Inshallah, this Saturday I will be giving a lecture at the London Central Mosque (aka Regent’s Park Mosque below). Open to non-Muslims. Questions and comments welcome during Q&A. For further info click pic.
Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity, God, Islam
Blogging Theology 
Paul,
Mashallah, beautiful Masjid!!!
Best to you on your lecture, inshallah. I hope you will post a full video on the blog for those of us who are unable to attend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wish you lived further north 😔
LikeLiked by 1 person
He was, is, and always will be God. Jesus is a part of the Trinity.
LikeLike
I see.
Jesus prayed to God, worshiped Him, said he had a God. Ergo he was not Yahweh. Simple.
He said he was “sent by God”. Ergo he was a prophet.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He also claimed to be God. If you believe He was sent by God then you must believe all of what He says. Jesus prayed to God to show Himself an example to His followers. He also never said He was a prophet either.
LikeLike
Jesus alluded to himself as a prophet in Mark 6:4:
4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.”
Where does Jesus say he is God?
Remember Jesus said he had a God and father just as we do:
John 20:17:
Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'”
According to the gospels Jesus when he prayed to God despaired and cried out that he was “abandoned” by God on the cross.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John 10:30 I and My Father are one. Anytime He is referring to God he is also referring to Himself.
LikeLike
one in purpose and will – not in essence. Jesus says he has a God as we do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can spin the semantics as you please. That verse is straightforward
LikeLike
Yes it straight forwardly means that Jesus is one in will and purpose with God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John 17:21
that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
So now the disciples are included in the trinity as well?It clearly means they are one in purpose.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Hashim Khanzada good point
LikeLiked by 1 person
The trinity has no parts
LikeLike
th3platform
You said, “That verse is straightforward.”
This article gives a great explanation of why such a literalist view of the Bible as the definitive word of God is a highly flawed position to take. And why it is that to pretend that errors, contradictions and disagreements don’t exist is ignorant at best, and disingenuous at worst.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2016/12/bible-doesnt-clearly-say-anything/
Quote from the Article: “These are the people who believe the Bible to be the Definitive Word of God, and who believe, even when offered any number of nuanced arguments about why that’s problematic, that “the Bible clearly says X,” about any given issue.
If you are saying those words in English, living in present-day America, then you are uttering either an obfuscation or an outright lie. Because the Bible doesn’t “clearly say” much of anything.”
LikeLike
Many verses can seem contradictory if taken out of context. Especially for a non believer. I cite Mark 4:11-12 as an example of how those who did not believe would not understand the parables.
LikeLike
“those who did not believe would not understand the parables.”
And if you don’t understand the parables, you cannot believe. Great stuff really.
LikeLike
Lol you took my comment out of context. I’m done with this you people have your minds made up as do I. Continue to spit on truth if you please.
LikeLike
good bye!
LikeLike
“John 10:30 I and My Father are one”
you have to then accept modalism. if you think jesus is “one” with the father, then jesus must be fully father and fully son @ the same time
the father must be fully father and fully son @ the same time.
you must accept modalism.
do you?
LikeLike
th3platform
You are arguing in a circle
LikeLike
jesus clearly isn’t “one” with the father in greatness, power and knowledge
“i can, of my own self do nothing…”
the father can , on his own self , do everything .
LikeLike
th3platform said: “Continue to spit on truth if you please.”
Does that also mean that Christians who reject Biblical literalism and take a more educated and nuanced view of their own scripture are also “spitting on the truth” according to that line of thinking.
Here is another nugget:
Trinitarianism refuted by four words:
“God does not Die” – See 1 Tim 6:16
LikeLike
“jesus prayed to god to show himself an example to his followers”
kind of like a demonstration on the stage ? stage play?
And he said to them, “I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and keep awake.” 35 And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 He said, “Abba,[h] Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.”
was there any award for this acting role?
deeply grieved ( the macabean martyrs weren’t)
the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 39 And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words
this guy is beseeching a high authority and desperately asking him for some other way . this is not “an example to his followers” this is one in need in desperate time .
LikeLiked by 1 person
“John 10:30 I and My Father are one. Anytime He is referring to God he is also referring to Himself.”
quote :
[–]brojanglesBible critic 3 points 3 days ago*
John 10:30 “I and the Father are One.”
In a specific context, which I described above. When Jesus is channeling the word, he is “one” with God (by the way, I was told in college once that saying “X and I are one” in modern Aramaic is a way to say “we agree” along the lines of “we are of one mind.” I don’t have a linkable source for that, though, just the word of a College prof).
This also does not erase the verses where Jesus is made to say that he and the father are different entities.
John does not present Jesus “as a vehicle for the word of God” but as “the Word” itself; John presents Jesus as the Logos, not a channeler for the logos.
I think that John is saying the distinction disappears when Jesus is speaking the word of God or doing the will of God. He is an instrument, but the instrument is “God” when being instrumented. There are examples in the OT of “God” being used this way – for kings, judges, angels, prophets and the like.
permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply
[–]katapetasma 1 point 2 days ago
John 10:30
He first explains this comment by means of the miracles the Father does through him. Then he concludes with the statement that the Father is in him, a clear reference to the spirit of the Father within him.
This matches with 1 John 4:13
By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.
LikeLike
One in essence.
John 1:1-5
Hebrews 1:3; 1:6; 1:8; 1:10-12
John 20:28
Romans 9:5
John 8:56-58
John 5:17-18
Colossians 1:15-20
Philippians 2:5-8
1 John 5:20
Matthew 2:1-12
Matthew 14:33
Revelation 5:12-14
LikeLike
Ken a string of bible references proves nothing. No one will look them up.
LikeLike
How do you know? Don’t be afraid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
God’s Word is more powerful than liberal scholars.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sorry, “one essence” is a joke and mockery of intelligence.
essences don’t speak as persons
when god speaks, he says , ” i make good and make evil”
quote:
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
this is 1 conscious person speaking .
not 3 deformed beingless persons + 1 nature
1 person having 1 nature, speaking .
as brother intellect says, don’t mock our intelligence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken,
Are you putting your trust in the actual definitive word of God, or simply placing your trust in a translators interpretation?? I would say that you are doing the latter. And this article would agree with me on that:
“Why the Bible Doesn’t ‘Clearly Say’ Anything”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2016/12/bible-doesnt-clearly-say-anything/
Thanks to PW twitter feed for that article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Ken Temple, You said “God’s Word is more powerful than liberal scholars.”
That’s a true statement!
But what makes you say Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are God’s words? The authors never claimed it was.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are no other God-breathed/inspired gospels in existance; they were established by end of first century.
John 17:8; John 17:17
The Father’s word are Truth; and the Father gave His words to Jesus and Jesus gave His word to His disciples and the disciples were lead into all the truth (John 14:26; 16:12-13), and they preached and wrote it all down.
You have no other evidence for a true Injeel of Jesus.
The false gospels of Thomas, Philip, Judas, Mary Magdalene, infancy gospels (with Qur’an got some information), etc. are all later Gnostic forgeries and false gospels claimed by liars in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Centuries.
LikeLike
Fawaz,
You hit the mark, Bulls eye!!! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
No he didn’t. Totally missed the mark.
“There are no ancient manuscripts of the New Testament that support a Muslim claim that Christians corrupted the earliest testimonies.” John Piper, A Peculiar Glory, page 85.
LikeLike
@Ken Temple,
John Piper’s quote does not answer the question I asked. The 27 books of the NT did not exist in the time of Jesus.
Why do you claim the four gospels are God breathed while the authors don’t make this claim?
And what is this? “John 17:8; John 17:17
The Father’s word are Truth; and the Father gave His words to Jesus and Jesus gave His word to His disciples and the disciples were lead into all the truth (John 14:26; 16:12-13), and they preached and wrote it all down.”
This is not a quote from the Bible. This is your interpretation of what these verses mean. Even if we grant this interpretation my question still stands. The authors did NOT claim the words that came from their pens were inspired by God. People combining different accounts of what happened and what was said is not the same as the words of God. At most you could say is that portions of the divine revelation Jesus received can be in the combination of these accounts.
Say you decide to write a biography about Jesus by combining accounts from the four gospels and adding your own input. Would your work be divine revelation?
As for other gospels, consider that some church fathers claimed that Matthew wrote an Aramaic/Hebrew gospel. See Dr Mike Licona’s analysis of what that means for the authorship of what is today called “Gospel of Matthew”
LikeLike
And your lecture will be a failure unless you refute all those verses. Which you never have.
