This question is posted at "onislam.net" -- a site which I ran across in looking up things for the last set of posts, which is a legitimate question.
Labored over Labor Day (+ some) on this post, coming to some conclusions:
First, it is a disgrace that Muslims, like Jews, and as did the earliest followers of Jesus, understand God is One and traditional Christians nowadays do not.
Nor do they accept or understand that historically the triune God has nothing to do even with one of the alleged founders of this Christianity, the apostle Paul, who fought the matter time and again in his ministry and calling to the Gentiles, i.e., to what his own people called, the heathen.
Nor, given this still Gentile, military-political-religious complex mindset, has Christianity as a whole confessed its own sins in bastardizing what it continues to state, hypocritically, are its own scriptures -- even while attempting to evangelize not just its neighbors but, literally the world into the same mindset, which is to say, be ignorant of spiritual matters, like us, drink the Kool-aid as our forefathers did... Many Christians DO understand that the Trinity and the Triune concept are a Hellenized, 4th century amalgam related to political expediencies -- but these brands are not central, mainstream Christianity any more -- and they are not such loudmouths.
Moreover, being sidelined (in part for the habit of reading the Bible more than sitting in for catechism into the triune godhead, which is to say, becoming more dissociative by the year (when it comes to reading this Bible, and practicing it) -- some of these groups have also developed other unique quirks and habits to self-identify and added yet more things to the same scriptures.
Second, after starting out with this, I found I had to (felt it necessary to) handle "the Great Commission" (Matthew 28:19) issue -- which is a Trinitarian issue (insert) up front, but then began again with commentary from "onislam.net" as a demonstration of how both sides handle reasoning from scripture.
Where it gets even longer is as I get in the mix also, by quoting scripture.
As I Corinthians 12 begins:
The two links in the text are to a Greek interlinear, showing that the word "gifts" is an addition; only the adjective "πνευματικῶν" remains and a better translation would be spiritual matters, or spiritual things. I also notice that there's an article "the" before
Also the word "dumb" is "mute" [ἄφωνα //aphona; without sound]. (In short, their idols have NOTHING to say. Apparently, this was no problem -- such Gentiles fabricated prophesies, words, etc. for them, and have been doing that ever since, reading INTO scriptures and prophecies, ALL from the monotheistic tribes, that aren't there, but are more friendly to a pagan mind.... In case you wondered how we got the Triune God -- that's the short version. ). In short, as Gentiles, these now brethren are reminded of where they came from. They were ADHD and clueless regarding the things of God, and would've remained that way had they not been preached to been joined in spirit to the inheritance of the One-God nation, Israel.
If you want to see ADHD in "Christian" action today, look at some of the Lausanne Confession statements detailed in the last few posts; I took the time to show the maze of derailments and fragmenting of definitions; it almost drove ME crazy (having read & studied the Bible for decades) in the process, how so many people could so twist basic truths.
Earlier in the same very long letter (I Corinthians) (if people would actually read an entire letter at a time, and not just fragments) the same matter was raised, by Paul. "I could not speak unto you as spiritual...but as unto babes in Christ."
So Paul had to -- and did, ca. two thousand years ago (whatever... not last decade!) -- patiently explain again -- and again -- and again -- the principle of ONE God to the Gentile converts, even as he, Peter, and others explained to Jews that Jesus was their own Messiah, now made Lord and Christ:
This concept of the spirit as something one is baptized into, or drinks of, has also been replaced by a theology more comfortable to the pagan mind, as happened ca. 1800 years ago (ca. 300 A.D.) and by council and by force to settle warring, so-called Christians, or rather, their bishops. It was then established through book-burnings and penalty of death for heretics -- the usual methods of establishing a state religion . . . . so no wonder it's still around today. Habit, and social excommunication for being different (independent)....
Again, a Muslim can explain to a Christian that God is Spirit, not a man. It is also clear enough" "God is not a man, that he should lie."....Jesus the Christ also explained in the gospel of John (4:24) "God is spirit, and they that worship Him should worship in spirit and in truth." (see link: it starts "Spirit the God" and they worshipping him in spirit and truth must worship)
Again, the ONE thing explained in Ephesians 4, same author (Paul), or at least writer, even in this "Douay-Rheims Bible" (one of the more "Catholic") the "One" is clear enough. Ephesians being the site of one of the seven wonders of the world, a major pagan site (temple of Artemis/Diana), perhaps this is understandable.
