/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Maybe Christianity has Jesus Wrong: Jesus as Mystic



YieldedOne
03-15-2011, 05:00 PM
What if Christianity is wrong?

Ie. What if Christians misinterpret Jesus' mystical language for evidence of pre-existence?

That's a genuine prospect.

The reason why is because of .... When you look at what Jesus said about "I am the Way, Truth, and the Life!" and "Before Abraham was, I am"...that is all language that is consistent with mystics like Mansur al-Hallaj who have a certain quality of intimacy with the One God, Our Father. But that language would not have been ISOLATED FROM the Shema in Jesus' mind. No way.

Actually, all of Jesus' language can be explainable by way of Jesus as Mystic in union with his God, the One God of Abraham, Moses, and David.

Basically, this would be a blow against the idea of 1) Jesus as personal being before God HAVING to be divine in order to have complete union (and intimate communion) with God...and thus 2) Jesus having to be a pre-existent "Son" with whom God the Father eternally existed.

For example, John 8:58 is taken as evidence for the pre-existence of Christ. Basically, Jesus's proclamation of "I am" was tantamount to 1) saying he predated Abraham and 2) was to be identified with the Name of God ("I Am"). Hence they wanted to kill him. But this exact language could just as well have been Jesus in an "Al-Hallaj" type of exclamation in a state of divine unity with God. They killed Al-Hallaj for his same type of "testimony" of his experience unity with God. According to biblical scholar Marcus Borg, even the "son of God" language is explainable by way of the mystical strands of "charismatic" Judaism at the time of Jesus.

If you think about it, that actually makes a lot of sense. At the very least, it would mean that Christians would have to ground the idea of Jesus being the Only Begotten Son from before Creation...they'd have to do it on different grounds that Scriptures like John 8:58.

Make sense? Thoughts?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
YieldedOne
03-17-2011, 05:36 PM
Interestingly enough, the more and more I read about varieties of mysticism (including Sufi and Jewish), the more and more I'm convinced that it's a possibility that Jesus' language of intense union with God may have been misinterpreted by his followers. The misinterpretation would have had to have happened early. The tradition had to be extant when Paul first got converted because Paul LEARNED his Faith from others by his own testimony; in short, he was TAUGHT that Jesus was God's Son by the disciples already in Damascus (Acts 9:19-22).

But that's just it. Even IF we say that Jesus claimed to be a "son of God" (ala Psalm 82), that still doesn't mean that he MEANT his pre-existence by the statement...OR his direct NATURAL identification with God. Basically one could say that Jesus was killed (attempted killing, at least) by his Jewish brethren for the same kind of mystical union language usage that Mansur Al-Hallaj was killed by his Muslim brethren. The parallels are just too striking to ignore.

"I am the truth." --Al-Hallaj

"I and the Father are one." "I am God's son." --Jesus

----------------------------------------

"This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." --John 5:18

and...the situation...

"At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.”

The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, 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 Scripture cannot be broken— do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.

As I look at this account, Jesus could have just as well been in some mystical "fanaa/baqaa" like state saying all of these words as Messiah and Messenger WITHOUT these words necessarily meaning the Jesus is any ETERNAL "son" of God. Just sayin'. It IS in the realm of possibility...which Christians cannot just ignore.

Interesting, huh? I guess why I'm putting this here is because of the Al-Hallaj link. It was in reading more about him and other strictly monotheistic mystics that put me up on this.

During one of these trances, he would utter Arabic: أنا الحق‎ Anā l-Haqq "I am The Truth," which was taken to mean that he was claiming to be God, since al-Haqq "the Truth" is one of the Ninety Nine Names of Allah. In another controversial statement, al-Hallaj claimed "There is nothing wrapped in my turban but God," and similarly he would point to his cloak and say, ما في جبتي إلا الله Mā fī jubbatī illā l-Lāh "There is nothing in my cloak but God."

These utterances led to a long trial, and his subsequent imprisonment for 11 years in a Baghdad prison. He was publicly executed on March 26, 922.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-17-2011, 05:49 PM
It's always good to put one's faith under the microscope of scrutiny...
Reply

SalamChristian
03-17-2011, 06:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
What if Christians misinterpret Jesus' mystical language for evidence of pre-existence? That's a genuine prospect.
I think I understand the point of your posts, but I may not. You sound like a really well-read, smart, and academic brother. Honestly, I have heard mystics discussed in a religion class before, but I don't know a whole lot about them, or about the history of Judaism post-Jesus (except a little about Moses Maimonides). The point that I think you are making here, however, looks like a bold and good-intentioned one, so I am going to do my best to respond.

The claim that Jesus (pbuh) is the "only, begotten" son might be a wrong translation/interpretation. Certainly Jesus (pbuh) himself describes his followers as being children of God, which throws a wrench into the claim. Someone might, of course, argue that they are only children in spirit, but Jesus is in the flesh. I don't know about that--sounds like we are going out on the deep end if we make that conclusion. I don't know where to find that statement in scripture, but maybe someone else will be able to correct me.

The Greek phrase commonly translated as "only begotten son" is actually more like "my chosen son." However, it could also be interpreted as the "son from me chosen." Many Christian bibles translate this phrase as "my beloved son." That fits with the Qu'ran's description of Jesus (pbuh) as blessed by God all the days of his life, and on his death, and on his resurrection (Maryam 19:33). Here is a link to the greek:
biblos. com luke/9-35.htm

(I broke up the link, because I am technically not allowed yet. But, as you can see, this is not a link to bad content, and I am abiding by Islamic Board's rules).

I had also considered that the quote about "Before Abraham was, I am" does not require eternal existence, but rather that Jesus (pbuh) predates mankind. I don't know though. Again, there could always be other scripture I am forgetting which would demand eternal existence.

Lastly, the nature of Jesus (as) is complicated by him literally being God's Word breathed into Mary, as both the Gospel of John and the Qu'ran (from my reading of it) verify. Do you know what sonar/depth-finders are, and how they work? They send out a sound, and they are able to interpret the shape of objects nearby by analyzing whether the sound comes back or not. I sometimes like to consider the relationship between God (swt) and Jesus (as) like this. God breathes his word into the world, through Mary's mortal body, and it comes back to him whole and purified, thus proving that there is a part of humanity still left that can be saved and purified, and that does not have to be destroyed on the last day. That's part of how I see the Messiah-God relationship. Of course, that is just me thinking deeply, but then there is Revelations and Isaiah and all of the other stuff about the Messiah too, and I don't deny any of that.

I hope that my response helps! I like your thought project here, and I hope that it continues to grow into something cool!

Shalom Aleichem

P.S. Don't say "Maybe Christianity is wrong." It's not necessary. The word Christianity means trying to be like Christ, and submitting completely to God and finding salvation. That's something Muslims and Christians alike can agree on. No reason to create unnecessary divisions over a label.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
Fivesolas
03-17-2011, 07:10 PM
YieldedOne,

What you have written is understandable. I do not agree with it, however, because it will not stand up to biblical scruitiny. Before I would begin a long examination of this, I would first make a couple assumptions.

1. It must be assumed that the biblical record is accurate. Even if you disagree with that, the argument you are presenting is from the biblical record, therefore the biblical record must be presumed to be an accurate account of Jesus words.

2. It must be recognized that when scrutinizing words and phrases of Scripture, espeically in matters of controversies, the original language(s) may/must be appealed to. If we are limited our discussion to the NT, then that means we might need to turn to the Koine Greek for clarification.

3. We must not limit our examination of the claim of Jesus' Divinity to words alone. The Gospels record not only the words but also the actions of Jesus. Both are relevant to the discussion.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-17-2011, 08:16 PM
SalamChristian:
The claim that Jesus (pbuh) is the "only, begotten" son might be a wrong translation/interpretation. Certainly Jesus (pbuh) himself describes his followers as being children of God, which throws a wrench into the claim. Someone might, of course, argue that they are only children in spirit, but Jesus is in the flesh. I don't know about that--sounds like we are going out on the deep end if we make that conclusion. I don't know where to find that statement in scripture, but maybe someone else will be able to correct me.
The Greek phrase commonly translated as "only begotten son" is actually more like "my chosen son." However, it could also be interpreted as the "son from me chosen." Many Christian bibles translate this phrase as "my beloved son." That fits with the Qu'ran's description of Jesus (pbuh) as blessed by God all the days of his life, and on his death, and on his resurrection (Maryam 19:33). Here is a link to the greek:
biblos. com luke/9-35.htm

There seem to be a lot of questions in the whole "begotten" thing. The major Scripture that is referred to in the New Testament (Acts and Hebrews) is that of Psalm 2:7. But the problems is that the Psalm scripture is most likely first historically located to David and then secondarily to the God-authorized Messianic king. But none of that has to deal with eternal begottenness.
In other words, the "You are my Son" language is more appropriate for Jesus as chosen and vindicated MESSIAH...not necessarily eternal Son of God.

*********************************
SalamChristian:
I had also considered that the quote about "Before Abraham was, I am" does not require eternal existence, but rather that Jesus (pbuh) predates mankind. I don't know though. Again, there could always be other scripture I am forgetting which would demand eternal existence.

I think that the John passage is about the strongest declaration from Jesus that is used to assert his pre-existence besides John 1:1. But, we could take the Greek as strong as possible there (ego eimi<=>I am)...and look at this language in light of mystical language (ala Al-Hallaj and the like), then this forceful (shocking) language may be be Jesus expressing his deep union with God. It's fairly certain that Jesus KNEW what he was doing when he said "ego eimi"...and it's possible identification with the Name of God. But this never would have subverted Jesus' understanding and allegience to the Shema. No way.

So, what's the better explanation? Jesus believing in his union with the One God to the point of daring to associate himself closely with the Holy Name of God...or Jesus believing that he personally antedated Abraham in existence?

******************************
SalamChristian:
Lastly, the nature of Jesus (as) is complicated by him literally being God's Word breathed into Mary, as both the Gospel of John and the Qu'ran (from my reading of it) verify. Do you know what sonar/depth-finders are, and how they work? They send out a sound, and they are able to interpret the shape of objects nearby by analyzing whether the sound comes back or not. I sometimes like to consider the relationship between God (swt) and Jesus (as) like this. God breathes his word into the world, through Mary's mortal body, and it comes back to him whole and purified, thus proving that there is a part of humanity still left that can be saved and purified, and that does not have to be destroyed on the last day. That's part of how I see the Messiah-God relationship. Of course, that is just me thinking deeply, but then there is Revelations and Isaiah and all of the other stuff about the Messiah too, and I don't deny any of that.

Hmmm...I hear that. I now like to say that Jesus, as God's direct Word to humanity through Mary, perfectly re-presented the reality of the One God, thus fulfilling human nature's capacity of being "filled with" God's Presence and Power through self-emptying submission to God.

*************************
SalamChristian:
Don't say "Maybe Christianity is wrong." It's not necessary. The word Christianity means trying to be like Christ, and submitting completely to God and finding salvation. That's something Muslims and Christians alike can agree on. No reason to create unnecessary divisions over a label.

Fine by me. What I mean to say is this: perhaps Christian thought has had the self-understanding of Jesus wrong...which lead to the subsequent misunderstanding of Jesus' claims...which lead to the whole debates about what it meant that Jesus was the "son of God."
Reply

YieldedOne
03-17-2011, 08:27 PM
FiveSolas:
1. It must be assumed that the biblical record is accurate. Even if you disagree with that, the argument you are presenting is from the biblical record, therefore the biblical record must be presumed to be an accurate account of Jesus words.

I say we need to do that for the sake of argument. Once we look at Jesus' purported language in LIGHT of Jesus as Mystic, I think that they actually make sense of HOW he was saying things such that his fellow Jews felt that he was associating himself WAY too closely with God (I am one with the Father, I am God's son, etc)...while, at the same time, Jesus, following the Shema, CLEARLY DISTINGUISHING himself from "his God" to the point of saying that "no one is good but God alone."

It harmonizes things well, I think.

************************
Fivesolas:
2. It must be recognized that when scrutinizing words and phrases of Scripture, espeically in matters of controversies, the original language(s) may/must be appealed to. If we are limited our discussion to the NT, then that means we might need to turn to the Koine Greek for clarification.

Absolutely agree. With respect to John 8:58 and Psalm 2:7, it's absolutely imperative.

*************************
Fivesolas:
3. We must not limit our examination of the claim of Jesus' Divinity to words alone. The Gospels record not only the words but also the actions of Jesus. Both are relevant to the discussion.

The actions of Jesus (the healings, miracles, etc) do not directly attest to the divinity of Jesus' person more than it attests to God's Presence and Power working within him. Plus, Jesus makes very clear that he does NOTHING of his own, but only by his God and Father. So, to try to attribute Jesus' powerful works to his being divine wouldn't really work. See what I'm saying?
Reply

PouringRain
03-17-2011, 08:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne

Actually, all of Jesus' language can be explainable by way of Jesus as Mystic in union with his God,

Make sense? Thoughts?
I once knew a Jewish man who would agree with you completely. He actually believed in Jesus, not as Messiah, but he believed that Jesus was a great Kabbalist.
Reply

Fivesolas
03-17-2011, 08:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
FiveSolas:
1. It must be assumed that the biblical record is accurate. Even if you disagree with that, the argument you are presenting is from the biblical record, therefore the biblical record must be presumed to be an accurate account of Jesus words.

I say we need to do that for the sake of argument. Once we look at Jesus' purported language in LIGHT of Jesus as Mystic, I think that they actually make sense of HOW he was saying things such that his fellow Jews felt that he was associating himself WAY too closely with God (I am one with the Father, I am God's son, etc)...while, at the same time, Jesus, following the Shema, CLEARLY DISTINGUISHING himself from "his God" to the point of saying that "no one is good but God alone."

It harmonizes things well, I think.

************************
Fivesolas:
2. It must be recognized that when scrutinizing words and phrases of Scripture, espeically in matters of controversies, the original language(s) may/must be appealed to. If we are limited our discussion to the NT, then that means we might need to turn to the Koine Greek for clarification.

Absolutely agree. With respect to John 8:58 and Psalm 2:7, it's absolutely imperative.

*************************
Fivesolas:
3. We must not limit our examination of the claim of Jesus' Divinity to words alone. The Gospels record not only the words but also the actions of Jesus. Both are relevant to the discussion.

The actions of Jesus (the healings, miracles, etc) do not directly attest to the divinity of Jesus' person more than it attests to God's Presence and Power working within him. Plus, Jesus makes very clear that he does NOTHING of his own, but only by his God and Father. So, to try to attribute Jesus' powerful works to his being divine wouldn't really work. See what I'm saying?
Since we agree on point 1 and 2, no need to comment. Point three, I see the point your trying to make but it doesn't follow. Let the Gospels speak for themselves. You think your correct, so you should have nothing to worry about. Jesus Himself said that He did what He does to show who He was/is. Let's let the Gospels speak for themselves.
Reply

SalamChristian
03-17-2011, 09:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
The major Scripture that is referred to in the New Testament (Acts and Hebrews) is that of Psalm 2:7. But the problems is that the Psalm scripture is most likely first historically located to David and then secondarily to the God-authorized Messianic king
This is also in II Samuel 7:14. In this passage, it specifically either refers to the Messiah, or at best king Solomon, but not David. In fact, I doubt it refers to Solomon, and my interpretation is that it refers to the Christ. Also, are you sure that Psalm 2:7 isn't referencing the language of God's promise to David in II Samuel 7:14?


format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Hmmm...I hear that. I now like to say that Jesus, as God's direct Word to humanity through Mary, perfectly re-presented the reality of the One God, thus fulfilling human nature's capacity of being "filled with" God's Presence and Power through self-emptying submission to God.
I like that. It reminds me of Paul's statement in I Corinthians that when Allah (swt) comes and brings heaven to earth, "we will see in a mirror directly." Truth also requires perfect reflection of truth--that one doesn't twist anything.


format_quote Originally Posted by PouringRain
I once knew a Jewish man who would agree with you completely. He actually believed in Jesus, not as Messiah, but he believed that Jesus was a great Kabbalist.

Is that what you are arguing in this thread, YieldedOne? I was under the impression that you see Jesus as Messiah...Christ.

Shalom Aleichem
Reply

PouringRain
03-17-2011, 09:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SalamChristian

Is that what you are arguing in this thread, YieldedOne? I was under the impression that you see Jesus as Messiah...Christ.

Shalom Aleichem
I didn't get the impression that YieldedOne was arguing against Jesus as Messiah. I was only pointing out that the Jewish man I knew, who would agree with YieldedOne about the mystical element of Jesus' teaching, did not view Jesus as Moshiach. He simply viewed him as a great Kabbalist.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-17-2011, 09:46 PM
PouringRain:
I once knew a Jewish man who would agree with you completely. He actually believed in Jesus, not as Messiah, but he believed that Jesus was a great Kabbalist.

EXACTAMUNDO! :D

I've done a good amount of reading on Kabbalah, and I've come to the same conclusion.
Check out the "Bitul" idea. I think this is EXACTLY what mystics talk about.

------------------------------------------------

Bitul is the spiritual state associated with the inner experience of chochmah, whereby one's consciousness opens up to a continuous flow of Divine wisdom and new insight through one's nullifying his sense of autonomous and self-sustained being. Bitul is the experience of ayin, of being nothing within the omnipresent radiance of God's infinite light. In general, there are two identified levels of bitul:

Bitul b'metziut ("existential nullification") constitutes the absolute form of bitul whereby one loses all sense of independent existence. This is the state of bitul in the world of Atzilut, whose consciousness, permeated by the supernal level of chochmah (Abba mekanen b'Atzilut), is solely that of God's omnipresence.

Bitul hayesh ("nullification of [one's] somethingness") constitutes a lower form of bitul whereby one is consciously involved in the process of nullifying the outer layer of self (ego). This is accomplished by the concentrated effort to experience the continual recreation of all reality, including oneself, as "something from nothing." This impresses upon one's consciousness that there is no independent reality attached to one's sense of "somethingness." This is the state of bitul present within the three lower worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, while its conscious experience is dependent upon one's Divine service. Divine consciousness in the three lower worlds derives from the chochmah of malchut d'Atzilut, referred to as the lower chochmah, thus giving rise to the lower level of bitul.

---------------
Whenever Al-Hallaj was talking about "There is nothing in my cloak but Allah" is was probably a form of bitul b'metiziut that he was referring to.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-17-2011, 09:51 PM
Fivesolas:
Since we agree on point 1 and 2, no need to comment. Point three, I see the point your trying to make but it doesn't follow. Let the Gospels speak for themselves. You think your correct, so you should have nothing to worry about. Jesus Himself said that He did what He does to show who He was/is. Let's let the Gospels speak for themselves.

We can definitely do that. From what I read, the works Jesus did were to confirm that he was authorized, sent, and empowered by God as God's chosen Messiah and King. But the Gospels also make it very clear that Jesus didn't attribute his own divinity to anything he did, but the Father's working in him. Even orthodox Christian priests will say that. (See here for an example.)

*******************************

PouringRain:
I didn't get the impression that YieldedOne was arguing against Jesus as Messiah.


You're right, PR. I'm definitely not doing that. :shade:
Reply

SalamChristian
03-17-2011, 10:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
But the Gospels also make it very clear that Jesus didn't attribute his own divinity to anything he did, but the Father's working in him. Even orthodox Christian priests will say that. (See here for an example.)
Whoaaaaa. I read that link. That is some far-out, trippy theological interpretation!! Particularly, I liked this quote:

Christ, though the incarnate God, avoids any “divine action” of his own, so much so that the Father’s hypostasis [Person] is manifest absolutely through the absolutely “transparent screen” of Christ’s self-emptied hypostasis. Through this kenosis it becomes the “express image of the Father” (Heb. 1:3).

The trinitarian language of this passage really blows my mind when it at the same time is affirming that Christ avoids any "divine action" of his own.

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
PouringRain: I didn't get the impression that YieldedOne was arguing against Jesus as Messiah. You're right, PR. I'm definitely not doing that.
Cool! :~) Did you grow up as an orthodox Jew? How did you learn about all of this mysticism stuff? Or did you come into it from the other direction?
Reply

YieldedOne
03-17-2011, 10:13 PM
SalamChristian:
This is also in II Samuel 7:14. In this passage, it specifically either refers to the Messiah, or at best king Solomon, but not David. In fact, I doubt it refers to Solomon, and my interpretation is that it refers to the Christ. Also, are you sure that Psalm 2:7 isn't referencing the language of God's promise to David in II Samuel 7:14?

Actually...I think the II Samuel 7:14 passage is most likely about Solomon, not the Messiah...whereas Psalm 2:7 is probably more messianic in nature. Let's look at the II Samuel passage...

But that same night the word of the Lord came to Nathan, “Go and tell my servant David, ‘Thus says the Lord: Would you build me a house to dwell in? I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent for my dwelling. In all places where I have moved with all the people of Israel, did I speak a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?”’ Now, therefore, thus you shall say to my servant David, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, that you should be prince over my people Israel. And I have been with you wherever you went and have cut off all your enemies from before you. And I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth. And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’” In accordance with all these words, and in accordance with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David.

I would say this refers to Solomon. Especially with the "when he commits iniquity" thing. Can't be talking about the SINLESS Messiah with that, right?

And because of 1 Chronicles 17:11-14...

When your days are fulfilled to walk with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you, but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever.’”

Seems pretty straight forward to me that these are most likely about Solomon. The Psalm 2 passage could be related to Solomon, but I think it fits much more with David describing "God's Anointed" in abstract. Much more fitting for the messianic. That's how Acts 4 is like it is...

When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit,

“‘Why did the Gentiles rage,
and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers were gathered together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed’


for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”

The early Chrsitians in Acts appropriated this from David to Jesus as the Messiah. See what I mean?
Reply

YieldedOne
03-17-2011, 10:21 PM
SalamChristian:
Whoaaaaa. I read that link. That is some far-out, trippy theological interpretation!! Particularly, I liked this quote:
Christ, though the incarnate God, avoids any “divine action” of his own, so much so that the Father’s hypostasis [Person] is manifest absolutely through the absolutely “transparent screen” of Christ’s self-emptied hypostasis. Through this kenosis it becomes the “express image of the Father” (Heb. 1:3).

The trinitarian language of this passage really blows my mind when it at the same time is affirming that Christ avoids any "divine action" of his own.

What I really like about it is that it is TOTALLY CONSISTENT with how Paul describes Jesus' self-emptying nature. Straight up.

So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Look at that closely.

"Made himself nothing"

"Did not count equality with God something to be grasped."

"taking the form of a servant"

Human self-emptying unto divine exaltation.