LikeLike
In Islam we do not follow Paul – a man who invented a new religion unknown to Jesus
LikeLiked by 3 people
actually, it is Muhammad who invented a new religion unknown to Jesus. 600 years late. bad fruit of Jihad , Dhimmi-ism, Jiziye, aggressive wars, terrorism by some Muslims, external dead rituals, no peace and no freedom and no assurance of salvation, no love of God for sinners, opposite of Romans 5:8; and lack of freedom , harsh punishments, bad governments all over the world, harsh dictators, etc, proves it wrong.
LikeLike
Paul Williams
What’s this based on?
LikeLike
Ken,
We have proved that you’re wrong. It’s just you! You are like your prophet Paul who hated the perfect law of God, yet he was more than happy to obey the pagan romans.
Jesus had never known Paul nor his cult that he invented .
LikeLiked by 2 people
lol,’machine gun tactic’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, Shotgun tactic.
We can do the same, but I don’t have the strength or the time to list all of Christianity’s past and present bad fruit, crimes, innovations, deviance, distortions and suffering inflicted upon the world.
Maybe Ken can read up on some of that for a change. But I am sure he will find a way to excuse Christianity while pointing his finger at Islam while saying to anyone who is ignorant to fall for it something to the effect of: “Don’t look here, look over there!”
LikeLike
@Ken Temple,
Bad fruits like the Inquisition, Catholic-Protestant wars, burning of heretics, kings claiming divine right to rule because of Paul’s statement, massacre of non-combatants in crusades etc?
Or how about Heraclius going to forcibly convert the Jews in the Byzantine empire because they sided with the Persians. I wonder what stopped that from happening?
Also what happens to all this lovey-dovey talk in the second coming? “He will punish the nations and fill their lands with corpses;”[Psalms 110:6]
More importantly about God’s love and forgiveness, I believe in a God who actually forgives sins, not a God who transfers punishment.
And while we are talking about bad fruits. the worst fruit of them all is associating partners with God, taking as deity a human who needed air to breathe(Isaiah 2:22), taking as deity a man who was not all-knowing(Ezekiel 28:3), taking as deity someone who was tempted by evil(James 1:13) and a creature who needed food for sustenance(Psalms 106:20).
Since you love to throw references. Look at the ones I cited above and ask yourself if your beliefs line up with the theology of these texts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Protestants also do not agree with the Roman Catholic centuries of Inquistions and Crusades, nor Justinians’ nor Hericlius’ policies.
Christianity until 380 AD did not do any of those bad fruits you mention.
It was Theodosius the Great from 380-392 AD who made the state unified with religion and used the power of the sword and government against some people. That was wrong, as it is in Islam.
LikeLike
As expected you distanced yourself from the actions of Christians you disagree with.
But you did not address Psalms 110:6. If your message is so much about loving sinners what do you do about the land being filled with corpses. Does not sound pretty.
I am actually more interested in how you would reconcile the trinity and the worship of a human with the Biblical verses I referenced. This is the worst fruit in my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m telling you! Whenever you hear James is saying that statement, he’s actually saying I’ve no answer.
James lables all his opponents in the deabtes by that statement which means he is praising himself, and he is one having a problem.
He definitely laks lot of things when he approaches muslims, yet his deabtes with muslims made him elevate his level some little steps. You may wtach his earlier debates which were mere preaching.
I categorize him with the clown and Sam.
LikeLike
actually, it is Muhammad who invented a new religion unknown to Jesus.
600 years late.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
Paul of Tarsus never met Jesus and is not a disciple of Jesus, but a bounty hunter who hunt Christians for persecutions. He said he saw Jesus in a vision and changed the God of Abraham, Jesus, Solomon etc. to a man. Councils upon councils after all the disciple of Jesus died for centuries defined God the way they want and that is a hybrid God-Man like Emperor Haile Selaissie and Sai Baba.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“unknown to Jesus.” What? Your Jesus created Muhammad (sas) remember?
LikeLike
Prophet Muhammad invented a new religion? I have been a muslim all my entire life (nealy 50 now) and this is news to me.
Prophet Muhammad’s religion was the religion of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and all the prophets; worshipping the One and Only God while yours are alien religion: idol (man) worshipping.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Yes, it was a new religion invented 600 years after divine revelation stopped. Divine revelation stopped with the death of the apostles of Jesus – around 96 AD, all the NT books were written before then. Islam is a mixture of Judaism and some things he heard about Jesus Al Masih orally (that He is the Messiah, virgin born, did miracles, son of Mary – all good things, but denied Jesus’ Sonship, Deity and Death, which were already revealed as truth in the NT), and mixed it up with his own ideas about war and politics and rituals.
Muhammad mis-understood the doctrine of the Trinity – Surah 5:72-75; 5:116
misunderstood the phrase “Son of God” – 6:101; 112; 19:88-92
denied true history – 4:157
made something up out of thin air – Surah 7:157 (Muhammad cannot be the Holy Spirit (“the Helper” = paraklatos – παρακλητος ) since he was a human and he cannot live inside Jesus’ disciples 600 earlier – John 14:16-17)
James White proved Surah 7:157 is wrong in this debate vs. Zakir Hossein.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/03/09/debate-is-muhammad-prophesied-in-the-bible/
LikeLike
With the Name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
//Yes, it was a new religion invented 600 years after divine revelation stopped. //
You are free to believe absurdities but muslims do not believe any new religion other than the very religion of Abraham, Moses and Jesus.
//Divine revelation stopped with the death of the apostles of Jesus//
Divine revelation was revealed genuine to prophet of God like Moses, Jesus and Muhammad peace be upon them all not to unknown people.
//Islam is a mixture of Judaism and some things he heard about Jesus Al Masih orally (that He is the Messiah, virgin born, did miracles, son of Mary – all good things,but denied Jesus’ Sonship, Deity and Death, which were already revealed as truth in the NT), and mixed it up with his own ideas about war and politics and rituals.//
Islam is in sync with earlier revelations that is why it does not teach absurdities such as god begot son, god commited suicide, god died etc.
//Muhammad mis-understood the doctrine of the Trinity – Surah 5:72-75; 5:116//
The Qur’an strongly reject blasphemous man made doctrine which is associating God as “three”
//misunderstood the phrase “Son of God” – 6:101; 112; 19:88-92//
The Qur’an elegantly detest the phrase son of god which denigrate the One and True God as begetting a son
//denied true history – 4:157//
The Qur’an accurately criticised those who believe that a prophet of God died in humiliation in the cross and instead told us that Jesus was in fact saved by his God.
//made something up out of thin air – Surah 7:157 //
Prophet Muhammad was written in earlier revelation by characters and even by name.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” idol (man) worshipping.”
why the image/form/idol/picture was required?
why did they need to “stuff” god into chicken/body ?
quote:
If you read what the pagans wrote about the Jews, it wasn’t the Jews’ monotheism that they found odd. It’s the fact that the Jewish temple had no god inside of it. That is to say, the Jews didn’t represent their god with some form of statue or image. The Holy of Holies in the Temple was literally empty. The notion of an all-powerful Creator godhead wasn’t that odd to the pagans. The lack of a physical representation is what the pagans found odd.
christianity has clearly formed attachment, love, trust and reliance on visible being . it is clearly a form worshipping religion. had it been other than “jesus”, they would say, “they are form worshippers” .
if someone bowed and worshipped before demeter, they would call them pagan and condemned , but when they practice worshipping before their idol, they use double standards.
even the pagans thought their gods closeness was embodied in the form of a human being :
The greatest among the gods have drawn close to our city…
Both Demeter and Demetrius…
Hail to you, O Son of the mighty god Poseidon and of Aphrodite.