(I added hyperlinks in the text to interlinears, Greek underlaid with the English. To at least notice some details doesn't require knowing Greek. For example, in verse 6, there is no "us" in "in us all." Look at the word "EIS" over and over again in the Greek: "kai" is "AND"; "pas" (πᾶς) is "ALL"
In verse 7, the word "de" is as easily translated "and," or "moreover," -- there is a stronger word for "BUT" to show contrast, which could've been used. The emphasis on ONE, and to ALL couldn't be clearer to a child. One body, One spirit, One calling (kaleo), One hope of the calling (klesis), One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism -- and, last but not least, ONE God and father of all (Pas) the same/which ('o') epi, dia, en -- on through and IN all . . . . moreover to each one of us is given the grace according to the measure of the gift of the Christ.
The repeated "o" at the end, or I gather in a few other Greek version, the repeated article for "the" also seems to be making a point in its repetition (more seem to read like the one below):
| ||
. . . .Again let's look at it: ...Paul beseeches them (he cannot force them!) to
| |||||
First, be diligent to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. .. then (one, one, one, one, one, one, one -- seven times the word "ONE" is repeated, the 7th one refers to God), then: MOREOVER, every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the giving of Christ..
If those two passages were not enough he (Paul) does it AGAIN in Romans 12, after another exhortation about their walk, this one relating to their mind and not being conformed to the world; he writes about the one body: This time the word for think/thoughts is repeated (a lot); I'll bold. The problem was pride among them, one against another -- forgetting the Lord...
**added, not in there. Take it out!
"phronein" is the word, to think: I'm putting out the interlinear, below because if the same root word is used 4 times in one sentence, it's for emphasis. It is then followed by "as God has divide to each the measure of faith -- which mentions, again, God dealing (or dividing, giving) something to EACH member of the body of Christ. The concept of God having already dealt something to everyone is often missing from ChrisTRianity, which is rather an institutionalized doctrine NOT based on the concept of equality among believers as to having received from God -- but rather on the worship of Jesus the God-man.
("For I say to everyone that....)
((be that as it may....))
ὄντι
is
V-PP-DMS
ἐν
among
Prep
ὑμῖν ,
you
PPro-D2P
μὴ
not
Adv
ὑπερφρονεῖν
to be high-minded
V-PNA
παρ'
above
Prep
ὃ
what
RelPro-ANS
δεῖ
it behoves [you]
V-PIA-3S
φρονεῖν ;
to be minded
V-PNA
ἀλλὰ
but
Conj
φρονεῖν
to be minded
V-PNA
εἰς
so as
Prep
τὸ
–
Art-ANS
σωφρονεῖν ,
to be sober-minded
V-PNA
ἑκάστῳ
to each
Adj-DMS
ὡς
as
Adv
ὁ
–
Art-NMS
θεὸς
God
N-NMS
ἐμέρισεν
divided
V-AIA-3S
μέτρον
a measure
N-ANS
πίστεως .
of faith
N-GFS
THE not-so-GREAT COMMISSION*
(because it wasn't even IN the earlier scriptures, and there is no record of even the earliest disciples of having carried it out, among other things....!)
Second, after starting out with this, I found I had to (felt it necessary to) handle "the Great Commission" (Matthew 28:19) issue up front, but then began again with commentary from "onislam.net" as a demonstration of how both sides handle reasoning from scripture.
In the matters of reason, process counts. In the matters of process of reasoning from the scripture, standard mainstream Christianity cannot afford to -- because their central tenet is not supported from scripture. The significance of this is immense, and under-rated.
Standard doctrine cannot accurately handle almost any of this, as they have a lot to learn from how easy it is for a Muslim to dethrone the Trinity -- from the scriptures, including new Testament.
Did Jesus Claim That He Is God?
from ONISLAM.net
Jazib R asked this question on 3/12/2012 (i.e. recently):
I want to know your brief viewpoint about these verses of Bible. This is from my Christian friend. He says Muslims always try to prove by the verses of Bible that Jesus is not God. So I would say the following:
1. "..for the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." (Matthew 18:11)How did Jesus save?
