by name, different story. Of course, since Jesus is just the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua (probably pronounced Yeshua in Aramaic) which mean "the Lord saves", and God did indeed repeatedly promise to save his people, I would also have a hard time agreeing with the idea that Jesus isn't mentioned.


3) That Jesus might not be a part of God but a mere human being as the muslims believe?

I think this belief that Muslims hold is NOT founded in a belief about whether or not Jesus' coming was previously mentioned in scriptures. Muslims have no problem accepting that Jesus was a prophet, even though they don't believe his coming was fortold. It is the role of incarnate diety that Christians assign to Jesus which Muslims have trouble accepting. But for the Christian, Jesus (as John's gospel declares, John 1:1-14) is the very embodiment of the word of God and we see that spoken of in verses such as these:

Isaiah 55

3 Give ear and come to me;
hear me, that your soul may live.
I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
my faithful love promised to David.

4 See, I have made him a witness to the peoples,
a leader and commander of the peoples.

5 Surely you will summon nations you know not,
and nations that do not know you will hasten to you,
because of the LORD your God,
the Holy One of Israel,
for he has endowed you with splendor."

6 Seek the LORD while he may be found;
call on him while he is near.

7 Let the wicked forsake his way
and the evil man his thoughts.
Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.

9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10 As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,

11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire

This is yet another place where we Christians see Jesus spoken of in advance of his coming. Further, as the word of God, Jesus does indeed accomplish what we Christians understand God desires, that is, in accordance with other prophecies, he fulfills this scripture:

Luke 4

18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

The above passage has Jesus referring to Isaiah 61 and applying it to himself. Freedom, release, recovery of sight and the year of the Lord's favor -- these are all things that we Christians believe that Jesus accomplished, not as a mere teacher sent from God, but as God who came to be with us, "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them" (2 Corinthians 5:19).


So, while Jews and Muslims both believe in the promise of the Messiah, and Muslims even believe that Jesus is this promised Messiah, it seems that they don't see the same Messianic prophecies that Christians do with regard to how Jesus fulfills them and how this actually is revealed to us in advance, at least for those who had eyes to see and ears to hear what the Spirit says to the church.

[Muhaba]

I don't understand how you can think that Luke 4 shows that God came to be with you because it clearly says "He has sent me" which shows that Jesus and god are two separate beings.

We muslims do believe in the miracles that Jesus performed as they are mentioned in the Quraan but we believe that Jesus was a human being and performed the miracles with the permission of God.

Below are the verses from the Quraan that contain the story of Jesus (Isa A.S):


Then came the time, when the angels said (to Mary), “O Mary, Allah has exalted you and purified you and chosen you for His service in preference to all the women of the world. O Mary, be obedient to your Lord, prostrate yourself before Him and bow down with those who bow down in worship.”

(O Muhammad,) these are the “unseen” things We are revealing to you: you were not present when they were casting lots by throwing their quills to decide which of them should be the guardian of Mary; nor were you with them when they were arguing about it.

And remember when the angels said, “O Mary, Allah sends you the good news of a Command of His: his name shall be Messiah, Jesus son of Mary. He will be highly honored in this world and in the Next World and he will be among those favored by Allah. He will speak to the people alike in the cradle and when grown up, and he will be among the righteous.” Hearing this (Mary) said, “How, o Lord, shall I have a son, when no man has ever touched me?”
“Thus shall it be,” was the answer. Allah creates whatever He wills. When He decrees a thing, He only says, “Be” and it is. (Continuing their message, the angels added,) “And Allah will teach him the Book and wisdom, and give him the knowledge of the Torah and the Gospel, and appoint him as His Messenger to the children of Israel.”

(And when he came as a Messenger to the children of Israel, he said,) “I have come to you with a clear Sign from your Lord: in your very presence, I make the likeness of a bird out of clay and breathe into it and it becomes, by Allah’s Command, a bird. I heal those born blind and the lepers and I bring to life the dead by Allah’s Command; I inform you of what you eat and what you store up in your houses. Surely there is a great Sign for you in all this, if you have mind to believe. And I have come to confirm those teachings of the Guidance of the Torah which are intact in my time. Lo! I have come with a clear Sign from your Lord; so fear Allah and obey me. Indeed Allah is my Lord, and also your Lord; therefore worship Him alone: that is the straight way.” (The Holy Quraan, chapter Aali-Imran, English translation of verses 42 – 51).


And (O Muhammad,) relate in this Book the story of Mary: how she had retired in seclusion from her people to the eastern side and had hung down a screen to hide herself from them. There We sent to her Our Spirit (“an angel”) and he appeared before her in the form of a perfect man.

(Mary) cried out involuntarily, “I seek God’s refuge from you, if you are a pious man.”

He replied, “I am a mere messenger from your Lord and have been sent to give you a pure son.”

(Mary) said, “How can I bear a son, when no man has touched me, and I am not an unchaste woman?”

The angel replied, “So shall it be. Your Lord says, ‘this is an easy thing for Me to do, and We will do so in order to make that boy a Sign for the people and a blessing from Us, and this must happen’.”

Accordingly, (Mary) conceived the child, and with it she went away to a distant place. Then the throes of childbirth urged her to take shelter under a date palm. There she began to cry, “Oh! Would that I had died before this and sunk into oblivion.” At this the angel at the foot of her bed consoled her, saying, “grieve not at all, for your Lord has set a spring under you; as for your food, shake the trunk of this tree and fresh, ripe dates will fall down for you; so eat and drink and refresh your eyes; and if you see a man, say to him, ‘As I have vowed to observe the fast (of silence) for the sake of the Merciful, I will not speak to anyone today’.”

Then she brought the child to her people. They said, “O Mary! This is a heinous sin that you have committed. O sister of Aaron! Your father was not a wicked man, nor was your mother an unchaste woman.”

(In answer to this) Mary merely pointed towards the infant. The people said, “How shall we talk with him, who is but an infant in the cradle?”

Whereupon the child spoke out, “I am a servant of Allah: He has given me the Book and He has appointed me a Prophet, and He has made me blessed wherever I may be. He has enjoined upon me to offer Salat (prayer) and to give Zakat (charity) so long as I shall live. He has made me dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me oppressive and hard-hearted. Peace be upon me on the day I was born and peace shall be on me on the day I die and on the day I am raised to life.”

This is Jesus, the son of Mary, and this is the truth about him concerning which they are in doubt. It does not behove God to beget a son for He is far above this. When He decrees a thing, He only says, “Be,” and it does come into being.

(And Jesus had declared) “Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him; this is the Right Way.” But in spite of this, the sects began to have differences among themselves. So those who adopted the ways of disbelief shall suffer a horrible woe, when they witness the Great Day. On that Day when they shall appear before Us, their ears and their eyes shall become very sharp, but today these transgressors (neither hear nor see the Truth and) have strayed into manifest deviation. (O Muhammad,) now that these people are not paying heed and are not believing, warn them of the horrors of the Day, when judgment shall be passed, and they will have nothing left for them but vain regret. Ultimately, We will inherit the Earth and all that is on it, and everyone shall be returned to Us. (the Holy Quraan, Chapter Maryam Verses 16 – 40 (English Translation).

[Great I am not]

Dear Follower:

Rather than simply repeating your religious traditions, please provide the evidence from the Bible that supports your assertion that Jesus was fully God.

Regards,
Grenville

Jesus, if he ever existed at all, would be some hybrid chimera. God does not need chimeras to speak for him.

To think that God, one species, would uses a lower species to reproduce a chimera, is like saying that man can use a dog to reproduce and that the chimera dog should rule the purebreds. Too foolish to contemplate. Bestiality does not run in God's family tree.

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

Dear Greatest I am:

You should not try to define Jesus outside of what has been explicitly revealed about Him in Scripture. Anything else is speculative opinion.

Regards,
Grenville

You go ahead and believe explicitly what a book that begins with a talking snake and ends with a seven headed monsters tells you is truth. Yes indeed, truth that this book only has truth.

Let me know when you find the talking snake.

Regards
DL

[Zafran]

Just to tell you "Greatest" this thread is about "Biblical evidence that describes Jesus as God?" . Use biblical evedince rather then just emotional out bursts which are leading this thread off topic.

[Great I am not]

Just to tell you "Greatest" this thread is about "Biblical evidence that describes Jesus as God?" . Use biblical evedince rather then just emotional out bursts which are leading this thread off topic.

Ok but to use the words Bible and evidence in the same phrase, is rather novel.


There has never been any evidence for god at all. The bible certainly has no proof of anything.

I found God but I had to look elsewhere than a Bible. The proof is out there for all to see. Not in a book.

If you want proof, it will have to come from reality, not from fiction.

The Bible is fiction unless you believe in talking snakes and seven headed monsters.

Do you?

Regards
DL

[Zafran]

Ok but to use the words Bible and evidence in the same phrase, is rather novel.


There has never been any evidence for god at all. The bible certainly has no proof of anything.

I found God but I had to look elsewhere than a Bible. The proof is out there for all to see. Not in a book.

If you want proof, it will have to come from reality, not from fiction.

The Bible is fiction unless you believe in talking snakes and seven headed monsters.

Do you?

Regards
DL

Depends on the definition of "evedince" - Besides the thread is about "Is there any Biblical evidence that describes Jesus as God?"

So the thread is specifically focuing on the bible and what it says about Christ - Its not about subjective emotional outbursts if you think the bible is fiction or not. If you want to talk about that make another thread.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Short reminder:
Please stay on topic.

As you were.

[Walter]

Now, turning back to the actual topic of the thread, I wish to ask this of the OP.

Given that historic orthodox Christian theology has stated in its ecumenical creeds that Jesus is divine.
And given that the primary source for Christian theology is the Bible.
And given that you propose that no where in the Bible is Jesus presented as being divine.
Then it must be that the compilers of those ecumenical creeds adapted this view either out of their own imaginations or some other source.


This poses the following set of questions:
1) If the creators of those creeds didn't find the substantiation for their beliefs in the Bible, then where do you propose that they found it?
2) Why would they have altered their Bible-based faith to include something that was not found in the Bible?
3) Why did the church continue to teach these views, which is not Biblical would be heretical, throughout all subsequent history?
4) Why would the reformers, who were so intent on returning to Biblical Christianity from which they thought the Church has strayed, accept rather than re-examine the divinity of Jesus?

Hi Grace Seeker:

Your questions are all answered in Brothers Kept Apart. However, I will try to summarise; however, you should read the book for a complete answer.

1. There are over 20,000 pages of early church manuscripts between the time of Jesus and Mohammed which describe the development of Christian religious taditions. They are all described in the book, which is the culmination of 30 years of research. It is these traditions that were around during Mohammed's lifetime that Mohammed was responding to rather than what is written in the Bible.

Justin Martyr was the first to explicitly, and without dispute, write that Jesus was God around 150 AD in his "Dialogue with Trypho".

2. The reports of the church councils in which these creeds were developed, confirm that there was no opportunity to verify the assumptions upon which the interpretations of various evidence was based. Those who attempted to verify such assumptions were deemed a heretic, denounced, accursed, excommunicated, exiled, impoverished, had property confiscated, beaten, murdered, and had their writings burnt, and their opinions misconstrued. Therefore, it is easy to see how unpopular teachings could forcibly become established traditions and doctrines.

You asked why? Let Jesus tell you.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. (Matthew 7:15-20)

3. It is only recently that people have started to scientifically examine theological evidence without fear of persecution, although it depends where you live. It is still very dangerous in Islamic countries.

4. Dittio. It should be noted that the Apostles Creed, which is believed to have been recited by the apostles, does not teach nor imply that Jesus is God.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Grenville, thank-you for your answers. While I don't find them satisfactory in terms of answering my questions in such a way that would lead me to agree with you, and therefore still dispute the conclusions you present, I will acknowledge that you did try to answer the questions and did not evade them. They are your answers to those questions and that is all that I was asking for.

[Walter]

Dear Grace Seeker:

If our goal is to seek the truth, then please consider that what I have written is easily verifiable. None of the writings of the first disciples of the apostles suggested, or even implied that Jesus is God. Not Clement and Barnabus, whose works were included in the early Bibles, nor Mathetes, Papius or Polycarp.

As I previously mentioned, Justin Martyr was the first, and he was a third generation follower of Jesus. Still, where could he have learnt this? It appears that he did not learn it from anyone, but he deuced it himself. He was a philosopher who converted to Christianity. Rather than simply accepting what was taught, his philosopher trained mind seemed to want to know the how and why. This is also how the Achillas/Arias debate appeared to start during the time of Constantine almost two centuries later - persons, not content to accept the explicit teachings of the Bible, but wanting to speculate on the how and the why.

Such speculations are OK, provided that they consciously remain in the realm of speculation. However, as the centuries go by, and the originators of the speculative ideas become conferred with special status and authority after their deaths, especially if they happened to be martyred, as Justin Martyr was, then their speculative ideas can develop into authorised teachings.

The problem is when such authorised teachings become universal creeds and doctrines with violent consequences for any who simply try to verify the assumptions upon which such speculative interpretations were based.

History shows that we have had a relatively short 200 year window do engage in this type of scientific analysis without the previous harmful persecution. We can see this window of opportunity closing – simply examine the integrity of any ‘debate’ on any topic with an influential political agenda, and the subsequent vilification of the person on the politically incorrect side. Grace Seeker, you will probably never see another book, with the integrity of the research being carried as honestly as you will find in Brothers Kept Apart, for quite some time.

Regards,
Grenville

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Romans 1:18-19)

[Jenny]

The Bible does NOT teach in any place,that Jesus was God.He always calling himself "son of God",never God.Of course,not the physical son,God is a ghost,He has no body,so He cannot have sex-so Jesus was a spiritual son,not physical.

[Walter]

The Bible does NOT teach in any place,that Jesus was God.He always calling himself "son of God",never God.Of course,not the physical son,God is a ghost,He has no body,so He cannot have sex-so Jesus was a spiritual son,not physical.

Dear Jenny:

We seem to agree that the Biblical support for Jesus being God is very weak, and has been an unnecessary Christian religious traditional barrier that has kept Christians and Muslims apart for the past 1.300 years. However, I trust that we also agree that the Biblical evidence for Jesus being the Son of God and Messiah, who will return to judge the world, is indisputable.

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31)

Regards,
Grenville

[Jenny]

Stop going round in circles

FYI 3 --> tri --> trinity

Definitions of trinity on the Web:

• three: the cardinal number that is the sum of one and one and one
• the union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead
• trio: three people considered as a unit
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Trinity does not mean in any way,that Jesus was God.God gave The Holy Ghost to Jesus,to enable him to fulfil his mission.The Holy Ghost is a power and a wisdom coming from God,it`s God`s gift and His way of expression in Jesus.That what we admire in Trinity,is God and His wisdom,power and ways of acting.

[Grace Seeker]

Dear Grace Seeker:

If our goal is to seek the truth, then please consider that what I have written is easily verifiable. None of the writings of the first disciples of the apostles suggested, or even implied that Jesus is God. Not Clement and Barnabus, whose works were included in the early Bibles, nor Mathetes, Papius or Polycarp.

The problem with this argument is that simply to make the assertion that Jesus was the Son of God was in fact understood by their contemporaries as an assertion that Jesus was God. John thought that he was explicitly saying as much when he wrote his Gospel.

And there are plenty of places where Jesus' divinity is implied. One of them ia a passage that many here on LI like to use as evidence against it, the story of Jesus and the rich young ruler (found in Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 18). Jesus is approached by one who addresses him as "Good Teacher" to which Jesus responds asking the man why he (the man) called him (Jesus) good as only God is good. Now many see in this evidence that Jesus is saying that he is not good. But never, in even one of these accounts, does Jesus say any such thing. But what they then fail to do is consider the rest of the conversation. The man is seeking information from Jesus as to how to achieve eternal life. Jesus asks him what he knows of what God requires, and the man answers by identifying of God that we are all to submit to. (That should no doubt please Muslims.) The man then goes on to claim that he has kept them. And this then is where the story takes a twist (Muslims would no doubt say that this is where it gets corrupted). Jesus tells the man that he still lacks something. That which he lacks is that he needs to give up all that he has and follow Jesus. Now, remember that this is a key to eternal life. Following the commandments is NOT enough. Rather, following Jesus is. Why, not because following Jesus helps us to be more submissive to God's commands -- this man was already perfect in that aspect of what he was doing, and it wasn't enough. No, because following Jesus is following God, and ultimately that is what we are called to do. Not submit to a list of things, but to submit to God. That is the implication of that passage. And the best way for us to do that is to follow Jesus, because to follow him is to follow God.

[Grace Seeker]

Trinity does not mean in any way,that Jesus was God.God gave The Holy Ghost to Jesus,to enable him to fulfil his mission.The Holy Ghost is a power and a wisdom coming from God,it`s God`s gift and His way of expression in Jesus.That what we admire in Trinity,is God and His wisdom,power and ways of acting.

Your definition does not jive with that which you yourself just quoted from the internet that Trinity is "the union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead". And it certainly does not jive with the teachings of historic, orthodox Christianity for the last 2000 years.

[Walter]

No, because following Jesus is following God, and ultimately that is what we are called to do. Not submit to a list of things, but to submit to God. That is the implication of that passage. And the best way for us to do that is to follow Jesus, because to follow him is to follow God.

Dear GS:

You are making the unverified assumption that Jesus is God since to follow Jesus is to follow God. Please note that Jesus did exactly what God asked Him to do. Hear Jesus for yourself.

I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me. (John 5:30)

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Dear GS:

You are making the unverified assumption that Jesus is God since to follow Jesus is to follow God.

Indeed I am. How else is it that keeping the commandments that God has giving results in the man still lacking one thing? And how is it that by following Jesus that it results in eternal life, unless there is more to following Jesus than in just keeping the commands that God has given us? The only thing different about the man keeping the commands of God himself, and keeping them because he is following Jesus as Jesus keeps the commands of God is that in following Jesus he is doing more than just keeping commands. What more could that be? I suggest that in following Jesus he is actually not just keeping God's commands, but is doing something more than that. It must be, because just keeping God's commands, at least according to Jesus, is not sufficient for receiving eternal life. The only thing that I can conceive of as being of a higher order than God's word is God himself.

[Great I am not]

Jesus the so called God doesn't have knowledge about the last day
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Mark 13:32

Jesus the so called God cries to himself when he was crucified
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? (hebrew) My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (english)
Mathew 27:46

Regards
DL

[Walter]

And there are plenty of places where Jesus' divinity is implied.

Dear Grace Seeker:

You seem to keep arriving at your interpretations by implying and speculating rather than an effortless common-sense reading of the passage. Perhaps you could ponder and then respond to the following queries.

1. Do you agree that doctrines should not be based on verses that are vulnerable to diverse interpretations?

2. Do you agree that the verses that are used to support the teaching that Jesus is God are subject to diverse interpretations?

3. What are the consequences of Jesus not being God?

4. What Biblical verses are damaged by Jesus being exactly as He is explicitly described to be in the Bible – the Messiah and Son of God?

5. Are you actually defending the Bible or a religious tradition?

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Jesus the so called God doesn't have knowledge about the last day
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Mark 13:32

Jesus the so called God cries to himself when he was crucified
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? (hebrew) My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (english)
Mathew 27:46

Regards
DL

Dear DL:

While you clearly do not accept the religious tradition that Jesus is God, do you accept the explicit Biblical teaching that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God?

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Dear Grace Seeker:

You seem to keep arriving at your interpretations by implying and speculating rather than an effortless common-sense reading of the passage. Perhaps you could ponder and then respond to the following queries.

1. Do you agree that doctrines should not be based on verses that are vulnerable to diverse interpretations?

No. As all verses are vulnerable to diverse interpretations, we would have nothing left on which to base any doctrine.

2. Do you agree that the verses that are used to support the teaching that Jesus is God are subject to diverse interpretations?

I just said that all verses are vulnerable to diverse interpretations. I don't think that the verses used to suppoert the teaching that Jesus is God are any more so than any other verses in scripture, in fact I think people who approach the scriptures without a pre-formed view of what they hope to find would see that they do point to Jesus being understood by the writers of the NT as divine.

3. What are the consequences of Jesus not being God?

That we are left unreconciled to God.


[quiote]4. What Biblical verses are damaged by Jesus being exactly as He is explicitly described to be in the Bible – the Messiah and Son of God?[/quote]None. The only damage is being done by your interpretation that Son of God means something less than God incarnate.

5. Are you actually defending the Bible or a religious tradition?

Neither. The Bible stands as it is. It doesn't need me to defend it. Nor do I care one whit for religious tradition. What I am defending the integrity of the meaning of the original writers of the scripture which I believe you have discarded to arrive at the conclusions you have reached.

[Walter]

Dear Grace Seeker:

1. I asked you whether you agreed that doctrines should not be based on verses that are vulnerable to diverse interpretations. You replied.

No. As all verses are vulnerable to diverse interpretations, we would have nothing left on which to base any doctrine.

While all verses can have more than one interpretation, all verses are not vulnerable to diverse interpretations. Vulnerability exists where there is insufficient corroborating evidence to verify the assumptions upon which the interpretation was made.

Therefore, beliefs that are based on verses which easily lend themselves to diverse interpretations (because the assumptions cannot be verified) should not become doctrines.

2. I also asked you whether you agreed that the verses that are used to support the teaching that Jesus is God are subject to diverse interpretations?

I just said that all verses are vulnerable to diverse interpretations. I don't think that the verses used to support the teaching that Jesus is God are any more so than any other verses in scripture, in fact I think people who approach the scriptures without a pre-formed view of what they hope to find would see that they do point to Jesus being understood by the writers of the NT as divine.

Please note that the verses used to support the following teachings are not vulnerable to diverse interpretations:

• Jesus was born
• Jesus did many miracles
• Jesus raised the dead
• Jesus was crucified
• Jesus died
• Jesus was resurrected

Perhaps you could explain the diverse interpretations on the many verses that are used to support and corroborate those teachings. In contrast, you can then try to find the many diverse interpretations of the single or relatively few verses that are used to support the following teachings:

• Baptism for the dead.
• Alcoholic wine served at communion.
• Baptism of infants.

3. I asked you what are the consequences of Jesus not being God?

That we are left unreconciled to God.

Perhaps you could explain your answer. The Bible teaches that:

• we are separated from God;
• Jesus is the Messiah sent to reconcile us to God;
• Reconciliation is possible by believing that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.

“but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:31)

You have added to the Biblical requirement by determining that reconciliation to God is also dependent upon believing that Jesus is God. This determination is entirely dependent upon your fundamental assumption that “Son of God” means “God”. You have not tried to verify your fundamental assumption.

There is a host of conflicting evidence which disallows the verification of your fundamental assumption, yet, you confidently proclaim your unverified assumption as fact. Why do you want to put such an unnecessary burden on those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah, including the Muslims. Remember Jesus' warning.

And He said, “Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.

Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. In fact, you bear witness that you approve the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs....

“Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.”

And as He said these things to them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to assail Him vehemently, and to cross-examine Him about many things, lying in wait for Him, and seeking to catch Him in something He might say, that they might accuse Him. (Luke 11:46-54)

Please reconsider GS.

4. I asked: What Biblical verses are damaged by Jesus being exactly as He is explicitly described to be in the Bible – the Messiah and Son of God?