The other gods dwell so far away,
or else they have no ears,
or they do not exist, or do not care at all about us
We see you in our midst,
not a wooden or stone presence, but bodily
And so we pray to you… bring about peace
for you are the Lord (κύριος)
notice their rational for worshipping their god? notice how their gods “closeness” is embodied in the form of a being?
notice the similar “arguments” the christians use EVEN till this day?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“made something up out of thin air – Surah 7:157 (Muhammad cannot be the Holy Spirit (“the Helper” = paraklatos – παρακλητος ) since he was a human and he cannot live inside Jesus’ disciples 600 earlier – John 14:16-17)”
one of the atheists called farrell till challenged christian apologists to find any contradiction in the quran, he said if they do, he will employ christian apologetic to reconcile any alleged contradiction.
using whites christian apologetic methods, one can prove that jesus prophecies about muhammad. as a matter of fact, many people ,even disbelievers are convinced muhammad was thought of by jesus, johns community , christians interpretation etc etc
here is proof for you :
by Stephan Huller » Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:55 pm
I don’t think that’s a fair thing to say about any religion. We should be speaking this way about any race or belief system. If you said these things about Jews on the internet it would be rightly condemned. If you said these things about Christians half the forum would be cheering you on, but it’s still not right. The same thing necessarily applies to Islam.
With all the hatred being directed against this faith – the one truth that can’t be avoided is that the Jews and Christians who lived at the time of Jesus would be cheering on Islam’s humbling of European civilization. You of all people who champions the revolutionary Jesus can’t be so American as to suppose that this Jesus would also have been virulently anti-European and – if not heralding a man named Muhammad necessarily would have at least championed such a Semite essentially taking over the faith of the world.
The idea that Jesus came to herald someone else is clearly the correct interpretation of John 14:16 etc rather than the white lie that παράκλητος = Holy Spirit. Ever since the Marcionites and through various other traditions (the so-called kata-Phrygians, Manichaeans etc) this truth was perpetuated. As the two advent doctrines of the early Church Fathers clearly attest, Jesus was heralding a messiah. While the Muhammad = messiah formulation appears only in the Gospel of Barnabas, I am quite confident that the name Muhammad was something of a title = Paraclete (much like Mani before him).
Whatever one might say about Islam the reason so many of the subjected people of the Roman Empire converted to this religion is that something like Muhammad was the hope of these people. Again, this isn’t my religion but it should be noted that you haven’t thought through your revolutionary claims about Jesus. At the end of the day Muhammad fulfilled the original expectation of Jesus. The question is – why did it take so long?
///
LikeLike
Ken,
Ask yourself, why do you devote so much of your life, time and energy on this blog attacking Islam, rather than spending time on Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, websites etc. Is it because these religions do not threaten your ideology?
Your fear of Islam is born out of the fact that Islam is a theological threat from inside the House of Abraham, which refutes, and then corrects the errant misguidance caused by innovated Christian doctrines. That is the source of all your Islamophobic fears.
SO, you can repeat your “600 years late” accusation ad naseum. But I am confident that anyone who investigates with an open heart and an open mind, will appreciate the clarity that Qur’an brings, and that they will truly recognize Islam as the last message in the progressive revelatory chain of the Abrahamic Faith.
All of your best efforts, quoting your best verse and chapter, will not stop of honest truth seekers from seeing the plain and clear truth of Islam.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I only came here, several years ago; when Paul had other blogs, because it was Paul Williams who first was attacking Christianity when he was MDI and I saw his material; and to his credit he allows open discussion, which I appreciate, and because it is obvious most Muslims just are not aware of the details and truth of the Bible and Christianity and keep repeating mis-information, etc. and it seems good, since Paul allows discussion, to proclaim the truth, just like you would agree that you are commanded to proclaim the truth from your point of view in Islamic Da’awa; I participate in the freedom to refute the claims here. Which I thank Paul Williams again for allowing these discussions.
LikeLike
Accusing people of “Islamophobia” is a tactic that you guys learned from the homosexuals and their agenda and claim “homophobia” just to shut down conversation.
It is actually the Muslim world that is afraid of Christianity, because they never allowed evangelism or freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom to criticize Islam, nor freedom to convert out of Islam. (for 1400 years the Muslim Caliphate system kept Muslims in the dark about history and Christianity.
We, since 1776 (for the sake of convenience, the US Declaration of Independence and USA Constitution, since I am an American; but Europe started allowing freedoms earlier, I think; the problem was they were under Roman Catholicism for centuries, from 600 Ad to 1517)
We in the west allow freedom of discussion and debate and evangelism and Da’awa, so this proves we are not afraid. It is your Muslim countries and cultures that are afraid because they don’t allow evangelism or for Muslims to leave Islam. This is undeniable proof.
LikeLike
” divine revelation stopped. Divine revelation stopped with the death of the apostles of Jesus”
Really?! I still hear christians affirming to me that God did speak to them to be X or to do Y!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken,
I did not mean to imply that you are not welcome for discussion here, just that it seems you are wasting A LOT of your own time trying to convince people who are not Bible literalists like yourself.
If Islam does not allow freedom to debate than why does the Qur’an say:
“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.”
LikeLike
Ken,
You lecture about freedom from your self righteous pulpit while neglecting to admit that Freedom of discussion and debate in the west is because of Secularism and despite Christianity.
LikeLike
Actually it was Christianity with Deism and rationalistic Theism – in the founding fathers of the USA. The Deism and Rationalistic Theism included 1700 years of Christian theology, culture, ethnics, and morals.
“of nature’s God and the God of nature”
“all men are created equal”
“and endowed by their CREATOR with certain in-alienable rights – right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
from Thomas Jefferson, based on philosophy of John Locke
LikeLike
And you guys are using the most extreme secularist scholarship to attack the bible and Christianity.
“Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.”
LikeLike
Ken,
You said “for 1400 years the Muslim Caliphate system kept Muslims in the dark about history and Christianity.”
The how do you explain that the Muslim world experience a “Golden period” which witness the spread and increase of knowledge, science, medicine, architecture, history, literature, universities. All while Christian Europe stagnated and lagged behind in knowledge of history, with Islam being kept hidden from them. Christians could not even question or critique their own texts without fear of persecution and physical threat of harm until even the modern age.
It is absolutely clear that Islam brought light and knowledge to the world, while Christianity kept its followers in such extreme and deep darkness that Christians themselves had no other choice but to call it…………
THE DARK AGES!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because they got all the great science, medicine and architecture from the Byzantines and Persians – they took over their civilizations, and used all their good things.
LikeLike
Ken,
in regard to Muslim history, you said, “they never allowed evangelism or freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom to criticize Islam, nor freedom to convert out of Islam.”
When looking the your rose colored Christian eye glasses, what do you think would have become of a Christian who exercised his freedom of thought speech to criticize Christianity and convert to Islam during the medieval dark ages? I will give you a hint: Inquisition, torture, exile or execution. If the “loving” Christian Church brutalized Christians such as the Cathars who differed with them, then how would a Jew, Muslim, or ex-Christian revert fare??
For every accusation you make against Islam, we can dredge up a past history that is a 1000x worse. Every time you want to drag the conversation down with such accusations, you will end up dragging Christianity down to the same level as well.
LikeLike
No; because Roman Catholicism was WRONG. (600 AD to 1517 (Luther and afterward Calvin and other Reformers).
The first centuries were good (to 400s); and Protestantism restored a more Biblical Christianity and freed the world from Roman Catholicism.
Earliest Christianity = persecuted, moral, ethical, non-political, no force, no war. 0-380 AD
Later, after Protestant Reformation, this idea was finally restored in the USA declaration of independence and Constitution of freedom of religion and speech, etc. (it took a while to overcome the old Roman Catholic thinking – to the 1700s)
Earliest Islam (from Hegira onward – 622 AD onward – new revelation to start attacking caravans, aggressive Jihad and finally Surah 9, according to one Hadith is the last Surah revealed, and from that point on it was force and aggressive war and conquering everybody. Yes, they allowed some Jews and some Christians to exist, but they were oppressed and not allowed freedom to evangelize or persuade others or built new churches. The Dhimmi system, Jihad, Caliphate, Jiziye – Surah 9:28, 29, 30 – very bad and evil and cruel.
LikeLike
Ken,
You said, “Because they got all the great science, medicine and architecture from the Byzantines and Persians – they took over their civilizations, and used all their good things.”
Only according to your wishful Christian revisionist history.
Islam liberated man from the narrowness of the world, to the wide expanse of true belief and knowledge.
Christianity enslaved man to suffer the Medieval Dark Ages, and caused so much ignorance and suffering that Christians themselves rebelled and rejected Christianity during the “Enlightenment period.”
Your understanding of History is skewed by your personal bias.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken,
Again with your revisionist and skewed Christian history.
