Filmed yesterday at Speakers’ Corner, Hyde Park, London.
‹ LOL
Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity, God, Hadith, Islam, London, Quran, Speakers Corner
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Blogging Theology 
You crack me up Paul. You always say “I’m not a scholar” and then proceed to give an answer on something you are not qualified to give an answer on lol
LOL
Its like your saying “I’m not qualified to give an answer but thats not going to stop me”
LikeLike
I made it clear I was giving my opinions. There is no law against that.
LikeLike
Yes Paul I am quite aware that you are more than willing to share your un scholarly, un qualified opinion.
After listening to you do so it is quite obvious that either you really do not know what you are talking about, or you do and just really don’t care.
LikeLike
so far all you have done is attack me personally on my blog about answers I gave to some questions. Big on insults not an atom of content concerning what I actually said. Are you seriously saying that I should keep quiet about my views? Should I shut down this blog perhaps?
LikeLike
i can hear beth grove in the background .
LikeLiked by 1 person
ah yes, her sweet, gentle and loving voice. So many Muslims convert to Christianity through her ministry.
NOT.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Inshallah, Many Christians will revert to Islam through her ministry!!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Interesting opinions.
Why doesn’t allah mention any of this in the quran?
LikeLike
Back to the topic of this post: do you agree with my analysis of where Christianity went wrong?
LikeLike
I think your “analysis” – you actually just admitted they are mere opinions – makes no sense since you haven’t established what christianity is wring in comparison to. You can’t argue that islam is the correct outcome of jesus’ ministry since the quran makes no such corrections of christian belief.
The quran – and therefore allah – don’t actually correct the wrongness of christianity.
SO my comment is perfectly on topic.
LikeLike
So let’s get back to the substance of the video:
who in your view wrote the gospel of Matthew?
Do you agree with Jesus in mark 12 that God is one not three?
Do yo agree with Peter in Acts that Jesus was “a man attested to by God”? whom God made Messiah and lord?
Btw King be on notice: any off topic remarks will de deleted. Trolls have a short life expectancy on this blog.
Capiche?
LikeLike
Explain your point about mark 12, and christians have always said jesus was a man.
LikeLike
go listen more carefully to my comments about the passage.
You belive Jesus was Yahweh. Unlike Peter in Acts 2:22
LikeLike
Regarding mark 12.
God is one, what’s your point?
LikeLike
don’t be thick.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul,
I absolutely agree with your summarized analysis. I might add that based on your vast knowledge, and regular commitment to the study of the subject, it seems clear that you are more qualified than some certain critics in the commentary, (and many elsewhere) to give a scholarly opinion on the matter! 🙂
I think you touched on it, but I would say that Christianity initially went wrong by allowing the original orthodoxy of the Jewish Christian Church led by James (and Peter) to be delegitimized, co-opted, and eventually replaced by the proto-orthodoxy (read heresy) of Paul and the Romanized Latin Gentile Church.
Secondly in regard to “where the Church went wrong” I would highly emphasize that Christianity went wrong by not preserving the original revelatory message and teachings of Jesus, through utilizing some sort of quality control check, (i.e. isnad, mutawatir transmission, etc.). Instead of preserving the pure and unadulterated divine message that was revealed to him, the Christians ended up preserving the uninspired and errant writings of Paul and other unknown authors, who simply wrote stories ABOUT Jesus. Unfortunately, there is no way now to entirely filter out the superfluous information, narrative, and innovations, in order to determine and verify without a doubt what Jesus actually said, did, and taught.
I think these two points are where Christianity seriously and irredeemably went wrong. Anyone who truly and fully understands these two basic points, cannot maintain faith in Christianity as a legitimate religion sanctioned by God and his Prophets.
LikeLiked by 1 person
great points!
