The Enigma of Jesus' nature!

[culi26]

What have I mocked that I don't understand?

You only made silly assertions about the Quran being perfect when it is totally obvious that it is no such thing. The pages you linked deny the most basic historical facts about the Quran.

It is clear that you do not understand since if you did you could defend the statements in the articles you linked, but you cannot.

So you are the one who does not understand the history of your own religion. If you disagree, all you need to do is to defend the articles that you posted. But I don't think you will do that because they contain little more than mere assertion with no evidence supporting them.

I left you a message in your inbox so check it!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I left you a message in your inbox so check it!

I answered. But why not post your comments here for all to see? The things you said would be of general interest.

[David M]

You believe in Jesus(pbuh) and it's quite normal you're thinking that Jesus(pbuh) is above all the others(except the God)! I do believe in Muhammad(pbuh) as the final Messenger of God, but I cannot say Muhammad(pbuh) is better than Jesus(pbuh) or that Muhammad(pbuh) is not better than Jesus(pbuh)!
For me they were both only SERVANTS of God Almighty!
But God did not sent Messengers so we could argue which one is above them, but only to show us that there is only ONE GOD and to live in the straight path!
At least this is what I believe!

Hello culi26
According to the Bible, there is no argument. Jesus is the greatest man that has lived and has earned the title and name which is above every name (including "Muhammad(pbuh)").
(Phil 2:9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

The Arabic word "Allah" it is only used for Almighty God alone. Additionally, in English, the only difference between "God", meaning a false God, and "God", meaning the One True God, is the capital "G". In the Arabic alphabet, since it does not have capital letters, the word for God (i.e. Allah) is formed by adding the equivalent to the English word "the" (Al-) to the Arabic word for "God/God" (ilah). So the Arabic word "Allah" literally it means "The God" - the "Al-" in Arabic basically serving the same function as the capital "G" in English. Due to the above mentioned facts, a more accurate translation of the word "Allah" into English might be "The One -and-Only God" or "The One True God".[/COLOR]

As I said; if the message is the same, we are talking of the same God or else if the message is different, one of them is not the true God..

Deuteronomy 18:20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

Don't you think that this Word of God is an alibi for me not to believe Jesus at all!

No! The words Jesus spoke were what he received from his Heavenly Father. Jesus was a true prophet as well as being the Son of God.
(John 15:15) Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

Let me make a imaginable dialogue with God!

I : "God you said that any prophet who claims to speak in your name something that you did not commanded him, he must be put to death (should be killed)."

God: "Yes, I said so, MY SLAVE!

I: "God, this is the reason why I did not believe his(Jesus) words."

God does not do injustice my friend! So, I don't think God will allow us to use His word against Him!

I agree with you that we should not use God's word against Him. God takes responsibility for His judgments. It does not matter to God if someone disagrees.
If others want to hold God to account and put Him in the dock, that is up to them. Like Pilot said about Jesus, I say of God; "I find no fault in Him"
(Luke 23:4)Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

Are you talking for english Bible??!
I thought the bible was revealed in semitic language! And surprisingly the semitic languages do not have Capital and lowercase letters!

Eusebius,bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, himself declared that "Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote" (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]).

Even if you check the greek New testament the word υἱὸς (huios) translated son appears 164 times and when referring to other sons is with small "s" but for Jesus(pbuh) is Capital "S".

And surprisingly greek language has Capital and lowercase letters, but the word υἱὸς (huios) isn't with capital letter!
So, please tell me why the capital "S" for Jesus(pbuh) and not for the others?!


The New Testament(Greek) doesn't use the capital letter for the son υἱὸς (huios). But this is translated according to what you believe, not how should be translated!

I am using an English translation. I am happy with the general use of the capitalization of the first letter to represent God or of God's son. Whether the capital is used or not, I think we can tell who is being talked about, and if not, then we have to make a judgment based on what we know form elsewhere in the Bible. Using the capital once it has been established who is being talked about makes is easier to identify thereafter.

Ok, but I need some time, please! And maybe this week I'll do it(if God wills)!

It's a pleasure to discuss with you!

No rush, I am not holding you to it; I will read it whenever you post it, if I am still on the forum.

All the best,

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello culi26
According to the Bible, there is no argument. Jesus is the greatest man that has lived and has earned the title and name which is above every name (including "Muhammad(pbuh)").
(Phil 2:9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

A mere man "earned" God's own title?

Isaiah 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me [Yahweh] every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

It's not for no reason that the passage you quoted says that Christ was "in the form of God" -

Philippians 2:6 who [Christ], being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

How could a man be found in "appearance as a man"? You would never say that about anyone who was really just a man. Scripture seems to be plainly teaching that Jesus was something other than a mere man. This is confirmed by the contrast with Christ being "in the form of God." So now we have three mutually confirming statements that all say the same thing:

1. Christ was in the form of God but came "in the likeness of men."
2. Christ could not have been a mere man since Scripture says he "appeared as a man."
3. Every knee would bow to Christ to fulfill God's word that every knee would bow to God.

Conclusion: The Bible plainly teaches that Christ is God. And this is confirmed by many other verses, as when Christ is declared to be Creator God:

Colossians 1:15 He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

I know that there is a thread where you dealt with some of these verses. It was my intent to answer you there but I got sidetracked by work and the many conversations on this forum. We can continue it there if you like. Do you recall which thread it was?

[Greatest I am]

Is the Trinity in the Old Testament?

The Trinity concept has been tied to most of the ancients Gods before Jesus.

If it was a part of the early church, then one must wonder why Christianity did not declare Jesus as a part of the trinity until 300 odd years after his death and even then, it had to be shoved down the churches throat.

Originally Posted by animefan48
Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.



Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)

But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)

http://home.pacific.net.au/~amaxwell/bdigest/bd12bbs.tx


Even a Trinitarian scholar admits the Earliest & Original beliefs were NOT Trinitarian!

The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed".
Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament".
R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173, 1980

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299).

"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).

Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. . . . .
(Source: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD0eSqFJ7J4

I personally like this Muslim and his explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VsN3IG1HtQ

Regards
DL