A number of extremely eminent New Testament scholars appear to make the same seemingly bizarre theological move: they practice rigorous adherence to the historical critical method which casts doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Christian faith (for example the complete lack of historical evidence for the deity of Jesus), whilst on the other hand being personally convinced Trinitarian believers.
I am thinking of such scholars as James DG Dunn, Dale Martin and the late Raymond E. Brown.
I have it on good authority from a friend mine (Nazam) who has met Jimmy Dunn (professor of NT at Durham University) that he is a believer in the Trinity.
Dale Martin (professor of NT at Yale) in his recent debate gave testimony to his belief in the Trinitarian God.
Fr Raymond Brown (professor of NT at Union Theological Seminary) whom I had the privilege of meeting at Oxford is “regarded as casting doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith”, yet remained a faithful Catholic priest in good standing with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church (source). Jesus scholar Géza Vermes has described Brown as “the primary example of the position of having your cake and eating it” (The Nativity: History and Legend, London, Penguin, 2006, p21).
The following except from a review of Jimmy Dunn’s wonderful book Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation concisely describes this theological move and how it is justified. (The important paragraph is highlighted in bold). Belief in the God of Islam is sweet reason in comparison.
A Valuable Contribution to the Study of Christology 31 May 2005 by Stephen Triesch
‘Dunn examines in detail the various titles of Jesus – Son of Man, Son of God, Messiah, the Logos, God incarnate, etc. – and shows how these concepts were most likely understood at the time they were first used. He describes the history of these terms in Jewish thought, and traces how these terms evolved during the formative years of Christianity.’
‘Dunn generally leans towards the idea that the earliest Christian tradition viewed Jesus as a human being specially chosen by God for a unique role in the salvation of the Jewish people and – secondarily – of all people. Yet, somewhat inconsistently, at the end he claims that the late development of “high Christology” – of Jesus viewed as the divine second person of the Holy Trinity – is an acceptable and logical development of the earlier view of Jesus as a divinely chosen human being.’
‘That is my only quibble with a book that otherwise exhibits sound scholarship and reasoned argument. Perhaps most of us moderns – Dunn included – are infected with the Hegelian idea that whatever happens in the world – if it involves major historical trends and Ideas – somehow enjoys Divine blessing, even if it seemingly contradicts our understandings of the Divine Will. But I digress . . . as a thorough exploration of the progression and development of the Christian understanding of the nature and role of Jesus, this book is a “must have.”‘
Categories: Biblical scholarship, Books, Christianity
Blogging Theology 
why did you take down the article on “Dismantling the Trinity” ??
We actually had a great discussion and were progressing, even agreeing on points.
That was disappointing to see it is all gone; I put a lot of work into my answers and they are all gone now.
LikeLike
Sorry about that Ken. I’ll see what I can do….
LikeLiked by 1 person
I pointed that out along time ago – the quote that Geza Vermes said, “they want their cake and eat it too”.
It did not make sense.
Dunn denies the virgin birth of Christ.
They are all full blown liberals (while claiming to not be), but claim to hold on to a form of humanly developed theology.
LikeLike
They are all professed Trinitarians
LikeLike
‘Dunn generally leans towards the idea that the earliest Christian tradition viewed Jesus as a human being specially chosen by God for a unique role in the salvation of the Jewish people and – secondarily – of all people. Yet, somewhat inconsistently, at the end he claims that the late development of “high Christology” – of Jesus viewed as the divine second person of the Holy Trinity – is an acceptable and logical development of the earlier view of Jesus as a divinely chosen human being.’
‘That is my only quibble with a book that otherwise exhibits sound scholarship and reasoned argument. Perhaps most of us moderns – Dunn included – are infected with the Hegelian idea that whatever happens in the world –
The Hegalian idea – this is the key.
That is true – “infected with the Hegalian idea that whatever happens in the world . . . ”
Dunn and Brown and Martin are saying the Christians viewed Jesus this way or that way, and that those humans developed theology.
They never say that they believe that God did or said this or that, only that humans reflected on Jesus and came up with their human ideas of theology and developed that theology.
No wonder liberalism and semi-liberalism is so hard to understand – the Hegalian synthesis is there but they don’t admit it outright.
It is all what humans come up with within themselves about God; not about God revealing Himself through prophets and books. They would reject Islamic theology and revelation also.
Thanks to that reviewer (Stephen Triesch) who nailed it.
LikeLike
Ken,
Our apology that the post “Dismantling the Trinitarian perception of John1:1” has to be deleted by the request of the author: Ibn Anwar. We understand that you have put lot of work into your contribution there and they are all gone now but we have to respect the author request since the author has every right to do so.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So, I guess Eric deleted the Ibn Anwar article. It seems he realized that it was flawed at its core.
Interesting that Ibn Anwar on his facebook page ( I clicked on his name) and he has in parentheses next to his own name (the ones who are poor in spirit) in Greek.
It does not seem he realizes that οι πτωχοι is plural
οι πτωχοί τω πνεύματι
And one who claims to be poor in spirit is really . . . . “humble” 😉 but his behavior is always anything but that.
Also quoting Matthew 5:3 should include all the author said, including Matthew’s belief that Jesus is the Son of God, worthy of worship (2:1-12; 14:33) and baptism in the name of the Trinity in Matthew 28:19.
LikeLike
Oh, ok, he requested it be deleted. ok, I posted before I saw that.
I guess he didn’t like that Paul disagreed with him and exposed his shallow knowledge of church history, and so would not allow his on- line article to be posted here.
Is that childish?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple can you drop it, You defend Sam let him, comment and I am sure you use him as a source. A guy who calls our book crap, isn’t that pathetic and despicable? Move on!
LikeLike
I have rebuked Sam when he goes into anger and ad hominem and insults and when he stays on an emphasis on sexual details in Hadith.
His content is good, when it is only content, quotes, and argumentation without the bombast and insulting.
LikeLike
If illiterate guy’s content is ‘good’ who has no qualification in any field whatsoever, than Ibn Anwar who is more qualified than Shamoun than his content are much better. Sorry Sir Paul Williams, Just had to say it.
LikeLike
Shahid, that’s enough bitching thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
You said;
His content is good, when it is only content, quotes, and argumentation without the bombast and insulting.
I say;
Come on. You are better in knowledge than Sam Shamoun who has no basic certificate in any religion or theology. He just has a database of hadith in English which Muslims will never recognise but will insist on the Arabic and tafsirs over it and some are not accepted and most Islamophobes has that materials. He has to attend an Islamic Institution with qualification and fluency in classical Arabic before he can interpret Islam.