LikeLike
Nice basic summary of some of the central issues related to Christian belief today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you
LikeLike
What about Acts 15:1-21, where James (the half-brother of Jesus) agrees with Peter and with Paul and Barnabas that the Gentiles not do have to become Jews or get circumcised in order to be saved?
You used the book of Acts, but Acts and Luke, written by the same author, emphasize the substitutionary atonement and death of Jesus on the cross and His powerful resurrection from the dead as fact, history, truth, and that by repenting and believing in that Jesus, one can have eternal life. (Luke 24:25-27; 24:44-48; Acts 4:12; 10:43; 13:38-39; 16:31; Acts 26:18-23; )
The apostle Paul never taught all the law was abolished, rather Ephesians 2:15 means the enmity of the law is abolished in Christ – for believers.
“by abolishing in His flesh the enmity . . . ” Ephesians 2:15 (see whole context of Ephesians 2:11-22 – the judgment, curse of the law, and the enmity that set Jews against Gentiles has been abolishes so that they are unified as brothers and one in the church and are not separated anymore by food and feast and cleanliness laws.)
Also, the apostle Paul constantly affirmed the moral law – Romans 7:12; Romans 13:9-14; 1 Timothy 1:8-11.
The NT just teaches that Christ fulfilled the law (Matthew 5:17-18 – I noticed you left that out) and some things about the law have been fulfilled so as to abrogate them.
Food laws – Mark 7:19; Acts 10-11
Ceremonial, sacrifice laws – Hebrews chapters 7-10
feast days, Sabbath laws – Colossians 2:16
circumcision – Romans chapter 4, book of Galatians
LikeLike
Ken I disagree with just about everything you said. But as you have been thoroughly refuted here before I will let Paul have the last word – against you:
Ephesians 2:15 (NRSV)
15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, so that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace,
LikeLike
You left out verse 14, about the hostility/enmity – it was the enmity of the law that was abolished, not all of the law. how can think that when he affirmed the law in Romans 7:12 – “the law is good, righteous, and holy” and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 ?
“For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. ”
Ephesians 2:14
Amazing how you pluck out verse 15, but ignore the context of the whole paragraph – Ephesians 2:11-22 – you need to study the whole paragraph, which is what scholars do. The scholars would never agree to how you have handled that passage.
LikeLike
“you left out verse 14, about the hostility/enmity – it was the enmity of the law that was abolished, not all of the law.”
That’s a deceitful comment Ken.
Look carefully at what Paul says:
“He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, so that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace”
its not just the enmity of the law but the law itself.
Jesus disagreed of course.
LikeLike
In the light of what Paul says about the law in Romans 7:12, “so then, the law is good, holy, and righteous”; Galatians 3:10 and 13, (Christ redeemed us the from curse of the law) , 1 Timothy 1:8-11 – “the law is good if one uses it properly”; and Romans 13:9-10, where he quotes the moral law in a positive way; and the meaning of the paragraph of Ephesians 2:11-22, it cannot mean “all of the law was abolished”. Look at verse 11 – circumcision, and verse 12 – the things that separated Gentiles from membership in the community of Israel – so it has to mean that the enmity / hostility that some laws created between Jews and Gentiles, that was what was abolished. One has to interpret in context. Read the whole paragraph of Ephesians 2:11-22 – in the church, the new community of God’s people, both Jews and Gentiles are brought together in unity and so that there is no barriers or cultural barriers (food laws, feast laws, circumcision, etc.) they are brought together into one new humanity, establishing peace. You cannot just pluck one verse out and say Paul taught the total abolishing of all the law.
Jesus also abolished the food laws – Mark 7:19
Jesus by His death on the cross, was the final sacrifice, and so fufilled all the ceremonial and temple sacrifice laws. He Himself said His blood is the blood of the new covenant. (Matthew 26; Mark 14; Luke 22; Hebrews chapters 7-10)
LikeLike
Jesus did say “God is one” in Mark 12:29, and He also said, “baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit’ – Matthew 28:19
Which is why the doctrine of the Trinity is One God in three persons.
