This is a representative view of a top scholar on the gospels
Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
This is a representative view of a top scholar on the gospels
Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity
Blogging Theology 
Why would they, seeing this is based on assumptions which, if turned against Islam, would prove Muhammad was a fraud? Theories and assumptions are not facts, even though in your world they seem to be.
LikeLike
My challenge to Williams. Would Tuckett or any NT scholar that you drool over claim that the words which Muhammad put in Jesus’ mouths are historically reliable? in other words, would any of them claim that what we have attributed to Jesus in the Quran are the actual words, ipsissima verba, of the historical Jesus?
LikeLike
Now watch Williams try to squirm his way out of applying his own claims to his own false religion. Like I said, you will never be found guilty of being consistent and honest in the handling of your sources and assumptions.
LikeLike
Sam this post has nothing to do with Islam. I know you have a mental problem with Muslims and need to slag off other religions at any and every opportunity. My challenge to Sam: deal with the issues Tucket raised. Don’t run away. Don’t be a coward.
Btw nearly all your scholars disagree with you, Wood, et al about the historicity of John.
Enjoy your fundamentalist comfort zone..
ouch!! 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark promotes the Deity of Christ very clearly.
Mark 14:60-64 – The high priests and Jewish leaders ask if He is the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One” (God) and Jesus said, “I am” and they tore their robes over His claim, calling Him a blasphemer. They knew Jesus was claiming to be God in the flesh.
Mark 2:7 – “He is blaspheming; Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
Mark 2:28 – “The Son of Man is LORD (kurios, Greek form of Yahweh) of the Sabbath.”
These and many other passages in Mark, Luke, Matthew show the synoptics and John are in agreement.
John is written by an eyewitness – an apostle of Jesus, so
Tucker is wrong on those 2 issues.
The synoptics and John agree on the Deity of Christ.
John was written by an eyewitness, an apostle of Jesus Al Masih.
LikeLike
Tuckett is wrong.
Auto-correct is frustrating.
LikeLike
Mark 14:60-64, when Jesus says ‘I am’ it simply means ‘yes it is as you say’. We can be sure of this because Matthew’s version of the same words has Jesus say “You say so”.
So you are wrong Ken.
The enemies of Jesus in Mark 2:7 say about Jesus “He is blaspheming; Who can forgive sins but God alone?’
But the gospels claim that the power to forgive sins is shared by the apostles too. See John 20:23 and elsewhere.
So you are wrong Ken.
The pious crowds see Jesus pronounce sins forgiven praise God who had give such authority to human beings see Matt 9:8.
Mark 2:28 – “The Son of Man is LORD (kurios, Greek form of Yahweh) of the Sabbath.”
in full: ‘Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the son of man is lord even of the Sabbath.”
But specialist aramaic scholars have noticed that if you translate the Greek back into Aramaic it reads
Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for mankind, not mankind for the Sabbath. So the human beings are lords even of the Sabbath.”
So you are wrong Ken. Ouch! 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
Temple is wrong.
Auto-correct is frustrating.
LikeLike
Wood’s Buddy
You said;
My challenge to Williams. Would Tuckett or any NT scholar that you drool over claim that the words which Muhammad put in Jesus’ mouths are historically reliable? in other words, would any of them claim that what we have attributed to Jesus in the Quran are the actual words, ipsissima verba, of the historical Jesus?
I say;
Not only if they are Islamic scholars like they are NT scholars by spending years of research with regards to NT. You question is nonsensical because it is like me challenging you to accept an Islamic scholar says about NT. I do not expect you to accept that, because it will be stupid for one to ask someone to accept a scholar who has no knowledge of a particular field.
Your question is stupid in that it is like say asking someone to believe an accountant who is not a medical doctor by profession can perform heart surgery.
Paul Williams can brag and boast of NT scholars disproving the Bible, because they are Bible scholars but not Islamic scholars. You can counter by bringing an Islamic scholar who disprove the Quran. There are non Muslims but Christian Islamic scholars like John Esposito at the George town university and there are many others, so you should also quote them and prove where they disprove the Quran but not NT scholars who do not no anything about Islam
Thanks.
LikeLike
correction
who do not know anything about Islam
LikeLike
Williams, you absolutely murder me! I can’t believe you wrote the following:
“But the gospels claim that the power to forgive sins is shared by the apostles too. See John 20:23 and elsewhere.”
You seriously could quote John 20:23 after just posting a quote from Tuckett which tries to throw this Gospel’s historical reliability under the bus? You can’t be serious!
Now let’s see what happens when we quote the immediate context of that verse:
“On the evening of that first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. The disciples were then glad when they saw the Lord. So Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As My Father has sent Me, EVEN SO I SEND YOU.’ When He had said this, HE BREATHED ON THEM and said to them, ‘RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT. If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven them. If you retain the sins of anyone, they are retained.'” John 20:19-23
“But Thomas, one of the twelve, called The Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, ‘We have seen the Lord!’ But he said to them, ‘Unless I see the nail prints in His hands, and put my finger in the nail prints, and put my hand in His side, I will not believe.’ After eight days His disciples were again inside with the doors shut, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came and stood among them, and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ Then He said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here, and look at My hands. Put your hand here and place it in My side. Do not be faithless, but believing.’ Thomas answered AND SAID UNTO HIM, ‘MY LORD AND MY GOD!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and have yet believed.'” John 20:24-29
Here, Jesus breathes the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, since he is the One who baptizes or immerses people into/with the Holy Spirit:
“Then John bore witness, saying, ‘I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on Him. I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “The One on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining, THIS IS HE WHO BAPTIZES WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT.” I have seen and have borne witness that He is the Son of God.'” John 1:32-34
This is a divine function which both God’s Word,
“Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.” Genesis 2:7
“Then I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean. From all your filthiness and from all your idols, I will cleanse you. Also, I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. I WILL OUT MY SPIRIT WITHIN YOU and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.” Ezekiel 36:25-27
And the Quran ascribe to Deity:
So, when I have made him and have breathed into him of My Spirit, do ye fall down, prostrating yourselves unto him. S. 15:29 Pickthall
Then He fashioned him and breathed into him of His Spirit; and appointed for you hearing and sight and hearts. Small thanks give ye! S. 32:9 Pickthall
Jesus is then worshiped by Thomas his Lord and God in the very Gospel which you just cited to try and refute that Jesus is God, all of which takes place AFTER JESUS’ RESURRECTION, an event which the Quran vehemently denies! Talk about being desperate!
Now with that said, let us see how the disciples went about forgiving people’s sins:
“Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life IN HIS NAME.” John 20:30-31
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, THAT WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned. But he who does not believe is condemned already, BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD… HE WHO BELIEVES IN THE SON HAS ETERNAL LIFE. HE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE THE SON SHALL NOT SEE LIFE, BUT THE WRATH OF GOD REMAINS ON HIM.” John 3:16-18, 36
“If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God which He has given concerning His Son. Whoever believes in the Son of God has this witness in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made Him out to be a liar, because he does not believe the testimony that God gave about His Son. AND THIS IS THE TESTIMONY: THAT GOD HAS GIVEN US ETERNAL LIFE, AND THIS LIFE IS IN HIS SON. WHOEVER HAS THE SON HAS LIFE, AND WHOEVER DOES NOT HAVE THE SON OF GOD DOES NOT HAVE LIFE. I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, THAT YOU MAY KNOW THAT YOU HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, AND THAT YOU MAY CONTINUE TO BELIEVE IN THE NAME OF THE SON OF GOD. ” 1 John 5:9-13
These examples make it clear the the disciples DID NOT forgive sins the way Jesus did, but rather proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the means through which a person would either receive forgiveness or condemnation. In other words, the way the disciples forgave people or condemned them is by telling them that they had to believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God to receive eternal life, otherwise they would be condemned and perish forever.
And contrary to your appeal to so-called scholars, Jesus’ saying in Mark 2:28 DOES NOT REFER to humans in general having authority over the Sabbath, since the OT is clear that the Sabbath belongs to GOD ALONE, and anyone found violating it would be put to death:
“The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak also to the children of Israel, saying, ‘You must surely keep MY SABBATHS, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. You shall keep the Sabbath, for it is holy to you. EVERYONE WHO DEFILES IT WILL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. FOR WHOEVER DOES ANY WORK ON IT, THAT PERSON WILL BE CUT OFF FROM AMONG HIS PEOPLE. Six days may work be done, but on the seventh is the Sabbath of complete rest, holy TO THE LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day WILL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. Therefore the children of Israel must keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever, for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.” Exodus 31:12-17
“For six days work shall be done, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of complete rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is the Sabbath OF THE LORD in all your dwellings.” Leviticus 23:3
“‘But the person who acts by a high hand, the natural-born citizen or the foreigner, the same reviles the LORD, and that person will be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person will be totally cut off. His iniquity will be on him.’ While the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day. The ones who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the assembly. They put him in confinement because it was not declared what should be done to him. The LORD said to Moses, ‘THE MAN WILL SURE DIE. All the assembly will stone him with stones outside the camp.’ All the assembly brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died as the LORD commanded Moses.'” Numbers 15:30-36
So much for your desperate tirade against the Deity of your God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I forgot to add the following:
Now since only Yahweh has authority over the Sabbath, this means that the only way that Jesus could be the Lord of the Sabbath is if he is claiming to the divine Son of Man, e.g., the Son of Man that the prophet Daniel saw who is clearly God appearing as a man, which further explains why he as the Son has the power to forgive sins, something which even the Quran says only God can do:
And those who, having done something to be ashamed of, or wronged their own souls, earnestly bring God to mind, and ask for forgiveness for their sins, – AND WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS EXCEPT GOD? – and are never obstinate in persisting knowingly in (the wrong) they have done. S. 3:135 Yusuf Ali
Triple OUCH!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
One correction. “why he as the Son” should have been “why he as the Son of Man”.
