This afternoon I debated John Harris of Living Waters at Speakers Corner. The debate was broadcast live on YouTube. I hope to have a public moderated debate with him in the future – subject: who was Jesus? (thanks to Nazam who took the pic)
just posted on facebook – about me 🙂
Categories: Christianity, Islam, London
Blogging Theology 
Who is he and what is Living Waters?
LikeLike
good questions! Some evangelistic ministry from up north.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100006622931435&hc_location=ufi
LikeLike
Where is the recording of your discussion?
LikeLike
apparently. But I don’t know by whom or when it will be available. Why the interest?
LikeLike
Because you fascinate me. You will debate with “fundamentalists” such as this gentleman, but not with James White, David Wood or myself. Why the inconsistency?
LikeLike
no inconsistency. I debate whom I choose. I have debated some of the world’s most brilliant Christians such as Rowan Williams. However I draw the line at certain kinds of people.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Paul do y9ou have the link to the Youtube page. If it was live streamed to Youtube it should automatically be available unless those that where streaming it changed it to private.
LikeLike
MashAllah (God Willed it).
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CeRw2jwUyaE
LikeLike
It’s private.
LikeLike
indeed. I suspect they are too embarrassed to show it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
hehe
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul Williams
Next time take your camera there. Muslims normally leave their precious debate at the hands or Christians who will change the whole thing. Sam Shamoun is expert in doing video editing to make his first debate with Shabbir Ally look better, but later some Muslim brought the unedited one on youtube and Shamoun looked trashed by Shabbir Ally.
David Wood completely edited his debate with Sammy Zataari and cut the questions and answer section where he was completely nailed by Sami and Muslim questioners. Dr. James White hid his debate with a Ghanaian Muslim by the name Sheikh Awal for so many years until persistent accusation from the Sheikh and Ijaz Ahmed before he finally released it. If you watch Awal and Dr. White, debate, you will understand why the Dr. will not want to release it. Before then there was a doctored version of the debate with no pictures that put Sheikh Awal in a stammering voice without clarity but Dr. James White voice was clear.
I do not blame the Christians as their religion itself involves lies of God becoming man but the Bible clearly states God is not a man but they believed the lies, so they can easily change a video or hide it to cover the lies.
Muslims too like Paul Williams are not serious to record the important defence of Islam they are do with this technological age where camera or camcorder is in the pockets of almost every person and on watches and pens as doctor James White will utilize technology and record his debates with his pen. Jay Smith carries his high definition camera to the park filming his lies but will corrupt Mansoor Ahmed’s voice on pfander films but fortunately Mansoor has his own camera and we are all happy to see Mansoor expose his lies.
Jay Smith’s lies 1
Jay Smith lies 2(Jay, the Bible said God is not a man, it is not Muslims who says that)
Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry. I posted the same video 2 times.
This is the second video I intend to post where Jay Smith said he has a masters in Islamic studies but does not know the Arabic he is lying about and Mansur had to correct him.
Yahya Snow, more grease to your elbows for doing more of this kinds videos to expose the lies of this missionaries.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Intellect
I live just up the road from Speakers Corner. Nazam informed me that a christian group had arrived there so we decided to go and have a look. When I arrived I found the preacher haranguing an atheist about the lack of evidence for atheism etc. I approached an associate of the preacher and asked if I might debate John about who Jesus was. Permission was given. Then a long debate ensued.
The Christians had two cameras (big professional ones) which live streamed the debate on line. I could hardly record the event as I was busy debating. Nazam didn’t record as it was being recorded and was on youtube.
My hunch is that they will either edit out the debate or not upload any of it.
LikeLike
Paul Williams
Thanks for the explanation. It was an impromptu debate. In such instance, you can hardly record it. From my experience watching youtube about Muslim and Christian debates from Sam Shmoun, David Wood, Jay Smith down to Dr. James White and so on, the Christians either edit the debate or hid it or do not upload it at all. A religion that said God is not a man but God is man, God is 1 but 3, God has a Son/son but not a Son/son but Himself, God is immortal but died etc. and so on and they accept both the truth and the lies is likely to hide the truth and shows the lies because the lies do not agree with the truth.
The Quran says they will be judged with what is revealed therein. They should be able to take the truth out from the lies in the Bible corrupted by men.
Thanks.
LikeLike
if anyone is interested the preacher (John) and I have exchanged further reflections on the debate. John is very unhappy about it. He blames me. lol. Below is my reply published just now.
https://www.facebook.com/livingwaterseurope?fref=nf
LikeLike
My reply – part one
I live just up the road from Speakers Corner. Nazam (a Muslim friend) informed me that a Christian group had arrived there so we decided to pop down and have a look. When I arrived I found the preacher (John) haranguing a poor atheist about the lack of evidence for atheism etc. I had sympathy for the atheist as John would mostly not let him speak.
