Author of the new book A Man Attested by God The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels, a thought-provoking alternative perspective on the full humanity of Jesus Christ, J. R. Daniel Kirk holds a PhD in New Testament from Duke University and has taught at North Carolina State University, St. Joseph’s University, Eastern College, and Fuller Theological Seminary.
http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/6795…
In A Man Attested by God J. R. Daniel Kirk presents a comprehensive defense of the thesis that the Synoptic Gospels present Jesus not as divine but as an idealized human figure.
Counterbalancing the recent trend toward early high Christology in such scholars as Richard Bauckham, Simon Gathercole, and Richard Hays, Kirk here thoroughly unpacks the humanity of Jesus as understood by Gospel writers whose language is rooted in the religious and literary context of early Judaism. Without dismissing divine Christologies out of hand, Kirk argues that idealized human Christology is the best way to read the Synoptic Gospels, and he explores Jesus as exorcist and miracle worker within the framework of his humanity.
With wide-ranging exegetical and theological insight that sheds startling new light on familiar Gospel texts, A Man Attested by God offers up-to-date, provocative scholarship that will have to be reckoned with.
Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity, God, History
Blogging Theology 
I was searching for the publicity buzz around Dr Kirk’s new book a few weeks back, there was nothing back then apart from a Trinitarian apologist trashing him on a podcast because he was worried Muslims will start using Kirk’s work.
Good to see this video
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Trinitarian is right to be worried 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
The first name I saw was Yahya Snow and then Paul Williams… always loving liberal scholarship – oh but only when it is attacking Christians.. odd that
LikeLike
What has this got to do with an article about an exiting new work by a Trinitarian Christian scholar on the gospels?
LikeLike
The trinitarian will destroy Kirk in a debate.
LikeLike
Kirk IS a Trinitarian lol
LikeLike
I don’t accept that Kirk is a Trinitarian. His writings over the past few years show that he doesn’t hold to a high christology. I can not see how he can consistently hold to a trinitiarian position due to his compromised position.
LikeLike
If you watch the video you will see he says he is a Trinitarian.
LikeLike
Jeremy, I understand the aforementioned Trinitarian apologist, James White, has taken umbrage with this blog post and my comment as evidenced by his rant and link on FB but put aside the poisoning of the well tactics of White and just consider it for yourself.
Dr Kirk’s views on homosexual marriage or any other liberal views he may or may not hold are all IRRELEVANT to this discussion. This discussion is about the Trinity idea and Christology in the Synoptics coming from a Christian with orthodox Christian views on Christology.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Precisely
LikeLike
I’m shocked,shocked I say to find out that Jesus was a Man, a real human being.
Oh wait thats what Trinitarians believe. So no we are not worried, not worried at all when someone points out half of what we believe. It only shows that those people have half the truth
LikeLike
From 5:30 and on, it reminds me of the Quranic narrative about angels being commanded to bow down to Adam and also of the idea of God creating humans or some of them to be Khalifas on earth (His vice-regents).
I think his remark about idealized human being God to human and human to God was way off…yes human to God but of course God to human.
LikeLike
Only a self-deluded idiot would go out of their way to ignore Christ’s divinity in order to present him as an “idealized human figure”.
That’s like throwing away a Christmas gift but keeping the wrapping paper.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Only a self deluded idiot would take a man as God.
LikeLike
Well If Jesus is your standard then why not follow him. He only worshiped “the Father”, not the other two persons of trinity. So why don’t you limit yourself to worshiping the one whom Jesus worshiped.
LikeLike
*Jesus PBUH taught that there is one God. He repeated “shema” as taught by Moses PBUH
*Jesus also showed us how to worship God (whom he metaphorically called the “father”). In garden of Gethsemane and elsewhere.
*There is no evidence that Jesus ever bowed, prayed or worshiped any other being or person.
*So even if one can cook-up the idea that there are “three” persons in Godhead, how is it justified to worship those entities, persons or beings in the absence any such example from Jesus.
*If one needs to go above and beyond Jesus in order to worship other “two” persons, well then where would you stop? In that case you can justify worship anything and everything like Hindus do.
*So if one is honest and really wants to be follower of Jesus, he has no option but to worship “God the Father” ALONE , whom Jesus worshiped, and REJECT worship of any other persons, beings or entities. End of story.
LikeLike
Rational Muslim is an oxymoron. Why would anyone care what you psychopaths think about anything?
LikeLike
The feeling is mutual I’m sure.
LikeLike
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God” John 1:1
Now that is the end of story. (Actually its just the beginning)
LikeLike
You do know that Professor Kirk is a supporter of homosexual “marriage” within Christian circles? What does it have to do with his recent book on Christology? Absolutely nothing except for the face that conservative and traditional Christians won’t take this seriously. They’ll say that he doesn’t believe in the Biblical Jesus anymore than he believes in Biblical marriage. If you want to try to convince conservatives, don’t bother quoting this book.
LikeLike
“In this book Kirk presents a timely challenge to the advocates of the emerging consensus that there was an early high and divine Christology”
So you are publically promoting a minority opinion Paul against the scholarly consensus? Isn’t that your definition of fundamentalism? Is it because it suits your Islamic bias?
What is that little thing about consistency again?…
LikeLike
silly.
LikeLike
Well you still don’t answer why you worship “two” extra persons whom Jesus didn’t worship? Don’t you realize that in doing so your god has two “person” more than God of Jesus ( which is only one person). and when you do so your religion is different than religion of jesus. how simpler can this be put?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Achilies: John 1:1 is not word of Jesus and it doesn’t say anything about whom Jesus worshiped. So bring relevant evidence about the topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes it is. (Sigh) But try Matthew 28:19 “Go into all the nations baptizing in the of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.”
LikeLike
Does that verse deal with Jesus worshiping three persons ? Sighs!
LikeLike
Looks like an interesting book. I agree with him that if you read the NT from an ancient Jewish perspective, you will come to the conclusion that Jesus is fully human and not fully divine or preexisting as in John’s high Christology.
However, it seems like he is splitting hairs on the terminology. Instead of referring to Low Christology he prefers “High Human” or “Idealized Human” But, whoever said the Low Christology refers to “Low Human?” The terminology of Low Christology simply refers to the human nature of Christ which as Kirk acknowledges, has been subsequently exalted to a higher “idealized” status. I think Dr. Bart Ehrman made this all very clear in his book, “How Jesus became God, the exaltation of a Jewish preacher from Galilee. In that book Erhman explains the Low Christological process of exaltation in the Synoptics. I don’t think there is any real need to change the terminology just to suit Kirks sensibilities.
LikeLike
Omitting John from an analysis into the true nature of Jesus is like critiquing Beethoven’s Fifth without listening to a symphony perform it.
LikeLike
Hank,
Who is omitting John from any analysis? The point is that John should be read in light of the gradually increasing embellishments in the story moving from the Low Christology of the Synoptics to the High Christology in John.
It seems you only listened to the “B side” of Beethovens fifth without listening first to the “A side” 🙂
LikeLike
John is deliberately omitted from the discussion.
LikeLike
When you have to promote a theory that is untenable when viewed from the totality of the church’s foundational documents, you must be selective with your sources. We all know why John is excluded; because his argument is not tenable within it.
Even then though, there is a consensus now that sees high christology in the Synoptics. This books thesis is a minority position because like most things, scholars need to make new theories to get paid and published.
Not only does Paul quote mine scripture, he has a habit of quote mining scholars who suit his islamic bias. Sad really, but we all often lack consistency.
LikeLike
yes very sad.
LikeLike
Hank,
Who is omitting John from any analysis? Kirk
LikeLike
I am.
LikeLike
Paul,
Yes, I agree. Omitting John makes it easier to view the Synoptics for what they are without the extra baggage in John to cause confusion on the issue.
LikeLike
Hank,
After all, many early Christians only had one or two of the Synoptics and lived and died while never having access to the Gospel of John. Did those Christians who believed in the Low Christology of the Synoptics (without John) not understand their religion?
LikeLike
The Synoptics have a high Christology as per Bauckham, Gathercole et al…
LikeLike
The crucified thief knew Christ’s compassion and he is in paradise right now. Who can say for sure what else he knew about Christ? Before written information was disbursed, who can say what the early church relied upon to learn about their Savior? Mere fragments of the New Testament are sufficient to lead people to salvation. After all, the heavens declare His handiwork.
Today, with the completed canon why would anyone attempt to portray an accurate depiction of Christ and ignore priceless, significant information?
LikeLike
A war is raging. Usually, we are unaware of it. We can’t see it being fought much of the time, but it is fierce, massive and deadly. The Crucifixion of Jesus resulted from this mortal conflict, plain for everyone to see. Reducing Christ or puffing Him up to be something He’s not represents a front on the battlefield. This war is fought on many fronts.
LikeLike
dude do you speak conversational English?
LikeLike
Hank,
You are standing at the end of the developmental timeline, looking at all of the Christian scripture in its totality and saying “lets look at everything.” I can understand why you would say that. However, if you want to understand the synoptics in the way the early Christians might have understood them, then instead of looking at history from your current vantage point, you must turn around and as Dr. Bart Ehrman says “step backwards into history” in order to understand them as they were meant to be understood by the authors who wrote them. That is why John should be omitted from any historical critique of the Synoptics, (unless in comparing differing Christologies) but not omitted in studying the scriptures as a whole as you said. By reading the Synoptics this way you will finally come to the conclusion that the earliest Christians viewed Jesus as a human who was exalted into deification and not fully divine or preexisting as in John’s high Christology.
