The Doctrine of the Trinity is taught in the combination of many verses.
1. Many verses say God is One. There is only one God.
2. Many verses testify of the Deity of Christ.
3. Some verses testify of the Deity of the Holy Spirit.
4. Some verses speak of the triad of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (ie, Matthew 28:19, 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Peter 1:1-2; Matthew 3:13-16, Ephesians 1:3-14, Ephesians 4:4 ff)
5. Many verses indicate the that the Father and the Son and H.Spirit are persons who communicate with each other and indicate they are persons.
Wow! You really are trying to make the OT verses fit your erroneous theory of the trinity! Admit it, there are no clear verses of a triune God in the OT, otherwise all jews would convert to christisnity!
“‘But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.’ Therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor bears a son, and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites. He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God. And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth.”
Once again, this appears to be an amazing prophecy fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. Unfortunately, the truth is far less impressive. When read in its full context, the passage in Micah 5, though Messianic, cannot possibly be referring to Jesus. This is because, like Isaiah 7:14, the prophesied leader mentioned would contend against the Assyrian empire:
“And he will be our peace when the Assyrians invade our land and march through our fortresses. We will raise against them seven shepherds, even eight commanders, who will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword. He will deliver us from the Assyrians when they invade our land and march across our borders.”
As we previously noted, the Assyrian empire was destroyed centuries before Jesus was even born. How then could he lead the Israelites against the powerful Assyrians? [It should be pointed out that the prophecy in Micah 5 did not actually come true anyway as the Assyrian empire was not destroyed by an Israelite king, but by the Chaldeans and Medians, as stated previously.] Clearly, this prophecy could not apply to Jesus. Furthermore, the passage does not mention that the promised leader would come from the town of Bethlehem but from the clan of Bethlehem Ephrathah. In other words, the author of the Gospel of Matthew failed to realize that the reference was not to the town of Bethlehem but to a clan of the same name.
1. Many verses that “testify of the deity of Christ” are later forgeries.
2. Many verses testify that Jesus worshiped God.
3. The New Testament often contradicts itself in regards the nature of Jesus.
Where does the Bible teach that God is three co-equal persons each of whom is God yet these three are one God?
None of the references you list say this. Many verses say Jesus is just a man (not a god) eg see Acts 2:22. A huge number juxtapose Jesus and God but do not identify them as the same person/entity or substance.
For example 2 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 13; 2 Thessalonians 1:2; 1 Timothy 2:5 etc
It is painfully obvious that there is no concept of a triune God in the OT. Yahwe of the OT is the same as Allah of the Quran, One and Only, without any equal or partners and NOT a man. When it comes to the concept of God, the chasm between the OT and the NT is huge. No matter how the christians spin it, there is NO trinity in the OL, period!
600 years? Because Dr. James White initiated this 600 years nonsense? If someone talks nonsense you have to analyze it before repeating it. How many years is between Adam and Moses? But you believed what Moses said about Adams, just to criticize what the Quran said about Prophet Jesus.
The Quran did not confirm NT but confirmed injeel given to Jesus. New Testament was selected and canonized by the Church Fathers, so the Quran is not talking about what the Church Fathers selected. They rejected the word of God by selecting some and leaving some.
You criticize the Quran by claiming it copied from the Gnostic gospels. If you claim the Quran confirms your gospels then the Gnostic Gospels of Thomas is also gospel because you claimed the Quran copied from it.
Exactly! Ken and other desperate apologists know they cannot logically defend the Bible with all its inconsistencies, so they try to twist the Quran to make Muslims believe in the Bible. Deception is their forte.
So what does that prove if the NT quotes from the OT??? You do use silly arguments. My point is there is no clear mention of your strange triune God in the OT. Now, this is a BIG problem for you, as the trinity is the foundation of your religion.
the NT often misquotes, distorts and mangles the OT it quotes seemingly deliberately. The worst offender is the author of Matthew’s gospel, but Paul often distorts and misquotes the OT too.
John 17:5
5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
Isaiah 42:8 “I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
Isaiah 48:11 “For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.
Since John 17:5 and John 1:1-5 show Jesus the Son shared in the glory with God from eternity past and was God by substance/nature and eternal with the Father; and Isaiah 42:8 and 48:11 speak of God / Yahweh / the LORD not giving His glory to another; it means what the Son and the Father (and the H.S) are one God and the three persons are within the One God, who does not share His glory with another “god”.
In John 17:3 Jesus refers to another (“you”) as “the only true God”.
If Jesus knew he was God he would have said “we”.
In John 10 Jesus refutes the ‘evil Jews’ (more anti-semitism) who accuse him of making himself out to be God. He rejects their “blasphemy” (verse 36) and says he is not God but his son.
There is no anti-Semitism in the bible, “the Jews” meant the Jews that were persecuting Jesus, the Pharisees, chief priests, scribes, Saducees, Jewish leaders who were rejecting Him and were trying to kill him.
But the Qur’an is anti-semitic, calling the Jews apes, and Hadith is anti-semitic, saying that Jihad and killing them must continue all the time until the day of resurrection and that trees must cry out “there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him”, etc.
Jesus was a Jewish man, the apostles were Jews, and all NT writers were Jews except Luke; most Christians of 1st Century were Jews.
The Europeans (Roman Catholic – a false church that drifted from the Bible and the ones who did the Crusades and Inquisitions) of the Middle Ages were wrong to persecute the Jews, they are the ones who twisted the Scriptures.
Ken, stick to the Bible because you don’t know anything about the Quran. You’re making a mule out of yourself. 😉
The Bible refers to Jews as the “synagogue of Satan”, and blames them and their posterity for Jesus’ alleged death. Then again, it also refers to Gentiles as “dogs”, so who knows what its authors really had in mind. LOL.
I don’t agree the Qur’an is antisemitic. Not at all. But I do agree the Bible, where is could be contrued as antisemitic does seem to be referring to the Jewish elite. I never really understood that fully until I read Reza Aslan’s book, Zealot.
disciples and we believers (those that will believe in Me through their word, later preached and then later written down) have fellowship/spiritual communion with the Triune God; that is not about ontology but about spiritual relationship and fellowship.
“disciples and we believers (those that will believe in Me through their word, later preached and then later written down) have fellowship/spiritual communion with the Triune God; that is not about ontology but about spiritual relationship and fellowship.”
you have relationship not with the unseen , but visible jew who you think is god.
you do spiritually harlotry with these pagan gods
you build relationship with “god WALKED the earth”
mothers named their children jesus (source josephus) and you name your object of worship “jesus”
spiritual harlotry.
your love, trust and connection is with “god walked the earth” you even push the kids name above the daddies name
No, that is why the doctrine of the trinity is pure hogwash, invented by idiots and blasphemers like you. Yours is a false religion built upon of deception, lies and forgeries.
Is not calling names. It is just like how Dr. James White and you Ken, call Mormons as idol worshipers for saying Yahweh is many persons as you Ken do are silly.
When you spread false information about Islam, and I expose you, I am not violating the Quran. It says clearly to speak to Christians and Jews kindly, except when they commit injustice. Lying about Islam, Muhammad (pbuh) and Muslims in general has rightfully earned you my verbal spite. 🙂
1. why did your god wear the name “jesus” when other people were called “jesus” ?
2. if both dad, son and ghost have access to the same nature and don’t need to seek others permission to access it, how is it possible that one has to use divine nature to pray to daddy and daddy uses same divine nature to answer son?
they see the same stuff, hear, listen, smell and taste the same stuff , have access to the same information yet kid does a request to dad using the same divine nature?
I’ve read Sproul’s book on the Trinity idea. I think this lecture series is based on his book or vice versa.
Last time I checked it was available for free on Kindle – it’s an easy and quick read and he touches on some of the controversies and “heresies” in early Christian history.
Christians were killing each other because they couldn’t get the “trinity” right long before the Quran got it right for them: Don’t say three, it is better for you.
No, they were not free to do evangelism or call Muslims to repentance or explain the gospel to Muslims, or expand or build new churches. They had to stay in their ghetto Dhimmi areas and pay the Jiziye tax. The pressure eventually wore them down to the ingrown small communities we see today.
Ken historically Christians either lived amongst the the general population as in Spain or within their own communities in the Ottoman empire. Both options are acceptable under shariah.
It’s true you could not seek to convert Muslims to the religion that has distorted Christ’s teachings and innovated his religion with ideas of trinity etc, the Islamic state has a duty to protect its Muslim citizens against corrupted religions that can lead to hell fire.
Sorry if you don’t like that Ken but I’m glad for it.
“No, they were not free to do evangelism or call Muslims to repentance or explain the gospel to Muslims, or expand or build new churches. They had to stay in their ghetto Dhimmi areas and pay the Jiziye tax. The pressure eventually wore them down to the ingrown small communities we see today.”
“It’s true you could not seek to convert Muslims to the religion that has distorted Christ’s teachings and innovated his religion with ideas of trinity etc, the Islamic state has a duty to protect its Muslim citizens against corrupted religions that can lead to hell fire.”
is that not what the jews were doing too?
quote:
· killed their own prophets.
· persecuted the church.
· do not please God.
· are against all mankind.
· try to stop the gospel being preached.
· are always filling up the totality of all their sins.
Because huge swathes of muslims seem to agree that killing in the name of your religion is one of its tenets and victims of Islamic “peace” from Asia to Europe also seem to get the idea that islam was spread violently and continues to act violently.
Huge swathes lol. There are 1.6 billion Muslims on earth and very very few are violent. All the major wars in the past hundred years were led by Christians, think WWI and WWII, invasion of Iraq etc. Millions killed. Muslims did not start these.
Most of the German Christians (Catholic and Lutheran like Ken is) were committed Nazis. They had no problem combining their Christian faith with Nazi ideology.
They were not born-again, since they lacked the spiritual discernment to see that Nazi-ism is incompatible with Christianity. 1 Corinthians 2:14; I John chapters 2 and 4.
Except for true believers like Bonhoeffer (executed by the Nazis) , Karl Barth (who was forced to resign his professorship in Switzerland because of his opposition to Hitler and Nazi-ism), Niemoller, signers of the Barmen Declaration, etc. Corrie Ten Boom in Holland saved Jews, and she and her sister suffered in concentration camp. (see the book and movie, the Hiding Place)
About Karl Barth:
In 1934, as the Protestant Church attempted to come to terms with the Third Reich, Barth was largely responsible for the writing of the Barmen declaration (Ger. Barmer Erklärung). This declaration rejected the influence of Nazism on German Christianity by arguing that the Church’s allegiance to the God of Jesus Christ should give it the impetus and resources to resist the influence of other lords, such as the German Führer, Adolf Hitler.[21] Barth mailed this declaration to Hitler personally. This was one of the founding documents of the Confessing Church and Barth was elected a member of its leadership council, the Bruderrat.
He was forced to resign from his professorship at the University of Bonn in 1935 for refusing to swear an oath to Hitler. Barth then returned to his native Switzerland, where he assumed a chair in systematic theology at the University of Basel. In the course of his appointment he was required to answer a routine question asked of all Swiss civil servants: whether he supported the national defense. His answer was, “Yes, especially on the northern border!” The newspaper Neue Zuercher Zeitung carried his 1936 criticism of Martin Heidegger for his support of the Nazis.[22] In 1938 he wrote a letter to a Czech colleague Josef Hromádka in which he declared that soldiers who fought against the Third Reich were serving a Christian cause.
Common Paul ! Churchhill and USA, etc. were responding to the evils started by Hitler and Mussolini, Japan, etc.
And Iraq, though it was based on faulty and bad information and bad intelligence (but Saddam was acting like he had something (weapons of mass destruction), cause he was afraid of Iran and looking weak to Iran); was part of the response to Al Qaeda and fears that Al Qaeda had spread into Iraq. Some of them fled from Afghanistan, came through Iran, and into Iraq. ISIS is an example of when then is a vaccum, the evil Salafi Al Qaeda type extremes keep morphing into worse extremes. ISIS came form Abu Mousab Al Zarqawi’s brain-child.
Hitler admired Islam and the Japanese religion more than Christianity. Hitler hated Christianity – he called it weak and meek and wimpy.
Hitler said, basically, “why couldn’t we Germans have been more “manly and warrior-like and strong”, like Islam and the Japanese religion?” (Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy; by Eric Metaxas, chapter 11, “Nazi Theology”, pages 165-175)
Churchill actually had another less noble aim: the preservation of the British empire. Hitler was a threat to the hegemony of the British empire. Churchill was a hypocritical politician who derided the evils of Nazism and imperialism, yet wanted to maintain his own empire which had oppressed people in Asia and Africa for centuries. Churchill also changed his position whenever it suited Britain’s interests, even if it meant supporting the same “evil” people Britain had fought in WWII.
Hitler also viewed Confucianism and Buddhism positively.
I think that Hitler was not actually a Christian. He used religion whenever it suited his aims, but he was not a religious person. He used aspects of Christianity to gain support, but he also used other religious ideas for his own aims.
Seem to agree? Killing is not a tenet at all. The main tenets are to believe in Allah and Muhammad as the Mesenger of Allah. To pray. To give a percentage to charity. To fast in the month of Ramadan and to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca if financially and physically able to do so. No killing anyone.
And what victims are you referring to who have said this in Asia and Europe?
My bad. Those huge percentages of muslims who agree with principles of jihad and killing htose who insult the prophet are nothing compare to your assurances.
