Atonement

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

There are at least two “paraphrased” versions of the Bible—Good News for Modern Man as well as The Message.

While these versions are paraphrased in a way that fits more loosely around the intended meaning, even the best attempt at a literal translation would be paraphrasing, as that is the nature of language.

Was this verse “basically” confirming the notion of a pre-human existence or was it “basically” saying, “I was in the knowledge and Will of God”?

The latter is the interpretation taken by Dr. Ataie while the former is taken by Dr. Philips and Dr. Brown. Both demonstrate that this is a very weak text to quote as evidence for Jesus's divinity, given the fact that it is quite open to interpretation.

The verse means exactly what it says.

And it certainly does not say, "I am God".

Second, Dr. Philips uses this word “predates” relative to Jesus existence. This is the wrong word to use concerning the existence of Jesus because to “predate” Jesus birth on earth is to imply that he was born or came into existence at an earlier time. Jesus never came into existence. He has always been in existence.

That is your personal belief, there is no biblical evidence you can bring that would support that.

In Greek, this phrase is found in the present active indicative form.

Why are you pasting something that was in a post already responded to? Repeating the same points over and over does not make a difference; we call it argumentum ad nauseum. As I pointed out, the exact same grammatical tenses have been used by those humans and prophets I pointed out earlier.

Concerning Jeremiah 1:4-5: “The word of the LORD came to me: I chose you before I formed you in the womb; I set you apart before you were born. I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” This is very clear that Jeremiah existed in the knowledge and will of God.

I don't have a problem with your interpretation but you've simply interpreted one verse one way and another verse another without giving me any biblical evidence. If you had explicit biblical evidence that Jesus was God, then maybe your explanation of the "I AM" statement would be plausible. The fact that out of all of Jesus's teaching recorded in the Bible the only evidence of his divinity is a few ambiguous texts makes the problem worse, especially when we consider that according to Christian theology, Jesus's SOLE purpose in coming to earth was to die, as God, for the sins of humanity. Logically, he should have been very clear on this point.

However, concerning the context of proverbs 8, I stand corrected. Nevertheless, my point remains the same. At best Jesus's "I am" statement can be taken to impy his pre-human existence, but it certainly cannot be taken as evidence of divinity. Ever a cursory search on this subject on the internet reveals the great amount of debate over it, for example this Jewish website:
http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/web/faq/faq128.html

Would Jesus really have disguised his divinity in such an obscure fashion that could not easily be recognized? Wasn't everyone supposed to know that he was coming to die for our sins?

Job 38 and 39 record God’s expression of His omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence in contrast to man’s understanding and knowledge of God. He is saying that when He existed and created, man was nowhere around. The book of Job deals with people who think they have all the answers to life. God is pointing out just how finite we are relative to His infinity. Within the context of these two chapters in which God was asking a lot of questions to Job, God ironically answers His questions on Job’s behalf and was saying to Job, “You don’t know, for you were not born when I created all these things and the number of your days had not even come into existence.”

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. The verse says quite clearly what it says, and the only way out is to argue sarcasm, which can lead to the 'misinterpretations' you spoke of earlier.

Concerning what makes me so sure, is the whole context of Jesus statement in John 8:58. I explained that in detail. Again, the Jews killed the other prophets because of how they brought to the forefront the evil of those people. The prophets were exposing these Jews and the Jews did not want that. Therefore, they killed the prophets. These prophets did not claim to be God but they came in the authority of God and confronted the Jewish people. Jesus and the prophets were on the same side against the Jews and therefore suffered the same penalties. They found different ways of getting Jesus crucified and the other prophets killed, but their motives were all the same—shut the prophets and Jesus up!

I agree. The Prophets and Jesus recieved the same response from the Jews because they did the same thing.

This was Jesus appeal to His Father as an expression of His love for the very people who crucified Him. The Father is the only one who has the right to forgive. The Son could make an appeal on behalf of the people—a great expression of love.

Yet again, the problem is that here you have God asking himself to forgive the people, when he does not posses that power yet. And why would he ask himself such a thing when he knows that it is ONLY through this that they WILL be forgiven!

You said the father is the only one with the right to forgive - please help me in understanding this. So 1) God couldn't forgive his creation without dying 2) the son was sent to die not the father 3) the father was the one who had the right to forgive all along

Please clarify this issue. Did the father have the right to forgive when Jesus made this prayer or did he not?

We must remember (and this is another thread I would think) that from God’s perspective what is past, present, and future to us, is always present to God.

I would agree wholeheartedly, but the problem is that in saying God became a man, it is you has placed him within the limits of time and space because now there is a past (before he died when he could forgive) and a present/future (when he dies and gains the ability to forgive). What you are saying is that God changes with the passing of time - that at one point of time He has no right to forgive and at another point in time He has died and He does have the right to forgive. So you have already given God a past, present and future.

No they do not get paradise. Christ’s atonement does not pick us up and put us in heaven. It creates a way to heaven that before did not exist. Again, God’s atonement has opened a way that before did not exist. People can still choose to continue down the road of sin or they can choose to go down the road of forgiveness. I think it is also important to understand that true repentance and acceptance of forgiveness is reflected in a change of lifestyle. Many people can say they have taken the road of grace and forgiveness and continue a life of sin. They have not taken the road of grace and forgiveness; they have stayed on the road of sin and rejected the road of grace and forgiveness.

You've mentioned that
1. Christ's atonement made a way for us
2. Human beings can choose to accept or reject that way

Yet you still have not defined what that way is that has been created for us. Firsty you told me that when God died he gained the right to forgive us, now you're telling me that he has only opened up some mystical 'way'.

Rejection of God’s forgiveness happens when people refuse to believe and accept that by nature, they are sinful. When someone does not believe that by nature they are sinful, they see no true need of forgiveness and therefore do not truly seek forgiveness. They see themselves as basically good people. Sure they, do things wrong, but in essence, they are good. With this mindset, someone will not and cannot seek and accept God’s forgiveness. The first step toward acceptance of forgiveness is a recognition and an understanding that as humans, we are evil by nature. When we see this and accept it, we suddenly ask ourselves the question, “What is going to be done about this?” As a Christian, I know that what needs to be done about this took place through Jesus Christ 2000 years ago on the cross. He paid the price for our sin. People can humble accept that forgiveness or they can reject it. Acceptance of forgiveness will only come through the recognition and confession that in and of ourselves we cannot make it to heaven, and we bury our pride and humbly accept the gift of forgiveness that God offers us. Until we recognize, understand, and accept that by nature we are sinful and evil, we will never be able to accept the road of forgiveness and travel down that road. Instead, we are choosing to reject the truth of our sinful nature and so are rejecting forgiveness.

SUMMARY:Acceptance of forgiveness means that one recognizes that they are sinful by nature and acknowledges that God died for their sins.

I was just asking for a concise point like that. Anyway, there are many evil people in the world, who know that they are evil and acknowledge that Christ died for their sins, and that is why they don't feel there is a problem in sinning. So they fulfill your two conditions of acceptance of forgiveness. Therefore, according to you they will be in paradise. Crusaders who murdered innnocent people will be in paradise so long as they believed that they were sinful by nature (which they did, being Christians) and as long as they believed that Christ died for their sins (which they did, being Christians).