The question is: If the early Christians believed Jesus was fully Human to begin with, when did the process of exaltation begin and why?
I highly recommend that you read Dr. Bart Ehrman’s work, as he addresses these questions and it will help you progress in your understanding of the development of early Christianity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Today in the City of David a Savior has been born to you. He is Christ the Lord!”
Do you mean a statement like this as an example of an “idealized” human being found in the Synoptic gospels which represents low Christology?
LikeLike
Hank
Again. I refer u to Ehrmans work. U can quote scripture to me all day, but if u don’t study NT historical criticism then your understanding will never progress.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said!
LikeLike
Hank, If you will like to have productive and intelligent conversation, you can’t ignore “almost” consensus of scholars ( not just the liberal ones) on this topic. Now scholars are not god, but you need to be able to criticize the evidence to tell us why their position is wrong.
LikeLike
Issam, I highly recommend you “step backwards into history” in order to understand the manuscripts of the Koran and the Hadiths by the authors who wrote them, too. Maybe ask Dr Ehrman what he thinks of them first. Then when you come back, you won’t bore us with your intellectual dishonesty and scholastic mendacity.
LikeLike
Muslim apologetics 101. Try and cherry pick the bible to disprove the divinity of Christ. When that dosent work. Say the bible is corrupted and we dont know what the early chistians thought. When that doesnt work scream Erhman as if he is Moses coming down from Mt Sinai with the 10 commandments under his arm.
LikeLike
No need to cherry pick. You can’t even coherently answer this simple question. Whom did Jesus worship? Tip. Whoever he worshiped is God and rest all (Persons, Entities, Homoousios, Beings, etc etc) are not god/gods. Can’t put simpler than that.
LikeLike
He worshiped the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Not the pagan arab moon god called Allah. He said salvation came from the Jews.
Paul goes on to explain “even though he existed in the form of God he did not grasp equailty with God but took on the form of a servant.”
Muslim attempts at “gotcha” are pretty tiresome.
LikeLike
Lets ignore the name of God (Allah, Eloi, Elohim, Father etc) for now. Jesus worshiped God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob you said. Amen. Good. We are making progress. You will not find Jesus or any of the Biblical prophets, the ones you mentioned and the once you didn’t mention, worshiping “God the Holy Ghost” or “God the Son”, even if there are any such beings. That solves your polytheism. Now you too start worshiping that same God and worship none but Him. Ready?
LikeLike
How convenient “lets ignore the name of God” No, lets not. The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob (no ishmael there). Who called himself I AM. When Jesus called himself I AM the Jews picked up stones to kill him as they knew he was claiming divinity.
Have you read Psalm 110 “the Lord said to my Lord sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet” So yeah David did mention the pluality of God.
Now lets go to the start of the bible “let us make man in our image” The word for God is Elohim which is plural.
Are you ready to get over your peurile “polytheism” nonsense?
LikeLike
Dude. Calm down and answer this simple question. Did Jesus direct his worship to “the Father” alone or did he also direct his worship to “the son” or “the holy ghost”? Why can’t you answer this simple question. We are not discussing whether trinity is true or not. For arguments sake lets suppose it is true. How does that impact this question? The fact is that Jesus didn’t worship those two extra persons of trinity whoever they may be. And since Jesus DIDN’T worship them, how can you , if you claim to be his follower.
I can’t call myself follower of Muhammed , if I choose to worship other beings that Muhammed didn’t worship? I mean how simply do I need to put forward this question?
May Godn’t mercy be upon all his messengers.
LikeLike
“Today in the City of David a Savior has been born to you. He is Christ the Lord!”
Do you mean a statement like this as an example of an “idealized” human being found in the Synoptic gospels which represents low Christology?
Dear Ibn Issam and RationalMuslim,
I must have given you the wrong impression. I’m agreeing with you and Kirk and Bart. This scripture reinforces the concept of the idealized human which is exactly what Kirk has proven.
That’s what the terms savior, Christ and Lord mean: idealized.
“you need to be able to criticize the evidence to tell us why their position is wrong” rm
That’s what I’m trying to do.
LikeLike
There is not one place in the entire Gospel where said that “one is saved by believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus or Messiah”. Please don’t provide indirect references that can mean and has meant dozens of difference thing.
I have read Gospel’s dozens of times, read exegesis by dozens of scholars of varied denominations, especially by evangelical scholars. May be I missed it but somehow I have not seen a single direct quote from lips of Jesus where he says salvation is by believing in his death or resurrection. The question here is not whether Jesus died on cross (for argument sake lets accept that it took place). The question is, did Jesus demand that his followers to BELIEVE in his death or resurrection for salvation?
Lets me give you one example to clarify my point. All four Gospels teach that Jesus rode donkey into Jerusalem. Now can some one claim that “Believing that Jesus rode donkey into Jerusalem” is means of salvation. After all what is the difference between these two events. In one event Jesus rides donkey into Jerusalem and in another he dies? You can find several other incidents in the life of Jesus that no one disputes.
Yet somehow believing in one is the lynchpin ( as hank hanegraaff likes to say) and all other events are just history in the life Jesus?
Care to explain this dilemma. Please don’t bring in Paul, as we are not discussing Paul rather we are discussion whether Jesus himself taught salvation by “BELIEVING in his death and resurrection” .
LikeLike
You don’t define Christian theology. Why demand that the other New Testament documents be excluded and yet expect Christians to answer your questions? We utterly reject this false Muslim notion that Christiansare bound by the synoptic discourse.
But Ok then, I will answer your question if you can show us all from theQuran how often you should pray and how you should actually pray. No Hadith, no sunnah and no medinan ayat. Sound fair?
LikeLike
Paulus: We are not discussing Jesus according to Paul or Muhammed. We are disusing Jesus according to Jesus. Did Jesus know why he came? If so he would have explained it and taught it. I am not defining your theology. I am asking why you should believe in a theology that Jesus didn’t teach in any meaningful ways.
Your equivalency of salat is false. Both Quran and Sunnah was given to us by Prophet himself. He did teach us how to pray salat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nonsense. Christian soteriology is bound by the entire corpus of scripture, including, but not limited to the words of Jesus. By limiting it to the Synoptics, for example, we would not get the full picture of its purpose and scope.
So, as I said, I’m happy to answer your question once you answer mine. Show me your salat from the Meccan ayat. Don’t appeal to ‘the prophet’ because I’m not allowed to appeal to Paul, remember. Don’t just say Quran, because I just can’t say Bible. Meccan surahs is all you have. Now, go…
See how ridiculous your ‘argument’ actually is when applied to your own faith? Hardly anything “rational” about it.
LikeLike
The point with the Quran being it was revelatory over a number of years, so until the final ayah was revealed, the Muslim faith was not totally complete, hence why I am limiting the question to show you how absurd it is. The earliestmuslims inMecca knew nothing of warfare for Allah. The latter did.
LikeLike
Paulus: So are you saying that Christ didn’t complete his religion? and it was left to be completed by Paul?
LikeLike
Paulus: Christ also taught his message over a period of time. So if you are looking for equivalency then it is like choosing a period of Jesus life , say from his birth till turning water into wine miracle will be perhaps similar to Muhammad from birth till his first experience in cave of Hira.
LikeLiked by 1 person
O man how basic is this. Even a sunday school kid could deal with you rational muslim.
After the resurrection Thomas calls Jesus “my Lord and my God”. The disciples then worshiped him.
LikeLike
The question is not whether someone worshiped Jesus ( BTW Nebuchadnezzar worshiped, Daniel, so by this logic Daniel is also God? right?) , rather the question is whom did Jesus worship? I guess I am putting this question in simple English that “Even a Sunday school kid” can understand.
LikeLike
Nebuchadnezzer bowed to Daniel. He didnt worship him or call him God.
I already answered your question. Jesus worshiped the father. He also said the father and i are one. He also said the father judges no one, all judgment has been left to the Son.
If you arent interested in whether those who knew him best regarded him as God or worshipped him then you arent really interested in the truth.
Psalm 2 “Do homage to the Son lest he become angry and you perish”
LikeLike
Can we leave Nebuchadnezzar for another time ( BTW please check out the different translations here http://biblehub.com/daniel/2-46.htm, He did worship Daniel)
Did Jesus worship “the son” or “the holy ghost”?
Let me put it another way.
God of Jesus: Only “the Father” ( only one person)
Your God: the Father, the Son and the HolyGhost? (three persons)
So your God is different from the God of Jesus. Can it be put simpler than this?
LikeLike
Rational Muslim
Why can’t you guys understand the simple doctrine of the incarnation? Jesus is god’s word incarnate, who took on human form in full. Thus, in human form he was an example of the perfect human – sinless and perfect in his relationship to god. Jesus is sinless in islam too.
None of this casts doubt on god’s triunity or jesus’ deity.
LikeLike
Achilies,
you wrote: ” If you arent interested in whether those who knew him best regarded him as God or worshipped him then you arent really interested in the truth.”
One would think that the persons who knew Jesus best would have been his mother, Mary, and his adoptive father Joseph……and yet there is no verse in the Bible that portrays them as worshipping their own son. Curious. This alludes the likelihood that they recognized the fact that Jesus is not God himself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yawn. Nope. Now you are a bore. You have a catchphrase. And you are sticking to it like a child.