I’ve never been to the vatican, but I don’t think there are any mosques there – nor are there any airports, schools, or mcdonalds. I think a mcdonalds would benefit the place more than a mosque though and maybe a starbucks.
(They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, “our Lord is Allah”. Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).
why even mention these places of worship if the mission was to clean them from arabia?
Sharia is the man-made “let’s pretend we are experts on god” extrapolation from bizarre and often contradictory verses in the quran and hadith that have been tortured into an incoherent and irrational system of strict totalitarian laws that have heaped immeasurable suffering on humanity.
I’ve noticed that many muslims seem incapable of debate without trying to poison the well by making bizarre claims about people’s character and beliefs that they cannot possibly know – that’s what happens when you allow yourself to believe things which are absurd.
And no, I’m not an atheist – but I would be interested in your proof of this spiritual reality and how you can tell it is different from mere self-delusion? I suspect that you will respond with “I won’t waste my time on someone who doesn’t get it”.
Is that an official definition? or just your opinion on what Sharia is?
Sharia is simply a word meaning ‘path’ or ‘way’ and is not just law but rather the implementation of Islamic beliefs in both the private life and public life of Muslims. The way that it is implemented depends on cultural and social context. Therefore it is both a part of the Sharia to have good manners as it is to implement law in society. The interpretation of which is also open to debate as we find there are multiple schools of thought such as the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi, and Hanbali within Sunni Islam as well as two within Shia Islam.
“Where did I say Saudi was ISlam?”
Then why bring them up as an example of Sharia? as if they were somehow special? why not Egypt, Turkey, or Bahrain? Why just Saudi?
All of this aside, the I have never heard a satisfactory explanation for the muslim concept of the tawhid – and saying something stupid like “it’s the oneness of god!!!” isn’t explanatory.
I don’t grasp why you find it so hard to get the oneness of God after all Moses, Jesus and Muhammad all believed it and taught it.
I suspect the problem lies within your head – it’s been corrupted by polytheism.
Tawheed is simply that there is only One God. One being. One personality. He is eternal, all powerful, all knowing, and without equal in every respect. Read Surah 112 of the Qur’an it is the most straight forward explanation.
He is the creator of all that exists, its sustainer, and destroyer. All that happens in the world is within his will and decree. Whether directly or indirectly. Allah is sovereign. He is Al-Rahman and Al-Raheem. The most gracious, most merciful.
That sounds like a definition of any number of gods – even christian might agree with that. But I think that you are overstepping when you say that god has one personality – are you saying that you can know your god personally through knowing his personality? That might get you chastised for shirk.
I’m cool with different religions having similar beliefs about God. Christians for the most part do not agree with Tawheed as they believe God is three personalities not one. 101 stuff dude.
Knowing God personally? What does that have to do with saying God is one in personality? People can know God both through reason and revelation. God reveals his nature and attributes to us. Besides shirk is to associates others with God. Knowing God does not mean you are God. Just like knowing a person does not make you that person.
Christians believe god is three personalities? I don’t think that is 101 – that’s left field. Personality is the means by which we know people – islamic theology says that god is unknowable since to associate his attributes with “HIM” is to divide and equate – hence shirk. His attributes are mere glimpses or “echoes” of his essence – to say otherwise is to equate our concepts with his being. That is a big no no.
That is the dilemma of the tawhid – which is why muslims struggle to explain it beyond the simplistic (not simple) refrain of tawhid is “oneness” and then slap themselves on the back at how well they “understand” their god.
Personality is the means by which we know people – islamic theology says that god is unknowable since to associate his attributes with “HIM” is to divide and equate – hence shirk
………………………………
explain this. how do you understand “him” ?
why not 1 conscious being who is the ultimate one?
Who says God is unknowable? Are you a Sheikh? Did i not say ‘reason’ AND ‘revelation’? so they are not our concepts of him but rather the ones he has revealed to us. The purpose of revelation is to guide people toward God through knowledge of him.
Attributes are descriptive of his nature and character they are not ‘echoes’. An echo would be like saying God is like mercy or like grace. But the Qur’an says Bismillah Al-Rahman and Al-Raheem. The most gracious, most merciful. That is who he is not what he is like.
Tawheed means there is only One Almighty Creator, Who has no partner or equal. All worship and prayers are for Him Alone. His name is Yahweh in the OT and Allah in the Holy Quran. What do you not understand about that? Very easy concept to grasp. 😊
Yes, Muslims and jews would agree with the ‘oneness of God’, because we believe in One God! Are you deliberately being stupid! As opposed to those belief systems that believe there are many gods, eg hinduism and or God shares his power, glory, or authority with another.
How else would you express it, if not ‘Oneness’!
And christians would probably say they they believe in one god. But saying “oneness” and claiming that is an explanation of tawhid is disappointing and unsatisfactory.
Ken you have displayed your utter ignorance about Islam too many times on this blog even though you have been schooled about the truth. This is why I conclude you are not a sincere person but ultimately a corrupted soul who has a closed heart and mind.
There were literally millions of Lutherans in Germany in hitlers time. Very very few opposed hitler, in fact his hatred for the Jews was influenced in large part by Martin Luther’s own evil loathing for the Jews. Those who opposed Hitler we’re going against their Lutheran heritage.
“This is why I conclude you are not a sincere person but ultimately a corrupted soul who has a closed heart and mind.”
Yes, that is also what I have concluded. Ken displays the same hypocrisy and foolishness that is the hallmark of many Evangelicals apologists. And that doesn’t even include his utter ignorance on many issues!
Hitler WAS a christian. He made reference to christianity and the bible many times in his crazy speeches. ‘He admired Islam and Japanese culture! ‘ Are you kidding me! Hitler believed in the Supremacy of the White Christian Aryan Race!!! How would he ever admire black/brown people or their culture! He saw ALL other races as backward and worthy of extermination. Stop re-writing history to support your argument!
Jacob,
No, Hitler was NOT a Christian. Read it for yourself in Eric Metaxas’ book on Bonhoeffer. chapter 11. Hitler used and manipulated the church.
“It’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland the highest good? The Mohammeden religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” Adolf Hitler (page 165 of Eric Metaxas’ book on Dietrich Bonhoeffer)
Hitler’s inner circle, Martin Bormann, Heinrich Himmler (leader of the SS and Gestapo), and Reinhard Heydrick were even more anti-Christian and wanted to create a new German religion based on the pagan gods of ancient Germanic culture, and they kept bugging him to destroy the church and start the new warrior pagan German religion, but Hitler knew the people would not be on their side if they did that out right in the open, so he counseled patience to them, and told them they had to manipulate and use the church, until they had enough power to then later wipe out Christianity and create a new religion. Hitler’s “Christianity’ was a fake and show in order to fool the people.
I am not a Lutheran; I am a Baptist. baby baptism and rituals and state churches can lead next generations to assume they are Christians, but are not.
German liberalism, higher criticism (the stuff you love – you love the liberal crap like Butlmann, Ehrman, Bauer, Schleirmacher, Paul Tillich, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Robert Funk, etc.) – leads to deadness and no faith – empty rituals and dead religion.
that liberal crap and higher criticism led to dead faith / no faith and ritualistic church and they accepted Hitler later cause they were dead and not even Christians.
You can be educated but dead and have no Spiritual life.
Ken I don’t think you and many of your co-religionists have spiritual life. The hatred and sheer evil that spews from the mouth of people line Sam Shamoun indicated a hard dead heart.
Ken is referring to other peoples opinions as ‘Liberal crap’ truly expressive of someone whos will is freed of sin and are born again of the spirit of God?
I thought Christ taught people to love their neighbours as themselves and pray for their enemies. Do you call your opinions as ‘Conservative crap’ is that how you love yourself?
“I thought Christ taught people to love their neighbours as themselves and pray for their enemies. Do you call your opinions as ‘Conservative crap’ is that how you love yourself?”
fernando rubio believes that jesus was telling the oppressed jews to love each other so then they could over throw the occupiers. if there is a stronger love within then it could defeat the pagans.
notice how jesus curses and hates the ruling religious authorities?
Where did say he hated the religious authorities? If he did he would be contradicting himself since he said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Where did Jesus say ‘you should only love your neighbour as far as it pertains to beating up the Romans better?’
Why would Jesus tell Peter ‘He who lives by the sword dies by the sword’ if he wanted people to use the sword all along? Why say that his Kingdom is not of this world if he wanted to overthrow the Romans and establish a new kingdom in Israel? Why does Fernando Rubio believe this?
” since he said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
when jesus said to the high priest that the son of man would come back in power and allude to psalm
The Lord says to my Lord:
r“Sit at my right hand,
suntil I make your enemies your tfootstool.”
i don’t see prayer there . there is going to be destruction of the enemies.
people do change their minds
” Where did Jesus say ‘you should only love your neighbour as far as it pertains to beating up the Romans better?’
do you know about differed violence? be good to your enemies until the son of man comes back to demolish them.
i quote rubio on this :
quote:
Did the Message of ‘Love thy Enemies’ Put Jesus beyond the Political
Antagonisms of his Age?
The injunction concerning the love of one’s enemies and lack of resistance to
evil, conveyed in Mt. 5.38–39, 48, is a typical objection to any hypothesis of a
seditious Jesus. The presence of the closing antitheses of the Sermon on the
Mount, with its teaching of love, seems to preclude any violent reaction against
the Roman Empire and its collaborators.343
This objection, however, was already countered by Robert Eisler almost a
century ago, by arguing that there are several reasonable answers.344 One is
that, if one finds a contradiction between Mt. 5 and—for instance—the sayings
about the swords, and decides to drop the latter as secondary, then one
could also, and maybe with better reasons, drop the saying on love of one’s
enemies as secondary and inauthentic.345
Another—more convincing—possibility for explaining the whole evidence
is to state the idea of a spiritual evolution in Jesus. There are two interrelated
reasons to think so. First, seditious overtones surface more clearly in the closing
stages of his life.346 Secondly, such as Eisler remarked, Lk. 22.36 seems to
witness a shift in Jesus’ attitude.347 This proposal is all the more reasonable
because there are several Gospel passages indicating that, as the decisive
moment in Jerusalem approached, Jesus underwent some critical situations
and adopted serious decisions.348
A further possibility lies in not finding contradiction at all between
Mt. 5.38–48 and a seditious stance. In fact, the two closing antitheses of the
Sermon on the Mount have been interpreted as making sense not (or not primarily
and specifically) in the political realm,349 but rather in a context of local
social interaction, and more probably in conflicts that would have been related
to the economic difficulties of communities which are disintegrating precisely
because of the rigorous taxation by Roman client rulers, indirectly because of
Roman imperialism.350 If this reading is correct,351 the ‘love thy enemies’
saying would not be addressed to political enemies, but would paradoxically
express a form of resistance to oppressive foreign rule through constructive
social relations characterized by mutual assistance and a spirit of
solidarity.352
Admittedly, if one thinks—with most scholarly opinion—that the political
realm must not be excluded from the saying,353 unless we accept the already
mentioned view of a shift in Jesus, we should conclude that there is here a blatant
inconsistency. This, however, does not lead us into an impasse: religious
visionaries and charismatic preachers are not usually consistent.354
Contradictions of this kind are also found in the New Testament. For instance,
if ‘the contradiction between the commandment to love and the incitement to
hate not only belongs to later interpretations of the [Fourth] Gospel but is also
inherent in the text itself’,355 I cannot see why the simultaneous presence of
conflicting features could not be also present in Jesus’ life and mind.356 In fact,
we find sayings in the Gospels that are extremely hostile to wealth and rich
people, but also passages witnessing financial support of the Jesus movement,
including women who were presumably not so poor; both traditions coexist
without any indication that they were contradictory, and it is likely that they go
back to Jesus’ lifetime. Moreover, throughout history many Christians (including
cardinals and popes) have hoisted love of enemies as their hallmark,
whereas they have hated, persecuted, waged war, and massacred their enemies,
and often they have presumably done it in all good faith
quote
“Why would Jesus tell Peter ‘He who lives by the sword dies by the sword’ ”
but jesus said he could call upon the violent angels and they could do his job for him
he didn’t want to at that moment because he wanted to appease the wrath of his father which required human sacrificial ritual
jesus is not denying violence.
mark records no rebuke . marks jesus rebukes those who came to arrest jesus, not the one who sliced of the ear.
i quote rubio again :
Is Mt. 26.52–53 a Definite Proof that Jesus Rebuked Violence on
Principle?
The idea of a pacific and harmless Jesus is very often grounded in Mt. 26.52–53,
where he is depicted as scolding one of his disciples for resorting to arms.
Either scholars claim that this text is authentic and proves that Jesus rebuked
violence in his dealings with the Roman Empire,357 or they assert that it faithfully
reflects Jesus’ renunciation of violence.358
To start with, we cannot be sure in the least that the utterance in Mt. 26.52
actually goes back to Jesus. It contains a quasi-proverbial saying—‘For all who
take the sword will perish by the sword’—which is probably a quotation from
Targ Isa. 50.11.359 More importantly, Mark records no response on Jesus’ part to
the disciple’s act of resistance, which further indicates that the utterance of
Mt. 26.52 might be a later interpolation. It is hard to believe that Mark would
have overlooked that rebuttal in such a crucial moment, so there are good reasons
to think that the sentence is a pious addition,360 aimed at countering the
scandal of Jesus’ impotence.361 It is accordingly methodologically unsound to
draw far-reaching conclusions from this passage.
