Christian theology

15327397_1319503211422901_4541561624706421860_n



Categories: Christianity, God

200 replies

  1. “The father is a person, the son is a person, the holy spirit is a person, but they are not three persons but one person.”

    LOL..

    Which christian theologian says that god is three persons and one person? That guy is stupid.

    Like

    • That is to say the guy in the pics is stupid.

      Like

    • And quibbling over semantics like a pedantic little pseud leads me to the same conclusion about you.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The moron in the pic is making a semantic argument – that’s the point of his ignorant mockery. Don’t tell me you are too stupid to see that?

      Like

    • Last chance Adam –

      prove you are not a troll by presenting evidence from the Quran. This blog is not your private playground.

      Liked by 1 person

    • PAul

      Frankly, your comment makes no sense.

      I asked which christian doctrine says that god is three persons and one person. What does that have to do with the quran?

      can you explain this? Abu doesn’t seem able to answer that simple question.

      Like

    • It makes perfect sense. You said this:

      Islamic theology.

      Allah is simple – he is one! But we don’t know who or what allah is.

      “He is merciful” – yes but no, he IS not merciful by nature but shows mercy and on and on with all his other 99 natures. At the end of it muslims submit to a being that they simply cannot know if he is fundamentally evil, good or indifferent.

      In christianity, what god is is complex – he is plurality – who he is is simple – he is love. In islam what allah is is simple – simple-mindedly one – who he is is complex – he has all these attributes that reveal nothing about his intentions for humanity.

      Such a being who is unable to make his relationship to humankind easily understood cannot be the true god.

      Prove you are not a troll by presenting evidence of all this from the Quran.

      Like

    • The question is why not?

      Like

  2. Islamic theology.

    Allah is simple – he is one! But we don’t know who or what allah is.

    “He is merciful” – yes but no, he IS not merciful by nature but shows mercy and on and on with all his other 99 natures. At the end of it muslims submit to a being that they simply cannot know if he is fundamentally evil, good or indifferent.

    In christianity, what god is is complex – he is plurality – who he is is simple – he is love. In islam what allah is is simple – simple-mindedly one – who he is is complex – he has all these attributes that reveal nothing about his intentions for humanity.

    Such a being who is unable to make his relationship to humankind easily understood cannot be the true god.

    Like

    • Listen, don’t throw a little tantrum just because your contrived idol has multiple personality disorder (and is in his essence, according to you, a human emotion – so basically an even more absurd version of Salafism’s amalgamated space monster); that’s no excuse to completely disfigure and misrepresent the Islamic theology you very clearly haven’t studied.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Adam, can you back up your claims by quotes from the Quran. A string of assertions by you is not convincing. I certainly do not recognize the God of the Quran in your comments.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Abu Talhah

      “Listen, don’t throw a little tantrum just because your contrived idol has multiple personality disorder (and is in his essence, according to you, a human emotion – so basically an even more absurd version of Salafism’s amalgamated space monster); that’s no excuse to completely disfigure and misrepresent the Islamic theology you very clearly haven’t studied.”

      No tantrums here.

      Do some dawah and please feel free to explain who allah is. We all know he is one, but what is he? Or is he an “it”? Or a “whatever”?

      As for multiple personality disorder, allah has 99 attributes that don’t actually reveal what he is – sounds a lot like a maniac with conflicting personalities to me, or a pathetic attempt to incorporate polytheism into a monotheistic framework.

      Also, feel free to explain which christian doctrine says that god is three persons and one person. It would help us to better understand what the moron in the picture is trying to say.

      Like

    • God is God, you silly goose. He doesn’t occupy a genus, so he isn’t a “what” or a one “of” anything.

      Liked by 1 person

    • That is to say, quiddity is inapplicable in this case.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Adam,

      until you can you back up your claims by quotes from the Quran you are wasting your time here.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Paul

      Allah doesn’t say in the quran that he has 99 attributes – that is a man-made extrapolation. Not my fault.

      Like

    • Lets stick to the Quran as our No 1 source of truth about God. This is what Muslims do. Now present your evidence.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “In christianity, what god is is complex – he is plurality – who he is is simple – he is love. In islam what allah is is simple – simple-mindedly one – who he is is complex – he has all these attributes that reveal nothing about his intentions for humanity.”

      in christianity you have beingless persons who are not EACH by themselves “love” or any nonsense like that.

      each is deformed and disabled and without divine nature.

      it is like a mind OUTSIDE of it’s body , separated from eye sight, hearing, smelling and talking and other abilities like walking, running etc etc . you simply have “0ne body” INDEPENDENT of the persons

      to say they are “fully sharing” implies they are each fully god.

      but you must admit that each person is sharing deformed love between each other.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Adam C is right, the pic # 3 is wrong; Christians don’t say that; therefore Ahmad Deedat was wrong and ignorant. He was just a showman who knew how to get his Muslim audience excited, like Zakir Naik.

    Deedat was not learned in Christianity, and did not understand Christian theology.

    Josh McDowell totally defeated him in his debate with him.

    Like

    • you have a good point about pic 3 Ken.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Abdullah,
      Because the doctrine of the Trinity is One God in three persons. Three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

      One in substance/nature/essence ذات ، جوهر
      three in person

      Like

    • Sorry, you don’t know what جوهر means by the way you used it.

      Like

    • Then why’d you use it wrong?

      Liked by 1 person

    • May Allah have mercy on Ahmed Deedat.
      He was the hero in every sense of the word. Josh Mcdowell didn’t do anything. He was exploiting some gaps that Deedat left for one reason or another.
      Christians till know cannot answer his questions.
      ==========
      Regarding pic 3
      Why not ? Why don’t you say one person?

      Like

    • Ken,
      A-You say The Son is God, The H. Spirit is God, The Father is God, yet (they are) one God.

      It continues

      B- You say The Son is person, The H. Spirit is person, The Father is person, yet(they are)……….?

      What would be the problem if you said ONE PERSON in B based on your nonsense in A?

      ===============
      N.B
      Using another language doesn’t help your situation. In fact, In Arabic it makes it be worse since you cannot play with it.
      The same person of Jesus has جوهرين.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “Because the doctrine of the Trinity is One God in three persons. Three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

      is each person 100 % without divine nature? can you tell me how any of this makes any sense?
      100 % conscious person MINUS nature

      100% conscious person minus nature

      100% conscious person minus nature

      how is it conscious then when it is without fully divine nature?

      Like

  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed
    Sounds like he could be referring to the Athanasian Creed. It’s one of my favorites, though not as well known as the Nicean or Apostles Creed.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Thanks Paul,
    Since you already knew that; why did you put that up in the first place as “Christian Theology” ?

    Like

  6. “Listen, don’t throw a little tantrum just because your contrived idol has multiple personality disorder (and is in his essence, according to you, a human emotion – so basically an even more absurd version of Salafism’s amalgamated space monster); that’s no excuse to completely disfigure and misrepresent the Islamic theology you very clearly haven’t studied.”

    “a human emotion”

    that is the fully god with divine nature having fully human emotions. the one you are talking about is one from a group of 3 .

    each person seems to be deformed or beingless

    each person not only needs the other, but divine nature is something external to them.

    but then the confusion arises, how the hell do they love, see and speak to each other , when none of them inherently have full divine nature?

    each WHO is not loving

    it is deformed and beingless.

    Like

  7. Lets stick to the Quran as our No 1 source of truth about God. This is what Muslims do. Now present your evidence.

    What about that comment that Eric bin Kisam made here at your blog, that the Sunnah rules over the Qur’an?

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/muslim-admits-sunna-rules-over-quran/

    Like

    • The Qur’an *is* always No 1 source of truth about God for muslims from every spectrums.

      I have said clearly my leaning toward understanding the sharia is in accordance to the following rank set by early muslims:
      1) the Quran and
      2) Authentic hadiths,
      3) The consensus of scholars,
      4) Companion opinions, and
      5) Analogical reasoning based on the Quran and Sunna.

      Like

  8. Why did Jesus Christ, or the Disciples, not use this language of ”ousia” i.e substance, essence and ”persons”, in reference to the God of Israel, Ellah, Eloh, Eloha, Allaha , Allah? Indeed, even the foundational books of Judaism, namely the Torah, is utterly silent on this important matter of theology. As is the New Testament and the historical Christ. This is very odd. The answer given by Jesus in Mark 12: 29, why does it not address the singular ousia and differentiated ”persons” of the Trinity? The fact that the ”Persons” are all co-equal and co-eternal with differentiated functional roles, yet of the same ousia, why is this not explained by Jesus? I really do not understand. Can any Trinitarian/Evangelical explain? How come I do not see this belief in John 17: 3 ? How come ALL HISTORIANS SAY that Jesus was unaware of this entirely?

    In the Shema, where is the Ousia? And the Persons?

    In John 17: 3, where is the Ousia? And the Persons?

    In 1 Timothy 2:5, where is the Ousia? And the Persons?

    In 1 Corinthians 11:3, where is the Ousia? And the Persons?

    The point is not that the Bible does not have the Trinity (it certainly does not), but rather there are EXPLICIT STATEMENTS IN THE BIBLE that make the TRINITY IMPOSSIBLE.

    STATEMENTS LIKE : But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the HEAD OF CHRIST IS GOD”

    OR Father… that they may know You, the Only True God, and Jesus Christ whom You sent.

    The Trinity is not only completely absent, IT IS ACTIVELY REFUTED BY THE TEXT! Where is OUSIA, ESSENCE, ONTOLOGY AND PERSONS THAT ARE DISTINCT YET ONE, IN DIFFERENT FUNCTIONAL ROLES??! THIS WHOLE NON-SENSE IS ABSENT! TRINITARIANS ARE PROUD IDOLATERS!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Avi,
      It is anachronistic to demand that the Greek word ousia / ουσια has to be in the text.

      The concept is there, when you understand John 1:1, for example

      the phrase
      “the Word was God” = by nature/substance/essence = ousia

      “the Word was with God” = 2 persons – the Father and the Son. (see with John 17:5)

      also,
      “If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father” – John 14:9
      and

      John 1:18

      “the only unique (or eternally generated) God, He has explained Him.” (John 1:18)

      Hebrews 1:3
      “He (Jesus, the Son) is the radiance of the Father’s glory and the exact representation of His nature”

      all those speak of ousia. (without using the word)

      combined with many passages that have “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” – Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; I Peter 1:2-3; Ephesians 4:4-6; 1 Corinthians 12:1-13; Ephesians 1:3-14, etc.

      Just as one Muslim said earlier about Shamoun and Wood,

      “they cherry pick and divorce texts from their interpretive tradition”

      You guys are doing the same thing with our texts.

      We have our interpretive tradition also. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Hllary, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Naziansus, Basil, Chrysostom, etc.

      the interpretive tradition on the issues of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity were explained by these men.

      Like

    • “The fact that the ”Persons” are all co-equal and co-eternal with differentiated functional roles, yet of the same ousia,”

      that’s the part which doesn’t make any sense

      tom, jill and hunter = 300 % persons sharing one human nature

      they say, “we worship one god”

      so it is like ken saying , ” i worship 1 human in 3 persons”

      but then, you have each of them chatting to each other, loving each other, and doing other action verbs.

      to the outside observer, one would assume one single person loving itself , but ken is having each of them with it’s own spirit/ghost/body when it is sent and is sending .

      Like

  9. Shaykh Ahmad Deedat, was my hero, although I have never met him in person. May Allah the Most High has mercy on him….

    Like

    • He was a showman, never really made any significant intellectual arguments.

      Like

    • “He was a showman, never really made any significant intellectual arguments.”

      ken, does the son SEE 100 % what the father sees and is he fully conscious of the fact that he sees what the father sees?

      does the son share “one body ” with the father or have it’s own body/sprit/ghost when talking and loving the father?

      Like

    • “How then do you explain his inability to comprehend the trinity?”
      As if christians comprehend the trinity?
      Ahmed Deedat was repeating of what he had been hearing from christians. That’s it!
      I’ve met a pastor explained to me (I and the father are one) by saying that they are one person.

      Ahmed Deedat did his best by all tools that he had at that time May Allah have mercy on him .

      Like

    • “How then do you explain his inability to comprehend the trinity?”

      in hyde park, who from among the man worshippers grasp the trinity? hyde park is testimony that when man worshippers open their mouth, they jump from one heresy to the other.

      Like

    • Sheikh Deedat (Allah yerhamu) was a giant in the field of comparative religion and Muslim apologetics. Whatever his detractors want to say about him, his lasting contribution is that he woke the ummah up from a deep slumber by simply pointing out the deceitful tactics of Missionaries and the weak and illogical theology of Christianity in comparison with Islam. He restored Muslim morale & pride in the deen, which had suffered during the Imperialist Christian led colonialist period and he showed the way in providing a peaceful way to polemically defend the faith. That is why many Christians still hate him to this Day!

      And if anyone is a showman it was Swaggert and the large plethora of Christian Tele-evangelists and charismatic charlatans past and present.