“Jesus worshiped God. he didnt worship himself so he can’t be God” Just another tired riff on the old “who was he talikng to when he prayed? Himself. Did he abandon himself when he was on the cross.”Yes we have heard them all.
Paul explains how Jesus existed in the form of God and became a servant. Fully God and fully man. Adios.
LikeLike
If Jesus ( who is ” Fully God and fully man” as you pout it) could worship “the father” , what prevented him from worshiping “the holy ghost” or “the son”? Doesn’t this tell you something? Don’t think this silly question. In the answer to this question lies your salvation if choose to be logical, rational and obedient to Jesus.
LikeLike
Hi Paul
I wanted to ask you where your proof is of this statement.
Clearly the four gospels are not the Injil. They make claims (eg about the crucifixion) that God has made clear are quite unhistorical.
The crucifixion unhistorical? That’s not what Bart Erhman says!
I’m sorry this in response to a completely different article you posted.
LikeLike
What is meant by “worship”? Obey, comes to mind.
To hold that Jesus cannot be God because He worships God the Father, but His Father doesn’t worship Him, is bizarre to say the least. The Trinity were a pretty close bunch. They held different positions or roles, but worshiping God includes, by definition, His Son and the Son’s Representative.
Or we can try to calculate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
LikeLike
Dear Mr. RM,
Where do you find Jesus worshiping GOD?
LikeLike
As a good Jew he would have worshiped God every day. Jesus says he worships God in John 4: 21-22
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks.
I suppose what i’m trying to figure out is this. What is meant when we say Christ worshiped God, you know? How, literally, did He demonstrate He was worshiping? Christians say, “worship service is at 11 am” for example. That usually means a sermon will be preached, prayers offered and some singing and giving of tithes and gifts. Is this, generally speaking, the kind of thing that would describe the “worship” Christ offered to God?
LikeLike
I understand that Jews prayed to God three times a day. This includes praise and worship of the One true God.
Jesus was not a Christian.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So worship was praise and prayer. okay
LikeLike
So Jesus worshiped his God. Ergo he was not God. God is One.
LikeLiked by 2 people
When Jesus worshiped God, He was worshiping Himself and the Holy Spirit simultaneously, by definition. Each is God.
Where do we find that the early church relied upon a couple of the synaptic gospels, to the exclusion of oral information and the Gnostic gospel, to form their opinions about Christ? Quite the contrary, right from the earliest days following Pentecost the young church is ablaze, travelling to the ends of the earth to inform every living creature about Him resurrected from the grave, and salvation through believing in Him.
LikeLike
That’s nonsense. The earliest Jerusalem church after pentecost did not believe Christ to be the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Proof is in Acts 21.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“RationalMuslim” wrote:
The question is, did Jesus demand that his followers to BELIEVE in his death or resurrection for salvation?
and
Please don’t bring in Paul, as we are not discussing Paul rather we are discussion whether Jesus himself taught salvation by “BELIEVING in his death and resurrection” .
First, your demand that exact words have to be made the way you want them to be made is an arrogant demand; since you cut up the Gospel (Injeel) into parts and don’t allow all of it to speak – all of the NT is the word of God and the word of Jesus, – yes; even all the words through the apostle Paul. It is like Ahmad Deedat’s famous challenge to Josh McDowell, “no where did Jesus say, “I was dead and now I am alive”. Josh McDowell showed him he was wrong by quoting Revelation 1:18. Since then, the Muslims changed that challenge to “no where does it say “I am God, worship Me, in those exact words”. The demand for exact words is just that – a demand. Who are you to demand that verses be in the exact words that you want?
David Wood answered that challenge and totally demolished the Muslim’s polemic and demand.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/06/where-did-jesus-say-i-am-god-worship-me.html
But, even if we leave out the God-breathed words of the apostle Paul’s letters; even the Synoptics do say that Jesus taught repentance and trust (faith) in who He is and what He did on the cross and the resurrection.
The gospel writers use both “believe” and “repent” to describe what conversion means.
Mark 1:15
“Repent and believe the gospel”
The whole book is about all that Jesus did (Mark 1:1 – “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God”) ; His ministry and death and resurrection and to repent means to realize one is a sinner and turn from that and trust Christ to save you.
Mark 10:45
“the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Mark, writing for Peter, intends you to see that the whole book is the gospel (Mark 1:1 “the gospel” to Mark 16 – the empty tomb, resurrection from the dead (even without 16:9-20, it still clearly teaches that Jesus rose from the dead), and that must believe in the atonement / ransom of Christ and resurrection from the dead in order to be saved.
Mark 14:24 – “the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.”
Jesus predicted his trials, crucifixion, death, and resurrection at least 3 times before it happened:
Mark 8:31
Mark 9:31
Mark 10:32-34
Mark 14:28
Jesus claimed Deity in Mark 14:60-64
One must believe that also.
Mark 8:35 – For whoever wishes to save his life shall loose it; but whoever looses his life for My sake and the gospel’s, shall save it.”
25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?”
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
Luke 24:25-27
Jesus is clearly saying that one must believe in the prophets prophesying of the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Messiah in order to be saved, and that that message must be preached to all the nations. Jesus is rebuking them for not believing the testimony of the women that Jesus rose from the dead, the empty tomb in Luke 24:1-12
36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and *said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit.
38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?
39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.
41 While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?”
42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish;
43 and He took it and ate it before them.
44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day,
47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
48 You are witnesses of these things.
49 And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
Luke 24:36-49
LikeLike
Ken. Did you bring any statement from Jesus on his demand that his followers believe in his death and resurrection for salvation? We are not debating whether died on cross or not. I already wrote in my post to assume that he died. We are rather debating whether Jesus asked you to believe in his death and resurrection to be saved.
Did Jesus know why he came? When I talk to Christians it seems Jesus couldn’t communicate to people even like an office clerk. An office clerk will tell you who he is, what his role is and what he can and can’t do.
Then you go into OT prophesies (which can and has been applied to many many figures). Look OT prophesies on this matter is a different topic. St Pau on this matter is a different topic. So is Muhammad’s teaching on this a different topic. Why mix all of them up here. Can we stick to whether Jesus taught “salvation through belief in his death and resurrection”?
LikeLike
Jesus rebuked the disciples for not believing the truths about His crucifixion and resurrection and that the prophets prophesied these things, and rebuked them for not believing the women’s testimony about the empty tomb and resurrection – see Luke 24:25-27; and the whole chapter of Luke 24. Also all of Mark also. Did you read the whole post I made?
No – you are wrong to try and separate John and Paul out. All NT is the Injeel. Paul’s words are also God-breathed and Jesus’ words.
LikeLike
Luke 24:25-27
O slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken ! Was it not necessary for the Messiah to suffer and enter into His glory? (cross, death, resurrection, and ascension to heaven) Luke 24:25-27
LikeLike
Hi Rational Muslim
From your reply to Ken’s responses it seems to me you don’t seem to know what you are actually looking for in the life of Jesus.
Jesus says in this text his mission….
Jesus Rejected at Nazareth
Luk 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
Luk 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Luk 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 12:30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
Joh 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Joh 12:33 This he said, signifying what death he should die
Jesus reveals his mission and how he is going to draw all men,and those who believe will have eternal life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@defendchrist
Did you provide any statement from Jesus asking his followers to believe in his death and resurrection for their salvation? If the verses you brought are the best example then let’s go through them one by one.
Luke4:21: Where is any evidence that Jesus is asking you to believe in his death and resurrection? I can’t see, Can you?
John3:14-15: These talk about him being lifted up [being lifted up doesn’t mean “salvation is by believing in his death and resurrection”. Does it?) and his command to believe in him (Not his death or resurrection) as a means of salvation. No Muslims disputes that.
John12:30-33: Where did he say to his believers to believe in his death and resurrection as means of salvation? Why are you putting words onto lips of Jesus? The author of John 12 says that Jesus said what kind of death he will die, but how did you conclude from this verse that “you must believe in his death of resurrection” as means of salvation?” Remember we are not talking whether or not Jesus died (please assume that he did) , rather whether or not he taught that salvation is by believing in his death and resurrection?
LikeLike
Hi
You asked Ken this…
Did Jesus know why he came? When I talk to Christians it seems Jesus couldn’t communicate to people even like an office clerk
Luke 4:16-18 answers your question.
ohn3:14-15: These talk about him being lifted up [being lifted up doesn’t mean “salvation is by believing in his death and resurrection”. Does it?) and his command to believe in him (Not his death or resurrection) as a means of salvation. No Muslims disputes that.
Do you know the Moses story where he held up the brass serpent?
LikeLike
Ken, Defendchrist,
just a question…did Jesus himself write Matthew , Mark, Luke, and John? No. Then how do we know that the unknown authors of the Gospels are not putting their own words and theological beliefs into his mouth?
Where is the Gospel of Jesus to prove to us that Jesus demanded that his followers believe in his death and resurrection for salvation?
LikeLike
Because Jesus said He got His words from the Father, and He committed those words to the disciples, (John 17:8) and then the Holy Spirit would come and “lead them into all the truth” and “bring to their remembrance all that He taught them. (John 14, 16)
LikeLike
@Ken Luke 24:25-27 uses the word suffer. It doesn’t talk about death and resurrection. Don’t put your words onto the lips of Jesus. shame!