Many, many people profess a belief in Christianity. Eternal life from the Biblical perspective has nothing to do with “belief in Christianity.” Belief in Christianity is simply another religion and has nothing to do with a personal relationship with God through Jesus. It is very easy to go to church each week; become baptized; participate in communion; sing hymns; say prayers; confess sins. All of these things can be and are done by people as their attempt by their own efforts to get to heaven. People want every reason to say, “Yes, I am quite a good person. I do all these good things. I will probably go to heaven.” To these people, heaven is about what they can do for God and not what He has already done for them. What they fail to confess is that by nature, they are sinful evil people. This nature manifests itself in practical ways. Forgiveness does not bring about a change of nature. Jesus’ death on the cross does not change who we are by nature. A recognition and acceptance of a sinful, evil human nature is the first step toward accepting forgiveness and experiencing a change of nature—what us Christians call being “born-again.” Belief in Christianity does not constitute being born-again.

I read this entire paragraph, and I see nothing but re-iteration of the same ideas you mentioned before without directly answering my question. I think we can be a lot more productive if we are concise and to the point here.

Crusaders, while crusading in the name of Christianity, were not Christians themselves. What is so sad to me, is that many people say they are Christians, but they do not pattern their lives after the teachings of Jesus—they are not true born-again believers. The crusaders were not people who followed the teaching of Jesus; the teaching of the Bible. Christianity is about love and forgiveness, not about retribution and violence. Yes, like everyone else in the whole world, the sins of the crusaders were paid for. But these people, as reflected in their lifestyles, chose not to go down the road of forgiveness. If they had truly chosen this road from their hearts, they would have realized that in and of themselves, they were just as evil as anyone else. They would have realized that they were no better than anyone else; they would have put their weapons behind them and chosen the road of peace instead of vengeance.

The bold part is the only part I'm interested in. If they were already forgiven, then they cannot logically be punished for their crimes against humanity, and war criminals in the modern age like the crusaders should be exempted from being brought to justice because their sins have been paid for.

Again, the consequence of our sin was an eternal separation from God.

Who's sin, specifically? Adam's?

In message #112 I asked you about your definition of creation. What is your definition of creation?

It depends on the context of the discussion. Please present the full argument and then we can discuss it. I think it will be much more productive if we are open with eachother, rather than attempting to string together a list of leading questions.

Regards

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace Ansar Al-'Adl;

The fact that out of all of Jesus's teaching recorded in the Bible the only evidence of his divinity is a few ambiguous texts makes the problem worse, especially when we consider that according to Christian theology, Jesus's SOLE purpose in coming to earth was to die, as God, for the sins of humanity. Logically, he should have been very clear on this point.

I have to agree with you that more concrete proof would be good, But!!!

It seems that God has sort of given us the minimum amount of proof for his own existence, there seems to be just enough evidence but it stops short of being absolute proof. If we could prove beyond a doubt that God exists then there would more than likely be one faith and there might not be any atheists or agnostics.

We are left searching for God and whatever we might say about our own belief system it does not leave us any unity of beliefs, Islam, Christianity are divided on the interpretation of their own books. We might just about be able to agree on a few points that could be written on a single page.

I wonder if God has given us all the information in the way he has as a test in how we relate to each other despite our differences.

Or has he given us so many choices in belief that it is only for scholars and theologians to work out the clues.

Or should we each strive to convert each other?

In the spirit of searching for answers

Eric

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Greetings Eric, it's always a pleasure to dialogue with you.

Your views on the existence of God and multiple religions deserve a thread on their own, but for the purpose of this thread I would just like to point out that we are speaking of textual evidence. Based on textual evidence it seems quite clear that all the Prophets preached the same belief in One God; there doesn't seem to be enough textual evidence to support this whole notion of trinity and atonement - it just isn't logically coherent.

As for the existence of God, please do read my points in these threads to understand my perspective:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/6568-existence-god.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/7938-problem-evil-temp-split-teog-thread.html

Or should we each strive to convert each other?

If all the Prophets preached the same message, I think it must be a message of sufficient importance that we should call humanity to it.

Peace!

 

[POBook]

Greetings to you Ansar Al-'Adl,

Quote:
Was this verse “basically” confirming the notion of a pre-human existence or was it “basically” saying, “I was in the knowledge and Will of God”?

The latter is the interpretation taken by Dr. Ataie while the former is taken by Dr. Philips and Dr. Brown. Both demonstrate that this is a very weak text to quote as evidence for Jesus's divinity, given the fact that it is quite open to interpretation.

The reason this verse is open to many interpretations is people’s unwillingness to accept the simplicity of what it says.

Quote:
The verse means exactly what it says.

And it certainly does not say, "I am God".

Neither did Exodus 3:18 say “I am God”. Again, if I may point out God’s usage of Hebrew as an identification of His identity is exactly the same as the Greek and is exactly the same as the English—I Am—without beginning and without end.

Quote:
Second, Dr. Philips uses this word “predates” relative to Jesus existence. This is the wrong word to use concerning the existence of Jesus because to “predate” Jesus birth on earth is to imply that he was born or came into existence at an earlier time. Jesus never came into existence. He has always been in existence.

That is your personal belief, there is no biblical evidence you can bring that would support that.

This is not my personal belief; it’s not the words of men. Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am.” The word “predates” does not fit in with the Biblical grammar of the Greek and Hebrew.

Quote:
Concerning Jeremiah 1:4-5: “The word of the LORD came to me: I chose you before I formed you in the womb; I set you apart before you were born. I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” This is very clear that Jeremiah existed in the knowledge and will of God.

I don't have a problem with your interpretation but you've simply interpreted one verse one way and another verse another without giving me any biblical evidence.

What evidence are you wanting?

If you had explicit biblical evidence that Jesus was God, then maybe your explanation of the "I AM" statement would be plausible. The fact that out of all of Jesus's teaching recorded in the Bible the only evidence of his divinity is a few ambiguous texts makes the problem worse, especially when we consider that according to Christian theology, Jesus's SOLE purpose in coming to earth was to die, as God, for the sins of humanity. Logically, he should have been very clear on this point.

Logically, He was very, very clear on this point—that’s the whole reason why they crucified Him.

However, concerning the context of proverbs 8, I stand corrected.

I appreciate your willingness to stand corrected.

Would Jesus really have disguised his divinity in such an obscure fashion that could not easily be recognized?

Jesus did not disguise His divinity. That is the whole reason He was crucified. Jesus made it very clear who He was. The Jews had no other reason to crucify Him, other than that of what they called blasphemy—His reference to Himself as the Son of God; His reference to His Father and Himself being one. The Jews understood clearly that this was His mindset.

Wasn't everyone supposed to know that he was coming to die for our sins?

If some strange guy stood before you right now and said, “I am coming to die for your sin,” what would be your response?

Quote:
Job 38 and 39 record God’s expression of His omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence in contrast to man’s understanding and knowledge of God. He is saying that when He existed and created, man was nowhere around. The book of Job deals with people who think they have all the answers to life. God is pointing out just how finite we are relative to His infinity. Within the context of these two chapters in which God was asking a lot of questions to Job, God ironically answers His questions on Job’s behalf and was saying to Job, “You don’t know, for you were not born when I created all these things and the number of your days had not even come into existence.”