LikeLike
Father = God; son = messiah; spirit = God’s action in the world.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Ken. I am willing to follow your version of religion if you prove to me that Jesus was a christian and practiced your version of religion.
But I know simple questions can’t be answered by those whose mind haver been messed by Pauline Christianity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
good point. Jesus was not a Christian and did not preach Christianity!
LikeLike
Matthew was a Jew (as all the NT writers, even Paul were, except for Luke).
Matthew said Jesus was Immanuel, “God with us” (Matthew 1:23)
Jesus all through Gospel of John (not Paul) says:
“believe in Jesus and you will be saved”
John 3:16
John 5:24
John 20:30-31
LikeLike
@Ken
Would you please respond to my question is simple English. What was the religion of Jesus? The religion he PREACHED and PRACTICED. Please don’t beat around the bush.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jesus said:
“Unless you believe that I am [ means “Yahweh”] you will die in your sins.”
John 8:24
3 Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’
8 The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things? (see Ezekiel 36:26-27)
11 “Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen; yet you do not receive our testimony.
12 If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?
13 No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
( Notice believes in Him includes His being lifted up on the cross)
16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
17 “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
18 Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
19 And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. 20 For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. 21 But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.”
John 3:3-21
LikeLike
Ken excels at beating around bushes.
LikeLike
“Unless you believe that I am [ means “Yahweh”] you will die in your sins.”
John 8:24″
YOU christians STILL DIE!
LikeLike
ouch!
LikeLike
yours gods death was not enough to remove the initial curse he put on adam. the point is that
the sacrificial act made changes in trinity and was gifted human being within the team. humans still suffer, still have to repent and still die and only HOPe they would go to heaven
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Council of Chalcedon was 451 AD, not 461 AD.
The apostle Paul taught the concept of the Trinity, even though he did not use the word “Trinity”. As did Jesus in Matthew 28:19, though He didn’t use the word, Trinity.
14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God [The Father] and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
2 Corinthians 13:14
Tertullian (190-220 AD – much earlier than Nicea and Chalcedon) explains the Trinitas Unitas (three in one) in Adversus Praxeas 2:
“As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.”
see
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.ii.html
Also –
Adv. Praxeam, xxv). “These three are one substance, not one person; and it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ in respect not of the singularity of number but the unity of the substance.”
The very names “Father” and “Son” indicate the distinction of personality. The Father is one, the Son is another, and the Spirit is another (“dico alium esse patrem et alium filium et alium spiritum” Adv. Praxeam, ix),
LikeLike
“The Council of Chalcedon was 451 AD, not 461 AD”
You are correct. My error.
“The apostle Paul taught the concept of the Trinity”
Oh please. lol
1 Corinthians 11:
“I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ.”
Tertullian was just one man. The Church as a whole only came to define God as Trinity at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD
LikeLike
Ignatius (about 110 AD) called Jesus God about 7-9 times in his 7 letters.
I Corinthians 11:3 – yes, Christians have always believed in some kind of hierarchy of roles in the unity of the Trinity. The Father as Father is the highest in what is known by theologians as “the Economic Trinity”.
What do you do with 2 Corinthians 13:14?
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ
[ The Son]
and the love of God [ the Father ]
and
the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”
LikeLike
“Ignatius called Jesus God” – indeed and I mentioned him in the video. He is a good example of a bishop of the new religion “Christianity” different in many important respects from the Judaism of Jesus and his immediate followers. Jesus was a Jew who preached Judaism. Ignatius was a gentile who preached gentile Christianity.
I Corinthians 11:3 does not mention at all any kind of “hierarchy of roles in the unity of the Trinity”
You commit the intellectual sin of anachronism, reading back much later theology into the Bible.
Paul wrote:
“I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ.”
The Head of the messiah is God. Not a whiff of Trinitarianism.