LikeLike
“and enter into His glory” and “rise from the dead” in verse 46-47; along with verse 39, proves you are wrong.
LikeLike
@Ken Why does it escape from you that St Paul was not there during Jesus earthly ministry and many years after departure from the earth. So his disciples couldn’t have believed what Paul taught. Jesus’ disciples would have only believed what Jesus had taught them. Get it?
LikeLike
I understand the argument, but it is wrong, since Paul went to Peter, John, and James in Galatians chapters 1-2 and they all agreed with each other about the gospel. See also Acts chapter 15. see also here:
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/did-paul-preach-a-different-gospel-than-peter-james-and-john/
LikeLike
see also here:
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/does-the-teaching-of-jesus-differ-from-the-apostle-paul/
LikeLike
RM,
Excellent point, The original orthodoxy as taught by Jesus, and accepted by the Jewish disciples and the Jerusalem Church, was eventually discarded and the Paulinian Heresy, was eventually accepted as orthodoxy.
That is the cold hard fact.
If one wants to follow Jesus, then follow him………and not Paul.
LikeLike
@Ken:
Mark 1:15: Does this verse deal with believing in Jesus death or resurrection?
Mark 10:45 : Ransom doesn’t mean death and resurrection? At least not in English. And giving life can be for any number of reasons. Tariq Aziz (Iraqi leader and a Christians) famously said he will give life for his country. Does it mean Tariq Aziz is teaching his followers to believe in his death as means of salvation? How silly is your conclusion.
Mark 14:24: Blood can flow without death? Also it can means myriad of things. How do you know Jesus was asking you to believe in his death and resurrection?
All your other quotes are about crucifixion. We are not debating whether crucifixion took place. Assume it did. I am asking where did Jesus teach even obliquely that salvation is by “believing in his death or resurrection” ?
LikeLike
Ken,
If everything was so “kosher” between Paul and the Jewish Disciples, then why did the followers of James want to Kill Paul?
https://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/06/23/did-followers-of-james-try-to-kill-paul/
It is because Paul’s Gospel teachings differed from what Jesus had taught his followers.
LikeLike
those were not followers of James. James agreed with Paul – see Acts 15.
What Acts 21 is about is about seeking to witness to the Jewish people who did not accept Jesus as Messiah and Lord and God in the flesh, and giving them a credible testimony that they were not against the law of Moses for Jews at that time. It is a transition period.
LikeLike
Even Paul Williams wrote this in in combox years ago there at that article. Paul was correct.
“Paul Williams
June 23, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Sami, I have to disagree.
The narrative in Acts 21 tells of Paul just before his arrest in the Temple.
Here are the relevant points:
1) Paul visits James (verse 18), and the brothers “welcomed us warmly”
2) The ‘brothers’ related to Paul the accusations against him: that he teaches all the Jews living amongst the Gentiles to forsake Moses and that he tells them not to circumcise their children. (verse 21)
3) Paul is asked to undergo a rite of purification in the Temple so that all will know there is no truth in these accusations, and that he, Paul, observes and guards the Law.
4) Paul undertook the rite.
5) So James had absolutely no reason to then wish Paul killed, nor would any of James’ followers. Paul did what they asked and allayed their fears.
However if we read a few verses further in Acts 21: 27-28 we read:
When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, who had seen him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd. They seized him, shouting, ‘Fellow-Israelites, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this place…
So according to Luke it was Jews from abroad who stirred up trouble for Paul not the disciples in Jerusalem.
To conclude: nowhere in any first century source does it say that James’ followers tried to kill Paul or even imply this. Now, if you wish you can argue from silence and say James’ followers wanted Paul dead and tried to kill him, but this is pure speculation. You could also equally argue that Peter & John et al wanted Paul dead, after all no text says they didn’t try to kill Paul so it must be a possibility surely? But this is a very weak argument.”
Indeed; that was a very weak argument and terrible article.
LikeLike
Ken,
Exactly, a transition period……..from orthodoxy to heresy.
LikeLike
No; the point was to be a good witness in front of the Jews so that they would understand that what Paul was preaching was not against the law of Moses; even though Jesus clearly taught that Gentiles don’t have to keep the kosher food laws, etc. (Mark 7:19; Acts chapters 10-11)
It was only a transition for the Jewish food laws and the temple sacrifices to be a witness to the unbelieving Jews (I have become all things to all men – I Cor. 9:19-23), until the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. But Hebrews was written before 70 AD (68 AD) and clearly already taught that Christ was the final sacrifice.
Whoever sacrificed in the temple did not yet understand that Christ was the final sacrifice – that is what Hebrews is all about; and Romans 6:10 and 1 Peter 3:18 – “once for all time”. Clear.
LikeLike
@Ken : you write ” Paul went to Peter, John, and James” But you missed my argument. My argument is not what happened after Paul’s vision but before it. Before that incidence what did disciple of Jesus believe? They couldn’t have believed what Paul taught before what he taught?
Paul also killed many xtians according to his own words. Will they go to heaven? But if we take your logic then they will not because they couldn’t have believed what Paul was to preach in future.
LikeLike
Jesus and Peter and John and James all believed the same things as Paul taught in his letters. Mark 14:60-64 shows Jesus taught He was God in the flesh, the eternal Son of God, who would rise from the dead and ascend into heaven and sit at the Father’s right hand.
Kirk is denying that Mark 14:60-64 and Mark 2:7-10 and 2:28 and other passages are teaching that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, God in the flesh, the Deity of Christ.
LikeLike
Acts 15 and 21 are after Paul’s conversion in Acts 9.
The Christians before him believed in Jesus as Son of God and crucified, dead, buried, and rose from the dead.
“repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15) means ALL of the message.
of course they went to heaven, they believed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, crucified, dead, and risen from the dead. “He is not here; He is risen” Mark 16:1-8
LikeLike
@ken wrote “Jesus and Peter and John and James all believed the same things as Paul”
So Jesus believed in what Paul taught? LoL
LikeLike
Yes Jesus taught all of it – Mark 10:45 (cross/ atonement / ransom) and Mark 14:60-64 (Deity of Christ) and belief in that (Luke 24:25-27; Mark 1:15) and repentance (Luke 24:44-47; Mark 1:15) and inspired Paul to write all of it later.
LikeLike
@Ken. I hope I am talking to a learned Pastor. Why do you keep moving goal post. you write “Jesus and Peter and John and James all believed the same things as Paul”? Seriously?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes; they are all unified. All the NT is a unified book from one mind – the mind of God. “God-breathed”
Jesus clearly claimed He was God in Mark 2:7-10 and 2:28 (Lord = kurios = Yahweh) and 14:60-64.
LikeLike
“All the NT is a unified book from one mind – the mind of God.” Actually it is the product of many diverse minds who do not always agree. “God-breathed” a quote from 2 Tim 3:16, only refers to the OT not the New. I have schooled you in this many times Ken.
LikeLike
Wrong; verse 15 means the OT, but verse 16 expands it to “All Scripture”, which Paul included gospels on same level as Torah, in 1 Timothy 5:18. It expands it to all the NT in principle. I have schooled you on this many times, but you refuse to hear; you cannot hear.
43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.” John 8:43
47 He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”
John 8:47
you are unable to hear because you are not of God – you are not a believer.
LikeLike
verse 15-16 CANNOT refer to the NT which was not finally canonized till the 4th century. Duh!
LikeLike
In principle, it includes all of the NT, even those books that were not written yet.
But most of them were already written by 67 AD – and Paul put Luke and Matthew with the Torah in 1 Timothy 5:18. The NT books were individual separate scrolls,but they existed long before the 4th Century. (300s AD) Existence by 96 AD is more important than tying them together and collecting them under one “codex” or “book cover” (later).
LikeLike
“learned” – I have an M. Div. (3 year Masters of Divinity, 1983-1985; 1987-1988, Columbia Biblical Seminary, the seminary of C.I.U., Columbia International University. I studied Greek and Hebrew and can work in them.
But if by “learned” you mean liberal like Kirk, Dale Martin, and Bart Ehrman, etc. – no; they have an agenda and Ehrman and other classic liberals have an anti-supernatural bias. Kirk and Martin think homosexuality is ok.
they are heretics and their “learned-ness” means emptiness.
LikeLike
Br PaulW: You can’t debate with a person who believes Jesus agreed with Paul 🙂 Now how crazy is that! But it tells you something. For most xtians, Jesus’ words, his teachings, his lifestyle, his religion, his God, means nothing. Their real master is St Paul! The only function of Jesus is his name.
As we are seeing in this thread. They have not brought a single (I repeat a single) evidence from lips of Jesus where he taught salvation is through believing in his death or resurrection. If they can’t even answer this simple question, why bother with the question whether or not crucifixion took place?
Similarly , they have not brought a single evidence where Jesus worshiped, bowed or prayed to anyone besides the father. yet they insist or worshiping “the son” and “the holy ghost” any way. Here again why bother with the question whether or nor trinity true, whether or not Jesus claimed to be divine. If Jesus didn’t worshiped those entities there is absolutely no reason to even ask those questions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wrong; I gave you lots of verses from Jesus’ ministry in Mark and Luke. You have to be obtuse and unable to hear the truth.