2. "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:49)Jesus is the Son who is before creation. The Son became flesh. God has an order and his order is that flesh should be in submission to the Spirit. Jesus was in the flesh and in submission to the Father.
3. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17) This verse means exactly what it says. Jesus came to the world because all men sin and sin caused a separation between man and God. This separation is death. Jesus overcame temptation as a man under law. Jesus overcame sin and death that man could be rejoined to God through the righteousness of Christ for eternal life.by the other sections he is quoting, I am deducing that he is stating that while Jesus did not come to earth to demand worship or call himself God, yet still he received worship, claimed to be perfect, and one with the Father (etc.). the question ends thus:
Revelation of Christ as God was not to come through sinful flesh but only by the revelation of God through the spirit: "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Mat. 16-15-16)The writer apparently is understanding flesh vs. spirit, but still cites a verse that Peter's revelation (through the spirit) that Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living God" = "Christ as God." It makes me sad that the concept of what Christ is has to be taught Christians by Muslims, as in their ignorance -- based on those they CHOSE to follow, including in countries like the USA where we supposedly have unrestricted choice of religion and (compared with many countries) still do -- although we do not have AS free choice not to subscribe to the religion of materialism . ....
I would have given a very similar answer to the one given by Shahul Hameed here, as it starts out:
Salam, Jazib.AND . . . . {I will highlight portions where I believe also over-interpretation of Paul is then brought into the mix; as I do not believe either Paul or Jesus recommended disobedience to the law}
Thank you for your questions.
In this response, I directly address the Christian friend, who said that "Muslims always try to prove by the verses of the Bible that Jesus is not God." So I would say the following:
Please see the First of the Ten Commandments given to Moses. Read the Book of Deuteronomy, verse 4:
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord"
The very same First Commandment is endorsed by Jesus in Mark:
"And one of the scribes came, and … asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:"(Mark 12:28-29, KJV)
We do not find Jesus making any amendment to the First Commandment to suggest that Jesus is God Himself, or God incarnate! Isn't it odd?
As this consultant (answering the question) isn't citing any scriptures to support that Pauline theology here, I'm not going to rebut it here....
As for your quote:
"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:49)
John 12:49 underscores the fact that Jesus is the Messenger — one who is sent — of God. So, whatever Jesus said was revealed to him by God. This also very clearly shows that Jesus was not God. Note that he does not say that he spoke for himself as God. Where does the verse say that Jesus 'is the Son before creation'? The whole Pauline theology about God becoming flesh is completely alien to Jesus' teaching here.**
Commenting on this quote,
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17)
one wonders how the quoted verse can mean what you are saying. There is nothing there to even remotely suggest that 'Jesus overcame sin and death that man could be rejoined to God through the righteousness of Christ for eternal life.'
The answer responds to the 3rd "cite" from the questioner. I'm going to post it right here, in different color font:(or, see link at title, Did Jesus Claim He was God?, above). The questioner writes, and notice what is written IMMEDIATELY after affirming "this verse means exactly what it says" . . . .
3. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17) This verse means exactly what it says. Jesus came to the world because all men sin and sin caused a separation between man and God. This separation is death. Jesus overcame temptation as a man under law. Jesus overcame sin and death that man could be rejoined to God through the righteousness of Christ for eternal life.The verse does mean exactly what it says -- the Jesus came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. But there's a problem...and it's very common; called changing the topic midstream without signaling it in the language. Listen:
. . . the next thing the writer does is launch into preaching something which doesn't come from that verse , which gets frustrating to those who are actually looking for reasoning from the scriptures, let alone who are not so "ADD" when it comes to the Bible. It is one reason among many that Christianity, per se, is not respected by those who haven't been inculcated into the ranks. This, and a few other details (the "flavor") of the questioner show traits of the trinitarians (for example, the phrase "as a man" but I'll spare us addressing it now)...
There are other examples in the New Testament which speak to ability to expound anything from the scriptures--positive examples. (The end of Luke 24 comes to mind, but as this recounts Jesus in his resurrected form making himself known to two (forlorn, because of the crucifixion and death of their leader) to disciples walking on the road to Emaeus, and AFTER they recognized thus him (i.e., as risen from the dead), it would be objectionable to the person answering on that basis.