LikeLike
With that said, I must return to my other responsibilites such as writing articles and rebuttals exposing Islam and magnifying the only true Triune God.
LikeLike
I WILL OUT MY SPIRIT WITHIN YOU should have been I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT WITHIN YOU.
LikeLike
And where is his proof of this? Did he discover some really ancient manuscripts that demonstrate that there was a different story lol.
LikeLike
Paul,
Sam completely nuked your argumentation there. Ouch!!
LikeLike
yep he did – ouch! 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul,
Sam completely nuked your argumentation there. Ouch!!
Which demonstrates that I was right all along.
Mark promotes the Deity of Christ very clearly.
Mark 14:60-64 – The high priests and Jewish leaders ask if He is the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One” (God) and Jesus said, “I am” and they tore their robes over His claim, calling Him a blasphemer. They knew Jesus was claiming to be God in the flesh.
Mark 2:7 – “He is blaspheming; Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
Mark 2:28 – “The Son of Man is LORD (kurios, Greek form of Yahweh) of the Sabbath.”
These and many other passages in Mark, Luke, Matthew show the synoptics and John are in agreement.
John is written by an eyewitness – an apostle of Jesus, so
Tuckett is wrong on those 2 issues.
The synoptics and John agree on the Deity of Christ.
John was written by an eyewitness, an apostle of Jesus Al Masih.
LikeLike
And those who, having done something to be ashamed of, or wronged their own souls, earnestly bring God to mind, and ask for forgiveness for their sins, – AND WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS EXCEPT GOD? – and are never obstinate in persisting knowingly in (the wrong) they have done.
Surah 3:135 Yusuf Ali
excellent agreement with Mark 2:7
LikeLike
Exaclty Ken the Gospel of Mark shows Jesus to be fully divine.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
And those who, having done something to be ashamed of, or wronged their own souls, earnestly bring God to mind, and ask for forgiveness for their sins, – AND WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS EXCEPT GOD? – and are never obstinate in persisting knowingly in (the wrong) they have done.
Surah 3:135 Yusuf Ali
excellent agreement with Mark 2:7
You also said;
Paul,
Sam completely nuked your argumentation there. Ouch!!
You also said;
Which demonstrates that I was right all along.
Mark promotes the Deity of Christ very clearly.
Mark 14:60-64 – The high priests and Jewish leaders ask if He is the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One” (God) and Jesus said, “I am” and they tore their robes over His claim, calling Him a blasphemer. They knew Jesus was claiming to be God in the flesh.
I say;
I will not let you go away with this one because all do not prove Jesus to be God.
1. Jesus himself must promote himself to be God as Yahweh always clearly does it himself but not let someone does it for him. The Jews-enemies of Jesus can not tell us who Jesus was. As simple as that. We cannot rely on the enemy of Jesus but not Jesus himself to tell us who Jesus was and Jesus himself never said he is God. No where in the Bible. You cannot find Jesus clearly saying he is God and the Quran said that and that is a challenge to Christians to prove where Jesus said he is God and they cannot do that but to rely on un clarity and un clear assumptions such as Jews, “I am” etc. to confuse themselves and to confuse people. What is “I am”? Incomplete statement.
God uses clarity and complete statement like below to describe who He is
.”I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” Isaiah 46:9
“And Yahweh will be king over all the earth; in that day Yahweh will be the only one [echad], and His name the only one[echad].” Zechariah 14:9
Ken Temple, Yahweh said he is the only God but no Jesus name so the Jews or “I am” which is an incomplete statement cannot overwrite the complete and the original statement above. Who are the Jews? Gods? to tell us what God did not say about himself?
“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
I will rather put my life on the above clear verses which God Himself said who He is than to put my life on Jews, the enemy of Jesus who accuse Jesus but did not even said he is God but accuse him(Jesus) but fortunately for Jesus according to the Quran he never said he is God and Christians cannot prove that, except ambiguity like “Thomas said my God my Lord”, “Jews did this and Jews did that” to prove Jesus is God.
Jesus himself should say he is God which he never did.
With regards to Sam, I swear, I had wanted to reply him but thought it was unnecessary and waste of time with regards to “only Allah can forgive sins” because Yes, only God can forgive sin but He God has delegated us to forgive sins. Don’t humans forgive sins everyday? Does that make them God? Find a better argument than following Sam Shamoun. You have been to a seminary and have your qualification in Christianity but Sam has no basic Christian and Islam qualifications. He just pick verse without analyzing them to confuse you people.
Humans do forgive sins but all is authenticated by God and so if Allah said he is the only one who forgive sins does not mean human beings do not forgive sins.
In the Bible God delegated everything to Jesus not forgiving of sins alone but everything. So your argument is mute. There was a time Jesus did not have everything including forgiving of sins but God always have everything including forgiving of sins. So Jesus cannot be God because he received all glory from God including forgiving of sins which he(Jesus) did not have before but had to receive it from God but God always have His glory so Jesus is not God.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Robert Wells
You said;
Exaclty Ken the Gospel of Mark shows Jesus to be fully divine.
I say;
Not so Mr. Wells.
To be fully divine you have to prove that by speaking like God and how God clearly spoke in the scripture through the ages.
“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
But Jesus failed the test to be God by not saying he is God and the Quran said Jesus never said he is God and you cannot prove it. To prove it, use the clear stamen above but not obscure thinking you might have about something that did not clearly states Jesus is God.
Yahweh clearly said He is God and no one else.
Yahweh clearly said He(Yahweh) alone is God but not Jesus(he is not God)
We do forgive sins everyday but it does not make us God. God is the only Judge, but we have judges all over and it does not make them Gods.
Allah is The Judge, so know your role. Verily, your Lord knows better, who (among men) has gone astray from His Path, and He knows better those who are guided. (Surah Qalam:7)
“…If you judge, judge between them with justice…” (Quran 5:42)
“…Say: I believe in the Scripture, which God has sent down, and I am commanded to judge justly between you…” (Quran 42:15)
“We sent Our Messengers with clear signs and sent down with them the Book and the Measure in order to establish justice among the people…” (Quran 57:25)
It does not mean human cannot judge. Allah delegated his authority for human to judge and prosecute wrongdoers, but He(Allah) is the final JUDGE.
If the Quran says Only Allah forgives, it means He is the final forgiver or the final Judge and it does not mean no one can forgive sins to show Mercy as Allah ordered us to show Mercy and forgive sins.
FORGIVING OF SINS DOES NOT MAKE A PERSON GOD. ONLY HOLDING ON STRAWS. Do not follow Sam Shamoun please, He has no basic Islamic and/or Christian education and without any higher degree to open his mind with analysis before conclusion. We have refuted him with all his un analytical arguments and he keeps repeating them.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Intellect wrote…
Not so Mr. Wells.
To be fully divine you have to prove that by speaking like God and how God clearly spoke in the scripture through the ages.
My response: Why? Prove that Jesus must speak those exact words in order to be divine? In other words prove that Christians must live or die by an unbelievers standards.
LikeLike
Robert Wells, don’t waste your time with “Intellect” since all he does is babble on with his incoherent nonsense. Do what I do and ignore all his comments and focus on Williams, since Williams is actually well read and quite intelligent, even though his inconsistencies murder me. Despite all that, Williams is still my favorite inconsistent Muslim polemicist.
LikeLike
Robert Wells
You said;
Intellect wrote…
Not so Mr. Wells.
To be fully divine you have to prove that by speaking like God and how God clearly spoke in the scripture through the ages.
My response: Why? Prove that Jesus must speak those exact words in order to be divine? In other words prove that Christians must live or die by an unbelievers standards.
I say;
No, forget about the word “unbelievers” here. That is not the point. I also believe you are unbeliever but we are trying to prove who is really an unbeliever, so do not jump into conclusion here and follow the arguments and try to counter it with a rational response but not that you believe this, you believe that, for everybody has his own belief.
O.K. My argument is God clearly said He is only one and alone and He mentioned His name as Yahweh who is the only alone and one God but Jesus was not mentioned as God or part of God and it is clear, I am using the Bible and did not even touch on the Quran yet.
“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
But Jesus failed the test to be God by not saying he is God and the Quran said Jesus never said he is God and you cannot prove it. To prove it, use the clear stamen above but not obscure thinking you might have about something that did not clearly states Jesus is God.
You were not able to give me a single verse which is clear like the above where Jesus said ” I am God” , not “I am” which is incomplete statement. Yahweh said He is God and Jesus never said he is God so Jesus is not God.
Sam Shamoun has no any analytical and researching skills except to just quote verses without thinking thoroughly about it and publish it as an attack like Jay Smith below.
Mr. Wells, despite our differences I interacted with you, badmanna and Ken Temple for a long time and we are all seeking the truth even we believed we are on the right path. So do your independent research like I do and stop this missionary lies who will hide the truth and fool you about the Islam they do not know.
Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Intellect wrote…
No, forget about the word “unbelievers” here. That is not the point. I also believe you are unbeliever but we are trying to prove who is really an unbeliever, so do not jump into conclusion here and follow the arguments and try to counter it with a rational response but not that you believe this, you believe that, for everybody has his own belief.
My Response: NO I will not forget about the word “unbeliever”, since you do not believe that Jesus Christ is the God-Man, the Savior who shed his blood on the cross, died and was raised from the dead on the third day, you by definition are an unbeliever. And yes I am an unbeliever since I do not believe in Allah or his Prophet Mohamed. But none of this has anything to do with why Christians should follow your criteria to prove Christ is who he said he was.
You wrote…
O.K. My argument is God clearly said He is only one and alone and He mentioned His name as Yahweh who is the only alone and one
My response: AMEN AMEN AMEN, he is YAHWEY not allah and there is no other GOD before him, there is no being divine or mortal that is ONE being who is three distinct persons, so there for he is ALONE as the ONLY divine eternal being who is three distinct persons. So again I say AMEN. But none of this has anything to do with why I should accept your criteria.