      Liked by 1 person

    • If so many Christians themselves don’t correctly understand their own doctrines then how do they expect anyone else to?

      Like

    • To illustrate this fallacy, I and Temple  belong to a human category (because we are supposed to be born not hatched from the egg ) but we are different personage … but if I claimed I was hatched from mommy egg not born from her then it makes me a special personage but does it still make me count as a human?

      Like

    • “praise God the truth is not based on skin color – God loves all the nations – “some out from every nation, every tribe, every language, and every people have been purchased/redeemed by the blood of the lamb.”

      except that a non-jew has to best jesus before he gives her wasted “miracle”
      except that in olden days god had wanted blood of unborn, infant and children because of what their ancestors did.

      Like

  10. Tertullian, around 190-200 AD, uses Trinitas Unitas, and the Latin equivalents of ousia (substansia) and hypostasis (persona)

    “these three are one essence, not one person”

    https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xxv.html

    part of the “the interpretive tradition”, which all Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox are in agreement – we are all in agreement on the Doctrine of the Trinity.

    Like

  11. Tertullian, on Trinitas Unitas ( Three in One)

    Three in person, One in essence

    https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.ii.html

    Like

    • “Three in person, One in essence”

      it is still 3 gods.
      you have each fully sharing the same nature = 3 gods.

      thanks

      Liked by 2 people

    • Nope; One God in three persons.
      الله واحد

      Like

    • Jesus essence was human. He made mistakes, he was deceived by satan, he was hungry in your bible.

      Like

    • No, Jesus never made a mistake; He was sinless and perfect. He got hungry, tired, and thirsty, yes; but there is nothing wrong with that; He was the most perfect human and also God by nature on the inside. He was not deceived by Satan.

      Like

    • Good that we are in agreement that Jesus is human with weakness. So stop practicing idolatry by worshiing 2 him instead of his God.

      Btw not only that jesus of the NT deceived

      Like

    • Not only that Jesus of the NT was deceived he was powerless. Satan carried jesus with him into wilderness for 40 days

      Like

    • He didn’t “carry” Him; where do you get that?
      Jesus resisted all the temptations of the devil as a model for us to teach us how to resist the devil . Matthew 4:1-12 and Luke 4:1-12

      Like

    • From Mat 4:1, “Jesus was led (ἀνάγω) by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted (πειράζω is tempted in negative sense) by the devil.”

      ἀνάγω here by definition can mean brought up or carried but even if it means just “led” it shows that according to your bible jesus was powerless by the power of satan.

      Like

    • The Holy Spirit led Jesus.

      the Devil tempted Him as a human, and God the Father, the Holy Spirit and Jesus the Son, planned this in order for Jesus to be a perfect model of how we are to resist temptations of the devil. By mediation and study in the Word of God, so that we are prepared to quote the word when we are tempted.
      the purpose was to be a model and teacher for us.

      Like

    • how can Jesus (in your theology) be a model for us when he was utterly unlike us?

      Like

    • He became human and was a perfect model. His humility, love, grace was and is amazing.

      Like

    • but he was fully God too in your theology. Utterly, radically dissimilar to any human who has ever lived. Your argument is terrible.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jesus humbled Himself and lived as a man filled with the Holy Spirit and guided by the Holy Spirit – as a model for us. He voluntarily veiled some of the use of His divine attributes for a season (by becoming a man, He “emptied” Himself – Philippians 2:5-8); that’s why when He was on earth, He did not know the time of His return (Matthew 24:36); but obviously He knows all things after resurrection and ascension.

      Like

    • Was Jesus God on earth or not? Yes or no? If yes then he cannot be a role model for anyone. He is unique species: a God-man.

      If no, then he is a Muslim prophet.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Philippians 2:5-8

      He was both God and man; but lived most of the time in dependence on His heavenly Father and on the Holy Spirit, a human model for us to imitate. His humility, grace, love, truth, and He did not do any violence or war like Muhammad did and getting special revelations for multiple wives, (even permission for more than 4 seems wrong even in Islamic understanding; when he got Zayd to divorce Zaynab and took her for his wife and abolished adoption, this is a great discrediting to his claim to prophethood; even Aisha said something like, “My, my, how Allah harkens quickly to your every desire”, – his special revelations for himself discredit claim to prophethood, etc. – Muhammad was not a good model; but Jesus was.

      Like

    • Ken answer my question: while on earth was he God?

      Like

    • Yes of course. But you ignore Philippians 2:5-8 and theology by your “yes or no” binary polemics.

      Like

    • Jesus cannot have been a Muslim, since Islam came 600 years too late.

      Like

    • Matthew 4:1-12 and Luke 4:1-12 provide us with many truths to help us deal with temptations.

      Like

    • “Jesus resisted all the temptations of the devil as a model for us to teach us how to resist the devil”

      you don’t know any of this since you don’t have access to his minds except the minds of sinners which you acknowledge sin, make up lies and even disobey god. even gods close ones upon whom gods spirit used to dwell forsook god and disobeyed his commandments.

      god set up all his close ones (prophets) to fail so then he could resist all the temptations?

      “Jesus resisted all the temptations of the devil as a model for us to teach us how to resist the devil”

      if i tempted a human to fly , i would not be able to convince , because no human can flap his hands and take off. on the other hand, that the story says jesus was tempted, means satan could get him to sin in his heart. human flapping his arms and taking off is impossible, so it would be useless to tempt humans , on the other hand, tempting them to sin in their heart and action is possible. that jesus could sin in his heart and action is not denied by the story of matthew and mark.

      Like

    • “Jesus humbled Himself and lived as a man filled with the Holy Spirit and guided by the Holy Spirit – as a model for us. He voluntarily veiled some of the use of His divine attributes for a season (by becoming a man, He “emptied” Himself – Philippians 2:5-8); ”

      if a god already has power over past, present and future
      already knows the past, present and future
      already controls past, present and future
      already has everything subservient to him, then phillippians is a lie.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Matthew 4:1-12 and Luke 4:1-12 provide us with many truths to help us deal with temptations.”

      but god already provided this before the existence of jesus and inspired many rabbis to say things like

      http://www.yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat3a.htm

      telling people to watch their mouth and then call a gentile woman a dog in front of his pals is not nice, but insult, rude and racist behaviour

      http://unveiling-christianity.net/2016/03/16/jesus-messiah-world/

      Like

    • No; Jesus was using the common Jewish cultural saying in order to teach the disciples a lesson about their own ethnic bias and racial hatred against others. If you study Mark 7:1-30 better, you can see it.

      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/10/03/was-jesus-cruel-to-the-canaanite-woman-mark-724-30-matthew-1521-28/

      but your own cursing here, and warnings by Paul Williams and by Eric bin Kasim are discrediting you more and more as time goes by.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “The following verse (v. 23) notes that Jesus simply ignores her begging and even his disciples who were with him “erotoun” (implored) their master to help her, but he firmly tells his disciples to “apolyson auten” (dismiss her).”

      “teach his…” they implored him to help her, so why did you repeat your lies?

      Like

    • Ken answer my question: while on earth was he God?

      //Yes of course. But you ignore Philippians 2:5-8 and theology by your “yes or no” binary polemics.//

      You call someone who made mistakes, impotent even was powerless by the power of Satan as God?

      Do you realize how ludicrous is this belief?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jesus never made a mistake. I refuted you on Matthew 4 and Luke 4. The Holy Spirit led Jesus, not the devil. To be tempted as a human is not sin; to give into the temptation is sin.

      Hebrews 4:15
      For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.”

      Hebrews 4:15

      Wonderful truth. God the Son, became a man and we have a God (the true God = Trinity), who is pure love and truth and holiness an Sovereignty, who, in the eternal Son, the 2nd Person of the Trinity, also became a human and can relate to us in our struggles and problems.

      Like

    • Since Jesus never made a mistake; and was never impotent or powerless before Satan, there is nothing ludicrous about it.

      I don’t know where you get those 2 claims.

      Like

    • Oh yes he made mistakes according to your book: Jesus got angry and even destroyed a fig tree for the crime of not having fruit even though he wrongly assumed it was
      the season for figs to bear fruit.

      Also Satan was able to bring jesus into the wilderness yet jesus can do nothing about it like toy.

      Liked by 1 person

    • No; Jesus made no mistakes.
      the fig tree was a parable illustration about the Pharisees and Jewish nation that had no fruit. No fruit = no life and no evidence of reality on the inside.

      the Holy Spirit led Jesus into the desert; not Satan.

      You are talking goofy now.

      Like

    • How can God’s spirit was powerless by the satan’s? Surely It was not *holy* spirit, but evil spirit like in Mat 12:43

      Like

    • On war and justice on this earth.

      Moses was right.
      Muhammad was wrong.

      Because Jesus came in the middle and did away with Israel as a theocracy. Gone. Matthew 21:33-46; Matthew 23, 24:1-3, 24:15, etc. 70 AD.

      the church replaces Israel as a theocracy, or better fulfills the covenant people’s status as both Jewish believers and Gentiles believers in local church all over the world in all nations; but with no political power and no military power.

      Like

    • Moses and Muhammad (peace be upon them) lived similar life: as a warrior prophets establishing God’s Kingdom on earth.
      Jesus never said that he was replacing Moses law or anything on the contrary he came ONLY for the people Israel and your greek books have recorded that he had tried to rebel against pagan roman occupation and its temple collaborators to re-establish mosaic law.
      And his second coming jesus will return with much more bloodier war.

      Like

    • “No; Jesus was using the common Jewish cultural saying in order to teach the disciples a lesson about their own ethnic bias and racial hatred against others. If you study Mark 7:1-30 better, you can see it.”

      quote
      The following verse (v. 23) notes that Jesus simply ignores her begging and even his disciples who were with him “erotoun” (implored) their master to help her, but he firmly tells his disciples to “apolyson auten” (dismiss her).

      “common jewish cultural saying” born from where? from the torah which jesus inspired.

      so jesus, your god, sees that the woman was BORN in pagan culture.

      SHE being desperate ACCEPTS his racist insult .

      she accepts that the children are her masters.

      is this what jesus did not fix “common jewish cultural saying”

      ??

      accept in front of “racist” disciples that she, her daughter and her people are dogs which feed of waste?

      Like

    • The disciples were not asking Jesus to help her, they were showing their racial bias and hatred by wanting Jesus to send her away. but Jesus waits patiently in order to teach the disciples a lesson; and also show her good character and faith – she did not complain or defend herself or pagan background. She was admitting her sinfulness and need for the Savior. The Canaanite culture was a very pagan culture and dirty – they had sex orgies in their own religious rituals in front of people. The reason why the Jews called them “dogs”. She did not do the modern “victim mentality” or complaining about “racism”. She was acknowledging her sin and for that, she had great faith. (both repentance from sin and faith in Jesus as Messiah, Lord, and Savior.)

      Like

    • more sins from jewish perspective :

      An example of this can be found in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 12. There the disciples of Jesus have become hungry. In order to satisfy their hunger, they violate the Sabbath. Put aside for the moment the objection that this was a very minor violation, hardly worth mentioning. This was for them an opportunity. To what would they heed—their stomachs or the command of God? This minor pain created a conflict within each man. Each one could recognize his hunger but steel himself against it. Or, he could make his appetite the object of his focus. This hunger presented a challenge, making his observance of the Sabbath more meaningful than if no challenge presented itself. And they failed.

      The hunger they experienced could not be considered onerous. Being the Sabbath, they could not have journeyed terribly far. These were not men on the verge of starvation. They experienced the hunger that many of us feel at some point during the week. But this time it was an invitation to subsume their will to that of their Creator. They could say, “We are hungry, but your Sabbath is more precious to us than immediate gratification.” Their abstinence from threshing would have become an act of devotion, not merely self-discipline, but an act of love and obedience to God. This was a missed opportunity to express the supremacy of God’s will.

      That being unable to tie a knot might present one with an annoyance, I have no doubt. It can hardly be considered a great burden. It could be looked upon as an opportunity to express to God the supremacy of His will.

      But I may be misreading you. While the context suggests that you are claiming the oral Torah is a great burden, the question you ask suggests you may be addressing the legitimacy of the oral Torah. You seem to be saying that since it does not appear in the written Torah, it is not a legitimate law. Since the written Torah does not mention the specific prohibition regarding tying knots, you seem to say that it is not prohibited for the Jew to tie knots on the Sabbath.

      But this cannot be what you are saying, can it? After all, you have already acknowledged that there is an oral Torah. You claim that Jesus had his own oral Torah and that is the one you follow. While this claim is problematic and should be addressed, for the moment I care only that you acknowledge that the fact of an oral Torah is accepted by you. Only the details are in dispute. As such, you cannot base an argument on the fact that tying knots is not written. You have already accepted that there is an unwritten component to the Torah.

      I really am not sure which of these arguments you are implying. Both fail, however. The prohibition to tie knots on the Sabbath need not be written as such to have legitimacy. And it is not a particularly arduous requirement. On the contrary, its difficulty makes ones observance more meaningful. The opposition to one’s will and desire grants one the opportunity to make God’s greater than his own. The desire to tie the knot makes refraining a greater act of service.