But even assuming, for the sake of the discussion, that the sentence comes
from Jesus, we should note that it is not necessarily a pacifistic utterance. As
Brandon rightly observed, it is obviously untrue as a general statement, insofar
as experience teaches that the compensatory justice contended by it does not
always happen. Moreover, the sentence does not entail a general rejection of
violence; in fact, it could convey a mere opportunistic pragmatism: it would
make sense if pronounced in a context in which a leader realizes that any
armed resistance would be doomed to failure, for instance due to the overwhelming
superiority of the opposing forces (‘Do not use the sword, or you will
be accordingly judged’). Therefore, the widespread claim that this passage supports
the image of a non-violent Jesus is unwarranted
Mt. 26.53 has Jesus saying that he could call down ‘more than twelve legions
of angels’ to bring him aid. I will accept the authenticity of the statement for
the sake of the discussion. Admittedly, Jesus rejects the assistance of angels, but
the mere fact that he envisages the possibility of commanding angelic armies is
quite significant by itself. Moreover, the actual rationale for not resorting to
violence significantly lies here only in that such option would frustrate the
divine plan (Mt. 26.54: ‘But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it
must be so?’), not in a rejection of violence as such.362 In fact, given the extent
of the distortion operating in Jesus’ tradition, we should not rule out the possibility
that Jesus hoped the angels would join him, but not at that moment; or
that Jesus did indeed hope the angels would join him, but somebody decided
that he did not harbour that hope.36
There are scholars who, while assuming that the exact wording of Mt. 26.52–
53 may be secondary, think that the passage in fact captures the allegedly pacifistic
attitude of the historical Jesus. The problem is that such radical
non-violence and harmlessness seem to be nothing but aprioristic claims,
whose reliability is radically called into question by the surveyed pattern.364
“if he wanted people to use the sword all along? Why say that his Kingdom is not of this world if he wanted to overthrow the Romans and establish a new kingdom in Israel? Why does Fernando Rubio believe this?”
just imagine if pilate had discovered that jesus had told his followers to sell there stuff and purchase swords, do you think pilate would have been overjoyed or would he have immediately killed jesus himself?
you are quoting the gospel of johm. the earliest gospels make THIS world the “kingdom of god”
johns jesus is a later developed jesus which has no more interest in the “son of man” sayings and the worldly rewards contradicting the synoptics
Okay. That was a whole lot of text but lets try and take a stab at it.
Luke 22 if you read the whole chapter has Jesus say this, “Stop! No more of this” after the disciples said they were going to attack Jesus’ enemies. However the scholar you refer to only focuses on 22:36. Why? If Jesus had an ‘evolution’ why say this?
With regards to angels. Jesus did say he ‘could’ use them but well he doesn’t. Why if his message was violent then why not use them? Simply saying ‘well he could have used them’ isn’t saying he WOULD have used them.
As far as the claim that Matthew had the statement as pious reflection but Mark does not. This argument would only work if you start with the assumption that the intention of Matthew was to be a carbon copy of Mark or that Mark was the only source of authority on Jesus. What about Q, M, or L? Besides the person you quote provides no actual evidence just opinion.
Finally I don’t believe Jesus was a pacifist (take the temple whipping as an example of violence) I just don’t think there is any real reason to think Jesus’ message was all about violence and overthrowing the Romans.
“Luke 22 if you read the whole chapter has Jesus say this, “Stop! No more of this” after the disciples said they were going to attack Jesus’ enemies. However the scholar you refer to only focuses on 22:36. Why? If Jesus had an ‘evolution’ why say this?”
but how do we know that jesus said “stop! no more of this” ? did he even heal the ear which all the other accounts failed to record? the scholar i referred to seems to be saying that the synoptics are preserving hints which have a seditious jesus who was enemy of the state.
quote
a serious problem and is the starting-point for carrying out a critical questioning,
a decisive factor in the emergence of the hypothesis is the fact that the
Gospels contain a great amount of material which—at least at first glance—
point precisely in the sense of a seditious Jesus,24 thereby justifying that the
hypothesis should be advanced and carefully examined.
Here we find the first argument supporting our case. The text of the Gospels
is not a seamless tunic.
The fact that they are not all of a piece, but contain
conflicting versions, spurs us to scrutinize them and to weigh up which is the
most reliable one
end quote
“With regards to angels. Jesus did say he ‘could’ use them but well he doesn’t. Why if his message was violent then why not use them? Simply saying ‘well he could have used them’ isn’t saying he WOULD have used them.”
i thought the son of man would use them when he was suppose to come back and rescue his disciples?
why did luke say that those who did not wish jesus to reign would be slaughtered? what is the hidden message in this? this does not sound a parable pontius pilate would love to have heard.
“As far as the claim that Matthew had the statement as pious reflection but Mark does not. This argument would only work if you start with the assumption that the intention of Matthew was to be a carbon copy of Mark or that Mark was the only source of authority on Jesus. What about Q, M, or L? Besides the person you quote provides no actual evidence just opinion.”
what about mark? how is it possible that his source lacked the rebuke? was peter marks informant? you only have opinion about a “turn the other cheek” jesus. every scholarly reconstruction of jesus creates a different jesus. nothing but opinions.
“Finally I don’t believe Jesus was a pacifist (take the temple whipping as an example of violence) I just don’t think there is any real reason to think Jesus’ message was all about violence and overthrowing the Romans.”
the gospels are a brothel. these texts have been through many hands. even in pauls day people were preaching different jesus’. the temple whipping implies a change in jesus’ mind. he wasn’t showing love to those poor traders he was showing them exception to the alleged sayings on the mountain.
scholars who try to push “pacifist jesus” are so embarrased by luke 22:38 that they think it is FABRICATION
i’m not making this up even ehrman thinks it is invented.
Ken you literally blamed the ideas of some scholars as being partly responsible for the Nazis. Don’t try backtracking from that by saying ‘well the people are alright but their ideas are responsible for turning an entire country of born again believers into mass murderers’.
It was a silly comment and very unChristlike of you. 😦
actually there is much good in the so-called ‘liberal’ methodology. Fundamentalists are too closed minded to think outside their little box and learn new things that might help then understand the Bible better.
But you are fundamentalist Muslim – you believe in miracles, prophesy, inspiration of a book, virgin birth of the Messiah Jesus, the second coming of Jesus.
You cannot really say that without also destroying Islam, cause same liberal principles take the Qur’an down.
“You can be educated but dead and have no Spiritual life.”
spiritual life does not come from murder or sacrificial rituals. jeremiah went against the sacrificial system because he knew it did not make one closer to God.
“One must repent and trust in Christ, not just get wet and have words said over them or go to church or do external rituals.”
the jewish people think that their future messiah is going to rebuild the temple and then they will go back to slitting neck of lamb
why would jesus participate in cutting lamb? why bloody the new temple? daniel was dreaming of this, right?
daniel thought of a day where there will be blood once again in new temple, right?
They are wrong. The book of Hebrews in the NT says several times, that Jesus was the final sacrifice, “once for all time”. Also Romans 6:10 and 1 Peter 3:18.
There is no more (proper or true or Biblical) temple and no more sacrifices.
quote
They are wrong. The book of Hebrews in the NT says several times, that Jesus was the final sacrifice, “once for all time”. Also Romans 6:10 and 1 Peter 3:18.
There is no more (proper or true or Biblical) temple and no more sacrifices
end quote
DOES THE JEWISH BIBLE SAY THAT JEWS WILL PERFORM ANIMAL SACRIFICES IN THE NEW TEMPLE?
“One must repent and trust in Christ, not just get wet and have words said over them or go to church or do external rituals.”
what do you “trust” in ? that your god did an EXTERNAL ritual which appeased him so much, then he was given flesh in which he spent 40 days with his jewish disiples that the torah is a load of waist and “dead ritual” ?
Romans 6:10
For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
Hebrews 7:27
who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
Hebrews 9:12
and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
Hebrews 10:10
By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
That’s my opinion – which is what you asked for. I think you have paraphrased my contention that sharia is totalitarian.
And where did I mention sharia before you asked me about it?”
I didn’t ask for your opinion but rather for a definition. You gave me your opinion. An inacuarate one at that.
But you did mention Sharia the minute you referred to Islamic tenets and that Muslims do this and that and that is what their religion commands. That is Sharia.
Sufi have been persecuted before that is true, however there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and they don’t all think the same way. There are some very noteworthy Islamic scholars who are sufi such as Hamza Yusuf, Timothy Winter, and Seyyed Hossein Nasr.
Your right in saying that God is ‘trascendent and beyond our ability to comprehend’. Through reason alone. Since there is nothing like him. However with revelation our knowledge of God is refined and understanding flows.
To know God is through relationship, a relationship fashioned by both revelation of his nature and our reason to understand that revelation.
Patrice wrote: Ken you literally blamed the ideas of some scholars as being partly responsible for the Nazis. Don’t try backtracking from that by saying ‘well the people are alright but their ideas are responsible for turning an entire country of born again believers into mass murderers’.
It was a silly comment and very unChristlike of you.😦
It is the combination of 3 things:
1. Infant baptism
2. State Churches – the combination of those 2 breeds a whole culture that in the next generation thinks they are Christians but they are not. Nominalism, ritualism, believing in God’s love, without the discipline of “take up your cross or repentance”, which Bonhoeffer nailed in his book, “The Cost of Discipleship”.
and
3. The German Higher Critical scholarship = “liberal crap” – unbelief in miracles, supernatural revelation, prophesy, inspiration – assuming that the virgin birth is a legend (and so also goes against Islam). Liberalism destroys Islam also, for it says that the Qur’an is just a human book and does not believe that God “sent it down”.
I wrote:
I am not a Lutheran; I am a Baptist. baby baptism and rituals and state churches can lead next generations to assume they are Christians, but are not.
German liberalism, higher criticism (the stuff you love – you love the liberal crap like Bultmann, Ehrman (he is building upon Bauer, Schleirmacher, and Bultmann today) , Bauer, Schleirmacher, Paul Tillich, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Robert Funk, etc.) – leads to deadness and no faith – empty rituals and dead religion.
The people who thought they were Christians but also did Nazi things – they were obviously not Christians –
how is it “unChrist like” to call them out on their wickedness?
Jesus said stuff like “you snakes!” “you hypocrites”, etc. to the Pharisees and leaders of Israel at the time.
Read Matthew chapter 23 please
“It is the combination of 3 things:
1. Infant baptism
2. State Churches – the combination of those 2 breeds a whole culture that in the next generation thinks they are Christians but they are not. Nominalism, ritualism, believing in God’s love, without the discipline of “take up your cross or repentance”, which Bonhoeffer nailed in his book, “The Cost of Discipleship”.
and
3. The German Higher Critical scholarship = “liberal crap” – unbelief in miracles, supernatural revelation, prophesy, inspiration – assuming that the virgin birth is a legend (and so also goes against Islam). Liberalism destroys Islam also, for it says that the Qur’an is just a human book and does not believe that God “sent it down”.”
1. Why is Infant Baptism connected to Nazism?
2. I’m no fan of state churches either but why does it lead to Nazism?
3. German Higher Critical Scholarship? are you saying that unbelief leads to Nazism?
Those 3 things created a general culture of nominalism (Christian in name only, not real, no reality of faith or the Holy Spirit on the inside) – it created dead churches a long time before Hitler came along; and Hitler was able to deceive the masses because they had no Spirit, no life, and no discernment to see through his lies, and he appealed to their pride, German nationalism, and feelings of being weak and defeated from WW 1.
why should anybody trust what you think the spiritual state of christians were back then? you believe god told jews to massacre the amalekite infant and unborn. you believe gods spirit was in the jews
why should we listen to the stinking bull that comes out of your mouth?
you have no divine revelation on the spiritual state of those bible believing christians in hitlers time. you have nothing. hitler was bible believer.
“Christian in name only, not real, no reality of faith or the Holy Spirit on the inside)”
phakin bullshit!
you have no standards to judge
your god told his children to kill pregnant women and kill infants.
a jew grabbed a woman and slashed her stomach
don’t tell me about this “holy spirit” bullshit.
you believe that god told the jews to slaughter those who did not live by the sword.
your words disgust me.
your dirty language and cursing expose your character. Robert2016 – you are not a good Muslim, if you claim to be one. You should be ashamed of that rant.
Nominalism? Fair enough I guess. Of course it wasn’t just religion that was manipulated to usher in the Nazi regime as you say. However the problem remains with your claims that the rituals of the Lutheran Church such as Infant Baptism or that Higher Criticism lead to nominalism.
Surely a higher critical view would render any biblical literalism to be obsolete? And the Bible to be more about what people in ancient cultures believed rather than being a truly timeless text. Infant Baptism is also practiced by many Christian demoninations including Anglicanism, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic. The practice itself does not cause any kind of degradation of Christs atonement does it?
Infant baptism, when taught and practiced properly ( Like conservative Presbyterians and the Biblical Anglicans in Australia, and the Missouri Synod Lutherans in USA) does not by itself lead to nominalism; but if it is not taught and practiced properly, and combined with State churches (all of Western Europe is dead Christianity today because of the combination of those 3 things – church of England has gone liberal, and the state churches in other Western European countries are dead.)