Ken, do not disgrace and shame your self like Craig Evans and his co-author who quote these lesbians Aayan Ali Hirsi and Irshad Manji in their “scholarly” books for ignorant Christians to buy.
It is a shame for a Christian scholar to quote from Aayan Ali Hirsi who is no where an Islamic scholar but because she said she is an ex-Muslim, these fool Christians scholars think she is a Muslim scholar to quote for their book.
You are shaming yourself to claim Sam Shamoun’s contents are good when he does not understand classical Arabic or has any Islamic qualification.
I did not like how Ibn Anwar ended here and I hope he reconciled and comes back because he is a qualified person with credentials and we are learning from him. Disagreement with Paul Williams does not make him less qualified as you Ken thinks.
Paul disagrees with Eric and Ibn disagree with Paul but insults and degrees started to crept in and the insults and the degrees influence by satan was the problem, otherwise it was a good discussions.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Does one have to have an advanced degree in order to do evangelism and outreach and debate with Muslims?
I have an M.Div. but I don’t know as much Hadith or other Islamic Tafsirs as Sam Shamoun does – he quotes straight from your texts and sources, but you and most Muslims ignore him and his writings, because of the anger and insults, bombast, and focus on sexual details (that you have to admit, it is there in many Hadiths and other Islamic books).
I told him that those methods ruin the good content, because it is not a good witness and Muslims will dismiss him and not read the content. He got upset with me for rebuking him and also for mentioning that Dr. White also said the same thing. I agree with Dr. White.
But when Sam defends the Deity of Christ, the Bible, the Trinity, and uses quotes from the Qur’an, Hadith, and Tafsirs and Tarikh, he does a good job, when there is no anger or insults or bombast in them.
Sam had good content that I used here, because he shows that Ibn Ishaq believed that the apostle John was the author of the fourth gospel, therefore an eyewitness testimony of Jesus Christ, His life, authority, identity, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/earliest-islamic-biographer-of-muhammads-life-affirms-that-john-the-apostle-of-jesus-and-eyewitness-of-the-crucifixion-and-resurrection-was-the-human-writer-of-the-fourth-gospel/
Sam’s content here is also very good.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2012/07/30/refuting-muslims-attacks-on-the-gospel-of-john-4/
LikeLike
Credit to you Ken for rebuking Sam, very few other Christians dare to do so which is shocking. He gets away with it. Poisons relations between Muslims and Christians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does a person have to be an expert in Arabic and Arabic sources in order to interact with Muslims?
You guys are using English, and not Greek or Hebrew to attack the Bible.
and when someone tries to use Greek, as in Ibn Anwar on John 1:1, he makes many mistakes.
LikeLike
You say ‘Ibn Ishaq still affirms the gospel of John as written by the apostle John’
I say, so what?
I have already discussed issues to do with this before:
Looking closely at Jesus’s comments on salvation, forgiveness, justification, the Law, God, etc suggests a set of teachings quite different to Paul’s and the standard Christian view today.
NT scholarship long ago uncovered this fact (cf the work of Johannes Weiss) and this is readily acknowledged by more liberal scholars today (eg James Barr).
A famous example would be the sacrifice-free forgiveness of sins taught by Jesus in the Lord’s Prayer. This can’t be just ignored.
– on our justification before God Jesus states unequivocally that ‘humility’ justifies a sinner in Luke 18 (cf Paul in Romans);
– obedience of the Jewish Law is *central* to discipleship in the Kingdom of God in Matthew 5:17-20, (cf Paul);
– how do we enter eternal life? by obeying the commandments says Jesus in Matt 19:17, (something Paul would never say);
– that salvation itself had come to Zacchaeus (by metanoia) was pronounced by Jesus in Luke 19 (but only available after the death & resurrection according to Paul);
– John the Baptist, revered as a great prophet in Islam, appeared proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins in Mark 1. People were baptised in the Jordan – thus their sins were forgiven;
– Jesus encouraged direct access to God the Father, (but Paul and later Christians introduced an intermediary between God and the believer);
There are numerous other examples I could recount. These sayings constitute the gospel *of* Jesus. Paul and later Christians preached a gospel *about* Jesus. The Proclaimer had become the one proclaimed. Jesus preached the Kingdom of God and it was the church that came.
The Quran acknowledges that the gospel of Jesus is to be found in the existing gospels but is not coterminous with it. Christians are called by God in his final Testament to mankind to judge what they believe by the gospel *of* Jesus, and this teaching is confirmed by the Quran. The Quran also corrects the mis-interpretations by Christians who wrongly believe Jesus is God. Jesus bears witness in the Quran that he is just a man.
Clearly the four gospels are not the Injil. They make claims (eg about the crucifixion) that God has made clear are quite unhistorical. The Quran suggests that the ‘Gospel’ (Injil) is something given to Jesus by God (surah 5:46). So it is evident that in the Qur’an the divine Gospel was one revealed to Jesus and not books written about Jesus.
A concluding quote from Montgomery Watt (who was Professor in Arabic and Islamic studies at the University of Edinburgh, and one of the foremost non-Muslim interpreters of Islam in the West):
“While it is stated that Jesus received from God a scripture called the Gospel (or Evangel – Injil), there is nothing to suggest that this was any more like our actual gospels in the New Testament than the tawrat received by Moses was like the actual Pentateuch. Indeed Muslims usually deny that our actual gospels are the book received by Jesus, since that consisted entirely of revelations from God and not of historical statements about Jesus.”
[William Montgomery Watt, Muslim-Christian Encounters. Perceptions And Misperceptions, Routledge, 1991, p. 24
I also refer you to the interesting discussion about the gospels/Injil in The Study Quran, surah 3: 3-4.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Paul !
I think this is very, very, very important and why I named my blog “Apologetics and Agape (Love)” – “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15) And I Peter 3:15 – “be ready to give an answer” – “yet with gentleness and respect”
We can still defend the Deity of Christ and the Trinity and reliability of the Bible without sinful anger and bombast and insults, etc.
LikeLike
Ken
you say ‘and when someone tries to use Greek, as in Ibn Anwar on John 1:1, he makes many mistakes.’
That’s because he did not study it at uni. (unlike you and I).
LikeLiked by 1 person
You and I debated and discussed almost every one of those passages over the years, but you deleted them on your old blogs. 🙂
Especially the Luke 18 and Matthew 19/ Mark 10 passage. (I have posted on those passages several times at apologetics and agape and at Beggar’s All; but you got rid of the original articles that were at your old blog.)
The Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6 is taught before the cross happens. I think we discussed this also.
“Forgive us of our sins (transgressions), as we forgive others who have sinned (transgressed) against us.”