Your wrote…
…but Jesus was not mentioned as God
My response: If you mean that the human being JESUS was not mentioned as God in the Old Testament, that’s because the incarnation had not happened so there was NO JESUS. However the incarnation is prophesied, God becoming man is foreshadowed, and all three divine persons are represented in the Old Testament. But none of this has anything to do with why I should accept your criteria.
You wrote… or part of God and it is clear,
My response:
Well that’s good since Jesus is not a PART OF GOD. But this straw-man argument has nothing to do with why I should accept your criteria.
You wrote… I am using the Bible and did not even touch on the Quran yet.
My Response: That’s good stick with the bible there you will find truth, and forget about the Quran as its not good for anything. But you using the bible has nothing to do with why I should accept your criteria.
What I am asking you is why should I accept your criteria that Jesus would have to use those words that were used in the Old Testament?
Why can I not use the Christian and even non believing first century Jewish Criteria? That being Jesus said things that only GOD can say, that he did things that only GOD can do, that the gospel writers ascribed prophesies about YHWH to JESUS and even JESUS himself used prophesies about YWHW and applied them to himself.
If Jesus was not GOD then the things he said would make him a blasphemer in first century and later Judaism. That’s why the believing Jews believed he was GOD and why the non-believing Jews wanted to kill him.
So again I ask why should I use your criteria. In other words even if I did find you places where Jesus identified himself as YHWH or having the divine name, you would just ignore that and or change your criteria to something else. Because you don’t want to believe, because you look for reasons not to believe, because you like the unbelieving Jews are not his sheep, and you do not hear his voice.
LikeLike
Wood’s Friend wrote…
Robert Wells, don’t waste your time with “Intellect” since all he does is babble on with his incoherent nonsense. Do what I do and ignore all his comments and focus on Williams, since Williams is actually well read and quite intelligent, even though his inconsistencies murder me. Despite all that, Williams is still my favorite inconsistent Muslim polemicist.
My response: Paul doesn’t want to play with me 😦 lol
LikeLike
لو اراد الله ان يتخذ ولدا لاصطفى مما يخلق ما يشاء سبحانه هو الله الواحد القهار
If Allah had intended to take a son, He could have chosen from what He creates whatever He willed. Exalted is He; He is Allah , the One, the Prevailing.
Surah 39:4
Regarding Surah 39:4, I don’t think Mansoor refuted Jay Smith, since Mansoor was focusing on the word, یتخذ (to take, to receive); because Jay’s point was focused on the word “son” ولدا which is the same root as the verbal form of that word, ولد , in Surah 112:3-4 – “He does not beget, nor is begotten.” They are the same root, one is a noun, the other a verb.
Jay was also focused on the “Had Allah wanted to” ( “If” = condition) and the possibility of choosing to do it, which the verse clearly says that Allah could have if He wanted to – he was focused on the word, لاصطفی (“surely He could have chosen”).
Jay did not think that Mansoor refuted him either, or he did not remember that encounter from 10 years. I watched it several times, and Mansoor’s argument about یتخذ did not really deal with the “If God wanted to . . . surely He could have chosen”; nor root of the word, ولد
The quote from Ibn Kathir’s commentary did not really deal with the “surely He could have chosen”, nor the root of the “son” / “beget” ولد. Of course it is a “conditional sentence” – that is what “if, then” means. Ibn Kathir did not refute it all. He said it is impossible; yet the verse’s point is that it is possible, if Allah had wanted to do that. The video did not refute anything and at most, it only showed that Jay had forgotten that encounter with Mansoor, or, Jay did not consider that encounter as a refutation, since Mansoor did not deal with the “if . . then” nor the word “son” nor “surely He could have chosen”.
LikeLike
لاصطفی – I just noticed this is related to مصطفی (Mustafa) = “the chosen one”, one of Muhammad’s names.
So, it definely means in Surah 39:4 that Allah could have chosen if He had wanted to choose to have a son.
LikeLike
Robert Wells
You said;
You wrote…
O.K. My argument is God clearly said He is only one and alone and He mentioned His name as Yahweh who is the only alone and one
My response: AMEN AMEN AMEN, he is YAHWEY not allah and there is no other GOD before him, there is no being divine or mortal that is ONE being who is three distinct persons, so there for he is ALONE as the ONLY divine eternal being who is three distinct persons. So again I say AMEN. But none of this has anything to do with why I should accept your criteria.
I say;
“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
My friend these verses did not mention three distinct person. You added the 3 distinct persons and is punishable by hell fire in the day of judgement by adding 3 distinct persons in Gods word.
I say;
Jesus is not Yahweh so Jesus is not God. Jews call their God Allah and Arab Christians call their God Allah, so if you disrespect Allah, you do it to your fellow Arab Christians and not Muslims and Jews alone.
Proof
1
2
3
4
Mr. Wells, I gave more proof where Jews worship Allah. Give me only one proof where a Jew worships Jesus.
Jesus himself as a Jew, on the cross did not call God Yahweh but he called God Allaha just like Muslims call God Allah. So you have no basis to disrespect Allah, the God of Jesus. You ridicule Allah again, Jesus will tell you go away from me on the day of judgement and hell fire is for you.
You said;
Your wrote…
…but Jesus was not mentioned as God
My response: If you mean that the human being JESUS was not mentioned as God in the Old Testament, that’s because the incarnation had not happened so there was NO JESUS. However the incarnation is prophesied, God becoming man is foreshadowed, and all three divine persons are represented in the Old Testament. But none of this has anything to do with why I should accept your criteria.
You wrote… or part of God and it is clear,
My response:
Well that’s good since Jesus is not a PART OF GOD. But this straw-man argument has nothing to do with why I should accept your criteria.
I say;
This blaspheme by you (Christians) is even worse than the first one. God changed
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.
The above verses said God is the same and does not change but you have destroyed the verses from the Bible and said the Son/the Word was not a man before he entered into the womb of Mary and to on a human nature. If the Son/Word was not a man before, what was he? God, So God became man and it is a sin for you to believe that and you know it. Become a Muslim today or you will go to the hell fire.
God entering into the womb of Mary? God forbid. Because the second person(God) entered into the womb of Mary. To stay there till his birth time comes? This is a blaspheme of the highest degree you will think about God.
You said;
Why can I not use the Christian and even non believing first century Jewish Criteria? That being Jesus said things that only GOD can say, that he did things that only GOD can do, that the gospel writers ascribed prophesies about YHWH to JESUS and even JESUS himself used prophesies about YWHW and applied them to himself.
If Jesus was not GOD then the things he said would make him a blasphemer in first century and later Judaism. That’s why the believing Jews believed he was GOD and why the non-believing Jews wanted to kill him.
I say;T
He did things that only God can do but left the one crucial thing-Jesus did not say he is God but Yahweh said He is the Only, One and Alone God and said so clearly, so Jesus is not God.
We all do things that only God can do like to forgive sins and to judge others according to Gods law and it does not make us God. Besides Jesus said all authority including forgiving sins was given to him. But God always has His authority. Before Jesus was given the authority he has no authority so he is not God. God can give you authority to raise the dead. That is not anything strange. Prophet Solomon has wisdom that he can command all creatures and all was given to him by God but we know only God can control all creatures but He delegated that control to Solomon and that does not make Solomon God.
According to the Quran, people accuse Solomon of possessing magical powers and Allah defended him and said Solomon has no magical powers but He Allah gave him(Solomon) the wisdom to control everything he wish. It is not only Jesus that has super natural powers but most prophets of God has those qualities and it was delegated to them by God and it does not make them God.
I am not saying you should follow my standard at all please. I am just putting to you that you violate your own Bible by adding “3 distinct persons” to the word of God which is not there and it means you changed the word of God and you can see it clearly and if you do not repent and stop doing that, the hell fire is waiting for you and Jesus will say I do not know you because you added your own wish to Gods word.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Robert Wells
You said;
So again I ask why should I use your criteria. In other words even if I did find you places where Jesus identified himself as YHWH or having the divine name, you would just ignore that and or change your criteria to something else. Because you don’t want to believe, because you look for reasons not to believe, because you like the unbelieving Jews are not his sheep, and you do not hear his voice.
I say;
My good friend Robert. You see Salvation is a serious matter. It is not child’s play pleas, it involves hell fire if one does not believe it. It is only a wicked and barbaric God who will not be clear on that. Jesus was not clear he is God but only Christians will try hard to find something and it is unacceptable because it is salvation and must be clear like how Yahweh made it clear below
“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
Once again, I am not trying to put my criteria to you. I cannot do that and I do not intend to do that but we are just brainstorming to see the truth. People do read this blog, so I am not speaking to you alone and you are not speaking to me alone but we are all trying to prove our religion is the truth, so I am sticking to the Bible because there are truths and lies in the Bible
Bible said
God is not a man, Christians say God is a man(Jesus)
Bible said God is One, Only and Alone but Christians say God is not alone but 3 persons
Bible said God is One, Christians say God is 3 beings
Bible says God is immortal i.e. does not die but Christians say God Almighty died.
Bible said God is alone but Christians say God is with Son and Holy Spirit from eternity
I could go on and on, but all the above are contradictions and only one is true and there is no where in the Bible where God said he is a man or God-Man or God died or God is 3 persons in 1 God etc. and so I found both truths and lies in Christianity and the Bible is innocent in most cases but Christians are guilty by adding their desires in to the Bible.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
لاصطفی – I just noticed this is related to مصطفی (Mustafa) = “the chosen one”, one of Muhammad’s names.
So, it definely means in Surah 39:4 that Allah could have chosen if He had wanted to choose to have a son.
I say;
Choosing a Son or take a Son among God creations is enough for you to know it is not like how Christians view Jesus Christ Son ship to God.