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. The verse says quite clearly what it says, and the only way out is to argue sarcasm, which can lead to the 'misinterpretations' you spoke of earlier.

Please allow me once again to explain the context here. The book of Job in the Bible is one of the oldest books and was the first book written in Hebrew poetry—particularly the form of poetry known as “parallelism.” One characteristic of this form of poetry is that it does not involve the rhyming of sounds but the rhyming of thoughts and ideas. Another aspect to Hebrew parallelism, particularly in the book of Job, is that it is expressed either in synonymous form where the thoughts are similar to one another or it is expressed in antithetical form where the thoughts are opposite to one another. The only parts of Job that are not written in poetry form are chapters 1 and 2 as well as chapter 42:7-16. With this in mind, lets look at the opening verses of God’s response to Job, Bildad, Zophar, Eliphaz, and Elihu.

Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job from the whirlwind. He said:
Job 38:2 Who is this who obscures My counsel with ignorant words?
Job 38:3 Get ready to answer Me like a man; when I question you, you will inform Me.
Job 38:4 Where were you when I established the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.​

The very first question God asks here is, “Who is this who obscures My counsel with ignorant words?” Did God not actually know who was obscuring His counsel? Was He wanting information He did not know? Or was God making the point that these people were in fact obscuring His counsel with ignorant words? Then God says, “Get ready to answer Me like a man; when I question you, you will inform Me.” This is an example of synonymous parallelism—“answer me…inform me.” The question we need to ask ourselves here is this: Did Job have answers to questions that God had not yet discovered or was God getting ready to point out to Job that he did not have answers to questions like he thought he had discovered? The latter is what was getting ready to take place. God is saying to Job, “Job, you are not the man you think you are and when I question you, you are not going to have all the answers you think you have.” To make this point very clear right at the outset, God asks Job a very personal question: “Where were you when I established the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.” If I asked you where you were when God established the earth, would you be able to tell me? Again, God is saying to Job, “You were no where around when I established the earth. You have no understanding and so you cannot tell Me anything.” Allow me now to skip to Job chapter 40.

Job 40:1 The LORD answered Job:
Job 40:2 Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him? Let him who argues with God give an answer.
Job 40:3 Then Job answered the LORD:
Job 40:4 I am so insignificant. How can I answer You? I place my hand over my mouth.
Job 40:5 I have spoken once, and I will not reply; twice, but now I can add nothing.​

When God asks the question, “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him?” God is saying, “You contend with the Almighty but you are wrong; you will never be able to correct Him.” God follows His question with the statement, “You argue with me but you have no answers.” Job recognizes, understands, and accepts what God is saying: “I am so insignificant. How can I answer you (in other words, I cannot answer you)? I place my hand over my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not reply; twice, but now I can add nothing.”

I sincerely hope this helps you understand the greater context of Job and the fact that when God said in Job 38:21, “Don't you know? You were already born; you have lived so long!”, God was saying to Job, “You don’t know, for you were not born when I created all these things and the number of your days had not even come into existence.”

Quote:
Concerning what makes me so sure, is the whole context of Jesus statement in John 8:58. I explained that in detail. Again, the Jews killed the other prophets because of how they brought to the forefront the evil of those people. The prophets were exposing these Jews and the Jews did not want that. Therefore, they killed the prophets. These prophets did not claim to be God but they came in the authority of God and confronted the Jewish people. Jesus and the prophets were on the same side against the Jews and therefore suffered the same penalties. They found different ways of getting Jesus crucified and the other prophets killed, but their motives were all the same—shut the prophets and Jesus up!

I agree. The Prophets and Jesus recieved the same response from the Jews because they did the same thing.

The Prophets never said they were the Son of God. The prophets never claimed Divinity. The prophets never committed blasphemy. Jesus and the prophets were not killed for doing the same thing.

You said the father is the only one with the right to forgive - please help me in understanding this. So 1) God couldn't forgive his creation without dying

If God simply forgave, He would not be a just God; He would not be upholding His own laws. He would simply be saying to people, “It’s OK if you commit sin. I will forgive you.” He would dishonor Himself and fail to hold us accountable. The wage of sin is death. We had to pay the price or God could pay the price. As the Law implementer, He could become the law fulfiller on our behalf.

2) the son was sent to die not the father

Yes, the Son was sent to die, not the Father, but the Father and the Son are one

3) the father was the one who had the right to forgive all along

Yes, the Father had the right to forgive, but not all along. A price needed to be paid. Then forgiveness could come into effect.

Please clarify this issue. Did the father have the right to forgive when Jesus made this prayer or did he not?

Yes, he had the right to forgive, but if He simply forgave, he would have broken His own law and contradicted His character. As a parent, if I have told my child they will receive a punishment for something they do wrong, and they commit the wrong, I have no joy, excitement, and happiness in administering the punishment. I don’t want to punish my child. In fact, I hate having to punish my child, but if I said there was a punishment for a behavior, I have to fulfill that punishment.

Quote:
We must remember (and this is another thread I would think) that from God’s perspective what is past, present, and future to us, is always present to God.

I would agree wholeheartedly, but the problem is that in saying God became a man, it is you has placed him within the limits of time and space because now there is a past (before he died when he could forgive) and a present/future (when he dies and gains the ability to forgive). What you are saying is that God changes with the passing of time - that at one point of time He has no right to forgive and at another point in time He has died and He does have the right to forgive. So you have already given God a past, present and future.

God the Father; God the Son; God the Holy Spirit. As much as God exists as eternity, He existed in this world in time. We can discuss this more along the Trinity line of dialogue.

Quote:
No they do not get paradise. Christ’s atonement does not pick us up and put us in heaven. It creates a way to heaven that before did not exist. Again, God’s atonement has opened a way that before did not exist. People can still choose to continue down the road of sin or they can choose to go down the road of forgiveness. I think it is also important to understand that true repentance and acceptance of forgiveness is reflected in a change of lifestyle. Many people can say they have taken the road of grace and forgiveness and continue a life of sin. They have not taken the road of grace and forgiveness; they have stayed on the road of sin and rejected the road of grace and forgiveness.

You've mentioned that
1. Christ's atonement made a way for us
2. Human beings can choose to accept or reject that way
Yet you still have not defined what that way is that has been created for us.

In John 14:6 Jesus said, “I am the way…” He is the way to God. “…I am the truth…” All that Jesus said and taught is the truth. “…I am the life.” Jesus is the life we all seek—life on this earth and life for eternity. “No one comes to the Father…" No one can get to God the Father, “…except through me.” A wholehearted belief in Jesus Christ as our personal Savior and Lord is the way that has been created for us. “For God so loved the world that he sent His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

SUMMARY:Acceptance of forgiveness means that one recognizes that they are sinful by nature and acknowledges that God died for their sins.

Not quite. Recognition of a sinful nature and an acknowledgement that God died for one’s sins can be done without acceptance of forgiveness. The first step toward accepting forgiveness is the recognition of a sinful nature and is the recognition that God died for one’s sins. If we never recognized this, we would never see a need for forgiveness. But recognition of these does not mean acceptance of forgiveness. Many people recognize this but they do not truly accept Jesus Christ as the way, the truth, and the life. They still try to see themselves and their efforts as the way, the truth, and the life.