That does not contradict that one must repent and believe in Christ and His atonement; when we repent and turn to Christ for forgiveness, we are asking for forgiveness and looking in faith to the cross”. This was spoken before the atonement took place at the cross – but see later in same Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45 – “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
If a person is unwilling to forgive others, it shows that they are not born again and don’t have the fruit of grace that gives the power to forgive others. The verse from Matthew 6, applied now after the atonement and event of the cross, exposes who is a true believer. God will not forgive someone who is unwilling to forgive others, because he has not been changed by the gospel of the cross and resurrection.
LikeLike
Yes, Paul Williams even agreed with me back in 2012 that John 1:1 teaches the Deity of Christ and points to the Trinity.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/01/muslim-agrees-with-greek-of-john-11.html
LikeLike
True! And I still hold to that view.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
You said;
Does a person have to be an expert in Arabic and Arabic sources in order to interact with Muslims?
You guys are using English, and not Greek or Hebrew to attack the Bible.
and when someone tries to use Greek, as in Ibn Anwar on John 1:1, he makes many mistakes.
I say;
It is not our fault to use English and not Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or Latin to attack the Bible because it is hard to find a Bible in those languages. Most Christians and their scholars are not very fluent in those languages.
Any Muslim translator understands and acknowledges that his translation is not good or perfect but just a try to evangelize Islam. So the Islamic scholars always recite the original Arabic, before trying to dissect and explain it as you erroneously try to do here which Sam Shamoun in most cases cannot do except copy from others.
I wish if I attack Christian illogicalities like I did above, any Christian corrects me with Greek. No Christian including you corrects me with Greek, so your Greek might not be good than Ibn Anwar.
I said, you are not true when said Jesus Christ possesses all the attributes/roles/features/names/job/duties/assigned duties/etc. of the Father. I do not know Greek at all and what you said is in English and it is not true.
It is up to you to use Greek to correct me and may be Paul Williams will help me. Because it is not true to say the Son/son possess everything that the Father has when he cannot generate the Father or himself because their persons is restricted to 3.
Sam Shamoun, David Wood and the rest were being corrected everyday by those who knew Arabic.
Thanks.
LikeLike
lol, Looks like someone driving wedge between Muslims. Advance degree? lol does he have any degree let alone advance?
LikeLike
Intellect,
I corrected you(and Ibn Anwar and Eric) using the Greek text, but alas, the comments are gone.
see here:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/greek-grammar-points-to-sola-scriptura.html
and here:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/01/muslim-agrees-with-greek-of-john-11.html
and here where Dan Wallace corrects Yusuf Ismail:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/05/dan-wallace-and-dr-white-respond-to.html
LikeLike
With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
//I corrected you(and Ibn Anwar and Eric) using the Greek text//
Ken, I dont think you correct me nor anyone else. The grammar/translation of John 1:1c is not as straight forward as it seems. To me the numerous greek scholars who suggest the translation as “and the Word was a god” bring a more convincing argument.
It is undeniable fact that a more ancient Sahidic Coptic MSS renders John 1:1c as “the word was a god” with “a god” in the “indefinite form not the way the way modern trinitarian want to translate.
Origen who was an ancient greek scholar during the period of church fathers also made a clear distinction between as ὁ Θεὸς (the Father) and θεὸς (the Logos/Son). The Father is “Autotheos, God of Himself”, but the “Word/Son”is created. through the Father thus Origen believes that Logos is subordinate to God.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Intellect,
I corrected you(and Ibn Anwar and Eric) using the Greek text, but alas, the comments are gone.
I say;
Thanks. I have read all the links and it did not help me with the Son not possessing all the Fathers attributes as you wanted to deceive us to believe. With all due respect Sir, the Son not possessing all the Fathers attributes has nothing to do with Greek but logic, consistency, truth, lies, deception, arrogance, pride, wrong religion, etc.
I mainly attack Christianity on its inconsistencies which they have many but not the Greek. Sam Shamoun, David Wood and co. reads English translations of Arabic literature which has other translations and it is not perfect to wrongly attack Islam.
I do not use Greek because I do not know Greek, but Muslims like Eric, Paul Williams, Yusuf Ishmael etc. use Greek and pronounce and write them to challenge Christianity. Brother Eric and Paul Williams are just bloggers but they do write Greek. Yusuf Ishmael is a debater and I saw him so many times speaking Greek and pronouncing the words sharply to James White and I thought the way he pronounce the Greek is sharper than Dr. James White.
He did learnt some Greek. Sam Shamoun, David Wood and co. has never being heard speaking Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic and how dare they? to use translations of Arabic to attack Islam? which they do not understand. To be able to interpret Islamic literature one has to go to classical Arabic training first before completing an Islamic study.
David Wood and co. do not speak the language of their own scripture, how can they attack some one’s religion without knowing its language. The first thing they must do is to master the language of their own scriptures, then learn Islam well and attack Islam to make them credible.
Ken, you admitted the Son do not possess the Father attribute and so you lied and tried to deceive us to believe Jesus Christ possess all the attributes of God the Father.
JESUS CHRIST DOES NOT POSSESS ALL THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD THE FATHER AND SO JESUS CHRIST IS NOT GOD.
Which God is that? who do not possess all the attributes of God?
Ken Temple your religion is false and it has nothing to do with Greek.
Thanks.
LikeLike
I am not deliberately lying – stop writing that. I am trying to explain, sincerely.
The whole reason why the 2 persons are differentiated, one as Father, the other as Son, is because you are talking now about their difference in their roles. The Father generates the Son (like the sun always shining light and rays out from itself). The Son of God is eternally generated (coming out from) the Father. Like mind and thoughts and communication in words coming out from His essence.
This was called the eternal generation of the Son. As Origen (250 AD) also wrote at least three different times – “there was not a time when the Son was not” = The Son always existed into eternity past with the Father; and Athanasius quoted this in his writings against the Arians in 325-373 AD.
LikeLike
Origen meant “the Son is eternally generated out from the Father”. Scholars of Origen, like this man quoted below, have pointed out that one has to read all of him to see what he means.
“Or indeed in Heb. 1, 3, ‘the effulgence of his glory and the very image of his substance’. CONTRARY TO WHAT ARIANISM WAS TO SAY, THE ETERNITY OF THIS GENERATION IS CLEARLY AFFIRMED, for it is inconceivable that the Father ever existed without his wisdom, his Reason, his Word, all expressions which, as we have seen, DENOTE THE SON. Nor did the Father begin to be Father, as if He had not been so before, since all change in God is inconceivable. TWICE in the Treatise on First Principles and ONCE in the Commentary on the Epistles to the Romans we find the famous sentence that was to be used AGAINST THE ARIANS: ‘ouk en hoti ouk en- There was not when He (the Son) was not’. THESE ARE NOT, as has sometimes been thought, ADDITIONS BY THE TRANSLATOR RUFINUS, for the second text from the Treatise on First Principles is quoted in Greek by Athanasius and explicitly attributed by him to Origen with the formulation that we have reproduced.” Henri Crouzel, Origen, T & T Clark, 1999.