“What do you do with 2 Corinthians 13:14? “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ [ The Son – who is not Yahweh – only God is ]
and the love of God [ the Father – correct]
and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” : the action of God in the world. This is how the term Spirit of God is always understood in the Jewish scriptures.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Ken. I am willing to follow your version of religion if you prove to me that Jesus was a christian and practiced your version of religion.
The disciples were first called “Christians” in Antioch – Acts 11:26, after Jesus already was crucified, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven (Luke 23-24, Acts chapter 1) so your statement is moot.
But Jesus did say that one must believe in Him as the eternal Son of God, the Messiah, the Word of God who became flesh, and was crucified and rose from the dead, to have eternal life. John 1:1-5; 1:14; 1:29; 3:10-15; 3:16; 5:24; 20:30-31; 11:25; 2:19-22
But it does not matter if you are convinced or not; if you continue to resist and have a hard heart against the gospel – only God can change your heart and enable you to see the truth. I sincerely pray for you, but my preaching the truth is not dependent on you accepting the truth of the message. Only the invisible Spirit can work in your heart and mind to convince you; I cannot.
LikeLike
@KEn : Please don’t beat around the bush. What was the religion that Jesus practiced and preached?
I think you need to open up to the real message of Jesus. The Pauline theology has clouded your mind. Get over your ignorance buddy. You can’t escape few HARD facts however hard you may try
* Jesus was a Jew not a Christian.
* Jesus worshiped God the Father alone (no Son or Spirit worship by Jesus, not once)
* He never asked you to believe in his death and resurrection to be saved (Even if we accept that Crucifixion took place) . Not once.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Ken wrote “believe in Jesus and you will be saved”
Who is denying believing in Jesus? But then why not answer the question directly. the question is not type of belief one must hold about Jesus. The question is what was the religion of Jesus?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“But it does not matter if you are convinced or not; if you continue to resist and have a hard heart against the gospel – only God can change your heart and enable you to see the truth. I sincerely pray for you”
We too pray to God that you’ll see the light and come back to worship the One true God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have to believe in Jesus as He is revealed in all the NT, not some guy who claims to have revelation 600 years later.
John 20:30-31 says “believe that He is the Messiah, the Son of God . . . ”
John 3:10-16 – “just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up . . . ( meaning on the cross] and “believe in Him” includes the cross and atonement, etc.
LikeLike
@Ken. Dude do you understand English? Why can’t you answer the simple question. What was the religion of Jesus? I am not sure how else to ask this question in simplest of the simplest English. Can anyone help Ken understand this question by framing it differently?
Ken if you don’t have an answer then please say so. You can continue to believe what you want however absurd and irrational it might be.
LikeLike
Rational Muslim
“Why can’t you answer the simple question. What was the religion of Jesus?”
The misunderstanding is with you.
You do know that christians believe jesus is god, don’t you? WHat religion was allah?
LikeLike
@KIng: Allah never worshiped anyone. Jesus worshiped his Father. Jesus didn’t worship the Son or the Holy Ghost. Why do you?
LikeLike
“You have to believe in Jesus as He is revealed in all the NT, not some guy who claims to have revelation 600 years later.”
if you mean believe that jesus is a person from a team/company of 3, then i will throw
Jeremiah 2:5New International Version (NIV)
5 This is what the Lord says:
“What fault did your ancestors find in me,
that they strayed so far from me?
They followed worthless idols
and became worthless themselves.
quoting jewish commentary on this
and ask
what the jews ask :
what were you missing in your worship of Me? What joy did you not find in your relationship with Me? And this is the question that the Jew asks the Church. Why do we need Jesus? What does Jesus have to offer to us that God didn’t already give us? What will we find in Jesus that we don’t have in God? What are we missing when we love God as David did before us? What can we be missing? Can you add anything on to God?
LikeLike
May Allah bless you both .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aamiin yaa Rabb.