      Like

    • //He did not do any violence or war like Muhammad did and getting special revelations for multiple wives//

      Too bad great Prophets like Moses and Muhammad and other hebrew prophets were both spiritual and military leaders with polygamous marriage . Jesus too had resorted to armed resistance albeit unsuccessful one, even jesus too according to your book shall be returning as military leader and violently kill many and a show of horrible bloodbath against the unbeliever. The fact that Prophet Muhammad was hugely successful in both role by divine intervention could be the reason why Prophet Muhammad was the seal of the prophets and shall be the first to enter Heaven.

      Btw if jesus was life was the best your model for humanity why did not you choose to live in celibacy and instead marry a woman following the way of biblical and prophets. ..

      Like

    • At the second coming and end of time; of course God has the right to destroy evil and send all the unbelievers to hell. This is not an argument that bothers me at all. You guys are funny that you keep bringing that up. Islam teaches that also. That is basic belief in the last day and judgment day. Easy.

      As far as celibacy goes . . . most people get married – it is creation ordiance – Genesis 1-2 and Jesus affirmed marriage (Matthew 19:4-6) and wedding ceremony before witnesses (John 2:1-12). there are exceptions like the apostle Paul and Jesus, who were great examples. But the Roman Catholic celibacy rules for priests is wrong. 1 Corinthians 9:1-5

      Like

    • Yes that’s why we know that military campaign was always part of God’s plan.
      The point is jesus too took part if this armed struggle so accusing prophets of God like Moses and Muhammad and many other hebrew prophets of being “violent” is blatant disrespect of God’s justice.

      Also the fact that many christians dont follow jesus solo life is the very example that he can not be the ideal human to follow.

      Like

    • Muhammad’s aggressive wars against pagans, Christians, Jews and the Caliphs after him – this is all very bad and unjust and Islamic force and injustice for centuries – Surah 9 is evil and nasty. Especially 9:28-30 – proof that Islam is not good for the world.

      Like

    • Islam early wars helped middle eastern syriac christians against greek and latin christians. It was a just wars.

      Surah 9 has historical context, even so it is less nasty than your books which command to smash baby skulls into the rocks and destroy innocent cattles and plants..

      Like

    • “The disciples were not asking Jesus to help her, they were showing their racial bias and hatred by wanting Jesus to send her away. but Jesus waits patiently in order to teach the disciples a lesson;”

      i have asked greek speaking people on this and they all say that the text could easily be interpreted to mean that they wanted jesus to help her so then she goes away.

      jesus is the one who ignores her repeatedly.

      there is not one place that their was any racial bias or hatred towards the woman, the only one who had hatred and bias was the one who said

      “let the children first be fed….”

      or matthews “jewish” version

      “it is not good to take the childrens bread and cast it to the dogs”

      earlier on he tells people to “watch your mouth” but he definitely did not watch his .

      ” and also show her good character and faith – she did not complain or defend herself or pagan background. She was admitting her sinfulness and need for the Savior. ”

      why do you TWIST the story?
      she received not a word of help on how to be saved. jesus did not teach her nothing, because he kept to his wish ” i only came to the lost sheep”

      why do you LIE ?

      she was BORN in her pagan religion. she needed guidance, did jesus give her guidance? no, he initially told her

      ” it is not good to take the childrens bread and cast it to the dogs”

      faith implies : accept you are a little dog and feed off the floor and accept that the jews are your masters. when you accept this, this will change jesus’ mind.

      “The Canaanite culture was a very pagan culture and dirty – they had sex orgies in their own religious rituals in front of people.”

      her ill daughter was having sex orgies? the woman was having sex rituals? you really do have porn filled mind because of the porn in your bible.

      she was born in non-jewish culture, it does not do good telling her before his pals, “you are a dog and so is your daughter ”

      this is insult. this is un-neighbourly.

      how do we know she was practicing all the crap in jesus’ day ? or even her people? more ethnocentric lies , ken?


      The reason why the Jews called them “dogs”. She did not do the modern “victim mentality” or complaining about “racism”. She was acknowledging her sin and for that, she had great faith. (both repentance from sin and faith in Jesus as Messiah, Lord, and Savior.) ”

      how does this apply to her sick daughter who knew nothing about the two different cultures.
      you trashed the jewish culture by telling yhwh his laws and rituals have a sell by date and are evil and barbaric. you don’t like the penalties in the ot.

      i quote :

      Jesus began with a myopic vision: he was sent only to care for Israelites. The Canaanite “dogs” were out of his purview. But it wasn’t until he was confronted with one of these dogs, face to face, that he discovered, to his surprise, that they are humans too, and dignified, even in their despair, capable of greater faith even than the so-called “faithful.”

      He was tempted in all ways as we are, tempted to see the Other as less dignified, less worthy, less faithful, less capable of faithfulness, less inclined to tolerance. He was tempted to see the Other as Other, rather than as Self. At first, he couldn’t see his own people, couldn’t see himself, in her. But confronted with that Other, Jesus learned. He learned to sympathize. To sympathize with the enemy. Jesus learned.

      end quote

      this interpretation looks much better than your lies.

      Like

    • jesus admits he did sin

      quote from gospel of john :
      But it is to fulfill the scripture, ‘The one who ate my bread[b] has lifted his heel against me.

      taken from psalms:
      As for me, I said, “O Lord, be gracious to me;
      heal me, for I have sinned against you.”
      5 My enemies wonder in malice
      when I will die, and my name perish.
      6 And when they come to see me, they utter empty words,
      while their hearts gather mischief;
      when they go out, they tell it abroad.
      7 All who hate me whisper together about me;
      they imagine the worst for me.
      8 They think that a deadly thing has fastened on me,
      that I will not rise again from where I lie.
      9 Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted,
      who ate of my bread, has lifted the heel against me.

      to be exegetically consistent jesus should see himself as a sinner.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “but Jesus waits patiently in order to teach the disciples a lesson”

      quote:
      There is no question that this was intended as an insult. Not even conservative scholars dispute this. I don’t know how it could be a *positive* metaphor anymore than calling someone a pig would somehow be positive.

      Within the context of the story, Jesus is impressed by the woman because of her wit. She turns the insult back on him and this causes him to change his mind. You should point out that in Matthew 15:24, Jesus says “I was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel,” and in Matthew 10:6 he tells his disciples not to go to Samaritans or Gentiles, but “only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

      Jeus seems to have been a Jewish Supremacist, not a universalist. He called Gentiles “pigs” and “dogs” and told his disciples not to go to them. The Gospels also never have Jesus going into any Gentile cities. Second Temple Messianism was about the liberation of Israel and *destruction* of Gentiles. It was Paul who universalized it.

      Like

    • faith in what?

      “It is not proper to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” Dogs (κυναριοις) is Jesus’ Jewish hate term for Gentiles ( Matt. 7:6 “κυσιν “). Finally Jesus heals her daughter, but only after he extracts from her a verbal confirmation before his disciples and the people watching that only the Jews have God’s blessing and she and her daughter are indeed dogs (notice the play on words here θυγατηρ (young girl) with κυναριοις (small dog)).

      Although Jesus warns against adults harming any Jewish child’s faith (Matt. 18:1-6), he has (as expressed in the above pericope) no concern about Gentile children since any faith they may have is non-Jewish and pagan. In short, for Jesus, Gentile dogs have no true faith.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “She was admitting her sinfulness and need for the Savior. The Canaanite culture was a very pagan culture and dirty – they had sex orgies in their own religious rituals in front of people.”

      quote:

      In this pericope, it becomes very clear that Jesus’ strict exclusivism is an inescapable historical datum. Jesus illustrates to his disciple in this episode how important it is to keep to the Jewish community and to preach only to them and that God’s blessings that He has given to them through Jesus is not to be so freely shared with outsiders. The woman only receives a small fraction of the actual “bread” because she exhibits genuine spiritual awakening that puts her in her place: that of an inferior to the children of Israel. Gentiles are dogs as they do not belong to the family and as such may not be deemed as one of the members of Jesus’ ministry. Commenting on the episode, Grieve writes:

      thanks ken .

      Like

    • “Muhammad’s aggressive wars against pagans, Christians, Jews and the Caliphs after him – this is all very bad and unjust and Islamic force and injustice for centuries – Surah 9 is evil and nasty. Especially 9:28-30 – proof that Islam is not good for the world.”

      the christians who killed off the pagans in america and replaced their language and their culture with man worship had only one pagan “god” before them and that is “jesus”

      they coupled the galilean teachings with ot teachings and commit genocide against indians within the united states. you are probably decedent of those evil maniacs who used bible to justify and impose their “dominus” and “kyrios” over their people and culture.

      you did not come to america because your people “turned the other cheek”
      you came because you did the evil things of turning father against daughter, mother against son etc etc

      Like

    • The Conquistadors of Spain did that in south America- wiping out the Aztexs and Incas; but it was not to that extent in North America. Seems the Spaniards had been influenced by Islamic rule for 500 years.

      Like

    • which academic says that the spaniards were influenced by islamic rule?

      Like

    • “but Jesus waits patiently in order to teach the disciples a lesson; and also show her good character and faith – she did not complain or defend herself or pagan background. ”

      commentary on marks version of the story :

      ….

      In this story, Jesus never agrees to the equality of gentiles, or the equality of women, or the equality of gentile women with Jewish men. Jesus called the woman a dog. And she made her point by agreeing with him, not saying that she deserved equality or fairness, but merely begging for crumbs.

      It is a very, very common thing for someone who is oppressed to have to placate and pretend to agree with the oppressor in order to gain some small benefit. And that’s what we see happen here.

      Once she had admitted to and agreed with his understanding of her place in the world, a dog who can at most expect crumbs, Jesus gave her what she begged for.

      It does him no harm to show a bit of kindness to a lesser person who acknowledges their subordinate nature.

      But there is no evidence that his behavior patterns changed in the long-term to reflect a change in belief and a letting-go of prejudice.

      Jesus did not then reach out to other Gentiles in his lifetime. He did not, in his lifetime, work to send apostles to Gentile communities.

      This incident was an aberration in his behavior, a single time when, on a whim, he decided to indulge an inferior person who amused him with her clever response but did not challenge his privileged world-view.

      The woman may have bested Jesus in this argument, in the sense that she convinced him to give her what she desperately needed.

      But she did not best him by arguing for her equality. And she did not best him by convincing him that she was equal. She did not best him by arguing for fairness. She did not convince him to treat gentile women, as a group, fairly.

      Saying that a dog may claim crumbs that fall from the table is a very, very different thing from saying that a dog is equal to a human child eating at the table. She used the time-honored technique of the oppressed and enslaved of flattering their oppressor in order to gain favor.

      ***

      And Jesus’s initial rejection of her request is not merely prejudiced. It is cruel. And evil.

      This is a woman who is desperate. Her child is severely ill, in a way that was not understood at that time. She believed her child to be not just physically ill, but possessed by evil spirits.

      Any interpretation of the story that suggests that Jesus was using this woman to illustrate a point requires recognizing that he considered making a point to be more important than the welfare of a desperately ill child.

      (no compassion or mercy for the desperately ill child. either a good argument is required or insult is required to “test womans faith”)

      It requires recognizing that Jesus considered making a point more important than basic kindness and good manners to a woman asking a favor.

      Scoring points in a debate can never be more important than kindness and caring for actual human beings.
      ***

      Imagine being desperate to find a cure for your sick child. You muster your courage, and approach a doctor well-known for being able to cure conditions that others find impossible to treat.

      And that doctor calls you a dog, who has no right to take treatment that might be given to real people.

      That doctor is, at best, a prejudiced asshole. At worst, he’s advocating a sort of low-level genocide, providing medical care to worthy people but leaving those of a lesser race to die.

      And in situations of great oppression, there are always many stories of oppressors showing occasional acts of small kindness to this or that oppressed individual.

      And then using those occasional small acts as a way to tell themselves and others that they aren’t really oppressors, because there is this or that lone individual among the many they oppress to whom they’ll give an occasional and small bit of kindness while still treating them badly in the larger picture.

      we note that the woman’s request–healing for her daughter–is granted not on the basis of faith but on the basis of her argument. Jesus says, “For such a reply…”

      Like

    • “but Jesus waits patiently in order to teach the disciples a lesson; and also show her good character and faith – she did not complain or defend herself or pagan background. ”

      then by your own admission, this would give the disciples to stick with their view about non-jews.
      jesus was telling his pals to “watch their mouth” just like the ten commandments were for the hebrews and no one else.

      jesus insults and abuses a woman by called her and her daughter dogs which feed of the floor. it is not good to cast “holy bread” to your people. indicating that she receives her food like a DOG does. jesus would then make the fatal mistake of having the woman admit that she is a dog and so is her ill daughter who knows nothing about the “high” jewish culture.
      you thinking reinforces the disciples ethnocentrism .
      they would think they are always above dogs and the dogs are controlled by them.
      so i guess it is always good to be neighbourly and un-jesus like when dealing with strangers otherwise you might get a desperate person to make herself an animal who eats crap and is below HUMANS .