Henri Crouzel, considered the leading Origen scholar
The following quotations are taken from Crouzel’s book titled, Origen, published by T&T Clark LTD, Edinburgh Scotland, 1999 edition.
Quoted by Sam Shamoun in an excellent article on Origen
Origen’s Christology: A Response to the Cults
@ answering-Islam
See, he can have excellent content by self-study and research, without the insults and bombast.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
I am very sorry to use that word lie because I respect you and you are highly learned person. But the Son does not possess all the Fathers attribute. That is what you want us to believe and it is not correct. I will be using it is not correct instead of lie.
You agreed with me that the Son do not posses the Father attribute, but you initially said the Son possesses all the Fathers attribute. It is not correct.
So Jesus is not God because the Father is God the Father who possess all the attributes that makes Him God including generating/creating the Son.
The Son cannot generate/create the Father or the Son himself because the persons are limited to only 3. So Jesus Christ do not possess all the attributes of God especially the important one that has to do with generation/creation.
My electricity comes from a power generating/creating plant and it can stop generating the power and I will not have electricity. Sun stops generating rays when it eclipsed or it set. Sun set.
There is no eternal generation of Son in the Bible. Origen ideas is useless and those who follow it are following Origin and ignoring the Bible which clearly states in many places and clearly that “God is One”
Follow the clear text of what God said He is and stop following Origin. Is he the one to tell you who God is? Is he cleaver than God? When God said clearly He is One? No where is “eternally generating/creating son” is found in the Bible.
Are you happy worshiping a God who is generated/created?
Thanks.
LikeLike
@ Intellect who said:
“There is no eternal generation of Son in the Bible. Origen ideas is useless and those who follow it are following Origin and ignoring the Bible which clearly states in many places and clearly that “God is One”
I reply:
I agree. This doctrine is not in the bible. The Son was begotten at a particular point in time:
Psalm 2, Hebrews 1 “This day have I begotten thee.”
“Are you happy worshiping a God who is generated/created?”
I don’t worship a God who is generated/created.
LikeLike
madmanna
You are not off the hook yet. Your begotten God is more dangerous than generated/created God.
Begotten means to have sex and create a child(son). That is what it means. It can be metaphorical.
God Almighty is not begotten. Whether metaphorical or literal. You do not use begotten to call the Almighty God in any way, shape or form.
Some Bibles have removed “the only begotten Son” and instead use “the only Unique Son”. Which ever way the Son is, God is not Son to anyone.
Any one who is Son, Jesus Christ is not God. It is bad name for God. Anyone can be Son but not God. Those saying someone who is Son is God, must repent before it is too late for them.
You see, satan is dangerous and he continue to influence, tempt and deceive us not to follow only one true God of Abraham but following Church Fathers by rejecting clear truth that God is 1, only and alone.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I call myself intellect because I use my intellect and not follow Church Fathers or Islamic tafsir. Ken Temple is highly learned than me, I must confess but he does not use his intellect but follows Church Fathers.
Being an intellect does not mean only highly academic. Those reading our interaction will concede that I am using my intellect to the maximum capacity than Ken.
So do not put quotations on my intellect because my intellect is real and I am an intellect.
If Islamic tafsir by Ibn Kathir does not make sense, I will not follow it but stooges like David Wood and Sam Shamoun will quote it, thinking it is obligatory for Muslims to always follow everything Ibn Kathir etc. said.
That is not how Islam works. We have so many school of thoughts in Islam like Hanafi, Ambali etc. and the Most important thing is to believe “God is 1” and nothing else, then you can pick the school of thought by using your intellect to reject what is not logical.
If some Muslim says gospel of John and so what? It is his opinion and it does not make sense the writer did not write his full name, town or village he lived and claim he is a disciple of Jesus.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Correction:
I also have degrees in other technical fields but not theology. So I mean Ken Temple is highly learned in theology than me but I also have some highly technical qualifications.
I am not Sam Shamoun who do not have single certificate of degree.
Thanks.
LikeLike
I do agree that the Psalm 2:7 passage, (today I have begotten you) which is quoted in Hebrews 1 and Hebrews 5, means the point in time at which He was incarnated in the womb of Mary and later born from Mary(Luke 1:34-35), but that still does not negate the truth that He pre-existed as the Son ( John 17:5; Philippians 2:5-8), so as He was the Word / Son generating out from the Father from all eternity, that is about the eternal generation of the Son.
But others have interpreted “today” as an eternal today, but that seems forced to me. Some connect it to the point that Jesus rose from the dead and declared that He is the Son of God, but also always was the Son from eternity past.
One is called the Incarnational Sonship (the Word became flesh and the Son, but pre-existed as the Word)
and
the other is the
Eternal generation of the Son
in Christian theology.
Both are true, it seems to me, according to Scripture.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
gen·er·ate
/ˈjenəˌrāt/
verb
cause (something, especially an emotion or situation) to arise or come about.
“changes that are likely to generate controversy”
synonyms: cause, give rise to, lead to, result in, bring about, create, make, produce, engender, spawn, precipitate, prompt, provoke, trigger, spark off, stir up, induce, promote, foster
“moves to generate extra business”
•produce (energy, especially electricity).
•produce (a set or sequence of items) by performing specified mathematical or logical operations on an initial set.
Source: https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=fMfTVtyzIMeC8QeHi4iQCQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=what+is+generate
Mr. Ken Temple, Anything that is generated/created/produced/cause to arise etc, is not God and cannot be said to pre-exist as a being/person by itself.
You said;
One is called the Incarnational Sonship (the Word became flesh and the Son, but pre-existed as the Word)
I say;
BECAME, BECAME, BECAME flesh means something that was not there and so the flesh is not pre-existent.
If the word is God, so when God said
Genesis 6:13
New International Version
So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.
Ken, what God said to Noah above is God’s word. Is what God said above not word of God? If it is, is it Jesus Christ? God have so many words in the Bible. Are the words Jesus Christ?
Thanks.
LikeLike
With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful.
It is illogical and false to claim there is such a thing as “eternal generation”. That’s why christian theology is false and condemned by the Qur’an. In fact there are no writings of the so called church fathers doting from the first century to the year 230 when the term “eternal generation” was ever used. The eternal generation concept has been later adopted by trinitarian theologians.