Emboldened by this display of macho dominance I approached David Harris and asked if I might debate John Harris about who Jesus was. Permission was given. Then the long debate ensued. At no point was I told that a debate was off limits or that I could only ask one question and meekly await a reply.
I am a regular at Speakers Corner. I have debated many Christians over the years. I suspect John is unfamiliar with the way discussions and debates occur at Speakers Corner. Yes they are robust, direct encounters. They are not the equivalent of a genteel vicars tea party.
Yesterday’s debate was quite mild compared to what often takes place there. John perhaps did not realised this. And perhaps someone from the politer regions of Northern England is not used to how Londoners tackle issues head on.
Anyway, as a former evangelical Christian myself who converted to Islam (alḥamdulillah) I am very familiar with the Christian/Muslim arguments. Perhaps in retrospect I could have shown more respect to John by listening closely to him, but John appeared to be preaching to the audience rather than addressing the questions I raised. This was off-putting and did not help. A typical example was his repeated failure to deal with Jesus’ statement in Mark 10:
‘As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.’
Jesus denies he is God/good here. As a humble prophet to the Jews he rightly attributes all goodness to God alone.
Most of my points were completely ignored by John despite asking him repeatedly for a response.
Perhaps respect is a two-way street John?
For me, perhaps the most shocking statement by John was when he said God does not forgive peoples sin. There must be a ‘price paid for sin’. This is shocking because it contradicts the core teaching of Jesus himself – see the wonderful (and very Islamic) parable of the unforgiving servant in Mathew 18:23-35. (See also the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6). Jesus’ God is very merciful and forgiving. Ditto the God of Islam. John’s god is the odd one out I am afraid. I know which I prefer 😉
John failed to deal with the following passage where Jesus says that, just like us, he has a God:
Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” John 20
* Where Peter says Jesus was just a man through whom God did miracles:
“You that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know..” Acts 2
* Where Peter implies Jesus was not Lord or messiah before God made him so:
“Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Acts 2
* Where Paul teaches that Jesus is subordinate to his God, that Jesus has a God:
‘But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ.’ 1 Corinthians 11
* Where the Bible clearly teaches that God knows all things (1 John 3:20) – yet Jesus does not know the date of the End (Mark 13); does not know why God abandoned him (Mark 15); cursed a fig tree not realising it was not the season for figs.
* Where the Bible says God does not die (1 Tim 6:16), is immortal, yet the gospels show Jesus dying on a cross.
Finally, John had amply time to reply to all these questions, as the film will show. But he chose to ignore these points – for reasons he will need to explain.
—————
Reply part 2
Now to the verses and arguments John produced.
I explained to John, briefly, that his own scholars – Christians NT scholars! – mostly do not consider that Jesus actually spoke the words attributed to him in the gospel of John. Perhaps John Harris is unaware of this fact which preachers, pastors and ministers typically do not tell their flocks. Who are these scholars? They are professors of the Bible at leading universities in the UK and North America. Here are a few names for you to check out:
Professor Richard Bauckham, specialising in New Testament Christology and the Gospel of John. He is a senior scholar at Ridley Hall, Cambridge.
Craig Evans, Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College in Canada.
James Dunn, Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham,
These are top NT experts and evangelical Christians. For sound historical reasons (which I leave you to explore) they do not consider that Jesus actually spoke most of the words attributed to him in the gospel of John – above all the ‘I am’ statements.
John, you misquote Matthew 28 when you say:
‘Jesus said that all authority in heaven and earth belongs to Him. If power over all things belongs to Allah only, then Jesus is God.’
According to Matthew the words are these: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”
If authority was GIVEN to Jesus then logically there was a time he did NOT possess it. God has authority, power, sovereignty, by right, eternally. Mathew thinks God shared this authority with Jesus at a particular time. Your argument therefore backfires and disproves the very point you wish to make!
You may not realise that most scholars consider that Matthew made up this passage. There are serious problems with it. There is no evidence that anyone at any time was aware of the
instruction to ‘baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’. Check out Acts of the Apostles. No one baptised using this formula – no one knew about it. Paul did not know of it. Probably unhistorical.
Also the triadic formula makes better sense in a late first century context. The earlier gospels do not mention it. Remember, Matthew was writing towards the end of the 1st century, he used Mark in the writing of his gospel, and we can actually see where he modified/altered/improved Mark in many places, improving the image of Jesus, heightening the status of Jesus, embellishing stories which make Jesus look more exalted and portraying the disciples as “worshipping” Jesus. In the view of most experts these stories are editorial embellishments by Matthew, which we do not find in the earlier gospel of Mark or the gospel source known as Q.
LikeLiked by 3 people
A typical example was his repeated failure to deal with Jesus’ statement in Mark 10:
‘As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.’
Jesus denies he is God/good here. As a humble prophet to the Jews he rightly attributes all goodness to God alone.