      Like

    • “Because Jesus came in the middle and did away with Israel as a theocracy. Gone. Matthew 21:33-46; Matthew 23, 24:1-3, 24:15, etc. 70 AD.”

      says who? you ? you would have been kissing your white ancestors feet had you been born in the time they were wiping out native american indians.
      who are you?
      christians were using new testament texts coupled with torah texts to take out people they did not like. christians , like jesus , change mind or make exception .

      if toratic laws could be applied on unborn, infant and children, WHO ARE YOU TO say toratic laws was REPLACED? no, they were reinstalled by the white church. they were reinstalled once the church got power . remember, jesus’ failure was “christian self fullfilled prophecies” when jesus did not return.

      Like

    • no; sin is always wrong; what some did to the American Indians (the trail of tears done to the Cherokee was evil.)

      Like

    • praise God the truth is not based on skin color – God loves all the nations – “some out from every nation, every tribe, every language, and every people have been purchased/redeemed by the blood of the lamb.” Revelation 5:9; 7:9; 1 Peter 2:9-10; Revelation 21:3; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:9-11; Ephesians 2:11-22

      Like

    • Some were; and Jesus did – Mark 7:19

      Like

    • “The Conquistadors of Spain did that in south America- wiping out the Aztexs and Incas; but it was not to that extent in North America. Seems the Spaniards had been influenced by Islamic rule for 500 years.”

      which academic says this?

      Like

    • “Some were; and Jesus did – Mark 7:19”

      yes, jesus is giving you unhealthy advise. imagine if one did not not do washing rituals back then, would he even wash? in those days germ theory was not even known . jesus’ backward “advice” was detrimental to ones health.

      imagine eating your food with shit between your nails

      thanks to mark 7 , the plague raped uk.
      thanks to mark 7 christians don’t wash
      thanks to mark 7 christians don’t even have pots to wash backsides.

      at least the romans washed themselves with water.

      Like

    • Ken “Nope; One God in three persons”

      but God is a person too lol.. so 4 persons all together?….

      Like

    • quote:
      Ken “Nope; One God in three persons”

      but God is a person too lol.. so 4 persons all together?….

      actually ,according to them, “one god” is simply a nature which is without person

      james white says don’t mix up who’s and whats

      when yhwh speaks as a “he” that is 3 he’s speaking, “one nature” or “one god” is probably speechless/mute.

      Like

    • ken, one great confusion is how 3 fully persons are having differing conversations within the same nature/one god

      “i am yhwh there is no other”

      this is 3 speakers speaking

      SIMULTANEOUSLY as if they are 1 PERSON

      but then we see

      them speaking as Different persons

      “no one come to the father but through me”

      how can you have all of this existing in god?

      Like

    • ken

      another great confusion i have is that the father wasn’t dying person, neither the ghost, except the son

      so in schematic form

      father lives
      ghost lives
      son dying

      so is the “one god” 2 persons + dying person?

      Like

    • ken, don’t come out with “that’s the bone and flesh”
      jesus was not “flesh walked the earth”

      jesus was “fully divine walked the earth” and is separate DYING person from the other two

      when jesus or 1 person, 2 nature is losing it’s life via divine nature, then the other two are losing nothing .

      so is the “one god” 2 persons + dying person

      thanks

      Like

  12. If Sh Deedat statement dont accurately follow mainstreaml trinitarianism accepted ceed then this yields to a very intriguing point to ponder: what exactly is this jesus demigod hybrid personage if it is not the same as father personage and the ghost personage?

    If  trinitarianism separate jesus divinity  اللا هوت from his humanity الناسوت  then there is no such a thing like the so called  hypostatic union for this mythical demigod hybrid person. But the most important thing is this person was created at some point in time, and his humanity were exactly the same like the rest of us (hungry, erring,fallible etc.). However God is still God in full glory in Heaven.

    So much for the non-sensical three person god.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Ken Temple, you still did not explain, why Jesus did not say ANYTHING ABOUT OUSIA. OR THE MULTI-PERSONAL GOD. KNOWING GOD IN TRUTH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. Well if the TRINITY is TRUE why did Jesus not explain it? Or mention it? What about the Disciples? What about Paul? How come they did not explain this concept, or elaborate on it? You mention John, but even there THERE IS NO OUSIA OR THE FACT THAT GOD IS A TRINITY. THERE IS NOTHING. Also, you refused to explain John 17: 3. If some biblical texts proclaimed Jesus as God—they are none– this would simply prove that the Bible is self-contradictory.

    Like

  14. You quoted a number of non-historical material regarding Jesus, that he never wrote nor was aware of, and nor were they written by the Disciples (i.e quotations from John and Paul). But no worries, even those verses do not portray Jesus as a member of the Trinity, nor they proclaim him as of the same OUSIA as the Father. Additionally, they can be easily explained in a non-trinitarian framework. Let me just address one verse you quotated breifly:

    John 1:18

    No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. NASB

    THERE ARE IMMENSE PROBLEMS WITH THIS VERSE. One being that you are READING A VARIANT READING.

    Some manuscripts read “God” while other manuscripts read “Son.” Most early church writings quote “Son” while some writers quote “God,” especially after the Council of Nicea.

    Like

    • All the NT is infallible, inerrant, “God-breathed” and historical and accurate – all of John and the letters of Paul are “God-breathed” – 2 Tim. 3:16 and truth.

      Regarding John 1:18, the oldest manuscripts have “only begotten God” or “only unique God”. Dr. White has an extended discussion of this in his book, The Forgotten Trinity.

      Like

    • This is all invented Greek terminology and concepts that Christians have projected into the New Testament through the lens of Pagan philosophy that was foreign to Jesus, the simple Aramaic speaking Wisdom teacher from the backwoods of rural Galilee. The whole misunderstanding that erroneously led to Jesus’ divinity was caused by attributing the miracles to Jesus himself instead of God, which subsequently led to the Greek pagan/philosophical concept of same substance (homoousion) that was actually introduced by Gnostic HERETICS and adopted by the Church Fathers. The grave misunderstanding also led to the imaginary concept of dual nature, but Jesus’ miracles were possible only because of God’s power according to the Disciples (Acts 2:22). The later Gentile Christians chose the interpretations of the Gentile Fathers, they were hardcore students of Greek philosophy after the original Jewish form of Christianity declined. The Church Fathers also adopted the concept of generation and substance from the pagan Hellenistic culture. They were Trinitarian subordinationists who believed there was a time when the Son did not exist and God generated him. There was no concept of eternal generation until Origen invented that in the Third Century. Tertullian said there was a time when the Son did not exist. The manmade concepts were later projected into the New Testament. There was a clear historical development of the Trinity over time. They wouldn’t have made up this “dual nature” if the miracles were attributed to God alone, but instead they ascribed the miracles to Jesus himself and one false doctrine led to another. The Gnostics claimed all human souls were generated by God’s body and Christ himself as the firstborn, but the Church borrowed the Greek concept and restricted generation to Christ alone, leading to the Godhead. The Church borrowed the terminology and concepts from Philo. The Greek god Hermes was already worshipped as the Logos centuries before Christ.

      Like

  15. Ken Temple this Paper Destroys the Trinitarian Implications of John 1: 18. Absolutely eviscerates it. Make Sure you read it with a microscope.

    http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/john1_18.html

    Like

    • Tertullian said there was a time when the Son did not exist.

      No, he did not. You are confusing that with Arius.

      That was Arius in the early 300s, who was condemned as a heretic in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea. He was exiled, but he was not executed. (as in Islam’s harsh Sharia )

      Like

    • many Christians were executed under Christianity’s harsh Protestant & catholic laws. Think Clavin, Aquinas etc etc

      Like

    • Geneva Council (government) executed Servetus; (Calvin did not do that; though he approved of it; and had written letters to Servetus to repent.)

      but they were still operating under centuries of Roman Catholic thought; fro 500s, 600s to 1500s. It took a while to be free from Roman Catholic centuries of errors and harshness.

      Like

    • the Bible says to execute apostates, so they were just following the Bible. You follow the secular liberal values of your American government which rejects God’s Law. Irony upon irony.

      Like

    • The OT says that. That was for Theocratic Israel. The NT does not teach that – rather excommunication from the church is the NT model. 1 Corinthians 5; Matthew 18:15-20; Titus 3:10

      Like

    • But Jesus upheld that law killing apostates in the kingdom of God. Calvin would have rejected your secular American faith. He had apostates executed basing it on the Bible alone.

      Like

    • The Baptists and Anabaptists were also executed by drowning. the Baptist movement was the proper understanding of baptism and understanding of separation of church and state; even before the Deism and Enlightenment and philosophy of John Locke and Jefferson and USA Declaration of Independence and constitution.

      Jesus was quoting (Mark 7:10) in the context of theocratic Israel before the time of the abolishing of theocratic Israel. (Matthew 21-23, 24) Jesus took the kingdom of God away from Israel. No more theocratic Israel – 70 AD proved this. Matthew 21:43-45

      43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.
      44 And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.”

      45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.

      Like

  16. Ken Temple here is one for the famous John 1: 1. This paper has utterly sent the Trinity to Hell.

    Everybody should read it, including Paul Williams, Eric bin Kasim, Yahya Snow, Richard, Ijaz Ahmad and the Snake Shamoun

    http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/john1_1.html

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Fact no 1) Jesus was not the author of John 1: 1. Fact no 2) Regardless, the verse does not support the Trinity. Fact no 3) John is neither historical nor of a known origin. Fact no 4) Watch the Video.

    Like

  18. This has established the Truth about John 1: 1. Ken Temple, even the dirty devil Shamoun, on whom be curse, will convert to doubts and Jesusphobia, after reading this.

    John 1:1

    In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.

    The Trinitarian Claim

    Trinitarians interpret the text as if John is referring to the beginning of the Genesis creation and John is telling us that the Son was God.

    The Problems with the Claim

    1. Eisegesis

    Trinitarians impose their doctrine upon the text by imagining the person Jesus is being styled with the title, “the Word” and identified as God. But it simply does not say Jesus was with God nor does it say Jesus was God. Moreover, John 1:14 does not say Jesus became flesh. It says the Word became flesh.

    2. Can’t See the Forest for the Trees

    It is common for Trinitarians, and others, to suppose the interpretation of John 1:1 rests entirely upon the grammar of John 1:1c, that is, the meaning of the anarthrous noun theos. This approach essentially ignores any other questions which must be asked concerning this verse. There are several other questions pertaining to this verse which Trinitarians disregard.

    3. Mythical meaning attached to the word pros.

    John 1:1b has been typically translated as, “the word was with God. More than one Greek word is translated as “with” in English translations. The Greek word here is pros and it usually refers to directional motion “toward” something in the sense that one thing is coming to be before another thing. Sometimes, Trinitarians suggest that the Greek preposition pros with a stative verb, as we have at John 1:1, necessarily implies a personal relationship indicating the Son and the Father were in a “face to face” relationship. However, this reads far too much into this common everyday Greek preposition than the word can offer and loads an everyday Greek preposition with a fourth century doctrine. The Greeks actually had a term for a face to face relationship, “prosopon pros prosopon,” but this is not what John said. The Greek word pros with a stative verb simply implies that one thing ‘X’ is positionally before another thing ‘Y.’ For example, the Old Testament (LXX) says several times that the word of God came pros Prophet X referring to a message from God which came to that prophet. Once the word of God had come to him, we could say the word of God was pros Prophet X.

    4. The Definition of theos at 1:1c

    It is not uncommon for Trinitarian laypeople to suppose John is telling us WHO the Word was at John 1:1c. They being by assuming that the term “the Word” refers to Jesus and then they also suppose the word “God” means that John is telling us WHO Jesus was/is.

    However, Trinitarian scholars and theologians deny that John was indicating WHO the Word was (although this fact doesn’t seem to stop them from citing this verse to try and prove Jesus is that identity known as God). Trinitarian academics insist, rather, that John is telling us WHAT the Word was, and the word “God” essentially means “divine” or “deity” in a qualitative sense. In other words, they are defining the word “God” (theos) as a qualitative noun in an adjectival sense. The problem with this interpretation is that John actually said, “and the word was pros ton theon and theos was the word.” The point here is not whether theos or logos is the predicate noun but the meaning of the word theos at 1:1c. Even though John’s word order is “God and God,” we are expected to accept the notion that the first instance of the word “God” means “the Father” but the second instance means just the opposite: “not the Father.” It is highly unlikely that John would join two instances of the word “God” with the conjunction “and” and expect readers to assume that each instance of the word “God” has different, and even opposite, meanings.

    και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

    and the word was pros God and God was the word
    Is it reasonable to suppose John would expect his readers to suppose the first instance of theos means “the Father” but the second instance means “not the Father”? It is an extremely far-fetched proposition.