However Luke 24 does speak to framing the scriptures (then existing) into three categories: Law of Moses, Prophets, and Psalms... and that all three spoke of him, and summarized that yes, Christ was to suffer, rise from the dead, and what was to be preached in his name, and (for that matter) the being "clothed with power from on high."
After the crucifixion, after the resurrection (per Luke); first Jesus spoke to two only:
Jesus then feigns ignorance to let them tell their story. Notice, they didn't call Jesus "God" at any point in time, but "a prophet mighty in deed and word before God," and he that should redeem Israel:
These men knew the prophetic tradition, and in that tradition (as written) such prophets (Samuel, Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha) had the spirit of the Lord on them, which enabled the prophesying, and miracles. They did not believe that prophets with the spirit of the Lord on them were God, just because of the obvious power or authority in speech. They understood the concept of Prophet as someone who speaks for God.
Interesting that even after the women's words checked out it was still, after all, the word of women . . . and they didn't see Jesus. So, here was Jesus' response (still, they were not recognizing him):
| ||
How very interesting that of all the things one might do with such power as a resurrected body, this Jesus saw fit rather than call attention to his new powers (walking through walls, etc.) -- to get back to expounding the scriptures about the Christ -- to get them to understand the death. Also note, that he appears to have done it in an orderly fashion, and in "ALL" the scriptures, the things concerning himself. Apparently the scriptures were important . . . .
| ||
Interesting.... Then, they go and tell the other disciples, and Jesus shows up again -- again pointing them to the scriptures -- the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms, concerning himself; and he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.
"[Luke 24:44]...he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48And ye are witnesses of these things. 49And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high).
. . .this is the final chapter and section of the gospel of Luke...
?? Even his own disciples needed help to understand the scriptures, and the prophets; they didn't really understand (it didn't sink in) til after the resurrection. II Corinthians 2 speaks about the necessity of spirit to understand the things of God; and it also talks (as does the gospel message) about receiving holy spirit through confession of Jesus as Lord, and belief in his resurrection ("that God hath raised him from the dead; Romans 10:10). II Corinthians 3 also accounts for spiritual blindness:
II Corinthians 3
| ||
**v.16 Greek looks like "moreover [not "nevertheless"] when any shall have turned to the Lord, the vail is taken away." The translation adds a nonexistant "it" and changes a past and present tense to two futures. Link, above.... I call that a little cluttered translation! The key to understanding even Moses is turning (in one's heart) towards the Lord -- meaning, Jesus.
So, again, notice the questioner cites a verse, and then adds a conclusion which didn't come from that verse itself, but from either elsewhere in scripture or elsewhere in someone's theology -- breaking the law of citing evidence (scriptural proof) for a position.
It takes but a moment for a skilled reasoner to point this out, and the person laid themselves open to it by failing to strictly adhere to the principle of proof.
Unfortunately, as most Christians (whatever the word means anymore) when attempting to reason -- are attempting basically to justify the trinity (it is, after all, still often under attack from nonbelievers as illogical and unscriptural) -- and are "all over the map" when trying to sound smart, or even bringing up the topic.
Apparently Saul (Paul) was well able to reason from the scriptures. It's in the Jewish tradition (Acts 18:1ff):
the word for "reasoned" is "dielegeto" i.e., "dialogue." It is a live, real-time, back and forth conversation, there is a skill and an art to it, and there are basic rules (it would seem) of logic and proof expected. This apparently is not allowed in most churches, which are based instead on hierarchy and/or liturgy. There is not a free-flow of ideas. Also please note, this was not on "Sunday" -- it was in the synagogue on the sabbath. Sounds to me like Paul was keeping the sabbath also.