Richard Bauckham, whom you use when he suits your purpose, and you referred to him below, says of the Mark 10 passage, “it is a wonderful double entendre” – that Jesus actually is claiming to be God, by saying “only God is good; and if I am good, then I am God”. “if you are willing to call Me good; then you need realize that I am God, since only God is good.” It is an indirect eastern method. Bauckham said this on the “Unbelievable Radio Program” with Justin Brierley, in October of 2009. (Oct. 10, 2009, with James Crossley) google and find it; do the research.
Ouch!
LikeLike
God does forgive in the context of becoming a true follower / believer. God’s forgiveness in the OT was in the context of the sacrificial system that believers offered sacrifice in the tabernacle and temple, with faith and repentence, there was forgiveness. That is why God instituted the sacrificial system.
Matthew 18 – I refuted you many times on your take of that parable. search for it at apologetics and agape . For the context, you must go back to verse 15 – it is about church discipline. God forgave first, so He expected His servants / believers to forgive others. The principle is the same in Ephesians 4:31-32 – ” . . . forgive one another, just as God in Christ forgave you.” We believers in Christ are able to forgive only because God forgave us first in the atonement of Christ.
Matthew 6 – Jesus says to the disciples (hint, they are already believers) – “Lord . . . ” Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who have sinned against us” If a person is unwilling to forgive, it shows they are not a true believer.
Ouch again.
LikeLike
The verses from John 20, Acts 2, I Cor. 11, etc. do not mean what you make them out to mean. They don’t say “Jesus was ONLY a man”. They affirm that He was a man, which Christians believe, but more than a man, a divine person with 2 natures; both God and Man; “the God-Man”. John 1:1; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8-11)
Jesus not knowing about the time of His second coming (Mark 13; Matthew 24) was only while He was on earth; it was temporary. He knows now.
Jesus was already Lord and God from eternity. (John 17:5; 1:1) The verse about being “made” Christ and Lord is about Him humbling Himself and laying aside the full use of His omnipotence and omniscience, then after He rose from the dead, His power and authority and status were fully returned back to Him. Same for Matthew 28:18 – talking about His restoration to a high position after His powerful resurrection, proving that He was God in the flesh, the son of God.
Ouch again !
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
The verse about being “made” Christ and Lord is about Him humbling Himself and laying aside the full use of His omnipotence and omniscience, then after He rose from the dead, His power and authority and status were fully returned back to Him.
I say;
Tell me please, where did he lay aside the full use of His omnipotence and omniscience? You know if He did not find a proper place to hide them, Satan will definitely steal them to confuse people to believe God is something other than the one, only and alone God of the Bible.
Where did He keep or lay his omnipotence and omniscience? Who will return the omnipotence and omniscience to him? or where will He pick them back?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Temple “They affirm that He was a man, which Christians believe, but more than a man, a divine person with 2 natures;”
Some Christians believe, Jesus is one divine person with 2 natures. Recently I found out, there are reformed/evangelical/fundamentalist groups/sects/cults/free churches, who actually believe Jesus is NOT a man any more, he “somehow” got rid of his human nature after the resurrection.
When asked what that means in detail or how it works, they just waffle about “biblical” evidence. Of course these guys are not orthodox trinitarians, but still they insist they are – somehow.
LikeLike
Temple “They affirm that He was a man, which Christians believe, but more than a man, a divine person with 2 natures;”
Orthodox trinitarians actually believe Jesus is less than a man. “A man” is a human person. The trinitarian “Jesus” is NOT a human person. He is not “a man”, he is just “man”, has assumed a human nature, (whatever that means).
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Jesus not knowing about the time of His second coming (Mark 13; Matthew 24) was only while He was on earth
I say;
But God always has His knowledge, He does not forget. So Jesus is not God. But he forgave sins on earth as God? he raised the dead on earth as God? he was able to remember his Father sent him while on earth why cant he remember the date?
GOD DOES NOT FORGET BUT JESUS FORGOT SO HE IS NOT GOD OR JESUS LIED AS GOD WHEN HE SAID HE DOES NOT KNOW THE DATE.
Jesus as God on earth was able to remember how to forgive sins and raise the dead as God himself but to forget about the end date? Give me a break. God does not forget or lie. Jesus did lie or forgot as God when he said he does not know the day except someone(the Father) alone.
The Bible said God is One, Only and Alone, so if the Father alone knows the date he is the only one and alone God to be worshiped but not Jesus. To worship Jesus(a man) is a blaspheme.
You said;
Jesus not knowing about the time of His second coming (Mark 13; Matthew 24) was only while He was on earth; it was temporary. He knows now.
I say;
God suspending his knowledge temporally? It means forgetfulness. To say and think God forgets is blaspheme of a highest degree. If God forgets how can He know how to control the things He knew. How can He be all knowing?
You said
He know now.
Jesus said he does not know but someone knows. Jesus never said he will know the date in future. You are making up things. What kind of God is that? who will not know something temporally but will know it later?
Thanks.