Anyway, there are many evil people in the world…

Yes. There are many evil people in the world.

who know that they are evil…

Yes. They know they are evil.

and acknowledge that Christ died for their sins…

Yes. They acknowledge that Christ died for their sins.

and that is why they don't feel there is a problem in sinning.

No. This is not why they don’t feel there is a problem sinning. They don’t feel there is a problem sinning, because that’s how they like to live their lives. They seem to find their happiness and joy in living a sinful life. They have not chosen the road of forgiveness.

So they fulfill your two conditions of acceptance of forgiveness.

No. They have not accepted forgiveness; they have rejected it.

Therefore, according to you they will be in paradise.

No. According to me they will be in hell.

Crusaders who murdered innocent people will be in paradise so long as they believed that they were sinful by nature (which they did, being Christians) and as long as they believed that Christ died for their sins (which they did, being Christians).

Allow me to quote a verse of scripture from the letter of James in the Bible, chapter 2:19, “You [people] believe that God is one; you do well. The demons also believe--and they shudder.” It is one thing to believe something and another to place your belief in something. You can believe a story but not place much in it. If you have belief in a story, the story affects your life and how you live. To believe in something is to entrust yourself over to whatever you believe in. To simply believe something, is not an entrustment of yourself to what you may believe. Many people believe that God exists. Many people believe that Jesus is the Son of God; Many people believe that Jesus died on the cross. Many people believe that He was raised from the dead. But people who believe in this way are not always people who believe in God Himself and His atoning sacrifice. They do not entrust themselves to Him. Again, crusaders may have gone in the name of Christianity, but a crusader was not a born-again believer in and follower of Jesus Christ. Crusading was against the teachings of the Bible.

Yes, like everyone else in the whole world, the sins of the crusaders were paid for.

If they were already forgiven, then they cannot logically be punished for their crimes against humanity, and war criminals in the modern age like the crusaders should be exempted from being brought to justice because their sins have been paid for.

God’s punishment handed out to us for our sin was an eternal punishment. There was going to be no way for people to serve a certain “prison sentence” in hell and then come out and go to heaven. The punishment was going to be and is eternal. The crusaders, like every other person were and are headed to hell. As I have said before, because God loved us so much, he was willing to make a way for us to go to heaven, a way that was before, non-existent. He no longer punishes us. We choose to experience eternal punishment. Before, we did not have a choice to go to heaven. Now the choice lies before us. We can accept forgiveness or we can reject it.

Quote:
Again, the consequence of our sin was an eternal separation from God.

Who's sin, specifically? Adam's?

Our own sin. We do not get punished for someone else’s sin. We stand to be punished for our own. We are all sinners. There is no person on this earth who is without sin.

Quote:
In message #112 I asked you about your definition of creation. What is your definition of creation?

It depends on the context of the discussion. Please present the full argument and then we can discuss it. I think it will be much more productive if we are open with each other, rather than attempting to string together a list of leading questions.

The context of the discussion is the Trinity, which you say is illogical. The following verses from the Qur’an address creation:

Al-Qur'an, 035.001 (Fatir [The Angels, Originator])
Praise be to Allah, Who created (out of nothing) the heavens and the earth, Who made the angels, messengers with wings,- two, or three, or four (pairs): He adds to Creation as He pleases: for Allah has power over all things.​

Al-Qur'an, 036.082 (Ya-Seen [Ya-Seen])
Verily, when He intends a thing, His Command is, "be", and it is!​

I just want to understand the logic of creation—making everything that exists (the heavens and the earth) out of nothing; saying “be” and it is. If you want to know my thinking, creation is what it is because God can do things, which to us are illogical. No man can create something out of nothing. Yet God, because of who He is, can do things we can’t do; He can do things, which to us are illogical. As much as God can create something out of nothing, God can be three distinct beings, all at the same time, but still be God. Totally illogical—but God cannot be confined to or defined by our logic. If he is, He is not God.

Again, Ansar Al-'Adl, thanks for your continuing dialogue .

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

The reason this verse is open to many interpretations is people’s unwillingness to accept the simplicity of what it says.

If anything, it is not simple. Can anyone change a statement saying "I am" into a statement of divinity without long drawn out linguistic discouurses involving hebrew and greek? Again, the link I gave earlier:
http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/web/faq/faq128.html

If Jesus was divine, we should expect explicit biblical evidence. You have not refuted any of the points raised in response to this verse, you have simply pasted Christian commentary to counter it.

Logically, He was very, very clear on this point—that’s the whole reason why they crucified Him.

Was it? Can you prove that from biblical evidence? How do we know that they did not kill him just because he claimed to be a prophet? They did it before.

If some strange guy stood before you right now and said, “I am coming to die for your sin,” what would be your response?

Jesus was not "some strange guy" according to you, he was God. He should have demonstrated to the people that he was God, immediately call them to gather around and kill him.

Please allow me once again to explain the context here. The book of Job in the Bible is one of the oldest books and was the first book written in Hebrew poetry—particularly the form of poetry known as “parallelism.” One characteristic of this form of poetry is that it does not involve the rhyming of sounds but the rhyming of thoughts and ideas. Another aspect to Hebrew parallelism, particularly in the book of Job, is that it is expressed either in synonymous form where the thoughts are similar to one another or it is expressed in antithetical form where the thoughts are opposite to one another. The only parts of Job that are not written in poetry form are chapters 1 and 2 as well as chapter 42:7-16. With this in mind, lets look at the opening verses of God’s response to Job, Bildad, Zophar, Eliphaz, and Elihu.

Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job from the whirlwind. He said:
Job 38:2 Who is this who obscures My counsel with ignorant words?
Job 38:3 Get ready to answer Me like a man; when I question you, you will inform Me.
Job 38:4 Where were you when I established the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.​

The very first question God asks here is, “Who is this who obscures My counsel with ignorant words?” Did God not actually know who was obscuring His counsel? Was He wanting information He did not know? Or was God making the point that these people were in fact obscuring His counsel with ignorant words? Then God says, “Get ready to answer Me like a man; when I question you, you will inform Me.” This is an example of synonymous parallelism—“answer me…inform me.” The question we need to ask ourselves here is this: Did Job have answers to questions that God had not yet discovered or was God getting ready to point out to Job that he did not have answers to questions like he thought he had discovered? The latter is what was getting ready to take place. God is saying to Job, “Job, you are not the man you think you are and when I question you, you are not going to have all the answers you think you have.” To make this point very clear right at the outset, God asks Job a very personal question: “Where were you when I established the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.” If I asked you where you were when God established the earth, would you be able to tell me? Again, God is saying to Job, “You were no where around when I established the earth. You have no understanding and so you cannot tell Me anything.” Allow me now to skip to Job chapter 40.

Job 40:1 The LORD answered Job:
Job 40:2 Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him? Let him who argues with God give an answer.
Job 40:3 Then Job answered the LORD:
Job 40:4 I am so insignificant. How can I answer You? I place my hand over my mouth.
Job 40:5 I have spoken once, and I will not reply; twice, but now I can add nothing.​

When God asks the question, “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him?” God is saying, “You contend with the Almighty but you are wrong; you will never be able to correct Him.” God follows His question with the statement, “You argue with me but you have no answers.” Job recognizes, understands, and accepts what God is saying: “I am so insignificant. How can I answer you (in other words, I cannot answer you)? I place my hand over my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not reply; twice, but now I can add nothing.”