It has nothing to do with begotten or given birth. Jay admitted that in his first encounter with Mansoor if you watch the video and he does not know the Arabic word but claim he is an Islamic scholar or has Masters in Islamic studies but he does not know the Arabic word “ittakhadha” which means take or adopt a son from His(Gods) creation. So it means the son is created and I keep repeating that a Son/son will always mean a created being because that is what it means.
Jay said that a biological Son, No with regards to the verse 39:4 with his first encounter with Mansoor.
But in the Christians broadcast he lied to them and he said sura 39:4 is implying a biological son.
This is a pure lie. He is known to be a liar like most missionaries.
It does not matter whether he forgot the encounter with Mansoor, but the truth is needed here he could have said the truth like how he admitted the Quran son ship is metaphorical not biological as he admitted 10 years back because that is what it is, God cannot have a literal or biological son.
Sahih International 39:4
If Allah had intended to take a son, He could have chosen from what He creates whatever He willed. Exalted is He; He is Allah , the One, the Prevailing.
Ken, the verse said “HE COULD HAVE CHOSEN FROM WHAT HE CREATES”. You see Son/son is what it is Son/son and it involves it means who ever is a Son/son is a creation or created being and cannot be God.
Jesus is not God, because his son ship is metaphorical, adoption and he is a created being created by One Only and Alone God who is not created Himself.
You said;
Regarding Surah 39:4, I don’t think Mansoor refuted Jay Smith, since Mansoor was focusing on the word, یتخذ (to take, to receive); because Jay’s point was focused on the word “son” ولدا which is the same root as the verbal form of that word, ولد , in Surah 112:3-4 – “He does not beget, nor is begotten.” They are the same root, one is a noun, the other a verb.
I say;
As a Christian yourself, you are totally blind not to see where Jay did not know the Arabic word he is trying to use to refute Islam, and was educated and schooled by Mansoor, even though Jay claimed to have Masters in Islamic studies but does not know the Arabic word he is using against Islam. Ken you are better than Jay because you usually pull some Arabic words for us, even though you do not argue on them well like how you are doing now.
You just pull son and try to argue your way through but honestly you are confused with what you are trying to put across, because mentioning noun, verb, root without any explanation makes it look like you take delight in puling Arabic words to impress us but do not understand what the words are. Actually, you said nothing and the only thing is you did well by pulling the Arabic words for us.
Thanks.
LikeLike
With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
Br. Mansoor is spot on. ….the word يَتَّخِذَ used in 39:4 (in فعل مضارع منصوب form) is NOT about a *unique begotten yet not made son” JayS and trinitarianism falsely want to believe. …….In classical Arabic what يَتَّخِذَ convey is God’s prerogative in CHOOSING a “son” from a مخْلُقُ ie. from His CREATION …. meaning those truthful people i.e.. those who are NOT liar (كَاذِبٌ) and rejector of the truth (كَفَّارٌ) mentioned in the previous verse.
Similarly in 37:152 also we find who these liar (كَاذِبٌ) are…i.e. those who claim ALLAH HAS BEGOTTEN A SON ….in other words those who invented and spread false trinity doctrine.
we read:
أَلَا إِنَّهُم مِّنْ إِفْكِهِمْ لَيَقُولُونَ
Unquestionably, it is out of their [invented] falsehood that they say,
وَلَدَ اللَّهُ وَإِنَّهُمْ لَكَاذِبُونَ
” Allah has begotten,” and indeed, they are LIARS.
(Q37:152)
So those who claim that God has a unique begotten son not made …are LIARS ..a very harsh criticism for trinitarianism and other form or Shirk/Idolatry
So if the intention of Allah was to *beget* a unique demigod Son using the word ولد. in 39:4 Allah would have said:
لَوْ أَرَادَ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَوْلَدُ وَلَدًا
If Allah had intended to beget a son … (Astaghfirullah) but that is ever be the case Glory be to Allah the most Holy the most Exalted.
Wassalam
LikeLike
KT://لاصطفی – I just noticed this is related to مصطفی (Mustafa) = “the chosen one”, one of Muhammad’s names.
So, it definely means in Surah 39:4 that Allah could have chosen if He had wanted to choose to have a son.//
Yes as I explain before, يَتَّخِذَ convey God’s prerogative in CHOOSING a “son” from a مخْلُقُ ie. from His CREATION …it is not about begetting a unique son, a god-man.
Who are these “chosen”?: those are the truthful the pious among God’s creation and more importantly who are uncompromising in Monotheism .. prophet Muhammad is the foremost of all those chosen …*the* chosen, our beloved المُصْطَفًى Muhammad, Allah’s blessing and peace be upon him.
LikeLike
Intellect…
So you would become a Christian if I could show you where Jesus said “I am God Worship Me?”
LikeLike
Bobby would you become a Muslim if I could show you where Muhammad said “I am a messenger of God, follow me”?
LikeLike
Seems like the Qur’an in Surah 39:4 should have used Ibn ابن instead of waladan ولدا (son, offspring, born one who is male), if the “taking” was just metaphorical. Also, it clearly says that Allah could have if He wanted to this – have a walad ولد
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Seems like the Qur’an in Surah 39:4 should have used Ibn ابن instead of waladan ولدا (son, offspring, born one who is male), if the “taking” was just metaphorical. Also, it clearly says that Allah could have if He wanted to this – have a walad ولد
I say;
The Quran is refuting Trinitarians who say the Son/son is not metaphorical and so it has to use the Son/son to clarify things but not Ibn. Trinitarians use Son/son and not Ibn, so the Son/son is the focus of the argument and not Ibn.
You said;
Also, it clearly says that Allah could have if He wanted to this – have a walad ولد
I say;
Then what followed next?
Find below what followed next
“He could have chosen from what He creates whatever He willed”
Did you notice the “creates”?
He can only choose from what He creates a Son. So the Son is what He creates and not eternal or biological. That is what He can do. Because He is the Only eternal being, He cannot create another eternal being but can choose One and probably gives him divine qualities and that does not mean the chosen Son is divine but received divine qualities.
King Solomon is know to possess great wisdom and Islam God gave King Solomon wisdom to command all creatures. It is only God that commands all creatures, but he delegated it to Solomon and it does not mean Solomon is God, Some at Solomon’s time are amazed at how he can perform wonders and accused him of black magic. Allah defended Solomon in the Quran and said Solomon does not have magical powers but wisdom that he received from God.
In the Quran Prophet Abraham, was revealed how creation was made and he knows and saw the process of creation. Who knows the process of creation? God alone but he revealed it to prophet Abraham and Abraham knows the process of creation. Does that make Abraham and Solomon Gods. No.
God is One Only and Alone. Doing something that God does like raising the dead does not make one God especially if that same person on earth where he raised the dead cannot remember the date of end. “He is on earth that is why he does not know the day”-Ken Temple . Man or Man, he raised the dead on earth as God? why can’t he know the date on earth as God?
Everybody knows Kind Solomon has wisdom but Allah says he is the only one with wisdom. It does not contradict each other because Allah just gave Solomon wisdom. God can let a human raise the dead. That is not a big deal.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul Williams wrote…
“Bobby would you become a Muslim if I could show you where Muhammad said “I am a messenger of God, follow me”?”
My Response: FALSE DILEMMA since I never asked that and neither do I claim that to be my standard. But since Intellect demands that I show him where Jesus ever said “I AM GOD WORSHIP ME” as his standard, then he should be able to answer if he would believe Jesus is God and become a Christian if I could show him such words.
So Intellect I see you responded to Ken Temple, can you please answer my question. If I could show you where Jesus said “I AM GOD WORSHIP ME” would you believe he is God and become a Christian?
LikeLike
The Quran is refuting Trinitarians who say the Son/son is not metaphorical and so it has to use the Son/son to clarify things but not Ibn. Trinitarians use Son/son and not Ibn, so the Son/son is the focus of the argument and not Ibn.
You are wrong, “Intellect” – Arabic speaking Christians use “Ibn” for Son, and “Ibn Allah” for “Son of God” (Ibn Allah = ابن الله ) .
هَذِهِ بَدَايَةُ إِنْجِيلِ يَسُوعَ الْمَسِيحِ ابْنِ اللهِ:
Mark 1:1 in Arabic
وَأَمَّا هَذِهِ الآيَاتُ فَقَدْ دُوِّنَتْ لِتؤْمِنُوا بِأَنَّ يَسُوعَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللهِ، وَلِكَيْ تَكُونَ لَكُمْ حَيَاةٌ بِاسْمِهِ إِذْ تُؤْمِنُونَ.
John 20:31 in Arabic
فَمَنْ كَانَ لَهُ ابْنُ اللهِ كَانَتْ لَهُ الْحَيَاةُ. وَمَنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ ابْنُ اللهِ، لَمْ تَكُنْ لَهُ الْحَيَاةُ!
يقين الحياة الأبدية
13 يَا مَنْ آمَنْتُمْ بِاسْمِ ابْنِ اللهِ، إِنِّي كَتَبْتُ هَذَا إِلَيْكُمْ لِكَيْ تَعْرِفُوا أَنَّ الْحَيَاةَ الأَبَدِيَّةَ مِلْكٌ لَكُمْ مُنْذُ الآنَ.
I John 5:12-13 in Arabic
Ouch !!
LikeLike
Robert Wells
You said;
So Intellect I see you responded to Ken Temple, can you please answer my question. If I could show you where Jesus said “I AM GOD WORSHIP ME” would you believe he is God and become a Christian?
I say;
Not what Paul of Tarsus wrote about Jesus, not what Gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke, John wrote about Jesus because they contradict each other and are not reliable with only first names without last names or where they came from to authentic, verify and proof their authorship.