Thomas Jefferson owned a Qur’an, and likely obtained knowledge from it which informed and affirmed his belief that “all men are created equal”
“and endowed by their CREATOR with certain in-alienable rights – right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
“Our Founding Fathers included Islam Thomas Jefferson didn’t just own a Quran — he engaged with Islam and fought to ensure the rights of Muslims” http://www.salon.com/2013/10/05/our_founding_fathers_included_islam/
Simply because a scholar is secularist does not negate his views if they are correct. There no inconsistency in that, and no failed argument other than in your own revisionist and biased mind.
LikeLike
“Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument”
Stop qouting James White things!
LikeLike
No; I will quote him; he is good man and correct. And he was very fair to Islam and the Qur’an in “What Every Christian Should Know about the Qur’an” – every Muslim should read his book – he only focuses on theology and issues such as the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the Word of God is not corrupted, the cross/ atonement/ salvation, and whether Muhammad was prophesied in the Bible (as Surah 7:157 claims.)
LikeLike
@Ken: Jesus worshiped one God the father alone. You worship God the father , god the son and god the holy ghost. So Jesus worshiped only “one” person and you worship three. So your God is different than God of Jesus. So religion is different than religion of Jesus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So YOUR religion is different than religion of Jesus.
LikeLike
“So YOUR religion is different than religion of Jesus.” – Exactly!
Christianity refuted by four words:
“God does not Die” – See 1 Tim 6:16
LikeLike
//misunderstood the phrase “Son of God” – 6:101; 112; 19:88-92//
in what sense is your god fathered and in what sense is your same god parented.
your god is parented and fathered @ the same time and you talk about “son of god”
is your god @ the same time mothered?
LikeLike
how are you not damaging the fathering of your god when you believe at the same time that the same god is being parented ?
LikeLike
Is this lecture going to be filmed?
LikeLike
“Son of God” is metaphorical language.
Just like you have:
“The Mother of the books”
“The Mother of villages”
“The Son of the road”
Did books and villages and roads get together and have sex and get married and produce children? Of course not. That is proof that Islam misunderstood the phrase “Son of God” in Surah 6:101; 112; and 19:88-92
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/09/witnessing-to-muslims-answering-son-of.html
LikeLike
your god overshadowed mary and then lo and behold a physical being appears in her womb. how did that happen? clearly there are physical relationships in the trinity.
you have a FATHERING going on AND PARENTING going on, otherwise these words become “bullshit” and MEAN nothing.
LikeLike
just as your “Mother of books” had sex to become mother and produce baby books, right?
or “son of the road” is offspring of daddy and mommy road, after having sex, right?
doggie poo language
LikeLike
your pagan man worshipping religion attributes physicality to god.
not only that ,he has FAMILY relationship within him
he is fathered
he is parented
what is this?
LikeLike
i meant , your god is FATHERED and PARENTED.
and all this is going on in god.
how is any of this metaphorical? yhwh also begets as gives birth using words from the root
wa la da.
the jews and christians were trying to make god as physical and visible as possible,
LikeLike
your god got together with a woman to produce himself ken, this what not metaphorical production, this was physical.
LikeLike
” That is proof that Islam misunderstood the phrase “Son of God” in Surah 6:101; 112; and 19:88-92″
Sahih International: [He is] Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.
Sahih International: None will have [power of] intercession except he who had taken from the Most Merciful a covenant.
Sahih International: And they say, “The Most Merciful has taken [for Himself] a son.”
quote:
In other words, the idea of a virgin born, sexlessly conceived god already widely existed in paganism before Christianity arose. And Hera isn’t the only example. If you really insist on the idea being gods born of women who never had sex at all, the pagans had those, too. Perseus was most famously conceived by golden rain falling from the ceiling into the womb of the virgin Danaë, who remained a true virgin, never penetrated by any sexual organ anywhere, all the way to the god’s birth. One might still quibble and say gold coins counts as sex (as later painters imagined the myth to imply), but that’s a stretch, and in any case, it’s neither how the notion was conceived in antiquity (ancient iconography showed the gold falling in droplets, like a literal rain, more evocative of a ubiquitous urban myth of parthenogenesis: semen entering a womb without any organ penetrating the hymen) nor how it was universally understood by pagans: as even Justin Martyr had to admit, this counted as a virgin birth, and everyone said so.
////
the quran destroys your beliefs and the pagan beliefs by killing two pagan birds with 1 stone.
LikeLike
Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof states the doctrine of eternal generation in this way:
It is that eternal and necessary act of the first person in the Trinity, whereby He, within the divine Being, is the ground of a second personal subsistence like His own, and puts this second person in possession of the whole divine essence, without any division, alienation, or change. (Systematic Theology, pg. 94).[taken from Christian website]
This is not metaphorical. The “essence” of the first person i.e. God, the Father is communicated to the second person i.e. God, the Son. You may say it happened in eternity past but this communication is one-directional.
If the two persons were co-equal and co-eternal then how come one derives the essence from the other. How can one be Father and the other Son?
In the link you posted you refer to Quran 6:101. Firstly this verse is not specific to Christians. It addresses all groups who attribute a divine child or divine children to God.
“He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have a child when He has had no mate? And He has created everything and He has full knowledge of all things.”[6:101].
This verse provides a multi-fold argument as to why God does not have a child. Do you know that Trinitarian theologians like Basil argued that because God’s attribute of knowledge and wisdom is eternal therefore Jesus must be an eternal person? Basically such theologians took attributes of God and treated them as distinct persons.
Surah 6:101 makes multiple points and makes us think on multiple points. Among those points is that God’s attributes are His attributes. The attributes are not distinct persons!
LikeLike
Berkhof is good; but the quote is the end of a long discussion – I have the book. You need to get a hold of the whole book and read the many pages before it; and get James White’s book and digest it. The Forgotten Trinity; also Robert Bowman’s “Why You Should believe in the Trinity”.
finally you use a believer (Berkhof), not some goofy liberal or as some one used an article by a woman phd in Psychology. (not a theologian)
There is honest debate among Christian theologians over the term monogeneas μονογενης of “unique, one of a kind”, and the aspect of that as “eternally generated” in the Creeds and theology.
Yes, the Father is Father from all eternity and the Son is the Son from all eternity. The Berkhof quote is talking about the substance/essence of God in both the Father and the Son, and that from all eternity the Father is generating out from Himself the Son – like the mind and thoughts are always expressing themselves in words – logos λογος. The Father is the ground or source that is generating the subsistence/ hupostasis / person like His own (but eternally, means always was) That is the idea in John 1:1-5 and Philippians 2:5-8 and Hebrews 1:3; 1:6; 1:8; 1:10-12, and Colossians 1:15-20, etc.
LikeLike
You should read some biblical scholarship ken
LikeLike
I read good believing scholarship and I also read some of those guys you promote also; their arguments have been refuted; many of the good ones I read interact with all the liberals and refute them. You forgot the word “liberal” in your camp.
LikeLike
Also Luke did not believe in eternal Son-ship.
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God.”
Luke identifies the conception of Jesus as THE REASON why he is called son of God. He explains the conception as the reason and he never mentions anything about “eternal generation” or “begotten before all worlds”.
LikeLike
wrong; the reason is because the human Jesus is the same substance as God the Father and the Holy Spirit; it does not rule out the truth of the existence and eternal generation of the Son/Word.
LikeLike
because the holy offspring is the same substance and nature as the Father and the Holy Spirit. points to the eternal Trinity.
LikeLike
You mean Luke got it wrong or that I misunderstood Luke?
I understand that you believe the Son and the Father are same substance/essence. But Luke does not mention this and he does not articulate this as the explanation for Jesus being the Son.
Luke’s explanation for Jesus being the son IS his special conception.
He even says after mentioning the conception “for this reason”/”therefore” he will be called Son of God.
Now if the author took the time to say this is the reason and does not mention any other reason, its fair to say either he meant this is the ONLY reason or this is the PRIMARY reason.
LikeLike
the reason was because when it says “the Holy Spirit” will overshadow you and the power of the Most High will come upon you – he is talking about the same substance as the Most High (God the Father) and the same substance as the Holy Spirit. Basically, by God’s power and Spirit, nothing physical touching Mary, God miraculously put His own nature/substance into the womb of Mary and combining with the human nature, made the God-man Jesus.
LikeLike
//“Son of God” is metaphorical language.
Just like you have:
“The Mother of the books”
“The Mother of villages”
“The Son of the road”//
I cant help to comment this missionary argument.