None. The only damage is being done by your interpretation that Son of God means something less than God incarnate.

None GS? What of these ones from Jesus, who is a credible witness:

Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’” (John 20:17)

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. (John 17:3)

5. Finally, I asked: Are you actually defending the Bible or a religious tradition?

Neither. The Bible stands as it is. It doesn't need me to defend it. Nor do I care one whit for religious tradition. What I am defending the integrity of the meaning of the original writers of the scripture which I believe you have discarded to arrive at the conclusions you have reached.

GS. Please re-read this thread. You seem to simply dismiss any evidence contrary to your view, while I have examined all of the evidence provided and have presented my findings. Have you read the works of the Apostles’ first disciples, some of which were included in the early Bibles? Do you see any explicit references to Jesus being God, or that explain that “Son of God” means “God? Do you see any such verification evidence in the Bible?

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

You have added to the Biblical requirement by determining that reconciliation to God is also dependent upon believing that Jesus is God. This determination is entirely dependent upon your fundamental assumption that “Son of God” means “God”. You have not tried to verify your fundamental assumption.

As I've said to Yusuf, I have more going on in my life than to spend it in never ending debate. For more on the use of "Son of God" by John as a way of pointing to Jesus' divinity, I simply encourage you to read the literature related to the phrase. I good starting point would be A Theology of the New Testament by George Eldon Ladd. You might also want to subscribe to Christian History magazine. You claim that I'm working out of assumptions, but at least they are ones that I share with the early church, whereas you are just a guilty of working from assumption, but they are ones you share with Islam not the Church of Jesus of Christ.

[Grofica]

The bible says over and over that Jesus was the SON of god. Yet never once does it say he actually is god. He was supposed to be a messenger of god’s words

Jesus was said to be the son of god on top of being a messenger...

If you look at Greek mythology (or religion as they would have said back then) the gods had children with mortals all the time (or Mary for example) and some of those children had extraordinary qualities… however, they themselves were not gods. Perhaps you could even say “1/2 god” or “godly” but yet not a god.

Most all religions also define gods as immortals. From the ancient Egyptians and the Aztecs to even modern day religions... it’s sort of an unspoken prerequisite. Jesus supposedly died for our sins and I understand the why and how of the story but the point is he died. A god is for all time and is not subject to mortality, or in other words mortal… to say a god was capable of dying is like saying that the world was created by the big bang.

[Grace Seeker]

Most all religions also define gods as immortals. From the ancient Egyptians and the Aztecs to even modern day religions... it’s sort of an unspoken prerequisite.

Perhaps among pagans immortality is the definition of being a god. But not among Christians, nor do I think among Jews nor Muslims. Don't you believe yourself as having been created either to an eternity with God in paradise or apart from God in hell? If so, then we are immortal beings, yet we are not gods.

So, while that which is mortal could not be God, there is much that is immortal that is also not God; therefore, it is unwise to use the standard of mortality vs immortality to determine whether or not Jesus (or anyone else for that matter) is or isn't God.

Jesus supposedly died for our sins and I understand the why and how of the story but the point is he died. A god is for all time and is not subject to mortality, or in other words mortal… to say a god was capable of dying is like saying that the world was created by the big bang.

To say that Jesus died is not to say that he ceased to exist. Not in the slightest. But more important, one needs to shift your criteria away from mortality completely. It is actually irrelevant. More important is whether Jesus is pre-existent of creation. If he pre-exists creation, then he is not a part of creation nor a created being. On this the Bible and the Qur'an dramatically disagree. The Qur'an believes that Jesus was created by God and placed in Mary's womb. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Word who was with God (even was God) and through whom all things that were made are made, that Jesus is himself the Creator and not created. The only reason the discussion is continuing is because Grenville simply dismisses those facts and discounts Jesus as the Word to somehow be ain instrument of God, which is not what we are told about the Word in either John or Colossians. But once one accepts this discounting, then the rest of Grenville's unorthodox theology easily follows suit.

[Grofica]

Perhaps among pagans immortality is the definition of being a god. But not among Christians, nor do I think among Jews nor Muslims. Don't you believe yourself as having been created either to an eternity with God in paradise or apart from God in hell? If so, then we are immortal beings, yet we are not gods.

Oh, friend how thee hast twisted the words. I never said immortality is the ONLY definition. I said they are defined as… perhaps… described, characterized or labeled would be a more suited word. Our souls spend the eternity with God in heaven or with Lucifer in hell not our bodies. We can die that’s what makes us mortal.

To say that Jesus died is not to say that he ceased to exist. Not in the slightest. But more important, one needs to shift your criteria away from mortality completely. It is actually irrelevant. More important is whether Jesus is pre-existent of creation. If he pre-exists creation, then he is not a part of creation nor a created being.

In Luke 1:35 it says “The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.” thus implying that he was created. If I am not mistaken it’s only mentioned previously that it’s what people were waiting for it, but there is not any mention of his being a soul prior.

On this the Bible and the Qur'an dramatically disagree. The Qur'an believes that Jesus was created by God and placed in Mary's womb. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Word who was with God (even was God) and through whom all things that were made are made, that Jesus is himself the Creator and not created.

Actually again you could reference the above mentioned Luke passage. The King James (was well as a few others) state that God will come upon her to impregnate her with child. (I am paraphrasing each bible has it worded just a little different but it’s the same story) I grew up in a pretty religiously strong home (the older members being catholic and the younger ones, like my mother, Christen so to say the least the bible was (almost) “beat” into my head. (my mother also made me attend AWANAS and a few other “youth programs”) And sorry but I don’t remember from any Sunday school at any church anyone ever saying Jesus was god. He was always the son of god sent to sacrifice himself for our sins.

The only reason the discussion is continuing is because Grenville simply dismisses those facts and discounts Jesus as the Word to somehow be ain instrument of God, which is not what we are told about the Word in either John or Colossians. But once one accepts this discounting, then the rest of Grenville's unorthodox theology easily follows suit.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion… However I can find no passage that states Jesus IS god… merely that he is the son of god, a messenger of gods word, and a savior to the people.

[Walter]

The only reason the discussion is continuing is because Grenville simply dismisses those facts and discounts Jesus as the Word to somehow be an instrument of God, which is not what we are told about the Word in either John or Colossians. But once one accepts this discounting, then the rest of Grenville's unorthodox theology easily follows suit.

Oh Grace Seeker:

Please be honest. That is a terrible and untrue accusation. Every single verse that you, Follower, or anyone else has presented as evidence supporting the view that Jesus is God I have examined honestly. I have dismissed no evidence at all.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

As I've said to Yusuf, I have more going on in my life than to spend it in never ending debate. For more on the use of "Son of God" by John as a way of pointing to Jesus' divinity, I simply encourage you to read the literature related to the phrase. I good starting point would be A Theology of the New Testament by George Eldon Ladd. You might also want to subscribe to Christian History magazine. You claim that I'm working out of assumptions, but at least they are ones that I share with the early church, whereas you are just a guilty of working from assumption, but they are ones you share with Islam not the Church of Jesus of Christ.

Ok GS:

If you highly recommend this book as one containing the specific evidence that can verify the assumption that "Jesus is God" means "God", then I shall purchase it and read it. Why? Because I am not engaged in debating in order to defend of promote a position, rather, I want to know the truth, and will engage in discussion in order that the truth may be clarified.

The truth is clarified when verses are interpreted honestly. This means that the interpretation must be supported by the evidence, the interpretation must not damage the integrity of the evidence, and the assumptions used in interpreting the evidence must be verified. In addition to this scientific approach, I am constrained by my religious beliefs not to intentionally or inadvertently mislead others.

If the Catholic tradition has honestly interpreted a verse then I will accept it. If the Anglican, Methodist, or Baptist traditions have interpreted verses honestly, then I will accept them. If Islamic tradition has interpreted verses honestly, then I will accept it. However, if verses are interpreted dishonestly, then I cannot accept them.

As I said, I will read the book that you have recommended and will let you know my findings.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Our souls spend the eternity with God in heaven or with Lucifer in hell not our bodies. We can die that’s what makes us mortal.

Our bodies die; but, as you said, our souls don't. I suppose which ever one you think makes your true self determines whether we are mortal or immortal beings. Since at the age of 52 I recognize that I no longer have the same body that I did at 22 but still have the same soul, I'm pretty sure that who I am is not determined by my mortal body but my immortal soul.

[Grace Seeker]

The King James (was well as a few others) state that God will come upon her to impregnate her with child. (I am paraphrasing each bible has it worded just a little different but it’s the same story)

I'm not against paraphrases per se, but your particular paraphrase carries with it specific connotations that risk changing the meaning of the passage. If by "impregnate her" you simply mean that God causes Mary to be with child, then fine. But if you mean that God was engaged in sexual reproduction with Mary, then not so fine. The conception of Jesus within Mary's womb is miraculous, just as much so as the creation of the world itself out of nothingness. Both were by the power of God's Word, which is exactly who Jesus is identified as in the Gospel of John. And that is why we say that in Jesus God became incarnated among us, in accordance with the scriptures.

I grew up in a pretty religiously strong home (the older members being catholic and the younger ones, like my mother, Christen so to say the least the bible was (almost) “beat” into my head. (my mother also made me attend AWANAS and a few other “youth programs”) And sorry but I don’t remember from any Sunday school at any church anyone ever saying Jesus was god. He was always the son of god sent to sacrifice himself for our sins.

Then the problem is with your memory, because that is every bit as much a part of the message as well:

In this chapter we speak of the good news of Jesus, of how He who was born on earth as our Savior is clearly a man like us, our Brother, but is also our God; and of how He is nonetheless but one Person, the eternal Son of God.

source-- The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, p. 81

The Catholic faith steadfastly professes that Jesus is literally and truly God, the eternal Son of the eternal Father. Each Sunday at the Eucharistic liturgy the Catholic family professes its belief in the central mystery of faith, belief, "in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father."

source-- The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, p. 83

So, you see, it is indeed the teaching of the Church in which you grew up; you lack of awareness of that not withstanding. Grenville's argument is not that this is not taught by the Church, but that is shouldn't be because he doesn't think such teaching is biblically based. Of course, the Catholic Catechism sees itself as biblically based on continues on:

This is the good news of Christian faith: that He who is almighty, the eternal Lord of all, whose unseen might and mercy sustains all things, "stepped into the tide of the year" and "dwelt among us" (John 1:14) in the visible humanity He had made His own. "The life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us" (1 John 1:2)....

The books of the New Testament record a gradual development in the disciples' recognition of who Jesus was and is. They reflect the Church's development in Christological insight, its continuing growth in understanding the mystery of His person. Already in the New Testament, however, Jesus is explicityly called God:

In the prologue to the Gospel of St. John, for example, Jesus is identified as the Word of God, a Person who was "in the beginnin" and was with the Father in the beginnin. "The Word was God" (John 1:1). Through the Word "all things were made" and "without Him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:3). "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld His glory" (John 1:14). The visible Jesus of whom the Gospel speaks is the eternal Word of the Father, the Word who is God and who has made God known to us. "No one has ever seen God; it is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known" (John 1:18).

There is much more, but hopefully, even if you continue to challenge the truth of the idea, you can see that the Catholic Church you spoke of does in fact teach what you don't remember having heard while attending Sunday school or in your relgiously strong home.

BTW, though I am not Catholic, I completely concur with this portion of what they teach as being at the core of all Christian teachings regardless of the denomination.

[Grofica]

I'm not against paraphrases per se, but your particular paraphrase carries with it specific connotations that risk changing the meaning of the passage. If by "impregnate her" you simply mean that God causes Mary to be with child, then fine. But if you mean that God was engaged in sexual reproduction with Mary, then not so fine. The conception of Jesus within Mary's womb is miraculous, just as much so as the creation of the world itself out of nothingness. Both were by the power of God's Word, which is exactly who Jesus is identified as in the Gospel of John. And that is why we say that in Jesus God became incarnated among us, in accordance with the scriptures.

Then the problem is with your memory, because that is every bit as much a part of the message as well:




So, you see, it is indeed the teaching of the Church in which you grew up; you lack of awareness of that not withstanding. Grenville's argument is not that this is not taught by the Church, but that is shouldn't be because he doesn't think such teaching is biblically based. Of course, the Catholic Catechism sees itself as biblically based on continues on:

There is much more, but hopefully, even if you continue to challenge the truth of the idea, you can see that the Catholic Church you spoke of does in fact teach what you don't remember having heard while attending Sunday school or in your relgiously strong home.

BTW, though I am not Catholic, I completely concur with this portion of what they teach as being at the core of all Christian teachings regardless of the denomination.

But a teachings of Christ book is not the bible.

[Grofica]

Our bodies die; but, as you said, our souls don't. I suppose which ever one you think makes your true self determines whether we are mortal or immortal beings. Since at the age of 52 I recognize that I no longer have the same body that I did at 22 but still have the same soul, I'm pretty sure that who I am is not determined by my mortal body but my immortal soul.

This was taken out of context... It was in rebuttal over the definition of mortality... I was not talking about which out of your body and sould defines you as a person i was talking about the definition of mortality.

[Grace Seeker]

But a teachings of Christ book is not the bible.

Agreed. But you also said that it wasn't taught in the Sunday schools of any church you attended, or AWANAS or the youth groups you attended, and you speficially brought up the Catholic Church. I'm just showing that it is a part of the teaching of those groups. You might join with Grenville in saying that it shouldn't be. But I highly doubt that it wasn't taught in those groups. If you don't remember it, your words, I suspect it has more to do with your memory than reality, for I find it highly unlikely giving the significance of that teaching that it would have been left out.

[Grofica]

Agreed. But you also said that it wasn't taught in the Sunday schools of any church you attended, or AWANAS or the youth groups you attended, and you speficially brought up the Catholic Church. I'm just showing that it is a part of the teaching of those groups. You might join with Grenville in saying that it shouldn't be. But I highly doubt that it wasn't taught in those groups. If you don't remember it, your words, I suspect it has more to do with your memory than reality, for I find it highly unlikely giving the significance of that teaching that it would have been left out.

No, however i feel your wrong. my mothers side family is not only deeply religous but my aunt is somewhat of a fanatic... in all my years i have never heard her mention anything of the sort. The only thing that was ever taught at any church we ever attended was the BIBLE. only the bible and nothing but the bible...

[Grace Seeker]

This was taken out of context... It was in rebuttal over the definition of mortality... I was not talking about which out of your body and sould defines you as a person i was talking about the definition of mortality.

You argued that because Jesus died that he could not be God, because immortality is a prerequisite for being a god:

Most all religions also define gods as immortals. From the ancient Egyptians and the Aztecs to even modern day religions... it’s sort of an unspoken prerequisite. Jesus supposedly died for our sins and I understand the why and how of the story but the point is he died. A god is for all time and is not subject to mortality, or in other words mortal… to say a god was capable of dying is like saying that the world was created by the big bang.

The reality is that even though you and I who are human die, that we are not mortal, rather we are immortal beings. This is so because the reality of who we are is not determined by the life of our mortal physical body, but by our immortal and eternal soul.

Given that we are immortal beings, then even by your own figuring of Jesus as merely a human being, he is also an immortal being.

If Jesus is an immortal being, then your previous argument "to say a god was capable of dying is like saying that the world was created by the big bang." becomes moot because it isn't relevant to the reality of Jesus who by your own understanding is not mortal but immortal. To say that he is mortal (a crucial item in your above arguement that I labelled as being a pagan understanding) is to define his true nature as being determined by his body and not his soul.

[Grace Seeker]

No, however i feel your wrong. my mothers side family is not only deeply religous but my aunt is somewhat of a fanatic... in all my years i have never heard her mention anything of the sort. The only thing that was ever taught at any church we ever attended was the BIBLE. only the bible and nothing but the bible...

Aren't these your words:

I grew up in a pretty religiously strong home (the older members being catholic

And you expect me to think that they didn't teach what they publish in their own catechism?

[Grofica]

You argued that because Jesus died that he could not be God, because immortality is a prerequisite for being a god:


The reality is that even though you and I who are human die, that we are not mortal, rather we are immortal beings. This is so because the reality of who we are is not determined by the life of our mortal physical body, but by our immortal and eternal soul.

Given that we are immortal beings, then even by your own figuring of Jesus as merely a human being, he is also an immortal being.

If Jesus is an immortal being, then your previous argument "to say a god was capable of dying is like saying that the world was created by the big bang." becomes moot because it isn't relevant to the reality of Jesus who by your own understanding is not mortal but immortal. To say that he is mortal (a crucial item in your above arguement that I labelled as being a pagan understanding) is to define his true nature as being determined by his body and not his soul.

Since when have you ever seen or heard of a god walk with earthly (flesh) feet???? (not as a spector in human form but with actual human flesh) so no it does not negate my privious statement.

and if you cant respond without calling every idea forign to your own pagan dont reply to my posts... i can tell in your tone and conotations that if you had your way every idea forign to your own would begin a new period of "witch trials" please consider other opioions prior to rambling off a brash of round-about (or circling) answers...

[Grofica]

Aren't these your words:


And you expect me to think that they didn't teach what they publish in their own catechism?

I grew up in the North-West for the most part (well traveled) but the north west is home... in that part of the country people read the bible... what people do other places is none of my consern...

Where i was born and the area i lived in until i was 8 (my mom moved there before i was born) was a nice small town where every knows each other and you have more family in town (by blood or marriage) then you can shake a stick at. You go to church on sunday, you go to church on Wed evening no questions... (and some people went a little more often)

and there they read the bible and not what some dude wrote who knows how long after. there was confession and communion. or you could go across the street to the "other" church...Awanas i went to from 6-7 i think....once my mother moved to a moderate sized town (which awanas is a christan based youth program... i did mention both)

So yes, during which time we read the bible, with out "outside" teachings. we also still talk to our neighbours and leave our doors unlocked and every year the seasons are marked by which hunting season it is... and each opening day is a national holiday. perhaps its not some smug posh little place that you go but it was a nice wholesome place to grow up.

so now if you dont mind i am taking my conversation else where because i am tired of your borish attitude.

[Grace Seeker]

Since when have you ever seen or heard of a god walk with earthly (flesh) feet???? (not as a spector in human form but with actual human flesh) so no it does not negate my privious statement.

Since when? When Jesus walked the earth. That's when. That is exactly what I and your Catholic olders believe happened based on John 1:14.

and if you cant respond without calling every idea forign to your own pagan dont reply to my posts... i can tell in your tone and conotations that if you had your way every idea forign to your own would begin a new period of "witch trials" please consider other opioions prior to rambling off a brash of round-about (or circling) answers...

I haven't done that. I've never called Muslim beliefs pagan. I've never called Hindu beliefs pagan. I've never called Buddhist beliefs pagan. I only used the term because you introduced it in talking about Greek myths, and those I do call pagan.

[IAmZamzam]

I feel a little awkward that almost each post of mine so far is links to my articles, but as I intended they cover most of the ground in all Christian-Islamic arguments to begin with.

http://www.xyapx.com/ziggyzag/trilemmarefuted.php

Also, this excerpt from another article of mine pretty much proves the matter:

In my article on the Trilemma...I have gone through all of the blatant misunderstandings of the words of Jesus (peace be on him) which are purported by Christians to be claims to divinity. Now I will show you other, much clearer verses which say the opposite. First, there is his own, express denial:

And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'" (Mark 10:17-19)

There is nothing hard to understand about this: the negation involved is unmistakable. Someone ran up and knelt and called him good; he said, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone”; he then proceeds to answer the man’s actual question. The speech, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone” is about the clearest possible negation of both being good and being God I can think of. (Prophets tended to be modest about their own goodness.) The first sentence introduces the idea of him being good in a question. The second sentence then says that no one is good but God. It would be like if you ran up to me and said, “Great surgeon, how do I make a proper incision in the heart?” and I said, “Why do you call me a great surgeon? No one is a great surgeon but someone with the proper training.” Hence, I am denying being a great surgeon. Think about it and you’ll find that you can plug in any number of such scenarios and they all will clearly involve denial. The only other possibility is that I am making the statement in question to get the other guy to realize that he is indeed talking to a great surgeon, but that isn’t plausible since he already knows or else he wouldn’t have called me that. Blatantly, I am denying being a great surgeon. So it is with the scriptural passage. And in addition to denying being God, Jesus (peace be on him) even prayed to God:

And in the morning, a great while before day, he rose and went out to a lonely place, and there he prayed. (Mark 1:35)...

Does it not look to you like this is a mere human being that these verses are referring to, especially when he unmistakably said himself that he was nothing more? Christians always respond to this with the incoherent statement that Jesus (peace be on him) was both perfect God and perfect man at the same time. But this is a circular response, since it assumes that there is any reason to think he was God in the first place, which is exactly what I’m pointing out is not the case. You can’t be both perfect God and perfect man if you aren’t God to begin with, never said you were (c.f. “The Trilemma Refuted”...) and even unmistakably said you weren’t, as I established above. (Besides, it’s in my experience that the “perfect God and perfect man” response is nothing more than a cop-out, a paradoxical way to evade doctrinal problems which Christians use only when something threatens their beliefs.)

[Grace Seeker]

Also, this excerpt from another article of mine pretty much proves the matter:

While I appreciate the tone of your writings I have to disagree with your conclusion that you've "proved the matter". Rather, I think you've expressed a conclusion that you've drawn.

What I see in reading the Christian scriptures, the only documents that I accept as being authoritavtive in speaking to the above issue, is that they show that on the one hand Jesus appears limited to some degree by his humaness AND also that on the other hand he is presented as assuming divine perogatives and conducting himself in a manner and making statements that would be inappropriate for one who was not God. Further, I believe that other Biblical writers in referring to Jesus present him as divine even if the words "I am God" are never recorded as being spoken by Jesus.

Proving that Jesus was human is NOT the same as proving that Jesus was not God. This would only be true if one operated under the apriori assumption that one could not be both human and God as the same time. As this is the very tenet that Christians hold to be true, the holding of such an assumption is to reject the Christian view before even considering it.

Also, I think your analysis of the Mark 10 passage misses the mark (no pun intended). Jesus seeks to know why the man calls him "good". But not to reject him for making such an assertion, but to disern if the man has done so out of an insight into who Jesus really is or if he is just using flowerly language as a salutation without any import behind it. Jesus never denies that he is God, in fact he tells him that despite his keeping all of the laws of God that the still lacks one thing: "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" (vs. 21). Notice this is actually two things: (1) the selling of everything and giving to the poor, and (2) the following of Jesus. Here the man fails the test, for if he had really believed that Jesus was good, then that would have also been the saying that he believed that Jesus was God. If God asks you to sell everything and follow him, what would one do? You would in fact sell everything and follow God. This man claimed he had kept all of the commandments of God, but was unwilling to keep this one spoken to him by a persons that he was claiming was "good". Why would Jesus question being called "good" by this man, because he questioned whether or not this man really believed the words and was willing to put into practice the things that he was saying. The man wasn't. The disciples on the other hand had been willing to put their faith and trust in Jesus. They had left everything to follow him, and they would be rewarded for doing so. When it is following of Jesus that one is rewarded for and not the keeping of God's commanments, then it seems to me that the person of Jesus is actually more important than the commands of God. This would only be true if Jesus was himself God come in the flesh.