I do not believe in a “document according to” i.e. “Gospel according to” without last name or where they came from. It is like Robert Wells writing a book and signing the book “according to Robert” . Robert who? John who? Luke who? Mathew who?
Look, we are talking about salvation here and it deals for burning fire if one does not believe what they are saying, they should not play with that type of scripture and say “according to a first name only” without proper documentation and telling us their details and how they came by such important document.
and Dr. James White do not know who wrote the book of Hebrews
So, Mr. Wells I do not accept any document, without proper documentation. I am afraid.
If I get you have a Gospel by Jesus and signed by Jesus himself at the back cover, and he claim “I Jesus, I am God and I am the only one and alone to be worshiped and do not worship Yahweh” then I will accept Christianity.
Thanks
LikeLike
Intellect wrote…
“Not what Paul of Tarsus wrote about Jesus, not what Gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke, John wrote about Jesus because they contradict each other and are not reliable with only first names without last names or where they came from to authentic, verify and proof their authorship.
I do not believe in a “document according to” i.e. “Gospel according to” without last name or where they came from. It is like Robert Wells writing a book and signing the book “according to Robert” . Robert who? John who? Luke who? Mathew who?”
My response: Ok then so its a mute point, since you can not even be consistent in your inconsistency, why do you even ask the question, why hold me to a criteria that you yourself will not go by.
See its as I said before, even if I was to show you that Jesus said what ever words you wanted him to say, you would still reject it. So its just foolishness for you to even ask the question.
LikeLike
Intellect wrote on another note…
Ken Temple
You said;
Seems like the Qur’an in Surah 39:4 should have used Ibn ابن instead of waladan ولدا (son, offspring, born one who is male), if the “taking” was just metaphorical. Also, it clearly says that Allah could have if He wanted to this – have a walad ولد
I say;
The Quran is refuting Trinitarians who say the Son/son is not metaphorical and so it has to use the Son/son to clarify things but not Ibn. Trinitarians use Son/son and not Ibn, so the Son/son is the focus of the argument and not Ibn.
My response: So its not true that allah could have a son if he wanted too?
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
The Quran is refuting Trinitarians who say the Son/son is not metaphorical and so it has to use the Son/son to clarify things but not Ibn. Trinitarians use Son/son and not Ibn, so the Son/son is the focus of the argument and not Ibn.
You are wrong, “Intellect” – Arabic speaking Christians use “Ibn” for Son, and “Ibn Allah” for “Son of God” (Ibn Allah = ابن الله ) .
هَذِهِ بَدَايَةُ إِنْجِيلِ يَسُوعَ الْمَسِيحِ ابْنِ اللهِ:
Mark 1:1 in Arabic
I say;
And so what? At least you are better than Jay Smith and Sam Shamoun in Arabic. I encourage you to keep learning and sincerely continue to interact with us as you have done over the years and may be one day you will worship the only one and alone true God of Abraham, Jesus, Jacob, Solomon, Mohammed etc. and the creator of everything who is not a Son/son to anyone and who no one has begotten Him, neither has He begotten any one.
Ibn can be used as “son of” but not “Son/son” so I am right and you are wrong. Try again.
Son/son is indeed the focus of the argument and not “son of”.
You do not expect God to say ” if Allah has intended to take son of” but “If Allah had intended take a son” will be more appropriate and correct than your wish which is wrongly constructed Arabic sentence.
You do not expect ibn or son of in this sentence or verse.
Sahih International 39:4
If Allah had intended to take a son, He could have chosen from what He creates whatever He willed. Exalted is He; He is Allah , the One, the Prevailing.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Robert Wells
You said;
I say;
The Quran is refuting Trinitarians who say the Son/son is not metaphorical and so it has to use the Son/son to clarify things but not Ibn. Trinitarians use Son/son and not Ibn, so the Son/son is the focus of the argument and not Ibn.
My response: So its not true that allah could have a son if he wanted too?
I say;
Capitalize the Allah, because Jesus Christ called his God Allaha in Aramaic when he was on the cross. Disrespecting Jesus’s God will not be good for you. Allah had indicated who the Son/son would have been and will be what He creates and read the verse below.
Sahih International 39:4
If Allah had intended to take a son, He could have chosen from what He creates whatever He willed. Exalted is He; He is Allah , the One, the Prevailing.
Our Allah makes thing clear for us and do not leave room for argument unlike Mark, Paul, Mathew and all the Gospel writers who have left so many room for argument.
Mr. Robert, I did not set criteria for you. I was only making a point Jesus never said he is God and he alone must be worshiped but Yahweh said so in numerous occasion to make salvation clear but Jesus never made it clear but leave Trinitarians trying hard to find what he did not say to the extent on relying upon his(Jesus) enemy the Jews for their salvation.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Intellect is it true or not that allah could have a son if he so choose too?
LikeLike
With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
The issue is about the arabic word تَّخِذَ as in the “If Allah had intended to take a son” لَّوْ أَرَادَ اللَّهُ أَن يَتَّخِذَ وَلَدً in Q39:4 which is pointed out by br. Mansoor to show missionary JayS error in his attempt to show that Allah could take a son” if He wanted it like in Trinitarian understanding.
Br. Mansoor is correct the Quran use of the word تَّخِذَ can only mean that this “son” must be God created being and then God choose to take or adopt or elect it as His “son” , this is radically different with trinitarian understanding of how can god can have a “son” because “choose to take or adopt or elect can not be eternally “BEGOTTEN” or “GENERATED” not made, as trinitarian understanding of the “son” is..
This elected son then can NOT an equally divine God -son as the Creator God as trinitarian understanding
Now regarding the word ولد and ابن don’t have no bearing on the argument trinitarian put forward. The Quran criticise trinitarianism both in ولد and إبن form (as both can also be used to denote “son”) although إبن can have a wider usage like “family of” , the Qur’an use both forms (eg. 9:30, 18:4).
إبن don’t have verb/فعل format like ولد so if he intention of Allah really was to beget a unique generated Son by God in the Qur’an it should have been written :
لَوْ أَرَادَ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَوْلَدُ وَلَدًا
But thats not the case why the Quran use the term يَتَّخِذَ (as br. Mansoor said in Q39:4) not يَوْلَدُ , so there is no room for trinitarian interpretation as if God can “beget” or “generate” (the term trinitarianism prefer to use) another god.
Wassalam
LikeLike
With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
btw in respond to Temple, I just checked in Wiki Arabic https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki//ابن_الله
On ابن الله
under ابن الله في المسيحية “ibnullah” in christianity
—————————————————
We read: (translation is mine)
ابن الله هو مصطلح روحي (وليس جسدي
يدل على يسوع المسيح حسب الاعتقاد المسيحي فوفقا لقانون الإيمان
هو ابن الله الوحيد
Ibnullah is a spiritual term not physical
Evidence on Jesus Christ, according to Christian belief in accordance with the code of faith
He is the only son of god
So far sounds ok with the Tawheed
…then: is the unsurprisingly added trinitarian spin:
المولود من الأب قبل كل الدهور
BEGOTTEN from the Father before all early times
Here the word used is المولود AL MAWLUUD , the same root with ولد
..so no matter trinitarians in Arabic bible try to hide it they can not never escape the inappropriate description of prophet Isa relationship to God ie. using المولود which is related to ‘Walad’ (وَلَد) which denotes a son born of physical sexual relations, rather like the English term “offspring.”
btw Arabic Gospels is a relatively recent human translation not a true revelation (like van dyke version etc.) so why it use ibn ابن perhaps is a matter of strategy for not revealing the very consequence of compromising the tawheed the Quran condemns.
Wassalam
LikeLike
Apology, the link should be https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ابن_الله
LikeLike
With the name of Allah
RW //Intellect is it true or not that allah could have a son if he so choose too?//
Allah said:
لَّوْ أَرَادَ اللَّهُ أَن يَتَّخِذَ وَلَدًا لَّاصْطَفَىٰ مِمَّا يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ ۖ هُوَ اللَّهُ الْوَاحِدُ الْقَهَّارُ
If Allah had intended to take a son, He could have chosen FROM WHAT HE CREATES. (39:4)
This “son” is elected , chosen, this is the truthful and the pious among God’s creation ie. men and women of God….we muslims all hope to be “son” of God in that sense.
but not “son” as in the non-sense of (eternally) “begotten” or “generated” , equally God as his father…. as in trinity doctrine
LikeLike
Robert Wells
You said;
Intellect is it true or not that allah could have a son if he so choose too?
I say;
Robert, is it true or not that Jesus as Son/son is metaphorical? Like all the Sons/sons by tonnes (credit Ahmed Deedat) in Bible?
Thanks
LikeLike
Robert Wells
You said;
Intellect is it true or not that allah could have a son if he so choose too?
I say;
Robert, is it true or not that Jesus as Son/son is metaphorical or literal? Metaphorical like all the Sons/sons by tonnes (credit Ahmed Deedat) in Bible?
Literal like having sex or using in vitro fertilization of a male sperm in a test tube and inserting the sperm into the female organ to give birth to a Son/son?
Thanks
LikeLike
Intellect you said that allah made it clear, so how come you are having such difficulty answering my simple question?
Please answer. Is it true or not that Allah could have a son if he wanted to? Yes or no?
LikeLike
Robert Wells
You said;
Intellect you said that allah made it clear, so how come you are having such difficulty answering my simple question?
Please answer. Is it true or not that Allah could have a son if he wanted to? Yes or no?
I say;
We all know that God cannot have sex and procreate because He is Only One and Alone in eternity and uncreated. He is not two, three etc. but yet in the Bible we see His(God) Sons/sons by tonnes.
He(God) has Sons/sons in the Bible including Jesus. Isn’t it?
So, If He(God) has Sons/sons in the Bible which He(God) claimed He revealed but corrupted, He(God) will not deny the truth in it(Bible).