This can only works if Islam believe in such a nonse like:
“The only begotten book”
“The only begotten village”
“The only begotten road”
No such a thing. Thanks the Good Lord, for He is free from the act of begetting.
LikeLike
The mother of books and son of the Road proves you wrong.
LikeLike
I dont expect you to understand Arabic balagha thus your ignorance but show me where in Arabic or Islamic literature where the term begotten is ever used to show this “Motherly” relationship as in the blasphemous trinitarian usage of Father-son.
LikeLike
We have بلاغه in Farsi, which is also another term of “eloquence” or “figurative language”.
You cannot escape the fact that your holy book has phrases like “mother of the books” and “mother of villages” and “son of the road” are also figurative language and so you should give our holy books that same respect when we educate you on the meaning; and when we tell you the meaning of it from all history, you should respect that.
LikeLike
We know “mother of the books” and “mother of villages” and “son of the road” are figurative because no theologian or linguists have ever postulated that “Mother village begets villages” nor “the road begets cute little roadlets” etc.
However your trinitarian attempt to express relationship of Father to Son within God you say that the Son is “BEGOTTEN” of the Father.
Begetting is a human act. God is free of such acts like begetting, procreating, having sex etc.
That is why the Qur’an forbid any association of God beyond the boundary of genuine Monotheism. That God is absolutely above human-like relationship.
LikeLiked by 1 person
μονογενης – Monogeneas does not mean “only begotten” – it actually means “one of a kind” or “unique one”. mono = only ; geneas = kind, type
LikeLike
@Ken, you are imposing the trinity into the text and are not letting Luke speak for himself.
Luke does not have a pre-existent Son. For Luke, it is the activity of the spirit and the power of God that begins the story of the Son at his conception. If Luke wanted us to understand that there was a pre-existing God, the Son he would have informed us.
LikeLike
it is the beginning of the human Jesus, yes; but John and Philippians and other Scripture gives us more details on the pre-existent Son (John 17:5) and Word (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8. It is not necessary to demand that Luke has to have all information in one or two – his 2 books. That is why the revelation is only complete with all 27 books of the NT. You Muslims are always demanding your own words and exact phrases and exact demands. Stop you dump demanding of your own terms. God is in charge and Lord over you.
LikeLike
//μονογενης – Monogeneas does not mean “only begotten” – it actually means “one of a kind” or “unique one”. mono = only ; geneas = kind, type//
Says Ken.
No matter how you obscure the true usage of μονογενής monogenes your theologian have defined the the term as:
single of its kind, only 1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents) 1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of GodThis is the very reason why the Qur’an criticises the use of “son of god” in christendom as a form of shirk.
We say: With the Name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
LikeLike
The word is used in Hebrews 11:17-19 to describe Isaac, the son of Abraham. However Isaac was not the only-begotten son of Abraham, but was the “only unique”, “one of a kind”, “son of his love”, “only beloved one”, “chosen one”, or “promised one” from his own loins/body (Genesis 15:1-6.
In theology in the early centuries; they applied the word “generation” to the idea of “eternally generated” – like the Word logos λογος (john 1:1) means “the mind/thoughts expressing themselves in words”-always coming out from the sources – like rays of the sun are always coming out from the sun itself, having the same substance. That is why there was never a time when the Son did not exist – He was always there with the Father – John 17:5
“Today I have begotten you” – Psalm 2:7 – in my opinion, this refers to the point in time when the human Jesus was born into the world – as in Luke 1 and 2 and Matthew 1 and 2. But putting all the verses together, Jesus pre-existed, is eternal, the same substance as the Father, and was born into time and space and humanity. No sex and nothing shameful was involved. God did it by His power and Spirit. “Be! and it happened”. The eternal Son became a man – Philippians 2:5-8 and John 1:14.
LikeLike
Jesus is not pre-existent in the synoptic Gospels, only the much later gospel of John.
LikeLike
The gospel of John is God-breathed revelation also. As is Philippians and Colossians and Hebrews; they all proclaim the eternal Sonship and Deity of Christ.
LikeLike
None claim to be God breathed revelation. That is your extra biblical belief
LikeLike
All the true Christians of the first to fifth centuries and even beyond have believed this and the early church discerned it – Tertullian and Irenaeus and Justin Martyr ( 3 of the earliest significant writers ) all are solid evidence against your attacks. You use modern liberal Walter Bauer-Bart Ehrman-Elaine Pagels (even Dan Brown DaVinci Code type of arguments, in many ways). Michael Kruger’s books,
The Canon Revisited, and
The Question of Canon and
The Heresy of Orthodoxy soundly refutes them all and you!
LikeLike
I’m not concerned with what people generations later thought, my point is simple and irrefutable: the texts themselves do not claim to be Revelation from God. You argument has a decidedly Catholic air to it.
LikeLike
It is taught by principle when you understand John 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-13; 17:8; 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Peter 3:16; 1 Timothy 5:18; Jude 3; Galatians 1:6-9; 1 Corinthians chapters 1-2, all together in a consistent theological understanding.
LikeLike
WTF? Talk about a tsunami of references – which no one will bother to look up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because you are lazy and afraid to look them up and study and open your heart to the true God, who is Lord over you and commands you to repent.
LikeLike
catholic maybe, meaning Universal and early apostolic, but not Roman Catholic
LikeLike
semantics.
LikeLike
Balderdash! Poppycock!
as there was no such thing as the Pope, nor Purgatory, nor indulgences, nor over-exalting of Mary, nor statues or prayers to dead saints, nor trafficking in relics in the early centuries, there was no Roman Catholic doctrine or claim of “bishop over all other bishops” that stuck in the early centuries.
see this excellent 8 part articles by Tim Kauffman.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/church-history-series-the-visible-apostolicity-of-the-invisibly-shepherded-church/
LikeLike
You are rambling here. All you wrote just prove that the sonship of jesus in trinitarianism usage is blasphemous because it denotes sonship viewed in relation to god (as parent) begat a unique son. A shirk. The greatest sin against the One and Only God of the Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all)
LikeLiked by 2 people
You are free to believe that the Christian theology is shirk. We say it is not; because is an eternal spiritual relationship – no sex and no physical thing. But after Jesus was conceived in the womb of a virgin (which you also believe in), He became physical, flesh, human – “The Word became flesh, human and dwelt among us.” “God with us” Immanuel.
LikeLike
It is shirk, God is always God. To believe that God incarnate to a human is absurd let alone worship a human as it is the greatest sin of all.
LikeLike
If it is spiritual, eternal relationship and God is One in substance/nature/essence, ذات، جوهر , then it is not shirk.
But you are free to believe in your mind that it is shirk, though we say it is not. The biggest problem with Islam is your religion claimed the right to attack and kill and subjugate the Jews, Christians, (Surah 9:29, and the whole Surah 9 which is evil and nasty) and later Zoroastrians and Hindus and Buddhists; whereas Christianity gives people freedom.
LikeLike
There is no rambling here. We already established these truths centuries before Islam started. Your religion is a new and false one, 600 years late. It has nothing to do with the real Jesus of the first century. It has some good things to say, like Jesus is the Word of God, kalimat Allah کلمه الله and “a Spirit from Allah” روح من الله and Al Masih المسیح and that Jesus did miracles, and was virgin born, but even those things from an Islamic perspective are 600 year later anachronistic forcing your defectiveness onto the Jesus of the NT. Your religion gutted the NT (and OT) of its truth for a false and war-like religion that conquers and subjugates the Christians and Jews and forced them to be little pitiful communities with no rights and no real freedom to do anything. You wore them down by your economic and political oppression of them by the Dhimmi system and Jiziye system, based on evil Surah 9:29 and the whole Surah 9 is evil.
LikeLike
Islam is the continuation of genuine God revelation. Correcting false idol worshipping trinitarianism.
The Qur’an don’t contain absurdities like the order and praise for baby skull smashing into the rocks and not like you false claim, early wars helped christian of middle east to grow against imperialist greek and latin christians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
always coming out from the one source
sources is a typo
LikeLike
@Ken Temple,
You said “It is not necessary to demand that Luke has to have all information in one or two – his 2 books.”
Not according to Luke. He explains the purpose of his writing in the beginning of his work. Many people had already written about theses event (i.e. Jesus’ life) but Luke wanted to set the record straight by giving an orderly account.[Luke 1:1-4]
How can Luke write an orderly account about Jesus and miss the most central detail that he was God, the eternal Son. If Luke believed what later Trinitarians believe, an orderly account would not begin with the conception. It is obvious for Luke Jesus in not eternal or co-substantial with God. Either he did not believe Jesus was an eternal Son or he failed to do what he set out (give an orderly account).