    5. The Word/Logos

    In the New Testament Gospels, the “Word” refers to the proclamation of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God through the ministry of Jesus Christ. This fact is entirely ignored by Trinitarian interpreters. The “Word of God” came to John the Baptist (Luke 3:2) and he proclaimed the Good News. Both Mark and Luke begin their Gospels by referring to the beginning of the Good News (Mark) and the beginning of ministry of the Word (Luke). And again, John opens his first letter by telling us they heard the Word of Life and that is the message which he is announcing in his letter. Jesus kept his Father’s word (8:55).

    6. 1 John 1:1

    The language 1 John 1:1 is obviously referring to the same concepts. John refers to “what” they had seen, “what” they had heard, “what” they had touched with their hands concerning “the word of life.” And then John proceeds to announce that same word to his readers, the word they had heard. It should be rather obvious that the word in question is the same Word proclaimed by that flesh Jesus.

    7. “In the beginning”

    Since the book of Genesis begins with the words “In the beginning,” Trinitarians suppose that John is establishing a time frame when the Word was with God and when the Word was God. However, New Testament writers clearly portray Jesus’ life, beginning with the baptism of John, as the beginning of the Good News of Jesus Christ and the imminent establishment of the Kingdom of God. The “Word of God” came to John the Baptist (Luke 3:2) and he proclaimed the Good News testifying to the Light coming into the world (1:6). Mark similarly opens his Gospel with the words, “the beginning of the Good News of Jesus Christ.” Luke opens his Gospel referring to the beginning of the ministry of the Word and his opening statement in the Book of Acts refers to his Gospel as “all that Jesus began to do and teach.” And in his first letter, John refers to the Word as what they had heard from the beginning.

    Additionally, not a few scholars have noted that John’s Gospel is about the new creation since he routinely uses Genesis creation imagery. Indeed, the new creation of God is the reconciliation of the Genesis creation. The ministry of Jesus is the beginning of the new creation of God.

    8. Houtos and Autos

    Supposing that John 1:1 refers to the beginning of the Genesis creation, John 1:3 is generally interpreted by Trinitarians to mean the Genesis creation was created through the Son. On this basis alone, the Greek words houtos and autos are translated as “he” and “him” respectively in verses 2 and 3. These personal pronouns lead readers to suppose that the Word mentioned verse 1 is being identified as a person. This is due to the fact that most readers are ignorant of Greek grammar and do not realize these two Greek words do not function like our English words “he” and “him.” They are also be used to refer to inanimate objects.

    The words houtos and autos are often translated as “He” and “Him” in verses 2 and 3 in Trinitarian based translations. However, these two Greek words and not equivalent to our English words “He” and “Him.” These two Greek words function very much like our English word “This.” We use the word “this” to refer to both persons and inanimate objects and that is how these two Greek words operate. The word houtos is routinely translated as “this” in the New Testament. The word autos functions in the same manner and is routinely translated as “it.” Both of these words refer back to the subject which is under discussion. To illustrate, the exact same words are used at John 6:60 where Jesus is referring to the logos he had just spoken to the Jews. Compare John 1:1-3 with John 6:60:

    In the beginning was the logos…. houtos was with God in the beginning. All things came to be through autou and apart from autou not one thing has come to be that has come to be.

    εν αρχη ην ο λογος…. ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν

    Therefore many of his disciples, when they heard autou said, “houtos is a difficult logos; who can hear autou?”

    πολλοι ουν ακουσαντες εκ των μαθητων αυτου ειπον σκληρος εστιν ουτος ο λογος τις δυναται αυτου ακουειν

    Laypeople are often further confused by the fact that Greek is a gender specific language. In English, only people have gender but in Greek, both people and inanimate objects have gender. For example, a spoken logos is a grammatically masculine thing in the Greek language. Masculine words do not mean a male person is in view.

    When either of the two words houtos and autos are referring back to the subject in view, and the subject in view is a person, it is appropriate to respectively translate these words as “he” and “him” because that is how we speak in English. It is appropriate not because that is precisely what these words mean but that is how we would express the same idea in English. And when the subject is an inanimate object, these same two words must be translated as “this” and “it.” If we don’t know whether the subject is a person or an inanimate object, the words houtos and autos do not tell us whether the subject is or isn’t a person.

    The grammar of John 1:2-3 does not tell us whether a person is in view or not. All we can say in verse 2 is that the Word was with God in the beginning. And all we can say in verse 3 is that all things were created through the Word mentioned in verse 1. Neither of these two words can tell us that the Word is a person, nor can they tell us the Word isn’t a person.

    9. God Created with Two different Words?

    We know that the Word by which God created all things in Genesis was His spoken Word. The Trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1-3 introduces an incomprehensible confusion whereby we are to suppose John is referring to the beginning of the Genesis creation and God created all things by means of two different Words: (1) His spoken Word, and (2) a person called the Word.

    The confusion of Trinitarians here is especially entertaining since they view verse 3 as referring to the Genesis act of creation. However, the Scriptures tell us that the Genesis creation was accomplished by means of God’s SPOKEN Word.

    10. The Light

    The immediate context says the Light shines in the darkness. If John is talking about reality at the creation of the world, then John is talking about Genesis 1:2-3 where darkness was upon the face of the deep and God said, “Let their be Light.” And the Trinitarian is stuck in his own folly since this Light was the first of God’s creations.

    We are informed that this Light is the Father in John’s first letter (1 John 1:5). We also see that the Light of the Father was expressed through His Messiah in the ministry of Jesus who was the expression of the Father through the words he said and the works he did. This suggests John does not have the beginning of the Genesis creation in mind but the beginning of the Good News of the Kingdom. And indeed, we are immediately told in verse 9 that the Light was coming into the world as John was testifying to that Light. John came to announce the true Light which was coming into the world since that Light had not yet come into the world.

    11. The Word became flesh

    Trinitarians are again guilty of reading their doctrine into the text concerning this verse. Verse 14 is usually interpreted to mean the Second Person of the Trinity became a human being when he descended into the womb of Mary. However, the text itself says nothing of the sort. God’s Word is something which is expected to be fulfilled. For example, Paul said the mystery of godliness was manifested in flesh which means that a human being of flesh named Jesus manifested godliness during his ministry. In the same way, “the Word became flesh” refers to the fact that the Word of the Father was manifested in all the things that flesh said and did. The Word came to be flesh when the Spirit descended upon Jesus and he began to walk according to that Word, that is, the Good News of the Kingdom which God Anointed him to proclaim.

    Analysis of the Evidence

    The Biblical facts show that John’s introductory words (1:1-5) refer to the beginning of the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Word proclaimed through the ministry of God’s Anointed, Jesus of Nazareth. The Word of John 1:1 is the Word proclaimed through the ministry of Jesus.

    1. The Beginning of the Proclaimed Word

    In the New Testament, “the Word” is an expression referring to the proclaimed Word of God and it is synonymous with the Good News. The ministry of Jesus was considered the beginning of the Word, the beginning of the Gospel. Mark and Luke open their Gospels in a similar introductory manner:

    In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God

    Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word… Luke 1:1-2

    The beginning of the Good News of Jesus Christ. Mark 1:1
    Luke also opens the Book of Acts in this manner:

    The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up… Acts 1:1-2
    The ministry of Jesus, from his baptism at the Jordan to his death and resurrection, was considered to be the beginning of the Word, the beginning of the Gospel.

    2. John’s First Letter

    John opens his first letter in a manner very similar to his Gospel:

    What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life… 1 John 1:1
    The Word is something they had heard. John then immediately proceeds to announce that Word:

    What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and announce to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us. What we have seen and heard we announce to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His son Jesus Christ. These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete. This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you…. 1:1-5
    The Word which they had heard is a message which John is announcing. John makes it even more clear in his letter what he means in his opening statement. The Word is something his audience had heard from the beginning:

    What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life

    Beloved, I am not writing a new command to you, but an old command which you have had from the beginning. The old command is the Word which you have heard. 2:7

    As for you, let that [Word*] abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. 2:24
    *See v.14

    This is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 3:11
    John’s letter tells us quite clearly what he means by his language in the first verse of his letter and his Gospel. The “beginning” is the beginning of the proclaimed Good News and “the Word” refers to that proclaimed Word.

    Also notice that the Word was something they had seen, something they had touched with their hands. Jesus proclaimed the Gospel in word and deed. He embodied the Word of God, the will of God. That flesh named Jesus always kept his God and Father’s Word. To see that flesh was to see the mystery of godliness manifested in the flesh.

    4. John 1:1-9 and John the Baptist

    The Word of God came to John the Baptist and he proclaimed the Good News of the Kingdom.

    The Word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness and he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins; as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet… Luke 3:2-4

    John the Baptist came, proclaiming in the wilderness of Judea, saying, “Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.” For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet… Matthew 3:1-2

    The beginning of the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet… John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins… Mark 1:1-4

    In the beginning was the Word… There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. John 1:1-7

    4. …and the Word was God

    It is easy enough to understand that the proclaimed Word was pros God (1:1b), but what did John mean when he said, “the Word WAS God?” In verse 18, John tells us plainly what he means.

    … and the Word was God

    the only begotten in the bosom of the Father he declares* Him

    *Greek exēgeomai – unfolds, expounds, explains, expresses. See Luke 24:35; Acts 10:8; 15:12, 14; 21:19
    The Word proclaimed through Jesus was the declaration of God the Father Himself – “the Word was God.” No one has ever seen God but John tells us that Jesus came so that we might have understanding of the Father and so that we might know the Father, the only true God (cf. 17:3; 1 John 5:20). John’s words, “the Word was God” refer to the fact that the Word proclaimed by Jesus revealed God the Father Himself to us.

    Although no one has ever seen God the Father, Jesus teaches his disciples they had indeed seen the Father, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Jesus also immediately explained to them how they had seen the Father. They had seen the Father in the words Jesus spoke and the works Jesus did. Jesus testified many times in the Gospel of John that his words were not his own but the Father’s who sent him. In the same way, his works were not his own but the works of the Father which he did in his Father’s name.

    The proclaimed Word is not simply uttering a verbal message. Jesus proclaimed the Good News in Word and Work/Deed. The Word of God was all the things God did through Jesus His Anointed.

    The Spirit of the Lord is upon me wherefore He anointed me to proclaim the Good News to the poor. He has sent me to herald release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord. Luke 4:18

    Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst. Acts 2:22

    God anointed Jesus of Nazareth in the Holy Spirit and with power, and how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. Acts 10:38

    The Father abiding in me does the works. John 14:10

    5. John’s Introductory remarks and the Light of the Gospel: God the Father

    In the first verse of Genesis, we read that God created the heavens and the earth. This is an introductory statement since what follows is a description of God creating the heavens and the earth. We should then ask ourselves whether John 1:1-5 is an introductory statement in a similar manner. In Genesis it says, “In the beginning, God created…. darkness was upon the face of the deep and God said, ‘Let there be light.'” In John, it says, “In the beginning was the Word… all things came to be through the Word…. the light shined in the darkness.”

    God the Father is Light. John the Baptist came to testify to that Light (1:7-8). The true Light which enlightens every man was coming into the world. When was the Light coming into the world? The Light was coming into the world when John the Baptist began to proclaim the Word. Because God the Father was at work in Jesus His Anointed, he was the full expression of the Father who is Light. For that reason, Jesus could say, “I am the Light of the world.” In contrast, John the Baptist testified that he was not that Light. Rather, he only testified about the Light. In other words, John the Baptist’s mission was to testify about the Light of the Father coming into the world. Jesus of Nazareth’s mission was to be that Light – the full expression of the Father Himself – and he did this by always keeping his God’s Word and doing his Father’s will.

    6. The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (1:14)

    The Hebrew word for “Good News”, bsr, is the verb form of bsr, flesh (see John 6:53-55,63). The shekinah glory of the Father tabernacled in that flesh named Jesus. God the Father’s glory was seen in Jesus’ words and deeds. In the Gospel of John, Jesus did signs which revealed the glory of God.

    The man of flesh named Jesus was the embodiment of the Word of God since he always obeyed his Father’s word. Obedience to his God’s will was HOW he proclaimed the Word to the world.

    7. The Beginning of the New Creation

    There is a very good reason John uses the language of Genesis in his opening statement. Not a few commentators have observed John’s Gospel employs creation imagery. For example, when Jesus is about to die on the cross, he said, “It is finished” echoing Genesis 2:1. And when the risen Jesus breathes the Spirit into his disciples at John 20:22, we are reminded of Genesis 2:7. Jesus walking on water recalls the Spirit of God hovering over the waters of the Genesis creation. And again, the Light shines into the darkness in the Genesis account just as we see the Light of God shining into the darkness of the world through the ministry of Jesus. In every respect, we are to see the activity of God the Father’s Spirit at work in Jesus just as we see the activity of the Spirit in the Genesis creation account.