LikeLike
Just clear up a few of your falsehoods:
– It was Papias(over 100 years earlier) not Irenaeus who first attributed the gospel to Matthew.
– You claimed Matthew was an Arabic speaker unlikely to have known Greek. But most experts believe Matthew being a tax collector would have almost certainly been literate in Greek and Aramaic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It was Papias(over 100 years earlier) not Irenaeus who first attributed the gospel to Matthew.”
Not so. Papias does not refer to the Greek gospel we have today.
“But most experts believe Matthew being a tax collector would have almost certainly been literate in Greek and Aramaic.”
lol you just made that up. Dishonest.
LikeLike
Matthew was a tax-collector. I’ve never heard of an illiterate tax-collector…
LikeLike
tell me how many tax collectors from 2000 years do you know?
LikeLike
You tell me how an “illiterate” Matthew could possibly manage to blag a job in a field that requires knowledge of the laws of his own country and those of the occupying empire.
LikeLike
gospel of Matthew is written in polished Greek, and contains many quotes from the Septuagint. Unlikely that a lower class aramaic tax collector had the education to produce the gospel.
Also no one said it was by him till end of second century.
Also it does not claim to be eyewitness
It is not written in the first person as eyewitness accounts are.
conclusion: unlikely he wrote it
LikeLike
You haven’t answered my question…
LikeLike
I have.
LikeLike
No, you haven’t.
Here it is again:
You tell me how an “illiterate” Matthew could possibly manage to blag a job in a field that requires knowledge of the laws of his own country and those of the occupying empire?
LikeLike
ok what are your historical sources?
How do you know a Galilean tax collector’s job ‘required knowledge of the laws of his own country and those of the occupying empire’?
Does reading rules and regulations mean he could write as well? The two skills were quite separate in the ancient world.
Which university did Matthew do advanced Greek composition? Where did he learn to read and interpret the Septuagint? Where did he lean to read and write Aramaic and Greek?
Just help me out with the historical sources you have used please..
LikeLike
Your evasion and concession is noted.
Lesson learnt for you. Dont make false claims and you won’t get called out on them.
LikeLike
LOL so you are bailing out on the discussion. Oh well.
LikeLike
“You tell me how an “illiterate” Matthew could possibly manage to blag a job in a field that requires knowledge of the laws of his own country and those of the occupying empire?”
you think he was an it consultant?
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL
LikeLike
Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.
When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.
All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.”
But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”
Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
Well, somebody wrote the New Testament and at least one publican had bucks. Remember, we are discussing the Jewish people. They were and are, IMO, the most brilliant, learned, gifted, intelligent, talented group of people of all time. I do not believe reading and writing escaped them, even if there aren’t historical references to specific examples from this tiny little spot on earth where Jesus once walked. You and I learned to read and write as children.
It is important to study and examine and challenge biblical accounts. It is another thing to interpret and sort of demand from it only the worst take on it imaginable.
Hatred for Christ and His followers is stunning, and the fulfillment of the promise He made. Not one other leader of a religious nature sparks the kind of passionate fury and deep, deep loathing as He. It is amazing and it is proof.
LikeLike
watch this dude:
Who Wrote The Gospels?
LikeLike
“Well, somebody wrote the New Testament and at least one publican had bucks. Remember, we are discussing the Jewish people. They were and are, IMO, the most brilliant, learned, gifted, intelligent, talented group of people of all time. I do not believe reading and writing escaped them, even if there aren’t historical references to specific examples from this tiny little spot on earth where Jesus once walked. You and I learned to read and write as children.”
they must have had adult education centres and peter left his fishing job and became a greek teacher.
these are all possibilities, but scholars job is to eliminate possibilities.
LikeLike
mattew was a tax collector. christians think this means he is council tax officer.
the guy probably knew how to do basic math like 5 pence – 2 pence = 3 pence
this does not mean he knew how to read and write.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like cake.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chocolate, vanilla, coffee?