The combination of those things with higher critical scholarship and liberalism, set the stage for Hitler to manipulate and deceive the German people – with the economic depression and psychological realities of post WW 1 (guilt for being the main perpetrators of WW 1, etc. ) – Hitler preyed upon the most base of human fears and prejudices and the psychological depression of the German people – he offered them pride, racial superiority, confidence, feelings of greatness, etc. – fed into the root of sin – pride, arrogance, selfishness, vengeance, anger, fear of Jews and foreigners, conspiracy theories, etc.
Tim Keller’s Foreword To BONHOEFFER: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy – explains how Hitler took advantage of the dead German church and culture at the time.
This is Tim Keller’s Foreward to BONHOEFFER: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy.
**
I’m delighted that my friend Eric Metaxas has penned this volume on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The English-speaking public needs to know far more than it does about his thought as well as his life. When I became a Christian in college, Bonhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship was one of the first books I read, followed not long afterwards by Life Together. I still think the second book is perhaps the finest single volume I have ever read on the character of Christian community, but it was the first book that set me on a life-long journey to understand the meaning of grace.
I now realize how impossible it is to understand Bonhoeffer’s Nachfolge without becoming acquainted with the shocking capitulation of the German church to Hitler in the 1930s. How could the “church of Luther,” that great teacher of the gospel, have come to this? The answer was that the gospel, summed up by Bonhoeffer as costly grace, had been lost. On the one hand, the church had become marked by formalism. Formalism meant going to church, hearing that God just loves and forgives everyone, so it didn’t really matter much how you lived. Bonhoeffer’s name for this was cheap grace. On the other hand, you had legalism, or salvation by law and good works. Legalism meant God loves you because you have pulled yourself together and lived a good, disciplined life. Both of these impulses made it possible for Hitler to come to power. Formalists may have seen things in Germany that bothered them, but they did not see any need to sacrifice their safety to stand up to them. Legalists were more likely to have the Pharisaical attitudes toward other nations and races that approved of Hitler’s policies.
Germany had lost hold of the brilliant balance of the gospel that Luther so persistently expounded: “we are saved by faith alone, but not by faith which is alone.” That is, we are saved by grace, not by anything we do, but if we have truly understood and believed the gospel, it will change what we do and how we live. Much of the German church understood ‘grace’ as abstract acceptance — “God forgives; that’s his job.” But the grace comes to us by costly sacrifice. And if God was willing to go to the cross and endure such pain and absorb such a cost in order to save us, then we must live sacrificially as we serve others. So anyone who truly understands how God’s grace comes to us will have a changed life. That’s the gospel, not salvation by law, or by cheap grace, but by costly grace. Costly grace changes you from the inside out. Neither law nor cheap grace can do that.
This lapse couldn’t happen to us, today, surely? Certainly it could. We still have a lot of legalism and moralism in our churches. In reaction to that, many Christians want to talk only about God’s love and acceptance. Many of them don’t like talking about Jesus’ death on the cross to take divine wrath and justice. Some even call this “divine child abuse.” All this might run the risk of falling into the belief in “cheap grace” — a non-costly love from a non-holy God who just loves and accepts us. That will never change anyone’s life. So it looks like we still need to listen to Bonhoeffer and others who go deep in discussing the nature of the gospel.
Timothy Keller
New York Times best-selling author of The Reason for God
It’s painfully obvious (you’ll notice i’m using white’s opening arguments) that ken and his fellow christians (the ones who have written a few books claiming hitler was not a christian) are trying to distance the religion of christianity from the horrific crimes of hitler and the nazis. As a Muslim i am willing to concede that hitler probably didn’t really believe in the principles of his faith but used and abused it for Political gain. We muslims are far more charitable than evangelicals in this regard. So, using the same standards and equal scales (another of of white’s often repeated phrases), will you concede that the leaders/followers of isis, al-qaeda, boko haram…etc, use and abuse Islam for their political gain?
ok, that may be true;
except that Hitler actually made denigrating remarks at Jesus and Christianity and called it weak and wimpy and meek and flabby. Whereas the leaders of those groups (with Hamas also, who quote from the Hadith – “kill the jews until the day of resurrection and the trees will cry out, “there is a jew behind me”, etc.) don’t denegrate Islam itself; and they actually quote and use texts and claim to be following original Islam, going back to early Islam, taking sex-slaves, etc. Hitler used the external church, but he was not really into the details of Christianity or the Scriptures, but Ben Laden, (inspired by Muslim Brotherhood writings of Al Banna and Saeed Qutb), Al Zawahiri, Abu Mosab Al Zarqawi, Al Baghdadi (a phd in Islam – how do you explain that one?) use the Islamic sources and go into the details in their publications and quote Hadith, Sira, Tarikh, Qur’an, Tafsirs, Fiq, Sunna, etc.
Ken, again with that nonsense? It just seems that you will never learn.
You have been refuted on this before. There are crazies in every religion. There are Christian groups who are “into the details of Christianity or the Scriptures”. Examples include the KKK, the Lord’s Resistance Army etc. By repeatedly ranting on this subject, you expose yourself as a rather shallow and hypocritical person. Of course, its part and parcel for you Evangelical types. You exhibit a mixture of idiocy and hypocrisy. I call it “idiocrisy”. 😉
“it through the grace of jesus’ in his blood that man kind gets washed of their sins. so adolf hitler washed of killing about … idon’t know 10 millions jews and you vigilant christian mario, you were washing of bunch of drugs and fornicating in high school”
I did say Muslims are far more charitable and compassionate towards christians for their wrongdoings than christians are! Muslims are willing to accept that just because some christians behave badly, it does not mean they are following their faith. Your response, which is the standard evangelical response is far less charitable! Blame Islam, no matter what, just blame Islam. Where are the equal scales and same standards?? You see Ken, I can now cherry pick the violent verses from the OT and the unsavoury verses from the NT(and also martin luther’s horrific advice on how to deal with the jews) and make a compelling argument for the lutherian germans following hitler according to their christian faith. But i believe, any religion, theory or ideaology can be used by its adherents for evil, even if that religion or theory is fundamentally good, as is the case for Islam and Christianity. Now lets see if this charitable attitude can come from the ones who are instructed to ‘love thy enemy’!! I doubt it.
Blogging Theology 
The answer is simple. No, the trinity is not biblical! It’s certainly not stated unambigously in the OT
LikeLiked by 3 people
The answer is yes; the doctrine of the Trinity is Biblical, as Dr. White explained.
Docetists were not Christians, they were a heresy, as John explains in the letters of 1, 2, 3 John.
LikeLike
Where does the Bible teach that God is three co-equal persons each of whom is God yet there is one God?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Um, no it is not. Christians badly want it to be, but it just isn’t.
LikeLiked by 3 people
John 17:3 says
‘Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.’
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Doctrine of the Trinity is taught in the combination of many verses.
1. Many verses say God is One. There is only one God.
2. Many verses testify of the Deity of Christ.
3. Some verses testify of the Deity of the Holy Spirit.
4. Some verses speak of the triad of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (ie, Matthew 28:19, 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Peter 1:1-2; Matthew 3:13-16, Ephesians 1:3-14, Ephesians 4:4 ff)
5. Many verses indicate the that the Father and the Son and H.Spirit are persons who communicate with each other and indicate they are persons.
Boom.
LikeLike
But NOT in the OT! Yahwe turned from One True God in the OT to a triune God in the NT!
LikeLike
The NT is the fulfillment of the OT. There are hints there in the OT. “let us make man in our image”, (Genesis 1)
The Lord says to My Lord, sit at my right hand. Psalm 110:1
The Messiah’s goings forth are from eternity past. Micah 5:2 ff
Messiah is “mighty God, prince of peace, wonderful counselor, father of eternity (time)” – Isaiah 9:6
The Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Genesis 1:1-3
LikeLike
Wow! You really are trying to make the OT verses fit your erroneous theory of the trinity! Admit it, there are no clear verses of a triune God in the OT, otherwise all jews would convert to christisnity!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regarding Micah 5:2ff:
The alleged prophecy is found in Micah 5:2-4:
“‘But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.’ Therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor bears a son, and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites. He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God. And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth.”
Once again, this appears to be an amazing prophecy fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. Unfortunately, the truth is far less impressive. When read in its full context, the passage in Micah 5, though Messianic, cannot possibly be referring to Jesus. This is because, like Isaiah 7:14, the prophesied leader mentioned would contend against the Assyrian empire:
“And he will be our peace when the Assyrians invade our land and march through our fortresses. We will raise against them seven shepherds, even eight commanders, who will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword. He will deliver us from the Assyrians when they invade our land and march across our borders.”
As we previously noted, the Assyrian empire was destroyed centuries before Jesus was even born. How then could he lead the Israelites against the powerful Assyrians? [It should be pointed out that the prophecy in Micah 5 did not actually come true anyway as the Assyrian empire was not destroyed by an Israelite king, but by the Chaldeans and Medians, as stated previously.] Clearly, this prophecy could not apply to Jesus. Furthermore, the passage does not mention that the promised leader would come from the town of Bethlehem but from the clan of Bethlehem Ephrathah. In other words, the author of the Gospel of Matthew failed to realize that the reference was not to the town of Bethlehem but to a clan of the same name.
http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-gospel-of-matthew-and-tanakhic.html
LikeLike
1. Many verses that “testify of the deity of Christ” are later forgeries.
2. Many verses testify that Jesus worshiped God.
3. The New Testament often contradicts itself in regards the nature of Jesus.
Boom!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken you still have not answered my question:
Where does the Bible teach that God is three co-equal persons each of whom is God yet these three are one God?
None of the references you list say this. Many verses say Jesus is just a man (not a god) eg see Acts 2:22. A huge number juxtapose Jesus and God but do not identify them as the same person/entity or substance.
For example 2 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 13; 2 Thessalonians 1:2; 1 Timothy 2:5 etc
Your ‘boom’ is a damp squib
LikeLike
It is painfully obvious that there is no concept of a triune God in the OT. Yahwe of the OT is the same as Allah of the Quran, One and Only, without any equal or partners and NOT a man. When it comes to the concept of God, the chasm between the OT and the NT is huge. No matter how the christians spin it, there is NO trinity in the OL, period!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry meant OT, not OL! lol
LikeLike
Furthermore, the Qur’an confirms the NT, the true Injeel, established 600 years before the Qur’an.
Surah 5:47; 10:94; 2:136; 29:46; 5:68
LikeLike
Ken Temple
600 years? Because Dr. James White initiated this 600 years nonsense? If someone talks nonsense you have to analyze it before repeating it. How many years is between Adam and Moses? But you believed what Moses said about Adams, just to criticize what the Quran said about Prophet Jesus.
The Quran did not confirm NT but confirmed injeel given to Jesus. New Testament was selected and canonized by the Church Fathers, so the Quran is not talking about what the Church Fathers selected. They rejected the word of God by selecting some and leaving some.
You criticize the Quran by claiming it copied from the Gnostic gospels. If you claim the Quran confirms your gospels then the Gnostic Gospels of Thomas is also gospel because you claimed the Quran copied from it.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
surah 5:47 and 10:94 confirm all of NT.
LikeLike
lol you haven’t actually quoted the verses because they did not endorse your NT.
Fail.
LikeLike
the injil which the Quran says was given to Jesus is obviously not the 4 anonymous gospels written long after a Jesus’s lifetime.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John 17:8
LikeLike
lol you haven’t actually quoted the verse because it does not support your view.
Fail.
LikeLike
No, the Quran confirms the scripture given to Prophet Jesus, that’s the Injeel, not the gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly! Ken and other desperate apologists know they cannot logically defend the Bible with all its inconsistencies, so they try to twist the Quran to make Muslims believe in the Bible. Deception is their forte.
LikeLiked by 2 people
By your logic Ken, the OT is the true bible, established many centuries before the NT!
LikeLike
except the NT quotes the OT and is written by Jews. (except for Luke, all other NT writers are Jews)
Whereas the Qur’an has NO full quote of either OT or NT.
LikeLike
So what does that prove if the NT quotes from the OT??? You do use silly arguments. My point is there is no clear mention of your strange triune God in the OT. Now, this is a BIG problem for you, as the trinity is the foundation of your religion.
LikeLike
the NT often misquotes, distorts and mangles the OT it quotes seemingly deliberately. The worst offender is the author of Matthew’s gospel, but Paul often distorts and misquotes the OT too.
LikeLike
Yes indeed as I have discussed on my blog:
http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-gospel-of-matthew-and-tanakhic.html
LikeLike
Boom, Boom
LikeLike
boom chakalaka boom
LikeLike
John 17:5
5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
Isaiah 42:8 “I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
Isaiah 48:11 “For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.
Since John 17:5 and John 1:1-5 show Jesus the Son shared in the glory with God from eternity past and was God by substance/nature and eternal with the Father; and Isaiah 42:8 and 48:11 speak of God / Yahweh / the LORD not giving His glory to another; it means what the Son and the Father (and the H.S) are one God and the three persons are within the One God, who does not share His glory with another “god”.
LikeLike
Ken
The above never said “God is 3 persons 1 God”, “Jesus is God or Triune” , Trinitas Unitas, etc. It is irrelevant.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
a lot of speculative ifs and buts there Ken.
In John 17:3 Jesus refers to another (“you”) as “the only true God”.
If Jesus knew he was God he would have said “we”.
In John 10 Jesus refutes the ‘evil Jews’ (more anti-semitism) who accuse him of making himself out to be God. He rejects their “blasphemy” (verse 36) and says he is not God but his son.