LikeLike
Luke 24:1-53
Mark 1:1
Mark 1:15
Mark 10:45
Mark 14:60-64
Mark 15
Mark 16:1-8
all of Luke
all of Matthew
proves you wrong.
LikeLike
@Ken. you need to do a better job. None of the verse you quoted say that Jesus on taught or asked his followers believe in his death and resurrection for salvation. None. and please don’t put words in the mouth of Jesus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“O foolish men and slow of heart to believe . . . ” Luke 24:25
In context, after the empty tomb (Luke 24:1-12) and the women’s testimony, etc. Jesus is rebuking them for not believing in His death and resurrection. Resurrection from the dead means that He died.
When He explained His death as a ransom and that His blood is the blood of the new covenant, etc. and when He calls for repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:46-47) – He is clearly saying that it is necessary to believe in Him, His death, and resurrection, for salvation from sin.
LikeLike
@Ken
Please don’t play fast and loose with words of God. Why do u insert your own “words” in those passages? Why Ken why? and why jump from one passage to another? Lets read it together.
Luke 24:25
25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
Amen. No issues here that believing in teachings of prophets ( all of them) is very important. I have no problem to accept that prophet of OT taught about a suffering messiah. But where does it say you have to believe in Messiah’s “death and resurrection” to be saved? Why insert your words into lips of Jesus.
Luke 24:46-47
46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Where do see Jesus is asking you to believe in his death and resurrection as means of salvation. Plenty of prophet in OT have suffered and were killed. But believing in their death is not the vehicle of salvation? is it? So be consistent. Why insert those words when it comes to Jesus and not for others? I will grant for now that Messiah was killed and raised up again on third day. But how does that translate into salvation by believing in his ’ “death and resurrection”?
LikeLike
When Jesus said, “Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” – He is including the things that happened between His suffering and His entering into His glory (ascending to heaven and seating at the right hand of the Father. ) see John 17:5
So, Jesus is including His death and resurrection as the things which must be believed, in order to be saved.
To be saved is another way of saying, “for the forgiveness of sins”, which He says in verses 46-47.
Your demands for exact words are wooden and brittle and you fail to understand the meaning of the whole passage.
Also, Luke is the same author of Acts – look at Acts 13:38-39
38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39 and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.
LikeLike
@Ken you wrote “When Jesus said, “Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” – He is including the things that happened between His suffering and His entering into His glory (ascending to heaven and seating at the right hand of the Father.) see John 17:5”
Will you stop putting your words into mouth of Jesus? Suffering doesn’t equal death in any language. And entering glory doesn’t mean death either.
Ken wrote: “So, Jesus is including His death and resurrection as the things which must be believed, in order to be saved.”
Nope these are your words, not the words of Jesus
Ken wrote “To be saved is another way of saying, “for the forgiveness of sins”, which He says in verses 46-47.”
How does that mean you must believe in death and resurrection of Christ?
Ken Wrote: “Your demands for exact words are wooden and brittle and you fail to understand the meaning of the whole passage.
Also, Luke is the same author of Acts – look at Acts 13:38-39”
Could it be that it is you who is “failing to understand”
Ken wrote “ 38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39 and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.”
This passage also doesn’t ask you to believe in “death and resurrection of Christ”? Does it?
You see Ken, what does this exercise tell you? That you faith is not based on teaching of Jesus. Once you accept this premise then all the door for truth will open to you.
May be it is this time for you
http://biblehub.com/john/8-32.htm
LikeLike
It does include Jesus’ death and resurrection, because they take place between “suffering” and “entering into His glory” (v. 25-26) and Jesus rebukes them for not believing. Come on – the whole context is about His death (Luke assumes you have read chapter 23 and the rest of chapter 24 – 24:1-12 – the empty tomb, the woman’s testimony, verse 39 – “touch Me and see that a ghost does not have flesh and bones that you see I have”, and He eats some fish, etc. “to suffer” is a short form for all the events of the cross and His death. Later in verses 46-47, when He says that the Messiah was to be raised from the dead on the 3rd day, and this was written, it certainly is talking about His death. “Repentance for the forgiveness of sins” is the response to His death and resurrection and salvation from sin is the same idea as forgiveness of sins. True repentance always includes trust (belief) in Christ, and true faith / trust always includes repentance. The Son of Man came to seek and save that which was lost” – a key verse for the whole book of Luke. The book stands as a whole, and the same author teaches the same truth about Jesus and the cross and the resurrection and faith/ repentance and salvation in the book of Acts. Acts 13:38-39 does teach that because you have to read verses 28 to 37 and it is all about His death and resurrection. Faith in Christ includes His work of redemption on the cross and His resurrection from the dead.
LikeLike
Daniel Kirk is a heretic, and Fuller had to let him go. they should have fired him outright some time before this, but eventually, they did let him go. see the link below. both on the homosexuality issue and his denial of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.
He not only has rejected the Deity of Christ and the Trinity, but he thinks homosexuality is not a sin and that “same sex marriage” is good.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/09/fuller-seminary-takes-a-stand
LikeLike
So, Muslims promoting this man is very ironic, given his views on homosexuality and same sex marriage.
It seems to be a occurring pattern for liberal scholars to start denying that homosexuality is sin, and deny the synoptics teach the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.
Liberal scholarship is one of the roots of the death of true faith and true ethics and morality in western society.
LikeLike
He has publicly affirmed the trinity Ken. And who made you pope?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity is very similar to Dale Martin’s of Yale University, also a homosexual. They say they believe the doctrine; but their other materials and writing contradict that; and undermine the truth of the doctrine. If the doctrine is true, it was always true.
LikeLike
They both affirm the doctrine of the trinity so you are wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No; they are sneaky and contradict themselves, trying to “have their cake and eat it too” – it is obvious that they really don’t believe the Bible nor in the doctrines of the Deity of Christ nor in the doctrine of the Trinity.
LikeLike
Proof Ken – where is your proof that he has denied the trinity specially as in the video he affirms its truth! You are very confused.
LikeLike
Again, he seems to want to play games with words. He implies that all humans can also be exalted and rise from the dead and ascend to God the Father’s right hand and rule over creation. “idealized Humanity”, etc. – The church already teaches the full humanity of Jesus and the full Deity of Jesus, as does Mark, Luke, Matthew And John and all of Paul’s writings.
We don’t need his scholarship to somehow recover the full humanity of Jesus. We have already believed that for centuries.
LikeLike
Oh dear. Such ignorance.
LikeLike
Just as I don’t buy politicians double speak; I don’t buy liberal scholarship’s double speak. It is deception clothed in intellectual sounding scholarship.
LikeLike
Is affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity is very similar to Dale Martin’s of Yale University, also a homosexual.
Should have been:
His affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity is very similar to Dale Martin’s of Yale University, also a homosexual.
LikeLike
Promoting this man? Another creative Temple blooper
LikeLiked by 1 person
No such thing as “Pope” in the Bible nor in the early centuries of Christianity. the whole RC Papal thing is a massive aberration and corruption of NT and early Christianity.
Where and how does he affirm the Trinity? He clearly denies that Matthew, Mark, and Luke taught the Deity of Christ, which is a key doctrine of the Trinity.
LikeLike
You forgot to mention the God breathed part. Don’t get sloppy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“That’s nonsense. The earliest Jerusalem church after pentecost did not believe Christ to be the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Proof is in Acts 21.” Burhanuddin1
“Where do we find that the early church relied upon a couple of the synaptic gospels, to the exclusion of oral information and the Gnostic gospel, to form their opinions about Christ?”
The answer? No where.
“Quite the contrary, right from the earliest days following Pentecost the young church is ablaze, travelling to the ends of the earth to inform every living creature about Him resurrected from the grave, and salvation through believing in Him.”
Attempting to deny this, Burhanuddin1 claims Acts 21. Citing Acts 21 does not prove the young church denied Christ’s sacrifice.
LikeLike
Of course it does. The disciples of Jesus continued to bring sin offerings in Temple after pentecost. Proof is in Acts 21. Nazarite vow includes sin offering.
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1
October 5, 2016 • 4:41 pm
Of course it does. The disciples of Jesus continued to bring sin offerings in Temple after pentecost. Proof is in Acts 21. Nazarite vow includes sin offering.
Not all His disciples
LikeLike
There is no evidence that Jesus taught salvation through “belief in death and resurrection” and plenty of evidence that salvation is by having faith in god and doing good deeds.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly
LikeLike
RationalMuslim
I followed your simple truthful questions to Christians and they failed to answer but continue to follow Paul of Tarsus and reject the God of Jesus.
If is pain to see people are running from the clear truth of Jesus and preferred Paul of Tarsus who killed Christians and the Christians he killed or bounty haunted never believed what he preached i.e. Jesus died for their sins.
This is the Christians the Quran is talking about as some of the Jews believed in Jesus because they believed God is One and worshiped the Father alone and did not believed Jesus death will save them. That death by Jesusès death was later addition by Paul.
Thanks.
LikeLike
@ irrationalmuslim
who said : “There is no evidence that Jesus taught salvation through “belief in death and resurrection” and plenty of evidence that salvation is by having faith in god and doing good deeds.”
John 20 v 26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Acts 4 v 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, 9 If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; 10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
LikeLike
Jesus speaking of the Holy Spirit:
John 16 v 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
LikeLike
Hi Tulip
I was thinking about that scripture and the many conversations I have had with Muslims on this blog and on the streets.