LikeLike
According to Colossians 2 ‘For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form’
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
You said;
“They affirm that He was a man, which Christians believe, but more than a man, a divine person with 2 natures;”
I say;
Psalm 102:27
But you remain the same, and your years will never end
James 1:17
Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.
New International Version
God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
God does not change and God is not man and it means God does not become a man. So any man is not God because a man is a human being and God is divine being and they do not mix. Just like the 100% demon 100% man could not mix and Jesus separated them, the same un mixing will occur when 100% God and 100% man is separated, so Jesus is not God.
You are making things up. Making things up is easy for you to do and add it to Gods word to whims and caprice but it is very dangerous for you I am afraid. Show me where in the Bible does it says God is a divine person with 2 natures? Why not 3 natures?, 4 natures and so on. You see you are limiting God to 2 natures and it is a great blaspheme, but you may not realize it now.
God is creator and He created every thing including all natures and does not have to limit himself to 2 natures but not 3,4,5, etc. natures.
Any man including Jesus Christ is a created being and that is what man means a created being and therefore cannot be God Almighty. Those people thinking Jesus Christ a man is God must think well and change before they die, it is better for them.
Thanks
LikeLike
Paul,
Your part about Matthew 28:19 is very weak, because:
1. There are no textual variants on that verse. From the beginning, it was “baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”
2. It is quoted in the earliest extant non-canonical writings, such as the Didache (70 -130 AD), Ignatius (110 AD), Justin Martyr (165 AD), etc.
Ouch again!!
LikeLike
“Intellect”,
Thanks for quoting Psalm 102:27 again. This passage (Psalm 102:25-27) is quoted in Hebrews 1:10-12; and is saying this is about Jesus, the eternal Son.
“but of the Son, it says,
“Thy Throne is forever and ever . . . ” (Hebrews 1:8)
“and” (Hebrews 1:10) – means that Psalm 102:25-27 is also about the Son.
Ouch !!
LikeLike
Temple “…this is about Jesus, the eternal Son.” Erm, Temple, “Jesus” is NOT the eternal Son.
“Jesus” is the eternal Son plus a human nature.
Different entity, not identical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
His doesn’t change but Jesus certainly did.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
Thank you Burhanuddin1 and Paul Williams for clarifying the truth to Ken Temple. It is simple to deduce that there is changes in the Trinitarian God but Ken Temple and co. will not accept it.
Son/son is always a created being and that is what it means, unless it is metaphorical or adoption and in such case, it will disqualify Jesus as the only begotten Son/son.
Man means a created being and that is what it means and the Bible clearly state that God is not a man(human being) but Trinitarians are worshiping Jesus(a human being/man). They go against their own Bible.
Unitarians are better, because they are smart and although may not believe in the Quran but used their intellect, (that is where I derived my nick name) because the Quran said we should use our intellect to identify what God clearly said He is in the scripture and that He is One, Only and Alone.to clearly know God is One but the Trinitarians refused and are depending their lives on Paul of Tarsus and some councils formed to describe what they think God is, but it is clear in the Bible that God is One, Only and Alone and is not a man, God-Man, 3 persons, hypostasis and more crap.
So, at least the Unitarians will be judged with what is revealed therein and that is God is One, Only and Alone and the Unitarians Christians will not be asked why do you worship 3 persons or Gods or beings. Unitarians may have other things to answer to God but not on worshiping 3 Gods. There is nothing like half Muslim but full Muslim I must admit, but I consider anyone who worships Only one and alone God of Abraham as at least some half Muslim there, because God will not ask him “why do add a partner to me”.
Trinitarians, Hindus, Rastafarians, idol worshipers, voodoos etc. have a lot to answer in the day of judgement, some because they did not use their intellect to stick to what God said He is in the scripture and that is One, Only and Alone and full stop(.), period, stop there, do not add anything.
Thanks.
LikeLike
no, “son” does not mean a created being. “the son of the road” or “son of the Nile” in the Qur’an and in Egypt just means “those that travel a lot” and “one who lives near and gets his sustenance from the Nile river”. The “Mother of the books” in the Qur’an does not mean literal mother.
In the same way, the early church was very specific to say, “the Son, uncreated” and “eternally generated from the past”.
Jesus says He was always the Son into eternity past – John 17:5
LikeLike
if the son is “generated” ie has been ‘produced’ or ‘created’ (that’s what the word means ken), then the son is not the uncreated God. You can’t have it both ways – if words mean anything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
You said;
no, “son” does not mean a created being. “the son of the road” or “son of the Nile” in the Qur’an and in Egypt just means “those that travel a lot” and “one who lives near and gets his sustenance from the Nile river”. The “Mother of the books” in the Qur’an does not mean literal mother.
In the same way, the early church was very specific to say, “the Son, uncreated” and “eternally generated from the past”.
Jesus says He was always the Son into eternity past – John 17:5
I say;
Are you kidding me? Son does not mean created being? Man oh Man. Wonders will never end. What are you talking about?