I sincerely hope this helps you understand the greater context of Job and the fact that when God said in Job 38:21, “Don't you know? You were already born; you have lived so long!”, God was saying to Job, “You don’t know, for you were not born when I created all these things and the number of your days had not even come into existence.”

In other words, you are going to argue sarcasm as I already pointed out.

The Prophets never said they were the Son of God.

There are hundreds of references in the bible where people other than Jesus are called 'son of God'.

The prophets never claimed Divinity.

Nor am I convinced that Jesus did either. Simply saying "I am" does not constitute a claim to divinity.

The prophets never committed blasphemy.

Nor did Jesus as I'm sure both you and I would agree.

If God simply forgave, He would not be a just God; He would not be upholding His own laws. He would simply be saying to people, “It’s OK if you commit sin. I will forgive you.” He would dishonor Himself and fail to hold us accountable. The wage of sin is death. We had to pay the price or God could pay the price. As the Law implementer, He could become the law fulfiller on our behalf.

i.e. you agree with point #1. As I wasn't asking for an explanation as we've been through this already.

Yes, the Son was sent to die, not the Father, but the Father and the Son are one

Yet they are not the same as you already mentioned. So you also agree with point #2.

Yes, the Father had the right to forgive, but not all along. A price needed to be paid. Then forgiveness could come into effect.

Okay, so then why would God ask Himself to forgive the people for what they were doing at this point when He knew that He could forgive them unless they did what they were doing. Please answer this question.

Yes, he had the right to forgive, but if He simply forgave, he would have broken His own law and contradicted His character.

So God asked Himself to break His own laws?

Thanks for the analogies, but I don't need them.

God the Father; God the Son; God the Holy Spirit. As much as God exists as eternity, He existed in this world in time.

So you admit that you place God within the constraints of time.

In John 14:6 Jesus said, “I am the way…” He is the way to God. “…I am the truth…” All that Jesus said and taught is the truth. “…I am the life.” Jesus is the life we all seek—life on this earth and life for eternity. “No one comes to the Father…" No one can get to God the Father, “…except through me.” A wholehearted belief in Jesus Christ as our personal Savior and Lord is the way that has been created for us. “For God so loved the world that he sent His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

The answer to my question please? What is this way? It doesn't help to hide behind metaphors and simply say "Jesus is the way" I want a practical explanation of what this way is and a concise list of what someone needs to do to follow this way, please.

Not quite. Recognition of a sinful nature and an acknowledgement that God died for one’s sins can be done without acceptance of forgiveness. The first step toward accepting forgiveness is the recognition of a sinful nature and is the recognition that God died for one’s sins.

So in other words, you still have not answered my question on what entails acceptance of forgiveness, but instead you've only told me what is the first step to forgiveness.

No. They have not accepted forgiveness; they have rejected it.

Why? How can you say they have rejected it when they clearly believe that Jesus died for their sins so that they are SAVED? What does it mean to be saved and at what point is one truly saved?

Christians like to boast that they have an absolute guarantee into paradise yet they don't explain how they are guaranteed. How do you know you are guaranteed and how can you claim that this guarantee is absolute yet at the same time claim that people should not perform evil, despite the fact that their sins are paid for.

Allow me to quote a verse of scripture from the letter of James in the Bible, chapter 2:19, “You [people] believe that God is one; you do well. The demons also believe--and they shudder.” It is one thing to believe something and another to place your belief in something. You can believe a story but not place much in it. If you have belief in a story, the story affects your life and how you live. To believe in something is to entrust yourself over to whatever you believe in. To simply believe something, is not an entrustment of yourself to what you may believe. Many people believe that God exists. Many people believe that Jesus is the Son of God; Many people believe that Jesus died on the cross. Many people believe that He was raised from the dead. But people who believe in this way are not always people who believe in God Himself and His atoning sacrifice. They do not entrust themselves to Him. Again, crusaders may have gone in the name of Christianity, but a crusader was not a born-again believer in and follower of Jesus Christ. Crusading was against the teachings of the Bible.

Thanks for this, but you still haven't answered the question. Why do you say that the Crusaders did not accept Christ's forgiveness. I'm looking for concrete criteria.

The crusaders, like every other person were and are headed to hell.

Since their sins are already paid for, they should not be sent to Hell, according to you.

Our own sin. We do not get punished for someone else’s sin. We stand to be punished for our own. We are all sinners. There is no person on this earth who is without sin.

But you just admitted previously that there are millions of people on earth without sin - all the innocent babies and children. And the mentally handicapped? All these people are without sin.

The context of the discussion is the Trinity, which you say is illogical. The following verses from the Qur’an address creation:

Al-Qur'an, 035.001 (Fatir [The Angels, Originator])
Praise be to Allah, Who created (out of nothing) the heavens and the earth, Who made the angels, messengers with wings,- two, or three, or four (pairs): He adds to Creation as He pleases: for Allah has power over all things.​

Al-Qur'an, 036.082 (Ya-Seen [Ya-Seen])
Verily, when He intends a thing, His Command is, "be", and it is!​

I don't understand the relevance of these verses. If you want to say that Creation is illogical, we can discuss that, but what do you think you are demonstarting by quoting these verses?

I just want to understand the logic of creation—making everything that exists (the heavens and the earth) out of nothing; saying “be” and it is. If you want to know my thinking, creation is what it is because God can do things, which to us are illogical. No man can create something out of nothing.

No, Creation is not illogical. It may be impossible for human beings, but it is not illogical. Where is the error in logic in creation? I don't say that trinity is illogical because human beings cannot do it, I say that it is illogical because it is self-contradictory.

Nevertheless, I'm glad you seem to have realized the futility of analogies for trinity and have accepted that it is illogical. Thus, my first point of the following two has been established:

1. Trinity is illogical
2. Trinity was not preached by Prophet Jesus

The question you need to ask yourself is, "Why do you believe in the trinity? Is it simply because that is what Church or your parents taught you? Or do you honestly believe that it is the truth, and the true message of Prophet Jesus?"

God is not the author of confusion!

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace Ansar,

As ever it is a pleasure to be in dialogue with you and you may have guessed what my motives are on this forum; it is simply to strive to be as one with people who might be considered different to me.

I have read through your posts and also those of POBook and whilst I could argue against both points of view my desire is to seek friendship and relationships in order to build communities.

My desire above all else is justice for all people resulting in peace on Earth.

My journey takes me on a path of striving to love God above all else and to love my neighbour as I love myself regardless as to whom they are and what they might believe.

This is what Trinitarian doctrine inspires me to do; it is to strive to be as one with all people.

I can understand the continuous debate on the trinity amongst Christians because we don’t agree with each other, and I can understand the disagreements between people of other faiths about the trinity.

BUT!

My thoughts go beyond our differences because the same God created all people, and we have a great need to acknowledge that one point above all else.

Take care and have a nice day.

God bless you

Eric

 

[POBook]

Greetings Ansar Al-‘Adl,

If Jesus was divine, we should expect explicit biblical evidence. You have not refuted any of the points raised in response to this verse, you have simply pasted Christian commentary to counter it.

To you, what is “explicit Biblical evidence”?