Joh 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
My question to them is according to the Islamic theology who is Jesus talking about.
Is the Angel Gabriel or prophet Muhammad? Because I have been told different things but in Christianity the Holy Spirit is neither of them.
LikeLike
Ignoring the insults. I am not sure our Christians commentators are following what I am asking. I am not discussing whether Jesus died on cross or otherwise. Lets assume that crucifixion is true and rising from the dead is also true.
My argument is so what? Did Jesus ever ask you to believe in his death or resurrection for your salvation? I mean you can find plenty of examples of Prophets being tortured, abused, harmed or even killed. There are cases in bible where people rose from dead. but so what. If believing in ” death or resurrection of Jesus” is the vehicle for your salvation why believing in death and suffering and even raising from dead of others is not vehicle of your salvation. why play fast and loose with events in bible? Why insert your own meaning to events in Bible by your own liking?
And how bout these events. You can add dozens more those this list
Jesus cursed a fig tree
Jesus rode donkey into Jerusalem
Jesus drove daemons out
Jesus turned water into wine
Can you say that believing in any of these events is vehicle for your salvation? if not then why not? After all crucifixion is just another event in life of Jesus. Nothing more.
Before you bring in St Paul, please realize that he started preaching many years after departure of Jesus and his formula of salvation was not known either to Jesus or to his disciples. So what will happen to Jesus (he was a man too according to your belief) and his followers who died or were even killed by St Paul (by his own admission)?
So if you want to post a response, please respond to what is being asked.
LikeLike
Rational Muslim
“My argument is so what?”
So the quran is wrong.
LikeLike
@Tulip: We are not discussing “authenticity” of crucifixion. That is a separate discussion. Can you focus on the question that is being asked.
LikeLike
Sorry it should have been @trey
LikeLike
RationalMuslim
“We are not discussing “authenticity” of crucifixion. That is a separate discussion. Can you focus on the question that is being asked.”
Your argument makes no sense – if jesus dies and was resurrected, then it warrants more than a “so what.”
The biblical passages that you need to read are these….
“The reason the Father loves Me is that I lay down My life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from My Father.””
“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”
There you go, clear as day. Jesus says he gives his life for many and he has the power to take it up again (resurrection). I think you guys need to stop trying to learn christian belief from muslim apologists – they won’t tell you the truth.
And if jesus was crucified and resurrected the quran is wrong.
LikeLike
@trey: Does you post answer the question? In those passages , is Jesus asking you to believe in his death and resurrection to be saved? At best you can make argument (I will grant that for now, not that it definitively is the case) that Jesus is talking about his coming Crucifixion, but where is the evidence that salvation is by believing in crucifixion?
LikeLike
RationalMuslim
“Does you post answer the question? In those passages , is Jesus asking you to believe in his death and resurrection to be saved? At best you can make argument (I will grant that for now, not that it definitively is the case) that Jesus is talking about his coming Crucifixion, but where is the evidence that salvation is by believing in crucifixion?”
The part where he talks about his life as a ransom for many. Your eyes are veiled – it would be pretty clear if they were not.
LikeLike
Significantly, Mark 10:45 is deleted by Luke in the writing of his gospel.
LikeLike
Ransom doesn’t mean death in any language 🙂 Nor does it mean salvation. Not does it mean salvation is “believing in that Ransom”.
For example suppose the allegation of many in GOP that Obama administration paid ransom to free its citizens from Iran is true. Does it mean “believing in ransom lead the captives to be freed? or does it mean in the ability of US government to pay the ransom to free the captives.
So if you are not blinded by centuries of programming, it will simply mean in the ability of Jesus to be willing to be ransom for many (“not all”, as evangelicals insist) not that one has to “believe” in that ransom” . Got it .
LikeLike
Paul Williams
“Significantly, Mark 10:45 is deleted by Luke in the writing of his gospel.”
Moving the goalposts. Again.
RationalMuslim
“Ransom doesn’t mean death in any language🙂 Nor does it mean salvation. Not does it mean salvation is “believing in that Ransom”.
For example suppose the allegation of many in GOP that Obama administration paid ransom to free its citizens from Iran is true. Does it mean “believing in ransom lead the captives to be freed? or does it mean in the ability of US government to pay the ransom to free the captives.
So if you are not blinded by centuries of programming, it will simply mean in the ability of Jesus to be willing to be ransom for many (“not all”, as evangelicals insist) not that one has to “believe” in that ransom” . Got it .”
Sorry RM, but that is just plain dumb.
YOu’re not making any sense at all. I never said ransom means death but it does mean salvation in this context.
Even Paul sees this – that is why he tried to change the subject and move the goalposts.
LikeLike
So tell me Trey:
why did Luke delete Mark 10:45 in the writing of his gospel?
LikeLike
Hey Paul
Do we come on the blog accusing the companions of the prophet Muhammad of lying and fraud? No we don’t but you seem to think it’s ok to slander the men who walked with or knew the men that walked with Jesus.
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Mar 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
You accuse Luke of deleting text.
So I suppose Mark copied from the Apostle Paul because he said this in his letter to Timothy before ( as some believe) the gospel of Mark was written.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
And then again you might accuse Paul of not preaching what Jesus said in the gospels.
Yet it was Jesus speaking in Matthew and Mark about giving his life as a ransom not Paul so if Paul never met Jesus where did he get this from?
Anyway to the deletion of a verse in Luke where is your evidence for that?
Maybe you should share your evidence instead of trying to bully Trey into answering you.
LikeLike
lol poor Trey, a looney who is mostly a troll feels bullied? Great!
Anyway Luke used Mark to write his gospel, and he corrected it as he saw fit. He eliminated Mark 10:45 presumably because he disagreed with it. The verse is not in Luke.
LikeLike
Hi Paul
I can see you haven’t answered me in regards to Luke deleting a part of Mark 10:45 where is your evidence for that?
You all claim Paul started his own brand of Christianity and didn’t teach what Jesus taught in the gospels, yet Paul is quoting what Jesus said in Matthew and Mark.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
antilutron
Thayer Definition:
1) what is given in exchange for another as the price of his redemption, ransom
antilutron
an-til’-oo-tron
From G473 and G3083; a redemption price: – ransom.
You are so far removed from the event and yet you feel safe slandering a man of God, where is your proof of him leaving out a verse which is quite different from deleting something.
LikeLike
The proof is that Luke intentionally choose not to include it in his gospel. The reason? He had a different soteriology from Mark.
LikeLike
Trey,
Anytime someone contradicts, your comments you accuse them of “moving the goalposts.” Just a question……..ever talked to any Christian apologists? LOL.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ibn Issam
“Anytime someone contradicts, your comments you accuse them of “moving the goalposts.” Just a question……..ever talked to any Christian apologists? LOL.”
Not true at all.
I do call out these logical fallacies a lot, but only because the muslims on this blog use logical fallacies a lot.
LikeLike
Trey,
“logical fallacies” ??
I can say the same for Christian’s on this blog engaging in logical fallacies….were you paying attention to the conversation about Trinity? Is God Human? Incarnation? shall I go on?
Seems entire Christian faith is built upon Logical Fallacies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ibn Issam
““logical fallacies” ??
I can say the same for Christian’s on this blog engaging in logical fallacies…”
Tu quoque.
LikeLike
still waiting for an answer Trey…
LikeLike
Paul Williams
“So tell me Trey:
why did Luke delete Mark 10:45 in the writing of his gospel?”
Where is your evidence that he “deleted” it?
But do you really want to play this nonsense game of yours?
This is what will happen – you will talk yourself into a corner, and embarrass yourself, then you will accuse me of being an islamophobe and then spend the rest of the night deleting comments that show your irrational approach.
LikeLike
“Burhanuddin1
October 5, 2016 • 4:41 pm
Of course it does. The disciples of Jesus continued to bring sin offerings in Temple after pentecost. Proof is in Acts 21. Nazarite vow includes sin offering.”
The Nazarite vow was a voluntary vow for the purpose of consecration. It was not compulsory after a person had realized his sin. This is a different context.
It was for Jews only. Not for Gentiles. The Gentiles entered straight in to the full blessings of salvation through Christ. The sin offering associated with the vow should be seen in its context.
LikeLike
https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/10/06/is-jesus-the-sacrifice-to-end-all-sacrifices-the-bible-says-no/
LikeLike
@Trey “Sorry RM, but that is just plain dumb.
YOu’re not making any sense at all. I never said ransom means death but it does mean salvation in this context.”
Nope. No putting your words in the mouth of Jesus. Neither Jesus nor his disciples ever believed or understood “ransom” meaning salvation. You have no evidence for your claims. If this is your best argument then may God help you to be guided. Do you see how the “lynch pin” of your faith is actually a fantasy. Jesus never ever taught you to believe in his “death and resurrection” for salvation . Your theologians have woven this out from teaching of St Paul. If it was from Jesus , you have evidence from his lips. But you have none.
LikeLike
Rm
“Neither Jesus nor his disciples ever believed or understood “ransom” meaning salvation. ”
BS. You’re making things up, you have no evidence for your claims.
You have really tried to be too clever but have painted yourself into a corner. What exactly are you arguing? Do you even know? If the resurrection is true, then we are obliged to believe it. So your bizarre hair-splitting is a total red-herring and nowhere near as rational or smart as you would like us to believe. Do you have to believe in the resurrection if it is true? Well, yes, you wouldn’t be rational if you did not believe something that was true.