This completely squares with the "Jesus as Mystic" and "Jesus as God's Messiah" views. :statisfie

*****************************

SalamChristian:
Cool! :~) Did you grow up as an orthodox Jew? How did you learn about all of this mysticism stuff? Or did you come into it from the other direction?

Nah. I'm just a big nerd. Really. I've been big into World Religions for a while and deep into Mysticism over the last 3 years or so.

The similiarities between the mystics of the various religions is almost scandalous! :omg:
Reply

YieldedOne
03-17-2011, 10:45 PM
Something else. Paul seems to directly relates Jesus as "Son of God" to the Resurrection. This would probably go along with 1) his Damascus Road experience with Jesus and 2) his time with the disciples of Damascus before his preaching in synagogues began. In Paul's greeting to the Romans...

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ...

I can see how Jesus's resurrection/ascension can be seen as God's vindication of His Messiah and the beloved "son" of God (ala Psalm 82) uniquely called for that purpose...but not how this necessarily leads to the ETERNALITY of Jesus as God's "son." One could just as easily maintain the former without directly asserting the latter.

Again...all this is in the realm of possibility.

-----------------------------

I think Jesus could be seen through the following "lens":

Jesus/Isa was a sinless human being from birth created directly by Allah's creative "word" to the Virgin Mary...and was a Servant, Prophet, and Messenger of God who perfectly conformed to the "Great Commandments" (ie variation of the Ten Commandments) as a "living example" of the reality within the "Mother of the Book", the "archetypal source" of Allah's revelations to humans (ie Quran, Torat, Injeel) that is in the Presence of Allah. Jesus was a "self-emptying" mystic who was constantly "filled" with Allah's Presence and Power (ala absolute trust in and love for Allah) and, thus, "embodied" Allah's Wisdom and Truth. In Sufic terms, Jesus was a completely human being in constant experience of "fanaa" and/or "baqaa" like unto Mansur Al-Hallaj.

Jesus/Isa's Message: Human beings are to express singular worship of and submission to the One God, Allah by a) thanksgiving, adoration and glorification given solely to Allah and b) works of loving-kindness and compassion to Allah's Creation (including the Family of Humanity). In this, we are also to consecrate ourselves and be holy, compassionate, merciful, and loving because Allah is holy, compassionate, merciful and loving.

Notice there's no "Son of God" or "Second Person of the Trinity" anywhere...even in implication. It doesn't metaphysically rule it out. But it definitely doesn't assert or imply such.
Reply

Fivesolas
03-17-2011, 10:59 PM
Since the OP began with the Gospel of John, I will begin there as well. From the outset, I want to state that I am beginning from the Gospel of John, but not limiting myself to only one book of the NT, only the Gospels, or only that which can be said to be the quotations of Jesus. Let me explain why. It has always been the Christian belief that the whole of Scripture has one Author-God. While holy men spoke, and their words were written, they did so by the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, it is plain to all that Jesus did not pen the Gospel of John Himself. The Apostle John was the instrument. Therefore, to limit the discussion to only quotes of Jesus is to talk in a circle.

Here is our question: Does the Bible exhibit Jesus as Divine? Is Jesus God and is this understanding drawn from the Scriptures?

I am going to begin at the Gospel of John, Chapter 1 and begin to work through it. None of what I am writing here is copied from another website but is the simple result of my own reading of the Scripture.

John 1:1-5; 14 "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 any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." "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."

One would hope we could end the dicussion right here, as the words are quite plain. If in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and that Word that was God become flesh and dwelt among us, whom we know John is speaking of Jesus, then it is clear this text is saying Jesus is God manifest in flesh, or human form. Regardless of what one believes about the truthfulness of this statement, it seems hardly necessary to show that this is indeed what the text is saying.

Concerning this testimony of who Jesus is, how does this then compare to a mystic like Mansur? There is no indication that in any mystic, be it Islamic, Christian, Hindu, or otherwise, that they are claiming themselves to be uncreated. Not even the man in South America these days who is claiming to actually be Jesus returned is not saying that his origin was anything other than a human being. What you have here in the opening of the Gospel of John is the testimony that Jesus is the eternal, uncreated Creator.

A second piece of evidence comes from John 2:23-25

"Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man. "

How is it that Jesus knew all men? What kind of man, prophet, or as the OP alleges, mystic, can have universal knowledge of all men? Moreover, to know "what is in man" Do you suppose this text is saying Jesus knew what they had for lunch? Or is it saying that Jesus knew all men, what they are like, even their very thoughts. How can a mere man know such things?

Here is a third,

John 3:36
"He that believeth on the son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not on the son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

This is entirely absurd to ascribe to any man. If someone came along and said this to me, the only way this could or should be obeyed is if the one speaking is actually God Himself. Jesus is saying that whoever believes in Him has eternal life. And the one who does not, does not have eternal life.

Tell me, who can say such thing, even if he be a prophet, unless he himself is God? And what mystic has ever made the claim that eternal life was in them and that they themselves were necessary for it. Do not the mystics rather say they are God, and you can be God too?
Reply

SalamChristian
03-17-2011, 11:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Actually...I think the II Samuel 7:14 passage is most likely about Solomon, not the Messiah...whereas Psalm 2:7 is probably more messianic in nature. Let's look at the II Samuel passage...
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
And because of 1 Chronicles 17:11-14...

Check out Hebrews 1:5. It explicitly references both Psalms 2 and the II Samuel 7/Chronicles verses as all references to Christ.


format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
I would say this refers to Solomon. Especially with the "when he commits iniquity" thing. Can't be talking about the SINLESS Messiah with that, right?
I wondered about that at first, too. But then I looked at the Hebrew, and I found that Strong's Hebrew translation doesn't specifically identify the precise meaning of the word "when he commits iniquity." I am wondering if it is possible that this is a compound word actually meaning, "when he is imputed with blame," which of course lines up with the other prophecies about the Messiah being "counted among the transgressors." Of course, I can't ever know that unless I learn to speak Hebrew, lol. And even then, maybe there is a nuance of meaning which has been lost today.

http://biblos.com/2_samuel/7-14.htm

Also, notice that the "rod of men" translation is weak. The word be-she-vet is a compound word also, and the "vet" word actually refers more to a stick or staff. Vet is used, for example, to describe Moses' staff. Thus, be-she-vet may be a prophecy about the cross.

Alright, I would love to continue to stay engaged in this debate, but unfortunately I have work to accomplish.

Shalom
Reply

YieldedOne
03-17-2011, 11:36 PM
A quick bit...and that's all for today.

SalamChristian:
Check out Hebrews 1:5. It explicitly references both Psalms 2 and the II Samuel 7/Chronicles verses as all references to Christ.

Uhhuh. I call that one of those Matthew 2:15 prophecies. Where an OT text is obviously postdicted upon the then-current situation with Jesus.

Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

The author quoted Hosea 11...

When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
The more they were called,
the more they went away;
they kept sacrificing to the Baals
and burning offerings to idols.

Now, you've gotta admit. If it weren't a biblical author doing this, we'd all be crying interpretational "foul." There's no way that Hosea 11 was REALLY and ACTUALLY talking about Jesus fleeing to and coming back from Egypt all those years before it happened. It completely violates the context of Hosea 11...but the author of Matthew uses it anyway, because it suits his purposes, Gospel-wise.

I believe that the same thing happens in other places, like the Hebrews passage. Ask yourself...in looking at the texts, by what other than postdiction could the II Samuel 7/Chronicles be directly attributed to the sinless Christ (who is NOT a son of David and did NOT build a temple)?
Reply

siam
03-18-2011, 02:10 AM
It seems the purpose of there being a "Son of God" is related to the "original sin" concept---Yet, if Jesus Christ(pbuh) was a Jew, he would not have understood the story of (Prophet)Adam(pbuh) as that of original sin---neither Jews nor Muslims understand it that way---God who is most merciful, most compassionate created all of creation in goodness (I think that's somewhere in Genesis as well?)
Therefore sinful man requiring sacrifice is a completely Christian misinterpretation.

In the general scheme of things---that the ONE God, most merciful, most compassionate, would send Messengers/Prophets/wisdom teachers to all of mankind to guide them---is reasonable. Therefore, Highly spiritual persons, be they Jesus Christ(pbuh) or Buddha/Prince Siddartha or others would experience the Divine in similar ways would not be unusual, nor the similarity in their messages. That people would misunderstand and begin to worship Buddha or Jesus Christ(pbuh) as God incarnate/avatar/son of God....etc is unfortunately simply intellectual laziness---one gets so caught up in worshipping the messenger---one (conveniently) forgets the message---(a message that is about DOING---not endlessly talking about dogma....)

God's guidance is universal---but the Jews misinterperted it into a "chosen people" idea---that they were somehow the ONLY beloved of God (Pride/ego). The Christians re-interpreted this into their "son of God"/Trinity concept to give themselves the status of "the saved people". (thus making them also beloved of God---in that God saves only Christians) Making Jesus Christ(pbuh) into a mere Prophet, one among many---might take away their "specialness"......

But ...the Quran confirms that Prophet Jesus(pbuh) was special as a Prophet/Masih---why?----It has to do with Judaism----That is, Prophet Jesus(pbuh) was a Jewish Prophet (sent to the Jews) and because of the mizvot concerning false Prophets, his birth, his life, was an unmistakable, obvious and clear signs from God of his Prophethood. Regardless of such clear signs---the Jews followed their mitzvot regarding false Prophets.

However, the Quran is clear----Jesus Christ(pbuh) was NOT killed by the Jews. He WAS a true Prophet from God. ----God is Omnicient, Omnipotent. The beginning of his life, his life on earth, and the end of his life were all clear signs of his Prophethood.

The mitzvot......
To heed the call of every prophet in each generation, provided that he neither adds to, nor takes away from the Torah (Deut. 18:15) (affirmative).
Not to prophesy falsely (Deut. 18:20) (CCN175).
Not to refrain from putting a false prophet to death nor to be in fear of him (Deut. 18:22) (negative).

Those who believe Jesus Christ(pbuh) is killed by the Jews have a problem----he was a "false Prophet" (or God is not omnipotent)---but if he is "son of God" --not a Prophet---this problem is solved. (Deicide)

In the end, what should really be important is not the endless debates about the stauts of Jesus Chrsit(pbuh) but HOW his message can transform both the individual and the world for the better-----If only Chrsitians spent more time on these types of discussions.......
Reply

SalamChristian
03-18-2011, 04:00 AM
Peace brother Siam,

format_quote Originally Posted by siam
(a message that is about DOING---not endlessly talking about dogma....)
I see you are frustrated by how far out this thread discussion has been. I don't blame you. It has been pretty deep, and might seem pointless to you. HOWEVER, establishing the exact meaning of what the phrase "son of God" or "children of God" might mean has helped erase a stumbling block to my further reading the Qu'ran. So shouldn't you be happy that I had this discussion, even though it seems pointless to you? And doesn't my attempt to reach out and understand the Qu'ran DO something in the world? Don't you think it's good that some Americans are reading the Qu'ran with an open mind? Don't you think this might be good for things like world peace? Isn't that the message of Jesus (pbuh)?

format_quote Originally Posted by siam
The Christians re-interpreted this into their "son of God"/Trinity concept to give themselves the status of "the saved people". (thus making them also beloved of God---in that God saves only Christians) Making Jesus Christ(pbuh) into a mere Prophet, one among many---might take away their "specialness"......
As I said above, I am actually thinking about this question in an attempt to look at the Qu'ran with an open mind. The intention of this is not to re-affirm my ego, but rather to open my mind to accepting the holy book of a people I do not hate. I have several Muslim friends. I want to consider their sacred beliefs in an honest, loving way. And the point of the "God's chosen son/beloved son" statement, from my view, is simply that we all must unite behind Jesus (pbuh) at his return to help him slay the anti-christ. It is about unity/solidarity of believers in doing Allah's (swt) final will on this earth. That does not mean that I am more special than you. You claim to accept Jesus (pbuh) as the Masih (along with his sinless life and annunciation, which are important), so I am not that narrow-minded as to dismiss your righteousness, brother.

format_quote Originally Posted by siam
However, the Quran is clear----Jesus Christ(pbuh) was NOT killed by the Jews. He WAS a true Prophet from God. ----God is Omnicient, Omnipotent. The beginning of his life, his life on earth, and the end of his life were all clear signs of his Prophethood.
Aren't Ayahs which talk about prophets being slain in the Qu'ran?

Shakir:
"And most certainly We gave Musa the Book and We sent messengers after him one after another; and We gave Isa, the son of Marium, clear arguments and strengthened him with the holy spirit, What! whenever then a messenger came to you with that which your souls did not desire, you were insolent so you called some liars and some you slew!"

Pickthal:
......"Is it ever so, that, when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye slay?"

Sura Al-Baqara, 2:87

Pickthal:
"Verily Allah heard the saying of those who said, (when asked for contributions to the war): "Allah, forsooth, is poor, and we are rich!" We shall record their saying with their slaying of the prophets wrongfully and We shall say: Taste ye the punishment of burning!"

Shakir:
....."I will record what they say, and their killing the prophets unjustly, and I will say: Taste the chastisement of burning."

Sura Aal-e-Imran, 3:181

format_quote Originally Posted by siam
Therefore sinful man requiring sacrifice is a completely Christian misinterpretation.
Why does Allah (swt) send us messengers? Should we not remember already that we are in error? Why must he send us the same commands again? Didn't Allah (swt) make his commands clear to us from the beginning of our existence? And are not some of the messengers mistreated and killed and do not some of them suffer for the glory of Allah (swt), as the verses I quoted above indicate? Is that not a sacrafice they themselves are making for the glory of Allah (swt)? I think of Job when I ponder these questions. Job was a submissive, righteous man. Iblis told God that Job was not submissive, and God told him that he was wrong, but he allowed Iblis to punish him so that by Job's suffering, God might be glorified. And Job was happy to do this, because he was a good servant of Allah (swt). But Job's suffering was only bodily, and temporary. Iblis was not allowed to harm Job's heart, or spirit, or mind, for those are the places of Allah's religion. It was the same for Jesus (pbuh), the way that I look at it. Physical, bodily death is meaningless to Allah (swt). The bottom line is that they did not harm the spirit of Jesus (pbuh). Maybe "sacrifice" isn't the best word. Maybe we should say "suffering." Messengers had to come to us who would suffer. Or, better yet, why don't we say "offering." That does not imply that something must be destroyed. Rather, it is given to God, to be used for his purposes.

Salaam Alaikum,
Bob
Reply

siam
03-18-2011, 06:02 AM
Peace to you also SC

No---I am not frustrated with this thread---I am frustrated with Christians in general debating Dogma instead of following Jesus Christ(pbuh)---However. the same frustration also applies to us Muslims who do not follow the wisdom and Guidance of the Quran and instead follow their own (egoic) desires under a false banner of Islam.---the state of the Ummah today is nothing to brag about.......

final will?!!!----No--I don't much care about that stuff I'm afraid----I am more interested in all of us human beings using our wisdom teachings to make this world a better place---if not for ourselves---then for our children..........

Ayahs of the Quran----it is unwise to pick and choose Ayahs without having read the whole Quran----unless you understand the ayahs within the context of the WHOLE Quran, you will only misunderstand. Concepts in the Quran do not stand alone---they are interwoven with other concepts to form a Unity---that goes back to the basic/fundamental concept of Tawheed.

By the way ----here is something from the Jefferson Bible----apparently the Smithsonian is restoring it......(I underlined some words for emphasis)

57: But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
58: For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
59: Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
60: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
61: And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
62: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

as for your questions----

Why does Allah (swt) send us messengers? ---To Guide human beings because we are forgetful.
Should we not remember already that we are in error?---It seems human beings tend to find the Shema/Tawheed and other messages of the ONE God difficult to comprehend and always fall into polytheism---worshipping the messenger instead of following the message/Guidance.
Why must he send us the same commands again?---because we are forgetful and tend to follow what is convenient (ego/pride) instead of actually doing.
Didn't Allah (swt) make his commands clear to us from the beginning of our existence?---Yes he did
And are not some of the messengers mistreated and killed and do not some of them suffer for the glory of Allah (swt), as the verses I quoted above indicate? ---The verses you quoted indicate that human beings---out of convenience and Pride/ego/arrogance reject Prophet that Guide them away from their Pride/arrogance/ego towards the straight path. (the path of goodness, humility, gratefulness to God)
Is that not a sacrafice they themselves are making for the glory of Allah (swt)? ---The Prophets are fulfilling their responsibilities of bringing Guidance. If in the course of doing their duties they encounter difficulties---it is for their spiritual benefit--as all human trials are, for all human beings---regardless of if they are a Prophet or not.
---offerring/sufferring idea only works if you believe in "original sin"----As I already explained---Neither Jews not Muslims beleive in original sin and Jesus Christ(pbuh) being a Jew--wouldn't have either.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-18-2011, 01:57 PM
Siam:
It seems the purpose of there being a "Son of God" is related to the "original sin" concept---Yet, if Jesus Christ(pbuh) was a Jew, he would not have understood the story of (Prophet)Adam(pbuh) as that of original sin---neither Jews nor Muslims understand it that way---God who is most merciful, most compassionate created all of creation in goodness (I think that's somewhere in Genesis as well?)

Therefore sinful man requiring sacrifice is a completely Christian misinterpretation.

Coupla things:
1) The concept of sacrifice for human sin is all over the whole sacrificial system of Judaism up to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. That's just fact. Not talking about "original sin"...just the idea the human sin can be expiated by sacrificial acts on the part of the believer. The Jewish Second Temple system, extant when Jesus was alive, would be unintelligible if this weren't the case.

2) I've been a Christian for some time now. I have yet to see someone directly attribute the Jesus-as-Son-of-God idea to the concept of "original sin." Even the Eastern Orthodox don't believe in original sin (ala Calvin, etc). Could you explain to me how the Son of God idea emerged specifically dealing with any concept of original sin? I'd love to see the sources on that.

********************************

Siam:
That people would misunderstand and begin to worship Buddha or Jesus Christ(pbuh) as God incarnate/avatar/son of God....etc is unfortunately simply intellectual laziness---one gets so caught up in worshipping the messenger---one (conveniently) forgets the message---(a message that is about DOING---not endlessly talking about dogma....)

I'd say that the best way to honor and/or venerate a Messenger is to appropriately follow the Message. Otherwise, it's merely sentimentality and the Messenger's wasted time.

*********************************
Siam:
However, the Quran is clear----Jesus Christ(pbuh) was NOT killed by the Jews. He WAS a true Prophet from God. ----God is Omnicient, Omnipotent. The beginning of his life, his life on earth, and the end of his life were all clear signs of his Prophethood.
The mitzvot......
To heed the call of every prophet in each generation, provided that he neither adds to, nor takes away from the Torah (Deut. 18:15) (affirmative).
Not to prophesy falsely (Deut. 18:20) (CCN175).
Not to refrain from putting a false prophet to death nor to be in fear of him (Deut. 18:22) (negative).
Those who believe Jesus Christ(pbuh) is killed by the Jews have a problem----he was a "false Prophet" (or God is not omnipotent)---but if he is "son of God" --not a Prophet---this problem is solved. (Deicide)

“That they said (in boast), "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 (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, God raised him up unto the himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise"
Surah 4:157-158

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is true that Jesus was only APPARENTLY "killed" and "crucified"...that somehow it only LOOKED LIKE Jesus was killed and crucified by whatever means. That's kind of irrelevant to the fact that, as far as we know historically, attempts WERE made on Jesus' life by his fellow Jewish believers. And there's evidence that part of the reason WHY this was the case was due to Jesus' language of union and closeness with God.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-18-2011, 02:12 PM
Fivesolas:
I am going to begin at the Gospel of John, Chapter 1 and begin to work through it. None of what I am writing here is copied from another website but is the simple result of my own reading of the Scripture.

Ok. The first question I need to ask is this: How are we approaching the texts? You said this:

It must be assumed that the biblical record is accurate. Even if you disagree with that, the argument you are presenting is from the biblical record, therefore the biblical record must be presumed to be an accurate account of Jesus words.

I agreed to that, for the sake of argument. As the same time, to say that the biblical record is "accurate" means different things to different people. I am not a literalist or a fundamentalist Christian. I am much more about historical-critical, yet faithful appropriation of the biblical texts (ala Gordon and Fee's "How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth" ) What this means is that I don't read all the texts the same, but according to the genres and contexts those genres imply. In other words, the biblical testimony is "accurate" for the purposes and intentions for which the authors set about their writing. That's going to be EXTREMELY important for this discussion if it's going to go on.

Just giving an example. I'm sure you are aware of the discrepancies between some of the events in Synoptic Gospels and John. Without some pretty bad atttempts at harmonization, it's just understood that the Gospels are NOT straight up 21st century attempts at demarcation of historical events...but are Gospels INTENED to make a point. Just look at the end of John...

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

The author makes the claim UP FRONT that this book is specifically written kerygmatically to engender belief in Jesus as the Son of God. Meaning it's not some absolutely objective view into the life and times of Jesus. Even conservative scholars will say this.

So...that's the stance I'm taking with John and the other texts we'll be dealing with.

Are you cool with that, Fivesolas?
Reply

Sol Invictus
03-18-2011, 02:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SalamChristian
The Greek phrase commonly translated as "only begotten son" is actually more like "my chosen son." However, it could also be interpreted as the "son from me chosen." Many Christian bibles translate this phrase as "my beloved son." That fits with the Qu'ran's description of Jesus (pbuh) as blessed by God all the days of his life, and on his death, and on his resurrection (Maryam 19:33).
no, the greek word literally means the only generated one which actually would imply divinity and is the basis for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the son.
Reply

Sol Invictus
03-18-2011, 02:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Look at that closely.

"Made himself nothing"

"Did not count equality with God something to be grasped."

"taking the form of a servant"

Human self-emptying unto divine exaltation.

This completely squares with the "Jesus as Mystic" and "Jesus as God's Messiah" views.
i would sincerely doubt that given that it starts with the claim that jesus is himself god, and then takes on the form of a servant to accomplish redemption for humanity. it isn't human self-emptying at all, if anything it would be divine "self-emptying".
Reply

YieldedOne
03-18-2011, 02:22 PM
Sol Invictus:
the greek word literally means the only generated one which actually would imply divinity and is the basis for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the son.

You're talking about "monogeneis", right?

Well...all that really leads to is saying that Jesus has a unique "sonship" with God. That as a "son of God" (Remember Psalm 82!), Jesus has a UNIQUE relationship with the God that brought him forth as Messiah. That doesn't NECESSARILY imply divinity.