LikeLike
John 10:30 ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν
I and the Father, one we are.
I and the Father, we are one.
LikeLike
There is no anti-Semitism in the bible, “the Jews” meant the Jews that were persecuting Jesus, the Pharisees, chief priests, scribes, Saducees, Jewish leaders who were rejecting Him and were trying to kill him.
But the Qur’an is anti-semitic, calling the Jews apes, and Hadith is anti-semitic, saying that Jihad and killing them must continue all the time until the day of resurrection and that trees must cry out “there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him”, etc.
Boom.
LikeLike
many scholars recognise the anti semitism in the NT – used by Christians throughout the ages to persecute and kill Jews.
LikeLike
Jesus was a Jewish man, the apostles were Jews, and all NT writers were Jews except Luke; most Christians of 1st Century were Jews.
The Europeans (Roman Catholic – a false church that drifted from the Bible and the ones who did the Crusades and Inquisitions) of the Middle Ages were wrong to persecute the Jews, they are the ones who twisted the Scriptures.
LikeLike
context before shows it was about the Jews.
Surah 2:65
YUSUF ALI
And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.”
PICKTHALL
And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated!
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And you had already known about those who transgressed among you concerning the sabbath, and We said to them, “Be apes, despised.”
SHAKIR
And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.
DR. GHALI
And you already know of (the ones) of you who transgressed the Sabbath; so We said to them “Be apes, (miserably) spurned.”
LikeLike
Ken, stick to the Bible because you don’t know anything about the Quran. You’re making a mule out of yourself. 😉
The Bible refers to Jews as the “synagogue of Satan”, and blames them and their posterity for Jesus’ alleged death. Then again, it also refers to Gentiles as “dogs”, so who knows what its authors really had in mind. LOL.
LikeLike
I don’t agree the Qur’an is antisemitic. Not at all. But I do agree the Bible, where is could be contrued as antisemitic does seem to be referring to the Jewish elite. I never really understood that fully until I read Reza Aslan’s book, Zealot.
LikeLike
see John 17:11 & 20-21 ‘may they be one just as we are one’ referring to the disciples
LikeLike
disciples and we believers (those that will believe in Me through their word, later preached and then later written down) have fellowship/spiritual communion with the Triune God; that is not about ontology but about spiritual relationship and fellowship.
LikeLike
“disciples and we believers (those that will believe in Me through their word, later preached and then later written down) have fellowship/spiritual communion with the Triune God; that is not about ontology but about spiritual relationship and fellowship.”
you have relationship not with the unseen , but visible jew who you think is god.
you do spiritually harlotry with these pagan gods
you build relationship with “god WALKED the earth”
mothers named their children jesus (source josephus) and you name your object of worship “jesus”
spiritual harlotry.
your love, trust and connection is with “god walked the earth” you even push the kids name above the daddies name
spiritual harlotry with man worship
LikeLike
God changed from a Yahwe, One and Only, not a man in the OT, to a weird triune, man-god in the NT!! Why did God change his nature?
LikeLike
Yahwe of the OT is not the triune god-man thing of the NT. You can’t make a square peg fit a round hole!
LikeLike
I repeat, Yahwe of the OT is Allah of the Quran, One andOnly
No separation of Being or Person. No equal and no partners
LikeLike
Jesus is Yahweh (Lord, kurios, boss, master, Adonai) of OT, and so is the Father and so is the Holy Spirit.
so, Yahweh cannot be Allah of Qur’an.
LikeLike
impossible for Jesus to be Yahweh – he prays to/worships Yahweh!
LikeLike
Jesus prays to the Father, but both He and the Father and the Holy Spirit are Yahweh by substance/essence/nature.
LikeLike
then Jesus as Yahweh prays to himself, which is silly and blasphemous Ken.
LikeLike
No, that is why the doctrine of the Trinity is ONE God in substance / essence / nature, and yet three in person.
LikeLike
No, that is why the doctrine of the trinity is pure hogwash, invented by idiots and blasphemers like you. Yours is a false religion built upon of deception, lies and forgeries.
LikeLike
calling me names – you are not following Surah 29:46 or 109:6
LikeLike
Is not calling names. It is just like how Dr. James White and you Ken, call Mormons as idol worshipers for saying Yahweh is many persons as you Ken do are silly.
Thanks
LikeLike
When you spread false information about Islam, and I expose you, I am not violating the Quran. It says clearly to speak to Christians and Jews kindly, except when they commit injustice. Lying about Islam, Muhammad (pbuh) and Muslims in general has rightfully earned you my verbal spite. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
difference of opinion is not lying nor spreading false information.
LikeLike
1. why did your god wear the name “jesus” when other people were called “jesus” ?
2. if both dad, son and ghost have access to the same nature and don’t need to seek others permission to access it, how is it possible that one has to use divine nature to pray to daddy and daddy uses same divine nature to answer son?
they see the same stuff, hear, listen, smell and taste the same stuff , have access to the same information yet kid does a request to dad using the same divine nature?
LikeLike
Ken, is Jesus the same Yahweh as the triune Yahweh?
LikeLike
LikeLike
I’ve read Sproul’s book on the Trinity idea. I think this lecture series is based on his book or vice versa.
Last time I checked it was available for free on Kindle – it’s an easy and quick read and he touches on some of the controversies and “heresies” in early Christian history.
LikeLike
If the “trinity” is Biblical, why can no one get it right?
LikeLike
If Islam is about peace as it supposedly says in the quran, why can no one get it right?
LikeLike
Christians were killing each other because they couldn’t get the “trinity” right long before the Quran got it right for them: Don’t say three, it is better for you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And then muslims started killing christians because they said trinity. Don’t say three if you don’t want mohammed’s followers to cut your head off.
LikeLike
Stupid comment. In an Islamic society Christians have the right to worship and believe as they please.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you know that is a lie. Your self-delusion is disturbing.
LikeLike
LOL Silly boy
LikeLike
No, they were not free to do evangelism or call Muslims to repentance or explain the gospel to Muslims, or expand or build new churches. They had to stay in their ghetto Dhimmi areas and pay the Jiziye tax. The pressure eventually wore them down to the ingrown small communities we see today.
LikeLike
Ken historically Christians either lived amongst the the general population as in Spain or within their own communities in the Ottoman empire. Both options are acceptable under shariah.
It’s true you could not seek to convert Muslims to the religion that has distorted Christ’s teachings and innovated his religion with ideas of trinity etc, the Islamic state has a duty to protect its Muslim citizens against corrupted religions that can lead to hell fire.
Sorry if you don’t like that Ken but I’m glad for it.
LikeLike
“No, they were not free to do evangelism or call Muslims to repentance or explain the gospel to Muslims, or expand or build new churches. They had to stay in their ghetto Dhimmi areas and pay the Jiziye tax. The pressure eventually wore them down to the ingrown small communities we see today.”
“It’s true you could not seek to convert Muslims to the religion that has distorted Christ’s teachings and innovated his religion with ideas of trinity etc, the Islamic state has a duty to protect its Muslim citizens against corrupted religions that can lead to hell fire.”
is that not what the jews were doing too?
quote:
· killed their own prophets.
· persecuted the church.
· do not please God.
· are against all mankind.
· try to stop the gospel being preached.
· are always filling up the totality of all their sins.
note : stop the gospel being preached
could you blame them? god is 3 and a man?
LikeLike
No one can get it right? How did you come to that conclusion?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because huge swathes of muslims seem to agree that killing in the name of your religion is one of its tenets and victims of Islamic “peace” from Asia to Europe also seem to get the idea that islam was spread violently and continues to act violently.
LikeLike
Huge swathes lol. There are 1.6 billion Muslims on earth and very very few are violent. All the major wars in the past hundred years were led by Christians, think WWI and WWII, invasion of Iraq etc. Millions killed. Muslims did not start these.
LikeLike
Really? WWII was led by christians? LOL. Stalin was a christian? Don’t me you’re one of those KKK loons that think hitler was a christian?!! LOL!
LikeLike
Churchill was a Christian. The US presidents were Christian. The vast majority of the German, American and British combatants were Christians.
LikeLike
Dude! That’s really, really obtuse.
Are you saying that the brits and yanks were wrong to fight nazism? That fighting nazism is a mark against christianity?
LikeLike
Most of the German Christians (Catholic and Lutheran like Ken is) were committed Nazis. They had no problem combining their Christian faith with Nazi ideology.
LikeLike
They were not born-again, since they lacked the spiritual discernment to see that Nazi-ism is incompatible with Christianity. 1 Corinthians 2:14; I John chapters 2 and 4.
Except for true believers like Bonhoeffer (executed by the Nazis) , Karl Barth (who was forced to resign his professorship in Switzerland because of his opposition to Hitler and Nazi-ism), Niemoller, signers of the Barmen Declaration, etc. Corrie Ten Boom in Holland saved Jews, and she and her sister suffered in concentration camp. (see the book and movie, the Hiding Place)
About Karl Barth:
In 1934, as the Protestant Church attempted to come to terms with the Third Reich, Barth was largely responsible for the writing of the Barmen declaration (Ger. Barmer Erklärung). This declaration rejected the influence of Nazism on German Christianity by arguing that the Church’s allegiance to the God of Jesus Christ should give it the impetus and resources to resist the influence of other lords, such as the German Führer, Adolf Hitler.[21] Barth mailed this declaration to Hitler personally. This was one of the founding documents of the Confessing Church and Barth was elected a member of its leadership council, the Bruderrat.
He was forced to resign from his professorship at the University of Bonn in 1935 for refusing to swear an oath to Hitler. Barth then returned to his native Switzerland, where he assumed a chair in systematic theology at the University of Basel. In the course of his appointment he was required to answer a routine question asked of all Swiss civil servants: whether he supported the national defense. His answer was, “Yes, especially on the northern border!” The newspaper Neue Zuercher Zeitung carried his 1936 criticism of Martin Heidegger for his support of the Nazis.[22] In 1938 he wrote a letter to a Czech colleague Josef Hromádka in which he declared that soldiers who fought against the Third Reich were serving a Christian cause.
LikeLike
was hitler christian?
LikeLike
Hitler thought that islam was better suited to the principles of nazism – what do you say?
LikeLike
Common Paul ! Churchhill and USA, etc. were responding to the evils started by Hitler and Mussolini, Japan, etc.
And Iraq, though it was based on faulty and bad information and bad intelligence (but Saddam was acting like he had something (weapons of mass destruction), cause he was afraid of Iran and looking weak to Iran); was part of the response to Al Qaeda and fears that Al Qaeda had spread into Iraq. Some of them fled from Afghanistan, came through Iran, and into Iraq. ISIS is an example of when then is a vaccum, the evil Salafi Al Qaeda type extremes keep morphing into worse extremes. ISIS came form Abu Mousab Al Zarqawi’s brain-child.
Hitler admired Islam and the Japanese religion more than Christianity. Hitler hated Christianity – he called it weak and meek and wimpy.
Hitler said, basically, “why couldn’t we Germans have been more “manly and warrior-like and strong”, like Islam and the Japanese religion?” (Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy; by Eric Metaxas, chapter 11, “Nazi Theology”, pages 165-175)
LikeLike
idiot, he used the ot to exterminate the jews. remember the amalekite massacre?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, you need to read Eric Metaxas’ book about Bonhoeffer, especially pages 165-175 on Nazi Theology – chapter 11.
Read, digest, be informed.
LikeLike
Churchill actually had another less noble aim: the preservation of the British empire. Hitler was a threat to the hegemony of the British empire. Churchill was a hypocritical politician who derided the evils of Nazism and imperialism, yet wanted to maintain his own empire which had oppressed people in Asia and Africa for centuries. Churchill also changed his position whenever it suited Britain’s interests, even if it meant supporting the same “evil” people Britain had fought in WWII.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/30/athens-1944-britains-dirty-secret
LikeLike
Hitler also viewed Confucianism and Buddhism positively.
I think that Hitler was not actually a Christian. He used religion whenever it suited his aims, but he was not a religious person. He used aspects of Christianity to gain support, but he also used other religious ideas for his own aims.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thanks Faiz – that was good.
LikeLike
“thanks Faiz – that was good.”
hector avalos has done a full chapter on jesus anti-judaism and how hitler made use of it.
i am sure you will find that chapter amazing.
LikeLike
Seem to agree? Killing is not a tenet at all. The main tenets are to believe in Allah and Muhammad as the Mesenger of Allah. To pray. To give a percentage to charity. To fast in the month of Ramadan and to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca if financially and physically able to do so. No killing anyone.
And what victims are you referring to who have said this in Asia and Europe?
LikeLiked by 2 people
My bad. Those huge percentages of muslims who agree with principles of jihad and killing htose who insult the prophet are nothing compare to your assurances.
Do you know of any good churches in Mecca?
LikeLike
Do you know of any good mosques in the sovereign state of the Vatican?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve never been to the vatican, but I don’t think there are any mosques there – nor are there any airports, schools, or mcdonalds. I think a mcdonalds would benefit the place more than a mosque though and maybe a starbucks.
LikeLike
(They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, “our Lord is Allah”. Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).
why even mention these places of worship if the mission was to clean them from arabia?
LikeLike
Religion of peace did I hear someone say? Dude, you’re out of step with your fellow fundies.
LikeLike
Someone has been watching Ben Shapiro haven’t they? With that in mind do you actually know what Sharia is? That would help frame the statistics.