In Jh 1:14, ἐγένετο is derived from γίνομαι (Strong’s G1096) . This suggests an act of generation or to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. There is no way people can dodge the natural and fair meaning of this text is that there was a time when Logos had not an existence, and when it began to be, or was created.
LikeLike
John 1:14 – the word became (ἐγένετο) flesh is about the incarnation – God the Son entering into time and space and becoming a human.
Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld the glory of His, glory as of the only unique one from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14
The eternal generation of the Son from the Father is different, it is about His pre-existence as the Son from all eternity past. “There was never a time when the Son was not. Origen around 250 AD. Later, Arius the heretic said, “there was a time when the Son was not”.
John 17:5 shows the Son existed as the Son in eternity past.
“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” John 17:5
καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ πάτερ παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί
LikeLike
God is never without His Word, mind, ability to communicate, wisdom, Spirit.
LikeLike
“God is never without His Word, mind, ability to communicate, wisdom, Spirit.”
Even when he is dead?
LikeLiked by 1 person
God never dies.
But Jesus, the God-Man, did die, and rise Himself from the dead.
Jesus’ divine nature did not cease to exist.
Jesus’ human nature and body, died. Death is the separation of the soul/spirit from the body. Even the human spirit / soul continues on, either in heaven with God or in hell in eternal punishment.
LikeLike
Ken you say the God-man dies. But surely you mean that the human part of the God-man died but not the God part of the God-man, otherwise you have uttered a contradiction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Intellect wrote:
“There is no eternal generation of Son in the Bible. Origen ideas is useless and those who follow it are following Origin and ignoring the Bible which clearly states in many places and clearly that “God is One”
Madmanna wrote:
I reply:
I agree. This doctrine is not in the bible. The Son was begotten at a particular point in time:
Psalm 2, Hebrews 1 “This day have I begotten thee.”
“Are you happy worshiping a God who is generated/created?”
I don’t worship a God who is generated/created.
Madmanna
I hope you are still looking here.
Are you Trinitarian?
How do you explain the existence of the Son from all eternity past?
The Son was not created, but eternally generated means He always existed and there not created, because the early church distinguished “created” from “eternally generated”.
I agree that “today” seems to mean the incarnation and an entry into time, space, flesh; but the Son was still eternal and pre-existent before He became a human in the womb of Mary.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
God never dies. Then it is untruth for Christians to be deceiving us that God died for their sins.
There is no God-Man or Married bachelor in the whole Bible. There is God is One, Only and Alone but never God-Man.
Jesus human nature. Human is a being/person but not a “nature”, so it is untrue to say Jesus human “nature” dies. Dr. David-Kemball Cook said it is human beings that die but not nature. Nature do not have consciousness but human being has consciousness.
It is misleading to say Jesus nature or human nature died. You do not want me to use the word “lie” but you must also spare us with information that suggests that.
It is not true nature died but human being died. So Jesus human part died. God did not die for your sins then.
Every person is a being. Trinitarians say God being is counted and limited to 3. This is very important that it must be clear in the Bible like the “God is One”. It is not clear in the Bible God is counted and limited to 3 persons.
If God knows He can be counted into 3 persons why tell us clearly He is One, Only and Alone? And no where did He tell us He is 3 counted and limited to 3 persons?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ken Temple, you are a heretic. You are separating the two natures. No, no, you are not allowed to do that, naughty boy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“God never dies.” Exactly, because he never is human.
LikeLike
Ken you say God never dies, and that the God-man dies. But surely you mean that the human part of the God-man died but not the God part of the God-man, otherwise you have uttered a contradiction.
LikeLike
Do you agree that death is the separation of the soul / spirit from the body?
LikeLike
I guess so,
LikeLike
Why? How does that address my point?
LikeLike
Ken, I heard a Trinitarian Christian apologist say, I’m paraphrasing, Christians can say God died with reference to the crucifixion belief as long as they don;t take the meaning that death means a cessation of existence. He likened it to the death of humans where the body dies and the soul lives on.
From this I got the view that he believed each person of he Trinity belief has a distinct soul. I understand James White believes each person the Trinity idea has a distinct mind.
What are your views?
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Madmanna
I hope you are still looking here.
Are you Trinitarian?
How do you explain the existence of the Son from all eternity past?
The Son was not created, but eternally generated means He always existed and there not created, because the early church distinguished “created” from “eternally generated”.
I agree that “today” seems to mean the incarnation and an entry into time, space, flesh; but the Son was still eternal and pre-existent before He became a human in the womb of Mary.
I say;
We all knew Madmanna to be a staunch Trinitarian. May be madmanna is trying to use his intellect a little bit and follow the Bible instead of Church Fathers.
You Ken, is following the Church Fathers and not the Bible. If you sincerely follow the Bible, you will convert to Islam as people like Paul Williams, Dr. Jerald Dirks, Dr. Lawrence Brown, Gary Miller etc. did.
“the early Church distinguish “created” from “eternity generated”.
You intellect must tell you that, eternal being is exactly the opposite of generated persons. Jesus as a generated person is not eternal but generated/created.
The early Church Fathers are not wiser than God when He clearly stated He is One. Only and Alone in numerous verses but never in one verse said He is generated/created.
Some weeks ago, madmanna agreed with me that If God the Father posses the attribute of Father i.e. to create/generate and the Son do not posses that, then the Son Jesus Christ is not God.
I hope God opens the heart of madmanna and cleans his soul from arrogance, pride and away from satanic temptations to accept the truth and come back to start the worshiping of the only one true God of Abraham as Jesus said;
John 17:3
New International Version
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
Jesus could have easily said; 3 persons 1 God, eternally generated Son, Trinitas Unitas, Trinity, Triune etc.
The Church Fathers do not know God than Jesus. John 17:3 by Jesus is pure Islamic, because we believed Jesus was sent like all the prophets and from the only true God.
Thanks.
LikeLike
You guess so . . . ? Wow
I wrote my comment before I saw yours.
There is no contradiction, as the “God part” of Jesus cannot and did not die. But He was a one unified person with 2 natures; but death by definition cannot touch or effect God, since God has no body. But Jesus had a body and human nature. The hypostatic union of the 2 natures in Jesus is a profound mystery, but what is clear is that Jesus’ spirit/soul and Divine nature did not cease to exist, and He actually raised Himself from the dead, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Many verses say God the Father raised Him from the dead; several verses say He raised Himself from the dead (John 10:18; 2:19-22); and at least 2 verses say the Holy Spirit raised Him from the dead. (Romans 1:4; 1 Peter 3:18; Hebrews 9:14 implies it – both offering of atonement and resurrection) All three persons of the Trinity were involved in the resurrection.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But Ken you said that ‘the God-man dies.’ Now to say ‘the God part of Jesus cannot die. ‘ which is it? Cannot be both.