How do we know that they did not kill him [Jesus] just because he claimed to be a prophet? They did it before.

Joh 19:6 When the chief priests and the temple police saw Him, they shouted, "Crucify! Crucify!" Pilate responded, "Take Him and crucify Him yourselves, for I find no grounds for charging Him."
Joh 19:7 "We have a law," the Jews replied to him, "and according to that law He must die, because He made Himself the Son of God."
Joh 10:36 do you say, 'You are blaspheming' to the One the Father set apart and sent into the world, because I said: I am the Son of God?
No prophet ever claimed to be the Son of God. Jesus was the only one who said He was the Son of God—in the eyes of the Jews, blasphemy and a crime deserving the death sentence.

Quote:
If some strange guy stood before you right now and said, “I am coming to die for your sin,” what would be your response?

Jesus was not "some strange guy" according to you, he was God. He should have demonstrated to the people that he was God, immediately call them to gather around and kill him.

Ansar Al-‘Adl, we can take a small part of the three years of Jesus ministry recorded in a Gospel and read it in 1 hour. We have the history behind us. When Jesus came, it was all present tense. The next three years of His ministry were going to be a learning phase for people. People did not know all about Him other than what had been prophesied about Him. So when He came, he was some stranger making comments. Jesus was simply not the man many people expected. Through His words and His miracles, Jesus gave much demonstration of His Divinity—and people still did not believe.

Quote:
I sincerely hope this helps you understand the greater context of Job and the fact that when God said in Job 38:21, “Don't you know? You were already born; you have lived so long!”, God was saying to Job, “You don’t know, for you were not born when I created all these things and the number of your days had not even come into existence.”

In other words, you are going to argue sarcasm as I already pointed out.

No, I’m not arguing sarcasm. All I’m trying to do is help you to better understand the Scriptures within their context. It is easy to take Scripture out of context and twist it to mean something that is not true. What I would like to know from you is do you better understand Job 38:2 and 21 within their context? Yes or No?

Quote:
The Prophets never said they were the Son of God.

There are hundreds of references in the bible where people other than Jesus are called 'son of God'.

I have tried to find some of these but have been unable. Can you please give me a few references in the Bible where “son of God” is used in reference to anyone except Jesus Christ?

Quote:
The prophets never claimed Divinity.

Nor am I convinced that Jesus did either. Simply saying "I am" does not constitute a claim to divinity.

God said to Moses in Exodus 3:14, “I AM has sent you.” In using this statement, did God fail to point out His divinity?

Quote:
The prophets never committed blasphemy.

Nor did Jesus as I'm sure both you and I would agree.

Of course Jesus did not commit blasphemy. However, if He did not commit blasphemy, then He must have been who he said He was--God in the flesh, otherwise, He did commit blasphemy and deserved to die.

Yes, the Father had the right to forgive, but not all along. A price needed to be paid. Then forgiveness could come into effect.

Okay, so then why would God ask Himself to forgive the people for what they were doing at this point when He knew that He could forgive them unless they did what they were doing? Please answer this question.

I don’t quite understand your question here. Please rephrase it.

Quote:
Yes, he had the right to forgive, but if He simply forgave, he would have broken His own law and contradicted His character.

So God asked Himself to break His own laws?

Yes, in a way, I think God out of love for us, would have liked to break His own law. His emotions of love compelled Him to forgive. However, as the Holy, Righteous, and Almighty God, He could not break His own law. So, instead of us having to pay the price for our sin, He stepped out of His glory and He Himself paid the price for our sin. This was no longer just emotional love for us. It was practical love that we will never understand. He fulfilled His justice and His mercy. We can accept that or reject it.

The answer to my question please? What is this way? It doesn't help to hide behind metaphors and simply say "Jesus is the way" I want a practical explanation of what this way is and a concise list of what someone needs to do to follow this way, please.

• Joh 5:24 "I assure you: Anyone who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment but has passed from death to life.”
• Joh 5:39 You pore over the Scriptures because you think you have eternal life in them, yet they testify about Me.
• Joh 5:40 And you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.”
• Joh 6:40 For this is the will of My Father: that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
• Joh 17:3 This is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and the One You have sent--Jesus Christ.”

What is this way? Jesus is the way. Go to Jesus for eternal life; Know that Jesus is God in the flesh; Accept Jesus for who He is; Become a devout follower of Jesus. This is the way to eternal life.

Quote:
Not quite. Recognition of a sinful nature and an acknowledgement that God died for one’s sins can be done without acceptance of forgiveness. The first step toward accepting forgiveness is the recognition of a sinful nature and is the recognition that God died for one’s sins.

So in other words, you still have not answered my question on what entails acceptance of forgiveness, but instead you've only told me what is the first step to forgiveness.

What entails acceptance of forgiveness?

• Recognizing and accepting we are sinful by nature
• Willingly confess that we are sinful
• Willingly accept that God has paid the price for our sin
• Becoming a follower of Jesus

Quote:
No. They have not accepted forgiveness; they have rejected it.

Why? How can you say they have rejected it when they clearly believe that Jesus died for their sins so that they are SAVED? What does it mean to be saved and at what point is one truly saved?

Luk 18:18 A ruler asked Him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
Luk 18:19 "Why do you call Me good?" Jesus asked him. "No one is good but One—God (if you want to know what Jesus meant by this, let me know).
Luk 18:20 You know the commandments: Do not commit adultery; do not murder; do not steal; do not bear false witness; honor your father and mother."
Luk 18:21 "I have kept all these from my youth," he said.
Luk 18:22 When Jesus heard this, He told him, "You still lack one thing: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me."
Luk 18:23 After he heard this, he became extremely sad, because he was very rich.​

One is truly saved when one becomes a true follower of Jesus; when one makes Jesus Lord of one’s life; when one’s life is not about oneself, but about Jesus and His will; when one forsakes all and everything in order to follow Jesus.

Christians like to boast that they have an absolute guarantee into paradise yet they don't explain how they are guaranteed.

Our guarantee rests on a Holy, Righteous God who does not break His promises. When you become a child of God you will always be a child of God. God adopts His children for eternity and He loves them for eternity. Jesus paid the price for all sin. Nothing more can be done; nothing more needs to be done—“It is finished.” This is where the guarantee lies.

How do you know you are guaranteed and how can you claim that this guarantee is absolute yet at the same time claim that people should not perform evil, despite the fact that their sins are paid for.

I do not claim that people should not perform evil. We are all going to perform evil in some way or another. God looks at the heart. Is there a sincere acknowledgement and acceptance of ourselves as sinful people? Is there a sincere desire not to sin? What is the motive behind that desire? Do we desire not to sin so we can be proud, saying we are better than other people; that we are great righteous people? That, in and of itself, reveals that we are not truly repentant. Or, do we desire not to sin in order to bring glory, honor, and praise to God?

Thanks for this, but you still haven't answered the question. Why do you say that the Crusaders did not accept Christ's forgiveness. I'm looking for concrete criteria.

If the crusaders had truly accepted Christ’s forgiveness, they would have realized that in and of themselves they were sinful people. They would have chosen to follow Jesus and not men. They would have put into practical application the teaching of Jesus to, “Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.” Many people say they are Christians but when you look at their practical daily lifestyles, their way of living does not conform to the teaching of Jesus. They have not truly understood their sinful nature and have not truly asked God to forgive them. Accepting forgiveness is an understanding of the sinful nature and a sincere desire to change one’s lifestyle—to become born-again and to follow Jesus every step of the way.