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=4pAJVuTJDOeh8wexq46oDg&gws_rd=ssl#q=What+is+son
Show me an English,Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic or any language that says Son in that language is not begotten i.e. created being.
You used the word “generate” above for the Son/son and generate means to make, to create, to produce, to arise, to come about etc. and does not go with ETERNITY and it means created just like the Son/son
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=4pAJVuTJDOeh8wexq46oDg&gws_rd=ssl#q=What+is+generate
What you quoted above is metaphors. I do not deny metaphorical son, that can be used above. But the literal Son/son is always a created being through sex or now in vitro fertilization that involves artificial sperm fertilization inserted into the female organ to cause pregnancy and child birth. It is created being in both cases. That is the only way a literal Son/son could be created. The rest of the Sons/sons and Mothers you quoted above are all metaphorical which I do not deny. But metaphorical are not real but just adoption or figuratively. Get it clear now. NO ONE CAN BE LITERAL(REAL) SON TO GOD ALMIGHTY BECAUSE HE IS ONLY ONE AND ALONE GOD AND DOES NOT BEGET AND NO ONE BEGETS HIM(GOD).
Son/son means created being unless that Son/son is metaphorical or adopted. That is what Son/son means beget, or give birth to and all begets or give birth to are created.
Show me a dictionary in any language that says Son/son in that language does not mean given birth to or procreating.
Son/son is always created unless it is metaphor.
If the Son/son does not mean created why do the early church say “son not created”?
Some Bibles realized the begotten means made and they add “begotten not made”. If begotten or son does not mean created, why add not made? or not created?
To deceive people as Christians always does. You can deceive those without intellect not me.
If is just like me having a new religion and try to change a word and say
I am “walking not moving” because I am still but walking to work. It rubbish.
Some Bibles have removed the begotten altogether and some scholars consider the begotten as a fabrication. I hope all Bibles remove the Son/son altogether and replace it with board or directors, Directors, Managers etc. in the God heard or even Heads, or Almighties. But the begotten and the Son is not fit for God and anyone who is begotten or is a Son/son is not God. God is above being begotten or becoming a Son/son whether literal or metaphorical. Anyone who is a Son is not God and cannot be God.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Temple, do you believe Jesus is the literal “son of God”?
Do you believe Jesus is still human (still possessing human nature) or not?
LikeLike
wow paul i had no idea you were so popular
LikeLike
Lol it’s not that Im well known, I just turned up at speakers corner
LikeLike
Paul,
The generation of the Son is an eternal generation (always flowing out from the Father from eternity past). The illustration most used by the early church fathers was like rays always coming out from the sun. The logos (Word) is the mind expressing itself in words; never a time when they are not there at the same time.
LikeLike
Temple, the God-Man is not “eternally generated”. The eternally generated “Son” is not the “God-Man”.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Paul,
The generation of the Son is an eternal generation (always flowing out from the Father from eternity past). The illustration most used by the early church fathers was like rays always coming out from the sun. The logos (Word) is the mind expressing itself in words; never a time when they are not there at the same time.
I say;
Does the Son also generates the Father? So that Sun comes from it rays? It is always rays coming from sun but sun cannot come from rays, so sun and rays are not the same and equal at all. The rays cannot generate the sun but the sun can generates the rays.
If I have a sun generates a ray today. Tomorrow the rays it will generate is different from yesterday. That is why we have hot or warm temperature and cold or low temperatures.
The rays varies but the Sun remain the same, so the rays is not the same as the sun because the sun can generate the rays but the rays cannot generate the sun and so they are different and cannot be equal or the same.
The son cannot generate the Father, so they are not the same and generate means create. God is uncreated and nothing generates or creates God. When you talk about generation or creating something, take God out in terms of God “being generated. God is not generated. If God generates his word from eternity, then He generates His wisdom, mercy, love, etc. from eternity as well and we will have so many Gods according to His attributes.
Thanks
LikeLike
Ken Temple
I forgot to add. You proved us right today in that we accuse Christianity of borrowing the concept of Sun God producing Sons from pagan religions and that is what you have just done, comparing God with Sun God. May the Almighty God forgive Trinitarians and bring their worship back to the God of Abraham and remove that concept of pagan sun God from their mind. The sun God has 25 December as his birthday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_deity
Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
No; the sun is just a created illustration of the Father, the Son (rays) and the Holy Spirit (heat), which were and are always there, and they share the same nature. But the illustration is not meant to be a complete or perfect illustration.
LikeLike
“were and always there” from the time the sun was created, (of course God created the sun); but God is eternal and personal, indeed 3 persons, spirit, mind, emotions. The point of that illustration is that one cannot imagine the sun/star itself being in existence without also the rays coming out from it and the heat coming out from it. In the same way, in Christian theology, the Son and HS were always there with the Father into eternity past. The sun is only an illustration; we don’t worship the sun.