LikeLike
Yahya Snow wrote:
Ken, I heard a Trinitarian Christian apologist say, I’m paraphrasing, Christians can say God died with reference to the crucifixion belief as long as they don;t take the meaning that death means a cessation of existence. He likened it to the death of humans where the body dies and the soul lives on.
Yes; that was very well explained in Dr. White’s debate with Abdullah Kunde.
From this I got the view that he believed each person of he Trinity belief has a distinct soul.
No; a soul is for a human, not for God Himself. God is invisible and Spirit (John 4:23-24) The soul is the invisible aspect of a human being apart from his/her body – everything that is unseen that makes us human – mind, will, personality, emotions, consciousness, etc.
I don’t think we can express the persons of the Trinity as having “distinct souls”, since “soul” is a word that distinguishes the body from the unseen part (soul or spirit). Since God is Spirit, He is by nature already an unseen mind and spirit, but usually we don’t speak of “the soul” of God.
I understand James White believes each person the Trinity idea has a distinct mind.
I don’t know if he would say it that way, (he may answer this in a different way that I do; I don’t know)
but a “person” means a distinct mind, will, personality, so maybe so. Some other theologian called the persons of the Trinity – “three centers of consciousness”.
Beyond that, it is a mystery.
What are your views?
I believe in the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity, as expressed in orthodox writings and books, such as
Dr. White’s book, “The Forgotten Trinity,
Robert Bowman, “Why You should believe in the Trinity”,
Timothy George, “Is the Father of Jesus the god of Muhammad?”,
Michael Reeves, “Delighting in the Trinity”,
Robert Letham, “The Holy Trinity”, and
Stuart Olyott, “The Three are One”,
C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity,
Augustine, Athanasius, Calvin, etc.
Beyond that, it is a mystery.
O God, “Your greatness is unsearchable” – Psalm 145:3
O God, “your nature/essence/substance is unfathomable”.
I think Muslims demand too much; they demand too many extra words and statements, it seems to me. Like the way many Muslims and several people here argue, “it has to spelled out for me in the exact words in the text of the NT – “One God in substance/essence, three in persons”. and “Where did Jesus say “I am God; worship Me?”, etc.
If it was exactly in the text, you would still reject it –
(unless God the Holy Spirit convicts and draws), because there are enough texts that are clear ENOUGH –
Clear Enough to convince the Christians of the early centuries that produced the creeds, based on the texts of Scripture . . .
when Jesus said “I and the Father are One” and “If you’ve seen Me, you have seen the Father” and the apostolic texts of Philippians 2:5-8; Colossians 1:15-20; and Hebrews 1:6, 8 (of the Son, Thy Throne O God. . . “, 1:10-11 – those texts are clear enough, but you still reject them as written by apostles of Christ or authentic, etc. Since the Qur’an affirms the Gospel and Bible, (5:47; 10:94; etc.), the only thing you can do is accuse it of not saying that and accusing the corruption of starting way back in 30-33 AD. (after crucifixion but before Saul of Tarsus’ conversion, around 34 AD) But that does not make sense either, since Jesus was really crucified and died, as even liberals agree.) so, the Qur’an some 600 years later, makes up a story that God secretly took Jesus away and just made it look like He was crucified and died.
Maybe that (because of Surah 4:157) is why the Muslim world is so rife with conspiracy theories – “the Jews did it” or “Stephen Speilberg and Hollywood did it” or “the British did it” or “America was behind that” or “Bush and Cheney and Ahmadi-Nejad are behind closed doors laughing together”, etc. Yes, I have heard all those excuses many times from many Muslims.
other clear texts:
Matthew 2:1-12 – “they worshipped Jesus.
Matthew 14:33 – they worshipped Jesus and proclaimed “You are the Son of God”
Even with texts such as these, when you reject them as clear enough; you are demanding God has to reveal Himself in your own way, rather than trusting Him and His revelation.
LikeLike
Paul,
How the Divine nature and human nature are unified into one person, is a mystery. At some point, the deep theology of the essence of God and the Trinity becomes beyond words.
Many Muslims also have agreed with me, that the nature of God is unfathomable, unsearchable – which is what Psalm 145:3 points to.
That is part of what convinces Christians of the Trinity and the hypostatic union of Jesus (2 natures in one person) – the exalted profundity of it that leaves one speechless is part of the testimony that convinces people of the truth of those doctrines.
Since God is so great and awesome, ultimately the mystery itself points to the truth of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. The Divine Love and beauty of God the eternal Son humbling Himself and becoming a man for us, is the truth that convinces us. (as even Abdullah Kunde admitted in his debate with Dr. White, that this was a beautiful concept.) Human beings could not have come up with that on their own, without God Himself revealing it through Scripture and His Spirit.
LikeLike
see the debate of Dr. White vs. Abdullah Kunde – “Can God become Man?” (google and also at my apologetics and agape blog)
around 2:21:00 Abdullah talks about certainty – yaqin – یقین
Interesting that that is the word used in Surah 4:157 – “for certain they did not kill Him” Yet, established historical fact is against the Qur’an on this.
In Abdullah’s closing statement at the end: 2:25:56 – “ how God gave Himself, according to the Christians, and you know, I mean, that is beautiful . . . “ but you know what, we have so much more to be thankful for . . . air, food . . . ability to stand here and speak . . . we need to be more thankful . . . for existence itself . . . “
“Now, I certainly do appreciate . . . I do appreciate the idea God being so holy that we must have a mediator is beautiful, in fact its quite humbling, and I will be quite frank with you, I find it hard to listen to that 15 or 12 minutes of sermon, and not feel emotionally impressed.” Abdullah Kunde
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
I believe in the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity, as expressed in orthodox writings and books, such as
Dr. White’s book, “The Forgotten Trinity,
Robert Bowman, “Why You should believe in the Trinity”,
Timothy George, “Is the Father of Jesus the god of Muhammad?”,
Michael Reeves, “Delighting in the Trinity”,
Robert Letham, “The Holy Trinity”, and
Stuart Olyott, “The Three are One”,
C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity,
Augustine, Athanasius, Calvin, etc.
Beyond that, it is a mystery.
O God, “Your greatness is unsearchable” – Psalm 145:3
O God, “your nature/essence/substance is unfathomable”.
I say;
If the doctrine of Trinity is unsearchable, then why define it by the Trinitarians/Church Fathers/Christians? You defined what God did not define Himself. Are you wiser than God.