You also argue "Jesus (peace be on him) even prayed to God", implying he therefore is not God. But you've not represented the Gospel story correctly. The Gospel presents Jesus not as praying to God, but as praying to "the Father" or "his Father." The distinction is subtle, but significant as it is in perfect keeping with the concept of God as a triune being who would be in fellowship with himself.

So in answer to your question: "Does it not look to you like this is a mere human being that these verses are referring to, especially when he unmistakably said himself that he was nothing more?" My answer is, "No, it does not." And I will add, it is not true that he himself ever said that he was nothing more, again that is something you bring to your reading of the text, but is not actually found in the scripture.

[IAmZamzam]

There is nothing in that passage suggesting that the following of Jesus (P) was more important than following the commands of God. They were condition #1 and condition #2, and condition #1 was to ensure that he kept on following condition #2 (as well as give away to the poor the things he would not need for the lifestyle if he did so), because following a prophet (which Jesus [P] explicitly identified himself as in Matthew 10:41 and 13:57) means following God's commandments.

"X person..."
"Why do you call me X? No one is X but God alone."

Plug anything else into that and it's still a denial of being God. Substitute anything for X. Try it.

[Grace Seeker]

There is nothing in that passage suggesting that the following of Jesus (P) was more important than following the commands of God. They were condition #1 and condition #2, and condition #1 was to ensure that he kept on following condition #2 (as well as give away to the poor the things he would not need for the lifestyle if he did so), because following a prophet (which Jesus [P] explicitly identified himself as in Matthew 10:41 and 13:57) means following God's commandments.

"X person..."
"Why do you call me X? No one is X but God alone."

Plug anything else into that and it's still a denial of being God. Substitute anything for X. Try it.

Really?

King Richard the Lionhearted was known to travel incognito through his country. On one such travels a man saw him pass by and knelt before him. Richard stopped and asked, "Why do you kneel? No man must kneel before another man in England unless that man be King."

So, in your mind Richard was denying that he was king, but in my mind he was trying to discern if the man recognized Richard for who he truly was.

[Walter]

As I've said to Yusuf, I have more going on in my life than to spend it in never ending debate. For more on the use of "Son of God" by John as a way of pointing to Jesus' divinity, I simply encourage you to read the literature related to the phrase. I good starting point would be A Theology of the New Testament by George Eldon Ladd.

Dear Grace Seeker:

I have been away for the past month because I purchased and reviewed the 760+ page book that you have highly recommended. I can confirm that while George Ladd is clearly a brilliant theologian, he has based his interpretations of Jesus divinity on unverified assumptions that he uncritically accepted to be true. However, when these assumptions are investigated for verification, they have not withstood scrutiny.

Was the book a waste of money? No. The book contained much useful information. However, it is a shame that Mr Ladd died before he could review a rigorous analysis of the assumptions on which he either based his interpretations, or on which he believed the interpretation of others to have been correct. I will try to engage Mr Ladd’s successor at Fuller, Mr Hagner.

I can therefore confirm my previous statement that there is insufficient Biblical evidence for Christian religious tradition to claim, as a Doctrine, that Jesus is God. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that Jesus had to be God in order to fulfil his Messianic role in reconciling men and women to God. That is simply another religious tradition that has unnecessarily divided Christians and Muslims.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Do you remember why the Jews wanted to kill Jesus? Because he committed blasphemy.

What form did his blasphemy take? He made himself equal with God.
John 5:18 "For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."


Further we know that the son is not a created being, but an eternal being:
"For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself." (John 5:26)

Can anyone other than God give people the Spirit? Yet, we know that Jesus gives the Spirit:

"If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive.

(John 7:37b-39a)

In light of what Jesus said to the woman at the well in John 4 -- that he offers water that will become in us a spring of water welling up to eternal life -- it appears that Jesus is saying that he offers to people the gift of the Holy Spirit. Yet, in John 3, speaking with Nicodemus, Jesus made it clear that the Spirit blows wherever He pleases. Thus the only way that Jesus could be able to promise to give the Spirit to any person would be if he was able to personally identify himself with the Spirit. It is this same Spirit that flows within a person as a stream of living water, which Jesus also identified himself with. The only way this makes sense is if we understand that Jesus and the Spirit are one and the same. As Jesus is corpreal and the Spirit is not, this then only makes sense if we are able to understand that Jesus is more than he appears to be based solely on our five senses. And with this understanding that Jesus is more than just what meets one eye, passages like John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was born, I am!") and John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one.") no longer become cryptic speach, but clear statements of Jesus' incarnated diety. And though I doubt that the Jews understood that this was true, they did understand that this was what Jesus was claiming and on both occassionaly, subsequently sought to stone him for blasphemy:
John 10:31-33

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

John, who was selective in what he included and did not include in this Gospel, puts this in because he wants us to know that this is who Jesus is. For him to say as he would at the close of his gospel that he wrote it to introduce us to Jesus as the Son of God, and not to see this as synonymous with Jesus being divine would require John to include some commentary on the Jews' statement. He does not. The reason is because for John the statement that "you, a mere man, claim to be God" and "these are written so that you may believe that jesus is the Christ, the Son of God..." (John 20:31) are saying one and the same thing. They are saying that we should join Thomas in the acclamation that Jesus is "My Lord and my God!"


You can say that you don't believe it to be true. But it is to twist John to saying something different than he intended to say that this was not his view.

[IAmZamzam]

Really?

King Richard the Lionhearted was known to travel incognito through his country. On one such travels a man saw him pass by and knelt before him. Richard stopped and asked, "Why do you kneel? No man must kneel before another man in England unless that man be King."

So, in your mind Richard was denying that he was king, but in my mind he was trying to discern if the man recognized Richard for who he truly was.

The obvious interpretation of, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone," is, "I am not good," not, "I am God." The passage goes:

As [Jesus] was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'" (Mark 10:17-19, RSV)

The man asks him, good teacher, what is the way to heaven, and Jesus (P) asks him why he calls him good since only God is good, and then tells him that he knows very well what the virtues are, and lists them. It's very easy to understand. To interpret it as containing a proclamation of divinity makes no sense in the context.

[Grace Seeker]

The obvious interpretation of, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone," is, "I am not good," not, "I am God." The passage goes:

As [Jesus] was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'" (Mark 10:17-19, RSV)

The man asks him, good teacher, what is the way to heaven, and Jesus (P) asks him why he calls him good since only God is good, and then tells him that he knows very well what the virtues are, and lists them. It's very easy to understand. To interpret it as containing a proclamation of divinity makes no sense in the context.

I've heard this view before and posted my take on it more times than I care to count. You don't have to buy it. But I believe it is safe to say that you're not going to change my mind anymore than I'm going to change yours. It is specifically in the context that it does make sense. It is only when you remove the context that your interpretation would be the more reasonable one.

[Walter]

Hi Grace Seeker:

Let us examine the Biblical verses that you have offered as evidence that Jesus is God.

1. The Testimony of the Jewish Religious Leaders

“I and My Father are one.” Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (John 10:30–36)

The basic assumption is that the Jewish leaders’ assessment of Jesus’ statements is correct. A critical review of this basic assumption is long overdue. Let us first analyse the evidence.

1. The Jews interpreted Jesus’ statement “I and my Father are one” to mean that Jesus was making Himself God.

2. Jesus appeared to show, from their law how, they had completely misunderstood Him. Jesus stated: Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’?

3. Jesus appeared to correct them by stating “I said, I am the Son of God”.

Now, let us attempt to examine the basic assumption, which you and George Eldon Ladd simply accepted as true. Why are you so eager to believe these witnesses. You must be aware that Jesus disagreed with all but one of the Jewish leaders’ interpretations. He not only rejected their interpretations as false, but rejected them for misleading the Jewish people. Jesus’ harshest words are actually reserved for these same people whose testimony you are offering as evidence. Remember this?

Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. (Matthew 12:34)

Or how about this indictment.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? (Matthew 23:27-32)

Are you sure that you want to build a doctrine upon the foundation of the interpretations of these people whose interpretations and character Jesus severely condemned? Are you really sure that you want to continue the 1,800 year old Christian religious tradition of basing the doctrine of Jesus’ deity on the testimony of these clowns? Are you very sure GS?

Please note that Jesus never agreed with their accusation, but appeared to show them how they had misunderstood Him, and then attempted to correct them.


2. Jesus’ Statement ‘I and My Father are One.

The basic assumption, that was not allowed to be verified for the past 1,800 years, is that Jesus being one with the Father meant that Jesus is God. In seeking to verify this assumption, we note Jesus’ prayer for future believers.

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. (John 17:20–23)

So Jesus prays that all believers may be one with the Father, just as He and the Father are one. The original Greek word used for one (hĕis) in Jesus’ statement “I and the Father are one [hĕis]”, is the same word used when Jesus prayed that His disciples may be “one [hĕis] in us”. Since believers are not meant to become gods through becoming one with the Father, then Jesus being one with the Father is not sufficient evidence that Jesus is God.

3. Jesus gives the Spirit

The basic assumption is that since Jesus promises the Spirit, that Jesus and the Spirit are One and the same. Actually, let me repeat your statement for convenience.

Thus the only way that Jesus could be able to promise to give the Spirit to any person would be if he was able to personally identify himself with the Spirit. It is this same Spirit that flows within a person as a stream of living water, which Jesus also identified himself with. The only way this makes sense is if we understand that Jesus and the Spirit are one and the same.

The scriptures are clear that Jesus did what God told Him to do.

For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.” (John 12:49-50)

Therefore, Jesus made promises because God told Him to. This is not evidence that Jesus is God.

Regards,
Grenville

[IAmZamzam]

It is specifically in the context that it does make sense. It is only when you remove the context that your interpretation would be the more reasonable one.

How so, pray tell?

[Grace Seeker]

How so, pray tell?

The context is that Mark uses this incident to show that Jesus offers the man the eternal life that he is seeking. Life that is found NOT in the keeping of any set of commandments (though God gave them), but in the following of Jesus. Now that makes sense only if following the man Jesus is of a higher order than following the divine law. And that answer to the search for eternal life doesn't make sense unless Jesus is more than just human.

[Grace Seeker]

The scriptures are clear that Jesus did what God told Him to do.

For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.” (John 12:49-50)

Therefore, Jesus made promises because God told Him to. This is not evidence that Jesus is God.

Regards,
Grenville

You switched the nouns making an assumption that the terms "God" and "Father" are synonymns. That isn't the case. When Jesus says that he speaks not by his own authority, but by what the Father has given him, he is simply illustrating that even within the Godhead there are different roles that each has as they internally relate to one another as distinct persons and externally relate to humanity.

[Walter]

You switched the nouns making an assumption that the terms "God" and "Father" are synonymns. That isn't the case. When Jesus says that he speaks not by his own authority, but by what the Father has given him, he is simply illustrating that even within the Godhead there are different roles that each has as they internally relate to one another as distinct persons and externally relate to humanity.

OK Grace Seeker:

It was not intentional. There is just an over-abundance of evidence that shows that God and Jesus are separate, and that the Father is God. The problem is that in the past, even referring to it in order to question religious traditions could lead to merciless torture and death. Unfortunately, Islamic religious tradition is not learning from Christian religious tradition’s mistakes. Well, let us get to this ‘over-abundance of evidence’ before they come for me.

1. Evidence from Acts

The messages of the apostles recorded in the Book of Acts in the Bible repeatedly, consistently and explicitly show that Jesus and God were two separate and distinct persons. For example:

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:36)

Just in case you thought that I produced an obscure verse, you can read a few more: Acts 2:22, 36; 3:13,36; 4:10; 5:30; 7:55,59; 8:12,37; 10:36, 38; 11:17; 13:23,33; 20:21,24; 28:23,31

2. Evidence from Paul

Paul wrote to the church in: Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossi, and Thessalonica. He also wrote to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Letters were also written by the disciples James, Peter, and John. They all repeatedly mention Jesus and God, and consistently and explicitly describe them as separate persons.

You can read the following explicit evidence for yourself: Romans 1:1, 7, 8; 2:16; 3:22; 5:1, 11, 15; 6:11, 23; 7:25; 8:39; 10:9; 15:5, 6, 8, 16, 17, 30; 16:20, 27; 1 Corinthians 1:1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 30; 6:11; 8:6; 12:3; 15:57; 2 Corinthians 1:1, 2, 3, 19; 4:6; 5:18; 11:31; 13:14; Galatians 1:1, 3; 3:26; 4:14; 6:14; Ephesians 1:1, 2, 3, 17; 2:10; 3:9; 5:20; 6:23; Philippians 1:2, 8, 11: 2:11; 3:3, 14; 4:7, 19; Colossians 1:1, 2, 3; 3:17; 4:11; 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 3, 2:14, 15; 3:11, 13; 4:1, 14; 5:9, 18, 23; 2 Thessalonians 1:1, 2, 8, 12; 2:16; 1 Timothy 1:1, 2, 12; 2:5; 5:21; 6:3,13; 2 Timothy 1:1, 2; 3:12; 4:1; Titus 1:1, 4; 2:13; Philemon 1:3; Hebrews 2:9; 4:14; 12:2; 13:20; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:2,3,13; 2:5; 3:21; 4:11; 5:10; 2 Peter 1:1,2; 1 John 4:2,3,15; 5:1,5,6,20; 2 John 1:3; Jude 1:1,4, 21; Revelation 1:1,2,9; 12:17; 14:12; 19:10; 20:4

Also, Paul consistently identifies the One God as the Father.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4:4–6)

yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. (1 Corinthians 8:6)

Paul also repeatedly identified the Father as the God of Jesus. Here is a sample of this evidence.

Now may the God of patience and comfort grant you to be like-minded toward one another, according to Christ Jesus, that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 15:5–6)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, (2 Corinthians 1:3)

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. (2 Corinthians 11:31)

that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him (Ephesians 1:17)

We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, (Colossians 1:3)

3. Evidence from Jesus

Jesus identifies His disciples as His brethren after His death, and identifies their common Father as God.

Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’” (John 20:17)

Jesus also identified the Father as the only true God.

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. (John 17:3)

Jesus actually refers to God as “My Father” approximately 50 times in the Gospels, and “the Father” approximately 70 times in the Gospels.

I have learnt that for persons who have submitted to their religious traditions, no amount of evidence will ever be enough. If the conflicting evidence is too compelling, then it is simply ignored. Even Jesus could not get the religious leaders to let go of their divisive traditions to pursue the Truth.

He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. (Mark 7:9)

Regards,
Grenville

[IAmZamzam]

Let me put it this way, Grace Seeker: if you were the man who went up to this guy whom everyone says is working wonders and giving teachings, and you asked him what you have to do to be good and he replied, "Why do you call me 'good'? No one is good but God alone," would your interpretation of that statement more likely be that the man was being modest about his own goodness or that he was proclaiming his divinity?

[Grace Seeker]

Let me put it this way, Grace Seeker: if you were the man who went up to this guy whom everyone says is working wonders and giving teachings, and you asked him what you have to do to be good and he replied, "Why do you call me 'good'? No one is good but God alone," would your interpretation of that statement more likely be that the man was being modest about his own goodness or that he was proclaiming his divinity?

You just proved my point. If it is him being modest about his own goodness, then it is NOT him saying that he is not good. Since only God can be good, then it is also NOT him saying that he is not God.

[Grace Seeker]

1. Evidence from Acts

The messages of the apostles recorded in the Book of Acts in the Bible repeatedly, consistently and explicitly show that Jesus and God were two separate and distinct persons. For example:

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:36)

Just in case you thought that I produced an obscure verse, you can read a few more: Acts 2:22, 36; 3:13,36; 4:10; 5:30; 7:55,59; 8:12,37; 10:36, 38; 11:17; 13:23,33; 20:21,24; 28:23,31

And what does it mean to say that Jesus is both Lord and Christ? It means that Jesus is more than just Christ. Jesus is also Lord. To understand this as it was by the first century church, the reference means more than just a title like Lords of England, or to say "sir" to someone today. To be Lord, was to be in a position of authority. The only LORD recognized by devout Jews was the LORD God, Yahweh. To ascribe this type of Lordship to Jesus is exactly why I reject your proposition that the Bible does not present Jesus as God. The very verse you cite does.

2. Evidence from Paul


yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. (1 Corinthians 8:6)[/INDENT][/I]


Paul also repeatedly identified the Father as the God of Jesus. Here is a sample of this evidence.

Now may the God of patience and comfort grant you to be like-minded toward one another, according to Christ Jesus, that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 15:5–6)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, (2 Corinthians 1:3)

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. (2 Corinthians 11:31)

that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him (Ephesians 1:17)

We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, (Colossians 1:3)

This is your best evidence. (Not just in this post, but in the entire thread.) It is especially so because of the way that the Hebrew mind (remember, though he wrote in Greek and to Greek speakers, Paul was a Jew and as a Pharisee he was trained in Hebrew interpretation of the scriptures) used conjunctions. To say God AND Father, was to use the terms as synonymns. And thus we have the term God and Father used as synonyms. The question then must be asked is the indicative of how we are to think of God today, as the Father and only the Father? If so, then this example would be the normative usage of the New Testament and we would not see any usage that would pose any other interpretations. The problem is that this is not normative and we do see other usage. So, I grant you that Jesus identifies the Father as God.

3. Evidence from Jesus

Jesus identifies His disciples as His brethren after His death, and identifies their common Father as God.

Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’” (John 20:17)

But I don't grant your next statement:

Jesus also identified the Father as the only true God.

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. (John 17:3)

Notice that John says that life is from the only true God AND Jesus Christ. In other words, if one thinks like a Hebrew, the only true God is actually being identified by John (supposedly quoting Jesus' own words) as Jesus himself.

Grenville, you speak of others making assumptions. No doubt we do. But you fail to realize your own. They begin with the answer you are searching for and you discount everything that speaks against that answer to all that is left is that which you think confirms your view. The problem is that some of the very passages that you think speak against Jesus being God actually speak to the fact that he is.

[IAmZamzam]

You just proved my point. If it is him being modest about his own goodness, then it is NOT him saying that he is not good. Since only God can be good, then it is also NOT him saying that he is not God.

I cannot follow your rationale at all. Saying that you're not good isn't being modest about your own goodness? What is it then? And you still haven't answered the question.

[Grace Seeker]

And you still haven't answered the question.

But I have:

post #95, this thread

[quote=http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/134269503-christian-trinity-muslims-tauwheed-monotheism-same-god-clarification-8.html#post996911]post #112, Re: Christian Trinity and Muslim's Tauwheed [monotheism] = Same God? A Clarification[/url]

post #29, Re: The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He created?


You may not like, understand, nor accept my answer; but I have answered it.

[Walter]

Dear Grace Seeker:

I realize that you typically do not respond to the principal issues that I raise. I do not believe that you are intentionally doing this, for you are quite active in this forum and it would be challenging for a normal person to keep track of all of the various conversations. Please follow me here.

Post 160 – I returned after 4 weeks of reviewing the book which you recommended, and confirmed my earlier position.

Post 161 – You provided evidence to show that Jesus was God.

Post 164 – I tested the assumptions upon which you based your interpretations and showed where they failed.

Post 167 – You ignored all of the evidence in my post 164, and noted that I had assumed that God and the Father were synonyms.

Post 168 – I tested my assumption and it was found to be reasonable, given the evidence.

Post 171 – You queried the results, and the principal post 164 appears to have been forgotten.

The principal issue is post 164, which was simply ignored (inadvertently I believe). Let us not get diverted by ancillary issues and neglect the main issues.

Regards,
Grenville

[IAmZamzam]

Grace Seeker, before I look at those links, do either of them answer the specific question that I asked: how is saying that you are not good a sign of not being modest rather than a sign of being modest? Not to mention that you didn't answer the original question either: If you had asked someone what it takes to be good and they said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone," would you think they were saying, "I am not good," or, "I am God"? I will not indulge your non-answers for much longer. I've been getting enough of that from the Christian apologists on the Understanding Islam board lately and there's only so much I can take.

[Sojourn]

I do not believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God. However, there are a group of Christians, called Trinitarians, who believe otherwise.

A group of Christians? Sounds like the Trinity is a doctrine held by the minority. The fact is faith in Christ's Divinity goes back to the Apostles and there certainly are numerous verses revealing Jesus' Divinity. The question I have is to the original poster, who do they believe Jesus to be?

Peace,
Sojourn

[Ramadhan]

Is there a verse that unequivocally says loud and clear:
"I am Jesus, I am God, worship me" ?

[Walter]

Hi Sojourn:

A group of Christians? Sounds like the Trinity is a doctrine held by the minority.

The trinity is a doctrine held by the majority of Christians. The principal reason for this is that the majority of Christians have not examined the evidence that conflicts with this ‘doctrine’.

The fact is faith in Christ's Divinity goes back to the Apostles and there certainly are numerous verses revealing Jesus' Divinity.

Please provide one explicit verse that supports the teaching that Jesus is God. Please note that the Apostle’s creed, which was supposedly recited by the Apostles, contains no evidence that Jesus is God.

The question I have is to the original poster, who do they believe Jesus to be?

I believe that Jesus is exactly as He is explicitly described to be in the Bible.

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31)

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Is there a verse that unequivocally says loud and clear:
"I am Jesus, I am God, worship me" ?

No, there is none written exactly as you have written.

[Sojourn]

Hi Sojourn:

Hi Grenville,

You said:

The trinity is a doctrine held by the majority of Christians. The principal reason for this is that the majority of Christians have not examined the evidence that conflicts with this ‘doctrine’.

So if we only bothered to look and think we'd all believe as you do, eh? I guess that doesn't say much for us Christians, does it? But I think you're wrong. Many a brilliant mind has supported this Divine Doctrine, and had it not been True it would have dissapeared into the annals of history. The fact is my mind can more easily grasp an Arian concept of Christ as some sort of lesser diety, than the Three Persons being one in Being. But this is a case where what is easier to understand is wrong because it leads to what we know to be false, polytheism. The Trinity is true despite its mysterious character, and God has willed it to be held by the majority because He defends the Truth.

Please provide one explicit verse that supports the teaching that Jesus is God. Please note that the Apostle’s creed, which was supposedly recited by the Apostles, contains no evidence that Jesus is God.

There are numerous verses, but let us consider one from the Old Testament. This particular verse was considered a Messianic prophecy:

"For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
Isaiah 9:6

In case you're wondering, the title is translated from El-Gibbor. I believe Jesus fulfilled this verse.

I believe that Jesus is exactly as He is explicitly described to be in the Bible.

Yes, of course you do, as do all who believe all sorts of things about Christ. Take the title, "Son of God," for example. To some it's just a metaphor for a good and holy man, to others it goes deeper, meaning that the nature of Christ is something like the Father's, and to others, it means the Son proceeds from the Father, and therefore bears his exact nature. Where do you fit?


Peace,
Sojourn

[Ramadhan]

No, there is none written exactly as you have written.

I rest my case.

[Grace Seeker]

I rest my case.

You never made a case. You asked a question. I could have just as easily have asked:

Is there a verse that unequivocally says loud and clear:
"I am Jesus, I am NOT God, do NOT worship me" ?

The answer to that question would also be: "NO, there is none written exactly as you have written."