Saudi Arabia is not Islam.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sharia is the man-made “let’s pretend we are experts on god” extrapolation from bizarre and often contradictory verses in the quran and hadith that have been tortured into an incoherent and irrational system of strict totalitarian laws that have heaped immeasurable suffering on humanity.
Where did I say Saudi was ISlam?
LikeLike
Damien you are an atheist hardliner who would not recognise spiritual reality if it fell on your thick head
LikeLike
I’ve noticed that many muslims seem incapable of debate without trying to poison the well by making bizarre claims about people’s character and beliefs that they cannot possibly know – that’s what happens when you allow yourself to believe things which are absurd.
And no, I’m not an atheist – but I would be interested in your proof of this spiritual reality and how you can tell it is different from mere self-delusion? I suspect that you will respond with “I won’t waste my time on someone who doesn’t get it”.
LikeLike
Dude you are just a silly troll. No one here will take a thing you say seriously. You are just a bit of fun for us to laugh at
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is that an official definition? or just your opinion on what Sharia is?
Sharia is simply a word meaning ‘path’ or ‘way’ and is not just law but rather the implementation of Islamic beliefs in both the private life and public life of Muslims. The way that it is implemented depends on cultural and social context. Therefore it is both a part of the Sharia to have good manners as it is to implement law in society. The interpretation of which is also open to debate as we find there are multiple schools of thought such as the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi, and Hanbali within Sunni Islam as well as two within Shia Islam.
“Where did I say Saudi was ISlam?”
Then why bring them up as an example of Sharia? as if they were somehow special? why not Egypt, Turkey, or Bahrain? Why just Saudi?
LikeLike
What exactly do you mean by “huge percentages”? That’s pretty vague. Care to elaborate?
LikeLike
All of this aside, the I have never heard a satisfactory explanation for the muslim concept of the tawhid – and saying something stupid like “it’s the oneness of god!!!” isn’t explanatory.
LikeLike
I don’t grasp why you find it so hard to get the oneness of God after all Moses, Jesus and Muhammad all believed it and taught it.
I suspect the problem lies within your head – it’s been corrupted by polytheism.
LikeLike
I’m not theist.
And I guess I’m still not going to get a satisfactory explanation for the tawhid from a muslim’ except “it’s the oneness of god!!!!” LOL!!
LikeLike
It’s because you are just thick then.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s the spirit. Your prophet would be proud of your aggression! LOL.
LikeLike
Tawheed is simply that there is only One God. One being. One personality. He is eternal, all powerful, all knowing, and without equal in every respect. Read Surah 112 of the Qur’an it is the most straight forward explanation.
He is the creator of all that exists, its sustainer, and destroyer. All that happens in the world is within his will and decree. Whether directly or indirectly. Allah is sovereign. He is Al-Rahman and Al-Raheem. The most gracious, most merciful.
LikeLike
That sounds like a definition of any number of gods – even christian might agree with that. But I think that you are overstepping when you say that god has one personality – are you saying that you can know your god personally through knowing his personality? That might get you chastised for shirk.
Are you a muslim?
LikeLike
Yawn…
LikeLike
I agree – I wasn’t too thrilled with patrice’s answer.
LikeLike
I’m cool with different religions having similar beliefs about God. Christians for the most part do not agree with Tawheed as they believe God is three personalities not one. 101 stuff dude.
Knowing God personally? What does that have to do with saying God is one in personality? People can know God both through reason and revelation. God reveals his nature and attributes to us. Besides shirk is to associates others with God. Knowing God does not mean you are God. Just like knowing a person does not make you that person.
No i’m not a Muslim.
LikeLike
Christians believe god is three personalities? I don’t think that is 101 – that’s left field. Personality is the means by which we know people – islamic theology says that god is unknowable since to associate his attributes with “HIM” is to divide and equate – hence shirk. His attributes are mere glimpses or “echoes” of his essence – to say otherwise is to equate our concepts with his being. That is a big no no.
That is the dilemma of the tawhid – which is why muslims struggle to explain it beyond the simplistic (not simple) refrain of tawhid is “oneness” and then slap themselves on the back at how well they “understand” their god.
LikeLike
What do you, an atheist, care about theology?
LikeLike
Personality is the means by which we know people – islamic theology says that god is unknowable since to associate his attributes with “HIM” is to divide and equate – hence shirk
………………………………
explain this. how do you understand “him” ?
why not 1 conscious being who is the ultimate one?
LikeLike
Who says God is unknowable? Are you a Sheikh? Did i not say ‘reason’ AND ‘revelation’? so they are not our concepts of him but rather the ones he has revealed to us. The purpose of revelation is to guide people toward God through knowledge of him.
Attributes are descriptive of his nature and character they are not ‘echoes’. An echo would be like saying God is like mercy or like grace. But the Qur’an says Bismillah Al-Rahman and Al-Raheem. The most gracious, most merciful. That is who he is not what he is like.
LikeLike
Damian has made a mess in his pants when he sees a Muslim
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL!!
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1
That’s creepy.
LikeLike
A bit like you then lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL!
LikeLike
No Damian, you are not braindead. You just smell funny.
LikeLike
LOL!
LikeLike
Damian, you’ll have to remain ‘disappointed’ and ‘unsatisfied’😟
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh well
LikeLike
Tawheed means there is only One Almighty Creator, Who has no partner or equal. All worship and prayers are for Him Alone. His name is Yahweh in the OT and Allah in the Holy Quran. What do you not understand about that? Very easy concept to grasp. 😊
LikeLike
Jacob
so again tawhid is “it’s the oneness of god!!!!!!” That says nothing and I can’t think of any christian or jew who would dispute that.
LikeLike
Yes, Muslims and jews would agree with the ‘oneness of God’, because we believe in One God! Are you deliberately being stupid! As opposed to those belief systems that believe there are many gods, eg hinduism and or God shares his power, glory, or authority with another.
How else would you express it, if not ‘Oneness’!
LikeLiked by 1 person
And christians would probably say they they believe in one god. But saying “oneness” and claiming that is an explanation of tawhid is disappointing and unsatisfactory.
LikeLike
External rituals of being baptized as a baby and going to a church does not make one a Christian.
You will know them by their fruits. Every bad tree that bears bad fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. Matthew 3:10 and 7:19
No, Hitler was a Christian; and he admired Islam and the Japanese religions more, because of their war-like character.
LikeLike
No, Hitler was NOT a Christian;
LikeLike
But the vast majority of his Nazi citizens were, many were Lutherans just like you Ken
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, their churches had already become dead. The true believers were those like Karl Barth, Neimoller, the Barmen Declaration.
Some Lutherans were true believers, and opposed Hitler, like Bonhoeffer, But most were not born-again.
baby baptism does not make you a Christian.
it is just dead ritual; like Islam.
One must repent and trust in Christ, not just get wet and have words said over them or go to church or do external rituals.
Islam is like that; dead rituals.
LikeLike
Ken you have displayed your utter ignorance about Islam too many times on this blog even though you have been schooled about the truth. This is why I conclude you are not a sincere person but ultimately a corrupted soul who has a closed heart and mind.
There were literally millions of Lutherans in Germany in hitlers time. Very very few opposed hitler, in fact his hatred for the Jews was influenced in large part by Martin Luther’s own evil loathing for the Jews. Those who opposed Hitler we’re going against their Lutheran heritage.
LikeLike
“This is why I conclude you are not a sincere person but ultimately a corrupted soul who has a closed heart and mind.”
Yes, that is also what I have concluded. Ken displays the same hypocrisy and foolishness that is the hallmark of many Evangelicals apologists. And that doesn’t even include his utter ignorance on many issues!
LikeLike
“One must repent and trust in Christ, not just get wet and have words said over them or go to church or do external rituals.”
jesus’ little dick was severed . not only that his mother had to do jewish ritual by slicing the necks of pigeons.
jesus used to go to temple and perform jewish rituals.
jesus used to get wet and then driven into the wilderness.
jesus had to do an animal sacirifcial ritual for people like you to draw closer to your pagan god.
LikeLike
Ken Temple, the circular show you display here is a dead ritual. Thank you for debunking “Christianity” each and every time.
LikeLike
Hitler claimed that islam was more in tune with nazi principles.
LikeLike
But he didn’t convert to Islam,
LikeLike
He didn’t need to – he could accomplish submission without the quran.
LikeLike
Jesus was not a Christian
LikeLiked by 1 person
He wasn’t a muslim either. He never said the shahada.
LikeLike
John 17:3 There is only one true God, and Jesus Christ is sent by God.
Damian you are a megafail
LikeLike
And mohammed is his prophet? Besides, the quran says that mohammed was the first muslim – although it contradicts itself about that several times.
LikeLike
First Muslim to the Arabs but what do you care you are an atheist, what proof do you have that God does not exist?
LikeLike
https://www.academia.edu/10232441/_Jesus_and_the_Anti-Roman_Resistance._A_Reassessment_of_the_Arguments_Journal_for_the_Study_of_the_Historical_Jesus_12_2014_1-105
ken jesus had a hitler like mission
avalos cover this in his book “bad jesus”
LikeLike
Hitler WAS a christian. He made reference to christianity and the bible many times in his crazy speeches. ‘He admired Islam and Japanese culture! ‘ Are you kidding me! Hitler believed in the Supremacy of the White Christian Aryan Race!!! How would he ever admire black/brown people or their culture! He saw ALL other races as backward and worthy of extermination. Stop re-writing history to support your argument!
LikeLike
Jacob,
No, Hitler was NOT a Christian. Read it for yourself in Eric Metaxas’ book on Bonhoeffer. chapter 11. Hitler used and manipulated the church.
“It’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland the highest good? The Mohammeden religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” Adolf Hitler (page 165 of Eric Metaxas’ book on Dietrich Bonhoeffer)
Hitler’s inner circle, Martin Bormann, Heinrich Himmler (leader of the SS and Gestapo), and Reinhard Heydrick were even more anti-Christian and wanted to create a new German religion based on the pagan gods of ancient Germanic culture, and they kept bugging him to destroy the church and start the new warrior pagan German religion, but Hitler knew the people would not be on their side if they did that out right in the open, so he counseled patience to them, and told them they had to manipulate and use the church, until they had enough power to then later wipe out Christianity and create a new religion. Hitler’s “Christianity’ was a fake and show in order to fool the people.
LikeLike
Jacob
Hitler was NOT a christian. He admired islam because of its inherent totalitarianism.
LikeLike
Hitler also had positive attitudes towards Confucius and Buddha. What does that tell you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
ken, how much love did jesus have for the torah? what did jesus think of moses? david?
ken, how does the torah interpret “kingdom of god” ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Millions of Hitler’s followers were Lutherans just like you Ken. What was it about the Lutheran ideology that made them such good Nazis Ken?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not a Lutheran; I am a Baptist. baby baptism and rituals and state churches can lead next generations to assume they are Christians, but are not.
German liberalism, higher criticism (the stuff you love – you love the liberal crap like Butlmann, Ehrman, Bauer, Schleirmacher, Paul Tillich, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Robert Funk, etc.) – leads to deadness and no faith – empty rituals and dead religion.
LikeLike
Liberal crap lol these people are better educated in the Bible than you Ken
LikeLike
that liberal crap and higher criticism led to dead faith / no faith and ritualistic church and they accepted Hitler later cause they were dead and not even Christians.
You can be educated but dead and have no Spiritual life.
LikeLike
Ken I don’t think you and many of your co-religionists have spiritual life. The hatred and sheer evil that spews from the mouth of people line Sam Shamoun indicated a hard dead heart.
LikeLike
Ken is referring to other peoples opinions as ‘Liberal crap’ truly expressive of someone whos will is freed of sin and are born again of the spirit of God?
I thought Christ taught people to love their neighbours as themselves and pray for their enemies. Do you call your opinions as ‘Conservative crap’ is that how you love yourself?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I thought Christ taught people to love their neighbours as themselves and pray for their enemies. Do you call your opinions as ‘Conservative crap’ is that how you love yourself?”
fernando rubio believes that jesus was telling the oppressed jews to love each other so then they could over throw the occupiers. if there is a stronger love within then it could defeat the pagans.
notice how jesus curses and hates the ruling religious authorities?
LikeLike
Where did say he hated the religious authorities? If he did he would be contradicting himself since he said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Where did Jesus say ‘you should only love your neighbour as far as it pertains to beating up the Romans better?’
Why would Jesus tell Peter ‘He who lives by the sword dies by the sword’ if he wanted people to use the sword all along? Why say that his Kingdom is not of this world if he wanted to overthrow the Romans and establish a new kingdom in Israel? Why does Fernando Rubio believe this?
LikeLike
“If he did he would be contradicting himself”
people do change their minds.
” since he said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
when jesus said to the high priest that the son of man would come back in power and allude to psalm
The Lord says to my Lord:
r“Sit at my right hand,
suntil I make your enemies your tfootstool.”
i don’t see prayer there . there is going to be destruction of the enemies.
people do change their minds
” Where did Jesus say ‘you should only love your neighbour as far as it pertains to beating up the Romans better?’
do you know about differed violence? be good to your enemies until the son of man comes back to demolish them.
i quote rubio on this :
quote:
Did the Message of ‘Love thy Enemies’ Put Jesus beyond the Political
Antagonisms of his Age?