You said “That is why the revelation is only complete with all 27 books of the NT.” This goes back to my initial question who decided these 27 books were God-inspired when the authors(majority of them) did not say so.
LikeLike
Luke did not write “to set the record straight”. Where do you get that in Luke 1:1-4 ??
He just says it “seemed good to him” to investigate and interview more of the eyewitnesses of “what happened” (ie, history, events) – he especially interviewed Mary and got more details than Mark and Matthew gave. There is no problem at all with this.
He wrote, “so that you will know the certainty / truth of what you have been taught (orally, without writing, where we get our word “catechism” from.
Anyway, you are demanding things from Luke that are just that – your own human demands when the Lord Himself provides the necessary revelation in other books of the 27 books of the NT.
Who “decided”? Protestants don’t look at the issue of canon as humans deciding which books over others; rather, God sovereignly and providentially guided the church of the early centuries to discern, discover which books were already in existance from the apostles of the first century. The were already “God-breathed” when they were written by 96 AD. Their power in themselves was so powerful, they could not help but recognize the true books, which is what happened.
LikeLike
brother eric
you quoted :
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
just a few quotes from here
http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/question-on-the-three-letter-root-wa-la-da.3111572/
أنا اليوم ولدتك = “I begot you today”.
Theology won’t change the meaning of this phrase.
quote:
In Biblical Hebrew the Qal form of the verb w/y-l-d means both “give birth to” (of a woman) and “beget” (of a man). This is true regardless of whether the subject is a divine or a mortal being. You can convince yourself of this by looking at any of the genealogical lists, for example Gen. 11:10 sqq.
Arabic walada has the same two meanings.
..
LikeLiked by 1 person
//brother eric
you quoted :
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
just a few quotes from here
http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/question-on-the-three-letter-root-wa-la-da.3111572/
أنا اليوم ولدتك = “I begot you today”.
Theology won’t change the meaning of this phrase.
quote:
In Biblical Hebrew the Qal form of the verb w/y-l-d means both “give birth to” (of a woman) and “beget” (of a man). This is true regardless of whether the subject is a divine or a mortal being. You can convince yourself of this by looking at any of the genealogical lists, for example Gen. 11:10 sqq.
Arabic walada has the same two meanings.//
Akhi Edward,
Yes, no matter how hard he try to obscure the trinitarian usage of the word “begotten” his theologian clearly define it usage as μονογενής monogenes used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents).
From https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki//ابن_الله
On ابن الله
under ابن الله في المسيحية “ibnullah” in christianity
—————————————————
we read: (translation is mine)
here the word used is المولود AL MAWLUUD , the same root with Arabic walada ولد
..so no matter trinitarians explain it they can not never escape the inappropriate description of prophet Isa relationship to God ie. using المولود which is related to ‘Walad’ (وَلَد) which denotes a son born of physical sexual relations, rather like the English term “offspring.”
Tawheed is the only cure to this sickness
LikeLike
” . . . which denotes a son born of physical sexual relations, rather like the English term “offspring.”
Except the virgin conception and virgin birth (Luke chapters 1-2; Matthew chapters 1-2) and eternality of the Son (John 17:5) and the eternality of the Word (John 1:1-5; 1:14) guards against all such attacks by Islam.
LikeLike
“He just says it “seemed good to him” to investigate and interview more of the eyewitnesses of “what happened” (ie, history, events) – he especially interviewed Mary and got more details than Mark and Matthew gave. There is no problem at all with this.”
quote:
3 And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? 44 For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be[e] a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord.”
since marys presence had an effect on john the baptist, how come it didn’t have an effect on her future husband?
why is mary singing like she is in church ?
Mary’s Song of Praise
46 And Mary[f] said,
“My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant.
Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50 His mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
52 He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 according to the promise he made to our ancestors,
to Abraham and to his descendants forever.”
this answers my question. luke did not want to include the story where joseph doubted mary.
LikeLike
lol
walad
waalidah
wildak (morrocan arabic)
waalidayn (2)
wulida madi majhool
walada
youlad
mowlood
meelaaad
they gonna be celebrating meelaad soon on 25th december
this is the sickness they attribute to the almighty.
LikeLike
“here the word used is المولود AL MAWLUUD , the same root with Arabic walada ولد”
walad have waaalid ya3niy ab
walidaan parent
this gets worse and worse.
LikeLike
Isaiah 9:6 uses the cognate Hebrew word. It points to the virgin birth and fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 in Immanuel, God with us, the mighty God, the Wonderful Counselor, the one who is the eternal Son/Word who became human and was born into the world.
LikeLike
you said “spirits don’t have sex”
https://mic.com/articles/126513/ghost-sex-is-a-thing-and-its-not-as-weird-or-creepy-as-you-think#.ZOQgqFBEM
do you know why we say everything is makhlook, including spirits?
you said “it points to the virgin birth”
no, you are on drugs. it doesn’t. it says nothing about impregnating a virgin.
“god with us” = named character , not that it took the embodiment of a jew.
you are clearly man worshipper who desperately needs to see you make hugs and feel your man god.
LikeLike
“Isaiah 9:6 uses the cognate Hebrew word”
did you say this to look cool or something?
which word would pagans use for their gods when they were begetting ?
let me give you a clue
you find it in is 9:6
LikeLike
a Spirit – the Holy Spirit – overshadows does not mean sex. you are goof-ball.
a Spirit is non-physical.
You don’t seem to want to think or be intellectual.
Luke 1:34-35
LikeLike
so what in god became physical and what was he doing in mary’s womb?
it is pagans like you who are goofballs.
LikeLike
what part of “virgin conception” and “virgin birth” do not understand?
You are a goof-ball.
LikeLike
well you tell me. you have invisible god ALL of a sudden becoming VISIBLE. god became physical and visible and was born. i see some kind of physical overshadowing here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So you are saying, god overshadows Mary, then enters into her womb and then gets born, and like all babies , he cries, poos, pees in his cloths ( there was no diaper in his time), his mom cleans him from pees and poos, feeds him, clams him, put him to sleep, carries him around. A powerless little puny creature. and you call him God. Shame!
LikeLiked by 1 person
ken, you said “spirit”
but spirit can physically cast out jesus into the wilderness.
casting means
“to throw …
jesus must have felt being flung.
right?
now your bible says
the spirit came UPON mary
so mary experienced physical experience and then had “god” in her womb as PHYSICAL being.
this all seems to be physical .
LikeLike
“a Spirit – the Holy Spirit – overshadows does not mean sex. you are goof-ball.”
since your god enters creation and likes women private parts and creates himself in them and goes right to the uterus, you might want to re-think about spirits and romping
LikeLike
more goofiness. sex is not dirty in itself; but the virgin birth has no sexual activity. You are just grasping at something with goofy statements like “likes women’s private parts” , “romping” – what does that even mean?, etc.
LikeLike
helulooya ! he now deflates!
“sex is not dirty it self” LOL
LikeLike
goofy
LikeLike
“sex is not dirty in itself” – so how is original sin transmitted?
LikeLiked by 1 person
2 separate issues. God created sex and marriage as good. Genesis chapters 1 and 2; Song of Solomon
That the sin nature is passed down to all humanity after Adam and Eve sinned is a separate issue from sex act in itself – it is holy within marriage of one man and one woman.
LikeLike
My question was how is original sin transmitted – is it through sex?
LikeLike
The result of the sex act is different than the sex act in itself within marriage.
Psalm 51:5 shows original sin in the human from conception; but it does not mean that sex in itself is dirty; it is holy and good in marriage – one man and one woman – Genesis 2:18-25
LikeLike
why did aron experience the love of “holy” spirit
0:42?
LikeLike
I skipped around; some parts of that video are funny, yes.
the Bible was ALREADY established as reliable centuries before Islam came around. (Canon and text issues)
It is anachronistic to demand that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and Paul’s writings have the same kind of method of “chain of narrators” at the beginning of Hadiths, those collections gathered 200 years after Muhammad.
You cannot demand that; since the whole context and situation of the early church was different, and under persecution, etc.
We have early and multiple testimony that they are all inspired and “kata” was on all of them – Matthew, mark, Luke, John, etc. as scholar Martin Hengel wrote. which we already discussed.