So, then Jesus never unequivocally says loud and clear either one thing or the other. Therefore we must interpret what he meant by the things he said and did. In my opinion it is clear that he presented himself as God incarnate among us. But I recognize that others disagree and think it just as clear that he never did and intended just the opposite. Given that we have this disagreement, the only thing that then is really clear is that it not as uniquivocally loud and clear as we each tend to think it is.

[Ramadhan]

he presented himself as God incarnate

God incarnate?
interesting

[Humbler_359]

:argue:----:argue:----:argue:
I am not trying to be harsh here, it seems it is wasting our times and energy.

Christians, what are you trying to ACHIEVE here in dialogue? Are you telling us our Islam is wrong and even false ? What's your intention?

If YES, I would request you to leave this forum asap. It is pointless and debate here in to win arguments. If No, I request you to leave this forum as simple.

I think, you christian people should follow example of Amish, very devot /practical people if you wish. Please find old previous dialogues (with christians before), we don't need here to REPEAT REPEAT SAME TOPIC, SAME ARGUMENT, SAME ILLOGICAL, AND SAME NONSENSE.

:uuh:

I also request our Moderators to CLOSE THIS THREAD, please investigate it if it is trying to provoke, distract and deceive us. It is up to you.

[Uthman]

All members are welcome to stay, so long as their behaviour on the forum is in accordance with the rules. The thread will also continue to remain open for now.

Please direct any further issues towards the Helpdesk forum. :)

[Rabi Mansur]

:sl:

Here are a couple of verses to consider:

Colossians 1:19 "For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell."

Colossians 2:9 "For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily."

I think it is fine to continue the dialogue. I would be interested in your thoughts about the above two verses. I'm here to learn, not to convince anyone that either Islam or Christianity may be mistaken, I'm interested in the evidence.

Peace.

[mkh4JC]

^Also to further elaborate on that passage in Colossians:

'Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in the earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.' Colossians: 1 15-18.

Paul says that the head of the church, that is--Jesus Christ--created all things.

What about Hebrews:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.' Hebrews 1: 1-3

Pretty clear here that the writer is saying that God made the worlds or planets through his Son, Jesus Christ.

[Grace Seeker]

please investigate it if it is trying to provoke, distract and deceive us. It is up to you.

Though I am sure the moderators are already aware of it, I'll save you the frustration of not knowing and answer you directly.

This particular thread is not meant to provoke, distract or deceive Muslims nor anyone else for that matter. It arose out of the reality that two strong-willed persons here, myself and Grenville, were participating in a thread in which he made some comments about Jesus that I could not support as being true. We both identify ourselves as Christians, but we discovered that we have diametrically different views with regard to the nature of who the Jesus of the Gospels is. Rather than despoil the other thread, Grenville posted a new thread in which we could debate our respective points of view. Now Grenville's position regarding the diety of Jesus is very similar to that of most Muslims on this board, so of course there has been a lot of interaction of that kind as well. But the question was posed asking for evidence from the Bible, because this was actually a thread in which the differences were not between Muslim and Christian, but between the points of view held by people identifying themselves as belonging to the Christian community.

[Walter]

Hi Sojourn:

So if we only bothered to look and think we'd all believe as you do, eh? I guess that doesn't say much for us Christians, does it? But I think you're wrong. Many a brilliant mind has supported this Divine Doctrine, and had it not been True it would have dissapeared into the annals of history. The fact is my mind can more easily grasp an Arian concept of Christ as some sort of lesser diety, than the Three Persons being one in Being. But this is a case where what is easier to understand is wrong because it leads to what we know to be false, polytheism. The Trinity is true despite its mysterious character, and God has willed it to be held by the majority because He defends the Truth.

I cannot understand how you can make such statements if you are also aware of Church history. I will provide the following summary for your information; however, you can read the referenced details in ‘Brothers Kept Apart’.

Jesus taught the message of the kingdom of God. His first disciples, called apostles, described this message in their writings, and their documents comprise the New Testament section of the Bible.

The apostles’ disciples also wrote documents which referenced the documents of the apostles. However, by the 3rd generation of Church leaders, they started giving their personal opinions. If they were martyred, like Justin Martyr who was the first to explicitly state that Jesus was God, then their opinions took on greater significance, and sometimes became established Church teachings. Many Church leaders who could have provided some balance to the discussion, or could have refuted the speculative ideas, were killed during the Roman empire persecution of Christians – when it was a capital offence to be a Christian.

Emperor Constantine, ended the Roman Empire persecution of Christians, but following his reign, the Roman Catholic persecution of Christians was significant. Any discussion of any but the official Roman Catholic teaching was met with severe persecution. Some of the edicts follow.

We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment. (28 February 380 AD)

We bestow the right of assembly upon those persons who believe according to the doctrines which in the times of Constantius … If those persons who suppose that the right of assembly has been granted to them alone should attempt to provoke any agitation against the regulation of Our Tranquillity, they shall know that, as authors of sedition and as disturbers of the peace of the Church, they shall also pay the penalty of high treason with their life and blood. Punishment shall no less await those persons who may attempt to supplicate Us surreptitiously and secretly, contrary to this Our regulation. (23 January 386 AD)

There shall be no opportunity for any man to go out to the public and to argue about religion or to discuss it or to give any counsel. If any person hereafter, with flagrant and ****able audacity, should suppose that he may contravene any law of this kind or if he should dare to persist in his action of ruinous obstinacy, he shall be restrained with a due penalty and proper punishment. (16 June 388 AD)

For the next 1,200 years, Christians were generally taught religious traditions rather than the teachings of the Bible; then came the reformation. Martin Luther objected to the religious traditions that conflicted with the Bible, and translated the Bible into German for the masses. William Tyndale tried to translate the Bible into English, but was forbidden. He eventually left England, translated the Bible into English and got it distributed in England. He was burnt at the stake by the religious leaders for this ‘crime’.

Sojourn, being deemed a heretic, denounced, accursed, excommunicated, exiled, impoverished, property confiscated, beaten, murdered, and having your writings burnt, and your opinions misconstrued does not effectively resolve conflicting ideas. Therefore, it is easy to see how unpopular teachings could forcibly become established traditions and doctrines.

If assumptions can be verified, and the interpretations upon which they are based are found to be supported by the evidence, then we have simply uncovered an alternate opinion. The problem starts when an opinion, which is unsupported by the evidence, becomes established as the unalterable truth.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Hi Grace Seeker:

So, then Jesus never unequivocally says loud and clear either one thing or the other. Therefore we must interpret what he meant by the things he said and did. In my opinion it is clear that he presented himself as God incarnate among us. But I recognize that others disagree and think it just as clear that he never did and intended just the opposite. Given that we have this disagreement, the only thing that then is really clear is that it not as uniquivocally loud and clear as we each tend to think it is.

I agree with you. There are good arguments to be made either way on whether Jesus is God. However, my consistent point has been that there is sufficient evidence for Christian religious tradition to make a doctrine out of this issue, especially with so much conflicting evidence.

Doctrines (mandatory beliefs) should be for issues where the evidence is explicit and does not lend itself to diverse interpretations. It is clear that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. However, the evidence supporting Jesus being God is weakened by the abundance of conflicting evidence.

As I have repeatedly mentioned. Jesus may well be God. But I repeat, there is insufficient Biblical evidence to establish this as a doctrine. It simply fails the doctrinal standard. Further, Jesus may well not be God as much of the Biblical evidence shows; therefore, this doctrine is likely to have been an unnecessary barrier dividing Christians and Muslims for the past 1,300 years.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Hi Grace Seeker:

Though I am sure the moderators are already aware of it, I'll save you the frustration of not knowing and answer you directly.

This particular thread is not meant to provoke, distract or deceive Muslims nor anyone else for that matter. It arose out of the reality that two strong-willed persons here, myself and Grenville, were participating in a thread in which he made some comments about Jesus that I could not support as being true. We both identify ourselves as Christians, but we discovered that we have diametrically different views with regard to the nature of who the Jesus of the Gospels is. Rather than despoil the other thread, Grenville posted a new thread in which we could debate our respective points of view. Now Grenville's position regarding the diety of Jesus is very similar to that of most Muslims on this board, so of course there has been a lot of interaction of that kind as well. But the question was posed asking for evidence from the Bible, because this was actually a thread in which the differences were not between Muslim and Christian, but between the points of view held by people identifying themselves as belonging to the Christian community.

A soft answer indeed. I concur with your assessment.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Hi Rabimansur:

Here are a couple of verses to consider:

Colossians 1:19 "For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell."

Colossians 2:9 "For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily."

I think it is fine to continue the dialogue. I would be interested in your thoughts about the above two verses. I'm here to learn, not to convince anyone that either Islam or Christianity may be mistaken, I'm interested in the evidence.

I am not only interested in the evidence, but in maintaining the integrity of the evidence, and examining the assumptions upon which the interpretations of this evidence are based.

The following evidence is taken to mean that Jesus is God.

For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; (Colossians 2:9)

This statement, and its purpose, was described in the previous chapter.

For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. (Colossians 1:19–20)

It is also clarified in 2 Corinthians.

Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. (2 Corinthians 5:18–20)

Jesus also clarified that the Father was working in Him and through Him.

Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. (John 14:10–11)

So God was in Christ in order that a specific task should be accomplished, that of reconciling the world to Himself. The assumption made was that if God dwells in or fills someone to accomplish a task, then that person becomes or is God. In seeking to verify this assumption, we note that Jesus prayed that believers would be One with the Father, as Jesus was also One with the Father, in order that specific tasks could be accomplished.

Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. (John 17:11)

I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. (John 17:20–21)

The Bible records that God filled other persons to accomplish specific tasks; however, they were not God.

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: “See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, to design artistic works, to work in gold, in silver, in bronze, in cutting jewels for setting, in carving wood, and to work in all manner of workmanship. (Exodus 31:1–5)

But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God.” (Luke 1:13–16)

Therefore, God filling and working through someone is not evidence of that person being God.

Regards,
Grenville

[Sojourn]

Hi Sojourn:

Hi Grenville,

What did you make of Isaiah 9:6?

I cannot understand how you can make such statements if you are also aware of Church history.

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit"
Letter to the Ephesians 18:2

From a man who lived before Justin Martyr and written shortly before his Martyrdom, St Ignatius of Antioch.


So what do you believe about Jesus?

[Walter]

Hi Sojourn:

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit"
Letter to the Ephesians 18:2

From a man who lived before Justin Martyr and written shortly before his Martyrdom, St Ignatius of Antioch.

I see that you have recently joined this forum. Perhaps you could read this thread in its entirety, since many of your queries and comments have already been addressed. However, for your and others’ convenience, I shall address Ignatius of Antioch lest readers be misled.

Ignatius (30 AD–107 AD) was a student of the Apostle John. He wrote letters to the: Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, and to Polycarp. Ignatius generally identified Jesus and God as two separate persons. An example follows.

For the chief points are faith towards God, hope towards Christ, the enjoyment of those good things for which we look, and love towards God and our neighbor. For, “Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself.” And the Lord says, “This is life eternal, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent.” (Epistle to Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6)

However, in Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians, to which you have referenced, there were a few instances where some versions of this letter appeared to have been tampered with. In one version of Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians, the following new verse was inserted in Chapter 15:

Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, first did and then taught, as Luke testifies, “whose praise is in the Gospel through all the Churches.” (Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 15)

In one version of Chapter 18 of Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians, which you quoted, reads:

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water. (Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 18)

However, in another version of this letter, Chapter 18 reads:

For the Son of God, who was begotten before time began, and established all things according to the will of the Father, He was conceived in the womb of Mary, according to the appointment of God, of the seed of David, and by the Holy Ghost. (Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 18)

There appears to have been an attempt to show that the early church taught that Jesus is God by tampering with Ignatius’ letters. It is useful to note that several letters with the name “Ignatius” written as the author, have been universally acknowledged as obvious forgeries. The translators’ notes to these spurious documents are instructive:

“We formerly stated that eight out of the fifteen Epistles bearing the name of Ignatius are now universally admitted to be spurious. None of them are quoted or referred to by any ancient writer previous to the sixth century. The style, moreover, in which they are written, so different from that of the other Ignatian letters, and allusions which they contain to heresies and ecclesiastical arrangements of a much later date than that of their professed author, render it perfectly certain that they are not the authentic production of the illustrious bishop of Antioch.”

“The reader will have no difficulty in detecting the internal grounds on which these eight letters are set aside as spurious. The difference of style from the other Ignatian writings will strike him even in perusing the English version which we have given, while it is of course much more marked in the original. And other decisive proofs present themselves in every one of the Epistles. In that to the Tarsians there is found a plain allusion to the Sabellian heresy, which did not arise till after the middle of the third century. In the Epistle to the Antiochians there is an enumeration of various Church officers, who were certainly unknown at the period when Ignatius lived. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, Appendix, Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson, 1867)

Therefore, it appears that Justin Martyr was the first person to explicitly state that Jesus is God, around 150 AD.

As previously noted, I have already addressed this issue in this thread, and I do not want to keep repeating myself. You may have noticed that Humbler-359 has already targeted this thread for closure, and he appears to be quite an influential fellow.

So what do you believe about Jesus?

I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, sent to reconcile all people to God, the Heavenly Father, through His atoning sacrifice on the cross.

Regards,
Grenville

[Sojourn]

Ignatius generally identified Jesus and God as two separate persons. An example follows.

That's because God is Three Persons. The Father is the Font of Divinity and so He was primarily identified with the title of Theos (God), while the Son was primarily identified with Kyrios (Lord.) There is no contradiction in saying Jesus is God and with God.

However, in Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians, to which you have referenced, there were a few instances where some versions of this letter appeared to have been tampered with. In one version of Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians, the following new verse was inserted in Chapter 15:

You compare the two Greek versions, one shorter the other longer. Despite the differences in Greek translation, the substance is the same. To say Jesus is the Son of God, begotten before time began, is the same as saying Jesus is God.

There appears to have been an attempt to show that the early church taught that Jesus is God by tampering with Ignatius’ letters.

There is no doubt the early Church believed Christ to be God. When Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (62-113AD) discovered a large segment of his citizens were practicing a new religion, he decided to inquisition several followers to discover what they believed. This is what he reported to the Emperor Trajan:

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god."

It is useful to note that several letters with the name “Ignatius” written as the author, have been universally acknowledged as obvious forgeries.

It's useful to reminder the letter to the Ephesians is among those recognized as authentic, lest readers be misled.

Therefore, it appears that Justin Martyr was the first person to explicitly state that Jesus is God, around 150 AD.

Why not just say the writings of Justin Martyr were tampered with?

I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, sent to reconcile all people to God, the Heavenly Father, through His atoning sacrifice on the cross.

Why evade defining your beliefs? Heresy thrives in broad statements.

[Grace Seeker]

Grenville, a few questions:


Though you've answered it before, what is the reason that you believe that Thomas referred to Jesus as "my God"?


Who is "the Lord"?


What was the rationale for stoning Stephen or for Saul to seek letters against the followers of the Way from the Jewish high court?


Does God live in human beings? If so, is it God the Father or God the Spirit or God's spirit that lives in us? Or how would you term it? Or do you say that it is not God but something else from God/sent by God that lives in us? Or perhaps nothing lives in us at all?


Is the Gospel the gospel of Jesus Christ or the gospel of God? Or are they one and the same so that it doesn't matter whether you refer to it as the gospel of one or the other?


Are the grace of God and the grace of Jesus Christ the same or different?


Would the "Spirit of God" and the "Spirit of Christ" be one and the same Spirit or two different spirits?


When a person is sanctified, who is it that sanctifies him/here?


Is it proper to also refer to God as our Savior or is that only to be understood as the work of Jesus Christ?


Is it proper to refer to Jesus Christ as our Sovereign or is that only to be understood as God?


Is it proper to refer to God as the Lord?


We all agree there is one and only one God; but how many Lord's are there?


Who is "the One and Only" (John 1:14)?


Who is it that is at the Father's side and has made him known?


Would it be more correct to say that God is eternal life or that Jesus is eternal life?


Is it proper for priests to be priests of Jesus Christ, or must they only be priests of God?


Who would be king in the kingdom of Christ?


In whom do we have redemption in his blood?


In whom do we have the forgiveness of sins?


Who is it that makes things grow?


Who created the heavens and the earth?


Who created the ends of the earth?


Who is the Alpha and the Omega?


Who is the First and the Last?


Who is the beginning and the end?


When did God first become God the Father?




OK, it's a lot of questions. Take your time.

[Sojourn]

Peace Mustafa,

Looks like our entire discussion was lost during the restoration of the forum. I read your post earlier this week so I'll respond to the points I can remember.

"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."
John 1:18

Mustafa argued that this verse proves Jesus isn't Divine because it says "no one has seen God." And that since Jesus was seen by men, He can't be God. The problem is this very verse refers to Jesus as "the only begotten God," as do other verses in the introduction. A contradiction only exists if we understand "see" in a narrow and literal sense, such as to perceive something with our eyes, but God is immaterial and therefore can't be perceived with human eyesight. So "see" in this verse is a metaphor for understanding, or knowing. Even the English language uses "see" as a metaphor, as for example when we say, "Do you see what I'm saying?" So the meaning of the verse is that no human on earth can know God as He is, even the Just in Heaven who have a knowledge of the Essence of God, can't comprehend God because He is infinite. Only the Begotten God who is from the bosom of the Father can know God because He is God, and He has made God known to us in a way that was previously impossible.


"But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever
Hebrews 1:8

The above verse has the Father saying to the Son, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever..." An explicit reference to Jesus' Divinity.


I think it's clear that the Bible does reveal Jesus to be Divine. If anyone doubts this, I suggest they start by reading the beginning of John's Gospel. I suggest using a conservative translation such as the NASB, which is available online for free.


Take care,
Sojourn

[Uthman]

Brother Mustafa's account has been disabled on his request, so unfortunately he will not be able to reply.

[Sojourn]

Brother Mustafa's account has been disabled on his request, so unfortunately he will not be able to reply.

That's unfortunate, hopefully he'll return.

[Walter]

Hi Grace Seeker:

In answering your responses, let us imagine that we are at opposite sides of a table and observing the same evidence in the middle of the table. The evidence is, of course, the Bible.

I am aware of your perspective of the evidence, for it is a view that I unquestionably held for decades. I am simply asking that you observe the same evidence from a different perspective.

Jesus stated that God was not only His Father, but also His God.

Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’” (John 20:17)

This understanding that God is our Heavenly Father, and is the God of Jesus is consistently stated by His disciples.

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. (2 Corinthians 11:31)

Given this explicit evidence, how could a contrary doctrine be established? What appears to have happened is that other evidence was misinterpreted. Jesus and His disciples were clear about Jesus’ role.

Jesus atoned for our sins that we may be reconciled to God. God temporarily gave Jesus authority over everything in Heaven and Earth, including the authority to judge us at the end of the age. At the end, Jesus will deliver the Kingdom to the God.

Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. (1 Cor 15:24-28)

Since Jesus is Lord, and taught us the way of God which He learnt from God, then we must learn from Him and become like Him. Essentially God is the head of Christ who is the head of Man.

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor 11:3)

Now let us examine your questions.

Who is "the Lord"?

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:36)

What was the rationale for stoning Stephen or for Saul to seek letters against the followers of the Way from the Jewish high court?

People who are trying to learn the truth are not normally in personal conflict with likeminded persons. However, when people stop trying to learn the truth and instead try to defend their opinions, then if their opinions are not supported by the evidence, then history has shown that if they have influence, then they will attempt to persecute (even to death) any who question their opinion.

And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and signs among the people. Then there arose some from what is called the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those from Cilicia and Asia), disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke. Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” (Acts 6:8-11)

Does God live in human beings? If so, is it God the Father or God the Spirit or God's spirit that lives in us? Or how would you term it? Or do you say that it is not God but something else from God/sent by God that lives in us? Or perhaps nothing lives in us at all?

Jesus stated that the Kingdom of God is within believers. The Kingdom is where Jesus rules. Therefore, as we surrender more aspects of our lives to Jesus’ rule, then the Kingdom within us grows. I do not think that Jesus physically resides in us, any more than I believe that our national government physically resides in our home. However, as our household chooses to submit to the laws of our country, similarly, I choose to submit to Jesus, who has been made Lord by God.

Is the Gospel the gospel of Jesus Christ or the gospel of God? Or are they one and the same so that it doesn't matter whether you refer to it as the gospel of one or the other?

The Gospel, which is that all persons can be reconciled to God through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, is the Gospel of God, Jesus, the Apostles and their disciples. Having been reconciles to God, it is also my Gospel and I hope that it is also yours.

Are the grace of God and the grace of Jesus Christ the same or different?

They are different.

Would the "Spirit of God" and the "Spirit of Christ" be one and the same Spirit or two different spirits?

Perhaps

When a person is sanctified, who is it that sanctifies him/here?

God, our Heavenly Father, sanctifies a person by faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.

Is it proper to also refer to God as our Savior or is that only to be understood as the work of Jesus Christ?

God is our saviour and Jesus is our saviour.

Is it proper to refer to Jesus Christ as our Sovereign or is that only to be understood as God?

God gave Jesus authority, and made Him Lord.

Is it proper to refer to God as the Lord?

Yes.

We all agree there is one and only one God; but how many Lord's are there?

More than one Lord, but only one Lord Jesus Christ.

yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. (1 Corinthians 8:6)

Who is "the One and Only" (John 1:14)?

I do not see “one and only”; but the only begotten refers to Jesus.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

Who is it that is at the Father's side and has made him known?

Jesus.

Would it be more correct to say that God is eternal life or that Jesus is eternal life?

Neither. Eternal life is a gift of God.

Is it proper for priests to be priests of Jesus Christ, or must they only be priests of God?

Both.

Who would be king in the kingdom of Christ?

Jesus, who will eventually deliver the kingdom to God.

In whom do we have redemption in his blood?

The blood is that of Jesus.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Hi Grace Seeker:

Let us continue. Again, please try to examine the evidence from another perspective, and see if it can be interpreted differently without damaging any of the evidence.

In whom do we have the forgiveness of sins?

We have forgiveness of sins through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.

Who is it that makes things grow?

God created and established the seasons etc that facilitated growth.

Who created the heavens and the earth?

God created, through His Word.

Who created the ends of the earth?

God created, through His Word.

Who is the Alpha and the Omega?

The evidence suggests that it is God.

Who is the First and the Last?

The evidence suggests that it is God.

Who is the beginning and the end?

The evidence suggests that it is God.

When did God first become God the Father?

We can only speculate. Perhaps after creating Adam.

Does God live in human beings? If so, is it God the Father or God the Spirit or God's spirit that lives in us? Or how would you term it? Or do you say that it is not God but something else from God/sent by God that lives in us? Or perhaps nothing lives in us at all?

The evidence is that Jesus prayed that we will all be One. I do not completely understand the “how”. And it is in trying to speculate on the “how”, while specifying violent consequences for those who have interpreted the evidence differently, that has typically led to conflict.

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. (John 17:20-23)

We seem to forget that we do not have perfect understanding at this time.