The injunction concerning the love of one’s enemies and lack of resistance to
evil, conveyed in Mt. 5.38–39, 48, is a typical objection to any hypothesis of a
seditious Jesus. The presence of the closing antitheses of the Sermon on the
Mount, with its teaching of love, seems to preclude any violent reaction against
the Roman Empire and its collaborators.343
This objection, however, was already countered by Robert Eisler almost a
century ago, by arguing that there are several reasonable answers.344 One is
that, if one finds a contradiction between Mt. 5 and—for instance—the sayings
about the swords, and decides to drop the latter as secondary, then one
could also, and maybe with better reasons, drop the saying on love of one’s
enemies as secondary and inauthentic.345
Another—more convincing—possibility for explaining the whole evidence
is to state the idea of a spiritual evolution in Jesus. There are two interrelated
reasons to think so. First, seditious overtones surface more clearly in the closing
stages of his life.346 Secondly, such as Eisler remarked, Lk. 22.36 seems to
witness a shift in Jesus’ attitude.347 This proposal is all the more reasonable
because there are several Gospel passages indicating that, as the decisive
moment in Jerusalem approached, Jesus underwent some critical situations
and adopted serious decisions.348
A further possibility lies in not finding contradiction at all between
Mt. 5.38–48 and a seditious stance. In fact, the two closing antitheses of the
Sermon on the Mount have been interpreted as making sense not (or not primarily
and specifically) in the political realm,349 but rather in a context of local
social interaction, and more probably in conflicts that would have been related
to the economic difficulties of communities which are disintegrating precisely
because of the rigorous taxation by Roman client rulers, indirectly because of
Roman imperialism.350 If this reading is correct,351 the ‘love thy enemies’
saying would not be addressed to political enemies, but would paradoxically
express a form of resistance to oppressive foreign rule through constructive
social relations characterized by mutual assistance and a spirit of
solidarity.352
Admittedly, if one thinks—with most scholarly opinion—that the political
realm must not be excluded from the saying,353 unless we accept the already
mentioned view of a shift in Jesus, we should conclude that there is here a blatant
inconsistency. This, however, does not lead us into an impasse: religious
visionaries and charismatic preachers are not usually consistent.354
Contradictions of this kind are also found in the New Testament. For instance,
if ‘the contradiction between the commandment to love and the incitement to
hate not only belongs to later interpretations of the [Fourth] Gospel but is also
inherent in the text itself’,355 I cannot see why the simultaneous presence of
conflicting features could not be also present in Jesus’ life and mind.356 In fact,
we find sayings in the Gospels that are extremely hostile to wealth and rich
people, but also passages witnessing financial support of the Jesus movement,
including women who were presumably not so poor; both traditions coexist
without any indication that they were contradictory, and it is likely that they go
back to Jesus’ lifetime. Moreover, throughout history many Christians (including
cardinals and popes) have hoisted love of enemies as their hallmark,
whereas they have hated, persecuted, waged war, and massacred their enemies,
and often they have presumably done it in all good faith
quote
“Why would Jesus tell Peter ‘He who lives by the sword dies by the sword’ ”
but jesus said he could call upon the violent angels and they could do his job for him
he didn’t want to at that moment because he wanted to appease the wrath of his father which required human sacrificial ritual
jesus is not denying violence.
mark records no rebuke . marks jesus rebukes those who came to arrest jesus, not the one who sliced of the ear.
i quote rubio again :
Is Mt. 26.52–53 a Definite Proof that Jesus Rebuked Violence on
Principle?
The idea of a pacific and harmless Jesus is very often grounded in Mt. 26.52–53,
where he is depicted as scolding one of his disciples for resorting to arms.
Either scholars claim that this text is authentic and proves that Jesus rebuked
violence in his dealings with the Roman Empire,357 or they assert that it faithfully
reflects Jesus’ renunciation of violence.358
To start with, we cannot be sure in the least that the utterance in Mt. 26.52
actually goes back to Jesus. It contains a quasi-proverbial saying—‘For all who
take the sword will perish by the sword’—which is probably a quotation from
Targ Isa. 50.11.359 More importantly, Mark records no response on Jesus’ part to
the disciple’s act of resistance, which further indicates that the utterance of
Mt. 26.52 might be a later interpolation. It is hard to believe that Mark would
have overlooked that rebuttal in such a crucial moment, so there are good reasons
to think that the sentence is a pious addition,360 aimed at countering the
scandal of Jesus’ impotence.361 It is accordingly methodologically unsound to
draw far-reaching conclusions from this passage.
But even assuming, for the sake of the discussion, that the sentence comes
from Jesus, we should note that it is not necessarily a pacifistic utterance. As
Brandon rightly observed, it is obviously untrue as a general statement, insofar
as experience teaches that the compensatory justice contended by it does not
always happen. Moreover, the sentence does not entail a general rejection of
violence; in fact, it could convey a mere opportunistic pragmatism: it would
make sense if pronounced in a context in which a leader realizes that any
armed resistance would be doomed to failure, for instance due to the overwhelming
superiority of the opposing forces (‘Do not use the sword, or you will
be accordingly judged’). Therefore, the widespread claim that this passage supports
the image of a non-violent Jesus is unwarranted
Mt. 26.53 has Jesus saying that he could call down ‘more than twelve legions
of angels’ to bring him aid. I will accept the authenticity of the statement for
the sake of the discussion. Admittedly, Jesus rejects the assistance of angels, but
the mere fact that he envisages the possibility of commanding angelic armies is
quite significant by itself. Moreover, the actual rationale for not resorting to
violence significantly lies here only in that such option would frustrate the
divine plan (Mt. 26.54: ‘But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it
must be so?’), not in a rejection of violence as such.362 In fact, given the extent
of the distortion operating in Jesus’ tradition, we should not rule out the possibility
that Jesus hoped the angels would join him, but not at that moment; or
that Jesus did indeed hope the angels would join him, but somebody decided
that he did not harbour that hope.36
There are scholars who, while assuming that the exact wording of Mt. 26.52–
53 may be secondary, think that the passage in fact captures the allegedly pacifistic
attitude of the historical Jesus. The problem is that such radical
non-violence and harmlessness seem to be nothing but aprioristic claims,
whose reliability is radically called into question by the surveyed pattern.364
“if he wanted people to use the sword all along? Why say that his Kingdom is not of this world if he wanted to overthrow the Romans and establish a new kingdom in Israel? Why does Fernando Rubio believe this?”
just imagine if pilate had discovered that jesus had told his followers to sell there stuff and purchase swords, do you think pilate would have been overjoyed or would he have immediately killed jesus himself?
you are quoting the gospel of johm. the earliest gospels make THIS world the “kingdom of god”
johns jesus is a later developed jesus which has no more interest in the “son of man” sayings and the worldly rewards contradicting the synoptics
LikeLike
Okay. That was a whole lot of text but lets try and take a stab at it.
Luke 22 if you read the whole chapter has Jesus say this, “Stop! No more of this” after the disciples said they were going to attack Jesus’ enemies. However the scholar you refer to only focuses on 22:36. Why? If Jesus had an ‘evolution’ why say this?
With regards to angels. Jesus did say he ‘could’ use them but well he doesn’t. Why if his message was violent then why not use them? Simply saying ‘well he could have used them’ isn’t saying he WOULD have used them.
As far as the claim that Matthew had the statement as pious reflection but Mark does not. This argument would only work if you start with the assumption that the intention of Matthew was to be a carbon copy of Mark or that Mark was the only source of authority on Jesus. What about Q, M, or L? Besides the person you quote provides no actual evidence just opinion.
Finally I don’t believe Jesus was a pacifist (take the temple whipping as an example of violence) I just don’t think there is any real reason to think Jesus’ message was all about violence and overthrowing the Romans.
LikeLike
“Luke 22 if you read the whole chapter has Jesus say this, “Stop! No more of this” after the disciples said they were going to attack Jesus’ enemies. However the scholar you refer to only focuses on 22:36. Why? If Jesus had an ‘evolution’ why say this?”
but how do we know that jesus said “stop! no more of this” ? did he even heal the ear which all the other accounts failed to record? the scholar i referred to seems to be saying that the synoptics are preserving hints which have a seditious jesus who was enemy of the state.
quote
a serious problem and is the starting-point for carrying out a critical questioning,
a decisive factor in the emergence of the hypothesis is the fact that the
Gospels contain a great amount of material which—at least at first glance—
point precisely in the sense of a seditious Jesus,24 thereby justifying that the
hypothesis should be advanced and carefully examined.
Here we find the first argument supporting our case. The text of the Gospels
is not a seamless tunic.
The fact that they are not all of a piece, but contain
conflicting versions, spurs us to scrutinize them and to weigh up which is the
most reliable one
end quote
“With regards to angels. Jesus did say he ‘could’ use them but well he doesn’t. Why if his message was violent then why not use them? Simply saying ‘well he could have used them’ isn’t saying he WOULD have used them.”
i thought the son of man would use them when he was suppose to come back and rescue his disciples?
why did luke say that those who did not wish jesus to reign would be slaughtered? what is the hidden message in this? this does not sound a parable pontius pilate would love to have heard.
“As far as the claim that Matthew had the statement as pious reflection but Mark does not. This argument would only work if you start with the assumption that the intention of Matthew was to be a carbon copy of Mark or that Mark was the only source of authority on Jesus. What about Q, M, or L? Besides the person you quote provides no actual evidence just opinion.”
what about mark? how is it possible that his source lacked the rebuke? was peter marks informant? you only have opinion about a “turn the other cheek” jesus. every scholarly reconstruction of jesus creates a different jesus. nothing but opinions.
LikeLike
“Finally I don’t believe Jesus was a pacifist (take the temple whipping as an example of violence) I just don’t think there is any real reason to think Jesus’ message was all about violence and overthrowing the Romans.”
the gospels are a brothel. these texts have been through many hands. even in pauls day people were preaching different jesus’. the temple whipping implies a change in jesus’ mind. he wasn’t showing love to those poor traders he was showing them exception to the alleged sayings on the mountain.
LikeLike
scholars who try to push “pacifist jesus” are so embarrased by luke 22:38 that they think it is FABRICATION
i’m not making this up even ehrman thinks it is invented.
LikeLike
liberal crap means their ideas, not them as people.
LikeLike
Ken you literally blamed the ideas of some scholars as being partly responsible for the Nazis. Don’t try backtracking from that by saying ‘well the people are alright but their ideas are responsible for turning an entire country of born again believers into mass murderers’.
It was a silly comment and very unChristlike of you. 😦
LikeLike
actually there is much good in the so-called ‘liberal’ methodology. Fundamentalists are too closed minded to think outside their little box and learn new things that might help then understand the Bible better.
LikeLike
Boomshakalaka Boom Boom
LikeLike
But you are fundamentalist Muslim – you believe in miracles, prophesy, inspiration of a book, virgin birth of the Messiah Jesus, the second coming of Jesus.
You cannot really say that without also destroying Islam, cause same liberal principles take the Qur’an down.
LikeLike
“You can be educated but dead and have no Spiritual life.”
spiritual life does not come from murder or sacrificial rituals. jeremiah went against the sacrificial system because he knew it did not make one closer to God.
LikeLike
if we are to believe he was a “teacher”, a rabbi, he would have known that one man cannot atone for the sins of another, right?
Exodus 32: 30-35
Deuteronomy 24:16
Jeremiah 31: 29-30
Ezekiel Chapter 18
would he have known this? your rabbi?
LikeLike
“External rituals of being baptized as a baby and going to a church does not make one a Christian.”
what? jesus already was murdered for the sins of hitler
actually christians say that past , present and future murders went back in time and were “punished on jesus”
all hitler has to do is to do atonement in his imagination and yhwh will cuddle him
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
“One must repent and trust in Christ, not just get wet and have words said over them or go to church or do external rituals.”
the jewish people think that their future messiah is going to rebuild the temple and then they will go back to slitting neck of lamb
why would jesus participate in cutting lamb? why bloody the new temple? daniel was dreaming of this, right?
daniel thought of a day where there will be blood once again in new temple, right?
LikeLike
They are wrong. The book of Hebrews in the NT says several times, that Jesus was the final sacrifice, “once for all time”. Also Romans 6:10 and 1 Peter 3:18.
There is no more (proper or true or Biblical) temple and no more sacrifices.
LikeLike
Jesus taught that forgiveness was available from God through simple forgiveness. See Matt 6
LikeLike
only if one looks to the ransom work on the cross and resurrection.
Matthew 20:28
Mark 10:45
LikeLike
ken, did jesus know of the verses in ezekiel which says that no man pays the sins of another man?
did he know about them and read them in the temple?
LikeLike
quote
They are wrong. The book of Hebrews in the NT says several times, that Jesus was the final sacrifice, “once for all time”. Also Romans 6:10 and 1 Peter 3:18.
There is no more (proper or true or Biblical) temple and no more sacrifices
end quote
DOES THE JEWISH BIBLE SAY THAT JEWS WILL PERFORM ANIMAL SACRIFICES IN THE NEW TEMPLE?
LikeLike
“One must repent and trust in Christ, not just get wet and have words said over them or go to church or do external rituals.”
what do you “trust” in ? that your god did an EXTERNAL ritual which appeased him so much, then he was given flesh in which he spent 40 days with his jewish disiples that the torah is a load of waist and “dead ritual” ?