Quote:
Our own sin. We do not get punished for someone else’s sin. We stand to be punished for our own. We are all sinners. There is no person on this earth who is without sin.

But you just admitted previously that there are millions of people on earth without sin - all the innocent babies and children. And the mentally handicapped? All these people are without sin.

By nature we are sinful. Does this mean that little babies and tiny children commit sins? No. But the natural inclination of children and sad to say, adults as well, is to sin. A point comes in everyone’s life when we know the difference between right and wrong, and we still choose to do wrong. We all come to a point where our conscience is born. Concerning mentally handicapped people—I cannot answer for that. If they have no conscience and no understanding of right and wrong, I cannot see them being judged by God. God does not judge the physical status of people. He deals with the heart. It’s in the heart that conscience works; it’s in the heart that pride or humility reside; it’s in the heart that confession of sin comes to light.

Can you please explain to me the logic of creation—the logic of making something out of nothing?

Thanks again for your time Ansar Al-'Adl. I truly appreciate it !

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello POBook,

On the issue of 'son of God':

And in any case, one would think that if anyone should be considered a ‘son of God,’ the first candidate according to the Bible should be Adam, as stated in Luke 3:38: “...Adam, which was the son of God.”

Those who rebut by quoting Matthew 3:17 (“And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, ‘This is My beloved son, in whom I am well pleased’”) have overlooked the point that the Bible describes many people (Israel and Adam included) as ‘sons of God.’ Both II Samuel 7:13-14 and I Chronicles 22:10 read, “He (Solomon) shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son.” What follows is a clear reference to the humanity of this ‘son of God,’ for the very next verse points out that not even a ‘son of God’ is exempt from iniquity and error, and if so deserving, will be punished.

Entire nations are referenced as sons, or children of God. Examples include:

Genesis 6:2, “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men…”

Genesis 6:4, “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men…”

Deuteronomy 14:1, “Ye are the children of the Lord your God.”

Job 1:6, “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD…”

Job 2:1, “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD…”

Job 38:7, “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”

Philippians 2:15, “that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation…”

1 John 3:1-2, “Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God!…Beloved, now we are children of God…

Jesus, himself, is recorded as having declared, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9). In Matthew 5:45, Jesus is recorded as having prescribed to his followers the attainment of noble attributes, “that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.” Not exclusively his Father, but their Father. Furthermore, John 1:12 reads, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God…”. If the scripture of the Bible and the words of Jesus were respected, it would appear that the office of ‘child of God’ could be aspired to by any person of piety, and not just an imaginary birthright of one particular prophet.

Graham Stanton comments,

“In the Graeco-Roman world heroes, rulers, and philosophers were called sons of God. In the Old Testament ‘son of God’ is used of angels or heavenly beings (e.g. Gen. 6:2,4; Deut. 32:8; Job 1:6-12), Israel or Israelites (e.g. Ex. 4:22; Hosea 11:1), and also of the king (notably in 2 Sam. 7:14 and Psalm 2:7).”​

And Joel Carmichael elaborates,

“The title “son of God” was of course entirely familiar to Jews in Jesus’ lifetime and indeed for centuries before: all Jews were sons of God; this was in fact what distinguished them from other people….
During the postexilic period in Jewish history the word was further applied to any particular pious man; ultimately it became common in reference to the Righteous Man and the Prince.
In all these cases of Jewish usage, the phrase was plainly a mere metaphor to emphasize a particularly close connection between individual virtue and divine authority.”​

So if the phrase ‘son of God’ was “plainly a mere metaphor,” why does modern Christianity elevate Christ Jesus to ‘son of God’ in the literal sense of the phrase? The question echoes down the corridors of the establishment, “So where does the concept of an exclusive, unique Jesus as ‘Son of God’ come from?”

If a person were not confused before, they almost certainly would become so upon reading Hebrews 7:3, where Melchizedek, king of Salem, is described as, “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.” An immortal, preexisting without origin and without parents? Fanciful thinking, or does Jesus have scriptural competition?

Harper’s Bible Dictionary, under the heading ‘Son of man,’ points out that, “With one exception (Acts 7:56)…the term (Son of man) is used exclusively by the earthly Jesus in reference to himself.” Furthermore, “Jesus must have used ‘Son of man’ as a simple self-designation, perhaps as a self-effacing way of referring to himself simply as a human being.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, under the heading of ‘Son of man,’ complements this view by stating, “This title is of special interest because it was the one employed by Jesus by preference to designate Himself and His mission.” ?

As a matter of detail, a concordance search should confirm that whereas Christ Jesus described himself as ‘son of man’ a total of 88 times in the New Testament, it is doubtful that he ever called himself ‘son of God.’ The term ‘son of God’ is encountered 47 times in the New Testament, but always on the lips of others, and most likely never from the mouth of Jesus himself. As per Harper’s Bible Dictionary,

“Although the synoptic tradition contains two sayings in which Jesus refers to himself as “son” in relation to God as his Father (Mark 13:32; Matt. 11:27 [Q]), the authenticity of these sayings is widely questioned, and it remains uncertain whether Jesus actually called himself “son” in relation to God as Father.”​

​

______________
Taken from ch. 2.B.6 of The First and Final Commandment.

 

[POBook]

Greetings once again Ansar Al-'Adl,

You provided a very detailed feedback on the "son of God" issue. I appreciate that. If you know me by now, you know I can provide a very detailed response. For now, I would like to respond to one part of your quote:

“The title “son of God” was of course entirely familiar to Jews in Jesus’ lifetime and indeed for centuries before: all Jews were sons of God; this was in fact what distinguished them from other people….
During the postexilic period in Jewish history the word was further applied to any particular pious man; ultimately it became common in reference to the Righteous Man and the Prince.
In all these cases of Jewish usage, the phrase was plainly a mere metaphor to emphasize a particularly close connection between individual virtue and divine authority.”

If this phrase was a mere metaphor within Jewish usage, then why did the Jews decide to crucify Jesus for His usage of this phrase?

"We have a law," the Jews replied to him, "and according to that law He must die, because He made Himself the Son of God" (John 19:7).

Sincerely,

 

[tahir]

hey POBook, sorry if this seems like a stupid question but why didn't Jesus pay for the sins of the devil? If he is 'God' then surely he would be able to do this

 

[POBook]

Hi there tahir,

Thanks for your response. You asked a very interesting question and it is not a stupid question.

sorry if this seems like a stupid question but why didn't Jesus pay for the sins of the devil? If he is 'God' then surely he would be able to do this

Satan's sin against God was not quite like ours. Yes, we have all sinned. But God paid the price for our sin. We simply have to choose to accept His gift of forgiveness or reject it--the choice is ours. Satan's sin was not a "sin" in the sense that people sin. In a way, nobody wants to sin. Everybody would ultimately like to be right with God. The problem is we try do it in our own way and not God's way. So God paved a way for people to make the choice that ultimately lies on their heart. Unfortunately, many people in pride refuse to travel the road God has paved. Satan's deepest desire is to conquer God and destroy God if he could. Satan has taken on a character that rejects God for eternity. He wants nothing to do with God and never will have anything to do with God--other than an attempt to destroy God. The issue of forgiveness is just not in the world of Satan. I hope this answers your question. If not, please let me know.