For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. (I Cor 13:12)

We are also aware that at the end of the age, all will be known.

but in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, the mystery of God would be finished, as He declared to His servants the prophets. (Rev 10:7)

Therefore, we should be careful making doctrines out of evidence which lends itself to more than one reasonable interpretation. I would again suggest that you read “Brothers Kept Apart”, which details the Christian and Islamic traditions that have unnecessarily divided Christians and Muslims.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Grenville, how fantastic that you had your responses saved. :thumbs_up

[Walter]

Hi Sojourn:

You compare the two Greek versions, one shorter the other longer. Despite the differences in Greek translation, the substance is the same. To say Jesus is the Son of God, begotten before time began, is the same as saying Jesus is God.

Yes Sojourn. Christian religious tradition has made the unverified assumption that “Jesus is God” is the same as “Jesus is the Son of God”.

There is no doubt the early Church believed Christ to be God. When Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (62-113AD) discovered a large segment of his citizens were practicing a new religion, he decided to inquisition several followers to discover what they believed. This is what he reported to the Emperor Trajan:

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god”

Sojourn, there is much relevant useful information that can be obtained from the correspondence between Trajan and Pliny. However, using it to settle or support theological doctrines is to misuse such evidence. The Roman torturers also believed that Christians were cannibals, etc. But we believe that they simply misunderstood the Communion and other rituals.

It's useful to reminder the letter to the Ephesians is among those recognized as authentic, lest readers be misled.

Yes, but the evidence suggests that it was tampered with. You have interpreted this evidence to mean that no tampering took place. This interpretation is based on the assumption that “Jesus is God” is the same as “Jesus is the Son of God”. This assumption has not been verified. If this assumption fails under scrutiny, then the interpretation is false and the passage was tampered with.

Why not just say the writings of Justin Martyr were tampered with?

Because we have no evidence to show that it was, and much to show that it was not.

Why evade defining your beliefs? Heresy thrives in broad statements.

Oh dear. So quick to carelessly throw around that word. I have never failed to define my beliefs. You simply have to ask how much detail you wish me to provide.

Regards,
Grenville

[Sojourn]

Oh dear. So quick to carelessly throw around that word. I have never failed to define my beliefs. You simply have to ask how much detail you wish me to provide.

I've asked you several times to be specific about your beliefs but you just quote me Biblical passages. We both believe Jesus is the "Son of God" but obviously our understanding of the title differs. I recall asking you whether you can be the son of God the way Jesus is the Son of God, and your answer was that Jesus is unique. So in what way is His Sonship unique? Is He a mere human being? Is His nature *like* the Father's, or something totally different?


Take care,
Sojourn

[Walter]

Hi Sojourn:

I've asked you several times to be specific about your beliefs but you just quote me Biblical passages.

Yes Sojourn, I do quote the Bible to support what I believe. Why? Because I believe that a Christian’s core beliefs should be supported by the Bible, and certainly should not contradict Biblical teachings.

When we go outside of what the Bible explicitly teaches about Jesus, we enter the realm of speculation and never-ending debate. I am too busy at this time to enter that realm.

As I have explained repeatedly, I believe that Jesus is exactly who the Bible teaches Him to be; and I have found that this teaching is consistent with the Qur’an’s teaching about Jesus.

We both believe Jesus is the "Son of God" but obviously our understanding of the title differs.

You have correctly identified the problem. Rather than simply believe and accept the title as provided, and acknowledge that there is insufficient Biblical evidence to accurately define it, Christian tradition has attempted a speculative interpretation. To interpret “Son of God” to be equivalent to “God” can be done by damaging the integrity of several verses and ignoring many conflicting verses.

When the Jewish religious leaders accused Jesus of claiming to be equivalent to God, Jesus appeared to correct their claim, stating that He was instead the Son of God.

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (John 10:30–36)

Regards,
Grenville

[Sojourn]

Hi Sojourn:

Hi Grenville

Yes Sojourn, I do quote the Bible to support what I believe. Why? Because I believe that a Christian’s core beliefs should be supported by the Bible, and certainly should not contradict Biblical teachings.

Your views do contradict the Bible. Although you may quote the Bible you empty it of it's meaning.

As I have explained repeatedly, I believe that Jesus is exactly who the Bible teaches Him to be; and I have found that this teaching is consistent with the Qur’an’s teaching about Jesus.

How can you say that knowing that the Quran explicitly contradicts the Bible concerning the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Mission of Jesus Christ? The Quran teaches Jesus to be an ordinary human being called by God to be a prophet to restore tawheed and bring a merciful law, is that what you believe?

You have correctly identified the problem. Rather than simply believe and accept the title as provided, and acknowledge that there is insufficient Biblical evidence to accurately define it, Christian tradition has attempted a speculative interpretation.

What does it mean to be Son of God? Even in human terms a son bears a likeness to it's father in nature, and proceeds from him. God the Son not only bears a likeness, but possesses the same exact nature, and proceeds from the Father. You have yet to explain what "Son of God" means.

To interpret “Son of God” to be equivalent to “God” can be done by damaging the integrity of several verses and ignoring many conflicting verses.

Jesus said only He knows the Father, and only the Father knows Him, this reveals a unique relationship. The Gospel of John calls Jesus "the only begotten God" from the bosom of the Father. So "my" understanding of the title is supported not only historically, but also Biblically.

When the Jewish religious leaders accused Jesus of claiming to be equivalent to God, Jesus appeared to correct their claim, stating that He was instead the Son of God.

Please note that the Jewish leaders understood full well that Jesus' was claiming equality with God, that is why the High Priest tore his vestments and yelled, "Blasphemy!!!" when Jesus replied to His question about being the Son of God.

Regards,
Grenville

So yet again you evade defining your beliefs. Are you basically unsure of who/what Jesus was? Or is it that you just don't want to answer?


Pax,
Sojourn

[Walter]

Hi Sojourn:

Are you basically unsure of who/what Jesus was? Or is it that you just don't want to answer?

Who is Jesus?

First, a preamble.

The Bible and the Qur’an teach that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, performed many miracles including raising the dead, preached the Gospel, was raised to God, and is the Messiah.

The Qur’an states that Jesus was not crucified by the Jews, and implies that He was crucified by others. The Qur’an rejects the concept of God having a son by sexual intercourse with a wife, which was the teaching at the time.

This reveals one of the challenges in interpreting the Qur’an, where the answer is recorded but not always, the question. Therefore, the Qur’an cannot be properly interpreted without knowledge of the Christian religious teachings that were being preached at the time and in the region. They are provided in ‘Brothers Kept Apart’.

To ensure that readers do not misinterpret its intent, the Qur’an instructs believers to believe the Old Testament prophets and the Gospel, which happens to be the standard of Truth for Christians. Therefore, any teaching that does not contradict the Bible may be true. But any teaching that is consistent with the Bible is true.

I have found that Mohammed’s teachings are consistent with those of the Bible. Therefore, he appears to have been a prophet of God. However, there are Islamic teachings that are in conflict with the Bible and I have presented some of them on the sister thread. There are all provided in ‘Brothers Kept Apart’. There are Christian religious teachings that are in conflict with Biblical teachings, and one of them is presented on this thread.

One more thing before I respond to your main concern.

There are essentially two ways of approaching an issue. One is to pre-determine that nothing will dissuade you, and so you are simply going to debate the issue by defending your position, principally using rhetoric. The other is to accept that all Truth is not known; therefore, you enter into a discussion in order to learn more of the truth, and to present what you believe to be true to the light of rigorous scrutiny.

I have no interest in debating you, or responding to your unsupported rhetorical statements. If you wish to discuss any issue, then you will find me to be a willing partner.

Who is Jesus to me?

Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He has reconciled me to God and is therefore my Saviour. He has been given temporary authority, by God, of things in Heaven and on Earth, and is therefore my Lord. He will judge me at the end of the age and is therefore my Judge. At the end, He will deliver the kingdom to God.

Jesus is the Word that became flesh. The Word was with God at the beginning of creation. The Word can be said to be God much like my words, not yet spoken, can be said to be me. However, once spoken, they are separate from me but represent me. God created things through His Word, which He allowed to have life in itself.

The interpretations provided above do not damage the integrity of Biblical verses, and is therefore reasonable. The Christian doctrinal interpretation that Jesus is God damages the integrity of many verses, many of which have been described in this thread.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Yes Sojourn, I do quote the Bible to support what I believe. Why? Because I believe that a Christian’s core beliefs should be supported by the Bible, and certainly should not contradict Biblical teachings.

When we go outside of what the Bible explicitly teaches about Jesus, we enter the realm of speculation and never-ending debate.

As I have explained repeatedly, I believe that Jesus is exactly who the Bible teaches Him to be.

Rather than simply believe and accept the title as provided, and acknowledge that there is insufficient Biblical evidence to accurately define it, Christian tradition has attempted a speculative interpretation. To interpret “Son of God” to be equivalent to “God” can be done by damaging the integrity of several verses and ignoring many conflicting verses.

I find it interesting that the one who says the above is his belief and practice can, in such a short space of time, also say the following:

Jesus is the Word that became flesh. The Word was with God at the beginning of creation. The Word can be said to be God much like my words, not yet spoken, can be said to be me. However, once spoken, they are separate from me but represent me. God created things through His Word, which He allowed to have life in itself.

I believe your interpretation of "the Word" does do damage to the rest of scripture. The Word is to be identified as God. Not a part of God. Not as something that comes forth from God. Not as something that changes once spoken. But as God. And then that Word (which is God) came and dwelled among us.

No person can accept this and the Qu'ran at the same time. So it is understandable that no Muslim can accept this. Further, no Christian can accept what you have perverted the Word to be through your unique (and certainly, despite your protestations to the contrary, non-literal) understanding of the passage.

[Sojourn]

Hi Sojourn:

Hi Grenville

The Qur’an states that Jesus was not crucified by the Jews, and implies that He was crucified by others.

Our Muslim readers are the better judges of such a statement, but in my opinion the Quran makes no such implication. It says He was not killed nor crucified, period. I've never come across a Muslim commentary, other than perhaps from the Ahmadis, that suggest Jesus was infact crucified.

The Qur’an rejects the concept of God having a son by sexual intercourse with a wife, which was the teaching at the time.

Who was teaching such a thing?

Therefore, the Qur’an cannot be properly interpreted without knowledge of the Christian religious teachings that were being preached at the time and in the region.

You're assuming the Quran is referring to actual Christians. As an aside, I think it's important to note that the Quran does not address mainstream Christianity.

To ensure that readers do not misinterpret its intent, the Qur’an instructs believers to believe the Old Testament prophets and the Gospel, which happens to be the standard of Truth for Christians.

What is the Quran referring to when it speaks of the Injeel? The Gospel of Mark? The apocryphal Arabic Infancy Gospel? Keep in mind you yourself acknowledge the importance of understaning the Quran in its own context.

I have found that Mohammed’s teachings are consistent with those of the Bible.

You have to twist Muhammad's teachings and ignore many a portion of the Bible to make them consistent. One example is your rendering of the aya that speaks of Jesus not being crucified.

Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

You keep evading the question.

How is Jesus the *Son* of God?

Jesus is the Word that became flesh. The Word was with God at the beginning of creation. The Word can be said to be God much like my words, not yet spoken, can be said to be me. However, once spoken, they are separate from me but represent me. God created things through His Word, which He allowed to have life in itself.

So what is the Word? A lesser god?

The interpretations provided above do not damage the integrity of Biblical verses, and is therefore reasonable.

First you have elucidate your beliefs. So far you've told us what we already know, that you believe Jesus is not God, but you haven't told us anything about what Jesus is. Sure, you keep quoting that Jesus is the Word and the Son of God, but we both accept these titles, the question is what do they *mean*? The Bible says the Word *is* God, but you say this is not the case, so you're already damaging the integrity of the Bible. Id like to see you interpret John 1:1 in a way that means exactly the opposite, but in all honesty, I'd be more interested in finally finding out what you believe about Jesus.

Regards,
Grenville

You can't expect to have a dialogue without revealing what you believe, so once again, please define what you believe.


Pax,
Sojourn

[Walter]

Dear GS:

I believe your interpretation of "the Word" does do damage to the rest of scripture. The Word is to be identified as God. Not a part of God. Not as something that comes forth from God. Not as something that changes once spoken. But as God. And then that Word (which is God) came and dwelled among us.

No person can accept this and the Qu'ran at the same time. So it is understandable that no Muslim can accept this. Further, no Christian can accept what you have perverted the Word to be through your unique (and certainly, despite your protestations to the contrary, non-literal) understanding of the passage.

You have given me little to respond to. You have presented nothing to substantiate your opinion of “damage to the rest of scripture” or anything else that you have written. That is not good enough GS.

Please note that the Bible does not state that the Word is God as you have asserted. The Word is described as God only once, and only at one period of time – in the beginning. I have interpreted this evidence to be in harmony with the rest of the Bible. But rather than discuss this interpretation, you simply dismiss it and claim, without any support, that it is a perversion. Not good enough at all.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Hi Sojourn:

There is no need for me to respond to your unsupported opinions, however, let me correct your blatant errors.

It says He was not killed nor crucified, period.

No Sojourn. The Qur’an never states that Jesus was not crucified, only that He was not crucified by the Jews.

That they [Jews] said, "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God"; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: (4:157)

The Bible says the Word *is* God, but you say this is not the case, so you're already damaging the integrity of the Bible.

No Sojourn. Both your quotation and your accusation is false. The Bible explicitly states that the Word was God, and the context was “in the beginning”. If the Bible stated that Jesus is God as you have pontificated, then clearly there would be no dispute. However, for over 1800 years, your religious tradition has corrupted the explicit teachings of the Bible, much like you have done here. Perhaps the time has come to ask you why?

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

Regarding your other queries, I have already referred you to Brothers Kept Apart. For example, the Injeel referred to in the Qur’an appears to have been the Diatessaron of Tatian.

Regards,
Grenville

[Sojourn]

Hi Sojourn:

Grenville,

I see you are unwilling to share your beliefs about Jesus, other than what you think Him not to be. I suppose you're more comfortable with criticizing what others believe about Him, because were you to put your own beliefs up for scrutiny, they wouldn't last a chance. Eitherway, if you sincerely wanted to correct error you wouldn't be hiding what you believe.

There is no need for me to respond to your unsupported opinions, however, let me correct your blatant errors.

We'll see whose opinions are unsported and blatantly wrong.

No Sojourn. The Qur’an never states that Jesus was not crucified, only that He was not crucified by the Jews.

First of all niether you nor I are in the position to say what the Quran says. Muslims are more than capable of interpreting their own book, and this is what the renowned scholar Ibn Kathir has to say regarding surah 4 aya 157:

"When `Isa ascended, those who were in the house came out. When those surrounding the house saw the man who looked like `Isa, they thought that he was `Isa. So they took him at night, crucified him and placed a crown of thorns on his head. The Jews then boasted that they killed `Isa and some Christians accepted their false claim, due to their ignorance and lack of reason. As for those who were in the house with `Isa, they witnessed his ascension to heaven, while the rest thought that the Jews killed `Isa by crucifixion. They even said that Maryam sat under the corpse of the crucified man and cried, and they say that the dead man spoke to her. All this was a test from Allah for His servants out of His wisdom. Allah explained this matter in the Glorious Qur'an which He sent to His honorable Messenger, whom He supported with miracles and clear, unequivocal evidence."


Clearly this great commentator on the Quran felt Jesus was never crucified, but that He was raised to heaven before any harm could befall Him.

No Sojourn. Both your quotation and your accusation is false. The Bible explicitly states that the Word was God, and the context was “in the beginning”. If the Bible stated that Jesus is God as you have pontificated, then clearly there would be no dispute.

Disputes will always exist because some can't see, and others are unwilling to see.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."

The Word was with God in the beginning, the "beginning" is before anything was made. Thus far it appears there are two eternal beings, but then it explicitly says the Word was God, and therefore there is only one being.

"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

In other words, through Jesus all things were made, and without Him nothing would exist, and that includes *you*. Tell me Grenville, can this be said of a creature?

However, for over 1800 years, your religious tradition has corrupted the explicit teachings of the Bible, much like you have done here. Perhaps the time has come to ask you why?

If I had to choose between an 1,800 year old tradition and your personal invented tradition -- which you are too shy to share -- then I'd have to side with the former. But the fact is what Christians have always believed, and this goes beyond 1,800 years, is *fully* consistent with the Bible. Trust me, it's very hard to turn any ordinary man into a God that people are willing to die for.

Regarding your other queries, I have already referred you to Brothers Kept Apart.

So I ask you to share your beliefs and you refer me to a book? Is it that you can't personally defend what you believe? Whatever it may be, I'm not interested in a book that suggests Muslims and Christians have been wrong about what they believe for thousands of years, especially if it's something basic like the nature of Jesus or the fact that Muslims don't believe He was crucified.

For example, the Injeel referred to in the Qur’an appears to have been the Diatessaron of Tatian.

I have no idea how you come to this conclusion, personally I think it's more likely to have been the apocryphal Arabic Infancy Gospel, since there are many parrallels between the two.

Regards,
Grenville

Pax,
Sojourn

[Grace Seeker]

Grenville, I assumed I didn't have to quote the exact verse to you as I was sure you were already aware of the reference: εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1, Young's Literal Translation)

My assertion that you damage scripture is not so much that you do harm to scripture itself, after all neither of us can actually have any effect on scripture itself, that was just your turn of a phrase. But rather that you damage your on credibility by simply choosing to ignore those parts of scripture that don't lend support to your own particular point of view. By doing so, you have convinced yourself of theological views that are actually contrary to the overall picture of Jesus as painted in scripture as being indeed God incarnate. I understand that there are also certain passages that speak to the human side of Jesus. I don't dispute the validity of those, but there is more than just those. Thus the reader of the Bible must decide what the Bible is. Is it a divinely inspired holy writ? Or a humanly constructed concoction? If the latter, we can simply dismiss the whole thing as the Muslim does. But if you accept it as divinely authoritative, which is how you have presented yourself thus far, then you have to wrestle with the very real conundrum that it presents Jesus as a very human being and as the incarnation of God himself, both at the same time.

For some seeing scripture present both perspectives, of a divine and a human Jeuss, and having an apriori assumption that one cannot be both at the same time, they have decided that it is proof of errors in the text. There are many theories that a put for with regard to the origin of those supposed errors: the imposition of later theologies that corrupted the text or of evidence of the influence of pagan religions are but a few of them. But in the end, the result is that they return to view the text as a very human document filled where one can discount that which one disagrees with and cherry pick those portions one is willing to accept as having validity. Such a practice does do damage to the integrity of the text, but this is not what you have done.

What you have done is different. You claim that the text is still valid, but whenever it says something different than what you believe, you merely close your eyes to it. As such, when it says, as it does very clearly in John 1:1 that the Word was God, you simply claim that it means something else and ask those who hold to what the text says to substantiate our point of view that it means what it says. I submit that it is because you have willed to see something different (something that is not there) that you fail to see the substantiation that you seek is in the text itself, none other need be presented.

But to humor you, I share with you what can be found in the Abingdon Commentary on this passage of scripture:

That the Word was, and is, closely related to God is not only stated (v. 1), but reiterated (v. 2). Even God does not antedate the Word. Indeed, "the Word was God."

...the Word's being present with God in the beginning betokens his equality with God.

At this point first-time readers would not know that the Word was to be identified with the Incarnate One (v. 14), Jesus Christ (v. 17). The evangelist slowly opens the curtain onto who this person is. One could read through verse 11 or even 13 or the assumption that the Word was not identical with a single person, but was perhaps personified by the prophets. But by verse 14 it becomes clear that the Word has become flesh in a single individual, to whom John the Baptist has testified (v. 15). Probably most readers or hearers would have known the gospel, or at least the Jesus story, and would have recognized the allusion to Jesus, at least as early as verse 5 or 10. If, in fact, the prologue was based on an early Christian hymn, recited or sung by congregations, this would have been all the more likely. That the reader would not have found the idea of the preexistence of Christ, and even his role in creation, strange or unfamiliar is proven by the existence of similar hymns or hymnlike passages (Phil 2:6-11; Col 1:15-20). Early Christianity did not begin with a low Christology and move by degrees to a higher one. Within the first generation the apostle Paul writes that through Jesus Christ we and all things exist (cf. also 1 Cor 8:6), even as he identifies Jesus Christ with the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24).

The concept you present wherein the term "son of God" is a reference to Jesus being something more than human and less than God is neither Christian nor Muslim, it is Arianism. But it doesn't fit the evidence of scripture any more today than it did when proposed 1700 years ago.

[Sojourn]

Peace Grace Seeker,

The concept you present wherein the term "son of God" is a reference to Jesus being something more than human and less than God is neither Christian nor Muslim, it is Arianism. But it doesn't fit the evidence of scripture any more today than it did when proposed 1700 years ago.

This was a very good post, the only point I wanted to touch on was that of Arianism. Many a Muslim think the Arians were closer to the truth because they rejected the Trinity, but what they don't realize is that Arians didn't necessarily reject the Divinity of Christ, they rejected His unity with the Father. So what you're actually left with is a polytheism that includes a supreme God known as the Father, and a lesser deity known as the Son. This of course contradicts monotheism. Ultimately only the Trinity can adequately explain the whole of Scripture without doing any damage to it.

Just my two cents.

Pax Christi,
Sojourn

[Walter]

Hi Sojourn:

I see you are unwilling to share your beliefs about Jesus, other than what you think Him not to be. I suppose you're more comfortable with criticizing what others believe about Him, because were you to put your own beliefs up for scrutiny, they wouldn't last a chance. Eitherway, if you sincerely wanted to correct error you wouldn't be hiding what you believe.

Oh dear. Back to your baseless accusations again? I have already explained who I believe Jesus to be in my post No.207. Let me repeat the salient parts.

Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He has reconciled me to God and is therefore my Saviour. He has been given temporary authority, by God, of things in Heaven and on Earth, and is therefore my Lord. He will judge me at the end of the age and is therefore my Judge. At the end, He will deliver the kingdom to God.

Jesus is the Word that became flesh. The Word was with God at the beginning of creation. The Word can be said to be God much like my words, not yet spoken, can be said to be me. However, once spoken, they are separate from me but represent me. God created things through His Word, which He allowed to have life in itself.

Sojourn, you appear to be so determined to defend your position, rather than to know the truth, that you have entered a realm of fantasy. First you corrupt the scriptures by misinterpreting “the Word was God” to be “the Word is God”. Then, you write “Disputes will always exist because some can't see, and others are unwilling to see.” Clearly, you are referring to yourself.

Why don’t you explain, in detail, how my explanation of John 1:1 is inconsistent with the context.

Further, your assertion that Christians have always believed in Jesus as God is not supported by the historical record. The documented Church history is filled with examples of Christian religious tradition conflicting with what the majority of believers believed that the scriptures taught. One example from Tertullian follows.

The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οiκονομiα [dispensation]. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. (Against Praxeas, Chapter 3)

So the religious leaders held a minority view, which they forced on Christians through violence.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Hi Grace Seeker:

Once again, you have used a lot of rhetoric to state that you do not agree with me, but you have not shown where my explanation is inconsistent with either the context of John 1:1 or the rest of the Bible. You just made baseless accusations. I will repeat the explanation below for your convenience.

Jesus is the Word that became flesh. The Word was with God at the beginning of creation. The Word can be said to be God much like my words, not yet spoken, can be said to be me. However, once spoken, they are separate from me but represent me. God created things through His Word, which He allowed to have life in itself.