    The new creation is the reconciliation of the Genesis creation. Paul tells us that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself and those in Christ are new creations in him. In the same respect, God created anew all things in heaven and earth in the risen Christ by reconciling all things in heaven and earth to Himself in Christ (Col 1:16-19). It is for this reason, we ourselves new creations in Christ who is the firstfruits, the beginning of the creation of God.

    8. Everything Came to Be through the Word (1:3)

    If we carefully consider John 1:5, “the Light shines in the darkness,” it is obviously apparent that these words are referring to the ministry of Jesus (see 3:19-21; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35-36). In verse 4, we also read that life was in the Word and that life was the Light of men. It should be plain here that John is not referring to the Genesis act of creation. The true Light which enlightens every man was presently coming into the world (1:9).

    With these facts in view, it is obviously apparent that John 1:3 is not referring to the Genesis act of creation but to all the things that came to be through the proclamation of the Word through the ministry of Jesus. For this reason, Jesus cried, “It is finished” upon the cross just as we find God was finished all His works in the Genesis act of creation. Jesus’ ministry was the beginning of the new creation of God, the new heavens and earth, where our risen Lord is the firstfruits of that new creation, the beginning of the creation of God.

    Conclusion

    An honest exploration of the facts demonstrates to us that the Word of John 1:1 is the Word proclaimed through Jesus in his ministry and the Word he proclaimed was the proclamation of God the Father Himself, “the Word was God.” He who had seen Jesus had seen the Father in terms of the things Jesus did. God is Life and Jesus fully expressed that Life in the words he spoke and the works he did. God is Truth and Jesus fully expressed that Truth by everything he said and did. God is Light and Jesus fully expressed the Light of the Father in all the words he spoke and works he did in the name of his God. God is Love and the flesh named Jesus fully expressed the Father’s Love, dead flesh hanging on the cross for your sins and mine. The Word of God was something the flesh named Jesus always kept. The Word became flesh, that is, God the Father was manifested in flesh, that flesh named Jesus. Jesus came so that we might know the Father and Jesus fully expressed the Father in all the things he did because he always kept His Father’s Word. Jesus’ words and works were not his own but the Father’s. The Word as proclaimed by Jesus… was God.

    Truly, truly I tell you, whoever hears my Word and believes Him who sent me has eternal life.
    John 5:24

    If I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His Word.
    John 8:55

    Like

  19. Ken Temple, if the Bible authors believed Jesus was the second person of the Holy Trinity, why did they not make it clear and explicit? If the self-consciousness of Jesus was that he was, and always will be, Yahweh, the God of Israel, what prevented him from explicitly saying it? Surely, as he was Omnipresent in his Divine Nature, he knew, that it would be immensely unfair to future generations, who [such as Muslims and Religious Jews] who are fearful of Idolatry in all its manifestations, would need a clear statement by him such as

    ”I AM THE GOD OF ISRAEL YAHWEH”.

    Additionally, as if Jesus was Yahweh and he preached that he was Yahweh, is there any historical proof, which you can bring, other than Biblical Eisegesis? No?! Help me understand. Because the Muslims have something. No historian will disagree that Muhammad claimed to be a Man and a Prophet. Nothing more. How come the same historians, will turn around and say ”There is no credible evidence that Jesus claimed to be Yahweh. In fact, all the evidence suggests that he DID NOT CLAIM TO BE YAHWEH, BUT RATHER HIS APOCALYPTIC PROPHET” This is exactly what Prof Ehrman claims, and the vast majority of non-Muslim historians agree. This is in agreement with Islam. That Jesus claimed to be a Prophet, a Man, a Messiah and did not claim to be part of a Trinity or God. Why do non-Muslim historians agree with Islam, much to your annoyance?

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Paul Williams, maybe you can help me? Why did Jesus not say what is Eternally True (according to Christians) that he is Yahweh? Why did he not say additionally ”I am of the same ousia as the Father, yet a distinct Person, Co-Eternal with the Spirit also. We are One Ontology”. ? Shamoun really thinks Jesus was always talking about how he is of the same ”Ousia” and ”Ontology” as Yahweh yet Functionally performs a different role in redemption of mankind?! Jesus was certainly not a Idolatrous Greek Philosopher, who was obsessed with Triadic Formulas and ”ontologies, persons and trinities”. He certainly was not a Christian!

    Paul help me. Maybe Eric bin Kassim can explain as well to Shamoun and Ken.

    Was Jesus a Mute? If he was not , then why did he not explain the Trinity? WHY?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Good points. Mark records Jesus as saying:

      ‘As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ 18 Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.’

      Mark 10

      Like

  21. Shamoun, Ken Temple , Eric Bin Kassim, Abu Talha

    Umar Said :

    I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, “Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle.”

    Sahih al-Bukhari 3445
    Book 60, Hadith 115
    Vol. 4, Book 55, Hadith 654

    This is an explicit statement affirming only his humanity and rejecting his divinity and all future claims.

    Here is a task for the Christian.

    F.I.N.D A S.I.M.I.L.A.R STATMENT BY JESUS CHRIST WHERE HE SAYS

    I AM YAHWEH, WORSHIP ME. THERE IS A TRINITY ETC. ANYTHING. CLEAR. EXPLICIT.

    Why is it so impossible?

    Another Statement

    [Jesus said], “And indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path.” Qu’ran 19: 36

    This is an explict statement where Jesus says worship God. Do you have a similar statement in which Jesus says ”I AM YAHWEH” ??

    Liked by 1 person

    • That is what Jesus meant in John 8:56-58.
      He is claiming to be Yawheh.

      Jesus does not have to have statements according to your demands.

      Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, inspired the writings of the 27 books of the New Testament (John 16:12-13; 14:23; 17:8; 17:17; 2 Tim. 3:16), so we don’t need specific demands from you read back into Gospel accounts.

      You would dismiss them anyway, just as Paul Williams dismisses Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 (which are early teachings of substitutionary atonement); but when Williams uses liberal scholarship to say only Mark is historical and John is not; yet cannot handle Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28, just dismisses those (according to their thinking, could be just later additions), without any proof; or claims that Luke deleted them, etc.

      Like

    • Btw the NT canon of scripture does NOT claim to be inspired. Everyone knows this apart from you Ken.

      Like

    • Yes it does; if you understand John 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-13; 17:7; 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21; 3:16; 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16; 1 Thessalonians 1-2; Galatians chapter 1 in a unified and theologically consistent way.

      Like

    • Ken I cite conservative Christian scholars too, but you always ignore them. As a Neolithic fundamentalist you hate all scholarship and methods. You have zero intellectual credibility. Have a nice day.

      Like

    • Actually, I have and respect Richard Bauckham and F. F. Bruce’s works that you have cited; and I have Erhman and Raymond Brown and Geza Vermes based on interactions with you (and Reza Aslan, who is an Iranian who takes liberal scholarship as “gospel truth”, etc.) and I fully understand the spectrum of scholarship that flows from the most conservative to moderate to liberal to radical liberal, etc.

      You are lying when you say that I “hate all scholarship”. You liar!!
      Your ad hominem also of “Neolithic” etc. makes you the one who resorts to name calling when you have no good point.

      I am also reading in the Collins book (see, I can read them and understand the issues!) and I am finding lots of juicy stuff that balances out what you wrote about John 1:1.

      So take back your outright lie. Lying about someone is not good witness for your Islamic faith. Surah 29:46

      Like

    • But it’s the truth Ken, so no I will not take it back, but I am glad you are reading outside of your comfort zone for a change. I wonder if you will the whole book though?

      Like

    • but you lied because I have been reading those books for a while (and others back in seminary from 1983-1988) and those that I mentioned here in the past 4-5 years . Dunn also. I have his “Jesus Remembered”.

      So, it is not true; so you are a liar.

      Like

    • No Ken I speak the truth. I said you hate scholarship and you do. You see it as evil and satanic. Don’t lie to yourself as well Ken,

      Like

    • Ken you self deceive. You lie to yourself.

      Like

    • No.
      If you had said, “Ken disagrees with liberal scholarship” that is true. But saying I “hate scholarship” is a lie.

      You are a liar.

      Like

    • Have you read the Dunn book cover to cover?

      Like

    • not every word; no; but I have read a lot of it. That does not bother me in the least; I have fully investigated your materials you put up and have given those scholars a fair shake.

      You are still a liar.

      Like

    • “So, it is not true; so you are a liar.”

      why do christians have joy in thinking that god stunk, shat, urinated and gassed out like them?
      isn’t this cursed thinking?
      i’m sure even when you look yourself in the mirror you have doubts that your god became you

      Like

  22. Here is the evidence that Tertullian was a subordinationist, not a full fledged Trinitarian. There was no standardized doctrine of the Trinity until the fourth century:

    “Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been the Father and Judge merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge precious to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, NOR THE SON; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. (Against Hermogenes, Chapter Three)

    Liked by 2 people

    • What a shameless and disgusting butchering of Tertullians.

      If this dishonest Muhammadan had actually bothered to read the context of Tertullian he would have seen what this early writer meant.

      Tertullian believed that Jesus eternally existed as the very Reason, Wisdom and Word of God who was eternally inherent within God. As such Jesus was not a creature made from nothing, but the Father’s eternal Word who sprung forth or proceeded from within God’s own being and substance.

      It was at that moment when God spoke his Word which was inherent within him as his Reason that the Word became the Son and God therefore became the Father.

      Note the following quotes carefully:

      Chapter 18. An Eulogy on the Wisdom and Word of God, by Which God Made All Things of Nothing

      If any material was necessary to God in the creation of the world, as Hermogenes supposed, God had a far nobler and more suitable one in His own wisdom — one which was not to be gauged by the writings of philosophers, but to be learned from the words or prophets. This alone, indeed, knew the mind of the Lord. For “who knows the things of God, and the things in God, but the Spirit, which is in Him?” 1 Corinthians 2:11 Now His wisdom is that Spirit. This was His counsellor, the very way of His wisdom and knowledge. Isaiah 40:14 Of this He made all things, making them through It, and making them with It. “When He prepared the heavens,” so says (the Scripture ), “I was present with Him; and when He strengthened above the winds the lofty clouds, and when He secured the fountains which are under the heaven, I was present, compacting these things along with Him. I was He in whom He took delight; moreover, I daily rejoiced in His presence: for He rejoiced when He had finished the world, and among the sons of men did He show forth His pleasure.” Proverbs 8:27-31 Now, who would not rather approve of this as the fountain and origin of all things— of this as, in very deed, the Matter of all Matter, not liable to any end, not diverse in condition, not restless in motion, not ungraceful in form, but natural, and proper, and duly proportioned, and beautiful, such truly as even God might well have required, who requires His own and not another’s? Indeed, as soon as He perceived It to be necessary for His creation of the world, He immediately creates It, AND GENERATES IT IN HIMSELF. “The Lord,” says the Scripture, “possessed me, the beginning of His ways for the creation of His works. Before the worlds He founded me; before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled in their places; moreover, before the hills He generated me, and prior to the depths was I begotten.” Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and created, for the special reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. For if that, which FROM ITS BEING INHERENT IN THE LORD WAS OF HIM AND IN HIM, was yet not without a beginning—I mean His wisdom, which was then born and created, WHEN IN THE THOUGHT OF GOD IT BEGAN TO ASSUME MOTION for the arrangement of His creative works—how much more impossible is it that anything should have been without a beginning which was extrinsic to the Lord! But if this same Wisdom is the Word of God, in the capacity of Wisdom, and (as being He) without whom nothing was made, just as also (nothing) was set in order without Wisdom, how can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than THE SON OF GOD, THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN AND FIRST-BEGOTTEN WORD? NOT TO SAY that what is unbegotten IS STRONGER THAN THAT WHICH IS BORN, and what is not made more powerful than that which is made. Because that which did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that which had an author to bring it into being. On this principle, then, if evil is indeed unbegotten, while the Son of God is begotten (“for,” says God, “MY HEART HAS EMITTED MY MOST ECELLENT WORD”), I am not quite sure that evil may not be introduced by good, the stronger by the weak, in the same way as the unbegotten is by the begotten. Therefore on this ground Hermogenes puts Matter even before God, by putting it before the Son. BECAUSE THE SON IS THE WORD, and “the Word is God,” John 1:1 and “I and my Father are one.” John 10:30 But after all, perhaps, the Son will patiently enough submit to having that preferred before Him which (by Hermogenes), is made equal to the Father!