So He(God) is correcting the Son/son in it(Bible) which is clearly an adopted, metaphorical, pious person, God elected person, chosen person by God etc. and the verse clearly state that.
Sahih International 39:4
If Allah had intended to take a son, He could have chosen from what He creates whatever He willed. Exalted is He; He is Allah , the One, the Prevailing.
Try to capitalize the Allah because you are ridiculing Jesus’s God by not capitalizing the Allaha Jesus cried to call his God on the cross.
If you ask me, can you go to China? And I say yes, I can go to China by flight. It means I can only God to China by flight. Obviously where I am, it is impossible for me to walk to China. But I can go to China anyway. I did not lie when I say I can go to China.
You could not answer my question which is what brought this argument. You can not accept the Sonship of Jesus to be either metaphorical or literal.
////////////////////////////
Intellect
September 29, 2015 • 9:49 am
Robert Wells
You said;
Intellect is it true or not that allah could have a son if he so choose too?
I say;
Robert, is it true or not that Jesus as Son/son is metaphorical or literal? Metaphorical like all the Sons/sons by tonnes (credit Ahmed Deedat) in Bible?
Literal like having sex or using in vitro fertilization of a male sperm in a test tube and inserting the sperm into the female organ to give birth to a Son/son?
Thanks
//////////////////////////
Mr. Wells, the Quran has solved your problem by defining what His Sons/sons are and they are all His created beings because He is One, Only and Alone from eternity so He cannot create another eternal being and this verse proves it.
Sahih International 39:4
If Allah had intended to take a son, He could have chosen from what He creates whatever He willed. Exalted is He; He is Allah , the One, the Prevailing.
Thanks.
LikeLike
المولود من الأب قبل كل الدهور
BEGOTTEN from the Father before all early times
Yes, but “before all early times” means in eternity past (before the Word became flesh and entered into the womb of Mary), and there is nothing physical in eternity past, only God as Pure Spirit. The Son and the Holy Spirit and Spiritual beings with the Father. God the Father is Spirit. They were trying to explain the Biblical texts of John 1:1-5 and John 17:5; and “generated” or “coming out from” from eternity past was the best thing that human language can come up with, at the same time explaining the Biblical terms “Father” and “Son” – a son has the same character and nature as a father, etc.
Here the word used is المولود AL MAWLUUD , the same root with ولد
Yes, but in eternity past, there is only God invisible, Spiritual essence. It is the weakness of human language trying to express the many facets of all the Scriptural data.
..so no matter trinitarians in Arabic bible try to hide it they can not never escape the inappropriate description of prophet Isa relationship to God ie. using المولود which is related to ‘Walad’ (وَلَد) which denotes a son born of physical sexual relations, rather like the English term “offspring.”
Look at Luke 1:34-35:
34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
فَقَالَتْ مَرْيَمُ لِلْمَلاَكِ: «كَيْفَ يَحْدُثُ هَذَا، وَأَنَا لَسْتُ أَعْرِفُ رَجُلاً؟»
فَأَجَابَهَا الْمَلاَكُ: «الرُّوحُ الْقُدُسُ يَحِلُّ عَلَيْكِ، وَقُدْرَةُ الْعَلِيِّ تُظَلِّلُكِ. لِذلِكَ أَيْضاً فَالْقُدُّوسُ الْمَوْلُودُ مِنْكِ يُدْعَى ابْنَ اللهِ.
الْمَوْلُودُ
and Ibn ابن are also there.
In the first instance Almolood المولود is saying the “holy قدوس offspring” will be called the “Son of God” – The Son of God/ Word of God was spirit from the Father (nothing physical or sexual), and because Mary was a virgin, there is nothing physical or dirty or sexual about this. But once the Divine nature Spirit of the Son / Word became united with a human nature in the womb of Mary, there is a Molood مولود in that sense. But the eternal molood مولود is nothing but Spirit – as John 1:1 and John 17: 5 teach.
The early church was struggling to understand the other texts like Psalm 2:7, Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 5:5 – “Today I have begotten You”. They said the “today” either means an “eternal today” into the past, or the time when the Word/Son/spirit came into the womb of Mary, the incarnation; “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14; Luke 1:34-35) The early church’s term “eternal generation” was the result of seeing the Son as always coming out from the Father, like Words coming out from our mind (which is what logos λογος is from John 1:1.
Granted, everyone stumbles over the word, “begotten” in Psalm 2:7, Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5, But:
1. but the NT texts that speak of Jesus being “the only begotten” (John 3:16; 3:18; 1 John 4:9) actually mean “the only unique one” or “one and only”.
2. Since Mary was a virgin and God is not physical, there was no sex involved. Luke 1:34-35 is clear – it was “the Holy Spirit” and “the power of the Most High” (the Father)
LikeLike
Oops – typo mistake:
The Son and the Holy Spirit and Spiritual beings with the Father.
This should have been:
The Son and the Holy Spirit are Spiritual persons with the Father. (But one being, or one God in essence, nature, substance ذات، جوهر
LikeLike
Three divine persons sharing one nature are three gods
LikeLike
Burhanuddin since u say that three persons are three gods, is Allah’s a person?. If u answer no then by ur reasoning Allah is not god. If u answer yes then u have just committed shirk. See how irrational ur position is.
LikeLike
Three divine persons sharing one divine nature are three gods.
Just like 7 billion human persons sharing one human nature are 7 billion men.
Perfectly rational.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bobby, three divine persons are three gods – two dudes and a bird. Look at all the pictures, are all the Christian painters for centuries irrational lunatics?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
You said;
Granted, everyone stumbles over the word, “begotten” in Psalm 2:7, Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5, But:
1. but the NT texts that speak of Jesus being “the only begotten” (John 3:16; 3:18; 1 John 4:9) actually mean “the only unique one” or “one and only”.
2. Since Mary was a virgin and God is not physical, there was no sex involved. Luke 1:34-35 is clear – it was “the Holy Spirit” and “the power of the Most High” (the Father)
I say;
Begotten means having sexual intercourse to produce a Son/son. That is what it means. That is what the word means please and if Jesus is the only begotten Son./son, then sex is involved unless the word “begotten” is removed it will mean what it means. If you change it to “the only unique one” then it does not mean God. We have so many unique people in this world. In the Bible there are so many unique people referred to as Sons/sons of God.
Begottenheb means to have erected penis to produce a child or through invitro fertilization and it is blaspheme for any one to use the word begotten to refer to Almighty God. Anyone who is begotten is not God at all and any one who uses such a word to refer to God is really doing so to anger God.
Begotten means to have sex and produce a child and that is what it means. That is surely the meaning, no curve, no bend. It is not suitable to be used for the Almighty God.
You said;
2. Since Mary was a virgin and God is not physical, there was no sex involved. Luke 1:34-35 is clear – it was “the Holy Spirit” and “the power of the Most High” (the Father)
I say;
Then why will some of the Bible use Begotten which means having sex to produce a child? Some Bibles realizing the meaning then removed the begotten. Some Christians using “Begotten not made”? That is nonsense, begotten is always made and it is just like me creating a new religion and change words and say “I am still but walking to work, because walking not moving”. That is rubbish.
Immortal loses its meaning because Trinitarians changed it to God died for their sins
Three loses its meaning because Trinitarians claim 3 persons and every person is a being is one being(God(divine being))
Eternal loses its meaning because Trinitarians claim the eternal God died.
Same loses its meaning because Trinitarians claim the Father and the Son are the same but actually they are different.
Change loses its meaning because the Biblical God does not change but Trinitarian said he changed by adding human nature to Himself
The list of word changes goes on and on and it is bully by Trinitarians to be changing words at their whims and caprice. It is not accepted. Every language has its accepted definition of words and no one can start changing them at for his whims and caprice.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
nice points intellect. As Sam would say: OUCH!!
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Yes, but “before all early times” means in eternity past (before the Word became flesh and entered into the womb of Mary), and there is nothing physical in eternity past, only God as Pure Spirit. The Son and the Holy Spirit and Spiritual beings with the Father. God the Father is Spirit. They were trying to explain the Biblical texts of John 1:1-5 and John 17:5; and “generated” or “coming out from” from eternity past was the best thing that human language can come up with, at the same time explaining the Biblical terms “Father” and “Son” – a son has the same character and nature as a father, etc.
I say;
No, you said the Son/son was generated. That is what you said. I did not hear it from the Church Fathers but from you. Please do not use something generated/created to refer to the Almighty God because you are in error then, for God is not generated/created. Anything generated, begotten or Son/son is not God. Full Stop.
This is what and how God Almighty used human language to describe Himself.
“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
The above is simple and God Almighty did not make it hard for us to understand the above description. It is a waste of time to Go to church fathers and ignore the plain and simple verses above and start blaspheming by referring to God as “begotten”, “Son”, “3 persons” etc.
The son is spirit
The Father is spirit
The Holy Spirit is Spirit
Therefore every spirit is a being and 3 spirits, 3 beings.
The above verses said God is One Only and Alone.
3 spirits are obviously not 1 being but the above verses said God is One(divine being)
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
I Salute you Sir. God bless you for persistently defending your religion. Unfortunately you are on the wrong side. Any argument you bring just splashed on your face because it does not go with 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
Keep it up. I might understand you in the future which I strongly doubt because my yardstick is the above verses from the Bible. All the Christians are hidden and left you alone and your God will bless you for defending his message. I am enjoying your interaction and waiting for another word change.
You can use “established”, for the Son/son and lets see whether it makes sense. Generated/created is not appropriate whatsoever to happen to God Almighty. He generates/creates but never He(God) being generated/created.
Thanks
LikeLike
Burhanuddin wrote…
“Three divine persons sharing one divine nature are three gods.
Just like 7 billion human persons sharing one human nature are 7 billion men.
Perfectly rational.