Simply using rhetoric to try to convince others that my explanation is incorrect is not good enough GS. You can do much better than that.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Hi Grace Seeker:

Once again, you have used a lot of rhetoric to state that you do not agree with me, but you have not shown where my explanation is inconsistent with either the context of John 1:1 or the rest of the Bible. You just made baseless accusations. I will repeat the explanation below for your convenience.

Jesus is the Word that became flesh. The Word was with God at the beginning of creation. The Word can be said to be God much like my words, not yet spoken, can be said to be me. However, once spoken, they are separate from me but represent me. God created things through His Word, which He allowed to have life in itself.

Simply using rhetoric to try to convince others that my explanation is incorrect is not good enough GS. You can do much better than that.

Regards,
Grenville

See, I think you are the one using rhetoric: "The Word can be said to be God much like my words, not yet spoken, can be said to be me." That statement does not reflect what is being said in John 1:1. What scriptures says is "the Word was God" -- no simile, no metaphor, just a simple declaratory statement. It further states, John 1:14, "the Word (who was God) became flesh and made his dwelling among us." As clear of a declaration of the incarnation as one could have. Jesus doesn't just represent God, we who are Christ's ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20) do that as as though God were making his appeal through us. No, Jesus is not just a representative of God, Jesus is "God the One and Only,who is at the Father's side" (John 1:18).

Sojourn gets it. I hope our Muslim friends here get it as well. The idea that God generates another (albiet lower order) divine being as you have suggested is indeed polytheism. Neither Christian nor Muslim has any room for your theology. That is one thing on which we can agree.

[Walter]

Dear Grace Seeker/Sojourn:

You have defined a position, attributed it to me, and then criticised it. That is a typical debating tactic which can be effective to a lay audience, but you must know that it is intellectually dishonest. Please desist.

Our search for Truth is a search for a reasonable interpretation of all of the evidence, including resolving any apparent conflicting evidence. Where only one interpretation is likely, then a doctrinal statement can be made of it. Where more than one interpretation can be made, then to make a doctrine of it is to invite controversy.

GS. You have indicated that God being repeatedly described as the Father and God of Jesus is a legitimate challenge to Jesus being God. Why not investigate the evidence further to see what you find?

Now on to your salient points. I think that I understand where we differ. The evidence follows.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1–2)

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (John 1:3)

In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:4–5)

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

This can be interpreted in several ways. The two extremes follow.

The first interpretation is that since the Word was God in the beginning, then the Word remained as God during creation, and when the Word became flesh.

The second interpretation is that the Word was God at one time only – in the beginning. But, how could this be? Well, I provided an explanation of how this could be. A thought in the ‘mind’ of God and a Word in the ‘mouth’ of God can be said to be with God, part of God, and therefore God. However, once the Word is spoken, then it can no longer be called God, but it represents God.

You provided two scriptures to support the first interpretation. The first follows.

Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. (2 Cor 5:20)

However, let us examine the context.

Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. (2 Cor 5:18-19)

Now let us be clear. Earlier in this letter, God is identified as the God and Father of Jesus.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor 1:3a)

Jesus explained the concept of God being in Him.

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. (John 17:20–23)

So Jesus prays that all believers may be one with the Father, just as He and the Father are one (Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Jesus). The original Greek word used for one (hĕis) in Jesus’ statement “I and the Father are one [hĕis]”, is the same word used when Jesus prayed that His disciples may be “one [hĕis] in us”. Since believers are not meant to become gods through becoming one with the Father, then Jesus being one with the Father is not sufficient evidence that Jesus is God.

Your second supporting verse follows.

"God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side" (John 1:18)

Please let me know which version of the Bible translates John 1:18 this way. The verse, as you quoted it, appears to be severely corrupted.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Your second supporting verse follows.

"God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side" (John 1:18)

Please let me know which version of the Bible translates John 1:18 this way. The verse, as you quoted it, appears to be severely corrupted.

Regards,
Grenville

That is my own translation. The phrase "the one and only" (also found in the NIV when translating John 1:14; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9) is more often translated "only begotten", both are translations of the Greek term "monogenes". While on the surface mono=one and genes=from the verb to become would seem to render only begotten in a literal sense, there are reasons to prefer the more dynamic translation I provided when one sees how the term is used in the few other places that it is found in scripture. The use of the translation "only begotten" goes back to Jerome who unigentius in the Vulgate to counter Arian claims that Jesus was generated in the sense of being made and a part of creation. In reality the term "monogenes" reflects the Hebrew term "yahid" used of Isaac (Genesis 22: 2, 12, 16) of whom it is used in Hebrews 11:17 -- "By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son." But since we know that Isaac was neither Abraham's one and only son, nor his only begotten son -- there also was Ishmael as our Muslim friends here will be quick to remind us -- the meaning of the term needs to be understood as centered on the Personal existence of the Son, and NOT on the generation of the Son. It is used to mark out Jesus as being uniquely above all earthly and even heavenly beings. In its most literal sense it means "of a single kind" and could even be used in that sense of the Phoenix (see 1 Clement 25:2), as it is only distantly related to gennao (to beget).

So, whether your prefer my translation, the NIV's "God the only" [with the term "Son" being inserted as implied], or the KJV's "only begotten", the idea still is not about the generation of Jesus, but about his uniqueness -- namely that there is none other that can compare with him. For John, who uses this term as a Christological title for Jesus, Jesus as the monogenes is the only One who can say "I and the Father are one [hen esmen]" (John 10:30). And I submit that this therefore is indeed what you sought -- Biblical evidence that describes Jesus as God. You may choose to interpret the evidence differently than I do, but you yourself have noted:

This can be interpreted in several ways. The two extremes follow.

The first interpretation is that since the Word was God in the beginning, then the Word remained as God during creation, and [t]hen the Word became flesh.

There you have it. You admit that the evidence is there. You admit that it can be interpreted as I have interpreted it. What you won't admit is that I or any other orthodox Christian theologian/commentator is right in our interpretation. So be it. I likewise don't believe you to be right in yours, and find all of your writing to the contrary to be not logic but (in your words) just so much rhetoric.

[Walter]

Hi Grace Seeker:

I think that I understand the frustration that Mohammed felt when discussing this issue with Trinitarians. No evidence, regardless of how compelling, will ever be enough. The Qur’an notes an appropriate way forward - let God decide who is correct.

However, the problem is that Trinitarians have insisted that people must believe that Jesus is God in order to be accepted by God. This is an insurmountable barrier to Muslims, and it is not what the early Church taught. Peter’s first message to the gentiles follows.

how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:38-43)

Please note that God is described as the one who: anointed, was with, raised, and ordained Jesus. Please also note that Peter does not tell the gentiles that they must believe that Jesus is God. As you may be aware, Christians were forced to believe that Jesus was God approximately 300 years after Jesus’ resurrection, not before.

GS, we should not try to put this burden, that was violently forced on early Christians, and which early Muslims rejected, on this current generation of Muslims?

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Hi Grace Seeker:

I think that I understand the frustration that Mohammed felt when discussing this issue with Trinitarians. No evidence, regardless of how compelling, will ever be enough. The Qur’an notes an appropriate way forward - let God decide who is correct.

However, the problem is that Trinitarians have insisted that people must believe that Jesus is God in order to be accepted by God.

I'm going to stop you there. Why? Because that is patenly not true.

Not that you can't find any, maybe even many, who would do and say as you have described. But in the way you wrote it as an absolute statement, it isn't even close to true.

For instance, though I don't think that your position should be termed Christian any more than the Muslim view should be. I don't exlude either you or Muslims from being accepted by God. I know right now, today, meeting in a hotel in Turkey, is a group of people, most of them from within the Muslim community, who see themselves as followers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but not as part of the Christian Church any more than the Gentile followers of the Way became Jews in order to become followers of Jesus. As far as I am concerned, that makes them my brothers and sisters in Christ, even though they may never use the term Christian to describe themselves.

And while I continue to assert that Jesus is God and that he is shown to be such in scripture, I do not argue that God's love and acceptance of people is reserved only for those who accept that particular doctrine. So, if you're going to continue to make your above statement, please be sure to do so in less absolute language.


P.S. You should have started back in vs. 36. Then you would have noticed that Peter says that Jesus is both Lord and Christ (so the term "Lord" is obviously being used as a title and not a salutation) and then in vs. 39 calls the Lord "our God". But never mind, there is no evidence in scripture that Jesus is God, we just keep making that up out of thin air.

[Sojourn]

I think that I understand the frustration that Mohammed felt when discussing this issue with Trinitarians.

When did Muhammad discuss issues with mainstream Christians?

[Supreme]

Hi Everyone:

The promotion of Jesus as God has been an unnecessary barrier keeping Christians and Muslims apart. I do not believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God. However, there are a group of Christians, called Trinitarians, who believe otherwise. Quite a few threads in this forum degenerate into arguments about the Trinity. This thread is for anyone, especially Trinitarians, to provide any Biblical evidence that shows that Jesus is God, so that we can discuss it honestly in order to learn the Truth.

Those Muslims who believe that Christians and Muslims are not brothers because they believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God, are welcome to present their evidence here also.

Who will be first.

Regards,
Grenville

A non trinitarian Christian! A rare breed indeed! My friend, if you do not mind me asking, do you belong to any specific denomination?

[Walter]

Hi Grace Seeker:

Thank you for your clarification. You appear to have arrived at the conclusion that eternal life is not dependent on believers accepting that Jesus is God. We are in agreement on this.

I see that you are resorting to equating that Jesus is Lord to mean that Jesus is God. You must be aware that Jesus is referred to as Lord because God has given Him authority over things in heaven and earth. GS, it is useful to read the messages of the early church in Acts in order to understand how the Apostles viewed and proclaimed Jesus. Jesus was consistently described as God’s Servant, a Prophet, and a Man.

To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.” (Acts 3:26)

Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:29-31)

This is consistent with Paul’s teachings.

For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5)

Therefore, as I have repeatedly stated, Jesus may well be God - because none of us have all knowledge. However, there is insufficient evidence in the Bible, and too much conflicting evidence in the Bible for Christian religious tradition to establish a doctrine (mandatory belief) that He is.

Regards,
Grenville.

[Walter]

Hi Sojourn:

When did Muhammad discuss issues with mainstream Christians?

I have already referred you to documents which contain those details, and you have already stated that you have no intention of learning about it. If you ever change your mind, then you already know where to find the said details.

Regards,
Grenville

[Walter]

Hi Supreme:

A non trinitarian Christian! A rare breed indeed! My friend, if you do not mind me asking, do you belong to any specific denomination?

I have already provided details of my past and current Church membership and activities. If you read through this thread, I am sure you will come across it. This thread contains much of the evidence used to teach that Jesus is God. However, if you are aware of our Church history, there has been severe persecution of any who dared seek to verify the assumptions upon which such interpretations that ‘Jesus is God’ were based. As you read this thread, you may find that little, if any of this evidence withstands rigorous scrutiny.

You are welcome to present any evidence for honest scrutiny.

Just to be clear of my intentions, please note the following.

1. I believe the Bible, and uncompromisingly so – it is my objective standard of truth.

2. I believe that there is harmony between the principal teachings of the Bible and the Qur’an; therefore, I believe that there is credible evidence that Mohammed was God’s prophet.

3. I have found that there is insufficient evidence for Christian tradition to conclude that Jesus is God. This religious tradition conflicts with the teachings of both the Bible and the Qur’an. It is the principal barrier, erected by Christian tradition, that unnecessarily keeps Christians and Muslims apart.

4. I have found that there is insufficient evidence in the Qur’an for Islamic religious tradition to conclude that Jesus was not crucified. This religious tradition conflicts with the teachings of the rest of the Qur’an, Christian, Islamic, Roman, and Jewish historical accounts, and the Bible. It is the principal barrier erected by Islamic tradition that unnecessarily keeps Muslims and Christians apart.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

I suppose it really belongs in another thread, but I would be interested, Grenville, in hearing how you understand Christ to be a propitiation for the sins of the world if he is just a man and nothing more. I find the "mechanism" (for lack of a better word) of the atonement to be difficult enough to explain when understanding the hypostatic union of both God and man in the person of Jesus; I can't imagine it as anything less than impossible to articulate absent that belief as I understand your beliefs to be.

[Walter]

Hi GS:

I suppose it really belongs in another thread, but I would be interested, Grenville, in hearing how you understand Christ to be a propitiation for the sins of the world if he is just a man and nothing more. I find the "mechanism" (for lack of a better word) of the atonement to be difficult enough to explain when understanding the hypostatic union of both God and man in the person of Jesus; I can't imagine it as anything less than impossible to articulate absent that belief as I understand your beliefs to be.

Paul answers your question in his letter to the Hebrews.

But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. (Hebrews: 9:11-15)

Please note that Jesus, the Christ, came as a High Priest and offered His own blood to God, and became the mediator between God and Man. Please also be advised that I have never claimed that Jesus is "just a man and nothing more" as you have erroneously asserted.

Regards,
Grenville

[OurIslamic]

Yes, there is.

In Islam, we believe the Bible (God's word) has been changed. I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone, but am simply stating Islamic beliefs.

[Grace Seeker]

Please also be advised that I have never claimed that Jesus is "just a man and nothing more" as you have erroneously asserted.

Regards,
Grenville

I apologize for the error. Let me be clear on your position with regard to Jesus then:

1) Jesus is not God.
2) Jesus is not the God.
3) Jesus is not a god.
4) Jesus is not divine in any way or context.
5) Jesus is a man.
6) Jesus is more than just a man.
7) Jesus is God's son
8) Jesus is God's Word.


Please correct any of the above statements that, according to your understanding, are false so that they are stated correctly.

[Walter]

Hi GS:

As I have consistently stated, I believe that Jesus is exactly who the Bible explicitly describes Him to be. GS, when I make presentations, Christians in the audience are normally shocked to learn that the phrase “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit” is not contained in the Bible. Those promoting this teaching have certainly been effective. However, I believe that they have, and continue to mislead believers.

The following list describes how Jesus is referred to in the Gospels.
• God called Jesus: My Son, and My beloved Son.
• Jesus called Himself: Lord, Son of Man, Prophet, the Son, Christ, Teacher, Christ, Son of God, Lord of Sabbath, Good Shepherd, Only begotten Son, Messiah, True Bread from Heaven, Bread of God, Bread of Life, Living Bread, Light of the World, Door of the sheep, Resurrection and the Life, Way, Truth and Life, and the True Vine.
• Angels referred to Jesus as: Jesus, Immanuel, Jesus of Nazareth, Savior, Christ the Lord, Son of the Highest, and Son of God.
• John the Baptist referred to Jesus as: Lord, a Man, Son of God, Lamb of God, and Rabbi.
• Jesus’ disciples referred to Jesus as: Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham, Jesus who is called Christ, Christ, Son of God, Lord, the Lord’s Christ, the Word, Light, Only begotten of the Father, Teacher, Messiah, Son of Joseph, Rabbi, King of Israel, Master, and Christ of God.
• Others during Jesus lifetime referred to Jesus as: Lord, Christ, Son of God, Teacher, Jesus, Rabbi, King of the Jews, Prophet, Master, Son of David, King of Israel, King of the Jews.
• Demons referred to Jesus as: Son of God, Holy one of God, Son of the Most High God, Christ.

For the next 30 to 40 years after Jesus’ departure, Jesus is referred to in the following way.
• Peter referred to Jesus as: Lord, Jesus, a man attested by God, Christ, His Servant Jesus, The Holy One and Just, the Prince of Life, Prophet, Lord, Holy Servant, Prince and Saviour.
• Stephen referred to Jesus as: Just One, Son of man at right hand of God, and Lord Jesus.
• Paul referred to Jesus as: Christ, Saviour, this Man, Jesus, and Lord.
• Others referred to Jesus as: Jesus Christ Son of God, the Word of God, Lord, Just One, and Christ.
• Jesus referred to Himself as: Jesus of Nazareth.

In the evidence from the Bible, there are no explicit or indirect references to “Jesus our God”, or “our God Jesus”. There are several references to “Son of God” and “Lamb of God”, but not “God the Son” or “God the Lamb” or anything similar. However, there are numerous references to “God the Father”.

Therefore, the Bible explicitly teaches that God is the Father. But there is no explicit evidence that Jesus is God.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Hi GS:

As I have consistently stated, I believe that Jesus is exactly who the Bible explicitly describes Him to be.

And do you only believe that which is explicity stated? Or do you also believe those things that can be inferred from scripture?

That God existed BEFORE the beginning of the world.
That the WORD existed BEFORE the beginning of the world.
That Jesus is the Word made flesh.
That all things were created by the Son and for the Son.
That the Son laid the foundations of the earth.
That God's angels worship the Son.
That the Son's throne is to last for ever and ever.
That Jesus had power to forgive sins.


None of these things are explicity stated in scripture, but they are all easily inferred from it. Are your beliefs limited to only that which is explicity stated?

The following list describes how Jesus is referred to in the Gospels.
• God called Jesus: My Son, and My beloved Son.
• Jesus called Himself: Lord, Son of Man, Prophet, the Son, Christ, Teacher, Christ, Son of God, Lord of Sabbath, Good Shepherd, Only begotten Son, Messiah, True Bread from Heaven, Bread of God, Bread of Life, Living Bread, Light of the World, Door of the sheep, Resurrection and the Life, Way, Truth and Life, and the True Vine.
• Angels referred to Jesus as: Jesus, Immanuel, Jesus of Nazareth, Savior, Christ the Lord, Son of the Highest, and Son of God.
• John the Baptist referred to Jesus as: Lord, a Man, Son of God, Lamb of God, and Rabbi.
• Jesus’ disciples referred to Jesus as: Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham, Jesus who is called Christ, Christ, Son of God, Lord, the Lord’s Christ, the Word, Light, Only begotten of the Father, Teacher, Messiah, Son of Joseph, Rabbi, King of Israel, Master, and Christ of God.
• Others during Jesus lifetime referred to Jesus as: Lord, Christ, Son of God, Teacher, Jesus, Rabbi, King of the Jews, Prophet, Master, Son of David, King of Israel, King of the Jews.
• Demons referred to Jesus as: Son of God, Holy one of God, Son of the Most High God, Christ.

For the next 30 to 40 years after Jesus’ departure, Jesus is referred to in the following way.
• Peter referred to Jesus as: Lord, Jesus, a man attested by God, Christ, His Servant Jesus, The Holy One and Just, the Prince of Life, Prophet, Lord, Holy Servant, Prince and Saviour.
• Stephen referred to Jesus as: Just One, Son of man at right hand of God, and Lord Jesus.
• Paul referred to Jesus as: Christ, Saviour, this Man, Jesus, and Lord.
• Others referred to Jesus as: Jesus Christ Son of God, the Word of God, Lord, Just One, and Christ.
• Jesus referred to Himself as: Jesus of Nazareth.

Thank-you for sharing with me all of this in one place. I may actually use it some day. But your list of the many different ways that Jesus is referenced in the Bible does NOT answer the question I actually asked. Unless you mean for me to infer from your statement "believe that Jesus is exactly who the Bible explicitly describes Him to be" that you don't believe anything about Jesus except for that which the Bible explicity describes Him to be".

[Walter]

Dear Grace Seeker:

And do you only believe that which is explicity stated? Or do you also believe those things that can be inferred from scripture?

...

Thank-you for sharing with me all of this in one place. I may actually use it some day. But your list of the many different ways that Jesus is referenced in the Bible does NOT answer the question I actually asked. Unless you mean for me to infer from your statement "believe that Jesus is exactly who the Bible explicitly describes Him to be" that you don't believe anything about Jesus except for that which the Bible explicity describes Him to be".

Please allow me to clarify a critical issue.

In my opinion, doctrines should be based on what is explicitly stated, and consistently supported by other scriptural passages. In that way, they are not vulnerable to diverse interpretations that can cause juveniles to stumble, and others to intentionally or inadvertently blaspheme.

While doctrines should be sure and true, and extremely easy to defend in a debate and define in a discussion, such is not always true for speculative opinions.

Speculative opinion is the realm where the “inferences” that you referred to should be discussed. While we should hold tightly to the safety of doctrine, we should not hold too tightly to speculative opinions, because they may be found to be false. Perhaps additional evidence may be found, or an alternate interpretation of existing evidence, or some evidence that discounts the underlying assumption upon which the present interpretation was based, or a host of other reasons.

So to answer your question. I believe what is explicitly stated in the Bible. I also believe a lot of speculative opinion; however, not to the same degree as what is explicitly stated.

Further, I believe that the concept of Jesus being God should never have been made a doctrine, for such a teaching fails the minimum standards for doctrines. It was a divisive distraction that was forcibly established, and has become an unnecessary barrier to our Muslim believers. I believe that it should have remained as speculative opinion, and allowed to be properly discussed to see whether it merited a place among the doctrines of the Church, rather than being forced upon us.

I trust that my position is clear to you.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Dear Grace Seeker:



Please allow me to clarify a critical issue.

In my opinion, doctrines should be based on what is explicitly stated, and consistently supported by other scriptural passages.

Where can I find this view (Grenville's doctrine of Biblical interpretation) explicity stated? Is it consistently supported by other scriptural passages?

[Walter]

Where can I find this view (Grenville's doctrine of Biblical interpretation) explicity stated? Is it consistently supported by other scriptural passages?

Hi GS:

Since you asked, Paul set the standard for Church doctrine at the words of Jesus, and high standards of personal behaviour.

If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself. (1 Timothy 6:3–5)

The Qur’an set the standard as whatever God has revealed.

Let the people of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by what God hath revealed, they are those who rebel.

To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee., To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;

And this : Judge thou between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that which God hath sent down to thee. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is God's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious. (5:47–49)

The Qur’an advises the Jews, Christians, and Muslims to judge by what has been revealed to each of them by God, as opposed to the vain desires of men. These vain desires can be likened to religious traditions that are not supported by the evidence of what God has revealed. Jesus made a similar observation.

Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honour Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” (Matthew 15:7–9)

The idea that Jesus is God is a commandment of men which was forced upon believers.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

I'm still waiting to see where it is explicity stated. You've only provided things from which you have inferred your doctrine. But your doctrine itself holds that we are not to do that, but rather that things must be explicity stated. Are you telling me that this doctrine requiring things to be explicity stated and not just inferred is itself an inferred doctrine?

[Walter]

I'm still waiting to see where it is explicity stated. You've only provided things from which you have inferred your doctrine. But your doctrine itself holds that we are not to do that, but rather that things must be explicity stated. Are you telling me that this doctrine requiring things to be explicity stated and not just inferred is itself an inferred doctrine?

Hi GS:

Where is this “your doctrine” coming from. Did you not read that I was expressing “my opinion” on how doctrines should be developed? Why not respond to the substance of my post 233 that rather than divert the discussion to another topic.

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

It should be quite obvious that "my opinion" is quite different than yours. I hold that it is actually quite important to make inferences from scripture. Without these inferences we are left with confusing statements about a Jesus sitting on the right hand of a being that doesn't even have a body. Your "opinion" however is that things must be explicity stated to be so. I'm just wondering where you got that from? Is this something that you reasoned out? Because if so, I would like to do more than accept just what is explicitly stated, but that which can be reasoned from scripture as well. I would go so far as to suggest that the reason you can't see Jesus being presented as God in the scriptures, despite all of the evidence that points to this being the opinion of the New Testament's authors, is that you have reached a subjective opinion that unless you find the very words "Jesus is God" that you will not believe it. Well, that is close to what Thomas said about not believing that Jesus was raised from the dead. Then Jesus appeared to Thomas and Thomas' response was to address him as "My Lord and my God." But that's not good enough for you. Because in your "opinion", that's not the same as explicitly stating it. In my opinion, you've decided the answer before you even investigate the question. You are willing to accept only that which is explicitly stated, even though the idea that things need to be explicitly stated is itself never explicitly stated (nor do even see it implied) any where in scripture.