You said;
other clear texts:
Matthew 2:1-12 – “they worshipped Jesus.
Matthew 14:33 – they worshipped Jesus and proclaimed “You are the Son of God”
Even with texts such as these, when you reject them as clear enough; you are demanding God has to reveal Himself in your own way, rather than trusting Him and His revelation.
I say;
It is not clear above that Jesus said he is God. Yahweh or God is clear about how He want us to understand who He is and that is plenty in the Bible
“there is no one like Yahweh our God.” Exodus 8:10
“Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” Deuteronomy 4:35
“Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.” Deuteronomy 4:39
“See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
“Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!” Deuteronomy 6:4
“You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You” 2 Samuel 7:22
“For who is God, besides Yahweh? And who is a rock, besides our God?” 2 Samuel 22:32
“Yahweh is God; there is no one else.” 1 Kings 8:60
“You are the God, You alone [bad], of all the kingdoms of the earth.” 2 Kings 19:15
“The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one [hen] Lord; ” Mark 12:29
“you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only [monos] God?” John 5:44
Mr. Ken, the above and many, many more from the Bible said God is One, Only and Alone and it is fact and proof that God clearly said He is One, Only and Alone.
People do worship anything and it does not make those things God. The fact and truth must be Jesus be clear like God always is clear he is God.
It is very valid point by Muslims for Jesus to be clear like how God is known to be clear about salvation in so many, many versed in the Bible that He is One, Only and Alone.
People worshiping anyone including Jesus does not make the one being worshiped God. Haile Selaissie is not God, Jesus is not God, and fortunately they never claimed to be Gods but they are being worshiped.
Abdullah Kunde? Come on Ken, you are more than that. I like how they Sikh are peaceful and how their idols makes them peaceful. Does that mean their religion is right? No
Abdullah Kunde is just praising how your God will come down and die for your sins, and I and anyone will praise how nice it is but it did not happen and can never happen because God forgives sin as in the Lords prayer free of charge and God cannot exist in a latrine. God is above us and is omnipresent in His knowledge and does not need to come down.
God cannot exist in latrine and so God cannot enter into our filth as Christians say God is Holy and pure and man cannot go closer to God because man is not pure. How can then the pure God enter into impure world and be with the impure man who cannot come close the him with his impunities?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ken said: “Madmanna
I hope you are still looking here.
Are you Trinitarian?
How do you explain the existence of the Son from all eternity past?
The Son was not created, but eternally generated means He always existed and there not created, because the early church distinguished “created” from “eternally generated”.”
Hi Ken, yes I am trinitarian.
I agree that the Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. More than that the bible does not tell us in my view.
I don’t believe in the generation theory because, as I see it, this makes the Son dependent for his existence on the Father and would seem to violate the unity of God’s being. The part of God that is generating and the part that is generated can’t be exactly the same in essence can they? God speaks as an one undivided person in the OT. Are we supposed to believe that he generates himself?
Obviously we can’t project all the possible meanings of a human father and son on to the being of God. Maybe the words father and son as applied to God don’t have a metaphysical meaning but just a relational one. I don’t know.
Do the Father and the Son call each other by those names in eternity past before anything was created? It wouldn’t surprise me if they didn’t but these are the names by which they have revealed themselves to us and by which they should be worshipped. I guess there must be some quality that makes the Father and the Son differ from each other so that they have this fixed relation to each other which can never be changed, I believe that the bible is silent on this and it is better for us not to try and reason about this if God has not given us the means to do so. Perhaps other christians have better thoughts on this than I do. Endless discussion about the nature of the trinity is a waste of time. Life is too short. I have commented a few times at Dale Tuggys trinity site but basically it’s a waste of time in my view. No one is going to shift their position because of these arguments.
LikeLike
madmanna
Seeking the truth is not waste of time at all. We are in this world for test and we have to take the truth when we see it and put our pride and arrogance aside.
A couple of weeks ago, I was surprised to see you agree with me that if the Father is the creator of everything, then the Son cannot be a creator of everything and now you do not believe in a God who is generated/created.
You are right and that is the truth. I hope you continue to search for the truth and not call it waste of time. Ken Temple is relying on Church Fathers, but not his intellect or what the Bible said.
You and I, madmanna, are using our intellect and what the Bible said clearly but not vague as “they worship Jesus”.
Sai Baba of India is being worshiped, does that makes him God?
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
Since God is so great and awesome, ultimately the mystery itself points to the truth of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. The Divine Love and beauty of God the eternal Son humbling Himself and becoming a man for us, is the truth that convinces us. (as even Abdullah Kunde admitted in his debate with Dr. White, that this was a beautiful concept.) Human beings could not have come up with that on their own, without God Himself revealing it through Scripture and His Spirit.
I say;
The Pagan/Greek Roman God coming down to have sex with humans and give birth to hybrid God-Man is a very divine Love and beauty of God the eternal Son humbling Himself and becoming a man for them, is the truth that convinces them. It is so great awesome for the pagan Gods and pagans.
Creating your own fantasy, beauty and love does not make you right or true.
God said He is 1, Only and Alone. That is true God of Abraham. Any fantasy of God coming down to love is just a wishful thinking.
God loves us already without coming down. That is what Abdullah Kunde wants to stress because we have air, food, prophets, scriptures etc. guiding us to God without Him coming down.
Thanks.
LikeLike
The Pagan/Greek Roman God coming down to have sex with humans and give birth to hybrid God-Man is a very divine Love and beauty of God the eternal Son humbling Himself and becoming a man for them, is the truth that convinces them. It is so great awesome for the pagan Gods and pagans.
Estaqfr’allah !
They (the pagan gods) were never sinless.
they never defined it as divine love.
they never sacrificed themselves, like Jesus did on the cross.
The gods and goddess’ of ancient Greece and Rome acted out of some self-centered motivation, not from concern or love of mankind.
Captain Kirk to the god Apollos in Star Trek: “We refuse to worship you, we find the One True God enough.”
LikeLike
Madmanna,
Thanks for your explanation.
Do you think the “today” of Psalm 2:7 and Hebrews 1 and 5 is about the incarnation?
Do you think before the incarnation, Jesus is just the Word (logos) in eternity past?
Is the Son the Son, and the Father the Father in eternity past?
Don’t you think John 17:1-5, especially verse 5 speaks to the eternality of the Son into the past? (along with John 1:1 and Philippians 2:5-8 (existing in the form / nature of God)
You are right is that there comes a point where cannot go any deeper. (Like the Muslims demanding things in words for their own demands and satisfaction, rather than accepting the earlier revelations established for 600 years before Islam.)