LikeLike
Of interest: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/jesus-christ/jesus-christ-incarnated-or-created
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
“were and always there” from the time the sun was created, (of course God created the sun); but God is eternal and personal, indeed 3 persons, spirit, mind, emotions. The point of that illustration is that one cannot imagine the sun/star itself being iI n existence without also the rays coming out from it and the heat coming out from it. In the same way, in Christian theology, the Son and HS were always there with the Father into eternity past. The sun is only an illustration; we don’t worship the sun.
I say;
My good friend Ken. I have been commending you, congratulating and complimenting you for your persistent defence of your religion without getting tired like me. Keep it up.
But Mr. Ken you are on the wrong side of religion because by you saying sun is analogous to God is blaspheme like Dr. Lain Graig comparison of Trinity to 3 headed Pagan Dog(deity) and Dr. James White ridiculed him(Graig).
I think, to be fair, Dr. White must expel you from his ministry by such a blunder as Dr. Graig Lain because you compared God to a Pagan Sun God.
God Almighty cannot be compared with anything, why must you take your time to start comparing God to something and this God you have not seen and according to the Bible no one can see God and how do you know He is like a ray produced and created by Sun?
Look at your mistake
1. God the Son cannot generate the God Father, so the 2 Gods are not the same. The one that generates the other is higher than the God being generated. That is why Jesus said, the Father is greater than I. God is greater than everyone. So if the Father is greater than the Son, then the Son cannot be God and is not God at all and you are worshiping him(The Son) at your own peril without sincerely repenting and become a Jew, Muslim or at worst a Unitarian Christian. Unitarian Christians will not be asked by God “Why do you associate partners to me” but Trinitarians will be punished in hell fire especially those who persistently deny this;
“I am Yahweh, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
“Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.” Isaiah 45:21
“I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” Isaiah 46:9
“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
Mr. Temple, the above is from the Bible and not the Quran and I as a Muslim believe 100% in all of them and this is what will be judged by the people of the book revealed there in.
People of the book or gospel will not be judged by “3 persons 1 God”, “Trinity”, “Triune”, Hypostasis union”, “3 distinct persons”, “God-Man”, “incarnated God”, “God the Son”, “God sharing his nature and essence” etc. and I will add and so on and on and on because they are all not in the Bible but produce, created and generated by man but not God.
Ken please take God’s word and leave man-made words and do not say 3, desist, it is better for you.
Sun is not a ray and you cannot call ray Sun and so the Father is not the Son, so you cannot call the Son God.
All God attributes like His word, wisdom, mercy, grace, love are all with him from eternity, so must we say they are all God. If He(God) generates His Word, then He must generates His wisdom, mercy etc. and according to your thinking we will have so many gods then according to generating.
Lastly, Generates means create and so anything generated is not God and it is a big blaspheme to say something that is generated/created is God.
Thanks
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
No; the sun is just a created illustration of the Father, the Son (rays) and the Holy Spirit (heat), which were and are always there, and they share the same nature. But the illustration is not meant to be a complete or perfect illustration.
I say;
Why compare a perfect God to an imperfect creation of His(God)? It is a blaspheme you are doing Mr. Ken.
Do you mean to tell me heat is Sun?
ray is Sun?
If ray is not Sun, the your analogy falls apart because the Sun is not the Father and the Father is God, so the Son is not God.
◄ Isaiah 40:18 ►
New International Version
With whom, then, will you compare God? To what image will you liken him?
one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.
Isaiah 40:25
“To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.
Isaiah 46:5
“With whom will you compare me or count me equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?
Ken, it is clear, you, your Church Fathers and all Trinitarians have sinned by comparing God to Sun, heat and rays and you need to repent and not do that again, according to the Bible and not me. I have so many verses that say God cannot be compared to anything,
He(God) said He is One Only and Alone. Full Stop(.), Period and do not add anything.
You add something at your own peril.
Thanks.
LikeLike
I agree that nothing compares with God and no illustration is perfect. The sun and rays and heat is only an illustration of the fact that there cannot be one without the others. The rays and heat are there from the beginning with the star.
Just as God cannot be without His mind/word (the meaning of logos in John 1:1 is “mind expressing itself in words” – logos automatically points to mind/thought that expresses itself. And God cannot be without His Spirit from all eternity.
That is why the Trinity Unitas is true. One God in three persons.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
I agree that nothing compares with God and no illustration is perfect. The sun and rays and heat is only an illustration of the fact that there cannot be one without the others. The rays and heat are there from the beginning with the star.
I say;
No, you did not agree with the verses because you said God is like the Sun, heat and rays and it is a blaspheme.
“Illustrate” means picture, image, figure, drawing, sketch etc.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=what+is+illustration&ei=XGYNVqXcFcWke8XHrXg&emsg=NCSR&noj=1
Ken, to illustrate God is a sin according to the verses below.