LikeLike
Thanks, Paul. Bart is getting closer to God. God, IMO, is striving with him and Bart can tell. He’s being convicted of his foolishness.
It makes no difference what the “books” are called, John, Matthew… It makes all the difference what they have to say and it is very simple to comprehend what they are telling us. It is unmistakable. Jesus was God. (Please don’t be offended. I don’t know how to say what I think w/o sounding preachy I guess, but I’m just trying to make a point) It isn’t a secret what the New Testament is all about, what it tries to convey. Even if there are variations, the thrust is clear. It is plain as day, really.
LikeLike
“It makes no difference what the “books” are called, John, Matthew… I”
I think it does.
If we do not know who wrote them, where they were written, when they were composed and to whom, then why do you just accept them as accurate eye-witness testimony?
Nowhere in Matthew, Mark and Luke does Jesus say he is God. Nor does anyone else.
LikeLike
Jesus believed He was Lord of the Sabbath Day, which was a claim to be Yahweh-God, the Lord and creator of the Sabbath Day of Genesis 1 and 2. (Mark 2:28)
Jesus claimed to the Son of Man of Daniel 7:13-14, who ascended to heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father. (Psalm 110) – quoted both in Mark 14:60-64
Jesus believed He was the eternal Son of God and while on earth, prayed to the Father:
“restore the glory to Me that I had with You before the creation of the world” – John 17:5
Also, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30)
“If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9)
Jesus received worship – Matthew 14:33
Jesus received worship and confession that He was Lord and God – John 20:28-29
“Thomas said to Him, “My Lord and My God!”
He was claiming He was Yahweh, the same substance/nature as the Father (John 1:1-5; 1:14), the eternal Son, which points to the doctrine of the Trinity.
LikeLike
Ken you should know better than that. All these proof texts do not say Jesus is Yahweh. You have been schooled many times about this. When will you learn?
LikeLike
the high priest and Jewish leadership understood Jesus’ claims to Deity as blasphemy – Mark 14:60-64.
You cannot escape from that.
LikeLike
your spin. The text does not say what yo claim. dishonest ken
LikeLike
Christians have believed these things for 2000 years. It is not dishonest, but our sincere and honest understanding of the texts. That is why Ignatius (110 AD) called Jesus “Our God” 7-9 times in his letters; why Justin Martyr (150 AD) called Jesus “the Logos” (Word) from John, why Tertullian (190-220 AD) forumalted in Latin, “trinitas unitas” (three in one), which I showed you – because they put all the verses together –
They all believed that the NT taught Jesus was God in the flesh, and though some had different nuances on the details of the Trinity, they all believed in the basic doctrine.
Irenaeus(180-200 Ad), Polycarp(150 AD), Origen(250 AD), Cyprian(250 AD), Clement of Altexandria (215 AD), Athanasius (300-373 AD), Augustine (354-430 AD), Jerome (400 AD), Chrysostom (400 AD), Hillary (310-367 AD), Gregory of Nyssa (335-395), Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390 Ad), Basil (330-379 AD), etc.
LikeLike
You yourself even admitted that John 1:1 does teach that Jesus is Theos by substance. Remember?
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/01/muslim-agrees-with-greek-of-john-11.html
LikeLike
Since you claim to be a former Christian, you should know better than what you are saying; Christians have always understood these texts this way, both Jewish first century Christians and the Gentiles.