The text is as clear as any text can possibly be – jesus paid a ransom for many. It means he saved many. Or paid the price for them. How much more clear does it have to be? Should I capitalize it? Get it? It really is straight-forward.
LikeLike
@trey: If I claim Jesus is Krishna’s 2nd incarnation, the burden is on me to prove it.
Same way you are claiming that “ransom” means salvation then it is upon you to prove it not me.
LikeLike
RM
LOL.
There’s nothing to prove – the very clear and very simple text says it all.
Ransom…..paid……many….saved! Simple. It’s not as hard as you are making it.
LikeLike
@trey: It is clear to those who already have been programmed to believe. but not for those who are willing look at these ideas objectively.
You have miserably failed to bring any evidence. Just claiming that it is clear doesn’t make it. I will leave to readers to decide for themselves. In Bible this word has been used in several places., Are you willing to give this meaning those places to? After all what is your evidence if not the bible itself?
LikeLike
RM
“It is clear to those who already have been programmed to believe. but not for those who are willing look at these ideas objectively.
You have miserably failed to bring any evidence. Just claiming that it is clear doesn’t make it. I will leave to readers to decide for themselves. In Bible this word has been used in several places., Are you willing to give this meaning those places to? After all what is your evidence if not the bible itself?”
Your argument boils down to the claim that because the word “ransom” is used in several places in the bible that this proves jesus was not talking about salvation when he clearly says he will give up his life as a ransom for many?
This is such a bad argument it can’t even be called stupid.
LikeLike
@Trey Your logic is ” I will insert a meaning that I already believe” in place of “ransom” no matter what. Ransom doesn’t mean salvation either in dictionary, nor in any other verse of Bible where this word has been used. Yet to you it means whatever you want it to mean. Well if you use this logic then you also need to grant me and everyone else whatever meaning they want to assign to any word in Bible? Ready?
Now the silliness of this proposal will be clear even to the most stubborn. After all if a person wants to insist that God means Dog what will you call him?
LikeLike
RM
“@Trey Your logic is ” I will insert a meaning that I already believe” in place of “ransom” no matter what. Ransom doesn’t mean salvation either in dictionary, nor in any other verse of Bible where this word has been used. Yet to you it means whatever you want it to mean. Well if you use this logic then you also need to grant me and everyone else whatever meaning they want to assign to any word in Bible? Ready?”
This is unbelievable. Can any one person have this much intellectual density? You are a miracle of the islamic dumb-down.
I’m not arguing that the word “ransom” means “salvation” – I’m saying that the sentence “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” means that jesus is giving his life to save many. This is another way of saying “salvation”.
I’m starting to wonder if you are a troll who is trying to make muslims look bad. If you are, you’re awesome.
LikeLike
@Trey: In this thread alone you wrote “YOu’re not making any sense at all. I never said ransom means death but it does mean salvation in this context.”
and now then you write this
“I’m not arguing that the word “ransom” means “salvation”
So which is it Trey? Can you make up your mind?
LikeLike
RM
“Trey: In this thread alone you wrote “YOu’re not making any sense at all. I never said ransom means death but it does mean salvation in this context.”
and now then you write this
“I’m not arguing that the word “ransom” means “salvation”
So which is it Trey? Can you make up your mind?”
Yes, try to think.
The sentence gives the word “ransom” its context – so, again, slowly, in this context serving as a “ransom” is describing the means of salvation.
LikeLike
Mclatchie and Susic have brilliantly parodied the muslim technique employed by irrational muslim (is that you Mansoor?)
They want to exlude the words of Paul and anything else except the words of Jesus.
Mclatchie and Susic say that they can prove atheism is correct from the shahada as it contains the words “there is no God…”
Priceless!
LikeLike
Priceless indeed!
BTW what religion did Jesus and his disciples believe and follow before Paul stopped killing them ( the disciples/followers of Jesus? And what is fate of those people who were killed by Paul. Off course they couldn’t have believed what Paul preached as Paul had not started preaching yet.
One guy on this blog said Jesus agreed with Paul. I hope you don’t believe in this priceless wisdom!
LikeLike
RM
Jesus and his disciples believed that he was the incarnate word of god and that he had come to serve as the ransom payment for our salvation. Paul believed this too.
LikeLike
That means you have to go back to Jesus to know what he preached? Right? So now bring evidence from Jesus where he said salvation is by believing in his death and resurrection?
LikeLike
RationalMuslim
“That means you have to go back to Jesus to know what he preached? Right? So now bring evidence from Jesus where he said salvation is by believing in his death and resurrection?”
Mark 10:45
LikeLike
Yeah I do. When Jesus told Annanius to go lay hands on Saul of Tarsus, Annanius was reluctant. Jesus said “that man is my chosen vessel”
Get it Paul speaks for Jesus. So your false dichotomy is nonsense.
LikeLike
Annanius saw lord in vision. You can open TBN/CBN and you can see innumerable cases of people claiming to see lord in vision and asking them to do multitude of things. They are not command of historical Jesus , rather of dreams. We are not discussing Jesus of dreams ( of past or present) and that why Paul is irrelevant to our discussion of historical Jesus and what he preached. He didn’t meet Jesus, never learned from him. His claims are based on his “vision”.
Else if you are logical then you also need to include accounts of all those people who have claimed to see “lord”. But these are matters of faith.
Likewise claims of Muhammed about Jesus is matter of faith. Muslims don’t claim that Mohammed learned about Jesus from history.
So likewise manner you shouldn’t claim teaching of Paul as teaching of Jesus. You can claim that what Paul preached is in line with Jesus’s teaching , but it is a matter of your belief. However it will be false to claim that Paul;s account is account of historical Jesus. How can he when he never met Jesus?????
Your insistence that Paul speaks for Jesus is mater of faith like Mormons claim about Jesus or Ahmadiyya claims about Muahmmed. etc
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually Paul did meet Jesus on the road to Damascus and the disciples accepted that. And they accepted Paul’s words were scripture. His words were God’s words.
More double standards. Earliest hadiths written 200 years after muhummad died by someone who never met him.
So i wouldnt be pressing that argument. If i were you Mansoor.
LikeLike
“Actually Paul did meet Jesus on the road to Damascus”
LOL
BTW how is this claim any different than reports of people on regular basis of their seeing Jesus, Mary and other beings in dreams?
LikeLike
Umm, did you miss the bit about Saul being with other people at the time. And the disciples believed him.
LikeLike
other who saw dreams also have “evidence” that they met disciples of Jesus in dreams and also have alibis? as for paul, getting approval of disciples is long story. in short it is case paul being judge jury and executioner. most of the material we have about paul is from him/his disciples. but that is not relevant . lets talk jesus.
LikeLike
Hey lets talk about muhummad flying on the burak. Did anyone see that? My understanding is he was lying next to Aisha when he said it happened.
LikeLike
Achilies
October 7, 2016 • 3:32 am
Hey lets talk about muhummad flying on the burak. Did anyone see that? My understanding is he was lying next to Aisha when he said it happened.
I say;
What you forgot is that Mohammed is the same person who Muslims are talking about. Not Abubakar or any unknown person who persecuted Muslims flying on the burak. Did you get the difference?
Apart from Mohammed himself who is the prophet, no Muslim will believe anyone or I as a Muslim will not believe anyone who said he has seen God or any prophet telling him my salvation and change it to Mohammed or God dying as my salvation even though Mohammed did not say that.
ANYTHING MUST COME FROM GOD OR THE MOUTH OF MOHAMMED, JESUS, ABRAHAM, JACOB, MOSES etc. and all prophet of God not from someone who claims he has seen them. Paul was not prophet and Jesus did not say Paul was prophet but he Paul himself claimed he say Jesus in version and wrote things that contradict Paul.
So lets talk Jesus not Paul.
No disciples of Mohammed has ever said he has seen Mohammed or God in a vision and was instructed to change the religion of Islam. Such a person will not be tolerated by good Muslims who are alert. But Paul of Tarsus easily persuaded some Christians and many of them to believe what he said that contradicts Jesus. So put Paul aside and lets talk about Jesus and it is Jesus that we know who is the central figure of Christianity and everything to be honest must come from his mouth.
Muslims have hadith and everything must come from the mouth of Mohammed and he said he rode burak and we believe him because he is the same person not someone else. We will not accept anything from anyone except Mohammed so it will be unwise for us to accept something from Paul of Tarsus instead of Jesus Christ himself.
Jesus never said his death is the salvation to man. If Abubakar, Ali, Othman or Abu Lahab who troubled Muslims tells us that he rode Burak we will be wise not to believe any of them because they not the one we believe. You get the difference?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Achilies
Steve Jobs is a co-founder of Apple Computers. He is dead now and he has said so many things before he died.
His company is still using some of his innovations. You cannot all of a sudden go to Apple and say you had a vision of Steve Jobs telling you their iPhone 7 must be named Achilies 7. They will either call a psychiatrist or call a police on you.
But if there is a saying by Steve Jobs himself to change the name of future iphones to Achilies 7 then it will be easy for his followers to believe he said that.
So, it is easy for Muslims believe what Mohammed said and did and it will be easy for Christians to believe what Jesus said and did and it will be easy for the Jews to believe what Moses said and did etc. than someone like Paul of Tarsus who came out of the blue to claim he saw Jesus and changed Christianity.