Exodus 20:4 ESV
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Exodus 20:1-26 ESV
And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,
Your illustration is flawed and do not use something that is not perfect and flawed to depict God Almighty. It is sin to used a flawed and imperfect creation to depict God.
heat is not Sun and do not generate Sun so it is not Sun. Ray does not generate sun and ray is not sun and sun is not ray. So God is not Son and Son is created or generated and anything generated or created is not God. It is a blaspheme to say anything generated/created is God. Nothing generates God as the Son is generated/created.
The Son cannot generate/create God and so the Son is created and generated and cannot be God.
Thanks
Thanks
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
I agree that nothing compares with God and no illustration is perfect. The sun and rays and heat is only an illustration of the fact that there cannot be one without the others. The rays and heat are there from the beginning with the star.
Just as God cannot be without His mind/word (the meaning of logos in John 1:1 is “mind expressing itself in words” – logos automatically points to mind/thought that expresses itself. And God cannot be without His Spirit from all eternity.
That is why the Trinity Unitas is true. One God in three persons.
I say;
mind is different from word.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=what+is+mind&ei=BoINVqj7KoXp-QHq44SQDw&emsg=NCSR&noj=1
I consulted the dictionary above and there is no single synonym that says mind is word. Excuse me Sir. It means you did not tell the truth when you said mind is word or implying this
“Just as God cannot be without His mind/word….”
above.
For argument sake, let accept your assertion that mind is word. How about wisdom? Knowledge etc. and all attributes of God? are they God?.
GOD’S MIND IS GOD’S MIND BUT NOT GOD HIMSELF. GOD’S LOVE IS GOD’S LOVE BUT NOT GOD HIMSELF, GOD’S WORD IS GOD’S WORD BUT NOT GOD HIMSELF.
Can we say God’s mind is also His knowledge? because His knowledge is with Him from eternity.
Can we say God’s mind is also His wisdom? because His wisdom is with Him from eternity.
You will tell me, the word became flesh. Even if the word became flesh it is not God Himself who became flesh but His word which is not Himself. Unless you want to tell me that all Gods attributes like His knowledge, wisdom, mercy, love etc. are all each God Himself and we have so many Gods.
No, no where in the scripture did God say “I God my attributes are me myself”. but repeatedly claim He is the only God and nothing else.
“I am Yahweh, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
“Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.” Isaiah 45:21
“I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” Isaiah 46:9
“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
Thanks
LikeLike
No; the Greek word, logos λογος means “the mind expressing itself in words”.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
No; the Greek word, logos λογος means “the mind expressing itself in words”.
I say;
Where did it say the mind expressed it self to words?
So the mind is not word. It is just expressing itself in words. We do express our selves everyday i.e. “I am a good friend of Ken Temple, sharing ideas on bloggingtheology” . The words I expressed is not my mind. Do not tell me I a human being. No, because you said God became human being and compared Him to a human being so I am only telling you God cannot become anything and cannot be compare with anything including human being or His(God) mind which we do not know becoming His(word). The mind also expressed itself in wisdom and mercy to mankind. Does the His Wisdom and Mercy also God?
Word means a spoken or written speech and not mind
Source of dictionary
https://www.google.ca/search?q=what+is+word&ei=xY8NVtTBH4Tv-QGVloTwBw&emsg=NCSR&noj=1
It is unacceptable for Trinitarians to be changing words at will to their whims and caprice.
Thanks
LikeLike
I am talking about the Greek word, logos / λογος which means “the mind expressing itself through spoken word”; I am not talking about the English word, “word”.
LikeLike
Logos, ( Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) plural logoi, in Greek philosophy and theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning. Though the concept defined by the term logos is found in Greek, Indian, Egyptian, and Persian philosophical and theological systems, it became particularly significant in Christian writings and doctrines to describe or define the role of Jesus Christ as the principle of God active in the creation and the continuous structuring of the cosmos and in revealing the divine plan of salvation to man. It thus underlies the basic Christian doctrine of the preexistence of Jesus.
The idea of the logos in Greek thought harks back at least to the 6th-century-bc philosopher Heracleitus, who discerned in the cosmic process a logos analogous to the reasoning power in man. Later, the Stoics, philosophers who followed the teachings of the thinker Zeno of Citium (4th–3rd century bc), defined the logos as an active rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality.
“reason”, “reasoning power” and “rational” all point to the mind and thinking.
from:
http://www.britannica.com/topic/logos
LikeLike
before speaking a word, the word is formed in the mind.
LikeLike
This shows John 1:1-5 clearly teaches Jesus is the Word of God from all eternity; the mind of God expressing itself in words; the same nature as God Himself.
And the Qur’an calls Jesus “the word of God”, Kalimat’allah; کلمه الله
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
The idea of the logos in Greek thought harks back at least to the 6th-century-bc philosopher Heracleitus, who discerned in the cosmic process a logos analogous to the reasoning power in man. Later, the Stoics, philosophers who followed the teachings of the thinker Zeno of Citium (4th–3rd century bc), defined the logos as an active rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality.