There are many other things that cause me to infer that Jesus is God beyond Thomas' statement. Many of them are in that long list of questions you were so kind as to answer. Terms that you said refer to God, but which in scripture are also used as references to the Son, the Lamb, the Messiah. And if, as you have stated, Jesus is the Son, the Lamb, and the Messiah. And if, as you have stated, these terms refer to God. Then it would follow, even if not explicitly stated, that Jesus then is being referenced as God. But you'll never allow yourself to see it, because then it would mean tossing that book which means so much to you. And, really, I can understand why that would be a hard thing to do.

[Walter]

Hi GS:


Well it appears that you have ignored the substance of my post once more. Let me try to explain again.

As individuals, we can believe anything. Much of what individual Christians believe is both inferred and explicit Biblical teachings. Some of the inferred teachings are consistently supported by other Biblical verses. However, some other inferred teachings actually conflict with other Biblical teachings. Paul addressed this situation in his letters to the Romans and Corinthians.

Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. (Romans 14:1-7)

There is Biblical support for eating and not eating meat, and for esteeming and not esteeming one day above another. These can be called “doubtful things”, and Paul’s instructions are clear.

Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way. (Romans 14:13)

We then who are strong ought to bear with the scruples of the weak, and not to please ourselves. (Romans 15:1)

I believe that we can both agree that “doubtful things” should not become church doctrines. However, they can remain as individual beliefs. Believers should have confidence discussing and defending church doctrines. However, young believers are made to stumble and fall when discussing doctrines that have no Biblical support. Jesus was quite angry with such people.

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6)

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. (Matthew 23:12)

Regards,
Grenville

[Grace Seeker]

Grenville, if you find me "ignoring" the substance of your post, it is because I don't always find them to be substantative.

I dispute that the identification of Jesus as God was in anyway held to be "doubtful" by Christians in the New Testament era. I find your total assumption to be based on a pretext that if the Bible doesn't say it explicity, then it can't be so. And yet you don't actually practice that hermenuetic consistently, and indeed practice almost exclusively in relation to this one idea and no other. Thus, I find your very argument itself to be disingenious and the "support" you cite for it to be circumspect.

[Predator]

Jesus power is not his own

John 5:30.

" My father is greater than I , My father is greater than All and I can of my ownself do nothing .

Why is Jesus promoting his father and lowering his status ?


MATTHEW 28:18

(a) "And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is
GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth."

The power that is given to Jesus belongs to god and he can take it from him and give it to somebody else. Shouldnt it be all power is mine ?


MATTHEW 19:16-I7

One came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing
shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
"And Jesus said unto him, WHY CALLEST THOU ME
GOOD? there is NONE GOOD BUT ONE, THAT IS GOD

From the above verse , he refuses you to even call him good , how would he ask you to call him god . God is good If Jesus was god , he would say " Well i accept ,what you're telling me "


God used Jesus to give life to the dead

JOHN 11:41-43

"And Jesus lifted up his eyes (towards heaven), and said,
Father, I thank thee that THOU HAST HEARD ME.
"And I know that THOU HEAREST ME ALWAYS: but
because of the people which stand by l said (my supplication
aloud), that THEY MAY BELIEVE that thou hast sent me.
"And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice,
Lazarus, come forth.
"And he that was dead came forth . . ."

Who then gave life back to Lazarus? The answer is "GOD!" For God
heard the prayer of Jesus, as "always!"

If you press a button , the power comes on and the light is switched on and you supply the electricity from the power station . similarly , jesus is praying to god and God hears his prayers and gives back life to Lazarus


And Jesus has no knowledge of the last day

"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the
angels which are in heaven, NEITHER THE SON, but the
Father." MARK 13:32

How can he not have the knowledge ?

This brings a conclusion is not like the father in either knowledge or power .So i cant understand what makes Jesus God.

Q . What is God ?
Answer The creators of the heavens and the earth

Where does Jesus say that he created the heavens and the earth ?

In Genesis 1:1

Its says "God created the heavens and the earth "

If it Jesus is God as well , then it should be "Gods created the heaven and the earth " and NOT God

[Grace Seeker]

Airforce, actually I have much less argument with what you posted than you might imagine. For instance:

It is true that Jesus' power, that which he displays on earth and the means by which is does his miracles it is not his own. It is in the power of the Holy Spirit that he does these things.

It is also true that Jesus does not claim to know all that the Father knows, nor does he even claim equality with God (see Philippians 2 for that reference, more in it later). Yet he still claims that he and the Father are one (John 10:30).

If we can agree on nothing else, perhaps you will agree with me that Jesus is sometimes cryptic in the way he reveals God's truth to people. For example:

Luke 8

8bWhen he said this [the parable], he called out, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
9His disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,
" 'though seeing, they may not see;
though hearing, they may not understand.' "

This crypticness extends to far more than just his parables. Even his very behavior doing things that no good Jew would do, like proclaiming the forgiveness of sins, his claims to have been before Abraham, or saying that people were to feast on his body and drink his blood and not just do it but as a means of receiving God's grace in their lives are all examples of Jesus saying things that if we are to try to understanding them as coming from a mere man are a minimum very confusing and really indicative of utter nonsense and a person who doesn't even know what he is saying. Yet, I doubt if you actually project such a character, that of a madman, on to Jesus. So, then we have to look deeper to find the signficance of much of what Jesus says.

How can he not have the knowledge ?

I think this is a most excellent question. But as you seek to answer it, I ask you to not just jump to the first thought that crosses your mind, but consider a variety of possibilities. Indeed, it might be that some of the answer that initially seem most strange, are actually ones that in the end make the most sense.

Now you initial thought is

This brings a conclusion is not like the father in either knowledge or power .So i cant understand what makes Jesus God.

I want to begin by agreeing with a slight different form of your statement -- that this brings a conclusion that Jesus is not identical with the Father in either knowledge or power. I chose to stress the difference between being like and being identical. Because while I am not identical with my father, I am like him in many ways. For instance I am named after him. We are both balding. (Sounds much nicer when you use the "-ing" form of the word.) Both white, male, United Methodist pastors. In others words we have a lot in common, but we are not identical. We don't have the same knowledge -- think differently about many things, voting differently, even have some different theological views. We also have different power -- he has talents and gifts that I only dream about in terms of knowing how to relate to people, especially troubled people; whereas I am able to organize projects that would leave him bewildered, and I'm a much better skier as well. We are quite clearly not identical, but I do think that we are alike. But here is a key, while some of our differences are by nature, many of them are actually by choice. Remember above I said that we were going to come back to Philippians 2. Well, let's take a look at what it says about Jesus: "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" (vs. 6).

To claim that Jesus is God is not to claim that he is identical with the Father. Only that he is one with the Father. He is inherently of the very same nature as God, but does not consider that he has to hang on to that which is true of the Father, "but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness" (vs 7).

The phrase translated there "made himself nothing" is a Greek word kenosis which means to empty. A more literal rendering of that passage would read: "who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God, but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made." That is, though Jesus prior to his conception Jesus could claim oneness with God, he voluntarily relinquishes those divine attributes of omnipotence and omniscience to take on the attributes of humanity and become more like us than like the Father. Jesus life and ministry on earth is every bit as human as yours and mine. But that doesn't negate the pre-existing reality of his divinity. Further, though I know Muslims don't accept it is being true, for those of us who accept the proclamation of Jesus' death and resurrection, this event is understood as vindication of who Jesus actually is.

As this pericope of scripture continues I want to pick up what Paul declares about Jesus in vss. 10 & 11: "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow...and every tongue confess that 'Jesus Christ is Lord', to the glory of God the Father." You may not recognize it, but Paul is actually quoting one of the most stridently monotheistic proclamations of the Old Testament. It comes from a section of Isaiah where one finds the clearest and most sustained exposition in all of the scriptures exaulting YHWH, the one true God of Israel, over and against all of the false claimants of the world. It is also one of the strongest declarations of the true sovereignty of the one God and rules out the possibility of any ontological dualism. Here Isaiah 42:53 declares, in the name of YHWH, Israel's one God: "To me, and me alone every knee shall bow, every tongue swear." The whole point of the context being that the one true God DOES NOT, CANNOT, and WILL NOT share his glory with another. Yet Paul intentionally uses this passage, which by the time of his writing had already become a hymn of the Church directed toward Jesus, to declare that this one God has shared his glory with Jesus.

It is reasonable to ask the questions: "How can this be?" "What is he talking about?"

I submit to you that the answers to those questions are found back at the first verses we looked at, at the beginning of the hymn:
1) Jesus was truly in the form (nature) of God, that is, he was equal to God. But,
2) he did not consider divine equality as something to be exploited. Instead, Paul says,
3) he offered the true interpretation of what it meant to live a Godly life: he became human, and died under the weight of the sin of the world, obedient and submissive to the divine plan of salvation.

Today he is exalted, and given the divine name that is above every name -- "LORD" -- because he has done what only God can do. Paul writes of that in another of his letters, "God commends his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). That is a sentence which only makes sense if, somehow, God is fully and personally involved in the death of Jesus. Hence, Paul's understanding of what God had done in Jesus Christ, take him not to pagan philosophies or mystery religions, but bring him face-to-face with the utterly self-giving and faithfulness of the love of the covenant-making God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

In this sense, these passages from Philippians are not so much about Jesus as they are about God himself. At the heart of Philippians 2, and at the heart of Paul's understanding of the gospel, is the news that the one true God is in his own nature thorough self-giving love. For this, God had to become human, and to die for sinners. While it may not make sense to the human mind, it is something that, because of his nature, God had to do. It is right there at the climax of Isaiah -- this strange portrait of the servant of YHWH, who does for Israel and for the world what only YHWH himself can do for the world. And Paul sees this fulfilled in the life of the Messiah, God's anointed servant messenger, who embodies God's divine love in his own life and actions. And so, as such, this man Jesus, is now exalted in a manner and with the glory that God will not share with one other than himself. Of course, it does indeed strain our feeble minds to comprehend exactly what it is that God has done, and our language begins to fail as we attempt to describe it. But the scriptures do indeed declare that from now on we are to understand the meaning of the word 'God' to not only include Jesus, but, specifically, the crucified and risen Jesus.

[Grace Seeker]

Q . What is God ?
Answer The creators of the heavens and the earth

Where does Jesus say that he created the heavens and the earth ?

In Genesis 1:1

Its says "God created the heavens and the earth "

If it Jesus is God as well , then it should be "Gods created the heaven and the earth " and NOT God

As, I hope you can see above, when we speak of Jesus as God, we are not speaking of a second God. We are still speaking of just the one true God, who, as you said is the creator (singular) of the heavens and the earth. But, how can this be identified with Jesus? Afterall, Jesus was himself a part of that creation.

Well, first, I would remind you that God lives outside of time. He isn't just before creation, he is outside of creation. The Christian understanding of incarnation is that God breaks into that created order. But that doesn't mean that his origins are part of it. Rather, Jesus' body is conceived within the created order, and as we have already discussed, he empties himself of those divine attributes that cannot be subsumed in a human body, but this in no way is understood to diminish his divine essence. Rather, we understand him to be both fully human and fully divine, even as he limits his utilization of some of his divine attributes. But, as scripture declares, God acts to redeem us for himself through the agency of King Jesus, and thus he also makes himself known to the world through this same Jesus:

Colossians 1

15who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation,

16because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created,

17and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted.

18And himself is the head of the body -- the assembly -- who is a beginning, a first-born out of the dead, that he might become in all [things] -- himself -- first,

19because in him it did please all the fulness to tabernacle,

20and through him to reconcile the all things to himself -- having made peace through the blood of his cross -- through him, whether the things upon the earth, whether the things in the heavens.

I've seen many people, using English rather than Jewish thought processes, get confused over the term "image". But it fits perfectly as an example of Jewish monotheistic poetry -- of the type we find again and again in the Psalms. The Jews, faced with the might and corruption of various forms of paganism, stressed repeatedly that the creator fo the world was Israel's redeemer-God. And vice versa, that Israel's redeemer-God was the creator of the entire cosmos, not just god of Israel. For, if the creator were not their God, then they would only have a local or tribal god. By identifying YHWH as both the creator of the cosmos and the redeemer of Israel they safeguarded all their three basic doctrines -- monotheism, election, and eschatology. One God, one people of God, one future for Israel and the whole world. (My guess is that on these elements there may be a great deal more commonality between ancient Jewish thought and modern Islam than most people might at first imagine -- though it shouldn't be so surprising if one accepts the thesis that Muhammad (p) was a prophet of the same God as worshipped by ancient Israel.)

The interesting thing is that Paul now writes a poem in exactly the same vein as this ancient Jewish thought, but the central character of that poem is not YHWH, but God's special anointed servant, the Christ.

An aside must be ventured for a few brief moments. The English term "Christ" is from the Greek word "christos", that itself is a translation of the Hebrew word "masiah", generally rendered as "Messiah" in Englsih. So, the terms "Christ" and "Messiah" are basically interchangable. With this caveat. In it's original form, "messiah" meant anyone or even anything that was anointed, especially if that anointing was to set it apart for God's purposes. It could be, and in the Old Testament, sometimes is in fact used for objects that are used in worship, kings and prophets of Israel, and even the Persian king Cyrus who is used as God's agent and given (at least temporarily) the title "the anointed of God" (Isaiah 45:1), even though he had clearly not been anointed as king in accordance with Judaic custom. But by the time of the first-century BCE, its major reference was to the coming king who would fulfill the promise of the prophets and usher in the eschatalogical "Day of the Lord" when God would take his rightful place as Lord of the cosmos, recognized not only by Israel, but by the all peoples of the earth, sin would be vanquished, and all would be set right again. It is in this context that the New Testament writers, including Paul, ascribe the term "Christ" to Jesus. Thus, to remind ourselves of this it would do no harm from time to time to translate "Iesous Christos" not as "Jesus Christ", nor even as "Jesus the Messiah", but as "King Jesus", a term that would be sure not to set well with Caesar who saw himself as not only King of the world, but Lord and Savior of the universe. As such, nearly all Christian claims made for Jesus arising out their orthodox Jewish beliefs of the sovereignty of God fly directly in the face of Rome's view of their own sovereignty and role to rule.


Now, with this above added understanding to the nature of what it means to identify one as "the Christ", perhaps we need to revise our statement and amend it to say that the central character of Paul's poem in Colossians 1:15-20 is YHWH recognized in the human face of Jesus.

And so, we don't have gods creating the heavens and the earth, we just have God doing so. But that God who is the creator, has over the course of time, chosen to make himself known to us through his incarnation in the person of Jesus. The Father and the Son are, as Jesus himself declared, one. Not that the Son knows all that the Father knows, for they are not identical. But they are one. And though the nuanced distinction between those two statements may be more than some people can understand or affirm, it remains on the lips of none other than Jesus himself -- he who puts a face on God.

[Grace Seeker]

Despite the objections of those who claim it to be illogical, the scriptures present absolutely no tension between the presentation of Jesus as a totally human Messiah and of him being, as it were, God's son, the one sent to do and be what only God can do and be. Impossible to imagine some have argued, but as I have tried to show above, the New Testament presents Jesus through the lens of an incarnational theology that is grounded in a throughly monotheistic Jewish world view. This is perhaps seen most clearly by turning to the most Jewish of all affirmations -- the Shema: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4) -- and seeing how Paul uses it to address the ethical concerns of the first Christians.

First, let it be recognized that true monotheism isn't seen as one option among many. Nor is it something that one logically deduces about God. It is simply declared. It is called the Shema which comes from the Hebrew word for "Hear" with which the passage begins. Paul turns to it when the first generation of Christians in Corinth are faced with a dilemna brought on by living in the pagan world. They need to hear how the reality of who God is applies to their everyday life.

In Corinth, there were temples dedicated to virtually every sort of god imaginable. A commonality among many was that meat would be offered in these temples to idols. Most of it could not be consumed in the temples and therefore it made its way to the marketplace where it was mixed with the rest of what was offered for sale. Idol temples, restaurants, and meat markets were usually one and the same, so that it was not possible to buy meat in Corinth that had not itself been offered in the temples to these pagan idols or was indistinguishable from that which had been offered. The long and the short of it was that there was no way that one could buy meat in Corinth and have assurance that it was not "polluted" in this manner. What is a good Christian to do who wants to eat with a clear conscience?

Paul's response is to remind them "an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one" (1 Corinthians 8:4) -- about as thoroughly of a monotheistic statement as one could make. Then, in his typical fashion, he repeats the major thrust of his argument: "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'), yet for us there is but one God" (vs. 5-6a) and he identifies who this "one God" is -- "the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live". And if it were not for the next part of the verse, one would think that this was a statement of some Jewish rabbi writing in the Talmud. But Paul does go on to say, "and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live" (vs. 6b). The point of course being that they should not be concerned about the meat that has been so presented for sacrifices in the various pagan temples of Corinth, for in reality the god such meat is presented to represent nothing real as the only true God is God himself. If they remember that, then Christians can eat freely, for they are not participating in the worship of other gods, only be aware of those who might have recently become a part of the Christian community coming out of these pagan religions who might still have a problem making the distinction.

That's a pretty sane and reasonsed response for the situation at hand. The problem for us today comes when people read the verse and perceive that Paul is making a separation between God and Jesus. Reading in the linear process of English thought, they miss that the chiastic structure of Hebrew thinking that lays behind the letter, even though it was written in Greek. Thus to get the full force of what Paul was saying, allow me to set out the major elements side by side, with that which I believe Paul is referencing:

The Lord our God. . . . .One God -- the Father...

The Lord is One. . . . . . One Lord -- Jesus Christ...

(Deuteronomy 6:4). . . .(1 Corinthians 8:6)

The whole argument Paul makes with regard to it meaning nothing to eat the meat offered to idols hinges on his Jewish-styled monotheistic belief that there is only one true God over and against pagan-styled polytheism, and that any allusion to any other god means absolutely nothing. Yet, as the lynchpin of his argument, Paul takes the very words that Jews used every day in their regular prayers to denote the one true God, quotes the central and most central and holy confession of orthodox monotheisitic Judaism, and places Jesus right in the midst of it. Despite Grenville's anticipated protestations, what we see is that Paul believes the one and only God is known in terms of at least 'father' and 'lord'. All things are made by the one; all things are made through the other.

And when we examine Paul's use of the word "kyrios" or "Lord", we will see that this too is a proclamation not of simply a servile attitude projected toward Jesus, but a proclamation in scripture that does indeed describe Jesus as God.

Now the term "kyrios" ("lord") did carry a variety of connotations in the first century. (It is the first century we are concerned about, not the way the term gets used in medieval England.) In classical Greek it contained the idea of legality and authority. Instance of the use of the term kyrios to refer to gods or rulers did not occur until the first century BCE. But at that time it suddenly become common place. The phrase "kyrios basileus" (Lord and King) is frequently found between 64 and 50 B.C. And in 12 B.C. the Roman emperor Augustus takes for himself the title theos kai kyrios (God and Lord). And in Palestine the title kyrios is also used of Herod the Great (73-4 B.C.), Agrippa I (10 B.C.-A.D. 44), and Agrippa II (A.D. 27-100). Among semitic people the term was used with a personal suffix (my, our, etc.) to indicate the nature of belonging in relationship with one who was identified as one's lord.

With respect to Paul's usage of it, I have already shown how it flies in the face of Roman Emperor. But more importantly, it parallels the way the term "kyrious" is used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible), where it regularly stands for YHWH.

For instance, see Romans 10:13 -- "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Read in the context of Paul's letter to the Romans it clearly refers to calling on the name of Jesus, to confessing Jesus as Kyrios (10:9), and believing that God raised Jesus from the dead. Yet Romans 10:13 is a quote taken from Joel 2:32 (numbered 3:5 in the Septuagint). In its original context kyrios refers to YHWH himself.

Now, I have come to learn that such a direct and intentional use of a passage that references YHWH to be reused to refer to Jesus will not be understood by Grenville to be explicit Biblical evidence of Jesus being described as God. But, I'm hoping that those with eyes to see will see that it is most certainly implied, and intentionally so.

Paul is not stupid. Again and again he is making the point cryptically, which emerges into the light in the three passages (Philippians 2, Colossians 1, and 1 Corinthians 8] we have examined..., and in such startling throw away lines as Romans 9:5 ["Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen."], which introduces and prefigures precisely the point of 10:9-13: from the Jewish race comes the Messiah according to the flesh -- who is also God over all, blessed for ever.

(source: N.T. Wright. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?. Eerdmanns Publishing, c. 1997, p. 71.)

[Predator]

Yet he still claims that he and the Father are one (John 10:30).

Let us look at John 10:30

"And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one."

"I (Jesus) and the Father are One." This verse is severely misunderstood and is taken out of context, because beginning at verse John 10:23 we read (in the context of 10:30) about Jesus talking to the Jews. In verse John 10:28-30, talking about his followers as his sheep, he states: "...Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father who gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are One." ( For eg : does this mean that if there are 2 security guards watching over one person, does it make them the same person just . NO, they are both person with different personalities etc )

These verses prove only that Jesus and the Father are one in that no man can pluck the sheep out of either's hand. It does not at all state that Jesus is God's equal in everything. In fact the words of Jesus, " My Father, who gave them me is Greater than ALL...," in John 10:29 completely negates this claim, otherwise we are left with a contradiction just a sentence apart. All includes everyone even Jesus.


There is not a single verse in the Bible where Jesus says " I am God " or " Worship me "

Is this a coincidence? I think not. If you make a claim on someone, then you would expect that someone to back your claim up. If I claim somebody is a king, you would expect that king to say he is a king, at least once. In the Old testament God says he is God several times, why not once with Jesus in the New Testament ? Did God change his ways? I think not, since the OT says God does not change. Here are the passages from the OT where God says he is God:

Gen 35:11 And God said unto him, I [am] God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins

Gen 46:3 And he said, I [am] God, the God of thy father: fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation:

Exd 16:12 I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I [am] the LORD your God.

Exd 20:2 I [am] the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Psa 46:10 Be still, and know that I [am] God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

Psa 50:7 Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I [am] God, [even] thy God.

Psa 81:10 I [am] the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.

Isa 41:10 Fear thou not; for I [am] with thee: be not dismayed; for I [am] thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.

Isa 45:3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call [thee] by thy name, [am] the God of Israel.

Isa 45:5 I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me,

Jer 32:27 Behold, I [am] the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?



Eze 13:9 And mine hand shall be upon the prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies: they shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel; and ye shall know that I [am] the Lord GOD.



Eze 20:19 I [am] the LORD your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them;



Eze 20:20 And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I [am] the LORD your God.



Eze 23:49 And they shall recompense your lewdness upon you, and ye shall bear the sins of your idols: and ye shall know that I [am] the Lord GOD.