LikeLike
“Jesus believed He was Lord of the Sabbath Day, which was a claim to be Yahweh-God, the Lord and creator of the Sabbath Day of Genesis 1 and 2. (Mark 2:28)”
quote
27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
the word for “man” would be same in aramaic
there would be no capitalisation
priestly writers would have puked at mark 27
if sabbath was made for man and jesus is “ibn adam”
then banoo adam are all “lord of sabbath”
hahahahah
LikeLike
כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ
The Aramaic is “Key-Bar -Aish” like a son of man” – not like Arabic “Ibn Adam”
LikeLike
“the high priest and Jewish leadership understood Jesus’ claims to Deity as blasphemy – Mark 14:60-64.”
quote:
62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
quote:
Daniel 7:18 explicitly interprets the apocalyptic imagery with reference to the saints of Israel
LikeLike
except first, the kingdom and worship is given “to Him”ולה
(3 rd masculine singular – twice in Daniel 7:14) (the Son of Man) – before the saints also receive the kingdom. This is also taught in Revelation 5:9-10 – where worship goes to the Father and to the lamb on the throne (see verse 12 & 13 also of Revelation 5). The saints (true believers in Jesus Christ as Messiah, eternal Son, God the Son, God the Word from all eternity, who became a human and was like a lamb sacrificed for sin on the cross, etc. ) – the saints, we (and me included) receive the kingdom of God also – we inherit the kingdom of God. See also Revelation 1:6 and 1 Peter 2:9-10 – we are a kingdom of priests.
So Daniel 7:18 (nor is 7:27) is not a problem, since the saints inherit the kingdom only after the Son of Man purchased their redemption at the cross, then rose from the dead, proving His sacrifice was effective against sin and guilt and the devil; and ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of the ancient of Days.
The Son gets the kingdom and worship first – Daniel 7:13-14
then,
the saints (Christians, both Jews and Gentiles) receive the kingdom, because of the Son’s redemption and work first.
LikeLike
”
Jesus claimed to the Son of Man of Daniel 7:13-14, who ascended to heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father. (Psalm 110) – quoted both in Mark 14:60-64″
”
But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever”
like jesus they receive what they did not have before .
“you will see the son of man…” means he still did not receive anything
anyway the high priest did not see jesus riding on clouds
those who are seated are always lesser than those who seat.
LikeLike
וְלֵהּ
=
“and to him”
לֵהּ
“to him”
Daniel 7:14
the Son receives the kingdom and worship first;
then later the saints inherit the kingdom also; but do not get worship.
LikeLike
its the saints who receive the first worship/serving because when the dream is interpreted , the angel says
15“I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. 16I approached one of those standing there and asked him the MEANING of all this.
“So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17‘The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth. 18But the holy people of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.’
LikeLike
Not a problem, since we (saints, Christians) also inherit the kingdom of God/heaven.
LikeLike
one like a son of man refers to the saints . the dream is interpreted in daniel
LikeLike
not according to Jesus in Mark 14:60-64; also Mark 12:35-37 and Matthew 22:41-46
I go with Jesus’ interpretation.
LikeLike
i don’t think daniel envisioned a crucified yhwh and i don’t think he thought of nations bowing down to “one who was pierced”
jews have to read their messiah into those verse and mark needs to fit jesus into them. the truth is that these are all failed “prophecies”
everyone has their own interpretations, why? because these are failed claims. failed claims require new interpretation.
LikeLike
Actually, Daniel did; in Daniel 9:24-27 – the Messiah will come after the 483 (after 69 periods of seven years) years and be cut off (killed) (as in Isaiah 53:8) and be the atonement for sin (v. 24); then the temple will be destroyed in 70 AD. “Desolations are determined”. Jesus said that was what Daniel prophesied about – Matthew 24:15.
LikeLike
why do you repeat this bs ?
LikeLike
Truth is always worth repeating. You insulted the word of God, the prophets, and the gospel (Injeel), and the Qur’an exhorts you to honor them and that method of yours violates Surah 29:46
LikeLike
“Not a problem, since we (saints, Christians) also inherit the kingdom of God/heaven.”
you won’t inherit the kingdom because you keep your money and live in a house. to inherit the kingdom you have to live in a card board box and suffer.
LikeLike
Not true.
Mark 10:28-30
28 Peter began to say to Him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You.” 29 Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, 30 but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last, first.”
LikeLike
You think Jesus meant literally become that poor and live in a card board box?