Aquila and Priscilla then later (end of the same chapter of Acts) end up expounding "the way of God" to an eloquent speaker, Apollos, who himself, having believed (on Jesus Christ) showed - from the scriptures -- that Jesus was Christ. Notice, it doesn't say, that Jesus was God. By definition Christ signifies anointed one; someone anointed him, obviously. "Christ" =/= "God"! (Here's that passage re: Apollos):
And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 26And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. 27And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: 28For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by (dia = "through/across") the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
.....the word "expounded" is (Strong's concordance #1620, see below hyperlinks) representing to set in order, place, lay (i.e., make sense of, side by side, etc.), rehearse, etc. Setting a table comes to mind; there is an order to it, and this process would require some patience on both parts; hearer, and speakers. Apollos didn't have a problem believing the scriptures; apparently Aquila and Priscilla laid some things out side by side for him. This process is important when reasoning from the scriptures -- or it's simply not "reason" involved! The word for "showing"
|
The word "shewing" above is the 2nd listed below ("1 Occ.") with related words, totaling "7 Occ" (Strong's 1925. I'm not a fan of "Strong's" but the single # does indicate here it's different forms of the same word).
|
The word implies "SHOW ME" - -i.e., demonstrate. As the audience was "Jews," the scriptures are what he would need to show them from.
I find this interesting -- the first use is listed in Matthew 16.1, and goes like this (I linked there to the Greek Interlinear, FYI): The word "show" is that word, and a "sign" is being requested. to "show" means just that -- to show! However, where Apollos showed from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, this entails Pharisees and Sadduccees (the later known for not believing in the resurrection), tempting Jesus to produce a sign from heaven (reminiscent of the wilderness, where the devil allegedly also tempted Jesus to produce a sign to prove he was the Son of God; i.e., do a magic trick, turn the stones into bread!):
The sign of the prophet Jonas IS the resurrection (three nights and days in the belly of the whale/ Jesus would be spending three nights and days (dead) in the belly of the earth, not to mention Nineveh's repentance at the preaching of Jonah (Matthew 12 & Luke 11 refer to it. Matthew 12 only refers to Jonas' time in the "whale.":
and Matthew 12, which appears to parallel the Mark 16 incident:
The resurrection of Jesus Christ was to be a sign for that generation...
.....Anyhow, thanks for (the reader's) patience as I "expounded" the importance of "expounding" things from scripture.... The impatient need not apply if they are looking for logical argument! BACK to consultant Shahul Hameed's response to questioner Jazib R re "Did Jesus Claim that He is God?" and responding to the 3rd scripture quoted, and the point made (though not from that verse).
Of course -- the quoted verse doesn't support the statement of Jesus' purpose (though other verses likely in the same person's mind, do).
Commenting on this quote,"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17)
one wonders how the quoted verse can mean what you are saying.
As that statement was made (by Jazib) in a vacuum of proof, he just laid himself open to a rebuttal being made in a vacuum of proof.
That statement is true, although it doesn't preclude other verses that DO indicate "Jesus overcame sin and death that man could be rejoined to God," etc. The responder here is holding to a standard of proof, and staying on topic, which is good.
There is nothing there to even remotely suggest that 'Jesus overcame sin and death that man could be rejoined to God through the righteousness of Christ for eternal life.'
This would not be recommended in a court of law, either -- state the causes of action requested, then prove them with supporting facts. Barring that, the procedure is a joke, "anything goes." Failing to make the argument to support the statement, the floor now belongs to the responder:
Instead, it is obvious that Jesus did not want to destroy the Law, namely the Torah and its commandments, as well as the teachings of the earlier prophets. His mission was to fulfill the mission of the earlier prophets. That is to say, He meant NOT to invalidate the Law, but to take it towards its completion.
We see Jesus in the Gospels as a Jewish rabbi who always upheld the Law. Read the verses:
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:18-19, KJV)
Indeed Jesus never detracted anything from the Law of Moses; whereas see what Paul did. Read this verse,
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for every one who believes." (Romans 10:4, KJV)
Here, the responder just swerved-- moving the topic from "Did Jesus Claim He was God" to a discussion of what Paul said. . . . and taking from a foundational chapter in Paul's doctrine --and to the Protestant Reformation -- which is typically bastardized when translated by those who also stumble at the identity of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. In the sentence, it's an attempt to set Paul, who preached Christ, stood by as a witness for the stoning of the first recorded martyr (Stephen, Act 7) and was essentially prosecuting anyone who followed this Jesus, into a convert, while heading off to prosecute some more (per Acts). I am wondering why. Paul discussed in both Romans and Galatians the relationship between righteousness by faith in Christ, and righteousness from doing the law -- which no man did. At no point did he advocate breaking the law, which if the reader got as far as Romans 10, was addressed in Romans 6:
| ||
Romans 10 deals with acknowledging (with the mouth) Jesus as Lord and believing in the heart that God has raised him from the dead. Naturally, Shahul is not going to expound this, however, citing it indicates he's actually been there!