My Response LOL, ok sir shirks alot. So by your “rational” thinking the God is like people in that they are all one being and one person. See they call that SHIRK. But thats not the real funny part. So since by your “Rational” thinking since three persons in the divne being equate to THREE GODS, then allah who is NOT a person is NOT A GOD.
Congratulations not only did you commit big shirk but you also no denied your god is a God lol.
See thats rational thinking.
LikeLike
Intellect wrote…
“We all know that God cannot have sex and procreate because He is Only One and Alone in eternity and uncreated. ”
My Response: So then allah was lying in the Quran when he said he could have a son if he so wanted to?
LikeLike
Robert Wells
You said;
Intellect wrote…
“We all know that God cannot have sex and procreate because He is Only One and Alone in eternity and uncreated. ”
My Response: So then allah was lying in the Quran when he said he could have a son if he so wanted to?
I say;
Do not put words into Allah’s words. He did not say what you said. He said this
Sahih International 39:4
If Allah had intended to take a son, He could have chosen from what He creates whatever He willed. Exalted is He; He is Allah , the One, the Prevailing.
It is different from what you said. Please quote the same thing that Allah said to make your point, not what you want. Don’t you see me quoting Yahweh saying He is One, Only and Alone every day for you?
Son can only be literal or metaphorical and Allah made it clear the son He takes is metaphorical son.
Robert He said son and the next sentence clearly indicates the son He is talking about is metaphorical but not literal. Ken Temple tried to reason your attack and I quickly corrected him.
Watch the verse carefully. You have literal son in your mind but the verse is talking about a metaphorical Son. So Jesus Christ is not a literal son of God but metaphorical son of God like all of us. So Jesus Christ is not God.
Ken Temple today, prove our accusation of Paul of Tarsus bringing the concept of Pagan Greek Sun God and his Sons by comparing Trinity with sun and its rays as God and Son. Yes, that is how the monotheism of Jesus was changed by later Christians who were not his apostles but lied and claim they are his apostles.
Robert, there is a new Bart Erhman debate on this blog. If you have time just watch it and they prove me right in that Jesus Christ never said he is God. Watch it.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Robert Wells
You said;
My Response LOL, ok sir shirks alot. So by your “rational” thinking the God is like people in that they are all one being and one person. See they call that SHIRK. But thats not the real funny part. So since by your “Rational” thinking since three persons in the divne being equate to THREE GODS, then allah who is NOT a person is NOT A GOD.
Congratulations not only did you commit big shirk but you also no denied your god is a God lol.
I say;
I know he will answer you but I will take the lead. He did not compare God to man, but you people(Trinitarians) said God became man. If I a man and you tell me I became monkey, then you obviously compared me with monkey and went further to say I am monkey. So you are the ones to be accused of comparing God to man, because you even did worse by saying God became man.
He did not say God is like people but is just trying to point your reasons out to you in that, if you say God has divided his divinity into 3, you are implying humanity to Him(God) because human also have their humanity divided into billions i.e. 7 billion human persons sharing one human nature are 7 billion men.
The Bible said 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. Robert. There is nothing like God sharing his divine nature into 3 in the whole Bible. Where did you get that from? The above verses from the Bible indicates God is One, Only and Alone and does not share His nature with anyone. So saying He shares His nature with 3 other persons by Trinitarians is equating God to humans who do share humanity.
God is One, Only and Alone and unlike human He does not share his divinity or divine nature. That is what my brother is putting across to Trinitarians.
The above verses clearly said God is One, Only and Alone and if God is a divine being and He is only one being and if a being is a person, then He God cannot be 3 persons.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Bismillah
RW//My Response: So then allah was lying in the Quran when he said he could have a son if he so wanted to?//
Where is this “he could have a son if he so wanted to” in the qur’an??, please show me in original language
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bobby “See thats rational thinking.”
My Response LOL, you’re displaying fallacious thinking.
“So by your “rational” thinking the God is like people in that they are all one being and one person.”
I’m saying the philosophical concept of the TRIUNE God is by definition one nature (1 what) in three persons (3 who’s).
Just like mankind is one nature (1 what) in 7 billion persons (Who’s).
LikeLike
With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
In response to Temple I wrote “Here the word used is المولود AL MAWLUUD , the same root with ولد”
KT//Yes, but in eternity past, there is only God invisible, Spiritual essence. It is the weakness of human language trying to express the many facets of all the Scriptural data.//
Now you admit it that the bible use inappropriate word word in relation to God. That Allah has a son walad ولد which denotes unGodly character of pro-creation or begetting. Thats why the Qur’an strongly criticise it numerous times.
KT://Look at Luke 1:34-35:
34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
فَقَالَتْ مَرْيَمُ لِلْمَلاَكِ: «كَيْفَ يَحْدُثُ هَذَا، وَأَنَا لَسْتُ أَعْرِفُ رَجُلاً؟»
فَأَجَابَهَا الْمَلاَكُ: «الرُّوحُ الْقُدُسُ يَحِلُّ عَلَيْكِ، وَقُدْرَةُ الْعَلِيِّ تُظَلِّلُكِ. لِذلِكَ أَيْضاً فَالْقُدُّوسُ الْمَوْلُودُ مِنْكِ يُدْعَى ابْنَ اللهِ.
الْمَوْلُودُ//
What I particularly interested in reading this verse in Arabic is when it says لرُّوحُ الْقُدُسُ يَحِلُّ عَلَيْكِ meaning
I wonder why this particular word is used by the translator, these term is also used in the classical arabic of the Qur’an and the same root with the word “halal” حَلَآئِل.
It does seem to me (in reading the Arabic version) that physical interaction during the conception of Jesus (p) is more strongly expressed .
iNow lets read how the Arabic Qur’an express the creation of prophet Jesus in relation to his God, his creator (p) as mentioned in the holy Qur’an
ذَٰلِكَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ ۚ قَوْلَ الْحَقِّ الَّذِي فِيهِ يَمْتَرُونَ
مَا كَانَ لِلَّهِ أَن يَتَّخِذَ مِن وَلَدٍ ۖ سُبْحَانَهُ ۚ إِذَا قَضَىٰ أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ
That is Isa (Jesus) son of Maryam, in word of truth, concerning which they are wrangling.
In no way is it for Allah to take to Him a child. All Extolment be to Him! When He decrees a Command, then He only says to it, “Be!” and it is.
(Q 19:34-35)
isn’t it more appropriate more elegant and beautiful expression. and above all it’s unsullied monotheism!
LikeLike
Apology again, the following sentence from my previous comment:
“What I particularly interested in reading this verse in Arabic is when it says لرُّوحُ الْقُدُسُ يَحِلُّ عَلَيْكِ meaning
I wonder why this particular word is used by the translator, these term is also used in the classical arabic of the Qur’an and the same root with the word “halal” حَلَآئِل.”
should be:
“What I particularly interested in this verse is when it says لرُّوحُ الْقُدُسُ يَحِلُّ عَلَيْكِ meaning
I wonder why this particular word is used by the translator, these term is also used in the classical arabic of the Qur’an and the same root with the word “halal” حَلَآئِل”.
LikeLike
Apology again, this should be:
What I particularly interested in this verse is when it says لرُّوحُ الْقُدُسُ يَحِلُّ عَلَيْكِ meaning “holy spirit يَحِلُّ (yahillu= become lawful or come near , mix or forge ) on her”
I wonder why this particular word is used by the translator, these term is also used in the classical arabic of the Qur’an and the same root with the word “halal” حَلَآئِل.
LikeLike
The Holy Spirit is Spirit, nothing physical. “The power of the Most High” (The Father) is spiritual power. There is nothing physical or sexual. Once the divine nature united with a human nature in the womb of Mary, the 9 month development and birth is physical, since the Word became flesh/human.
John 4:23-24 – “God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
“For this reason, the holy offspring will be called the son of God” –
1. Because He had no human father.
2. Because He was the same nature/essence/substance as the Father. homo- ousias (same substance) ذات، جوهر
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
The Holy Spirit is Spirit, nothing physical. “The power of the Most High” (The Father) is spiritual power. There is nothing physical or sexual. Once the divine nature united with a human nature in the womb of Mary, the 9 month development and birth is physical, since the Word became flesh/human.
I say;
It is absolutely physical. The divine nature uniting with the human nature in the womb of Mary is absolutely physical. It is just like the demons that Jesus cast out of people uniting with humans. The demons are spirits and humans are both spirit and bodies so uniting is physical. Some demons(spirits) can cause their victims to ejaculate or ovulate and all these are physical.
The Holy Spirit or the divine nature united with a physical body and is physical. When there is sexual intercourse and the sperm unites with the egg, nobody knows the power that cause the pregnancy and it is the same power that causes the pregnancy of Mary but Trinitarians believe God Almighty Himself is physically in the womb of Mary for 9 months. That is blaspheme to the highest degree.
Thanks.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Bismillah
KT://“For this reason, the holy offspring will be called the son of God” ??
Holy offspring?? ….you mean like god’s offspring ??
sounds like Greek mythology to me
Thanks Allah I am a muslim. I invite you to come back to the One and true God.
LikeLike
No; it is not like Greek Mythology, because in Greek Mythology, the gods came down and had sex with women.
But the Bible clearly says Mary is a virgin; which means NO SEX.
God put His divine nature into the womb of Mary by spiritual, unseen power. There is nothing physical or sexual about that.
Read Luke 1:26-35 and how many times it says “virgin”.
She said, “how can this be, since I am a virgin”
“the power of the Most High”
“the Holy Spirit”
these 2 phrases prove our point.
“for this reason”, he will be called “the Son of God”
once the divine nature came into the womb of Mary and united with a human nature, then of course the Son of God, Jesus, grew for 9 months and was born out of Mary physically. But that is natural and nothing wrong with that.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
No; it is not like Greek Mythology, because in Greek Mythology, the gods came down and had sex with women.
But the Bible clearly says Mary is a virgin; which means NO SEX.