      And:

      Chapter 20. Meaning of the Phrase— In the Beginning. Tertullian Connects It with the Wisdom of God, and Elicits from It the Truth that the Creation Was Not Out of Pre-Existent Matter

      But in proof that the Greek word means nothing else than beginning, and that beginning admits of no other sense than the initial one, we have that (Being) even acknowledging such a beginning, who says: “The Lord possessed me, the beginning of His ways for the creation of His works.” Proverbs 8:22 For since all things were made BY THE WISDOM OF GOD, it follows that, when God made both the heaven and the earth in principio— that is to say, in the beginning— He made them IN HIS WISDOM. If, indeed, beginning had a material signification, the Scripture would not have informed us that God made so and so in principio, at the beginning, but rather ex principio, of the beginning; for He would not have created in, but of, matter. When Wisdom, however, was referred to, it was quite right to say, in the beginning. For it was IN WISDOM that He made all things at first, because by meditating and arranging His plans therein, He had in fact already done (the work of creation); and if He had even intended to create out of matter, He would yet have effected His creation when He previously meditated on it and arranged it IN HIS WISDOM, since It was in fact the beginning of His ways: this meditation and arrangement BEING THE PRIMAL OPERATION OF WISDOM, opening as it does the way to the works by the act of meditation and thought. This authority of Scripture I claim for myself even from this circumstance, that while it shows me the God who created, and the works He created, it does not in like manner reveal to me the source from which He created. For since in every operation there are three principal things, He who makes, and that which is made, and that of which it is made, there must be three names mentioned in a correct narrative of the operation— the person of the maker the sort of thing which is made, and the material of which it is formed. If the material is not mentioned, while the work and the maker of the work are both mentioned, it is manifest that He made the work out of nothing. For if He had had anything to operate upon, it would have been mentioned as well as (the other two particulars). In conclusion, I will apply the Gospel as a supplementary testimony to the Old Testament. Now in this there is all the greater reason why there should be shown the material (if there were any) out of which God made all things, inasmuch as it is therein plainly revealed BY WHOM HE MADE ALL THINGS. “In the beginning was the Word” John 1:1 — that is, the same beginning, of course, in which God made the heaven and the earth Genesis 1:1 — “and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made.” John 1:1-3 Now, since we have here clearly told us who the Maker was, that is, God, and what He made, even all things, AND THROUGH WHOM HE MADE THEM, EVEN HIS WORD, would not the order of the narrative have required that the source out of which all things were made by God THROUGH THE WORD should likewise be declared, if they had been in fact made out of anything? What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention; and by not mentioning it, it has given us a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there had been, the Scripture would have mentioned it.

      And here are some quotes from Tertullian’s response to Praxeas:

      Chapter 5. The Evolution of the Son or Word of God from the Father by a Divine Procession. Illustrated by the Operation of the Human Thought and Consciousness

      But since they will have the Two to be but One, so that the Father shall be deemed to be the same as the Son, it is only right that the whole question respecting the Son should be examined, as to whether He exists, and who He is and the mode of His existence. Thus shall the truth itself secure its own sanction from the Scriptures, and the interpretations which guard them. There are some who allege that even Genesis opens thus in Hebrew: “In the beginning God made for Himself a Son.” As there is no ground for this, I am led to other arguments derived from God’s own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone— being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. YET EVEN NOT THEN WAS HE ALONE, FOR HE HAD WITH HIM THAT WHICH POSSESSED IN HIMSELF, THAT IS TO SAY, HIS OWN REASON. For God is rational, AND REASON WAS FIRST IN HIM; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call λόγος, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had not Word from the beginning, BUT HE HAD REASON EVEN BEFORE THE BEGINNINGL BECAUSE ALSO WORD ITSELF CONSISTS OF REASON, which it thus proves to have been the prior existence as being its own substance. Not that this distinction is of any practical moment. For although God had not yet sent out His Word, HE STILL HAD HIM WITHIN HIMSELF, BOTH IN COMPANY WITH AND INCLUDED WITHIN HIS VERY REASON, as He silently planned and arranged within Himself everything which He was afterwards about to utter through His Word. Now, while He was thus planning and arranging with His own Reason, HE WAS ACTUALLY CAUSING THAT TO BECOME WORD which He was dealing with in the way of Word or Discourse. And that you may the more readily understand this, consider first of all, from your own self, who are made “in the image and likeness of God,” Genesis 1:26 for what purpose it is that you also possess reason in yourself, who are a rational creature, as being not only made by a rational Artificer, but actually animated out of His substance. Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought, at every impulse of your conception. Whatever you think, there is a word; whatever you conceive, there is reason. You must needs speak it in your mind; and while you are speaking, you admit speech as an interlocutor with you, involved in which there is this very reason, whereby, while in thought you are holding converse with your word, you are (by reciprocal action) producing thought by means of that converse with your word. Thus, IN A CERTAIN SENSE, THE WORD IS A SECOND PERSON WITHIN YOU, through which in thinking you utter speech, and through which also, (by reciprocity of process,) in uttering speech you generate thought. The word is itself a different thing from yourself. NOW HOW MUCH FULLY IS ALL THIS TRANSACTED IN GOD, whose image and likeness even you are regarded as being, INASMUCH AS HE HAS REASON WITHIN HIMSELF EVEN WHILE HE IS SILENT, AND INVOLVED IN THAT REASON HIS WORD! I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe GOD WAS NOT ALONE, SINCE HE HAD WITHIN HIMSELF BOTH REASON, AND, INHERENT IN REASON, HIS WORD, WHICH HE MADE SECOND TO HIMSELF BY AGITATING IT WITHIN HIMSELF.

      Chapter 6. The Word of God is Also the Wisdom of God. The Going Forth of Wisdom to Create the Universe, According to the Divine Plan
      This power and disposition of the Divine Intelligence is set forth also in the Scriptures under the name of Σοφία, Wisdom; for what can be better entitled to the name of Wisdom than the Reason or the Word of God? Listen therefore to Wisdom herself, CONSTITUTED IN THE CHARACTER OF A SECOND PERSON: “At the first the Lord created me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works, before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled; moreover, before all the hills did He beget me;” Proverbs 8:22-25 that is to say, HE CREATED AND GENERATED ME IN HIS OWN INTELLIGENCE. Then, again, observe the distinction between them implied in the companionship of Wisdom with the Lord. “When He prepared the heaven,” says Wisdom, “I was present with Him; and when He made His strong places upon the winds, which are the clouds above; and when He secured the fountains, (and all things) which are beneath the sky, I was by, arranging all things with Him; I was by, in whom He delighted; and daily, too, did I rejoice in His presence.” Proverbs 8:27-30 Now, as soon as it pleased God to put forth into their respective substances and forms the things which He had planned and ordered within Himself, in conjunction with His Wisdom’s Reason and Word, He first put forth the Word Himself, HAVING WITHIN HIM HIS OWN INSEPARABLE REASON AND WISDOM, in order that all things might be made through Him through whom they had been planned and disposed, yea, and already made, so far forth as (they were) in the mind and intelligence of God. This, however, was still wanting to them, that they should also be openly known, and kept permanently in their proper forms and substances.

      Chapter 7. The Son by Being Designated Word and Wisdom, (According to the Imperfection of Human Thought and Language) Liable to Be Deemed a Mere Attribute. He is Shown to Be a Personal Being
      Then, therefore, DOES THE WORD ALSO HIMSELF ASSUME HIS OWN FORM AND GLORIOUS GARB, HIS OWN SOUND AND VOCAL UTTERANCE, when God says, “Let there be light.” Genesis 1:3 THIS IS THE PERFECT NATIVITY OF THE WORD, WHEN HE PROCEEDS FORTH FROM GOD— formed by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom— “The Lord created or formed me as the beginning of His ways;” Proverbs 8:22 then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect— “When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him.” THUS DOES HE MAKE HIM EQUAL TO HIM: FOR BY PROCEEDING FROM HIMSELF HE BECAME HIS FIRST-BEGOTTEN, BECAUSE BEGOTTEN BEFORE ALL THINGS; Colossians 1:15 and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, FROM THE WOMB OF HIS OWN HEART— even as the Father Himself testifies: “My heart,” says He, “has emitted my most excellent Word.” The Father took pleasure evermore in Him, who equally rejoiced with a reciprocal gladness in the Father’s presence: “You are my Son, today have I begotten You;” even before the morning star did I beget You. The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person, under the name of Wisdom: “The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills did He beget Me.” For if indeed Wisdom in this passage seems to say that She was created by the Lord with a view to His works, and to accomplish His ways, yet proof is given in another Scripture that “all things were made by the Word, and without Him was there nothing made;” John 1:3 as, again, in another place (it is said), “By His word were the heavens established, and all the powers thereof by His Spirit” — that is to say, by the Spirit (or Divine Nature) which was in the Word: thus is it evident that it is one and the same power which is in one place described under the name of Wisdom, and in another passage under the appellation of the Word, which was initiated for the works of God Proverbs 8:22 which “strengthened the heavens;” “by which all things were made,” John 1:3 “and without which nothing was made.” John 1:3 Nor need we dwell any longer on this point, as if it were not THE VERY WORD HIMSELF, WHO IS SPOKEN OF UNDER THE NAME BOTH OF WISDOM AND OF REASON, and of the entire Divine Soul and Spirit. HE BECAME ALSO THE SON OF GOD, AND WAS BEGOTTEN WHEN HE PROCEEDED FORTH FROM HIM. Do you then, (you ask,) grant that the Word is a certain substance, constructed by the Spirit and the communication of Wisdom? Certainly I do. But you will not allow Him to be really a substantive being, by having a substance of His own; in such a way that He may be regarded as an objective thing and a person, and so be able (as being constituted second to God the Father,) to make two, the Father and the Son, God and the Word. For you will say, what is a word, but a voice and sound of the mouth, and (as the grammarians teach) air when struck against, intelligible to the ear, but for the rest a sort of void, empty, and incorporeal thing. I, on the contrary, contend that nothing empty and void could have come forth from God, seeing that it is not put forth from that which is empty and void; nor could that possibly be devoid of substance which has proceeded from so great a substance, and has produced such mighty substances: for all things which were made through Him, He Himself (personally) made. How could it be, that He Himself is nothing, without whom nothing was made? How could He who is empty have made things which are solid, and He who is void have made things which are full, and He who is incorporeal have made things which have body? For although a thing may sometimes be made different from him by whom it is made, yet nothing can be made by that which is a void and empty thing. Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is called the Son, WHO HIMSELF IS DESGINATED GOD? “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1 It is written, “You shall not take God’s name in vain.” Exodus 20:7 This for certain is He “who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Philippians 2:6 In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not in none. For who will deny that God is a body, although “God is a Spirit?” John 4:24 For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form. Now, even if invisible things, whatsoever they be, have both their substance and their form in God, whereby they are visible to God alone, how much more shall that which has been sent forth from His substance not be without substance! Whatever, therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father. Against Praxeas

      Like

    • nice cut and paste job Sam. I’m sure everyone will read it all.

      Like

    • The following quotes further confirm that Tertullian believed in the essential and uncreated Deity of Christ, and affirmed the Triunity of God. Enjoy!

      There is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, WHO PROCEEDED FROM HIMSEL, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her — BEING BOTH MAN AND GOD, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics.” – Against Praxeas, ch. 2.

      “All the Scriptures give clear proof of the Trinity, and it is from these that our principle is deduced…the distinction of the Trinity is quite clearly displayed.” – Against Praxeas, ch. 11.

      “[God speaks in the plural ‘Let us make man in our image’] because already there was attached to Him his Son, a second person, his own Word, and a third, the Spirit in the Word….one substance in three coherent persons. He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.” – Against Praxeas, ch. 12.

      “That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds out of our mouth: not as if it were untrue that THE FATHER IS GOD, AND THE SON IS GOD, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD, AND EACH IS GOD.” – Against Praxeas, ch. 13.

      “The connection of Father and Son, of Son and the Paraclete [Holy Spirit] makes three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. And these three are one essence; not one person.” – Against Praxeas, ch. 25.

      THE SPIRIT IS GOD, AND THE WORD IS GOD, because proceeding from God, but yet is not actually the very same as He from whom He proceeds..” – Against Praxeas, ch. 26.

      “He will be God, and the Word — the Son of God. We see plainly the twofold state, which is not confounded, but conjoined in One Person — Jesus, GOD AND MAN…” –Against Praxeas, ch. 27.

      “Thus the nature of the two substances displayed Him as man and God, — in one respect born, in the other unborn;.” – On the Flesh of Christ, ch. 5.

      “Never did any angel descend for the purpose of being crucified, of tasting death, and of rising again from the dead.” – On the Flesh of Christ, ch. 6.

      “So too, that which has COME FORTH OUT OF GOD IS AT ONCE GOD AND THE SON OF GOD; and the two are one…. In his birth he is God and man united.” – Apology, ch. 21.

      Like

    • Sounds like the issue of “Eternal Generation of the Son” (The Son was always the Son into eternity past – John 17:5) vs. “Incarnational Sonship” (The Word was always eternally existing (John 1:1; Philippians 2:5-8); but became the “Son” at incarnation in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:34-35). Sounds like Tertullian was describing the “Incarnational Sonship”. But Sam has provided lots of good information from Tertullian that he affirmed the eternality of the Word.

      Both views still hold to the full Deity of Christ, and both are affirming the eternality of the Word as God (the same substance/essence) from all eternity past. John 1:1 is the key.

      Like

    • “…and the word was a god..”

      Like

    • I am finding lots of good information in the Collin’s (John J. and his wife, Harvard scholars) book that I will putting together that balances out what you are focusing on.

      Like

    • Go for it Ken. Glad you are reading some real scholarship and not the sanitised apologetics you usually study.