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Estaqfr’allah !
They (the pagan gods) were never sinless.
they never defined it as divine love.
they never sacrificed themselves, like Jesus did on the cross.
The gods and goddess’ of ancient Greece and Rome acted out of some self-centered motivation, not from concern or love of mankind.
Captain Kirk to the god Apollos in Star Trek: “We refuse to worship you, we find the One True God enough.”
I say;
Their believers believed they are sinless, that is why they worship them. Their followers believed they are divine. Bart Erhman always says this and it is a fact.
The gods and goddess of ancient Greece and Rome acted with love for their followers that is why they came down like Jesus and they have Goddess of Love, Goddess of, Goddess of wisdom, Goddess of beauty etc.
Aphrodite
( i/æfrəˈdaɪti/ af-rə-DY-tee; Greek: Ἀφροδίτη) is the Greek goddess of love, beauty, pleasure, and procreation. Her Roman equivalent is the goddess Venus.
Source:https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=f9zUVq3KNIjd8gei65rgDA&gws_rd=ssl#q=goddess+of+love
Apollo, the God of light has the Sun at his head like how Jesus mostly has Sun at his head
Click and see Apollo and he is like the drawing of Jesus Christ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_deities
Christianity borrowed the Sun/Son generated/created by the Father from Apollo the God of light.
Jesus never sacrificed himself but was beaten to death and he had to call the only one true God of Abraham to help him.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
You are right is that there comes a point where cannot go any deeper. (Like the Muslims demanding things in words for their own demands and satisfaction, rather than accepting the earlier revelations established for 600 years before Islam.)
I say;
We accept the earlier revelations established 600 years before Islam and here are they;
—————————–
“there is no one like Yahweh our God.” Exodus 8:10
“Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” Deuteronomy 4:35
“Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.” Deuteronomy 4:39
“See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
“Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!” Deuteronomy 6:4
“You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You” 2 Samuel 7:22
“For who is God, besides Yahweh? And who is a rock, besides our God?” 2 Samuel 22:32
“Yahweh is God; there is no one else.” 1 Kings 8:60
“You are the God, You alone [bad], of all the kingdoms of the earth.” 2 Kings 19:15
“The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one [hen] Lord; ” Mark 12:29
“you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only [monos] God?” John 5:44
———————————-
Mr. Ken I have more and more and more from the previous revelations before Islam that clearly says God of Abraham is 1, only and alone.
We want to see a clear proof where the previous revelations clearly says;
3 persons 1 God
Father generating/creating Son
Trinity
Hypostatic Union
Incarnation
Trinitas Unitas
Jesus saying “I am God worship me” etc,
We do not put our lives on Church Fathers as you do but we use our intellect and scriptures and thank God madmanna is coming on our side. I do pray for him and all those who want to sincerely pursue and accept the truth.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Great article. Before reading the comments, I think that we tend to fall back on our culture, our beliefs, our comfort zone, our source of income, so even if we are convinced of something different we profess to our current belief.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
In Jh 1:14, ἐγένετο is derived from γίνομαι (Strong’s G1096) . This suggests an act of generation or to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. There is no way people can dodge the natural and fair meaning of this text is that there was a time when Logos had not an existence, and when it began to be, or was created.
KT: //John 1:14 – the word became (ἐγένετο) flesh is about the incarnation – God the Son entering into time and space and becoming a human.//
This is not sensible. How can you expect us to believe that God at a point in time”enter” His creation. God is beyond His creation, and God is not a man; see Numbers 23:19. My point hence since ἐγένετο is the aorist of γίνομαι, implies a point in time that the flesh was created thus destroying eternal-creation non-sense.
you cited:
The verb εἶχον (which you translate in english as: I had) is in indicative mood , imperfect tense which means simply expressing a simple statement as FACT, whether this action occurs, has occurred or will occur. It is not a strong argument as indication of eternity.
I can accept mind that the God has given nabi Isa the glory δόξῃ , in Islamic understanding everyone destiny has been recorded before time in لَوْحٍ مَحْفُوظٍ literally the preserved tablet (as it is mentioned in the holy Qur’an). However we muslims do not fall into Satan trap by understanding the tablet as eternal created person or worst as another deity, No! We understand this as God’s foreknowledge. Nabi Isa could the “logos,” the “plan” of God from the beginning, and he became flesh only when he was conceived. Trinitarians committed shirk to read an actual physical existence into verse like this rather than a God’s foreknowledge.
Also Check 2 Timothy 1:9 when it says that each Christian was given grace χάριν “before the beginning of time,” πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων. Do you believe that there are many deity persons who we were actually alive with God in eternity?
LikeLike
KentTemple “Like the Muslims demanding things in words for their own demands and satisfaction, rather than accepting the earlier revelations established for 600 years before Islam.”
Stop lying Temple. Muslims demand a spade being called a spade. We accept the consistent explicit revelation of Tawheed. Trinity was NEVER ever revealed explicitly. It’s a self refuting manmade philosophical concept, a lie. Nothing mysterious about that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Madmanna,
Thanks for your explanation.”
Hi Ken, thanks for your challenging questions.
Quick answers.
“Do you think the “today” of Psalm 2:7 and Hebrews 1 and 5 is about the incarnation?”
No. In my view they are about the investiture of Jesus with his messianic offices. Probably at his baptism.
I would interpret Hebrews 5 in this sense: “5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.”
Do you think before the incarnation, Jesus is just the Word (logos) in eternity past?
Yes.
Is the Son the Son, and the Father the Father in eternity past?
In my view, no. Hebrews 1 v 5 “And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” which seems to suggest that there was a time when this relationship did not exist.
Of course they are the eternal persons of the Godhead who became these things to each other in time. Potentially they are eternally Father and Son to each other but not actually until the incarnation.
“Don’t you think John 17:1-5, especially verse 5 speaks to the eternality of the Son into the past? (along with John 1:1 and Philippians 2:5-8 (existing in the form / nature of God)”
Yes, but the eternality of the Word as the incarnated Son.
John did not say that the Son became flesh but that the Word became flesh.
I hope that the Holy Spirit leads us in to all truth and I welcome correction if I am wrong.
LikeLike
I still haven’t read all the comments, but fascinating discussion! Going back to the original post: I remember you saying once, Paul, that the priests at Farm Street didn’t actually believe some particular doctrine but still confessed to doing so to remain in good-standing with the Church. Is that what’s going on here??
And secondly: let’s say for a moment that Jesus isn’t God. Does it matter to God that we think Jesus is God and sing songs about him? As long as we’re trying to live godly lives and do acts of charity will God really judge us on our wrong thoughts about him?
LikeLike