Paul’s writings are also Scripture, and Jesus appointing Paul as an apostle is all there – Acts 9, 22, 26; Galatians 1-2; I Cor. 1-2; 15, etc.
Again, Muslims demand things that are not appropriate or right, based on their own religion and demands that came 600 years late.
LikeLike
all i asked was to look at what holy spirit did to aron and you type all this?
LikeLike
yes
LikeLike
is original sin like for example if i eat , then you are you too satiated?
is that the idea?
LikeLike
”
You cannot demand that; since the whole context and situation of the early church was different, and under persecution, etc.”
peter wasn’t under persecution when post resurrected jesus told him to make disciples, he goes fishing instead .
LikeLike
Peter and the rest of the disciples faced persecution a few weeks later – Acts chapters 4-5 and Acts 12 and beyond. Eventually, Peter was executed by the evil Emperor Nero around 67 AD.
LikeLike
i seen those references. it is sporadic. not all the time. these guys are released and go around preaching. sporadic. but even if they were, then the problem is, how bad would memory be effected under severe persecution? how are the stories being remembered? within the “christian family” how many are making up lies to country lies? peter after all has record of lying and taking false oaths.
LikeLike
all I asked you, etc. – I guess that is Aaron’s own personal experience. I have Black Christian friend also who used to that kind of thing – it is funny for others of us who did not grow up in those kinds of churches.
That’s his own experience; I don’t criticize it; although different.
LikeLike
“just as your “Mother of books””
your god BECOMES a physical being and you attribute “mother of books” to physical being who gets fathered ?
“had sex to become mother and produce baby books, right?”
your god became a physical being and was PARENTED you man worshipping pagan. he entered mary and then became VISIBLE in her womb
”
or “son of the road” is offspring of daddy and mommy road, after having sex, right?
doggie poo language”
does your god have RELATIONSHIPS within trinity ? is he fathered and fathering?
when you say “our son in heaven”
what does “son” mean here?
LikeLike
“wrong; the reason is because the human Jesus is the same substance as God the Father and the Holy Spirit; it does not rule out the truth of the existence and eternal generation of the Son/Word.”
is “god the human” currently in the trinity? generation ? is god birthing god in the trinity? please explain, because it is sounding more and more polytheistic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
cursed language employed:
the reason was because when it says “the Holy Spirit” will overshadow you and the power of the Most High will come upon you – he is talking about the same substance as the Most High (God the Father) and the same substance as the Holy Spirit. Basically, by God’s power and Spirit, nothing physical touching Mary, God miraculously put His own nature/substance into the womb of Mary and combining with the human nature, made the God-man Jesus.
the most high
1. put his own nature/ingredient/make up into FEMALE uterus.
2. god then existed as physical and visible being in female uterus.
here it not god experiencing OUTSIDE of his divine nature, but INSIDE of his divine nature he becomes a physical and created thing .
it is not “divine logos” – divine + fetus . no, it is divine becoming visible/finite.
the visible in the divine and the divine in the visible
the physical/visible in the trinity and a person of the trinity in the physical/visible
“nothing physical touching mary”
ken does not know this at all. he does know that the spirit CAST/flung jesus and jesus experienced the casting, so if spirit overshadowed and mounted mary, then there must be physical activity. how can the END product, being god, be visible, but the ACT of PRODUCING god , in a WOMb, non -physical?
LikeLike
” he is talking about the same substance as the Most High (God the Father) and the same substance as the Holy Spirit. Basically, by God’s power and Spirit, nothing physical touching Mary, God miraculously put His own nature/substance into the womb of Mary and combining with the human nature, made the God-man Jesus.”
i note you minus jesus from the activity of impregnation. you just have two conscious persons to impregnate a woman and generate within her /produce within her god?
LikeLike
“God miraculously put His own nature/substance into the womb of Mary and combining with the human nature, made the God-man Jesus.”
god put his nature in mary and the person of jesus was where?
waiting to be produced as “god-man” ?
LikeLike
It is far more satisfying to look for a needle in a haystack or watch paint dry than debate a blind fool like Ken Temple.
LikeLike
I don’t see the need for such name calling.Not useful in any way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
and mounted mary,
Why did you add that phrase?
Some of you Muslims are always thinking of sex, it seems.
Again, it was non-physical – a spirit, like a shadow, does not involve physicality.
LikeLike
i find it very funny that you want the PRODUCTION of your god non-physical
but you want him @ the same time to smell, taste, see , hear, think etc 100% like a human
you have absolutely no evidence that the “holy spirit” in your religion does non-physical acts.
your god has to come down and enter in to creation
“like a shadow”
the object was simply experiencing “shadowing” ?
who are you kidding? the filthy blasphemous language in which you admit that god has to enter a woman and then form himself in it is not “shadowing” at all .
LikeLike
He became human (John 1:14). God (the eternal Son, the eternal Word) humbled Himself and dwelt among us. Philippians 2:5-8; Amazing truth and grace and love!
LikeLike
you mean god produced himself in a uterus emptied of his powers? or produced himself with the same powers he used to produce himself?
LikeLike
“Some of you Muslims are always thinking of sex, it seems.”
that is your disgusting mind which you read into the innocent verses of the quran. your porn filled biblical mind has to imaging physical activity when there is proof that some gods were able to impregnate women without doing the act
quote:
In other words, the idea of a virgin born, sexlessly conceived god already widely existed in paganism before Christianity arose. And Hera isn’t the only example. If you really insist on the idea being gods born of women who never had sex at all, the pagans had those, too. Perseus was most famously conceived by golden rain falling from the ceiling into the womb of the virgin Danaë, who remained a true virgin, never penetrated by any sexual organ anywhere, all the way to the god’s birth. One might still quibble and say gold coins counts as sex (as later painters imagined the myth to imply), but that’s a stretch, and in any case, it’s neither how the notion was conceived in antiquity (ancient iconography showed the gold falling in droplets, like a literal rain, more evocative of a ubiquitous urban myth of parthenogenesis: semen entering a womb without any organ penetrating the hymen) nor how it was universally understood by pagans: as even Justin Martyr had to admit, this counted as a virgin birth, and everyone said so.
end quote
the quran could easily be refuting this idea too.
LikeLike
Actually, it was you who used the word “mounted”, therefore it was you who thought of sex. A spirit cannot have sex; a spirit is not physical. God’s power and Spirit in a mysterious and non-physical way, caused the virgin conception and birth of Christ. Luke 1:34-35.
On the other hand the Qur’an implies sex in Surah 6:101 – “How can Allah have a son when there is no consort (spouse, partner, wife) for Him?”
In Surah 19:88-92, the same thing is implied – for God to have a son, some of the English translations say that is an “atrocious” or “monstrous” or horrible or disastrous thing! (shocking, etc.) For 1400 years, all Muslims have been saying the same thing, not even knowing or understanding that the Bible nor Christian theology ever taught that any kind of physical thing or sex was involved. It was always a metaphorical thing – the Virgin conception and birth proves this – that nothing physical caused the virgin conception – it was God’s power and God’s Spirit. It is agreeing with the Qur’an in a certain sense as God just saying “be! and it happened”. You cannot bring in Greek mythology here, because the Qur’an also affirms the virgin birth of Christ, and the bible is clear that protects monotheism and nothing dirty or sexual about it.
LikeLike
not even knowing or understanding that the Bible nor Christian theology Never taught that any kind of physical thing or sex was involved.
LikeLike
“Actually, it was you who used the word “mounted”, therefore it was you who thought of sex.”
that’s your sick porn filled mind .