Sincerely,

 

[tahir]

thanks for your reply, i understand what you mean but i thought the only sin that the devil committed was to not bow down to adam pbuh? or is this different in christianity? sorry going off topic

 

[POBook]

Hey tahir,

thanks for your reply, i understand what you mean but i thought the only sin that the devil committed was to not bow down to adam pbuh? or is this different in christianity? sorry going off topic

You're welcome and don't worry--I often go off topic as well--something I have to work on .

What got the devil to where he is was his attempt and desire to become God--to destroy God. Now, he does what he can to destroy people--not physically, but mentally in the sense of messing with our thinking. The word "devil" means deceiver or liar--and that's what he does. The greatest battle in the world is that of truth vs. lies. The devil is on the side of lies and deception.

Sincerely,

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi POBook,
The point I'm interested in is only that other people have been called son of God in the Bible. Therefore, you can't take this as a statement of divinity.

 

[POBook]

Hi there Ansar Al-'Adl,

"We have a law," the Jews replied to him, "and according to that law He must die, because He made Himself the Son of God" (John 19:7).

Please allow me to ask you again: If this phrase "son of God" was a mere metaphor within Jewish usage, then why did the Jews decide to crucify Jesus for His usage of this phrase?

Also, can you explain the logic of creating something out of nothing?

Again thanks for your time. I also hope you did not find the signature I had to be offensive. If you did, please know that was in no way my intention. As a follower of Jesus, His birth, death, resurrection and my acceptance of that is what has given me "life...life to the full." When I accepted Jesus as my lord and Savior, He brought freedom and tremendous joy to my life. I simply desire to share that with others. At the same time, I want to respect other people for their beliefs.

Sincerely,

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Please allow me to ask you again: If this phrase "son of God" was a mere metaphor within Jewish usage, then why did the Jews decide to crucify Jesus for His usage of this phrase?

What of the Prophets before Jesus who were called 'son of God' ? We see an inconsistency here if you wish to say that by 'son of God' Jesus implied divinity. Other Prophets have been likewise called 'son of God', why didn't the Jews crucify them?

Also, can you explain the logic of creating something out of nothing?

What's illogical about it? Can you show me a logical contradiction in God's ability to create? Even most atheists don't see such a notion as illogical. The concept of a frist cause is generally acknowledged as a logical philosophy.

I've pointed out why the trinity is self-contradictory and illogical, if you can do the same for creation, by all means go ahead.

Thanks for your post.

 

[abs]

Salam and Peace:

With all due respect, PO, do you really believe a Holy, Righteous, Just and Merciful God would torture and slaughter a sinless man so you could be forgiven? Why does God have to be portrayed as something less that what He is. He has the power to do anything He wants, which means he doesn't need someone else to die so you can be forgiven. He has the ability to forgive you on His own.

The message of Jesus, pbuh, was clear in Ezekiel 18:20 - "A chld shall not suffer for the iniquity of the parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own."

Jeremiah 31:30 - "...everyone shall die for his own iniquity."

Deuteronomy 24:16 - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, not sons for their fathers; each shall be executed for his own crime."

Jesus, pbuh, never taught anything remotely similar to original sin let alone Atonement. The concept of Atonement was a creation of Paul after Jesus, pbuh, was taken up.

You have to look at these things with an open mind and logic. Ask yourself WHY the creator of ALL things would have to resort to killing one of His creations in order to forgive sins??? Look at all He has created, every tiny detail, and yet they only way to forgive sins is to kill an innocent man?

Wasalam and Peace
Hana
__________________




The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen, nor touched...but are felt in the heart.
-Helen Keller

 

[POBook]

Salam and Peace to you as well Hana:

With all due respect, PO, do you really believe a Holy, Righteous, Just and Merciful God would torture and slaughter a sinless man so you could be forgiven? Why does God have to be portrayed as something less that what He is. He has the power to do anything He wants, which means he doesn't need someone else to die so you can be forgiven. He has the ability to forgive you on His own.

I appreciate your response. Please allow me to clarify to you who Jesus is. Jesus was not only a sinless man who was disconnected from God like us people. Jesus was God in the flesh. You are exactly right...God is Holy, Righteous, Just, and Merciful. Through His Holiness and Righteousness, He cannot be mixed with sin. Through His Justness, He punishes sin. Through His Mercy, He forgives sin. The question is, how does God combine His justice and His mercy? There is only one way...He can pay the penalty for our sin that we commited against Him. He fulfills His justice and His mercy at the same time. Please hear me again: God did NOT torture and slaughter a sinless man so I could be forgiven. God allowed HIMSELF to be tortered and slaughtered on my behalf. This was His justice and mercy combined. Again, I agree with you...God has the ability to forgive me on His own. But He is a just God, and he has the ability to pay the price for my sin--HE paid the price, no one else did.

The message of Jesus, pbuh, was clear in Ezekiel 18:20 - "A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of the parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own."

This passage means that a child will not be punished for the sins committed by his or her parents. That is very unjust. God is not punishing someone else for our sins; He is allowing Himself to be punished for our sins against Him. he has the right to do this.

Jeremiah 31:30 - "...everyone shall die for his own iniquity."

Allow me to ask you: Have you ever commited "iniquity"--Have you ever sinned? If you believe this verse and you have commited iniquity, what is going to happen to you?

Deuteronomy 24:16 - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, not sons for their fathers; each shall be executed for his own crime."

Once again, God did not hand anyone over, other than Himself to be punished for our crime.

Jesus, pbuh, never taught anything remotely similar to original sin let alone Atonement. The concept of Atonement was a creation of Paul after Jesus, pbuh, was taken up.

You have quoted several verses of Scripture to make your point. Please allow me to quote a verse of prophecy about Jesus and His whole reason for coming to this earth:

Isa 53:4 Yet He Himself bore our sicknesses, and He carried our pains; but we in turn regarded Him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But He was pierced because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; punishment for our peace was on Him, and we are healed by His wounds.
Isa 53:6 We all went astray like sheep; we all have turned to our own way; and the LORD has punished Him for the iniquity of us all.​

This prophecy by Isaiah was all about Jesus and His reason for coming to this earth--to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.

You have to look at these things with an open mind and logic. Ask yourself WHY the creator of ALL things would have to resort to killing one of His creations in order to forgive sins??? Look at all He has created, every tiny detail, and yet they only way to forgive sins is to kill an innocent man?

Please hear this...please understand this: God did not send an innocent man to pay for our sins. That would make Him evil. God HIMSELF came to this earth in the form of a man to pay the price for our sins. Yes He is Merciful. But He is also Just. We cannot put aside the Just nature of God in order to focus on the Mercy side. God is Merciful; God is Just--both! Only He Himself can combine those two aspects for our benefit. What an act of love...one we could never appreciate.

Wasalam and Peace to you too!

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

On the subject of Isaiah 53, here are dozens of Jewish responses:
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-ss.html

 

[*Hana*]

Peace POBook:

Ummmmm, you are responding to a very old post I made. I stopped dialogue after you resorted to accusing me of twisting/altering biblical text.

Hana