LikeLike
Romans 6:10
For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
Hebrews 7:27
who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
Hebrews 9:12
and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
Hebrews 10:10
By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
LikeLike
if we are to believe he was a “teacher”, a rabbi, he would have known that one man cannot atone for the sins of another, right?
Exodus 32: 30-35
Deuteronomy 24:16
Jeremiah 31: 29-30
Ezekiel Chapter 18
would he have known this? your rabbi?
point to note :
paul nowhere calls jesus “teacher” in his letters.
LikeLike
in other words your god told the disiples for 40 days that the torah was trash and that a human sacrificial ritual was more important than the torah
then he tells the disiples to replace holy days in the torah with remembrance of his blood and flesh?
LikeLike
“Patrice
That’s my opinion – which is what you asked for. I think you have paraphrased my contention that sharia is totalitarian.
And where did I mention sharia before you asked me about it?”
I didn’t ask for your opinion but rather for a definition. You gave me your opinion. An inacuarate one at that.
But you did mention Sharia the minute you referred to Islamic tenets and that Muslims do this and that and that is what their religion commands. That is Sharia.
LikeLike
Sufi have been persecuted before that is true, however there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and they don’t all think the same way. There are some very noteworthy Islamic scholars who are sufi such as Hamza Yusuf, Timothy Winter, and Seyyed Hossein Nasr.
Your right in saying that God is ‘trascendent and beyond our ability to comprehend’. Through reason alone. Since there is nothing like him. However with revelation our knowledge of God is refined and understanding flows.
To know God is through relationship, a relationship fashioned by both revelation of his nature and our reason to understand that revelation.
LikeLike
Sorry dude, my comments are being deleted – it’s been a pleasure!
LikeLike
Bye bye
LikeLike
Mr Williams is not amused! What is this Latvia??? 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
blogging theology is twinned with Latvia
LikeLike
Sounds painful 😉
LikeLike
Patrice wrote:
Ken you literally blamed the ideas of some scholars as being partly responsible for the Nazis. Don’t try backtracking from that by saying ‘well the people are alright but their ideas are responsible for turning an entire country of born again believers into mass murderers’.
It was a silly comment and very unChristlike of you.😦
It is the combination of 3 things:
1. Infant baptism
2. State Churches – the combination of those 2 breeds a whole culture that in the next generation thinks they are Christians but they are not. Nominalism, ritualism, believing in God’s love, without the discipline of “take up your cross or repentance”, which Bonhoeffer nailed in his book, “The Cost of Discipleship”.
and
3. The German Higher Critical scholarship = “liberal crap” – unbelief in miracles, supernatural revelation, prophesy, inspiration – assuming that the virgin birth is a legend (and so also goes against Islam). Liberalism destroys Islam also, for it says that the Qur’an is just a human book and does not believe that God “sent it down”.
I wrote:
I am not a Lutheran; I am a Baptist. baby baptism and rituals and state churches can lead next generations to assume they are Christians, but are not.
German liberalism, higher criticism (the stuff you love – you love the liberal crap like Bultmann, Ehrman (he is building upon Bauer, Schleirmacher, and Bultmann today) , Bauer, Schleirmacher, Paul Tillich, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Robert Funk, etc.) – leads to deadness and no faith – empty rituals and dead religion.
The people who thought they were Christians but also did Nazi things – they were obviously not Christians –
how is it “unChrist like” to call them out on their wickedness?
Jesus said stuff like “you snakes!” “you hypocrites”, etc. to the Pharisees and leaders of Israel at the time.
Read Matthew chapter 23 please
LikeLike
“Jesus said stuff like “you snakes!” “you hypocrites”, etc. to the Pharisees and leaders of Israel at the time.”
so did jesus son of ananus, what is your point?
LikeLike
boom shakalaka boom boom boom 😉
LikeLike
“It is the combination of 3 things:
1. Infant baptism
2. State Churches – the combination of those 2 breeds a whole culture that in the next generation thinks they are Christians but they are not. Nominalism, ritualism, believing in God’s love, without the discipline of “take up your cross or repentance”, which Bonhoeffer nailed in his book, “The Cost of Discipleship”.
and
3. The German Higher Critical scholarship = “liberal crap” – unbelief in miracles, supernatural revelation, prophesy, inspiration – assuming that the virgin birth is a legend (and so also goes against Islam). Liberalism destroys Islam also, for it says that the Qur’an is just a human book and does not believe that God “sent it down”.”
1. Why is Infant Baptism connected to Nazism?
2. I’m no fan of state churches either but why does it lead to Nazism?
3. German Higher Critical Scholarship? are you saying that unbelief leads to Nazism?
LikeLike
Those 3 things created a general culture of nominalism (Christian in name only, not real, no reality of faith or the Holy Spirit on the inside) – it created dead churches a long time before Hitler came along; and Hitler was able to deceive the masses because they had no Spirit, no life, and no discernment to see through his lies, and he appealed to their pride, German nationalism, and feelings of being weak and defeated from WW 1.
LikeLike
why should anybody trust what you think the spiritual state of christians were back then? you believe god told jews to massacre the amalekite infant and unborn. you believe gods spirit was in the jews
why should we listen to the stinking bull that comes out of your mouth?
you have no divine revelation on the spiritual state of those bible believing christians in hitlers time. you have nothing. hitler was bible believer.
LikeLike
“Christian in name only, not real, no reality of faith or the Holy Spirit on the inside)”
phakin bullshit!
you have no standards to judge
your god told his children to kill pregnant women and kill infants.
a jew grabbed a woman and slashed her stomach
don’t tell me about this “holy spirit” bullshit.
you believe that god told the jews to slaughter those who did not live by the sword.
your words disgust me.
LikeLike
your dirty language and cursing expose your character. Robert2016 – you are not a good Muslim, if you claim to be one. You should be ashamed of that rant.
LikeLike
you should be ashamed of worshipping a meat puppet.
LikeLike
robert2016 thats quite enough. Insulting Kens beliefs get you nowhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
i guess you are right Patrice.
but don’t worry , the evangelical in temple will continue to insult.
LikeLike
Nominalism? Fair enough I guess. Of course it wasn’t just religion that was manipulated to usher in the Nazi regime as you say. However the problem remains with your claims that the rituals of the Lutheran Church such as Infant Baptism or that Higher Criticism lead to nominalism.
Surely a higher critical view would render any biblical literalism to be obsolete? And the Bible to be more about what people in ancient cultures believed rather than being a truly timeless text. Infant Baptism is also practiced by many Christian demoninations including Anglicanism, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic. The practice itself does not cause any kind of degradation of Christs atonement does it?
LikeLike
Infant baptism, when taught and practiced properly ( Like conservative Presbyterians and the Biblical Anglicans in Australia, and the Missouri Synod Lutherans in USA) does not by itself lead to nominalism; but if it is not taught and practiced properly, and combined with State churches (all of Western Europe is dead Christianity today because of the combination of those 3 things – church of England has gone liberal, and the state churches in other Western European countries are dead.)
The combination of those things with higher critical scholarship and liberalism, set the stage for Hitler to manipulate and deceive the German people – with the economic depression and psychological realities of post WW 1 (guilt for being the main perpetrators of WW 1, etc. ) – Hitler preyed upon the most base of human fears and prejudices and the psychological depression of the German people – he offered them pride, racial superiority, confidence, feelings of greatness, etc. – fed into the root of sin – pride, arrogance, selfishness, vengeance, anger, fear of Jews and foreigners, conspiracy theories, etc.
LikeLike
Tim Keller’s Foreword To BONHOEFFER: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy – explains how Hitler took advantage of the dead German church and culture at the time.
This is Tim Keller’s Foreward to BONHOEFFER: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy.
**
I’m delighted that my friend Eric Metaxas has penned this volume on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The English-speaking public needs to know far more than it does about his thought as well as his life. When I became a Christian in college, Bonhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship was one of the first books I read, followed not long afterwards by Life Together. I still think the second book is perhaps the finest single volume I have ever read on the character of Christian community, but it was the first book that set me on a life-long journey to understand the meaning of grace.
I now realize how impossible it is to understand Bonhoeffer’s Nachfolge without becoming acquainted with the shocking capitulation of the German church to Hitler in the 1930s. How could the “church of Luther,” that great teacher of the gospel, have come to this? The answer was that the gospel, summed up by Bonhoeffer as costly grace, had been lost. On the one hand, the church had become marked by formalism. Formalism meant going to church, hearing that God just loves and forgives everyone, so it didn’t really matter much how you lived. Bonhoeffer’s name for this was cheap grace. On the other hand, you had legalism, or salvation by law and good works. Legalism meant God loves you because you have pulled yourself together and lived a good, disciplined life. Both of these impulses made it possible for Hitler to come to power. Formalists may have seen things in Germany that bothered them, but they did not see any need to sacrifice their safety to stand up to them. Legalists were more likely to have the Pharisaical attitudes toward other nations and races that approved of Hitler’s policies.
Germany had lost hold of the brilliant balance of the gospel that Luther so persistently expounded: “we are saved by faith alone, but not by faith which is alone.” That is, we are saved by grace, not by anything we do, but if we have truly understood and believed the gospel, it will change what we do and how we live. Much of the German church understood ‘grace’ as abstract acceptance — “God forgives; that’s his job.” But the grace comes to us by costly sacrifice. And if God was willing to go to the cross and endure such pain and absorb such a cost in order to save us, then we must live sacrificially as we serve others. So anyone who truly understands how God’s grace comes to us will have a changed life. That’s the gospel, not salvation by law, or by cheap grace, but by costly grace. Costly grace changes you from the inside out. Neither law nor cheap grace can do that.
This lapse couldn’t happen to us, today, surely? Certainly it could. We still have a lot of legalism and moralism in our churches. In reaction to that, many Christians want to talk only about God’s love and acceptance. Many of them don’t like talking about Jesus’ death on the cross to take divine wrath and justice. Some even call this “divine child abuse.” All this might run the risk of falling into the belief in “cheap grace” — a non-costly love from a non-holy God who just loves and accepts us. That will never change anyone’s life. So it looks like we still need to listen to Bonhoeffer and others who go deep in discussing the nature of the gospel.
Timothy Keller
New York Times best-selling author of The Reason for God
END
– See more at: http://ericmetaxas.com/writing/essays/tim-kellers-foreword-bonhoeffer-pastor-martyr-prophet-spy/#sthash.KUugdLpo.dpuf
LikeLike
It’s painfully obvious (you’ll notice i’m using white’s opening arguments) that ken and his fellow christians (the ones who have written a few books claiming hitler was not a christian) are trying to distance the religion of christianity from the horrific crimes of hitler and the nazis. As a Muslim i am willing to concede that hitler probably didn’t really believe in the principles of his faith but used and abused it for Political gain. We muslims are far more charitable than evangelicals in this regard. So, using the same standards and equal scales (another of of white’s often repeated phrases), will you concede that the leaders/followers of isis, al-qaeda, boko haram…etc, use and abuse Islam for their political gain?
LikeLike
ok, that may be true;
except that Hitler actually made denigrating remarks at Jesus and Christianity and called it weak and wimpy and meek and flabby. Whereas the leaders of those groups (with Hamas also, who quote from the Hadith – “kill the jews until the day of resurrection and the trees will cry out, “there is a jew behind me”, etc.) don’t denegrate Islam itself; and they actually quote and use texts and claim to be following original Islam, going back to early Islam, taking sex-slaves, etc. Hitler used the external church, but he was not really into the details of Christianity or the Scriptures, but Ben Laden, (inspired by Muslim Brotherhood writings of Al Banna and Saeed Qutb), Al Zawahiri, Abu Mosab Al Zarqawi, Al Baghdadi (a phd in Islam – how do you explain that one?) use the Islamic sources and go into the details in their publications and quote Hadith, Sira, Tarikh, Qur’an, Tafsirs, Fiq, Sunna, etc.
LikeLike
there are pro hitler apologists who would demolish the claim that hitler did it for political reasons.
LikeLike
Ken, again with that nonsense? It just seems that you will never learn.
You have been refuted on this before. There are crazies in every religion. There are Christian groups who are “into the details of Christianity or the Scriptures”. Examples include the KKK, the Lord’s Resistance Army etc. By repeatedly ranting on this subject, you expose yourself as a rather shallow and hypocritical person. Of course, its part and parcel for you Evangelical types. You exhibit a mixture of idiocy and hypocrisy. I call it “idiocrisy”. 😉
LikeLike
LikeLike
here is the funny bit in the video
“it through the grace of jesus’ in his blood that man kind gets washed of their sins. so adolf hitler washed of killing about … idon’t know 10 millions jews and you vigilant christian mario, you were washing of bunch of drugs and fornicating in high school”
LikeLike
I did say Muslims are far more charitable and compassionate towards christians for their wrongdoings than christians are! Muslims are willing to accept that just because some christians behave badly, it does not mean they are following their faith. Your response, which is the standard evangelical response is far less charitable! Blame Islam, no matter what, just blame Islam. Where are the equal scales and same standards?? You see Ken, I can now cherry pick the violent verses from the OT and the unsavoury verses from the NT(and also martin luther’s horrific advice on how to deal with the jews) and make a compelling argument for the lutherian germans following hitler according to their christian faith. But i believe, any religion, theory or ideaology can be used by its adherents for evil, even if that religion or theory is fundamentally good, as is the case for Islam and Christianity. Now lets see if this charitable attitude can come from the ones who are instructed to ‘love thy enemy’!! I doubt it.
LikeLike