“mount” means to climb up
people mount on horses
” A spirit cannot have sex; a spirit is not physical.”
but it can produce itself and have thoughts of sex?
jesus was tempted. jesus being “fully god” was in his divine nature experiencing fully human temptations.
spirit can cast jesus from place to place
” God’s power and Spirit in a mysterious and non-physical way, caused the virgin conception and birth of Christ. Luke 1:34-35.”
god’s spirit in “mysterious” way beget himself as a physical human being with feelings. thats very strange . what proof do you have that the “spiritual activity” was non-physical when there is god who has physical feelings?
jesus in his divine nature experienced the feeling of flesh
he was having inside divine nature experiences
it was not logos – divine nature + flesh
it was logos with divine nature + flesh feelings
“On the other hand the Qur’an implies sex in Surah 6:101 – “How can Allah have a son when there is no consort (spouse, partner, wife) for Him?”
disgusting porn filled christian mind. one could say that yhwh made out with sophia to produce jesus in the womb of mary
i quote :
es there were religions that maintained that Sophia was indeed a divine being. She (the word Sophia in Greek is feminine, so the divine being is always imagined as female) is especially prominent in forms of Gnosticism. But Sophia also came to be thought of as a (subservient) divine being in Jewish circles as well. Speculation on Sophia begins with the Hebrew Bible, especially Proverbs 8. Read it and you’ll see: “Wisdom” is said to have been with God in the beginning when he created all things, and to have participated with God in the creation (since he made all things using his wisdom). In fact, she is said to be the master creator herself through whom God created and even God’s consort in the beginning. In some Jewish circles Sophia, then, came to be thought of as not simply something people have, but as a divine hypostasis that is in the world. This view probably came to influence the Gospel of John, for whom a male hypostasis – the Logos (or “Word”) – was with God in the beginning, was himself God, yet was distinct from God, and was the one through whom all things were made (see John 1:1-3).
”
In Surah 19:88-92, the same thing is implied – for God to have a son, some of the English translations say that is an “atrocious” or “monstrous” or horrible or disastrous thing! (shocking, etc.)”
what makes you think that the quran is not attacking sexless and sex acts and killing all different ideas about “begotten gods”
look at your christian language when you humanise god and have him walking the earth with temptations and thoughts of sex
”
For 1400 years, all Muslims have been saying the same thing, not even knowing or understanding that the Bible nor Christian theology ever taught that any kind of physical thing or sex was involved.”
this is your sick porn filled christian mind making up lies.
a god who mounts a woman in his spirit does not necessarily have to be doing sex act
but there are gods who did do sex acts with women and christians are borrowing these sick language from the pagans and describing almighty in very human way
”
It was always a metaphorical thing – the Virgin conception and birth proves this – that nothing physical caused the virgin conception ”
you don’t know this. you don’t know anything about this.
ekballei
ἐκβάλλει
so even the object can experience being flung around.
you cannot deny that what mary received was not experienced by her in physical way.
”
– it was God’s power and God’s Spirit. It is agreeing with the Qur’an in a certain sense as God just saying “be! and it happened”.
but your god did not say “Be”
he came upon mary and over shadowed her.
”
You cannot bring in Greek mythology here, because the Qur’an also affirms the virgin birth of Christ, and the bible is clear that protects monotheism and nothing dirty or sexual about it.”
the new testament has greek mythology in it. it believes that a god PRODUCED himself in the UTERUS of a woman .
LikeLike
“In theology in the early centuries; they applied the word “generation” to the idea of “eternally generated” – like the Word logos λογος (john 1:1) means “the mind/thoughts expressing themselves in words”-always coming out from the sources – like rays of the sun are always coming out from the sun itself, having the same substance. That is why there was never a time when the Son did not exist – He was always there with the Father – John 17:5”
it is your belief that yhwh WITH divine nature EXPERIENCED human feelings
yhwh produced himself in a womb
yhwh produced himself as incarnating one
yhwh creates different existences for himself
since yhwh can express himself, you want him to EXPRESS another conscious PERSOn
which he FATHERED and is paradoxically FATHERED/PARENTED.
you can’t insult peoples intelligence.
quote:
“Today I have begotten you” – Psalm 2:7 – in my opinion, this refers to the point in time when the human Jesus was born into the world – as in Luke 1 and 2 and Matthew 1 and 2. But putting all the verses together, Jesus pre-existed, is eternal, the same substance as the Father, and was born into time and space and humanity. No sex and nothing shameful was involved. God did it by His power and Spirit. “Be! and it happened”. The eternal Son became a man – Philippians 2:5-8 and John 1:14.
“putting all the verses together” and then reading your desired lies into psalm 2:7
psalm 2:7 is an anceint texts
it is like getting modern day definition of “gay” and reading it into old definition of “gay”
one cannot force later beliefs into these texts .
the jews always brought god down to their level .
you can then allow the pagans to understand ” Waladtu “in the SAME way they would have understood how their gods were having children.
allow them to read their thoughts into the text.
LikeLike
” both the Father and the Son, and that from all eternity the Father is generating out from Himself the Son – like the mind and thoughts are always expressing themselves in words – logos λογος.”
are you saying that father generates a person distinct from himself and what is his self is fathered by itself . father is fathering what is generated from itself ? father is fathering the fathers SELF?
is the father birthing itself?
is the father birthing another SELF?
is the father Parenting itself ?
is the son really the father and father is parenting the father?
”
The Father is the ground or source that is generating the subsistence/ hupostasis / person like His own (but eternally, means always was) ”
you mean god was always in object and subject relationship and conscious of him being object and conscious of him being subject?
LikeLike
ken clearly knows the physical and pagan relationship yhwh has with creation and how he himself becomes a visible being with private parts.
ken, clearly knows that persons in the trinity must possess some kind of visibleness or physical properties to do love , communicate, experience the other, birth the other etc etc
like that guy said
no matter what theology says
you can’t escape the fact that your god is a waaalid and he has walad
LikeLike
“Your religion gutted the NT (and OT) of its truth for a false and war-like religion that conquers and subjugates the Christians and Jews and forced them to be little pitiful communities with no rights and no real freedom to do anything”
heheeh
eric k , you seemed to have angered this human worshipping american .
the guy is clearly angry bro eric. after you proved that “mowlood” thing , he clearly is steaming .
LikeLike
“He became physical, flesh, human – “The Word became flesh, human and dwelt among us.” “God with us” Immanuel.”
you have just confirmed you have some kind of mental problem. all this time you been arguing that you have a non-physical god, yet…..
LikeLike
” kalimat Allah کلمه الله and “a Spirit from Allah” روح من الله and Al Masih المسیح and that Jesus did miracles, and was virgin born, but even those things from an Islamic perspective are 600 year later anachronistic forcing your defectiveness onto the Jesus of the NT.”
more than 1000 years after moses you told the jews yhwh was an animal sacrifice in the form of a human .
LikeLike
@Ken: you wrote “Psalm 51:5 shows original sin in the human from conception; “.
Jesus was conceived in the womb of her mother. So what’s your point?
LikeLike
But only He (Jesus) was without sin; because He was virgin conceived and born. His divine nature protected Him from getting a sinful nature, since He had no human father. That is basic Christian Theology that all Christians have always taught.
LikeLike
” His divine nature protected Him from getting a sinful nature, since He had no human father. That is basic Christian Theology that all Christians have always taught.”
you are lying on the hebrew bible and for such lies you will be condemned by your god. “he had no human father”
adam had no human father, yet god could not protect him from making a sinful choice
dave was close to gods heart
lot was close to gods heart
moses was close to gods heart
why are you making your god biased on jesus’ flesh? unless you believe the flesh nature is FULLY divine, you will make your god defeating satan, every time the man jesus is tempted to do a sin. god then becomes a hypocrite and his own justice would condemn him .
LikeLike
@But Psalm 51:5. doesn’t give any exception to Jesus! You created that exception out of thin air. and if there are exceptions, care to explain why it doesn’t to Zachariah and Elizabeth, John the Baptist, Mary etc etc.
LikeLike
of course he created that exception . if he doesn’t he would have to make the flesh of jesus fully divine. i see no way out of this.
if adam had no father and mother, where was gods protection? this would make god unfair and hypocrite.
the worse part is that gods spirit comes upon people like moses
Judges 3:10, Judges 6:34,Judges 11:29-33
Also,
When the prophet Samuel anointed Saul to be king, he said that when Saul met other prophets, “Then the spirit of YHVH will come upon you mightily …”
When Samuel anointed David, “the spirit of YHVH came mightily on David.” In the next verse, “the spirit of YHVH departed from Saul.”
David cries out in Psalm 51:11, “Do not take Your holy spirit from me.”
Pharaoh also noted that Joseph was “endowed by the spirit of God.”
now look at temples words :
“His divine nature protected Him from getting a sinful nature,”
but divine nature was doing full flow on dave and others.
what the missionary is saying is that god set up everyone to fail so that he could protect himself
LikeLike
god lovingly set up the world TO FAIL so then he could protect a nature of himself which is not “fully divine”
“His divine nature protected Him from getting a sinful nature,”
TRANSLATION:
fully god with divine powers PROTECTS fully god WITHOUT divine powers
LikeLike