The unspoken assumption is that unique sonship with God necessarily means that the "unique son" shares God's NATURE by way of that "sonship". That assumption is not true.
Reply

Sol Invictus
03-18-2011, 02:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Sol Invictus:
the greek word literally means the only generated one which actually would imply divinity and is the basis for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the son.

You're talking about "monogeneis", right?

Well...all that really leads to is saying that Jesus has a unique "sonship" with God. That doesn't NECESSARILY imply divinity. Let's check...
feels like i've been copying and pasting this a lot lately:

It is the Greek word “monogeneis.” This is not simply “begotten,” for that expression can be applied to all believers, those who have been begotten or born again by the Spirit. This is a unique expression for a unique person, the only-begotten Son of God. The expression appears in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18. It would literally mean the “only generated one.” This is the key expression for the doctrine of “the eternal generation of the Son,” meaning, he always was the only begotten Son. The expression does not refer to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, because he is the Son from eternity past.

[...] You can only beget a child that has the same nature as you have—a son or a daughter. There is nothing else you can beget (unless you were speaking very figuratively). Your son or your daughter will inherit his or her nature from you—genes, personality—all of it. You can use “make” or “create” for producing a child; but when you use “beget” it only means you produce a child that has your nature.

Now follow this carefully. If Jesus is said to be the begotten Son of God (using the figure from human language to make the point), then Jesus has the same nature as the Father. If Jesus has the same nature as God the Father, then Jesus is divine and eternal as well. If he is eternally God, then there was never a time he was literally begotten—which is why we know the language is figurative to describe his nature, and not his beginning. To call Jesus “the only begotten Son” means that he is fully divine and eternal. He is God the Son.
Reply

Fivesolas
03-18-2011, 02:28 PM
YieldedOne:

The way I am approaching the text is under sound hermeneutical principles. I am assuming for the momement that you are familiar with those. By the biblical record being accurate, for our discussion sake, I merely mean that if we get to a text, it hardly serves the argument to begin to debate the authenticity of the text. For our argument sake, we are proceeding that the Gospels are an accurate record of what Jesus actually did and actually said. Whether you believe that message or not is another topic.

Sound biblical hermenutics is based on the historical-GRAMMATICAL method, not the historical-critical/higher criticism. By begining with a historical-critical method, we begin with a negation of what we actually already seemed to agree to: that the text of the NT is reliable. If we don't proceed along the lines of the historical-grammatical approach, then we have no text to deal with. We will end up in endless discussions from Wellhausen, Kant, Schliermacher, Strauss, redaction criticism, et.

And your post proves the point. Your already bringing into the discussion synoptic issues that are from the higher-critical camps. I am not saying that those subjects are not worth discussion, but they do not serve our purpose here.

Also, you should assume I have read the Gospel of John (and the entire NT) several times. I have been a Christian for 17 years. I am very familiar with the principles of understand an entire book of the Bible.

So, to answer your question...no, I am not cool with beginning with the higher-critical method.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-18-2011, 03:03 PM
Sol Invictus:
i would sincerely doubt that given that it starts with the claim that jesus is himself god, and then takes on the form of a servant to accomplish redemption for humanity. it isn't human self-emptying at all, if anything it would be divine "self-emptying".

Christian theologians don't only locate the kenosis merely to the PERSON of Christ, but also to his human activity. Meaning that, as a full human being, Jesus completely surrendered his human will to the Divine Will of God. That's what Gethsemane was about.


*******************************

Sol Invictus:
It is the Greek word “monogeneis.” This is not simply “begotten,” for that expression can be applied to all believers, those who have been begotten or born again by the Spirit. This is a unique expression for a unique person, the only-begotten Son of God. The expression appears in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18. It would literally mean the “only generated one.” This is the key expression for the doctrine of “the eternal generation of the Son,” meaning, he always was the only begotten Son. The expression does not refer to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, because he is the Son from eternity past.

[...] You can only beget a child that has the same nature as you have—a son or a daughter. There is nothing else you can beget (unless you were speaking very figuratively). Your son or your daughter will inherit his or her nature from you—genes, personality—all of it. You can use “make” or “create” for producing a child; but when you use “beget” it only means you produce a child that has your nature.

Now follow this carefully. If Jesus is said to be the begotten Son of God (using the figure from human language to make the point), then Jesus has the same nature as the Father. If Jesus has the same nature as God the Father, then Jesus is divine and eternal as well. If he is eternally God, then there was never a time he was literally begotten—which is why we know the language is figurative to describe his nature, and not his beginning. To call Jesus “the only begotten Son” means that he is fully divine and eternal. He is God the Son.

I've heard this logic before. It's old church. The problem is simple: It's reading WAAAAAY too much into things. Again, it is absolutely within the textual meaning to say that Jesus is the uniquely originated, one-of-a-kind "son" of God brought forth for God's purposes. It does not INHERENTLY deal with the tranference of nature (ala parental transfer of qualities), especially divine nature. Look at the Septuagint usages in the wiki article already cited.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-18-2011, 03:12 PM
Fivesola:
Sound biblical hermenutics is based on the historical-GRAMMATICAL method, not the historical-critical/higher criticism. By begining with a historical-critical method, we begin with a negation of what we actually already seemed to agree to: that the text of the NT is reliable. If we don't proceed along the lines of the historical-grammatical approach, then we have no text to deal with. We will end up in endless discussions from Wellhausen, Kant, Schliermacher, Strauss, redaction criticism, et.

My bad. Wrong word usage. Historical-grammatical is what I meant. Not higher-criticism. You know about Gordan and Fee's book, right? It's historical-grammatical. Standard textbook for conservative, evangelical seminaries, pretty much.

***********************************
Fivesolas:
And your post proves the point. Your already bringing into the discussion synoptic issues that are from the higher-critical camps. I am not saying that those subjects are not worth discussion, but they do not serve our purpose here.

It doesn't serve our purposes to not acknowledge the genre of the Gospels and how that can affect the whole discussion we are having. Like the fact that we are not talking about "pure history" when we talk about the Gospels. That IS being in the historical-grammatical camp, yes?
Reply

Sol Invictus
03-18-2011, 03:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Sol Invictus:
I've heard this logic before. It's old church. The problem is simple: It's reading WAAAAAY too much into things. Again, it is absolutely within the textual meaning to say that Jesus is the uniquely originated, one-of-a-kind "son" of God brought forth for God's purposes. It does not INHERENTLY deal with the tranference of nature (ala parental transfer of qualities), especially divine nature. Look at the Septuagint usages in the wiki article already cited.
hmm, i find it somewhat strange that i would be pointed towards the usage in the LXX when the christian usage of the term would be differing from the jewish usage. that is to say that it is not blasphemous for a jew to have claimed to be the son of god or the christ etc. but rather, jesus used these terms in a completely different manner than was customary and the matter is that when one looks at the words of jesus and the bible as a whole they will see that the interpretation is warranted. for instance:

And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” 63But 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!” 64Jesus 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.” 65Then 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! 66What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.” – Matthew 26:62-66 NKJV

Clearly the foremost authority of that era’s Judaism understood exactly what Jesus was claiming. He claimed divinity in that he declared that he would descend from heaven with “the Power” (i.e. the ultimate power) the very power of God and did so through the use of language only used of the One true God—YHWH. The reader should note that the idiom “coming on the clouds of heaven” is used throughout the Old Testament to speak of God when he is about to judge, nations, peoples, etc.—it is a pronouncement of judgement upon sinful man. We find this use in Isaiah 19:1, Jeremiah 4:13-14, Zephaniah 1:15-17 to simply name a few. Hence one can understand why he was charged with the death penalty by the Sanhedrin for his supposed blasphemy seeing as he claimed the prerogatives of God himself. He did not say that they would see god coming on the clouds of heaven but rather him and that is quite telling because this is the language that the Old Testament uses precisely when God is revealing his wrath.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-18-2011, 03:37 PM
But let's begin...

Fivesolas:
John 1:1-5; 14 "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 any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." "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."

One would hope we could end the dicussion right here, as the words are quite plain. If in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and that Word that was God become flesh and dwelt among us, whom we know John is speaking of Jesus, then it is clear this text is saying Jesus is God manifest in flesh, or human form. Regardless of what one believes about the truthfulness of this statement, it seems hardly necessary to show that this is indeed what the text is saying.

Got that. The author of John 1:1 most likely refers to Jesus.

*************************

Fivesolas:
Concerning this testimony of who Jesus is, how does this then compare to a mystic like Mansur? There is no indication that in any mystic, be it Islamic, Christian, Hindu, or otherwise, that they are claiming themselves to be uncreated. Not even the man in South America these days who is claiming to actually be Jesus returned is not saying that his origin was anything other than a human being. What you have here in the opening of the Gospel of John is the testimony that Jesus is the eternal, uncreated Creator.

This is the testimony of one of Jesus' followers. His FOLLOWERS attributed this to him.

Do you realize that after Buddha's death, some of his followers raised his personal status to uncreated divinity...even when he talked about no such thing for himself? It's possible. And we can't act like it's not.

**************************
Fivesolas:
A second piece of evidence comes from John 2:23-25

"Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man. "

How is it that Jesus knew all men? What kind of man, prophet, or as the OP alleges, mystic, can have universal knowledge of all men? Moreover, to know "what is in man" Do you suppose this text is saying Jesus knew what they had for lunch? Or is it saying that Jesus knew all men, what they are like, even their very thoughts. How can a mere man know such things?

This seems to be an overliteralistic taking of this text. Unless you are going to say that Jesus was a top level psychic who read all human minds at the same time (ie "knew all men"), it makes much MORE sense to say that Jesus knew well the human condition via his connection with God through the Spirit. He knew the fallenness of humanity in the world and didn't trust that. Now which is the better interpretation: Jesus as "knower" of human fallenness or Jesus as "Professor X", a world class telepath!

And even IF one did decide to take the latter route (Jesus as Omega-Class Telepath), this need be explained by nothing more than the Power of God in Jesus via the Holy Spirit. (Surely you've heard of spiritual gifts like "word of knowledge", right?) It's straight up and down ORTHODOXY that the miracles that Jesus did, he did AS HUMAN completely by the Power of the Spirit...NOT by his own divinity. That would lead to all kinds of heresies. You can check it for yourself in different commentaries, both Eastern and Western.

***************************
Fivesolas:
John 3:36
"He that believeth on the son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not on the son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

This is entirely absurd to ascribe to any man. If someone came along and said this to me, the only way this could or should be obeyed is if the one speaking is actually God Himself. Jesus is saying that whoever believes in Him has eternal life. And the one who does not, does not have eternal life.

Tell me, who can say such thing, even if he be a prophet, unless he himself is God? And what mystic has ever made the claim that eternal life was in them and that they themselves were necessary for it. Do not the mystics rather say they are God, and you can be God too?

Can you show me conclusively how these statements absolutely CANNOT be made by a human being in mystical union with God?
Reply

YieldedOne
03-18-2011, 03:46 PM
I find it very peculiar that the BULK of the argumentation for the eternal pre-existence of Christ (which is REALLY what we are talking about, not merely Christ as "God's son" ) comes from essentially ONE passage (John 1:1-3) from ONE Gospel.
Reply

Sol Invictus
03-18-2011, 03:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
I find it very peculiar that the BULK of the argumentation for the eternal pre-existence of Christ (which is REALLY what we are talking about, not merely Christ as "God's son" ) comes from essentially ONE passage (John 1:1-3) from ONE Gospel.
i'm pretty sure that i quoted from matthew as well (and i think that the same exchange is to be found in one more gospel as well), did you miss my post? that said, what would it matter? if the bible is the word of god then shouldn't we believe all parts of it?
Reply

SalamChristian
03-18-2011, 04:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
the greek word literally means the only generated one which actually would imply divinity and is the basis for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the son. You're talking about "monogeneis", right? Well...all that really leads to is saying that Jesus has a unique "sonship" with God. That as a "son of God" (Remember Psalm 82!), Jesus has a UNIQUE relationship with the God that brought him forth as Messiah. That doesn't NECESSARILY imply divinity. The unspoken assumption is that unique sonship with God necessarily means that the "unique son" shares God's NATURE by way of that "sonship". That assumption is not true.
Peace Sol,

for the particular verses you quote, I have considered those as well, and looked at the Greek, and I was under the impression that they referred to uniqueness as well. "mono"-one of / "genous"-kind, like Genus in our modern day usage. One-of-a-kind. Messiah...chosen one. In John 1:14, I see the doxan, charitos, and aleitheias as characteristics imputed by the Father onto the Son. Rhetorically in the verse, I see the point of making the connection, again, as testifying to Jesus as Messiah. Essentially, it is saying--Look! He was full of such grace and charity and glory, that he must have been the chosen son of the father!

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
He claimed divinity in that he declared that he would descend from heaven with “the Power” (i.e. the ultimate power) the very power of God and did so through the use of language only used of the One true God—YHWH.
I was under the impression this was referring to the Messianic prophecy in Daniel 7, not to YHWH.

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
I find it very peculiar that the BULK of the argumentation for the eternal pre-existence of Christ (which is REALLY what we are talking about, not merely Christ as "God's son" ) comes from essentially ONE passage (John 1:1-3) from ONE Gospel.
One of my professors here at school made a great point about these verses. The word Logos is absolutely unlike any that we have in the English language. It refers to vocabulary/reason/natural law all at the same time. It is the essence of the mind--cognition--as well as all that is outside of the mind--natural law. The closest word/concept that we are familiar with, honestly, is Torah. Torah represented simultaneously God's word, his plan/will, and his law--making Christ the incarnation of the spirit of the law. Certainly the English translation of "Word" falls far short of the mark. Indeed, even the fact we use "word" to translate it opens up the point that logos does not imply singularity of being. Christ is God's "Word," but a word exists inside of an entire vocabulary, and that is what the word "Logos" truly represents. This, as well, helps line up these passages with the later points about the Father being greater than the Son.

Peace
Reply

YieldedOne
03-18-2011, 04:39 PM
SolInvictus:
And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” 63But 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!” 64Jesus 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.” 65Then 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! 66What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.” – Matthew 26:62-66 NKJV

Clearly the foremost authority of that era’s Judaism understood exactly what Jesus was claiming. He claimed divinity in that he declared that he would descend from heaven with “the Power” (i.e. the ultimate power) the very power of God and did so through the use of language only used of the One true God—YHWH. The reader should note that the idiom “coming on the clouds of heaven” is used throughout the Old Testament to speak of God when he is about to judge, nations, peoples, etc.—it is a pronouncement of judgement upon sinful man. We find this use in Isaiah 19:1, Jeremiah 4:13-14, Zephaniah 1:15-17 to simply name a few. Hence one can understand why he was charged with the death penalty by the Sanhedrin for his supposed blasphemy seeing as he claimed the prerogatives of God himself. He did not say that they would see god coming on the clouds of heaven.

Hmmm...Actually, I think that the "blasphemy" was from Jesus claiming to be the "Son of Man" spoken of in Daniel 7:13-14.

I saw in the night visions,
and behold,
with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was
given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.


Some things VERY important to note.Basically, the "son of man" is the person who comes before the "Ancient of Days" (ie God) and is exalted into total Lordship over all by God. So when Jesus said what he said, it was obvious what he was saying:

"Yes, I am the one that Daniel prophesied about. I am the Messiah who will be given rulership over all by God Himself."

There was no claim to Jesus' inherent divinity at all! Only the claim that Jesus had a unique, close relationship to God such that would be given kingly dominion over ALL PEOPLES (including the religious leaders judging Jesus) by God himself as God's Messiah.

THIS was the "blasphemy." And if you think about it, it makes sense. All of the religious leaders would have known the Daniel passage well. And it would have been instant offense for a person to claim that for themselves. We can even see this after Jesus' death even with Stephen's stoning in Acts...

Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him.

Now, doesn't this make SENSE with the Daniel 7 passage? The "Son of Man" at the "right hand" of the "Ancient of Days", God? This is tantamount to pronounce Jesus God's chosen King and Messiah. But NOTHING TO DO with Jesus' eternal pre-existent sonship.

See that?
Reply

SalamChristian
03-18-2011, 04:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Now, doesn't this make SENSE with the Daniel 7 passage? The "Son of Man" at the "right hand" of the "Ancient of Days", God? This is tantamount to pronounce Jesus God's chosen King and Messiah. But NOTHING TO DO with Jesus' eternal pre-existent sonship.
That's exactly what I saw. I am glad you wrote this long message making the case for it, lol, because I didn't want to do it. :~)
Reply

YieldedOne
03-18-2011, 04:47 PM
SalamChristian:
for the particular verses you quote, I have considered those as well, and looked at the Greek, and I was under the impression that they referred to uniqueness as well. "mono"-one of / "genous"-kind, like Genus in our modern day usage. One-of-a-kind. Messiah...chosen one.

Yeppers.

********************
SalamChrstian:
I was under the impression this was referring to the Messianic prophecy in Daniel 7, not to YHWH.

YESSIR! That's exactly right! :shade:

***********************

YO: I find it very peculiar that the BULK of the argumentation for the eternal pre-existence of Christ (which is REALLY what we are talking about, not merely Christ as "God's son" ) comes from essentially ONE passage (John 1:1-3) from ONE Gospel.

SC: One of my professors here at school made a great point about these verses. The word Logos is absolutely unlike any that we have in the English language. It refers to vocabulary/reason/natural law all at the same time. It is the essence of the mind--cognition--as well as all that is outside of the mind--natural law. The closest word/concept that we are familiar with, honestly, is Torah. Torah represented simultaneously God's word, his plan/will, and his law--making Christ the incarnation of the spirit of the law. Certainly the English translation of "Word" falls far short of the mark. Indeed, even the fact we use "word" to translate it opens up the point that logos does not imply singularity of being. Christ is God's "Word," but a word exists inside of an entire vocabulary, and that is what the word "Logos" truly represents. This, as well, helps line up these passages with the later points about the Father being greater than the Son.

The problem is a significant one. It seems fairly apparent that Hellenistic thought and Neoplatonist influence came into play here. Just look at Philo of Alexandria's take on what the Logos is. Muslims are very astute to point this out. Sure, the Psalms mention the creative "word" of God...but DEFINITELY NOT in the same neo-platonic meaning seen in John 1. The greek term "Logos" was used in the sense of corresponding to "word"...but also the Logos ideology was brought BACK INTO the idea of God's creative "word".

In short, you can't go to the Old Testament by itself WITHOUT HELLENISTIC INFLUENCE and come up with the Logos idea, as John 1 has it. No way.

-------------------------------------------------------

Logos in Hellenistic Judaism
In the Septuagint the term logos is used for the word of God in the creation of heaven in Psalm 33:6, and in some related contexts.


Philo of Alexandria
Philo
(20 BC - 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect idea, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God." Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated."

The Platonic Ideas were located within the Logos, but the Logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world. In particular, the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was identified with the Logos by Philo, who also said that the Logos was God's instrument in the creation of the universe.

In short, John 1:1 may not have even BEEN THERE if it weren't for Philo's influence.
Reply

Fivesolas
03-18-2011, 04:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Fivesola:
Sound biblical hermenutics is based on the historical-GRAMMATICAL method, not the historical-critical/higher criticism. By begining with a historical-critical method, we begin with a negation of what we actually already seemed to agree to: that the text of the NT is reliable. If we don't proceed along the lines of the historical-grammatical approach, then we have no text to deal with. We will end up in endless discussions from Wellhausen, Kant, Schliermacher, Strauss, redaction criticism, et.

My bad. Wrong word usage. Historical-grammatical is what I meant. Not higher-criticism. You know about Gordan and Fee's book, right? It's historical-grammatical. Standard textbook for conservative, evangelical seminaries, pretty much.

***********************************
Fivesolas:
And your post proves the point. Your already bringing into the discussion synoptic issues that are from the higher-critical camps. I am not saying that those subjects are not worth discussion, but they do not serve our purpose here.

It doesn't serve our purposes to not acknowledge the genre of the Gospels and how that can affect the whole discussion we are having. Like the fact that we are not talking about "pure history" when we talk about the Gospels. That IS being in the historical-grammatical camp, yes?
I do not know about a Gordon and Fee book. I do know a Gordon D. Fee who has written several commentaries and some works in the area of Hermeneutics. Fee is from the Pentecostal tradition so his hermeneutic would differ from traditional grammatico-historical of the early church and from the period of the Reformation. What is meant then by the grammatical-historical is:

1. Scripture has one meaning. This is opposed to "hidden" spiritual meanings in the text that only the "initiated" can know.
2. Meaning is rooted in historical truth. It is related accurately according to normal use(s) of language.

"...each bible passage had one basic meaning, which was firmly rooted in historical truth, and related accurately according to the common principles of human language. Thus, it was “historical,” relating real, interconnected historical events, that must be acknowledged and understood before the various teachings of the bible could make sense or have application; and “grammatical,” using language the way any normal person would. This grammatical-historical hermeneutic is absolutely vital, for it tethers the truth of the scriptures to real, historical events, that have a real impact on our life; and it gives us a way to study the scriptures with confidence, according to well-established dictates of human language."

I don't have a problem taking a side-step to discuss a historical event if it is questioned.
Reply

Fivesolas
03-18-2011, 05:14 PM
YO wrote, "This is the testimony of one of Jesus' followers. His FOLLOWERS attributed this to him."

I wrote earlier about this very thing. The entire Gospel of John was written by a follower of Jesus. All the Gospels were written by the followers of Jesus, not by Jesus Himself. You cannot therefore separate the sayings of Jesus from what His followers said about Him. It's all the same.


"This seems to be an overliteralistic taking of this text. Unless you are going to say that Jesus was a top level psychic who read all human minds"

What the text indicates is that Jesus knew (gnosko) all men. This does not mean any kind of psychic phenomena. We all say God knows all things. We don't, on account of that, think of GOd as a top level psychic.

"the miracles that Jesus did, he did AS HUMAN completely by the Power of the Spirit...NOT by his own divinity"

Jesus acted by the authority and power of God the Father. No Bible believer thinks otherwise. Yet Christ, while fully human, was also fully Divine. The reason for why Jesus did only the things that the Father gave Him to do is given in John 5:23. Beginning in verse 22 we learn that the Father raises up the dead, and makes them alive, even so, the Son raise up whom He will. Verse 22 tells us that the Father has committed all judgement to the Son. Why? So that all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father.

What honor is due to God? And what being has the right to share in this honor?

"Can you show me conclusively how these statements absolutely CANNOT be made by a human being in mystical union with God?"