In Mark 10, He was testing the man’s heart and his idolatry in his heart. His money was his god. Other verses say work hard and earn money so you can give to the needy. You don’t know how to interpret all the verses in a way in which they don’t contradict one another.
LikeLike
“You think Jesus meant literally become that poor and live in a card board box?”
yes, one will note that jesus and his disciples scavenge for food in the gospels
mark 2:23
matthew 21:18-19
if a fig tree is not available seek thy public bin.
to be a follower, you need to give up your iphone, your house, your money and scavenge out of public dustbins if trees are not available.
you see ken, if the “you ” in the gospels can refer to you crosstians, and not jesus’ disciples who were his immediate listeners, then you must take my point seriously.
when it comes to the “second coming”
you pagans grab the pronoun “you” and think you are living in the end times lol
i am simply playing you game ken
to enter the kingdom you have to suffer ken.
when peter says “we have left everything” including supporting children, wives, gran parents etc, you need to do this and live on the streets.
“In Mark 10, He was testing the man’s heart and his idolatry in his heart. ”
wrong, liar for jesus.
read in light of mark 8:31-38
“jesus loved him”
“go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven”
jesus didn’t even want this guy to keep money so he could give to the poor, he wanted the guy to become poor and you are like a shameful christian who is looking after your life, but jesus tells you to “hate your life”
conditions are to give up everything and live on the street till the elect are rescued.
“lose your life …”
“His money was his god. ”
no , he didn’t want to suffer.
just like you don’t want to suffer.
you life is your god
mark 8:31-38
you need to deny every worldly material
“christianity is an abusive theology that glorifies suffering”
“Other verses say work hard and earn money so you can give to the needy.”
but if there is expensive oil in the house, then jesus’ dead body needs to prevent the stink of death even if hungry children die.
jesus thought his dead corpse ,which was flesh, was more valuable than the living bodies of the poor that could have been fed if the oil was exchanged for cash.
mark 6:31-37
they had no income
so they could not give to the needy
they had to depend on a miracle
don’t build treasure
matthew 6:19
do you have a bank account ken and is that preventing you from suffering ? give it up or you will not enter the kingdom of god
ken, to enter the kingdom you must “take you cross” and live on the streets
otherwise you have lost the kingdom
LikeLike
Edward,
This shows you are not willing to have a rational discussion.
LikeLike
the conditions are clear .
1. you need to give up everything
like peter said
then you need to allow people to smack you around
then you quoted a verse which proves what i am saying
you need to suffer like a hungry dog to receive your reward
you need to “drink the cup”
mark 10:38-40
if you do not do any of this and give up what you have, you will not see the kingdom.
LikeLike
“27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
quote
The Aramaic is “Key-Bar -Aish” like a son of man” – not like Arabic “Ibn Adam”
so? where is “like” in the quote above?
LikeLike
כ = like, as
before
בר = son
see Daniel 7:13
חָזֵה הֲוֵית בְּחֶזְוֵי לֵֽילְיָא וַאֲרוּ עִם־עֲנָנֵי שְׁמַיָּא כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ אָתֵה הֲוָה וְעַד־עַתִּיק יֹֽומַיָּא מְטָה וּקְדָמֹוהִי הַקְרְבֽוּהִי׃
sorry
כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ
= “key-bar-Ainosh”
not Aish
LikeLike
nut meg , i’m asking you about the greek “the son of man” not the aramaic.
LikeLike
Yes, later you did; sorry I didn’t see that.
But you started off with what arguing what the Aramaic would be behind the Greek.
You wrote this:
the word for “man” would be same in aramaic
and you wrote:
“there would be no capitalisation
priestly writers would have puked at mark 27
if sabbath was made for man and jesus is “ibn adam”
then banoo adam are all “lord of sabbath”
hahahahah”
LikeLike
Eggnog
LikeLike
ὥστε κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου
LikeLike