“reason”, “reasoning power” and “rational” all point to the mind and thinking.
from:
I say;
This is Greek philosophy and Greek mythology you are introducing into Christianity.
If reason or whatever points to the mind, does not make them mind.I
You said;
before speaking a word, the word is formed in the mind.
I say;
Forming something in mind does not make the thing mind itself.
Before I cook, I form the food in my mind i.e. potato chips and fish.
Is potato chips and fish mind?
You said;
This shows John 1:1-5 clearly teaches Jesus is the Word of God from all eternity; the mind of God expressing itself in words; the same nature as God Himself.
And the Qur’an calls Jesus “the word of God”, Kalimat’allah;
I say;
This “mind” thing you just for sudden introduced and start to add it to your scripture and to use it for argument is typical of Christians and that is what the Quran accused the Christians of doing, i.e. always adding, changing, inserting, deletion and writing to say it is from God. The Quran said woe to them. This mind is not in John 1:1, but realizing you have lost the debate with me, you inserted the mind and that did not save you and it made it worse because as I indicated above word is not mind at all whether in Greek or any language.
Quran: 2:79
Sahih International: So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah ,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.
You said;
the Stoics, philosophers who followed the teachings of the thinker Zeno of Citium (4th–3rd century bc), defined the logos as an active rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality.
I say;
You are following the teaching of Zeno of Citium but not the teaching of Christ who said he has God and he(Jesus’s) God is One, and Only and Alone. according to this
“I am Yahweh, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
“Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.” Isaiah 45:21
“I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” Isaiah 46:9
“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
Ken, you left all this clear messages from Jesus’s God from the Bible and went back to reason with a Greek philosopher and incorporate his ideas into Christianity and it is clear proof that Christianity has borrowed the pagan Greek concept of God. You are demonstrating that here.
You said;
Logos, ( Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) plural logoi, in Greek philosophy and theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning. Though the concept defined by the term logos is found in Greek, Indian, Egyptian, and Persian philosophical and theological systems, it became particularly significant in Christian writings and doctrines to describe or define the role of Jesus Christ as the principle of God active in the creation and the continuous structuring of the cosmos and in revealing the divine plan of salvation to man. It thus underlies the basic Christian doctrine of the preexistence of Jesus.
I say;
Completely true that Christianity really took the concept of pagan and idol worshiping Greeks and Romans. That is what the above explains. If the Bible is clear as this
“I am Yahweh, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
“Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.” Isaiah 45:21
“I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” Isaiah 46:9
“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
then a Christian will ignore the above and consulting pagan Greek literature is beyond me.
Thanks.
LikeLike
I am not following Greek mythology, etc. – it is the reality of the historical background of the word logos / λογος , which is equivalent to and translated as kalameh / kalimeh کلمه in Arabic and Farsi.
God is able to use human languages in order to communicate.
God took that concept of the logos to explain who the Son is from all eternity.
John 1:1 – “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God”
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
John 1:14
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . “
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
John 1:14
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . “
You said;
I am not following Greek mythology, etc. – it is the reality of the historical background of the word logos / λογος , which is equivalent to and translated as kalameh / kalimeh کلمه in Arabic and Farsi.
God is able to use human languages in order to communicate.
God took that concept of the logos to explain who the Son is from all eternity.
John 1:1 – “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God”
John 1:1-5
I say;
In the beginning there is a Word(God) and the Word(God) is with God i.e. God is with another God=2 Gods =Polytheism and or idol worship
And the Word became flesh=What is in the beginning changed and God does not change=blaspheme to the highest degree
God took the concept of logos to explain who the Son is from eternity.
A Son means created being unless a metaphorical Son and God has god metaphorical Sons by tonnes in the Bible but not Jesus alone-credit to Ahmed Deedat.
WORD IS NOT GOD anyway. Word is word
Change is change
death is death
immortal is immortal
eternal is eternal
son is son
father is father
mother is mother
3 persons are 3 beings
1 person is 1 being
one is one
three is three
God is God but not man, God-Man, God-Monkey, God-Cow
man is man and not God-Man
mind is mind and mind is not word
Any attempt to change words at will to serve someone’s whims is unacceptable. Unless metaphorical, idiomatic expressions, figurative expressions which are acceptable, all words are what they mean.
I say;
Hindus have a reality of historical background that monkey, cow, man etc. which is equivalent and translated into Gods.
God is able to use human language in order to communicate
God took the concept of the monkeys and cows etc to explain who his sons and God-Men are just like Trinitarian Christianity.
Both Hindus and Trinitarians did not follow what God of Abraham said below and it is clear.
“I am Yahweh, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
“Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.” Isaiah 45:21
“I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” Isaiah 46:9
“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
Both Hindus and Trinitarian Christians have similar concept of God becoming his creations and the Bible completely denied that.
Thanks
LikeLike