Achilies, you believed Paul and we do not believe Paul so put him aside and lets talk Jesus. It is the same thing when Christians try to “force” us to believe God-Man which is an impossibility.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Achilies
Give me an example where Muslims believed is someone’s vision, dreams, sayings etc. about Islam which is not from Mohammed himself or from Hadith.
If Mohammed says he rode Burak, that is our prophet and we believed him. It is unwise to compare that to Paul of Tarsus rather than Jesus.
If Jesus said he saw a vision of God or whatever vision of himself blah, blah blah and it is true and the gospel writers did not change it, then Muslims will believe him Jesus not Paul of Tarsus who is not Jesus. You get it? It is about Jesus not Paul of Tarsus.
Why will you throw what Jesus said and take the vision of someone else? It is unwise to do that and do not drag us to that and start comparing Paul of Tarsus to Mohammed. We do not believe in Paul of Tarsus but Jesus so tell us where Jesus said his death will save men when Paul of Tarsus killed and bounty hunted Christians who did not believed what he Paul of Tarsus later brought into Christianity.
Those Christians that Paul of Tarsus killed or bounty hunted never believed Jesus dead for their sins because Jesus never said that.
No Muslim will believe any vision from Abu Lahab. No Apple employee will believe any vision from Microsoft employee telling them to change their operating system. It will be wise not to believe a vision that did not come from a founder of an entity.
Believing in the dreams, vision, saying etc. or anything from a founder is not comparable to someone else who is not the same person.
If you believe someone then you can believe in his dreams, sayings, visions etc. but it will be unwise to believe in a claim of vision that is not from he himself about himself. The other person could be a liar, imposter and a wicked person who will change things up to his whims and caprice.
Thanks.
LikeLike
@Intellect: good analogy
@Achilles: we are not discussing “truth” claims of jesus or paul or muhammed. that is a matter of faith.
rather we are discussing whether what you say jesus said , can be historically established or not. so don’t change the subject.
LikeLike
Interesting the old testament points to Jesus. Jesus called Paul his chisen vessel. The disciples accepted Paul as an apostle ie he had seen Jesus. Peter called Paul’s writings scripture.
Conclusion Paul is a true prophet.
Muhummad is fake prophet for many reasons. Some basic ones are that Muhummad was not a Jew. Salvation is from the Jews according to Jesus. And Paul said if anyone comes preaching a different gospel to him even an angel from heaven let him be accused.
Some people wonder if that is a prophesy about Muhammad with satan in the cave telling Muhammad to recite.
LikeLike
“Peter called Paul’s writings scripture.”
Perhaps you are not aware that virtually all New Testament scholars consider 2 Peter to be a forgery – ie Peter did not author the letter attributed, falsely, to him.
LikeLike
Achilies,
As Muslims, we don’t have to assert that salvation is from any man, tribe, or ethnic group………Salvation is from Almighty God Allah (swt), and from him alone. period. THAT is what Jesus (as) taught and THAT is what Muhammad (as) taught, and I can’t imagine Satan inspiring either of them to teach that!!
But, you got me thinking, that on the other hand……….I can see how Satan might inspire someone (like Saul of Tarsus) who is teaching a false Gospel of freedom from the Law, faith based redemption, and salvation by the cross, all in opposition to the true teachings of Jesus, to tell others “if anyone comes preaching a different gospel to him even an angel from heaven let him be accused.”
Food for thought.
LikeLike
How could I not be aware of the allegation when you bring it up all the time.
LikeLike
Achillies,
You are right about one thing….Satan has a great interest in keeping people on the false path. You may want to compare the teachings of Saul of Tarsus more closely with the teachings of Jesus (as). They are opposite in almost every way.
LikeLike
Complete bollocks. They agree on everything. Ken in another thread went through the issues one by one and line by line to show how they are in complete agreement.
LikeLike
Achilies,
No need for the language, is that how good Christians behave?
Re: your Ken, I believe he was thoroughly refuted by the Muslim commentators.
LikeLike
Hi Ibn issam
Paul was not teaching any false gospel just think about the days of Abraham how did he build his relationship with God.
Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
What Paul preaching was biblical
LikeLike
Bollocks is language? Not where I come from. Its slang for rubbish.
Arent you caught in a catch-22. You tell christians to listen to the words of Jesus. Okay. Lets do that.
“Salvation is from the Jews.” That rules out Muhammad as a prophet.
“That man is my chosen vessel.” Paul speaks for Jesus.
“I being lifted up will draw all men to myself”. Jesus foreshadows his crucifixion and salvation by belief in his crucifixion. A priori islam is false.
“You must eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man” Quite possibly his most provocative statement. Foreshadowing communion. To be saved you must believe in his sacrifice. A priori islam is false.
“Watchout for false christs, false prophets and false teachers who outwardly look like lambs but inwardly are ravenous wolves” Many christians regard this as a clear prophesy regarding Muhammad.
LikeLike
Achilies
Back to topic. Jesus never said his death is the salvation to anyone. The Christians that Paul killed and bounty hunted never believed that Jesus death is their salvation because Paul of Tarsus killed and bounty hunted the Christians before later saying he saw Jesus in vision and Jesus told him blah, blah sue.
The Christians that died and those that Paul of Tarsus killed are the followers of Jesus Christ that the Quran is referring to as the Jews who followed Jesus.
If you will follow someone’s vision i.e. Paul of Tarsus as your salvation and throw what Jesus said and never said in the garbage, then you will face the consequences when Jesus will one they tell you to go and follow Paul of Tarsus.
I am a Muslim, I will not follow any ones dream or vision for my salvation except Jesus own dream, sayings, vision just like Mohammed, Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Solomon etc.
All prophets including Jesus were sent by the Father alone. Paul of Tarsus was never sent by the Father and saw Jesus in vision and he wrote the story and said there are witness. Prophets of God like Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Solomon etc. had their encounter with their creator without any witnesses and by the way the speak, it is easy to realize the truth.
Paul of Tarsus knows he is telling lies so he has to say he had witness even though he wrote his stories. When Moses left his people to see and encounter with his God he had no witness but he alone and his God but the way he spoke made him one of the great prophets of all times. He did not come to say just like Paul of Tarsus said he had any witness.
God’s message to his prophets does not require witness. Paul of Tarsus was not sent by the Father, and he is the only one and so he is not a prophet.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Muhammad was not a Jew. That alone means he is a false prophet. We could invent a drinking game. Have a drink every time you read the koran and you see something he got wrong.
LikeLike
Where is it written that a prophet must be a Jew??
LikeLike
Salvation is from the Jews. Jesus said that to the samaitan woman.
LikeLike
Achilies
Abraham is not a Jew, Adam is not a Jew, Noah is not a Jew, etc. Adam is not a Jew and Adam is a prophet. Achilies, Jews as a race started later and there were prophets before Jews as a race started. So you are confined to your Trinitarian concept defined not by Jews but councils upon councils of gentiles and you do not have salvation according to yourself not me.
Jews were not the first race and there are other race before Jews with their prophets who were not Jews and so to claim it is only Jews that can be prophet is unwise thing to do.
Salvation is from God not Jews. Achilies any sensible Jew will tell that salvation is from God not from Jews.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Intellect, you are disagreeing with Isa and the injeel
What makes you think you are above God and his prophet?
LikeLike
*Mark 8:31*
“He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, *and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.”*
LikeLike
An excellent refutation of Daniel Kirk’s thesis.
https://secundumscripturas.com/2016/10/05/tissowhite-reflections-on-daniel-kirks-broadside/
Nathanel’s comment in the com box also excellent:
“So, non-white people who train at elite western institutions and employ the historical-critical methods developed by 19th century Germans and critical theories put forward by 20th century French and German philosophers bring needed diversity but theological interpretation that uses 1600 year old creeds written by Middle Easterners and North Africans and accepted by nearly all Christians throughout the world as a guide is tainted by whiteness. Check.”
LikeLike
Jesus never said his death is the salvation to anyone.
Yes He did – Mark 10:45 – “ransom” = buying back, saving, from sin and slavery to sin.
also Mark 14:24;
Matthew 26:28 – “this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
forgiveness of sins = salvation
Luke 24:46-47 also
Boom!
LikeLike
Hi Intellect
You said this…
Abraham is not a Jew, Adam is not a Jew, Noah is not a Jew, etc. Adam is not a Jew and Adam is a prophet. Achilies, Jews as a race started later and there were prophets before Jews as a race started. So you are confined to your Trinitarian concept defined not by Jews but councils upon councils of gentiles and you do not have salvation according to yourself not me
What does the above have to do with what Jesus said?
Furthermore where does the bible say that Adam was a prophet? To who his wife and children?
And for paul can you help me understand this scripture.
And We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We established the prophethood and the Scripture among his seed. (Pickthall)
And We granted him Ishaq and Yaqoub, and caused the prophethood and the book to remain in his seed. (Shakir)
And We bestowed Ishaq and Yaqub to him, and kept the Prophethood and the Book among his descendants. (Faridul Haque)
The prophet did he come through the line of Issac and Jacob?
In whose seed according to,the Koran shall it remain?
LikeLike
Hi guys
Sorry I left out the text Sura 29:27 and also…
Sura 45:16: And verily We gave the Children of Israel the Scripture and the Command and the Prophethood, and provided them with good things and favoured them above all peoples.
Does it say anything about corruption and fraud etc?
LikeLike