This is a blatant contradiction of what Jesus taught: that not one dot or iota in the Law will be affected until heaven and earth pass.
The present Christian belief suggests that heaven and earth have already passed.
I would not -- and as you can see from last few posts -- and do not believe that what Paul taught and allegedly did can be correlated with "present Christian belief," nor do I believe that Paul contradicted what Jesus taught. There are plenty of references in the psalms, or elsewhere (like Job) to the resurrection or future day of judgment; in context it should also be noted that the Jewish practice while a temple existed included animal sacrifice, and Jesus was also correlated with the passover lamb, etc. The book of Hebrews (13 chapters) discusses these thing more systematically, and the book of (epistle to) Galatians (6 chapters) in particular (a short book) lays it out.
Those that are curious enough are recommended to read both straight through (preferably in one sitting), perhaps instead of the evening news, or an hour or so on facebook. You will learn far more, and be exposed to more sentences from the scriptures (or, technically speaking, the Bible) than in most Sunday morning services -- and all in one coherent piece, too!
Meanwhile, this same writer goes through several other "reasons" commonly given to "prove" (actually, it's just imply) that Jesus is God, none of which actually do so. Small wonder there is so little respect for Christianity when reason is the standard!
As a Muslim, he understands God is Spirit; too bad more Christians don't. Again, mainstream Christianity doesn't understand spiritual matters, which is understandable, as they have God, Jesus and Holy Spirit all spinning around together -- and to be worshipped (which is idolatry). In that worldview, how in the world could God have raised Jesus from the dead (do gods die?) Jesus have been seated (that's passive -- who seated him?) at the right hand of God (or is he God?) -- and then "shed forth " a Holy Ghost which is to be up there, and worshipped?
Indeed, if Jesus had been God, he should have screamed out, "I am God", as he looked so human.** As noted above, this was essential, because of the repeated declaration in different verses of the Bible that God is one only, such as this verse from Hosea 13:4: ".. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me."
Without the resurrection, ascension, the LORD Jesus receiving the gift of holy spirit from the father, and shedding it forth, one simply doesn't have the gospel.
Without that outpouring, there is also a hierarchy of spirituality, which leads to excesses such as we now see politically, i.e.,
He handles the various uses of "sons of God," "worship" etc. which trinitarians cannot handle - because it contradicts the doctrine! Finally, he (courteously) shows -- as I also did above -- that when Jesus acknowledged Peter's "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God!" -- this was not to call him God, either:
Finally, you quoted:
"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 16:15-17)
The above verses also do not mean that Jesus claimed to be God. They only mean that Simon Peter acknowledged that Jesus was the Son of God,** and then Jesus said that it was revealed to him, by God the Father. How could this mean that God the Father who is in heaven is the same as 'the Son of God' who was standing before Peter?
I hope this answers your questions. Please keep in touch.
Salam.
1. In plain English, as a parent, I am aware that I am not my children, although we have certain qualities, and DNA, in common. Suppose I'd been a very young mother, and my now very adult-looking daughter stood next to me (or, having met me previously and I was NOT there), if a third party asked that young-adult daughter, "are you (me)" and my daughter, surprised, said -- I am her daughter; someone must have revealed this to you! --- would that make her, me?
What kind of ignorance does it take to equate a clear statement "Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God" to mean, "Thou art God"? That knee-jerk habit of reinterpreting (or simply ignoring) many very clear scriptures on this topic -- will apply throughout scripture. Literally, I think these people cannot read and act on the Bible, as they do not believe its central truths. I think they can go through the motions.
~ ~ ~ ~
Islam may not know Jesus Christ, or the power of the holy spirit, or many such things -- but one thing they apparently do know, correctly -- is that Jesus did not call himself God, the Jews did not call him God or believe him to be God, God is not a man, and moreover -- Jesus was a prophet, not a deity!
Which is to say, they know that mainstream Christianity either can't, or doesn't read. If I'm frustrated at this, I can only begin (actually not even begin) to understand how a holy LORD (meaning, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) may have felt about all this. Indignant, to say the least . . . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment