Get a Grip on the History of this Book:

"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science.
Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man.
To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties – this knowledge, this feeling … that is the core of the true religious sentiment.
In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men."
On Science, Awe, and Humility
(read more @ Alfred Einstein Thoughts of a FreeThinker)
Spirituality =/= Religion. One breathes life. Religion is tradition, to "tie it back," literally.

Welcome to my blog. This is how I talk...
It is not a dissertation or outlined. It is an exhortation, and may at times sound foolish, so be it.
Is life eternal? Who knows for sure. But -- I see people who understood their own times (Jesus clearly was such a person) and I exhort us to understand ours, now.
While this blog reeks of my personality and writing style -- the Bible (and Christ) have at least the scent of God, of something more abiding and eternal than a mystic emotion of awe and reverence.
This book deals with and as a language talks about spiritual matters.
To understand (versus just appreciate the impact of) this book is, literally Jesus, Lord and Christ. The central premise of the book defies imagination and human experience; it demands faith, and as such deals with the impossible.
Its depth has many layers, which is sometimes hard to hear when politico-religion is around, sounding the call to submit, attend, participate and donate. And, in the United States, to also "incorporate" for tax (avoidance) purposes.
[[A Psalm] of David.]] I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee.
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
In the day when I cried thou answeredst me, [and] strengthenedst me [with] strength in my soul.
All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O LORD, when they hear the words of thy mouth."
Though the LORD [be] high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off
The history of the preservation, translations, and censorships of the language and concepts of this "book" [starting apparently with papyri] is itself in part a history of the world -- politics -- nations. Obviously, it also speaks to the control of wealth and confronts it.
and now here we are on the internet, where words and creeds are cheap. (far too cheap and too easy to propagate).
It is a history of sweat, tears, drama and fire (book-burnings, people-burnings) and bloodshed. It was spread, with changes of technology and languages; and
For some reason, the understanding and action on this book was a threat to power, and to accumulated wealth-- which tells us something about this type of power, and wealth.
Religious people exist - -and can be seriously disruptive. I suggest -- getting a grip on the language (and history) of this book, if nothing else, for survival reasons.

Could you describe nature, its origins, its behaviors, like this? [Or, do you want to lament to God, "Why me??"] Check out Job 38, when the LORD, after hearing (37 chapters of theological debate, who's to blame for Job's suffering..) the LORD finally quizzes not his miserable (self-righteous) psychoanalysts -- only back then it was religious -- but Job himself.
. . .Actually, less a quiz than a challenge -- like standing (alone of course) to defend one's beloved thesis, in hopes of that blessed Ph.D. -- and realizing one is empty-handed: Job 38
"Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? [smile...] Gird up your loins now and answer me like a man! Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth...who laid the cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and the sons of God shouted for joy?" ... Where is light and darkness?[v.19]; "Who hath put wisdom in the heart, and understanding in the inward parts?" [v.36]
Where is light and darkness, indeed! Men still wish to know! NASA, MIT, FermiLab and various universities are still working on it . . . . . must be powerful information to invest such fortunes into exploring...
Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (Dated: June 15, 2001)

The existence of light (a massless U(1) gauge boson) is one of unresolved mysteries in nature.

In this paper, we would like to propose that light is originated from certain quantum orders in our vacuum. We will construct quantum spin models on lattice to demonstrate that some quantum orders can give rise to light without breaking any symmetries and without any fine tuning.
Through our models, we show that the existence of light can simply be a phenomenon of quantum coherence in a system with many degrees of freedom. Massless gauge fluctuations appears commonly and naturally in strongly correlated quantum systems which originally contain no gauge fields.

PACS numbers: 11.15.-q"

(MIT Xiao-Gang Wen: The Origins of Light)

Who puts wisdom in the heart?
Do we normally think in those terms--of wisdom, as a quality, which can be planted, engrained, or even poored into a heart? We don't yet know where light comes from -- so with all our institutions, anyone have a definition, way to implant, and who can tell what is the origin of "wisdom"??
...after a while of this interrogation (still presumably being destitute and completely covered with disease) Job replies -- I will lay my hand upon my mouth....
Generally speaking, most people won't come to God (or, this word) until life has got them speechless. But "speechless" is appropriate before this text. Reading it, one is in the presence of something older, very probably wiser (even if "collected wisdom") and more perceptive than onesself. It, and its language, just may have some serious insight & wisdom you just do not have! . .
What would persuade men to risk their lives, and end up burned at the stake, rather than recant on their translation of this book, and instead of saying "FORGET you -- this is MY survival, here!" to future generations, literally say things like (Jesus, allegedly) "Lord forgive them, for they know not what they do?" -- or (Stephen, on being stoned, Acts 7, allegedly) "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge!" -- or Wm. Tyndale, 1536 A.D., Lord, Open thou the King of England's eyes!" . Why? -- or for that matter, why were these men murdered to start with? Does the world really NEED a continual provision of scapegoats and bloodshed over who rules this place? If so, then perhaps they need the central message of Christ! -- or at a minimum of the books which similarly foretell of the need for redemption and prophesy of a Redeemer to come! Why did they value it so highly -- and why do religions today clearly (which this blog will illustrate) value almost anything higher than this Bible, while quoting it?
And what IS it about those psalms? . . . how can you not admire this plain speech and sentiment?....
"But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him.
Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still.Selah
Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than in the time [that] their corn and their wine increased." (from Psalm 4)

Who can really summarize this topic? But I WILL speak to it -- and while the experience is shared by many (women and mothers), not enough are speaking out about it.
Now is the time to understand its concepts, and how that church-state hybrid never (ever) had any blending with the gospel in purpose and intent, and by about 300 (possibly 200) A.D. also had little in common with its language.
Which of course, can still change....
Let the games begin...

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Let's Get Honest about "the Great Commission" (Matthew 28:19)

This question is posted at "" -- 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 "" 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."

Babies are carried around, they are not independent, they are in someone else's arms, do not seek their own food, and left alone, would not survive.

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:
I Cor12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink.
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.

1 I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation (calling) in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful (diligent) to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. //7 But to every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ.
(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):

ενι δε εκαστω ημων εδοθη η χαρις κατα το μετρον της δωρεας του χριστου
. . . .Again let's look at it:  ...Paul beseeches them (he cannot force them!) to
walk worthy of the vocation (calling) in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 (being) Careful (diligent) to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
 4 One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. //7 MOREOVER t to every one of us is given the grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ

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...

3For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think [[of himself**]] more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. 4For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. 
**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....)



ὑμῖν  ,


to be high-minded



it behoves [you]

φρονεῖν  ;
to be minded


to be minded

so as



σωφρονεῖν  ,
to be sober-minded

to each





a measure

πίστεως  .
of faith
((be that as it may....))


(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 "" 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?


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.

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?
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}

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.**
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.... 

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:
And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. 14And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 15And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. 16But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. 
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.  
And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people20And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. 21But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.22Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; 23And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive24And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. 
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):

 25Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken26Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

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 . . . .

 32And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?  

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...
Why should not, then all Christians be able to expound the same Jesus (death, resurrection, ascension, sending the promise of his Father, holy spirit, etc.) -- from:  Moses, the prophets and in all the (OLD testament) scriptures?  Once the resurrected Jesus had already explained that to the originals, would they not be able to convey it to others?  Where did the confusion come in?

?? 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

12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is ["lies"] upon their heart. 16Nevertheless when it** shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

**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):

After these things he departed from Athens, and came to Corinth. 2And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, a man of Pontus by race, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome: and he came unto them; 3and because he was of the same trade, he abode with them, and they wrought, for by their trade they were tentmakers. 4And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Greeks.
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"

ἐκτεθέντος — 1 Occ.
ἐξέθεντο — 1 Occ.
ἐξετίθετο — 2 Occ.

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).

ἐπιδεικνύμεναι — 1 Occ.
ἐπιδεικνὺς — 1 Occ.
ἐπιδεῖξαι — 3 Occ.
ἐπιδείξατέ — 2 Occ.

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!):

1The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. 2He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. 3And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? 4A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
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.":
LUKE 11:29And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. 30For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.31The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment  with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here32The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

and Matthew 12, which appears to parallel the Mark 16 incident:
38Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. 39But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:40For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. 42The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
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).

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.
Of course -- the quoted verse doesn't support the statement of Jesus' purpose (though other verses likely in the same person's mind, do).

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.  

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.'
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.

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:
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid
(But as Romans 5 talks about peace with God, the atonement, and holy spirit, I imagine that would not be comfortable territory for a Muslim handling this issue, which is a central issue in the matter of Jesus Christ being Lord, and involves the matter of the resurrection,etc.) However, no -- Paul did not advocate against the law of Moses. The book of Romans is just about an exposition of these matters, from which Shahud Hameel***

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!

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."

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?

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.


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