So as we can see, God is not shy to say I am God. SO if Jesus is God, then how come he never said it once like the God of the Old testament ?

"And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is
GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth."

Why does he say the power is not his and why given ?

So note, even better now, Jesus now says that ALL things have been GIVEN to him by the Father. This means that everything Jesus said and did was from the Father. The miracles he did were not on his own, such us healing the blind, curing the sick, casting out demons etc. God had given him this power to be able to perform such great miracles; Jesus did not do this on his own. Hence this all proves that Jesus is NOT GOD.

Also note, Jesus says that now they have believed that thou has sent me, so basically they believe in the True God, because that was Jesus' mission, to make his people realize and worship the true God, and that was the mission of the prophet Jesus. God had helped Jesus in doing this mission by granting him everything.

Exodus 20:3 You must not have any other god but me.

Considering Jesus or the Holy Ghost as a partner to God ,breaks the first commandment given By God almighty to Moses

Job 25:4

How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?
5 Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight.
6 How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?

So in otherwords ,anyone that is born of a woman whether a Moses , Jesus or a Muhammad or a Rama , Krishna or Buddha is not good enough to be compared with God .And the verse is son of Man Jesus is nothing isnt a worm. Isnt that an insult to Jesus

The very fact that Jesus was given birth, and came out as little helpless small baby is enough to refute the claim that Jesus is God. Just imagine if you were a nurse helping Mary deliver Jesus , can you imagine this puny little creature who made his mothe impure for 40 days , your GOD . It is utter blasphemy to claim that God came out of a women like all people, it is utter blasphemy to claim God came out crying and screaming and being helpless and weak. Such nonsense is insulting to God; this itself is enough to prove Jesus is not God.

letters, "God commends his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). That is a sentence which only makes sense if, somehow, God is fully and personally involved in the death of Jesus.
In this sense, these passages from Philippians are not so much about Jesus as they are about God himself. At the heart of Philippians 2, and at the heart of Paul's understanding of the gospel, is the news that the one true God is in his own nature thorough self-giving love. For this, God had to become human, and to die for sinners

So , Instead of punishing the evil doers and sinner ,god kills his own Son , Do you call that love ?
What kind of mercy is this ?
For eg: If Someone robs you and murders your wife and child , rapes your daughter. So what would you do , Go and kill your own lson .Is that love ? Killing an innocent man, is that justice

This contradicts God own law where he says the one that sins will perish Ezekiel 18:20

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. Ezek 18:21-23 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. {

And Jesus couldnt save himself ,how could he save you because the Bible
itself claims that Jesus cannot save anyone! Here is the passage:

Hebrews 5:1-8: 1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered

So Jesus cried to the one who could save him from death, this means Jesus could not save himself from death, therefore this also means Jesus cannot save anyone else from death. How can Jesus be God when he cannot save anyone? This also shows that Jesus is not in control of life and death, God however is in control of everything, including life and death

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matthew 7:21-23

He tell you christians to get away Why would he do that to do when he you've done all these things for Jesus. Because you call him lord , he is not lord and not your god

This is a way he taught you to pray

Matthew 6:9–13

Our Father, who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
[For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever.]
Amen.

Where does he say " Jesus christ, My Lord in heaven " , Because this is how you pray and you are worshipping Jesus instead of worshipping the father , thats why he tells you get away.

[Grace Seeker]

There is so much in what you have written Airforce that shows you are exactly that sort of person that Jesus speaks about when he speaks of people who "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

I think one of the biggest stumbling blocks that people have with regard to Jesus is that they try to figure out what it is that Jesus did according to human logic. If they had been Jesus, then they would have done XYZ. But the reality is that they are not Jesus, nor are they God. And to assume that God/Jesus would do things in exactly the same way that you or I would is to forget that God declares: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways."

With Jesus in particular we see that everything has to be taken at two different levels. He comes bringing a message about the kingdom of God. It is on the one had a future eschatological kingdom that will break in on people from outside themselves. It is on the other hand something that he says that we are already a part of and that it is within us. He is the Son of God. He is the Son of Man. He is both at the same time.

This thread is about there being any Biblice evidence that describes Jesus as God. I believe that there is plenty, and further that I have provided some of that. Is there any evidence to the contrary? Yes. This is what you get with Jesus. If you are looking for simple answers, you are going to be disappointed. There is very little that is simple about Jesus. Some on this forum like to quote verses where Jesus claims that he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel as if this proves that Jesus had no interest in takeing his message or sharing his good news with the world beyond the Jews of Israel. But that ignores the fact that Jesus also sent his disciples out to all nations, that they were to start in Jerusalem and then go to Samaria and then to the ends of the earth. You can't look at just one aspect of Jesus' life and ministry, or a handful of quotes that have a common theme and think that you've got Jesus all wrapped up in a nice litlte box. He doesn't fit. He will always confound us. The moment we think we have him figured out, he shows up in a different passage or tells a different story that shows us a new and different aspect of himself that we hadn't allowed for before.

That is why we have to make room for a Jesus bigger than what we can conceive of. He is more than just a carpenter, more than just a teacher, more than just good man, more even than just a savior. He is all of these things, and then still more than that as well.

Some of your comments are quite interesting: "There is not a single verse in the Bible where Jesus says 'I am God' or 'Worship me'." How true. But did you notice there is not a single verse where Jesus says, "I am NOT God" nor a single verse where Jesus says, "Do NOT worship me." I find that unusual because when in scripture we find humans being worship, they do in fact say those things, with exactly one exception -- Jesus -- "Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God" (Matthew 14:33); "Suddenly Jesus met them. 'Greetings,' he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him" (Matthew 28:9); "Then the man said, 'Lord, I believe,' and he worshiped him" (John 9:38).


But as I said above, you still don't get that this worship of Jesus is not the worship of another God nor of anyone other than YHWH himself. If you understood what was actually taking place in the worship of Jesus you would never say anything like you did when you wrote: "Considering Jesus or the Holy Ghost as a partner to God ,breaks the first commandment given By God almighty to Moses." It doesn't, because Jesus (nor the Holy Spirit) is NOT a partner with God. Jesus is the very God who gave that command to Moses, who spoke and brought the world into being. Jesus is the God that called Abraham, and when asked if he had seen Abraham responded saying: "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58). Jesus is the God of Abraham, of Moses, of creation, of the prophets of the Old Testament. Jesus is the God of Israel. Jesus is the one and only living and true God, YHWH, just incarnated so as to dwell among us.

[Predator]

Jesus -- "Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God" (Matthew 14:33);

He isnt the only son . God has got sons by the tons in the The Bible

(a) "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which
was the son of Adam, which was the SON OF GOD." LUKE 3:38
(b) "That the SONS OF GOD saw the daughters of men that they
were fair; and they took wives of all which they chose.
". . . when the SONS OF GOD came in unto the daughters of
men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty
men which were of old, men of renown." GENESIS 6:2 and 4
(c) ". . . Thus saith the Lord, Israel is MY SON even my
FIRSTBORN." EXODUS 4:22
(d) ". . . and Ephraim is my FIRSTBORN." JEREMIAH 31:9
(e) ". . . Thou (O David) ART MY SON; this day have I (God)
BEGOTTEN thee." PSALMS 2:7

(f) "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the SONS
OF GOD." ROMANS 8:14

In the Quran , Jesus is never called Son of God because he is the Son of Mary and not of God . God has more than 99 attributes in the Quran and Father is NOT one of them because begetting is an animal act and we are not to attribute such a quality to God , that God begot a Son

"Suddenly Jesus met them. 'Greetings,' he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him" (Matthew 28:9); "Then the man said, 'Lord, I believe,' and he worshiped him" (John 9:38).

Clasping the feet is not considered as act the worship to the ALL powerful God -the creator of the God ,
People clasping the feet of parents ,teachers , Bosses , politicians doesnt indicate that they're Gods and Even Jesus worships God, If Jesus is God , then who is he praying to

Let us look at Luke 5:16 "And he (Jesus) withdrew himself into the wilderness and prayed to his God." Here we see that Jesus had a God, a supreme God, who is higher than him and stronger than him. Jesus was God's servant and he prayed to God so God would strengthen him more and reinforce him with patience and desire to continue his mission in spreading the word of God Almighty.

Also, let us look at Matthew 26:39 "And going a little way forward, he (Jesus) fell upon his face, praying and saying 'My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will.' " Here in this verse we see two things: (1) Jesus bowed down on his face and prayed in submission to his GOD in obedience. (2) Jesus was begging his GOD to let the cup pass away from him. Jesus did not have the power to will it for himself and make the cup pass away from Jesus. GOD had to do it for Jesus !. How can Jesus be the Creater of this Universe, the all knowing, most powerful??!!

Also, let us look at Matthew 26:42 "Again, for the second time, he (Jesus) went off and prayed, saying: 'My Father, if it is not possible for this to pass away except I drink it, let your will take place.'" My comments on this verse are similar to the above one (Matthew 26:39), Jesus begged his GOD to will what Jesus wanted to happen. Jesus couldn't will it by himself.

Also, let us look at Matthew 26:44 "So leaving them, he (Jesus) went off and prayed for the third time, saying once more the same word." Here we see that Jesus for the third time begged his GOD to will what Jesus wished for in Matthew 26:39 above. How can Jesus be the Creater of this Universe if he (1) begs, and (2) lacks power??!!


We Muslims prostrated with our faces down to the ground to GOD Almighty at least a total of 17 times in the 5-daily sets of Prayers. We do it while we're not desperate to seek GOD Almighty's Mercy. Jesus on the other hand so hypocritically compromised again his "prayer rules" and he eventually found the BEST WAY to worship GOD Almighty! He found it during his most desperate times. No Prayer is better than putting your face down to the ground before THE LORD ALMIGHTY, your Creator, and make your wishes and Prayers to Him while your face is humbled down to the ground before HIM.
It also proves beyond the shadow of the doubt that Jesus is NOT my Creator, because my Creator is THE ALMIGHTY GOD who doesn't beg and cry and pray to anyone.

Jesus is the God that called Abraham, and when asked if he had seen Abraham responded saying: "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58).

Jesus existing before Abraham doesn't prove that he is GOD Almighty. In the Old Testament, the Bible presents Jeremiah as being a prophet before he was conceived in his mother's womb; "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 1:5)" Yet no one says that his pre-human existence qualifies him for deity.

Jesus is the very God who gave that command to Moses, who spoke and brought the world into being.Jesus is the God of Abraham, of Moses, of creation, of the prophets of the Old Testament. Jesus is the God of Israel. Jesus is the one and only living and true God, YHWH, just incarnated so as to dwell among us.

Now you made that up . Jesus was born only 2009 years ago before that he was not hear on this earth and Jesus always talks about the father being greater than him .There is no mention of Jesus when God created Adam.If Jesus is God , then the first verse of your bible would be " Jesus created the heavens and the earth " . " God is all-powerful and is independent, he needs no help from anybody. However so this is not the case with Jesus, unlike God, Jesus needs help from God, unlike God, Jesus does not own any power or any authority, rather it is given to him from God.

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord’, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21)
“And the Father himself, which hath sent me, bore witness of Me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape” (John 5:37)
“And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (Mark 10:18)
“And I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges.” (John 8:50)
“ Jesus answered them and said, “my doctrine are not Mine, but His who sent Me” (John 7:16)
“he who does not love me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent me” (John 14:24)
“For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak” (John 12:49)
“Jesus said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of Him who sent me, and to accomplish His work” (John 4:34)
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent me” (John 6:38)
“saying, ‘Father, if it is your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not My will, but Yours, be done” (Luke 22:42)
“I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me” (John 5:30)
“I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him” (John 13:16)
“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)
“Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me” (John 8:42)
“To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father” (Matthew 20:23)
“So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me”

Some on this forum like to quote verses where Jesus claims that he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel as if this proves that Jesus had no interest in takeing his message or sharing his good news with the world beyond the Jews of Israel.

Jesus was sent to preach to a specific nation only, not mankind. One would expect to find Jesus being sent to all of mankind if he was God, rather what we find is that Jesus just like all the other prophets, was sent to a specific nation only:

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

So as we see, Jesus was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel. His main duty was for them, not the gentiles or the world. Christians often like to say Jesus told his disciples to go preach to the gentiles, however so this doesn’t change anything. Jesus’ real mission as we see was for the children of Israel, not the gentiles, the verse I posted cannot be refuted. The verse is very clear, Jesus is SENT for the lost sheep of Israel, not the Gentiles, Jesus saying go preach to Gentiles does not mean he was sent for gentiles

That is why we have to make room for a Jesus bigger than what we can conceive of. He is more than just a carpenter, more than just a teacher, more than just good man, more even than just a savior. He is all of these things, and then still more than that as well.

So From your own mouth , you are just speculating that Jesus is god when he said that nothing of the sort and said that God was working through him and asked you to worship the father . .Just like the Buddhists, Buddha never claimed that he was God, the Buddhists made him into a God and now you christians are doing the same thing without any evidence what so ever

There is so much in what you have written Airforce that shows you are exactly that sort of person that Jesus speaks about when he speaks of people who "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

I must say the same about you . You are just the sort of unbeliever which God describes in the Quran chapter 2:18 , as ones that choose to purchase the error for guidance and your commerce was not profitable and who wasnot guided.

"they are deaf, dumb, and blind, so they return not to the right path " 2:18

[Grace Seeker]

I must say the same about you . You are just the sort of unbeliever which God describes in the Quran chapter 2:18 , as ones that choose to purchase the error for guidance and your commerce was not profitable and who wasnot guided.

"they are deaf, dumb, and blind, so they return not to the right path " 2:18

Indeed, from an Islamic perspective, that is probably a fair description of me. I don't challenge that. I accept it.


But you do realize that this is not a thread in which one is trying to debate the validity of the the Qur'an vs. the Bible, nor is it trying to debate the validity of Islam vs. Christianity. It is about is there anything in the Bible that describes Jesus as God.

I've already said that there are certainly some things in the Bible that would cause people to think that Jesus was NOT God. But to answer the question before us, you can't read those things isolated from those that do describe Jesus as God. Additionally, the question put to us in this thread, doesn't require that those things be on the lips of Jesus, they can be stated by others. So, despite your objections, one has to recognize that there are indeed some places where Jesus is described as God. A very simple one in this season is to note how Matthew presents him in describing his nativity:

Matthew 1

18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us."

24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

As to some of your other objections:

He isnt the only son . God has got sons by the tons in the The Bible

But you need to note the different connotation given in the text in the way Jesus is called "the Son of God", completely unlike the way the phrase is used with anyone else.

In the Quran , Jesus is never called Son of God because he is the Son of Mary and not of God . God has more than 99 attributes in the Quran and Father is NOT one of them because begetting is an animal act and we are not to attribute such a quality to God , that God begot a Son

Completely irrelevant when the question is about Biblical evidence. As for the idea of "begetting", when the Bible refers to Jesus as "the only begotten Son", this is not a reference to an animal act, and to apply any aversion that you might have to that concept as an objection is to miss the mark.

Clasping the feet is not considered as act the worship to the ALL powerful God -the creator of the God ,
People clasping the feet of parents ,teachers , Bosses , politicians doesnt indicate that they're Gods

The passage doesn't say that the clasping of feet is what indicated worship. It says that they did both. You may infer that it is a form of worship or not. But the verse itself is a simple declarative statement that Jesus was worshipped.

and Even Jesus worships God, If Jesus is God , then who is he praying to

This is an example of what I was speaking about before, something that legitimately causes people to ask questions about how it is that Jesus would be doing this if he was God. So, I understand where the question comes from. But that doesn't deny the reality that Jesus is described as "God with us" and is also described as being and accepting of worshipped in the Biblical text. Given that, perhaps we need to rethink our objections to whatever presuppositions lay behind the projection that Jesus would not be praying to God if he were God.

Jesus existing before Abraham doesn't prove that he is GOD Almighty. In the Old Testament, the Bible presents Jeremiah as being a prophet before he was conceived in his mother's womb; "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 1:5)" Yet no one says that his pre-human existence qualifies him for deity.

Jeremiah was known before he was formed in his mothers womb. Jesus says "I AM" before Abraham was born. A radically different concept that what you speak of with regard to Jeremiah. As God who lives outside of time has ordained all the days of our lives before even one of them is known (to us at least), so Jeremiah can be called to be a prophet before his birth. But what John does in this passage is to very intentionally choose the very name of God "I AM" and put it on the lips of Jesus. You will note that for this the Jews who heard him proclaim it took up stones to stone him, and the reason --- to their way of thinking Jesus had committed blasphemy by calling himself by God's personal name.

Now you made that up . Jesus was born only 2009 years ago before that he was not hear on this earth and Jesus always talks about the father being greater than him .There is no mention of Jesus when God created Adam.If Jesus is God , then the first verse of your bible would be " Jesus created the heavens and the earth " . " God is all-powerful and is independent, he needs no help from anybody. However so this is not the case with Jesus, unlike God, Jesus needs help from God, unlike God, Jesus does not own any power or any authority, rather it is given to him from God.

I am telling you what is reported with regard to Jesus in the scriptures. While Jesus the man was born a little more than 2009 years ago, the scriptures report with regard to Christ that "all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things" (Colossians 1:16-17). This means that he is the God who created Adam. You're never going to understand the Biblical picture of Jesus as long as you use linear thought. God is outside of time and space, the hard part for us is to understand how it is that God broke into our time and space. I can't explain how either, but from the scriptures and the description of Jesus that we find in them, I know that he did.

[Predator]

Additionally, the question put to us in this thread, doesn't require that those things be on the lips of Jesus, they can be stated by others.

As you have see Gen 35:11 Gen 46:3 Exd 16:12Exd 20:2 Jer 32:27 God is not shy to say I am God

So if Jesus is God, then how come jesus never said it once like the God of the Old testament ? The fact that Jesus doesnt come claim that he is God shows that he isnt the same person and he isnt one in essence

they can be stated by others.

This isnt some very unimportant that it should be stated by others and Jesus would ask you to get away if you call him as shown in the below verse

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matthew 7:21-23

So, despite your objections, one has to recognize that there are indeed some places where Jesus is described as God.

Show me a verse where Jesus says " I am God", "worship me" or where he says I created the heavens in the earth

But you need to note the different connotation given in the text in the way Jesus is called "the Son of God", completely unlike the way the phrase is used with anyone else.

Son of God also a figure of speech to mean servant of God in the old testament and not the way i am the son of my father

The passage doesn't say that the clasping of feet is what indicated worship. It says that they did both. You may infer that it is a form of worship or not. But the verse itself is a simple declarative statement that Jesus was worshipped.

Just because he got worshipped , doesnt indicate that he is God. If you think anyone who is worshipped should be god, then even the Prophet Daniel should be called God

Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, prostrate before Daniel, and commanded that they should present an offering and incense to him. The king answered Daniel, and said, ‘Truly your God is the God of gods, the Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, since you could reveal this secret.’ Then the king promoted Daniel and gave him many great gifts; and he made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief administrator over all the wise men of Babylon. Also Daniel petitioned the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego over the affairs of the province of Babylon; but Daniel sat in the gate of the king." Daniel 2:46-49 NKJV

This is an example of what I was speaking about before, something that legitimately causes people to ask questions about how it is that Jesus would be doing this if he was God. So, I understand where the question comes from. But that doesn't deny the reality that Jesus is described as "God with us" and is also described as being and accepting of worshipped in the Biblical text. Given that, perhaps we need to rethink our objections to whatever presuppositions lay behind the projection that Jesus would not be praying to God if he were God.

The fact that Jesus said that his father is greater than him ,all and he cant of Himself do nothing in John 5:30 , does not have the knowledge of the last day and he prays to God and shows that Jesus is lower than God just like all the other Prophets

Jeremiah was known before he was formed in his mothers womb. Jesus says "I AM" before Abraham was born. A radically different concept that what you speak of with regard to Jeremiah. As God who lives outside of time has ordained all the days of our lives before even one of them is known (to us at least), so Jeremiah can be called to be a prophet before his birth. But what John does in this passage is to very intentionally choose the very name of God "I AM" and put it on the lips of Jesus. You will note that for this the Jews who heard him proclaim it took up stones to stone him, and the reason --- to their way of thinking Jesus had committed blasphemy by calling himself by God's personal name.

It is claimed that Jesus used the words, "I am", and since these same words were used by God to describe Himself to the people in the Old Testament, Jesus was claiming to be God. John 8:58, is presented to back this claim. In the verse, Jesus says: " Before Abraham was I am. (John 8:58)" Now, if Jesus existed before Abraham did, that might be a remarkable thing, but does that prove that he was God?

How many people existed before Abraham? The Bible presents Jeremiah as being a prophet before he was conceived in his mother's womb; "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 1:5)" Yet no one says that his pre-human existence qualifies him for deity. In Exodus chapter 3, God allegedly says: "I am what I am." Long before the time of Jesus, there existed a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. The key word, "I am," in Exodus which is used by Christians to prove the deity of Jesus is translated as "HO ON." However, when Jesus uses the word in John 8:58 the Greek of the "I am," is EGO EIMI. If Jesus wanted to tell the Jews that he was claiming to be God he should have at least remained consistent in the use of words or the whole point is lost. How many people in that age would have said "I am," in answer to questions in everyday life. Billions. Are they all gods? Of course not !.

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5

How can a Man be a Prophet before he came into his mother's womb and similarly how can Jesus be a God before he came into his mother's womb

While Jesus the man was born a little more than 2009 years ago

Where was Jesus before 2009 years ? With the Father ? In what Form ?
Was Jesus this 30 year old man who was with the God walking , talking dining and relaxing with God and now God tells Jesus "I am reduces u and into and send it to Mary's womb and she carries him for 9 months and will give birth to you like any other human child.
So now we understand Jeremiah was with God, Jesus was with God, Mohammed was with God , Alexander with God and every Tom , Dick and Harry was with God

the scriptures report with regard to Christ that "all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things" (Colossians 1:16-17).

These are the words of a third person and not of Jesus . I am yet to see a verse where Jesus says with his own words " I am God", "worship me" or where he says "I created the heavens in the earth " just like his father

This means that he is the God who created Adam. You're never going to understand the Biblical picture of Jesus as long as you use linear thought.

This isnt linear thought ,no mention of Jesus as his partner in God's 10 commandments as he said "There is God besides me " if he Jesus was one in a trinity that God would have made it very clear to Moses that he is one of a trinity - a 3 headed god

[Grace Seeker]

These are the words of a third person and not of Jesus . I am yet to see a verse where Jesus says with his own words " I am God", "worship me" or where he says "I created the heavens in the earth " just like his father

You are wanting to argue whether or not Jesus claimed to be God. That is a topic for another thread. This one is only whether there is any Biblical evidence that describes Jesus as God? And this third person evidence is indeed found in the Bible.

no mention of Jesus as his partner in God's 10 commandments as he said "There is God besides me " if he Jesus was one in a trinity that God would have made it very clear to Moses that he is one of a trinity - a 3 headed god

Which makes a number of assumptions:
1) Moses knew all there was to know about the nature of God.
2) That God reveals all there is to know about himself every time he reveals anything about himself.
3) That God existing within his own nature as a triune being equates to having partners.

I am not willing to admit to even one of those assumptions being true.