God put His divine nature into the womb of Mary by spiritual, unseen power. There is nothing physical or sexual about that.
Read Luke 1:26-35 and how many times it says “virgin”.
She said, “how can this be, since I am a virgin”
“the power of the Most High”
“the Holy Spirit”
these 2 phrases prove our point.
“for this reason”, he will be called “the Son of God”
once the divine nature came into the womb of Mary and united with a human nature, then of course the Son of God, Jesus, grew for 9 months and was born out of Mary physically. But that is natural and nothing wrong with that.
I say;
Mr. Ken, so if there is no sexual intercourse, does that mean invitro fertilization? We know there is not sexual intercourse between the Father and the mother of a sperm donor but yet his child stays in the womb of the mother for 9 months and the child is born and he has a relationship with his son and the mother had a relationship with her son as well.
In the Quran, Allah just said “Be” and It was. But what you are saying here, it is like invitro fertilization, where God himself has to come and unite with Mary’s egg to fertilize for 9 months before hybrid God-Man Jesus was born. If that is the case, then other God-Men like Emperor Haile Selaissie can go through that process. I am talking about the possibility here i.e. God-man or the principle of God-Men.
In Islam, there is no possibility of God-Men. Your Bible has a concept of God coming into the womb of a woman to produce God-Man without sex, so are other religious figures like Sai Baba of India. As you said difference between you and the Greek mythology is that, the gods come down for sex, but your case there is no sex, but the God has to come down anyway and enter into the womb of the woman and unite with a human nature and it is like invitro fertilization because that one too does not involve sex but some liquid in a test tube uniting with the mother to produce a Son with the power of the most high as well. We all do not know where the sperm comes from and who produced it, so the sperm is also spiritual uniting with the physical woman without sex.
Sperm production is spiritual because no body knows how it came by.
Thanks
LikeLike
Bismillah
KT//:”No; it is not like Greek Mythology, because in Greek Mythology, the gods came down and had sex with women.
But the Bible clearly says Mary is a virgin; which means NO SEX.”//
There is a very thin line separating trinitarian concept of god and the terminology it uses with greek mythology.
A union between one divine father and a human agent in Greek mythology produces a son of god or a god offspring a demigod.
In the ancient writings of Homer* and Hesiod*. Homer called Zeus “the father”
To be honest I’d rather stay within the boundary of genuine Monotheism in the Quran where God is absolutely above human-like relationship,
Yes, Mary (peace be upon her) is a virgin but we dont fall into satan traps in using pagan understanding on the nature of prophet Isa (peace be upon him) as god’s offspring, god’s child , god’s son in a way father-son type relation.
Hear!:
In no way is it for Allah to take to Him a child. All Extolment be to Him! When He decrees a Command, then He only says to it, “Be!” and it is.
(Q 19:34-35)
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.
(Q 112:1-4)
LikeLike
Eric bin Kisam
Allahumma Ameen
If someone does not believe in the Quran, here is a similar verses from the Bible, so that at least he will put an end the Pagan Greek concept of God staying in a womb of Mary for 9 months i.e. invitro fertilization. Which is a complete blaspheme to the highest degree.
“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
You are both wrong; the divine nature / the Word uniting spiritually and with no sex and no physical contact with the human nature from Mary in her womb is NOT “in vitro” fertilization.
Here is the definition of “in vitro fertilization” – The egg is taken out and united with a human sperm in a test tube outside of the woman. vitro is literally Latin for “glass” – and it means “in a test tube” in laboratory terminology.
“In vitro fertilization or fertilisation (IVF) is a process by which an egg is fertilised by sperm outside the body: in vitro (“in glass”). The process involves monitoring and stimulating a woman’s ovulatory process, removing an ovum or ova (egg or eggs) from the woman’s ovaries and letting sperm fertilise them in a liquid in a laboratory. The fertilised egg (zygote) is cultured for 2–6 days in a growth medium and is then implanted in the same or another woman’s uterus, with the intention of establishing a successful pregnancy.”
You can google and research that for yourself.
This is not what the text of Luke 1:34-35 teaches us:
34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
ouch!!
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
You are both wrong; the divine nature / the Word uniting spiritually and with no sex and no physical contact with the human nature from Mary in her womb is NOT “in vitro” fertilization.
Here is the definition of “in vitro fertilization” – The egg is taken out and united with a human sperm in a test tube outside of the woman. vitro is literally Latin for “glass” – and it means “in a test tube” in laboratory terminology.
“In vitro fertilization or fertilisation (IVF) is a process by which an egg is fertilised by sperm outside the body: in vitro (“in glass”). The process involves monitoring and stimulating a woman’s ovulatory process, removing an ovum or ova (egg or eggs) from the woman’s ovaries and letting sperm fertilise them in a liquid in a laboratory. The fertilised egg (zygote) is cultured for 2–6 days in a growth medium and is then implanted in the same or another woman’s uterus, with the intention of establishing a successful pregnancy.”
I say;
You are right that is in vitro fertilization. It is similar to God coming down and entering into the womb of Mary to fertilize her egg to produce God-Man. In both cases spirit did inserted into a woman’s womb without sex to undergo the process of pregnancy for 9 months.
And in Greek mythology, the God has to come down and have sex with human to produce God-Man.
So, your God is in between Greek mythology and in vitro fertilization. God coming down to produce God-Man which is pure Greek mythology and spirit(God or sperm) being introduced into woman’s womb to undergo pregnancy.
My intellect, helps me to do all these comparisons and my comparisons are true.
You see, the Bible said nothing can be compared to God and the Quran said when God wills something like the miraculous birth of Jesus He just said “Be” and it was. This is the true nature of who God is but not a man to come down and insert himself into the womb of Mary for 9 months. What is God doing there in the womb of Mary for 9 month? when a womb is a place for man or babies not God. If you believe God can do that, then you open the room for comparisons with in vitro fertilization which is similar and God does not deserve in vitro in some other form or way.
You will also open the room for comparison with Greek mythology as Bart Erhman explained in the above video.
The Bible clearly states God does not change. Staying in the womb of Mary for 9 months to produce God-man and adding something in the process changed God and violated the Bible where it said God does not change.
God is Almighty and does not need to change His structure for anything
Also coming down to have God-Man is absolutely Greeko-Roman concept of God with the exception of sex and that will lead to in vitro i.e. a Son without sex. God is above all this and that is why God said “Be” and it was and also He(God) cannot be compared to anything.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Bismillah
One thing the narration in Luke 1:34-35 suggest that Jesus is a created being, at a particular time in history when ruhul qudus came (mix يَحِلُّ ) caused her to impregnated Mary (as).
The Quran also says that Mary (as) is a virgin , and that . another created being from from Allah, the holy spirit (Arruhul qudus) were breathed into Isa (as) ,
The difference is muslims dont fall into satan traps in using pagan understanding on the nature of prophet Isa (peace be upon him) that Isa he is also god albeit a lesser being than god since he was created (astaghfirullah), and the holy spirit is also god nor we call Isa (as) god offspring, god’s child , god’s son in a way father-son type relation. A blasphemy.
LikeLike
God can become a human if He wants to and He did. (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews chapter 1, Luke 1:26-35; Matthew 1:18-25, etc.) The Injeel testifies to this and you should read the Injeel (the New Testament) from start to finish, verse by verse, chapter by chapter, in your own / heart language, instead of just verses here and there in Muslim polemics, etc. Read Matthew all the way through Revelation. I have done that with the Qur’an, you should also do the same with the Injeel.
God has the power to do that and Jay Smith is right on that part.
Jesus, as a human on earth, had to go to the toilet, of course. You guys seem to “freak out” over stuff like that; when God is the one who thought of, and created our bowels and urinary systems to get rid of waste. God thought of sex also and created it.
LikeLike
Wrong; “in vitro” fertilization is fertilization outside of the mother’s womb, whereas the divine nature / Word / spirit-nature of the 2nd person of the Trinity was united with the human nature inside Mary’s womb by God’s power and the Holy Spirit. It is similar to the Qur’an saying “be; and it became”, except that God put His own Spirit / Word/ nature in there to unite with a human nature.
Luke 1:34-35 is clear.
34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Wrong; “in vitro” fertilization is fertilization outside of the mother’s womb, whereas the divine nature / Word / spirit-nature of the 2nd person of the Trinity was united with the human nature inside Mary’s womb by God’s power and the Holy Spirit. It is similar to the Qur’an saying “be; and it became”, except that God put His own Spirit / Word/ nature in there to unite with a human nature.
I say;
It is the same with in vitro fertilization because a spirit WAS PUT in the a woman womb without sex when it comes to Jesus conception and in vitro fertilization involves zygote(spirit) which WAS PUT in the womb of a woman without sex to produce a child. It is the same and can be compared. But the Bible says God cannot be compared with anything and God does not change and God is not a man. All babies conceptions involves the power of the most high but not Jesus Christ alone, unless you want to make Jesus’s power of the most high literal like how a man overshadows his wife when having sex.
When the Quran says “Be” and it is, it means God command or will to achieve something done but not to come down and enter into a womb of a woman and stay there for 9 months and unite with a human(woman’s) egg to produce a God-Man.
If not ovulation and fertilization in the womb of Mary what does God wants in there for 9 months? to produce God-man.
Besides, a woman womb is created for babies to get their feed and development from their mothers, and I do think God does not deserve that because He created everything and it does not befit Him(God) to stay in a woman’s womb for 9 months being fed and developed and eventually created in the mothers womb. It is a blashpeme to the highest degree to think about that.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Bismillah
KT //God can become a human if He wants to and He did. //
It is idolatrous to think that God becomes human, or that humans become God. It is pagan thought that people confuse himself as god like Pharaoh.
In Hosea 11:9, God explicitly tells us, ‘…for I am God and NOT a man.’
LikeLike