First of all, its not my responsibility to show this. The Bible never portrays Jesus as a mystic. This is the claim you have brought. What I did ask you, however, is to show where mystics have presented themselves as the source of eternal life and the creator of heaven and earth. To my knoweldge none have. Rather, they make claims that they themselves are God, and you are God too.
Reply

Sol Invictus
03-18-2011, 05:19 PM
i'm not at home right now and so I hope to be able to expound on the matter further depending on how this goes. i should say that it is quite correct to say that the passage I referred to does also deal with the Daniel 7 passage and that i could quite well acknowledge that the primary meaning is to be found there and should apologize if it seems as though i was conveniently ignoring this understanding. yet from the passage itself one can see that the son of man is a super-human figure who is not only given everlasting dominion and a kingdom but all people are to worship/serve him. that is a prerogative of divinity. so no, the matter isn't as simple as saying that seeing as Christ was referring to the Daniel passage it wasn't a claim of divinity as well. furthermore, if we are to be consistent and let scripture be interpreted by scripture then it becomes obvious that the clouds motif is one in which the one true god comes in judgement and the only case where there is even a sliver of ambiguity is the one of Daniel but given that the nations are commanded to serve the son of man (incidentally the same word used in the LXX for this passage is also used in the gospel of Matthew when Jesus says that one cannot serve two masters, one either serves god or the devil) yet seeing as god could never command the nations to serve anyone other than him (my glory shall I not give to another) one can begin to see how this is in fact a claim to divinity. once again I reiterate that it was not blasphemous for one to claim to be the messiah but certainly blasphemous to use language that is only used of god. imagined I claimed that one should honor me just as they honor the father, or that I was eternal life itself, or that I would personally judge every human on the day of judgement, wouldn't you accuse me of blasphemy for attributing for myself the capacity of god? incidentally these are all things that Jesus claimed. there is far more I could say ( such as calling himself the lord of the sabbath, another title of god etc.) but i'll do so when I come home.

i should also add that to say that monogeneis only relates to his unique status of messiah does not detract from the force of my argument. any trinitarian would say that it is only fitting that it also encompass his uniqueness as the messiah of god yet the term is not exhausted in this definition. why I have given a logical reason for this you however, must show that it has nothing to do with being a claim to divinity aside from merely being a claim for messianic status.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-18-2011, 06:17 PM
I'm gettin' to ya, FiveSolas. Promise! :)

SolInvictus:
i'm not at home right now and so I hope to be able to expound on the matter further depending on how this goes. i should say that it is quite correct to say that the passage I referred to does also deal with the Daniel 7 passage and that i could quite well acknowledge that the primary meaning is to be found there and should apologize if it seems as though i was conveniently ignoring this understanding. yet from the passage itself one can see that the son of man is a super-human figure who is not only given everlasting dominion and a kingdom but all people are to worship/serve him. that is a prerogative of divinity. so no, the matter isn't as simple as saying that seeing as Christ was referring to the Daniel passage it wasn't a claim of divinity as well. furthermore, if we are to be consistent and let scripture be interpreted by scripture then it becomes obvious that the clouds motif is one in which the one true god comes in judgement and the only case where there is even a sliver of ambiguity is the one of Daniel but given that the nations are commanded to serve the son of man (incidentally the same word used in the LXX for this passage is also used in the gospel of Matthew when Jesus says that one cannot serve two masters, one either serves god or the devil) yet seeing as god could never command the nations to serve anyone other than him (my glory shall I not give to another) one can begin to see how this is in fact a claim to divinity.

We can make this exceedingly simple.

1 Samuel 16:14-23
Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and a harmful spirit from the Lord tormented him. And Saul's servants said to him, “Behold now, a harmful spirit from God is tormenting you. Let our lord now command your servants who are before you to seek out a man who is skillful in playing the lyre, and when the harmful spirit from God is upon you, he will play it, and you will be well.” So Saul said to his servants, “Provide for me a man who can play well and bring him to me.” One of the young men answered, “Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skillful in playing, a man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence, and the Lord is with him.” Therefore Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, “Send me David your son, who is with the sheep.” And Jesse took a donkey laden with bread and a skin of wine and a young goat and sent them by David his son to Saul. And David came to Saul and entered his service. And Saul loved him greatly, and he became his armor-bearer. And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, “Let David remain in my service, for he has found favor in my sight.” And whenever the harmful spirit from God was upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand. So Saul was refreshed and was well, and the harmful spirit departed from him.

1 Samuel 24:10
Behold, this day your eyes have seen how the Lord gave you today into my hand in the cave. And some told me to kill you, but I spared you. I said, ‘I will not put out my hand against my lord, for he is the Lord's anointed.’

Answer these questions...

1) Whenever Saul was the "Lord's Anointed" according to David, did David serve and honor Saul as God-chosen King according to that understanding?

2) If yes to #1, was David working against the Shema when he did so? In other words, was David rendering honor to Saul that should have gone to God alone?

If you said yes to #1 and no to #2, then my point is clearly made. Just because a human being is exalted and given kingly rulership over others by God Himself--along with due reverence and honor is given to the chosen leader in that position--does NOT necessitate that God's chosen leader be divine.

If the force of the logic you are trying to use were valid, then either 1) any human king God wanted to set up would have to be divine or 2) God could have NEVER established any kind of theocratic system via human kings on earth at all. God could never have even ALLOWED an earthly king to be served and venerated AS God-chosen king at all if that were the case.

See that?

It is conceivable that the God exalted "Son of Man"--God's Messiah--is a full human being who, like other God-authorized kings before him, can be served by the population of the people of God without that "service" inherently and automatically being idolatry.
Reply

Sol Invictus
03-18-2011, 08:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
I'm gettin' to ya, FiveSolas. Promise! :)

SolInvictus:
i'm not at home right now and so I hope to be able to expound on the matter further depending on how this goes. i should say that it is quite correct to say that the passage I referred to does also deal with the Daniel 7 passage and that i could quite well acknowledge that the primary meaning is to be found there and should apologize if it seems as though i was conveniently ignoring this understanding. yet from the passage itself one can see that the son of man is a super-human figure who is not only given everlasting dominion and a kingdom but all people are to worship/serve him. that is a prerogative of divinity. so no, the matter isn't as simple as saying that seeing as Christ was referring to the Daniel passage it wasn't a claim of divinity as well. furthermore, if we are to be consistent and let scripture be interpreted by scripture then it becomes obvious that the clouds motif is one in which the one true god comes in judgement and the only case where there is even a sliver of ambiguity is the one of Daniel but given that the nations are commanded to serve the son of man (incidentally the same word used in the LXX for this passage is also used in the gospel of Matthew when Jesus says that one cannot serve two masters, one either serves god or the devil) yet seeing as god could never command the nations to serve anyone other than him (my glory shall I not give to another) one can begin to see how this is in fact a claim to divinity.

We can make this exceedingly simple.

1 Samuel 16:14-23
Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and a harmful spirit from the Lord tormented him. And Saul's servants said to him, “Behold now, a harmful spirit from God is tormenting you. Let our lord now command your servants who are before you to seek out a man who is skillful in playing the lyre, and when the harmful spirit from God is upon you, he will play it, and you will be well.” So Saul said to his servants, “Provide for me a man who can play well and bring him to me.” One of the young men answered, “Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skillful in playing, a man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence, and the Lord is with him.” Therefore Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, “Send me David your son, who is with the sheep.” And Jesse took a donkey laden with bread and a skin of wine and a young goat and sent them by David his son to Saul. And David came to Saul and entered his service. And Saul loved him greatly, and he became his armor-bearer. And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, “Let David remain in my service, for he has found favor in my sight.” And whenever the harmful spirit from God was upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand. So Saul was refreshed and was well, and the harmful spirit departed from him.

1 Samuel 24:10
Behold, this day your eyes have seen how the Lord gave you today into my hand in the cave. And some told me to kill you, but I spared you. I said, ‘I will not put out my hand against my lord, for he is the Lord's anointed.’

Answer these questions...

1) Whenever Saul was the "Lord's Anointed" according to David, did David serve and honor Saul as God-chosen King according to that understanding?

2) If yes to #1, was David working against the Shema when he did so? In other words, was David rendering honor to Saul that should have gone to God alone?

If you said yes to #1 and no to #2, then my point is clearly made. Just because a human being is exalted and given kingly rulership over others by God Himself--along with due reverence and honor is given to the chosen leader in that position--does NOT necessitate that God's chosen leader be divine.

If the force of the logic you are trying to use were valid, then either 1) any human king God wanted to set up would have to be divine or 2) God could have NEVER established any kind of theocratic system via human kings on earth at all. God could never have even ALLOWED an earthly king to be served and venerated AS God-chosen king at all if that were the case.

See that?

It is conceivable that the God exalted "Son of Man"--God's Messiah--is a full human being who, like other God-authorized kings before him, can be served by the population of the people of God without that "service" inherently and automatically being idolatry.
thank you for the reply yielded, and now having returned home i hope to be able to provide a satisfactory answer. having read your post it seems that you have not grasped my argument. it is not that i argue that any use of the word 'serve' implies divinity but rather that the particular word used in the context of daniel 7 is used to refer to divinity:

The verb plch, secondly, which here appears as a peal imperfect with telic force (to indicate purpose), is predicated of all three nouns under discussion. This verb, which reappears in verse 27b, means "serve" in the specific sense of paying reverence to a deity [BDB, 1108b]. Thus, in Daniel 3 the three friends of Daniel "serve" the True God alone (verse 17) and, therefore, refuse to "serve" any other god (verses 12, 14, and 18). In the end, on witnessing the preservation of the three youths from the flames of his furnace, King Nebuchneszzar acclaims the "God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who ... delivered His servants who put their trust in Him, violating the king's command, and yielded up their bodies so as not to serve any God except their own" (verse 28, NASB). In Daniel 6, likewise, Darius the Mede, in addressing Daniel in the den of lions, twice calls the God in whom Daniel "believed" (verse 24 MT, 23 EV) "thy God whom thou servest continually" (verses 17 MT, 16 EV, and 21 MT, 20 EV). In the only occurrence of plch in the Bible outside of Daniel, the participle is used substantively to call the priests and others ministering in the temple "the servants of the house of God" (Ezra 7:24). The denotation, therefore, of plch clearly applies more easily to believers in the Son of Man than to the majority of men rejecting His redemption.

note that the very word used to describe the proper relation of man towards god is used of the son of man and in fact it is god himself who commands the nations to worship him. in fact, that 'serve' is to be understood in the fashion of one's proper relationship to deity, translations such as the NIV go so far as to use the word worship outrightly. yet remember that this very same god is he who says that he shall not give his glory to another and maintains to be but one. this clearly hints at the trinity (but that is another subject entirely). furthermore, i noticed that your post avoided any discussion on the clouds motif that i had highlighted and as such let me reiterate:

“... Clouds often were associated with deity in the ancient world, and this being was no mere mortal… Another difficulty with the identification of the son of man as the people of God is that in v. 14 all the nations of the earth are said to ‘worship’ the son of man, and Scripture is clear that God alone is to be worshiped (cf. Rev 19:10). Another indicator of his deity is that the clouds accompany the son of man as he descends, and clouds commonly are associated with deity. Lacocque observes: ‘Out of a total of about a hundred occurrences in Scripture, in 70% of the cases, clouds refer to Sinai, or to the Temple (see I Kings 8.10-11; 2 Chr. 5.13-14; 2 Macc. 2:8; cf. the vision of the Merkaba in Ezek. 1:4 and 10:3-4), or to eschatological theophanies (Isa. 4.5; Ps. 97.2; Nahum 1.3).’ Young seems justified in stating, ‘There can be no question, but that Deity is intended here,’ and Baldwin remarks, ‘The son of man is not only king, but God, though, as is characteristic of apocalyptic style, this is conveyed in veiled terms.’ Verse 14 further reveals that ‘all’ humanity will worship the son of man, and ‘all’ humanity naturally would include the saints.” (The New American Commentary An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture – Daniel, Stephen R. Miller [Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994], Volume 18, pp. 207-209)

from the above it becomes more than obvious that the son of man is a divine figure and thus your argument is rendered null. hence we are now back full-circle and i once more must say that when you let the bible interpret itself one cannot argue against the divinity of christ nor claim that he was a mystic (which in itself is a refusal to understand him in the jewish thought-world of his day). christ appropriated for himself the prerogatives of god in that he claimed that it would be him who would judge the living and the dead on the last day. in that he claimed to be the lord of the sabbath, in that he claimed to be the good shepherd, in that he claimed to be the ressurection and life itself, and claimed that all should honour him exactly as the father was honoured. in the same manner that one honours the father by praying to him, worshiping and understanding him to be god, christ demanded likewise in saying that the father wished that all men honour the son just as they honour the father. I could go on concerning the I AM sayings of christ but you get the picture.

you have yet to prove your position on monogeneis and whether it is merely exhausted in a reference to the messainic status of christ, you have yet to prove that the coming on the clouds motif is not singular to divinity, or that the use of serve/worship in the context of daniel 7:13-14 does not imply submission to a divinity, but furthermore, you have yet to prove that christ believed in anything like the mystic sages of eastern religions. he seemed to claim exclusivity in that he never said that "We are the ressurection and the life" but rather "i am the ressurection and the life", he did not say that peter, paul, mary, joseph or anyone else should be honoured in the manner that the father was honoured but rather only him specifically. he did not call others "the good shepherd" but rather he only called himself the good shepherd and went so far as to say that anyone who has ever come before him is but a liar and a thief (the prophets are not shepherds because psalm 23 is quite clear in that the god of israel is the shepherd). christ is too exclusive to be a mystic, he denies divinity in anyone else but himself.
Reply

MustafaMc
03-19-2011, 03:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
The tradition had to be extant when Paul first got converted because Paul LEARNED his Faith from others by his own testimony; in short, he was TAUGHT that Jesus was God's Son by the disciples already in Damascus.
How is your statement consistent with Galatians 1:11-12 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Reply

siam
03-19-2011, 04:58 AM
These are my ramblings on the topic subject "Maybe Christianity has Jesus wrong...." If I am off-topic---someone let me know....
The Christians already arguing on this point are going in a different direction than the one I am interested in---so continue with what you are saying.....:p

Trinitarianism proposes the formula --- original sin + crucifixion = salvation. (IMO)This formula is packaged under the concept of Jesus Christ(pbuh) being "Son of God". Or to put it another way, salvation is dependent on a "son of God" being sacrificed/crucified for original sin.
Does Christianity have it wrong?---Jews and Muslims would agree. That a Muslim agrees or disagrees might be irrelevant---but that a Jew disagrees might be more significant since Jesus Christ(pbuh) WAS a Jew.

How do Jews understand the Torah?
---That the One God (Shema) is indivisible. (God is One and not 3-in-1)
---That all creation is created in goodness (no original sin/man is not inherently bad)
---That sin is not inherited (any mistakes (Prophet)Adam(pbuh) made were his---however, Judaism admits the consequences of a sin can be something that later generations may have to deal with)
---Blood/human sacrifice is not necessary for forgiveness of sins---God is forgiving if human beings repent.

Despite this---Christians continue to use the OT to prove their point that the Divinity of Jesus Christ(pbuh) is Torah sanctioned. It seems they do this by appropriating the Jewish Torah---completely re-interpreting it to such an extent that it is unrecognizably distorted, in order make their doctrines fit.

----Torah manipulated for political purpose--
"This stunning misquote in Romans stands out as a remarkable illustration of Paul's ability to shape scriptures in order to create the illusion that his theological message conformed to the principles of the Torah. By removing the final segment of this verse, Paul succeeded in convincing his largely gentile readers that his Christian teachings were supported by the principles of the Hebrew Bible.
Deuteronomy 30:14---But the word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.
Romans 10:8--But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach)."
---Jewish outreach, Rabbi Singer
The Rabbi is pointing out that in Judaism, man is empowered and responsible for his own salvation and in Judaism, this is done through following the mitzvot. Such a message would go against the political purposes of the Church---for if every man can achieve salvation---what need is there for a church?

As to the idea that "sacrifice" is Torah-sanctioned----this is what the Jews have to say.....

"It is important to note that in Judaism, sacrifice was never the
exclusive means of obtaining forgiveness, and was not in and of itself
sufficient to obtain forgiveness. For some transgressions sacrifice
was not even effective to obtain forgiveness.

Jews believe that sacrifice is the least important way to gain
forgiveness from G-d. Repentance is more important. Very few sins
required sacrifice (per Leviticus). For example., the animal
sacrifices are only prescribed for unwitting or unintentional sin
(Leviticus 4:2, 13, 22, 27; 5:5, 15 and Numbers 15:30). The one
exception is if an individual swore falsely to acquit himself of the
accusation of having committed theft (Leviticus 5:24-26). Intentional
sin can only be atoned for through repentance, unaccompanied by a
blood sacrifice (Psalms 32:5, 51:16-19).

This is re-enforced: "And you shall call upon Me, and go, and pray to
Me, and I will hearken to you. And you shall seek Me, and find Me,
when you shall search for Me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13).

Given its relative unimportance even in Biblical days, what comprised
an acceptable Jewish sacrifice?

Many people think that Jewish sacrifice required blood sacrifice. This
is not true. The primary commandment about blood is that it shouldn't
be eaten. (Leviticus 17:10) "And any man from the house of Israel, or
from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set
My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from
among his people." This can be paraphrased: "Don't eat blood." The
next phrase (Leviticus 17:11) goes on to say, "For the soul of the
flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to
provide atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that atones for
the soul." This explains why blood is not to be eaten, and that when
it is used as part of a sacrifice it must be sprinkled on the altar of
the Temple. Note that it doesn't say, "blood is the only way to atone"
it says that you shouldn't eat the blood because its only use is for
sacrifice. Since this is a little confusing lets use an example: we
can say that all little boys are people, but does that mean that all
people are little boys?. So Leviticus says "Don't eat blood. You can
use it for sacrifice," but it doesn't say that blood is the only
acceptable sacrifice.

What is an acceptable sacrifice? Well, we know what isn't: the Torah
strictly forbids human sacrifice, unlike most religions of the
Biblical era."
http://www.faqs.org


If it were supposed that Jesus Christ(pbuh) was a Prophet/Wisdom teacher/Rabbi in a long line of such, it would not contradict any of the general concepts of the Torah. (except he would have been a false Prophet if one believed he was killed by the Jews) Muslim understanding of Jesus Christ(pbuh) aligns far better with the general concepts of the Torah than Christian propositions.

My knowledge of Judaism and Christianity is minimal but it seems to me, since trinitarianism is so thoroughly incompatible with the Torah, why do Christians insist on using the OT?---why not just chuck it and stick with the NT?----then perhaps they wouldn't have to go to the ridiculous lengths they do to make trinitarianism fit into the Shema/One God/Monotheism concept?......
Reply

YieldedOne
03-19-2011, 01:15 PM
YO: The tradition had to be extant when Paul first got converted because Paul LEARNED his Faith from others by his own testimony; in short, he was TAUGHT that Jesus was God's Son by the disciples already in Damascus.

MustafaMC: How is your statement consistent with Galatians 1:11-12 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Good call. He's speaking about his encounter and interaction with the Living Christ ala Damascus and on. I was thinking more along the lines of 1 Corinthians 11:23...when he talks about the Lord's Supper and what he had "received" from the Lord. But it seems like it would be wrong there as well to assert that he received even that teaching from others, even by proxy.

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you...

Taking what you've said, MustafaMC, would mean the Jesus being the Son of God was directly revealed to Paul by the Risen Jesus HIMSELF.

Hmmm...that means either Paul's telling the truth (Jesus himself told him that he was the Son of God)...or Paul had a complete mental breakdown and threw his whole religious career away to promote a Jewish sect that he had just be persecuting.

So, there's an engima there. To say that Paul is telling the truth about his experience of the Ascendant Jesus implies necessarily believing in Jesus as Son of God...because the ascendant Jesus HIMSELF told Paul this. To say Paul did NOT experience the Ascendant Jesus and was functionally crazy...well, if that's the case, we shouldn't even both reading a vast majority of the New Testament, then...right?

I'd actually say that this is a strong argument for Jesus being God's Son. Unless there could be some credible reasons to believe that Paul didn't truly experience the Ascendant Jesus talking to him, we can't deny the possibility that Jesus directly told Paul that he was God's Son. If THAT's the case...

Hmmmmm...interesting.

What do you think is the more appropriate belief, MustafaMC?
Reply

YieldedOne
03-19-2011, 01:48 PM
Sol Invictus:
thank you for the reply yielded, and now having returned home i hope to be able to provide a satisfactory answer. having read your post it seems that you have not grasped my argument. it is not that i argue that any use of the word 'serve' implies divinity but rather that the particular word used in the context of daniel 7 is used to refer to divinity:

The verb plch, secondly, which here appears as a peal imperfect with telic force (to indicate purpose), is predicated of all three nouns under discussion. This verb, which reappears in verse 27b, means "serve" in the specific sense of paying reverence to a deity [BDB, 1108b]. Thus, in Daniel 3 the three friends of Daniel "serve" the True God alone (verse 17) and, therefore, refuse to "serve" any other god (verses 12, 14, and 18). In the end, on witnessing the preservation of the three youths from the flames of his furnace, King Nebuchneszzar acclaims the "God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who ... delivered His servants who put their trust in Him, violating the king's command, and yielded up their bodies so as not to serve any God except their own" (verse 28, NASB). In Daniel 6, likewise, Darius the Mede, in addressing Daniel in the den of lions, twice calls the God in whom Daniel "believed" (verse 24 MT, 23 EV) "thy God whom thou servest continually" (verses 17 MT, 16 EV, and 21 MT, 20 EV). In the only occurrence of plch in the Bible outside of Daniel, the participle is used substantively to call the priests and others ministering in the temple "the servants of the house of God" (Ezra 7:24). The denotation, therefore, of plch clearly applies more easily to believers in the Son of Man than to the majority of men rejecting His redemption.

note that the very word used to describe the proper relation of man towards god is used of the son of man and in fact it is god himself who commands the nations to worship him. in fact, that 'serve' is to be understood in the fashion of one's proper relationship to deity, translations such as the NIV go so far as to use the word worship outrightly. yet remember that this very same god is he who says that he shall not give his glory to another and maintains to be but one. this clearly hints at the trinity (but that is another subject entirely).

I haven't see that the word "plch" is only usable to "describe the proper relation of man towards god." I haven't seen that little designation anywhere. What you seem to be saying is that because the word "plch" includes in it's body of meaning the idea of "worship", it absolutely HAS to mean "worship" when talking about the Son of Man? I don't think that really follows. I can see Christians who are already assuming the Trinity taking that stance. But not an Jewish rabbi just looking at the text...nope. As long as reverential service can be rendered to a God-exalted human being WITHOUT it being considered idolatry (which I've tried to show), then the word "plch" can stand for that. I don't see anything word-wise where "plch" cannot have this interpreation.

************************************************** ***

Sol Invictus:
furthermore, i noticed that your post avoided any discussion on the clouds motif that i had highlighted and as such let me reiterate:

“... Clouds often were associated with deity in the ancient world, and this being was no mere mortal… Another difficulty with the identification of the son of man as the people of God is that in v. 14 all the nations of the earth are said to ‘worship’ the son of man, and Scripture is clear that God alone is to be worshiped (cf. Rev 19:10). Another indicator of his deity is that the clouds accompany the son of man as he descends, and clouds commonly are associated with deity. Lacocque observes: ‘Out of a total of about a hundred occurrences in Scripture, in 70% of the cases, clouds refer to Sinai, or to the Temple (see I Kings 8.10-11; 2 Chr. 5.13-14; 2 Macc. 2:8; cf. the vision of the Merkaba in Ezek. 1:4 and 10:3-4), or to eschatological theophanies (Isa. 4.5; Ps. 97.2; Nahum 1.3).’ Young seems justified in stating, ‘There can be no question, but that Deity is intended here,’ and Baldwin remarks, ‘The son of man is not only king, but God, though, as is characteristic of apocalyptic style, this is conveyed in veiled terms.’ Verse 14 further reveals that ‘all’ humanity will worship the son of man, and ‘all’ humanity naturally would include the saints.” (The New American Commentary An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture – Daniel, Stephen R. Miller [Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994], Volume 18, pp. 207-209)

from the above it becomes more than obvious that the son of man is a divine figure and thus your argument is rendered null. hence we are now back full-circle and i once more must say that when you let the bible interpret itself one cannot argue against the divinity of christ nor claim that he was a mystic (which in itself is a refusal to understand him in the jewish thought-world of his day). christ appropriated for himself the prerogatives of god in that he claimed that it would be him who would judge the living and the dead on the last day.

Bro, I take it very clearly that the "clouds" stuff represents Divine Presence/Activity. Of course, that's the case. No problem with that. We can see this from the "cloud" that lead the Israelites to the "cloud" that covered Mt. Tabor at the Transfiguration. What I'm saying is that this does not necessarily mean that Divine Presence within or around a human being makes them personally divine. Can you show me decisively where a human being who is within "clouds" of Divine NECESSITATES the human being actually divine?

************************************************** ********

Sol Invictus:
you have yet to prove that christ believed in anything like the mystic sages of eastern religions.

Ok. This is something that I think we should get straight. This will even help with the discussion with FiveSolas too. I don't know what is being thought of when I say the word "mystic"...but I don't think it's being taken acurately. Even people who think that Jesus is the Son of God would STILL say that he was a "mystic." Please see Harvey Egan's "An Anthology of Christian Mysticism" There is a whole section called "BIBLICAL MYSTICISM". Please see the subsections called "Mysticism in the Old Testament" (Page 1-4) and "The Mysticism of Jesus Christ" (Page 5-9)

We need to get the generalized stereotype of "mystic" out of our minds for a second. :shade:

Basically what I've been saying is that Jesus was, at the very LEAST, a biblical Jewish mystic...even sans an Incarnation idea.

PS: The whole book is great and I'd recommend it to anyone who wants a really good look at Christian mysticism. Egan did a good job!
Reply

YieldedOne
03-19-2011, 02:12 PM
YO:This is the testimony of one of Jesus' followers. His FOLLOWERS attributed this to him."

FiveSolas: I wrote earlier about this very thing. The entire Gospel of John was written by a follower of Jesus. All the Gospels were written by the followers of Jesus, not by Jesus Himself. You cannot therefore separate the sayings of Jesus from what His followers said about Him. It's all the same.

No, it's not all the same. Open your Bible to Mark 16. Do you take the longer or shorter ending of Mark? This is very important and relevant to our discussion.
It is now solid scholarship that tells us that verses 9-20 were NOT part of the original text...but had been entered no earlier than the 2nd century.


The majority of contemporary New Testament textual critics have concluded that neither the longer nor shorter endings were originally part of Mark's Gospel. However, this may be the result of the popularity of the text-critical work of Bruce Metzger, whose Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament currently has an almost monopolistic status as a handy reference for non-specialists. Metzger's words are frequently repeated by commentators, sometimes virtually line-by-line.

In Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament[35] Metzger states: "Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16:8. Three possibilities are open: (a) the evangelist intended to close his Gospel at this place; or (b) the Gospel was never finished; or, as seems most probable, (c) the Gospel accidentally lost its last leaf before it was multiplied by transcription."

The 1984 printing of the NIV translation notes: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9–20." However, the Committee on Bible Translation has since changed this to read "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9–20." No major English translation mentions any of the patristic evidence from the 100's that favors the inclusion of the "Longer Ending."

(Actually the ESV does the same thing...check it out.)



Now please note that they WROTE IN the following words of Jesus...

Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.

After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country.And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.

Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.

Ok. Now, here we have words actually being put in Jesus' mouth here. We KNOW that Jesus most likely didn't say this...and we KNOW that it was Christian followers from over a century later that put those things there.

I'm saying all that to say this: Just because the Bible has some forms of testimony does NOT mean that it's actually historical in the objective sense.
If we can't agree with this, especially as it may apply to the Book of John, we're gonna have problems.
Reply

MustafaMc
03-19-2011, 02:16 PM
YiededOne, you really laid it on the line with your most recent post. I find the book of Galatians to be most interesting. Paul starts of by vehemently chastising the church at Galatia for leaving the gospel he had preached to them in favor of another. Galatians 1:6-9 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!"

In reading the rest of the book Paul reveals the fundamental difference between these 'gospels' is following the Judaic Law and faith in Jesus. Galatians 2:14-16"When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel (that Paul preached), I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified."

The question is which of these, 'faith in Jesus' or 'works of the law' is consistent with what Jesus actually taught? Let Jesus speak for himself as in Matthew 19:16-17 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.

You hit upon most fundamental questions that every Christian should ask, "Did Paul actually receive a revelation from God through a personal encounter with Jesus?" or "Did Paul have an encounter with an imposter (Satan) who claimed to be Jesus and gave him a new (false) gospel based on faith in Jesus' death on the cross that effectively negated Jesus' life and what he taught the disciples before his ascension?" Christians don't realize their fundamental acceptance of Paul as a Messenger of God who brought and taught the gospel (not taught by Jesus) they now accept as the Truth.

My related question is regarding Paul and Muhammad (peace be upon him), "Will the true Prophet of God stand forward exposing the other one as false?" I believe that Matthew 7:15 applies to one of these two men, "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." You of course know which one I accept as a true Prophet of God and which I believe was a "wolf in sheep's clothing".

How do you defend Paul as a Prophet of God?
Reply

YieldedOne
03-19-2011, 02:20 PM
For Siam...

Korban Olah

Shechita

Passover Sacrifice (The one most related to Jesus by himself and his followers!)
Reply

YieldedOne
03-19-2011, 02:51 PM
MustafaMC:
How do you defend Paul as a Prophet of God?

GREAT stuff, MustafaMC. Let's do this...

Let's say right up front what Paul is confronting: Judaizers. Essentially people who told Gentiles (Paul's primary audience) that in order to follow Christ they had to basically become a Jew (circumcision, following all 613 mitzvot, etc). This is what he was straight up confronting.

And Paul's logic is reasonable: If WE, the "Children of Israel"--who actually received the Law and the Prophets--couldn't bear up under the weight of the 613 mitzvot, what makes you think that the Gentiles can and should do that. Why put the "yoke" BACK UPON OURSELVES as Jews...and upon the Gentiles as well?That completely goes BACKWARDS. No, our justification is in God's Messiah (Christ means that!) and what God, in his Grace, has done for us through him. God had set up a way where Jews AND Gentiles could be in covenant relationship with God without circumcisions and other Jewish requirements...whereas Judiazers wanted to EXCLUDE the Gentiles based upon whether or not these requirements were met. Completely against the INCLUSIVE action that God was doing in Christ.

Let's look at Galatians 5...

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. (ie. all 613 mitzvot!!!) You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.

Paul was not utterly disdaining the Law and Prophets. You can read Romans and see that clearly. And Paul is the one who actually FOLLOWS the teaching of Jesus when he says "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” That is SPECIFICALLY and UNDENIABLY Jesus' teaching to his disciples. And Paul in no way thought that he was essentially denying the Shema in his following of God's Messiah. No more than any of the other apostles like Peter or James.

So the idea that Paul's message "negated Jesus' life and what he taught the disciples before his ascension" is pretty wrong, bro. As a matter of fact, Galatians has Paul CONFIRMING Jesus' teaching.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-19-2011, 03:02 PM
And let's just look historically at what Paul says in Phillipians 3:

Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you.

Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

1) He talking against the Judiazers again with the "those who mutilate the flesh" (Was a big problem in Galatia!)

2) He was pretty much the cream of the Jewish religious crop before his encounter with Jesus. Had all KINDS of kudos, religion and family wise.

3) He considers all of that NOTHING...in light of the vision of God he's seen in Christ.

Now, here's my thought. This would be analogous to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Bill O' Reilly having some kind of experience...and then becoming absolutely PRO-DEMOCRAT and PRO-OBAMA. Unless they had a complete mental breakdown or something, no one would ever expect such a thing. And I guarantee you that if they did come out on T.V. and say something to this effect, everyone would want to know "what happened." It wouldn't be the kind of transformation you could just overlook. It would be absolutely noticeable.

We have that with Paul. So what is the most reasonable course of explanation of his behavior? Especially when his conversion and instruction by Jesus seems to MATCH what Jesus' own disciples had taught and heard...to the point of being able to put Peter in check for NOT going by it!

Now, what's interesting, MustafaMC, is that YOU as a Muslim AND I as a Christian believe that Jesus is Ascendent and with God. So it is not out of possibility for either of us that Jesus, by the power of God, COULD HAVE spoken directly to Paul. So take that into account as well.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-19-2011, 03:16 PM
Interesting. Now THIS may be a very compelling for Jesus being referred to as "Son of God."

Either...

1) Paul's FLAT OUT LYING about his experiences with Jesus (thus he's a bonehead crazy person who would deny all of his Pharisaical heritage and position to claim something he KNOWS to be false)

2) Paul's FLAT OUT CRAZY such that he had a psychotic break that THOUGHT he saw Jesus when he really didn't (thus he's a lunatic who threw everything away for a hallucination...that no one should be listening to authoritatively)


3) Paul's listening to a DEMONIC VOICE that acted like Jesus (thus he's a demonically oppressed person who could have no authority, even with his then CONTEMPORARY apostles like Peter, James, etc.)

or...

4) Paul's TELLING THE TRUTH about experiencing Jesus...and being SENT by Jesus to the Gentiles to tell what Jesus revealed to him.


Which is the most appropriate answer ALL THINGS CONSIDERED? For my money, I'd say the last one. #1 doesn't work because it doesn't explain his radical change from his former role as Sanhedrin-authorized persecutor of Christians. #2 and #3 seem problematic because Paul didn't work totally solo but with OTHERS who also knew Jesus and his teachings. I believe that if his "gospel" were completely antithetical to what the Disciples had heard from Jesus himself...they would have raised a stink about it.

So...

What do you think, MustafaMC?
Reply

YieldedOne
03-19-2011, 04:17 PM
And since you went there...;D

MustafaMC:
My related question is regarding Paul and Muhammad (peace be upon him), "Will the true Prophet of God stand forward exposing the other one as false?" I believe that Matthew 7:15 applies to one of these two men, "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." You of course know which one I accept as a true Prophet of God and which I believe was a "wolf in sheep's clothing".

Two things:
1)Let's look at Mat 7:15-20...

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

Hmmm...actually Jesus talks a LOT about "fruit" in Matthew. Jesus specifically says that you will recognize the true prophets by their "fruits." See Mat 12:33-37...

“Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

So...if the fruit of a prophet is "evil", meaning against Jesus' teaching about love and goodness, then it will show up. If you have hatred, malice, and indifference towards others, it will show up. If you have love, compassion, and other-centered concern, it will show up.

Now looking at Paul's teachings about love, goodness, and virture...throughout his writings...would you say that Paul had "bad" fruit? Remember that before his conversion, Paul had ASSAULTED and KILLED many Christian followers (individuals and whole families) with all kinds of HATRED and extreme prejudice...persecuting the church...but all that DISAPPEARED with his conversion and apostleship. Moreover, he teaches what Jesus taught: Love of God and Love of Neighbor as the Self. We've gotta keep that in mind.

So, according to Jesus' criterion in Matthew, has Paul had "good fruit" or "bad fruit"?

You tell me, MustafaMC? Whatcha think? Tell you what we can do. Let's compare the "fruit" of Muhammad's apostolic life and teaching...with Paul's apostolic life and teaching.

I don't recall Paul talking about killing idolaters. He talked about loving and doing good to all, including idolaters and polytheists. And that's AFTER he'd been killing and hating all kinds of people!

I DO recall Muhammad talking about killing idolaters. I do recall Muhammad saying something about...

"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

or...

O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise. Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?

Hmmm....ACCORDING TO THE MATTHEW TEXT THAT YOU CITE, MustafaMC, what kind of "fruit" is this? Which lifestyle is more representative of the idea that "loving the neighbor as oneself" is the WHOLE LAW? Honest question.
Reply

Sol Invictus
03-19-2011, 04:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Bro, I take it very clearly that the "clouds" stuff represents Divine Presence/Activity. Of course, that's the case. No problem with that. We can see this from the "cloud" that lead the Israelites to the "cloud" that covered Mt. Tabor at the Transfiguration. What I'm saying is that this does not necessarily mean that Divine Presence within or around a human being makes them personally divine. Can you show me decisively where a human being who is within "clouds" of Divine NECESSITATES the human being actually divine?
of course it refers to divine presence but you will find nowhere else where this language is used of a human. throughout the bible it is used consistently to speak of YHWH and therefore i feel that we should let scripture explain scripture. furthermore, you immediately assume that the individual in question is actually human when the text says "one like a son of man" meaning a being in the form of a human. that is quite telling because the biblical author does not actually call him human but rather one like a human. anyway, if you are unable to show us of an instance in the bible where a human is clearly spoken of in such a language then you cannot prove your point.

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
I haven't see that the word "plch" is only usable to "describe the proper relation of man towards god." I haven't seen that little designation anywhere. What you seem to be saying is that because the word "plch" includes in it's body of meaning the idea of "worship", it absolutely HAS to mean "worship" when talking about the Son of Man? I don't think that really follows. I can see Christians who are already assuming the Trinity taking that stance. But not an Jewish rabbi just looking at the text...nope. As long as reverential service can be rendered to a God-exalted human being WITHOUT it being considered idolatry (which I've tried to show), then the word "plch" can stand for that. I don't see anything word-wise where "plch" cannot have this interpreation.
i would then have to ask for a usage within the bible where "plch" is not tied up to a notion of divinity.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-19-2011, 04:42 PM
Now, me PERSONALLY. I wouldn't call Muhammad a "wolf in sheep's clothing" or call him a "false prophet" just to do so. I think that's rude. However, I do think it's absolutely FAIR to take MustafaMC's challenge on his terms comparing the apostolic life and writings of Paul and Muhammad...and see what's up.

Just for all the Muslims out there. I am NOT demeaning Muhammad. I really, really, REALLY want to stress that...especially for the Moderators and Admins!!!

:nervous::nervous::nervous::nervous::nervous::nerv ous::nervous::nervous:
Reply

YieldedOne
03-19-2011, 04:55 PM
Sol Invictus:
of course it refers to divine presence but you will find nowhere else where this language is used of a human. throughout the bible it is used consistently to speak of YHWH and therefore i feel that we should let scripture explain scripture. furthermore, you immediately assume that the individual in question is actually human when the text says "one like a son of man" meaning a being in the form of a human. that is quite telling because the biblical author does not actually call him human but rather one like a human. anyway, if you are unable to show us of an instance in the bible where a human is clearly spoken of in such a language then you cannot prove your point.

Uh, oh. Bro, you really don't wanna go down that path. If you try to use the text to say that the Son of Man wasn't ACTUALLY human but just LOOKED LIKE ONE, then you are in serious danger of heresy, specifically docetism! You really don't want to do that, homie.

In Christianity, docetism (from the Greek δοκέω dokeō, "to seem") is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief treats the sentence "the Word was made Flesh" (John 1:14) as merely figurative. Docetism has historically been regarded as heretical by most Christian theologians.

*********************************
Sol Invictus:
i would then have to ask for a usage within the bible where "plch" is not tied up to a notion of divinity.

Now, Sol. I know that you know that 9 out of 10 times it's used, it's used in ONE BOOK, Daniel. And it's used talking about "serving" deities. But you don't seem to understand that just because the word in the context of deities there (and not elsewhere), you cannot limit the range of the word's usage just to fit trinitarian assumptions. You really don't see that?
Reply

Sol Invictus
03-19-2011, 05:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Sol Invictus:
of course it refers to divine presence but you will find nowhere else where this language is used of a human. throughout the bible it is used consistently to speak of YHWH and therefore i feel that we should let scripture explain scripture. furthermore, you immediately assume that the individual in question is actually human when the text says "one like a son of man" meaning a being in the form of a human. that is quite telling because the biblical author does not actually call him human but rather one like a human. anyway, if you are unable to show us of an instance in the bible where a human is clearly spoken of in such a language then you cannot prove your point.

Uh, oh. Bro, you really don't wanna go down that path. If you try to use the text to say that the Son of Man wasn't ACTUALLY human but just LOOKED LIKE ONE, then you are in serious danger of heresy, specifically docetism! You really don't want to do that, homie.[/I]

*********************************
Sol Invictus:
i would then have to ask for a usage within the bible where "plch" is not tied up to a notion of divinity.

Now, Sol. I know that you know that 9 out of 10 times it's used, it's used in ONE BOOK, Daniel. And it's used talking about "serving" deities. But you don't seem to understand that just because the word in the context of deities there (and not elsewhere), you cannot limit the range of the word's usage just to fit trinitarian assumptions. You really don't see that?
i know quite well what docetism is but rather what i am saying is that the author has in mind not merely a human but rather a divine figure.

i'm not limiting the word usage at all rather i'm simply going with how the author has predominantly used the word in his writing. if it is the case that he drastically limits himself to using the word only in connection to the notion of divinity then surely that is saying something.

either way my argument still stands. (that said a humorous scene did play in my hand where the author says something like, "uhh, sorry guys. i just used that language because i thought it was really cool and in no way meant to say that my dude was divine.")
Reply

3rddec
03-19-2011, 05:59 PM
While I can understand why the idea of Christ being just a mystic may be attractive to some but it ultimately leads to some new age buddhist type heresy where we all aim to become Gods in our own right. But it makes for intresting debate but thats all.

Love and Respect
Reply

SalamChristian
03-19-2011, 07:50 PM
Peace everyone,

format_quote Originally Posted by siam
Trinitarianism proposes the formula --- original sin + crucifixion = salvation. (IMO)This formula is packaged under the concept of Jesus Christ(pbuh) being "Son of God". Or to put it another way, salvation is dependent on a "son of God" being sacrificed/crucified for original sin. Does Christianity have it wrong?---Jews and Muslims would agree. That a Muslim agrees or disagrees might be irrelevant---but that a Jew disagrees might be more significant since Jesus Christ(pbuh) WAS a Jew.
Compare the crucifixion to the story of Job, even in the Qu'ran. Iblis tells Allah (swt) that Job is not submissive. Allah (swt) knows this is not true, but he lets Iblis torture Job even to the point of wasting away his body with disease. Why does Allah (swt) let this happen? Because he wants to prove to Iblis that he is almighty--to glorify his name. Through the suffering of believers, some others may see the glory of Allah (swt) and ask for forgiveness, and be saved. The crucifixion is just like the story of Job, but Jesus (pbuh) suffered the ultimate pain for a human being to suffer for the glory of Allah (swt). Square this with the ayat in the Qu'ran which state that some of the prophets of God have been spurned, and some have been slain, and you get the bigger picture.

format_quote Originally Posted by siam
---That sin is not inherited (any mistakes (Prophet)Adam(pbuh) made were his---however, Judaism admits the consequences of a sin can be something that later generations may have to deal with) ---Blood/human sacrifice is not necessary for forgiveness of sins---God is forgiving if human beings repent.
Blood is not necessary for YOUR salvation. But why do the prophets suffer? Why are they persecuted? Even Muhammad (pbuh) had to suffer persecution and being slandered by his own people in order to bring back the true religion to those under al jahilayah, didn't he? This happened to Job. This happened to Jesus (pbuh).

As for the question of original sin, I would ask you this: why do we all die? Did not Allah say (swt) when he banished Adam from the Garden, "I made you from dust, and to dust you shall return"? Was it not their sin that originally brought death to humankind? Of course, you and I both believe in the last day, so we know this is temporary. But we are not in the Garden now, and the way I read the Torah, no one dies in the Garden, even temporarily. Nor does anyone suffer. But we suffer in this world, do we not? Did not Job suffer? Did not Muhammad (pbuh) suffer persecution at Ka'aba? Did not Jesus (pbuh) suffer slander from the Jews (at the very least)? That does not happen in the Garden, nor will we be made to suffer after the last day. We will drink from the cup with an admixture of camphor, as it says in the Qu'ran. I would ask you to please think about this difference between our world and the Garden to come, when you consider the doctrine of original sin, and before your next response.

LASTLY, I really wish that we didn't bring a comparison of Paul and Muhammad (pbuh) into this discussion. I mean, if we all had taken the time to patiently and compassionately read ALL of each others holy books and consider doctrine and arguments, then MAYBE we would be justified in doing this. But if you have not taken this time to consider the little points of another's religion, how can you reject the big ones? It is hasty, inconsiderate, and not done out of love for each other. I would ask that we please stop this now before it gets out of hand.

MustafaMC and Siam, check out these three verses of Paul's. They might help you get a better idea of the complexity of his theology, and show you that he is not advocating outright rejection of the Torah:

"For it is not those who hear the torah who are righteous before God, but those who do the torah will be declared righteous. For whenever Gentiles, who do not have the torah, do by nature the things required by the torah, these who do not have the torah are a torah unto themselves." Romans 2:13-14.

"And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love." I Corinthians 13:13.

I know that you think Pauline Christianity is about Christians thinking they are special and chosen, Siam, but that is just not the point of Paul's theology. Love is at the center, just like with the gospel of Jesus (pbuh). Love for Allah (swt) with all of your heart, and love for your neighbor as yourself--i.e. the Shema. The point about faith vs. works, Mustafa, is actually just the opposite of trying to claim we are special or we are not obligated to follow the law. The "works of the law" are things like circumcision. N.T. Wright has called these "ethnic badges." Paul was criticizing these "Jewish Christians," for judging their brothers on the basis of heritage instead of belief in Allah's righteousness and mercifulness. In other words, your salvation does not depend on what you or your parents have done, because Allah (swt) is forgiving, but rather what you believe RIGHT NOW, and whether you will open your heart to let Allah (swt) lead you to do the things that are righteous.

PLEASE, please, PLEASE find peace with each other, brothers, and listen to each other with compassion and patience. As Paul and Muhammad (pbuh) say,

"Love is patient, love is kind." and "If you continually bite and devour one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another." And "'When two believers in the one God [Muslims] fight (meet) each other with their swords, both the murderer as well as the murdered will go to the Hell-fire.'"

Salaam Alaikum brothers
Reply

3rddec
03-19-2011, 08:41 PM
I always believed the Book of Job was written to explain why good people can suffer while evil people appear fine. Of course there are more levels to be found on each reading.
The short version
The position of satan was God why wouldn't he love you when you have been so good to him thats nothing to brag about , because God was srta bragging about how wonderfull Job was so God then gave the devil a chance to ruff Job up quite a bit. Initially Job was submissive then he finally looses it and lets rip at God and finally God tells him off and Job submits to Gods wisdom and they both get all buddy buddy again and God fixes things for Job again.

I love the book of Job ; Job seems so human.

As far as Original Sin goes it depends on your interpretation of what is meant by original sin. Its a tricky one and Im no scholar but my understanding is that when Adam listened to satan and disobeyed God he gave up his birthright as head of realm of creation called earth and mankind and had given it to satan who then becomes the head honcho of earth with all of mankind under his power or influence so all Adams descendants remain there. ( like the son of a slave would also be the slave of his fathers owner ). Thats not to say they were all evil but they were still seperated from God because of the original sin of Adam. But Christ by his ultimate sacrifice wrested control of Mankind back so that original sin is no longer a seperation as we all belong to him now but of course he is not satan and allows us free will so we are free to reject Christ offer of a return to the Father and salvation. But since reading this I want to explore the idea more as my interpretation is probably far to simplistic.

Love and Respect
Reply

SalamChristian
03-19-2011, 08:42 PM
3rddec,

format_quote Originally Posted by 3rddec
While I can understand why the idea of Christ being just a mystic may be attractive to some but it ultimately leads to some new age buddhist type heresy where we all aim to become Gods in our own right. But it makes for intresting debate but thats all.
Jesus did not claim to be a God, among many. This comment is really careless, brother, because it makes you sound like a polytheist. It is because of comments like this that the Muslims have rightfully criticized some Christians.

However, I would ask you to open your mind up to these verses:

"But to all who have received him - those who believe in his name - he has given the right to become God's children - children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband's decision, but by God." John 1:12-13

Doesn't that sound like we can achieve a relationship like that Christ had to God (except, of course, for the Messiah part. There is only one of those...that's the definition).

To all my Muslim brothers who are viewing this comment and these verses, consider also that we interpret that one of the Messiah's functions was to bring Allah to the non-jews, before you judge what we may take these verses to mean.

Shalom
Reply

SalamChristian
03-19-2011, 08:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by 3rddec
But since reading this I want to explore the idea more as my interpretation is probably far to simplistic.
I am glad that you said this. It is humble and honest of you. I am in the same boat. We are all in the same boat, on this forum, as far as I can tell. How much do we ACTUALLY know about each other? At the end of the day, I have only read maybe 15% of the Qu'ran so far, and that is only skimming the surface. And God and his creation is so much more infinite than any of us.

Peace brother
Reply

SalamChristian
03-19-2011, 09:46 PM
To 3rrdec and all others who are interested,

That Job was a good man who the Lord only tested to prove Satan wrong:

"There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. And that man was pure and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil." Job 1:1

"Then the Lord said to Satan, 'Have you considered my servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a pure and upright man, one who fears God and turns away from evil. And he still holds firmly to his integrity, so that you stirred me up to destroy him without reason." Job 2:3

That others were made righteous and repentant by God's use of Job:

"So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and offer a burnt offering for yourselves. And my servant Job will intercede for you, and I will respect him, so that I do not deal with you according to your folly, because you have not spoken about me what is right, as my servant Job has." Job 42:9

That Job's experience is parallel in many ways to the experience of Jesus (pbuh) and all of the other prophets:

Job cries out to the Lord in righteousness (even though his cry is in itself a sin). Psalm 22 shows David doing the same thing, crying out to God "Eloi Eloi lama sabacthani"--my God my God why have you forsaken me? Ironically this statement simultaneously means "for what a purpose have you spared me." In any case, the point is that God relieves the burden of those believers who have been tested to their limits. Jesus (pbuh) makes this same point on the cross. Do you remember the third to last thing he says? He quotes Psalm 22: Eloi Eloi, lama sabacthani!" Or "Illahi Illahi lema sabacthani". At that moment, God relieves him of his burden by ending his life, only to restore him to new and everlasting life with the resurrection, and the honor of sitting at the right hand of God.

"So the Lord restored what Job had lost after he prayed for his friends, and the Lord doubled all that had belonged to Job." Job 42:10 *This same point is corroborated in the Qu'ran.*
-The same point is made of Jesus in Phillipians and elsewhere. That he had humbled himself as a slave, and for so doing, he was rewarded with the honor of sitting at the right hand of God. This is not to say that Jesus was not the Word of God blown into Mary. Think more deeply about how both of these statements can be true exegetically, and you will see.

Peace
Reply

YieldedOne
03-19-2011, 11:50 PM
Just saw this...

SalamChristian:
LASTLY, I really wish that we didn't bring a comparison of Paul and Muhammad (pbuh) into this discussion. I mean, if we all had taken the time to patiently and compassionately read ALL of each others holy books and consider doctrine and arguments, then MAYBE we would be justified in doing this. But if you have not taken this time to consider the little points of another's religion, how can you reject the big ones? It is hasty, inconsiderate, and not done out of love for each other. I would ask that we please stop this now before it gets out of hand.

Personally, I haven't felt disrespected by MustafaMC. He's been nothing but a nice guy to me the whole time I've been here. I don't believe I'm disrespecting him or Islam by responding to his intriguing question. If lack of love and/or consideration has been shown on my part, I sure apologize. But I think Mustafa's been nothing but respectful and considerate. At least from my perspective and brief experience on this board.

But I'm just as well with that. I'm much more interested in the "Is it reasonable to believe that Paul authentically heard from Jesus?" question! :D
Reply

YieldedOne
03-20-2011, 03:45 AM
MustafaMC:
You hit upon most fundamental questions that every Christian should ask, "Did Paul actually receive a revelation from God through a personal encounter with Jesus?" or "Did Paul have an encounter with an imposter (Satan) who claimed to be Jesus and gave him a new (false) gospel based on faith in Jesus' death on the cross that effectively negated Jesus' life and what he taught the disciples before his ascension?" Christians don't realize their fundamental acceptance of Paul as a Messenger of God who brought and taught the gospel (not taught by Jesus) they now accept as the Truth.

I've been thinking about this a lot today, bro. And I've come to the conclusion that you are right. Without Paul as a Messenger of God (Christians would call him an Apostle), we don't have like 2/3 of the New Testament. And it IS Paul's Gospel to the GENTILES that we embrace. You're right. This is the deal maker or deal breaker. Like I said before, if it cannot be reasonably maintained that Paul actually did "receive revelation from God through a personal encounter with Jesus", then Paul is (either by lie, insanity, or demonic oppression) unfit to be authoritative for Christians, if they are being intellectually honest. If it can be reasonably maintained that Paul DID actually encounter Jesus...and Paul asserts that Jesus HIMSELF told Paul he was the "Son of God", then Paul's testimony is--at LEAST--a consideration for Muslims to ponder.

Good stuff, man.
Reply

SalamChristian
03-20-2011, 04:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Without Paul as a Messenger of God (Christians would call him an Apostle)
Early Christians could also have called him a prophet, we just don't know. John called his Revelations prophecies. Doesn't that make him a prophet? :) Also, Muhammad (pbuh) is also called "Allah's Apostle," is he not?

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
And it IS Paul's Gospel to the GENTILES that we embrace.
Of course we also embrace the Gospel of Jesus, and see them as not being mutually exclusive. But I know that is what you meant. Gosh, I'm feeling like an English teacher more than someone who has anything with any substance to say lolol. I just see how miscommunication so often leads to our religious problems, that I feel obligated to clarify and qualify sometimes. :~)

Peace
Reply

3rddec
03-20-2011, 10:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by SalamChristian
3rddec,



Jesus did not claim to be a God, among many. This comment is really careless, brother, because it makes you sound like a polytheist. It is because of comments like this that the Muslims have rightfully criticized some Christians.

However, I would ask you to open your mind up to these verses:

"But to all who have received him - those who believe in his name - he has given the right to become God's children - children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband's decision, but by God." John 1:12-13

Doesn't that sound like we can achieve a relationship like that Christ had to God (except, of course, for the Messiah part. There is only one of those...that's the definition).

To all my Muslim brothers who are viewing this comment and these verses, consider also that we interpret that one of the Messiah's functions was to bring Allah to the non-jews, before you judge what we may take these verses to mean.

Shalom
Im sorry Salam maybe I didn,t make my opinion clear enough maybe I should have written new age Buddhist heracy in bold sorry for any confusion.

Love and Respect
Reply

siam
03-20-2011, 10:50 AM
Peace to you SC,

The story of Job in the Quran (Surah 21 verses 83-84, and Surah 38, verses 41-44) ---I don't see what you see. The Quran explains the meaning of these stories as a test of faith/trust---a trial that human beings go through in order to grow in faith, something all Prophets/human beings go through. I have already explained this before. (By the way---faith/trust = the use of ones intellect and reason to arrive at conviction. The Quran does not advocate blind faith)---I don't see any connection with a crucifixion. To me the stories of the Prophets speak of how through patience and trust in God, trials and tests can be overcome and we can grow in blessings/spirituality. Basically it is pointing to hope and trust in God's mercy and compassion. (---at an individual level---that is---all individuals have direct access to God's mercy and compassion)

I also don't see any connection between sufferring/trials/tests and their purpose mentioned in the Quran and "original sin" concept of Christianity.....From what I understand, without positing that all human beings are inherently evil---there would be no reason for a "sacrifice/crucifixion and therefore salvation would be independent of any man-made construct of "organized" religion. That is why in Judaism and Islam, salvation is directly between God and the individual.

YO
Thanks for the links. I'm afraid I may be ignorant of some of the nuances of Christianity---its a "devilishly" complex religion:D I read about the paasover lamb---From the explanation a Jewish person gave me, all rituals/feasts in Judaism are for purposes of rememberance (To remember God's blessing, mercy and Compassion) and nothing in the article link contradicts that or what I copy/pasted previously with regards to Jewish sacrifice -----last line from the link---"which kept alive in the memory of the nation the preservation and liberation of the entire people"---am I missing something? (I will read the other links later)
Reply

siam
03-20-2011, 11:01 AM
Peace to you again SC,
You asked ---why do we all die?---because all creation is finite. We are also God's creation and therefore we are finite. Only God, the One, Indivisible, Uncreated is not finite. So why are we on earth for a short period of time?---Because God is most compassionate and merciful and only puts us through the trials and blessings of earth for a short period of time so as not to overburden us.
sorry running out of time.....will be back
Reply

YieldedOne
03-20-2011, 12:51 PM
Siam:
Thanks for the links. I'm afraid I may be ignorant of some of the nuances of Christianity---its a "devilishly" complex religion:D I read about the paasover lamb---From the explanation a Jewish person gave me, all rituals/feasts in Judaism are for purposes of rememberance (To remember God's blessing, mercy and Compassion) and nothing in the article link contradicts that or what I copy/pasted previously with regards to Jewish sacrifice -----last line from the link---"which kept alive in the memory of the nation the preservation and liberation of the entire people"---am I missing something? (I will read the other links later).

Hmmm...talk to your Jewish friend about the function of the High Priest prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, particularly on the Day of Atonement.
See, the Book of Hebrews largely uses the analogies of "Jesus as High Priest". And this is important. Why? Because it places into context the "sacrifices" we are talking about. Let's look at this Scripture...

“If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.


Even though the scripture is primarily about dietary laws, hat section also deals with the actions of the High Priests of God. Only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies in the temple ONCE a year. And what did he do in there? He offered BLOOD of sacrifice before the Mercy Seat of God. And without the blood in that act, there would have been NO REMISSION OF SINS for Yom Kippur. The idea of a high priest going into the Holy of Holies without blood would have been absolutely ridiculous.

And it's this them that the Jewish Christians picked up on...

Hebrew 4:14-5:
Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. Because of this he is obligated to offer sacrifice for his own sins just as he does for those of the people. And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was.

So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him,

“You are my Son,
today I have begotten you”;


as he says also in another place,

“You are a priest forever,
after the order of Melchizedek.”


In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

and...

from Hebrews 9...
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Look carefully. The author is SPECIFICALLY talking about high priestly duties in the Temple on the Day of Atonement. And that ALWAYS dealt with the spilling of blood.

Ask your Jewish friend. They'll tell you. :D
Reply

YieldedOne
03-20-2011, 12:56 PM
Siam:
Trinitarianism proposes the formula --- original sin + crucifixion = salvation. (IMO)This formula is packaged under the concept of Jesus Christ(pbuh) being "Son of God". Or to put it another way, salvation is dependent on a "son of God" being sacrificed/crucified for original sin.


This is inaccurate, bro. What's being said is this:

In order that God's covenant love would extend to ALL PEOPLE (not just the Jews), God sent His Messiah and Son as High Priest who would ONCE AND FOR ALL 1) atone for the sins of the people (ala the 2nd Temple Judaism understanding of what a High Priest did) and 2) bridge the divide between the "Children of Israel" and the "Gentiles" (ie. everyone else.) It's not about "original sin" per se at all. It's about saying that, because of God's actions through His Christ, people are AT-ONE with God and AT-ONE with each other, tearing down all walls of division.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-20-2011, 01:03 PM
What is a High Priest?
by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg

From amongst the Kohanim, the holy descendants of Aaron, one person was selected to serve as Kohen Gadol (High Priest). Ideally, this person was a great Tzaddik who also served as the spiritual leader of the generation.

The most significant task of the Kohen Gadol was the implementation of the Yom Kippur service in the Temple. On this day he would enter the otherwise un-enterable Holy of Holies four times, with the mission of attaining forgiveness and atonement on behalf of all the Jews.

The most significant task of the Kohen Gadol was the implementation of the Yom Kippur service in the Temple

[Yom Kippur saw the convergence of the holiest elements of time, space and life: the holiest time, Yom Kippur; the holiest location, the Holy of Holies; and the holiest person, the Kohen Gadol.]

Today, there is no Kohen Gadol, as there is no Temple.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-20-2011, 01:06 PM
This is how it would NOT be hard for a Jewish person back in Jesus' day (prior to the Destruction of the Temple) to see the "blood" of Jesus in these terms. NOT primarily as human sacrifice, but as ANALOGY for how Jesus' self-sacrificial death operated to bring Jews and Gentiles together as ONE PEOPLE under God...then bringing ALL OF THEM closer to God!

Make sense, Siam?

I am LOVIN' these rabbit trails! So much fun! ;D

Whole thread at a glance.
Reply

SalamChristian
03-20-2011, 05:36 PM
Peace Siam,

format_quote Originally Posted by siam
The story of Job in the Quran (Surah 21 verses 83-84, and Surah 38, verses 41-44) ---I don't see what you see. . . . I don't see any connection with a crucifixion. To me the stories of the Prophets speak of how through patience and trust in God, trials and tests can be overcome and we can grow in blessings/spirituality. Basically it is pointing to hope and trust in God's mercy and compassion. (---at an individual level---that is---all individuals have direct access to God's mercy and compassion)
The crucifixion is a test and a trial. Jesus (pbuh) grows in blessings after the crucifixion, as he thereafter sits at the right hand of Allah (swt). Jesus had hope and trust in God's mercy and compassion, both in accepting God's will that he go onto the cross and in calling out to him in mercy while on the cross, and being forgiving of others even while suffering (as was always his will).

However, there are a couple statements in those ayat which I would point you to:

Allah (swt) describes the end result of Job's trial as a "reminder to those possessed of understanding" and "a reminder to the worshippers." Also, I recommend that you read Imam Ibn Kathir's tafsir of Job's life, as he relates many of the significant points which are not in the Qu'ran (such as exactly what the oath Job made was, or why using a green stick will be sufficient). I'm not sure where he pulls them from, whether from certain Hadith or from the Torah, but in any case if you read them with an open mind you will see that they agree with the point I am showing you about Ayub.

Sacrifice, as I said before, is perhaps not the best word, especially since you see it as eternal. Of course the pain Jesus (pbuh) suffered was not eternal. For this reason perhaps "offering" is a better word. Indeed perhaps you know of the tradition that Jews were to offer their first-born sons to Allah(swt)? And indeed perhaps you know that some Tafsir have pointed out that both Muhammad (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh) were without biological fathers after birth, and thus were protected by Allah (swt)?

Consider this verse from Al-Anaam

Shakir:
"And they set apart a portion for Allah out of what He has created of tilth and cattle, and say: This is for Allah--so they assert--and this is for our associates; then what is for their associates, it reaches not to Allah, and whatever is (set apart) for Allah, it reaches to their associates" Surah Al-Anaam, 136

This is the general point that Jesus (pbuh) establishes and Muhammad (pbuh) reasserts. As Jesus (pbuh) says similarly, you cannot serve two masters. To one who lacks understanding, and to the Jews who had not yet understood God's message, this looks like an eternal sacrifice, because you think you are losing something. But to one who has grown to understand the mercifulness and power of God, it is not a sacrafice but a meagre offering (or as we also say in English, a "temporary sacrifice"), because Allah will bless you with more than you have given. It is the same, again, with the crucifixion.

format_quote Originally Posted by siam
I also don't see any connection between sufferring/trials/tests and their purpose mentioned in the Quran and "original sin" concept of Christianity.....From what I understand, without positing that all human beings are inherently evil---there would be no reason for a "sacrifice/crucifixion
Shakir:
"They said: Our Lord! We have been unjust to ourselves, and if Thou forgive us not, and have (not) mercy on us, we shall certainly be of the losers." Surah Al-Arah, 23.

sacrifice/crucifixion is God's mercy to us, and God's test to Jesus (pbuh), according to Orthodox Christian views. All prophets are God's mercy to us, and Jesus life itself was a living prophecy and mercy to us, for he was literally God's Word blown into Mary's womb.

format_quote Originally Posted by siam
You asked ---why do we all die?---because all creation is finite. We are also God's creation and therefore we are finite. Only God, the One, Indivisible, Uncreated is not finite. So why are we on earth for a short period of time?---Because God is most compassionate and merciful and only puts us through the trials and blessings of earth for a short period of time so as not to overburden us.
Shakir:
"He said: Get forth, some of you, the enemies of others, and there is for you in the earth an abode and a provision for a time. He (also) said: Therein shall you live, and therein shall you die, and from it you shall be raised." Surah Al-Araf, 24-5.

I don't think you're getting the bigger picture. There is no death in the Garden, as I read all of the Abrahamic scriptures. Do you read them differently? Do you believe there is death in the Garden?

Salaam Alaikum brother
Reply

YieldedOne
03-20-2011, 09:40 PM
Wiki's on the money...

Paul's theology of the gospel accelerated the separation of the messianic sect of Christians from Judaism, a development contrary to Paul's own intent. He wrote that the faith of Christ (YO's Note: God's Messiah) was alone decisive in salvation for Jews and Gentiles alike, making the schism between the followers of Christ and mainstream Jews inevitable and permanent. He argued that Gentile converts did not need to become Jews, get circumcised, follow Jewish dietary restrictions, or otherwise observe Mosaic laws. Nevertheless, in Romans he insisted on the positive value of the Law, as a moral guide.

Yeah. That's it. That's what Paul was talking about in Galatians and Philippians. See that, Siam?

Hey! MustafaMC! Where you at, homie? I'm anticipatory of your response in our discussion...

Multiple choice:


With respect to Paul's testimony of his personal encounter with Jesus and Jesus' self-revelation as "Son of God", Paul is...
a) a motivationless liar
b) a mentally deranged liar
c) a demoniac liar
d) a convinced truth-teller.


If possible, provide your reasoning. Mere opinions are cool. But seeing reasoned process would be great for the discussion, I'd think... :shade:
Reply

YieldedOne
03-20-2011, 09:47 PM
Oh, and anyone can answer that question. Not just MustafaMC. Inclusiveness is tiiiiiight. :)
Reply

MustafaMc
03-21-2011, 12:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Personally, I haven't felt disrespected by MustafaMC. He's been nothing but a nice guy to me the whole time I've been here. I don't believe I'm disrespecting him or Islam by responding to his intriguing question. If lack of love and/or consideration has been shown on my part, I sure apologize. But I think Mustafa's been nothing but respectful and considerate. At least from my perspective and brief experience on this board.

But I'm just as well with that. I'm much more interested in the "Is it reasonable to believe that Paul authentically heard from Jesus?" question! :D
Have you ever heard of hitting a hornet's nest and then turning to run like hell to get away from the angry hornets? That is how I feel now as I just returned home from a trip that I left for right after my post. hehehe:giggling: I apologize that I have led this thread down a divergent rabbit hole, but quite honestly I believe this is a rabbit hole every Christian should have the courage to go down and come out with an understanding of where the tenets of his faith originated. I hope you will take the time to read my entire post here.

YieldedOne, you are right I did not mean any disrespect to you or to your religion. I recognize you and other Christians on this forum as being sincere in your faith and I personally know there is a lot of good in Christianity. My whole point was to get people to 'think outside the box' of their normal perspective. Likewise I didn't see your comments as being disrespectful towards Prophet Muhammd (saaws) or toward Islam and, even if they were, they could be seen as being justified as honest replies to my questions. It is easy to perceive Quranic verses or hadith from our personal perspectives or through the lenses of our own faith as opposed to the context in which they are said. I have read two lengthy biographies on Prophet Muhammad (saasws), "The Sealed Nectar" and "A Biography of the Prophet of Islam in Light of the Original Sources an Analytical Study". After reading these books, my love for Rasool'Allah (saaws) grew immensely to know of his noble character and the many hardships, persecutions and threats on his life that he endured only to establish the worship of One God. Perhaps you do not know how vigorously Islam was opposed with the threat of annihilation by the pagan idolators and how tenuous their position was in the early years. This was clearly not an example where 'turn the other cheek' was applicable. In my reading of the Quran, I see multiple cases where Prophet Muhammad (saaws) was defended as not being a madman, a soothsayer, wizard or taught by others. From this I understand that there were vicious and unjustified attacks on his noble character that were brought only because he claimed to be a messenger from God and opposed their idolatry.

I had read a majority of the NT when I was a Christian and then again after I decided to practice Islam in 2001. It was this later reading that certain things came to my conscious attention in light of my Islamic faith. Of particular note, the first 2 chapters of Galatians shed new light on the struggle to define Christianity in the 1st century. A few years ago I watched a TV show from the ministry of Les Feldick and I was shocked to hear him say that neither Jesus nor his disciples were the primary proponents for what became the Christian faith, but rather Paul was the one 'who got it right'. Quoting below in green from his websites: http://www.lesfeldick.org/news13.html and http://www.lesfeldick.org/news14.html an article by William R. Newell, "Paul's Gospel".

There are two great revelations, or unfolders of Divine Truth in the Bible - Moses in the Old Testament, and Paul in the New.

Paul in his great Epistles reveals Christ as our Righteousness, Sanctification, Redemption, and All in All.

But unto none of these twelve Apostles did God reveal the great body of doctrine for this age. Just as God chose Moses to be the revelator to Israel of the Ten Commandments, and all connected with the Law dispensation; so God chose Saul of Tarsus be the revelator and unfolder of those mighty truths connected with our Lord's burial, resurrection, and His ascended Person. And all the "mysteries" or "secrets" revealed to God's people in this dispensation by the Holy Ghost are revealed by Paul. Finally, Paul is the unfolder of that great company of God's elect, called the Church, the Body of Christ, the individuals of which body are called members of the Body of Christ - members of Christ Himself. No other Apostle speaks of these things. Peter himself had to learn them from Paul.

You can judge any man's preaching or teaching by this rule - is he Pauline? Does his doctrine start and finish according to those statements of Christian doctrine uttered by the Apostle Paul? No matter how wonderful a man may seem in his gifts and apparent consecration - if his Gospel is not Pauline, it is not the Gospel; and we might as well get our minds settled at once as to that. Paul calls down the anathema - that is the curse of God Himself - upon anyone who preaches any other Gospel than that which he declared (Gal. 1).

The great doctrines that Paul reveals may be outlined as follows: (he lists 13 points which outline his understanding of Christianity) The failure or refusal to discern the Pauline Gospel as a separate and new revelation and not a "development from Judaism," accounts for two-thirds of the confusion in many people's minds today as regards just what the Gospel is. Paul's Gospel will suffer no admixture with works on the one hand or religious pretensions and performances on the other.

Now Paul in his wonderful revelation declares that God hath reconciled the world to Himself; that God was in Christ (at the Cross) reconciling the world unto Himself (11 Cor. 5:19).

I choose not to speculate on which of the alternatives that you listed is likely true.

However, I do know that the doctrines of Paul and those of Muhammad (saaws) are diametrically opposed because quite obviously Jesus (as) cannot be both the "Son of God" and "not the Son of God". The choice I have made is to accept Prophet Muhammad (saaws) as Messenger, Prophet and Servant of the One God and to accept what he taught regarding God that He has no father, mother, son, daughter or equal. My point is to raise the question for you to answer as to whether or not you see Paul as the Prophet of God who taught that Jesus (as) was the Son of God and literally God in human flesh Who came to live a perfect life on earth and to die on the cross as the only possible atoning sacrifice for your sins.

I am interested in hearing your perspective on Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus) as Messenger of God. For me as a Muslim the claim to be a Messenger of God is a most spectacular claim. I remind you of the ridicule that Muhammad (saaws) endured for making such a claim that Christians seem to take so lightly and uncritically regarding Paul.
Reply

siam
03-21-2011, 01:30 AM
@YO
In order that God's covenant love would extend to ALL PEOPLE (not just the Jews), God sent His Messiah and Son as High Priest who would ONCE AND FOR ALL 1) atone for the sins of the people (ala the 2nd Temple Judaism understanding of what a High Priest did) and 2) bridge the divide between the "Children of Israel" and the "Gentiles" (ie. everyone else.) It's not about "original sin" per se at all. It's about saying that, because of God's actions through His Christ, people are AT-ONE with God and AT-ONE with each other, tearing down all walls of division. ---I disagree. ---according to Church history---ALL PEOPLE above should read "Christians" (and only those Christians that belonged to the winning sect) and considering the harsh enmity of the Church towards Jews---The Church has promoted division not unity. (Howeer, during the time of the previous Pope (Pope Paul II,?) the RC church did put into its catechism that Jews and Muslims were included in God's "plan of salvation"----a bit ambigous---but a start)

And....if God had wanted to enact Yom Kippur, with his "son" as High preist, he should have incarnated himself as a bull and had this "son" sacrifice him. ---Not that it would have made any difference since Yom Kippur isn't about sacrifice.....Its about REMEMBERANCE. According to what I read on the net, Yom Kippur is a day of atonement when people ask God to forgive their sins----AND GOD DOES SO....because he is Compassionate and Merciful ----(sacrifice not required). However, the rituals performed on Yom Kippur remember the incident at Mt Sinai when people turned away from the Shema (One God) and worshipped the "Golden Calf"/idol worship.....the destruction of which and the subsequent ritual brought the people back to the ONE GOD. ----Trinitarian Christianity is the total opposite of this---It contradicts the teachings of the Torah by deifying the ("Golden Calf)"Son of God" whose "sacrifice" breaks the Shema into a Trinity. ---In other words---Trinitarian Christianity has resurrected the Golden Calf, broken the Shema and managed to make Jesus Christ(pbuh) into a false Prophet---one who is teaching people what is the total opposite of the Torah.


Neither Judaism nor Islam condone Suicide/Homicide so the whole story/theory of Paulinian/Trinitarian Christianity goes AGAINST the Torah and Quran. God IS compassionate and merciful and forgives those who ask for it with sincerity---no Suicidal/Homicidal sacrifice required. (No "intermediary" required either) Trinitarian Christians read into the Torah things the Torah DOES NOT teach----simply to validate their doctrine---though why they do is a mystery to me---as I said---why not just chuck the Torah and stick with Paul?

Distorting and mutilating the teachings from someone elses Holy book to advance their own agenda is NOT convincing to anyone except the ignorant. Any Christian who thinks they can read into the Quran whatever they please and thus convince a Muslim that concepts such as suicide/homicide are Quran-sanctioned, or the crucifixion, original sin, trinity, or other such----is mistaken.

That Paul or his church managed to convince some "Gentiles" that theose teachings which actually go against the Torah and break the Shema are somehow Torah sanctioned---may only indicate that the recipients of his message were intellectually challenged,.....for Trinitarians today to continue to hold such teachings as Torah sanctioned, possibly indicates not much has changed since:D
Reply

siam
03-21-2011, 02:02 AM
Peace to you SC,

"I don't think you're getting the bigger picture. "---Perhaps that is because there is no realisitc, logical, reasonable "Bigger picture" to get......the "bigger picture" painted by trinitarian christians is too fantastical, unresonable, unrealistic....etc....to consider.

You mentioned Orthodox Christian---is this a different Christian?---are you trinitarian? I know that some Early Christians did not believe in original sin, their Torah was translated directly from the Hebrew to the Aramaic and the Jewish Torah does not have original sin (the Pe shi tta).....Their theory was that the "fall" was about mortality and the purpose of the crucifixion was to restore "immortality" to humans or something like that......not sure....... I think they were monophysite (They felt Jesus Christ(pbuh) had two distinct natures, one human and one divine as opposed to Trinitarians) Pope Honorius I tried to unite the Eastern and Roman Chrurch in the 7th century by advocating that Jesus Christ pbuh) had 2 natures but one will (monothelitism) but was condemened by the rest of his Church and the attempt failed.----at any rate, Church history is full of such endless arguments about "the nature of Christ" that often turn viscously bloody......meanwhile the actual wisdom teachings of Jesus Christ(pbuh) are never practiced.......
Reply

YieldedOne
03-21-2011, 09:51 PM
MustafaMC:
YieldedOne, you are right I did not mean any disrespect to you or to your religion. I recognize you and other Christians on this forum as being sincere in your faith and I personally know there is a lot of good in Christianity. My whole point was to get people to 'think outside the box' of their normal perspective. Likewise I didn't see your comments as being disrespectful towards Prophet Muhammd (saaws) or toward Islam and, even if they were, they could be seen as being justified as honest replies to my questions.

Cool. Good to hear. :statisfie

****************************************
MustafaMC:
It is easy to perceive Quranic verses or hadith from our personal perspectives or through the lenses of our own faith as opposed to the context in which they are said. I have read two lengthy biographies on Prophet Muhammad (saasws), "The Sealed Nectar" and "A Biography of the Prophet of Islam in Light of the Original Sources an Analytical Study". After reading these books, my love for Rasool'Allah (saaws) grew immensely to know of his noble character and the many hardships, persecutions and threats on his life that he endured only to establish the worship of One God. Perhaps you do not know how vigorously Islam was opposed with the threat of annihilation by the pagan idolators and how tenuous their position was in the early years. This was clearly not an example where 'turn the other cheek' was applicable.

1) I am quite aware of Muhammad's early struggles with threats and persecution. As you've probably noticed, I have not said that God wasn't involved with Muhammad's struggle for monotheism against paganism and idolatry and the persecution that he suffering...and I've done that for a reason. I DO believe that God was involved (though imperfectly). I actually DO believe that God has a plan for what Muhammad did.

2) We could talk about pre-Constintinian persecution of Christians (which was substantial!) Or just the persecution that Paul, Peter, and the like suffered as apostles from both certain Jews AND Gentiles. Yet they did so WHILE they "turned the other cheek." Constantine messed all that up...but the EARLIEST church with the Apostles actually were peaceful in preaching and practice.


******************************************
MustafaMC:
I had read a majority of the NT when I was a Christian and then again after I decided to practice Islam in 2001. It was this later reading that certain things came to my conscious attention in light of my Islamic faith. Of particular note, the first 2 chapters of Galatians shed new light on the struggle to define Christianity in the 1st century. A few years ago I watched a TV show from the ministry of Les Feldick and I was shocked to hear him say that neither Jesus nor his disciples were the primary proponents for what became the Christian faith, but rather Paul was the one 'who got it right'. Quoting below in green from his websites: http://www.lesfeldick.org/news13.html and http://www.lesfeldick.org/news14.html an article by William R. Newell, "Paul's Gospel"....

Such a proclamation is absolutely foolish. I will say that again: foolish. I did some background looking on Les Feldick and what I've seen so far about his credentials and perspective aren't promising at all. He's had absolutely NO bible training whatsoever...and he understands little to NOTHING about hermeneutical issues. He still uses JUST the King James Version, for goodness sakes! Ugh! +o( I would really take his view with a grain of salt...or not.

In short, Les Feldick does NOT respective decent biblical scholarship (liberal or conservative) on these matters.

Not every "bible teacher" is equal in stature or ability. I'm sure you know that.

******************************************

MustafaMC:
In my reading of the Quran, I see multiple cases where Prophet Muhammad (saaws) was defended as not being a madman, a soothsayer, wizard or taught by others. From this I understand that there were vicious and unjustified attacks on his noble character that were brought only because he claimed to be a messenger from God and opposed their idolatry.

Um...Paul was viciously attacked as well...but...


******************************************

MustafaMC:
I choose not to speculate on which of the alternatives that you listed is likely true. However, I do know that the doctrines of Paul and those of Muhammad (saaws) are diametrically opposed because quite obviously Jesus (as) cannot be both the "Son of God" and "not the Son of God". The choice I have made is to accept Prophet Muhammad (saaws) as Messenger, Prophet and Servant of the One God and to accept what he taught regarding God that He has no father, mother, son, daughter or equal. My point is to raise the question for you to answer as to whether or not you see Paul as the Prophet of God who taught that Jesus (as) was the Son of God and literally God in human flesh Who came to live a perfect life on earth and to die on the cross as the only possible atoning sacrifice for your sins.

1) You have obviously decided (by some measure) that Paul is lying about his experience with Jesus, either by self-deceit or otherwise. You don't have to "speculate", you're alternative demonstrates your choice.

2) Given our discussion, I see Paul as an Apostle sent by Jesus to CONFIRM Jesus' teachings to the Disciples as well as his personal revelation from Jesus himself and RELAY the teachings to the Gentiles. That's what makes the most sense for me to believe. I don't believe he just lied for absolutely no reason. I don't believe that he was completely unhinged and had a psychotic break instead of an actual vision given how his message WENT ALONG WITH the other Disciples who were still alive at the time. I don't believe that Paul was a demonically-influenced liar about his experience for the same reason.


********************************************

MustafaMC:
I am interested in hearing your perspective on Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus) as Messenger of God. For me as a Muslim the claim to be a Messenger of God is a most spectacular claim. I remind you of the ridicule that Muhammad (saaws) endured for making such a claim that Christians seem to take so lightly and uncritically regarding Paul.

My perspective is that the Christian claim that Paul is an Apostle of God in Christ is tenable and reasonable to believe. And ridicule and persecution that Paul endured during his tenure as apostle is something that is NOT taken "lightly" or "uncritically" by me.:D
Reply

YieldedOne
03-21-2011, 09:54 PM
And I'll be back for you, Siam. Heh.

Peace, brothers and sisters. :)
Reply

MustafaMc
03-22-2011, 02:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
2) We could talk about pre-Constintinian persecution of Christians (which was substantial!) Or just the persecution that Paul, Peter, and the like suffered as apostles from both certain Jews AND Gentiles. Yet they did so WHILE they "turned the other cheek." Constantine messed all that up...but the EARLIEST church with the Apostles actually were peaceful in preaching and practice.
There is a big difference though in that Christianity is just a religion and it is completely divorced from economical, judicial and governmental affairs. In the early years Islam was much like Christianity in this respect until the migration to Medina. At his point the revelation became more stately and comprehensive resulting in Islam becoming a complete way of life that rules all of those affairs.
Such a proclamation is absolutely foolish. I will say that again: foolish. I did some background looking on Les Feldick and what I've seen so far about his credentials and perspective aren't promising at all. He's had absolutely NO bible training whatsoever...and he understands little to NOTHING about hermeneutical issues. He still uses JUST the King James Version, for goodness sakes! Ugh! +o( I would really take his view with a grain of salt...or not.

In short, Les Feldick does NOT respective decent biblical scholarship (liberal or conservative) on these matters.

Not every "bible teacher" is equal in stature or ability. I'm sure you know that.
It is eery how similar what I underlined above is to Galatians 1:8-9 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!" Are you sure you are not Paul reincarnated? ;-)

I found it absolutely amazing that Les came to the same conclusion that I did about Paul from my reading of Galatians prior to that. However, if you notice, Les Feldick did not write the article, but rather William Newell. Perhaps you are right about him not being a bona fide Bible scholar as I certainly am not one either, but I do have a mind and I can draw logical conclusions from what I read. What source discredited Les Feldick? Does it also discredit William Newell who died in 1956?

Les, William and I aren't the only ones to pick on Paul. Quoting from from http://www.voiceofjesus.org/pb2chapter12.htmlI define now the substance of Paul’s great failure to adequately comprehend the Gospel. You note how he started by saying that he had delivered to the Corinthians as of first importance what he also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. His gospel therefore began with the death of Jesus, and did not draw substantively on anything prior to that. It did not draw on the life of Jesus, or on the gospel that Jesus preached. It did not openly draw on the utterances of Jesus. It was “in accordance with the scriptures” but it was not in accordance with the words of the Lord.
Um...Paul was viciously attacked as well...but...
My point ties in with the last statement I made that to claim a direct revelation from God is a phenomenal claim. Who was the last person you knew who claimed to gotten messages from God? Have you ever heard of "Son of Sam"? Paul claims to have received a revelation from God yet it does not seem to me that Christians acknowledge the significance of that claim to what they believe. You can place your faith in the revelation that Paul brought to the gentiles as being the Gospel of Jesus and I will place mine in that brought by Muhammad (saaws) to all of mankind as being the Word of Allah (swt). (Deen ukum wa liya deen)
1) You have obviously decided (by some measure) that Paul is lying about his experience with Jesus, either by self-deceit or otherwise. You don't have to "speculate", you're alternative demonstrates your choice.

2) Given our discussion, I see Paul as an Apostle sent by Jesus to CONFIRM Jesus' teachings to the Disciples as well as his personal revelation from Jesus himself and RELAY the teachings to the Gentiles. That's what makes the most sense for me to believe. I don't believe he just lied for absolutely no reason. I don't believe that he was completely unhinged and had a psychotic break instead of an actual vision given how his message WENT ALONG WITH the other Disciples who were still alive at the time. I don't believe that Paul was a demonically-influenced liar about his experience for the same reason.
I of course do not believe that Paul was a messenger of God. I do not know what motivated Paul, but he probably had a paradigm shift where he saw that the movement he was persecuting to the point of death was actually right and he was wrong. I seriously doubt that he had a real vision and that he most certainly didn't have a direct revelation from God. I believe that he formulated his new beliefs during his 3 year visit to Arabia.
My perspective is that the Christian claim that Paul is an Apostle of God in Christ is tenable and reasonable to believe. And ridicule and persecution that Paul endured during his tenure as apostle is something that is NOT taken "lightly" or "uncritically" by me.:D
My point is not about the persecution he supposedly endured, but rather his claim of revelation from God. Again, who was the last person you know who God talked to directly?
Reply

siam
03-22-2011, 02:54 AM
@MMc
"I do not know what motivated Paul, but he probably had a paradigm shift where he saw that the movement he was persecuting to the point of death was actually right and he was wrong."----interesting....

YO is positing that the language of Jesus Christ(pbuh) was misunderstood---could the same be said about Paul? I don't know much about Paul, but it is fascinating that his teachings would be so completely opposite the Jewish Torah. I wonder, if in his enthusiasm to "preach to the Gentiles"---he used hellenist/Roman cultural concepts/language and ended up with the mess that is the NT?

I find it amusing that some Christians use the term "Judeo-Christian" without the least idea of how very differrent Christianity actually is from Judaism (Not in reference to you YO). Perhaps this lack of knowledge about Judaism was what made it so easy for the "gentiles" to accept whatever was claimed as Jewish.......but why are they so particular about sticking Judaism to Christianity?.......cannot Christianity stand on its own?
Reply

siam
03-22-2011, 03:03 AM
@MMc
"I do not know what motivated Paul, but he probably had a paradigm shift where he saw that the movement he was persecuting to the point of death was actually right and he was wrong."----interesting....

YO is positing that the language of Jesus Christ(pbuh) was misunderstood---could the same be said about Paul? I don't know much about Paul, but it is fascinating that his teachings would be so completely opposite the Jewish Torah. I wonder, if in his enthusiasm to "preach to the Gentiles"---he used hellenist/Roman cultural concepts/language and ended up with the mess that led to the NT?

I find it amusing that some Christians use the term "Judeo-Christian" without the least idea of how very differrent Christianity actually is from Judaism (Not in reference to you YO). Perhaps this lack of knowledge about Judaism was what made it so easy for the "gentiles" to accept whatever was claimed as Jewish.......but why are they so particular about sticking Judaism to Christianity?.......cannot Christianity stand on its own?
Reply

MustafaMc
03-22-2011, 03:23 AM
It is also possible that after his epiphany Paul went from one extreme in being Jewish (as he also claimed in Galatians) to the other extreme of negating the Judaic Law and embracing 'faith in Jesus' for one's salvation.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-22-2011, 03:46 AM
Got much more to say. But I'll say this really quick before bed...

MustafaMC:
I seriously doubt that he had a real vision and that he most certainly didn't have a direct revelation from God. I believe that he formulated his new beliefs during his 3 year visit to Arabia.

That simply CANNOT be the case from everything we have on Paul historically. He gets blinded by the vision on the road to Damascus. Gets to Damascus, and stays there for DAYS. Then he's healed by Ananias...and then some DAYS after staying with the Disciples...he IMMEDIATELY goes to the synagogues IN DAMASCUS talking about Jesus being the Messiah and Son of God. That's why I had originally thought that the Disciples had basically taught him the stuff during those DAYS he spent with them.

There's no 3 years in Arabia involved in the main conversion.

Just to clarify.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-22-2011, 02:20 PM
Siam:
YO is positing that the language of Jesus Christ(pbuh) was misunderstood---could the same be said about Paul? I don't know much about Paul, but it is fascinating that his teachings would be so completely opposite the Jewish Torah. I wonder, if in his enthusiasm to "preach to the Gentiles"---he used hellenist/Roman cultural concepts/language and ended up with the mess that led to the NT?

I WAS positing that the language of Jesus Christ was misunderstood...by HIS Disciples. It was a viable possibility given the misunderstanding of mystical language in general (see Al-Hallaj). I also thought that as a result of this misunderstanding, that the misunderstood "Son of God" language had been PASSED ON to the Disciples in Damascus (including Ananias) who then TAUGHT this misunderstanding to Paul. But I see now that that's not really possible. First of all, Paul got a SEPARATE revelation from anyone teaching him this, by his own words. Secondly, (and here's the kicker)...neither Peter nor James (who knew Jesus personally before his death) nor any of the already existing disciples fundamentally disagreed with what he was saying. That's absolutely significant. It's like a form of independent corroboration between Paul's experience of the ASCENDANT Jesus and Peter, James, etc experience of the EARTHLY Jesus.

Galatians 1:11-24
For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me.

If Paul were to go to PETER and JESUS' BROTHER, JAMES, of all people be like "The Risen Jesus has told me that he is the Son of God and I'm teaching that." And Peter were to have NEVER HEARD THAT from Jesus at all or if it was in NO WAY CONSONANT with what THEY preached...don't you think that either of those primary witnesses of Jesus' words would some kind of stink would have been raised over that? In other words, if Paul was completely off base about Jesus proclaiming to be Son of God AS WELL AS God's Messiah...don't you think that Peter and James would have IMMEDIATELY put him in check on that? Especially if it fundamentally negated the Good News that Jesus spoke of?

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally think about it.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-22-2011, 02:26 PM
I still believe that Jesus was a Jewish mystic who's language and life were informed by Jesus' deep intimacy with his God. What I no longer believe is tenable is that Paul received a misunderstanding (begun by the Original Disciples misinterpreting Jesus' mystical self-expressions) as he was taught by other disciples in Damascus. Given reasons to believe Paul's testimony of his revelation and his encounter with primary witnesses of Jesus, that kinda goes out the window.

And I owe it allllllllllllllllllll to you, MustafaMC. Sweet. :statisfie
Reply

YieldedOne
03-22-2011, 02:46 PM
Siam:
I find it amusing that some Christians use the term "Judeo-Christian" without the least idea of how very differrent Christianity actually is from Judaism (Not in reference to you YO). Perhaps this lack of knowledge about Judaism was what made it so easy for the "gentiles" to accept whatever was claimed as Jewish.......but why are they so particular about sticking Judaism to Christianity?.......cannot Christianity stand on its own?

It's not very different at all, Siam. The whole idea of "Messiah" is JEWISH in origin. "Salvation is of the Jews", Jesus said, speaking about the God of Abraham, Moses, David, and the whole messianic concept. And ANY authentic card-carrying Christian affirms that Jesus IS God's Messiah. That's what Jews and Christians disagree on.
Not to mention that it was through the Old Testament Scriptures that Paul (and Peter) attempted to argue that Jesus was INDEED the long-awaited Messiah. To separate the ground of Judaism from the Disciples' and Aposle's teaching would be absolutely UNTHINKABLE. From Acts 17...

Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”


Then Acts 8...

Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place. And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this:

“Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter
and like a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he opens not his mouth.
In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken away from the earth.”


And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

To attempt to separate Judaism from Christianity absolutely is not even coherent. So, no, Siam. Christianity CANNOT stand on it's own.

That's why I called myself "Judeo-Christian" and I really appreciated the offering of that designation. I feel it's more appropriate.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-22-2011, 03:56 PM
Side thought: This is why I don't like Neo-Marcionite Christianity that seeks to divorce the Old Testament revelations from Christ. There's simply no way to fully understanding the Christian message in it's fullness without understanding and respecting Jesus of Nazereth being an informal "rabbi" in Second Temple Judaism largely aligned with the Pharisees theologically...and his devotion to the Scriptures of his day, the Law and the Prophets,etc.

Unfortunately, a LOT of Western Christianity is functionally Neo-Marcionite.

Marcion believed Jesus Christ was the savior sent by God and Paul of Tarsus was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel (YHWH Elohim). Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.

...

Marcion declared that Christianity was distinct from and in opposition to Judaism. He rejected the entire Hebrew Bible, and declared that the God of the Hebrew Bible was a lesser demiurge, who had created the earth, but was (de facto) the source of evil.
The premise of Marcionism is that many of the teachings of Christ are incompatible with the actions of the God of the Old Testament. Focusing on the Pauline traditions of the Gospel, Marcion felt that all other conceptions of the Gospel, and especially any association with the Old Testament religion, was opposed to, and a backsliding from, the truth. He further regarded the arguments of Paul regarding law and gospel, wrath and grace, works and faith, flesh and spirit, sin and righteousness, death and life, as the essence of religious truth. He ascribed these aspects and characteristics as two principles, the righteous and wrathful God of the Old Testament, who is at the same time identical with the creator of the world, and a second God of the Gospel, quite unknown before Christ, who is only love and mercy.

Unfortunately there are far too many Christians who basically believe that Jesus saves us from the God represented in the Old Testament, effectively setting Christianity OVER AND AGAINST Judaism...which simply isn't true.
Reply

siam
03-22-2011, 04:20 PM
"The term "mashiach" literally means "the anointed one," and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The mashiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days. The word "mashiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Unfortunately, this Christian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the English word "messiah" that this English word can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept." ---Judaism 101

The Persian King Cyrus was also given the title Maschiach (He rebuilt the temple). The term Mashiac/Messiah itself isn't not significant in Judaism---what may have been significant to Paul might have been the "end of days"/Apocalyptic part of it rather than the title itself....? But even then Jesus Christ(pbuh) does not fit....

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9). ---ask Rabbi Simmons, about.com

Perhaps the Jewish Paul/Saul was a "cultural Jew" and didn't really know his own religion....!!!? Maybe that explains how he could have so badly misunderstood/misinterpreted Judaism...........

So....now that Christians know...why do they still cling to the Torah?---after all the "end of days" never did come and Paul's "Prophecy"/vision was completely inaccurate.....


"To attempt to separate Judaism from Christianity absolutely is not even coherent. So, no, Siam. Christianity CANNOT stand on it's own. "-----I disagree.
Christianity is completely incoherent even attached to the missappropriated Torah----I think it can only improve without it:D

But Christianity can vastly improve if it chucks Paul as well----as Gandhi said ---"I like your Christ, I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ"---a sentiment that Thomas Jefferson would also agree with...

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, of so much absurdity, so much untruth and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross, restore to him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some and the roguery of others of his disciples"
---Thomas Jefferson
Reply

siam
03-22-2011, 04:23 PM
YO---Just curious---Why was Paul so zealous about making Jesus Christ(pbuh) the Jewish apocalyptic Messiah?
Reply

siam
03-22-2011, 04:30 PM
I like this Marcion....at least he was honest about his religion.....
Reply

siam
03-22-2011, 04:32 PM
"Jesus saves us from the God represented in the Old Testament,"----interesting idea!
Reply

YieldedOne
03-22-2011, 04:36 PM
Siam:
"The term "mashiach" literally means "the anointed one," and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The mashiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days. The word "mashiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Unfortunately, this Christian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the English word "messiah" that this English word can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept." ---Judaism 101

The Persian King Cyrus was also given the title Maschiach (He rebuilt the temple). The term Mashiac/Messiah itself isn't not significant in Judaism---what may have been significant to Paul might have been the "end of days"/Apocalyptic part of it rather than the title itself....? But even then Jesus Christ(pbuh) does not fit....
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9). ---ask Rabbi Simmons, about.com

1) This affirms what I said about the whole messianic idea being grounded in Judaism.
2) Christians affirm that Jesus is the "anointed one" who would be God's Chosen King over all the nations in peace under the banner of God (ala Daniel 7) where the People of God will be his temple as God reigns in their hearts.

So...I don't see anything that negates my point of Judaism and Christianity being inseparably related.


************************************************** *
Siam:
Perhaps the Jewish Paul/Saul was a "cultural Jew" and didn't really know his own religion....!!!? Maybe that explains how he could have so badly misunderstood/misinterpreted Judaism

This is interesting. A while back, you admitted that you didn't have much knowledge on either Judaism OR Christianity. I'm willing to bet you don't know the distinctions between the Pharisess and Sadducees in Second Temple Judaism and how that played out with Jesus and his declarations (especially about his anticipation of the Temple's destruction in 70AD). AND how, Paul (being a Pharisee) would have picked up on that.

So how can you claim that Paul (who by all historical standards was ACCEPTED by all the Jewish religious establishment including the SANHEDRIN prior to his conversion) didn't know his own religion? On what basis can you say that, seriously? I'm curious.

************************************************** *
Siam:
But Christianity can vastly improve if it chucks Paul as well----as Gandhi said ---"I like your Christ, I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ"---a sentiment that Thomas Jefferson would also agree with...

I've said it before: Charge that to supposed inherents who are INCONSISTENT with their purported faith, NOT with the Messenger and Message.

"The message of Jesus as I understand it is contained in the Sermon on the Mount unadulterated and taken as a whole... If then I had to face only the Sermon on the Mount and my own interpretation of it, I should not hesitate to say, 'Oh, yes, I am a Christian.' But negatively I can tell you that in my humble opinion, what passes as Christianity is a negation of the Sermon on the Mount... I am speaking of the Christian belief, of Christianity as it is understood in the west."
Mohandas Ghandi

Interesting...
Reply

YieldedOne
03-22-2011, 04:42 PM
Siam:
Why was Paul so zealous about making Jesus Christ(pbuh) the Jewish apocalyptic Messiah?

I believe it was the "paradigm shift" that MustafaMC talked about. It's like when you have all the same information...and then an experience happens where you look at the exactly SAME information from a DIFFERENT vantagepoint, getting new insight on something that was always there.

Paul's "Damascus Road" experience lead him to QUESTION his previous assumptions and presuppositions about what he had previously believed. And when he went BACK to the Scriptures...lo and behold...he saw how Jesus being the Messiah DID make a lot of sense. He probably read Isaiah 53 and saw that it talked about Jesus...

Please remember this is from ISAIAH. Not from any Christian interpolation. You can read the Hebrew text if you like...

53:Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes [an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.

and then there's Daniel 7...

“I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-22-2011, 04:44 PM
Basically, all Paul, Philip and others had to do was say this:

"We believe that the "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah 53 and the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7 both refer to Jesus of Nazareth, as demonstrated by Jesus' life and ministry...as well as God raising Jesus from death unto Himself. We believe that Jesus fits this bill perfectly...and because of this, IS the promised Messiah of God!"

Please remember Acts...

Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”

...

And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this:

“Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter
and like a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he opens not his mouth.
In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken away from the earth.” (YO's Note: This is IN Isaiah 53!)

And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-22-2011, 04:56 PM
Again, divorcing Christianity from Judaism is absolutely proposterous just from regular HISTORICAL perspective of HOW the earliest church taught! ;)
Reply

YieldedOne
03-22-2011, 05:09 PM
Actually, that could be a challenge for any people who'd want to try it.

-- Read Isaiah 53.

-- Read Daniel 7, particularly the Son of Man passages.

--Go to the various Gospels where Jesus himself repeatedly tells his clueless disciples that he must suffer and "die"...and where he calls himself the "Son of Man" who will be coming on "clouds of glory". Also note all of the rejection and betrayal that Jesus suffered at the hands of his fellow people and the Romans.


Now a rational, reasonable person can ask:

1) It is reasonable to think that Jesus KNEW about Isaiah 53 and Daniel 7 and accepted those ideas as part of his own self-understanding?

2) Is it reasonable for those Jews after Jesus (Peter, Paul, Philip, etc) to look at Isaiah 53 and Daniel 7...comparing that with the life and ministry of Jesus...and to see GREAT similarity, thus CONVINCING THEM that Jesus was indeed God's Messiah?

What best explains the evidence that we have?
Reply

siam
03-23-2011, 02:22 AM
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9). ---ask Rabbi Simmons, about.com
---The Jews claim NONE of these events happened---and history backs up their claim---as for (D), the "God of Isreal" is NOT a trinity.

---Not to mention, (IMO)this is not a major aspect of Judaism---If some Saduccees and Pharasees were quibling over the issue 2,000 years ago---its neither here nor there....
That Paul took some minor aspect of Judaism to make some claims about Jesus Christ(pbuh) that have not stood the test of time should give Christians some pause....(IMO)---however, as you pointed out---my opinion is irrelevant as I am neither Jew nor Christian

I know Christians use many aspects of the OT to "prove" their claims---However, if one takes things out of context, mistranslates, misinterprets.....reads something into the text that was never intended....etc....etc ... One could perhaps "prove" trinity, son of God....etc from Shakespear or Moby Dick...or some such...!?

Jewish refutation of Isiah 53....Basically saying one has to READ THINGS IN CONTEXT.....

But, who is the "he" referred to in the verses? Let's trace it back a few lines to the previous chapter (52), where the discussion of what "he" will do begins. At 52:13 it appears to begin with "Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high."
OK, so now we know that "he" is G-d's "servant." But who is G-d's "servant"? Let's trace our steps a little further. In Isaiah 41:8 the question is answered: "But Israel is my servant." The next line, Isaiah 41:9, adds some more: "You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you away." Just so we shouldn't miss the point, Isaiah quotes G-d saying: "Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and you, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen." (Is 44:2); "Remember these, O Jacob and Israel, for you are my servant. I have formed you; you are my servant; O Israel, you shall not be forgotten by Me." (Is 44:21);" "For the sake of My servant Jacob, Israel My chosen one." (Is. 45:4); and "You are My servant, Israel in whom I glory." (Is 49:3). Get it? Israel -- not a person -- is the servant whose suffering is predicted in Isaiah 53. Certainly we Jews have suffered through our years on this earth. G-d also promises that we will do well: See Isaiah 52:12-15 ("For you shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight; for the Lord will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your rear guard. Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high." Bruce James-, about.com


The passage survives in three versions, from three autonomous and parallel manuscript traditions: the Masoretic text that is the most familiar one, the Septuagint text, and the Qumran community's Great Isaiah Scroll, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dated to the 2nd century BCE[5]
The Christian "Man of Sorrows" passage of Isaiah 53 is a selected text that usually omits those characteristics of the human scapegoat for the sins of Israel that are not applicable directly to Jesus, or that can only be applied through allegory, such as "he is as a root in a thirsty land: he has no form nor comeliness; and we saw him, but he had no form nor beauty. But his form was ignoble, and inferior to that of the children of men." (Septuagint version)---wikipedia


My point is that---almost NO ONE refutes that Jesus Christ(pbuh) was a wise spriritual person whose teachings were of benefit to human beings. ---Therefore, if Christians were to appreciate this treasure and live by it, instead of 2,000 years of TALKING about the "Nature" of Jesus Christ(pbuh)----I think the human race would be better off.

Sutra Nipata----
"As the flower blown out by the wind
goes to rest and cannot be defined
so the wise man, freed from individuality
goes to rest and cannot be defined
goes beyond all images
goes beyond the power of words"

I think Christians should stop trying to define Jesus Christ(pbuh) and work on ways to serve God instead.....
Reply

siam
03-23-2011, 02:47 AM
Not that it makes a difference to me one way or the other---but this is what Jews say about Daniel 7....



Daniel 7:13
In the 7th chapter of the book of Daniel, we learn of a prophetic vision granted to Daniel. He tells us of four great beasts rising out of the sea, one after another. After describing each of the four beasts Daniel sees “one like the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven” (Daniel 7:13). Missionaries consider this verse to be of “critical importance”, because it establishes the exalted nature of the Messiah . . This is incredible. This is one of the few passages in scripture that come along with a commentary. Scripture itself explains this passage and the “son of man” of Daniel 7:13 is not the Messiah – it is the people of Israel! ------jewsforjudaism.org.au

I like paradigm shifts----I think discovery is the best part of living and seeing the world in a new ways is wonderful.---but such shifts must be accompanied by humility and reflection in order to discern truth---paradigm shifts accompanied by pride/ego in ones "rightness" only blinds us to the truth.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-23-2011, 03:05 PM
More fun.

Siam:
If some Saduccees and Pharasees were quibling over the issue 2,000 years ago...

Wow. Talk about a minimizing statement! Whoa. ;)

**************************************

Siam:
Jewish refutation of Isiah 53....Basically saying one has to READ THINGS IN CONTEXT.....

Let's go directly back to your source here...the About page of Mr. Bruce James...

1)It is very obvious that this man has not read the New Testament at all. Seriously. He talks about MISSIONARIES using this text. He doesn't seem to note that this text was SPECIFICALLY used by Jewish apostles in the early church. In other words, modern Christians wouldn't be thinking this way about the texts of the Jewish Christians of the early church hadn't done it. He makes absolutely no mention about this. He acts like modern Christians just cherrypicked this Scripture themselves and that's absolutely not true. Wierd.

2) I almost want to say "DUH!" here. The Messiah is a REPRESENTATIVE of Israel. Just like the HIGH PRIEST was at the time of the Day of Atonment. And that's EXACTLY how the early Jewish Christians took it. Again, modern day Christians didn't make this up. This is what was taught in the synagogues by the earliest Jewish Christians (even the JUDAIZERS taught this!)

From the wikipedia that you quote later...

One of the first claims in the New Testament that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of Jesus comes from the Book of Acts, in which its author (who is also the author of Luke) describes a scene in which God commands Philip the Apostle to approach an Ethiopian eunuch who is sitting in a chariot, reading aloud to himself from the Book of Isaiah. The eunuch comments that he does not understand what he is reading (Isaiah 53) and Philip explains to him that the passage refers to Jesus. "And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? Of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus." This has been the standard Christian interpretation of the passage since Apostolic times. Isaiah 53:4 is also quoted in Matthew 8:17, where it is used in context of Jesus' healing ministry.

So, I don't know what Mr. James is on...but he needs a little more information if he's gonna try to just go after Christians like he does.
Something for thought, Siam. It's not good to use anachronistic refutations that don't take good consideration of the true source of the claim. It looks...well...

****************************************

Siam:
The passage survives in three versions, from three autonomous and parallel manuscript traditions: the Masoretic text that is the most familiar one, the Septuagint text, and the Qumran community's Great Isaiah Scroll, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dated to the 2nd century BCE[5]

The Christian "Man of Sorrows" passage of Isaiah 53 is a selected text that usually omits those characteristics of the human scapegoat for the sins of Israel that are not applicable directly to Jesus, or that can only be applied through allegory, such as "he is as a root in a thirsty land: he has no form nor comeliness; and we saw him, but he had no form nor beauty. But his form was ignoble, and inferior to that of the children of men." (Septuagint version)---wikipedia

Just read the Masoretic text, then. There's plenty of online helps for that.


*********************************************

Siam:
My point is that---almost NO ONE refutes that Jesus Christ(pbuh) was a wise spriritual person whose teachings were of benefit to human beings. ---Therefore, if Christians were to appreciate this treasure and live by it, instead of 2,000 years of TALKING about the "Nature" of Jesus Christ(pbuh)----I think the human race would be better off.

As I've already said...if everyone who believed Jesus was TRULY a Prophet and Messenger of God would obey his reification of Loving God with all one's heart soul, mind, and strength...and loving the neighbor as oneself...we WOULD all be better off. Including Muslims AND Christians.

Actually, I believe that even SECULAR HUMANISTS wouldn't disagree with the "love your neighbor as yourself" thing. At all.


********************************************

Siam:
Daniel 7:13
In the 7th chapter of the book of Daniel, we learn of a prophetic vision granted to Daniel. He tells us of four great beasts rising out of the sea, one after another. After describing each of the four beasts Daniel sees “one like the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven” (Daniel 7:13). Missionaries consider this verse to be of “critical importance”, because it establishes the exalted nature of the Messiah . . This is incredible. This is one of the few passages in scripture that come along with a commentary. Scripture itself explains this passage and the “son of man” of Daniel 7:13 is not the Messiah – it is the people of Israel!

Here we go again. I'd like you to note, Siam, the REACTIONARY tone of these Jewish sites that you are citing. It's quite obvious that they have a "bone" to pick with the Christian interpreation of things. They say "missionaries" again. This source seems ENTIRELY CLUELESS that 1) this was from the perspective of the earliest JEWISH Christians and 2) that the Messiah is a representative for Israel...and that's how the earliest Jewish Christians SAW it.

What is with this antagonism against "missionaries"? Sheesh. It is obviously slanting the views! ^o)
Reply

siam
03-24-2011, 02:37 AM
I agree that some of this may be vehement....but from what I understood, some Jews are getting a bit tired of Christians tagging the "Judeo" in front of Christianity as if Judaism approves of Christian doctrine.....a Jewish person complained "leave us "Judeos" out of it"......

So....there seems to be a reaction to the constant appropriating of the Torah to validate doctrines that the Jews/Torah DO NOT APPROVE......I favor this trend. I am also wary of Christians misusing the Quran to validate the trinity doctrine.

If you feel that it is necessary for your faith to keep the NT attached to the Torah/OT---then doing so with the understandng that Judasim DOES NOT approve of many of the Christian/Trinitarian doctrines may be more honest....?......

Both the previous and subsequent revelations say trinitarianism is incorrect---despite this, if you feel trinitarianism is the correct path for you----then honor it by honesty....The Quran says truth stands out from error----if you feel that trinity is the truth then it should not need any other authority to stand up for it.....if, however, Christians feel that trinity cannot stand up on its own----perhaps it is time to concentrate on other aspects of Christianity---and I feel the wisdom teachings of Jesus Christ (pbuh) might be a good place to start---seeing as it is the one thing that DOES stand on it own.......(and, as you mentioned, it is also universal)

In any case, God is most compassionate and most merciful and Guides all those who seek him......Perhaps I may not understand your spiritual path/journey and you may not understand mine---but as human beings we can all understand the common language of DOING good, making this world a better place. For both Judaism and Islam---orthopraxis is an important/essential part of our religions. Perhaps if Christians also built on this foundation....? of what use is orthodoxy (right belief) if it does not ultimately lead to orthopraxis (right actions/practice)

Ibn Arabi writes "Every (state of) being in accord (with God) that doesn't bring with it the corresponding appropriate behaviour and attitude can't be relied upon"
Reply

YieldedOne
03-24-2011, 04:11 AM
Siam:
I agree that some of this may be vehement....but from what I understood, some Jews are getting a bit tired of Christians tagging the "Judeo" in front of Christianity as if Judaism approves of Christian doctrine.....a Jewish person complained "leave us "Judeos" out of it"......

I'd say "No offense intended, but please get over yourselves." to that type of mentality. As I've clearly shown here...and as any historical scholar worth their salt will tell you, Christianity wouldn't even EXIST without Judaism and it CANNOT stand by itself. Christians like ME who want to be absolutely honest about that shouldn't have to be insulted just because we want to be historically valid in our claims.

Sheesh. :hmm:

*********************************************

Siam:
If you feel that it is necessary for your faith to keep the NT attached to the Torah/OT---then doing so with the understandng that Judasim DOES NOT approve of many of the Christian/Trinitarian doctrines may be more honest....?......

It would be more honest for Jews and Christians to look TOGETHER as the earliest Jewish Christians, what they believed, and why. Rather than trying to make some kind of ersatz absolute separation when there is none there.


**********************************************

Siam:
Both the previous and subsequent revelations say trinitarianism is incorrect---despite this, if you feel trinitarianism is the correct path for you----then honor it by honesty....The Quran says truth stands out from error----if you feel that trinity is the truth then it should not need any other authority to stand up for it.....if, however, Christians feel that trinity cannot stand up on its own----perhaps it is time to concentrate on other aspects of Christianity---and I feel the wisdom teachings of Jesus Christ (pbuh) might be a good place to start---seeing as it is the one thing that DOES stand on it own.......(and, as you mentioned, it is also universal)

If it came between teaching about the Trinity and teaching about the Great Commandments that Jesus himself taught...you KNOW which one I'd choose, right, Siam? :)

**********************************************

Siam:
In any case, God is most compassionate and most merciful and Guides all those who seek him......Perhaps I may not understand your spiritual path/journey and you may not understand mine---but as human beings we can all understand the common language of DOING good, making this world a better place. For both Judaism and Islam---orthopraxis is an important/essential part of our religions. Perhaps if Christians also built on this foundation....? of what use is orthodoxy (right belief) if it does not ultimately lead to orthopraxis (right actions/practice)

Amen, bro. I bother a lot of Christians saying this but I say it anyway...

It doesn't MATTER whether you or unitarian or trinatarian if you are NOT loving God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength...and loving your neighbor as yourself. It doesn't MATTER if you are right doctrinally on the Unity and/or Diversity in God. If you ain't following Jesus' teachings about the Great Commandments, you are DENYING God and the Faith. Period.
Reply

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
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!