      Like

    • But I have already proved that I read stuff that you cite before, and interacted fully and cited them, etc. many times on your 3 blogs (here and 2 old ones that you deleted)

      I read stuff in seminary also – Barr and Bultmann and others.

      So you are lying. You are a liar.

      Like

    • No Ken it is you who deceive and lie to yourself. You hate scholarship do not read their books from cover to cover and lie about Islam. It truly pitiable creature.

      Like

    • disagreeing with Islam is not the same as lying about it.

      I don’t think it was from the true God. It came 600 years late; and has lots of problems with it.

      For Allah not to know what the doctrine of the Trinity was (that around for several centuries) and not to know history is proof it is not from the Living One True God.

      Also, Muhammad’s special revelations to get more than 4 wives; more than other Muslims is a clear indication that it is not from God.

      It does not pass the smell test.

      Like

  23. pic 3: They don’t say that de iure, but de facto

    Like

  24. Ken Temple says:
    “That is what Jesus meant in John 8:56-58.
    He is claiming to be Yahweh.”

    Proof for validity of pic 3.

    Like

  25. Yes, of course Jesus prayed to the Father while on earth; even in John’s gospel – John 17:1-5 and ff.

    That truth is fully compatible with the doctrine of the Trinity.

    Like

    • Yahweh, the father of Israel, stating explicitly there is no God beside him is not compatible with the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus is not Yahweh.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Yes, of course Jesus prayed to the Father while on earth; even in John’s gospel – John 17:1-5 and ff.”

      lets understand this

      divine logos + (with) fully god powers + (“plused”) human meat .

      i.e, divine logos through human meat worshiped the father.

      you either have a divine logos praying through meat/mask

      or you have him praying through his person which is 100 % human .

      Like

    • yeah ken , fully god + fully human was seeking thy lord.

      Like

    • “Yahweh, the father of Israel, stating explicitly there is no God beside him is not compatible with the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus is not Yahweh.”

      it makes no sense for him to say “there is no fully divine nature beside me”

      funnily, the trinitarian would have to assume that another god beside yhwh would mean 1 god, 3 persons.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      December 12, 2016 • 3:57 pm
      Yes, of course Jesus prayed to the Father while on earth; even in John’s gospel – John 17:1-5 and ff.
      That truth is fully compatible with the doctrine of the Trinity.

      I say;
      In Trinity, it means Jesus(Son) is not the Father. And God is one only and alone in the Bible.
      .”You alone [bad], Lord, are God.” Isaiah 37:20
      “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only [monos] true God” John 17:3

      Then who said this?
      “See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
      “I am Yahweh, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
      “Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.” Isaiah 45:21
      “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” Isaiah 46:9

      And who does this refer to?
      “Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God.” Isaiah 45:14

      Jesus? who is not the Father?
      Or the Father who is not Jesus?

      Ken, If you do not repent and become a Muslim and die you will go to hell because the God of the Bible said He is one, alone and only and you are saying he is 3 persons having relationship sharing essence.

      When there is sharing of something among 2 things, it means one of those cannot claim he is alone like the God of the Bible is claiming to be one, only and alone and no one else and nothing else.

      You Ken is saying, no, the God of the Bible is lying but He is not alone and not only but with other persons sharing essence and having relationship.

      Thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I am not going to hell because Jesus Al Masih عیسی المسیح
      already promised me eternal life:
      John 5:24
      John 1:12-13
      John 3:16
      1 John 5:13
      John 11:25
      Acts 16:31
      Galatians 2:16-21
      Romans 5:1-11

      Like

    • no one will look up all those references.

      Like

    • don’t be afraid to look them up.

      Like

    • “See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
      “I am Yahweh, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
      “Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.” Isaiah 45:21
      “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” Isaiah 46:9

      ken, when yhwh says there is no elohim beside him, does that mean 3 persons, 1 nature besides him?

      Like

    • No; it means there is only One God by substance / nature / essence, shared by 3 hupostasis / persons. He even gives hints of this as Yahweh Elohim says “Us” in Genesis 1, showing God is a Unified Plurality – hint of the Trinity.

      “Let Us make man in our image” Genesis 1:16-28

      All of those verses are fully compatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity and have been taught for 2000 years. 600 years before Islam.
      Islam came 600 years too late.

      Like

    • quote:
      No; it means there is only One God by substance / nature / essence, shared by 3 hupostasis / persons. He even gives hints of this as Yahweh Elohim says “Us” in Genesis 1, showing God is a Unified Plurality – hint of the Trinity.

      “Let Us make man in our image” Genesis 1:16-28

      2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

      3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.

      are these false elohims each 3 persons , 1 nature?
      2 persons 1 nature

      1 person 1 nature?

      80 persons, 1 nature?


      All of those verses are fully compatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity and have been taught for 2000 years. 600 years before Islam.
      Islam came 600 years too late.”

      and how many jews in their millions rejected your pagan understanding and 600 years before ACCEPTED the islamic understanding ?

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      You said
      I am not going to hell because Jesus Al Masih عیسی المسیح
      already promised me eternal life:
      John 5:24
      John 1:12-13
      John 3:16
      1 John 5:13
      John 11:25
      Acts 16:31
      Galatians 2:16-21
      Romans 5:1-11

      I say;
      The reason why I brought hell in this discussion is there is no “3 persons 1 God” here

      “See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
      “I am Yahweh, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
      “Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.” Isaiah 45:21
      “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” Isaiah 46:9
      “Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God.” Isaiah 45:14
      ——————
      The above is our salvation and God made it clear for us for centuries.

      You Ken and all Christians threw all these clear verses out and keep following human definition of God defined at some councils upon councils by men because of some “feelings” or “experience” you are having that all religions including idol worshipers, voodoo, Sufis, Creflo Dollar, TD Joshua etc. and their supporters are also having. It could be satanic.

      Follow the truth above which has no “3 person 1 God” but Only God is one and alone. If God is one and alone and only, it is not inline with Trinity that has each person not alone and not one and not only but the other persons makes them not alone and one cannot claim “I am the only true God” as Jesus said.

      Thanks

      Like

  26. Christians replaced the Jewish personification with the Greek Hellenistic concept of hypostatization, they grossly misunderstood what Paul meant by describing the Logos as the “Son of God” (in the poetic sense) which the Christians borrowed by transforming the personified Logos into a real conscious person. He was using a poetic device, they manufactured the pre-existent Son by their own imagination, understanding the Logos as though a synonym for Son. Not every Church bishop agreed, for example, Tertullian distinguished between God’s eternal reason (ratio) and his begotten Son that came into existence when God uttered his reason/thought. The writings of Philo were manhandled by the Church Fathers and grasped literally. Originally the Word of God was NOT a person (Isa. 55:11) but a power exercised by God; it was poetically personified like a person (Ps. 147:15). If we identify the Attribute as the Essence itself that dangerously opens the door to allowing MULTIPLE persons into the Godhead. For example, the Bible dangerously says “God is love” (1 John 4:8) while the Quran correctly says “God is loving” (11:90, 85:14). By the standards of the Trinitarian way of thinking Love should become ANOTHER person in the Trinity! Read Ehrman’s book How Jesus Became God, he talks about a Byzantine Church bishop called Marcellus of Ancyra who distinguished between the Logos and the Son. Novatian of Rome also explicitly taught the Father gave birth to the cosmic Son, he was a subordinationist. Tertullian said the Reason (ratio) of God is eternal, but the Son was generated from it, coming into existence. Tertullian seems to change his Christology over time, because he elsewhere says the Wisdom was created, becoming the Son. He never describes the Son was unbegotten, the Father needed to bring the Son into existence. There is nothing about “eternal generation” in the following quotes:

    TERTULLIAN BELIEVED THE SON WAS CREATED OR BEGOTTEN AND THERE WAS A TIME WHEN HE DIDN’T EXIST:

    Not to say that what is UNBEGOTTEN is stronger than that which is born, and what is not made more powerful than that which is made. Because that which did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that which had an author to bring it into being. On this principle, then, if evil is indeed unbegotten, while the Son of God is begotten (for, says God, my heart has emitted my most excellent Word ), I am not quite sure that evil may not be introduced by good, the stronger by the weak, in the same way as the unbegotten is by the begotten.

    Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and created, for the special reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God ALONE WHO IS UNBEGOTTEN and uncreated. For if that, which from its being inherent in the Lord was of Him and in Him, was yet not without a beginning—I mean His wisdom, which was then born and created, when in the thought of God It began to assume motion for the arrangement of His creative works—how much more impossible is it that anything should have been without a beginning which was extrinsic to the Lord! (Against Hermogenes, Chapter One http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0313.htm

    JUSTIN MARTYR ALSO BELIEVED THE SON WAS BEGOTTEN, NOT ETERNAL LIKE THE FATHER, WHO ALONE IS UNBEGOTTEN:

    And that this may now become evident to you–(firstly) that whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ, and by the prophets who preceded Him, are alone true, and are older than all the writers who have existed; that we claim to be acknowledged, not because we say the same things as these writers said, but because we say true things: and (secondly) that Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been BEGOTTEN BY GOD, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, (CHAPTER XXIII, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html)

    But the Gentiles, who had never heard anything about Christ, until the apostles set out from Jerusalem and preached concerning Him, and gave them the prophecies, were filled with joy and faith, and cast away their idols, and dedicated themselves to the Unbegotten God through Christ. (CHAPTER XLIX, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html)

    “So too, that which has COME FORTH OUT OF GOD IS AT ONCE GOD AND THE SON OF GOD; and the two are one…. In his birth he is God and man united.” – Apology, ch. 21.

    Christians falsely project “the Son” into John 1:1 when it doesn’t say that, it mentions “the Word” and John is ambiguous, he doesn’t actually explain (qualify his statement) using clear words that the Logos was a pre-existing Person. If the Word is God it would imply one God standing beside another God: “and the Word was with God and the Word was God”, to avoid tritheism the Evangelist used the Greek word ‘theos’ which is accurately translated as simply ‘god’ (not Ho-theos, meaning The God), meaning the Word was simply God’s power and purpose, not a person:

    http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/john1.htm

    http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/preexist.htm

    http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/trinity.htm

    http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/word.htm

    http://www.focusonthekingdom.org/translations.htm

    http://www.focusonthekingdom.org/gabriel.htm

    The above papers clearly destroys Shamoun and Ken

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Correction: I meant PHILO not Paul, they mistook poet personification for something literal and imagined the Attribute as some “divine person” coexisting alongside God. This is not what the Jews believed, the Book of Genesis says nothing about “three persons” within a Godhead but only mentions God and His spirit (Gen 1:2). John 1:1 seems to be exaggerated and corrupt form of Gen. 1:1. There are Church bishops (Tertullian, Marcellus) who made a distinction between the Logos and Son, the latter is NOT eternal but generated by God who became the Father. All this hogwash goes back to the Church Fathers who came from a different world and culture from Jesus. Origen invented the concept of eternal generation. How can something have a beginningless beginning?

    Liked by 1 person

    • I have already refuted the Infinite deceiver’s distortion of Tertullian so there is no need for me to refute his boldfaced lie that Tertullian taught that Jesus is a creature. I will now refute his lie regarding Justin Martyr since this saint DID NOT teach that Jesus wasn’t as old as the Father. The following is taken from my reply to another dishonest anti-Trinitarian.

      Speaking of Justin, let’s see what he meant by Angel and what he really believed about Jesus:

      Chapter 56. GOD WHO APPEARED TO MOSES is distinguished from God the Father

      Justin: Moses, then, the blessed and faithful servant of God, declares that He who appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mamre IS GOD, sent with the two angels in His company to judge Sodom BY ANOTHER WHO REMAINS EVER IN SUPERCELESTIAL PLACES, invisible to all men, holding personal intercourse with none, whom we believe to be Maker and Father of all things; for he speaks thus: ‘God appeared to him under the oak in Mamre, as he sat at his tent-door at noontide. And lifting up his eyes, he saw, and behold, three men stood before him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the door of his tent; and he bowed himself toward the ground, and said . . .’ Genesis 18:1-2 ‘Abraham went up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord: and he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrha, and toward the adjacent country, and beheld, and, lo, a flame went up from the earth, like the smoke of a furnace.’

      And when I had made an end of quoting these words, I asked them if they had understood them. And they said they had understood them, but that the passages adduced brought forward no proof that there is any other God or Lord, or that the Holy Spirit says so, besides the Maker of all things.

      Justin: I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, AND THERE IS TO BE, ANOTHER GOD AND LORD subject to the Maker of all things; WHO IS ALSO CALLED AN ANGEL, BECAUSE HE ANNOUNCES TO MEN WHATSOEVER the Maker of all things—above whom there is no other God—WISHES TO ANNOUNCE TO THEM…

      Justin: If I could not have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of those three IS GOD, AND IS CALLED ANGEL, BECAUSE, AS I ALREADY SAID, HE BRINGS MESSAGES TO THOSE WHOM God the Maker of all things WISHES [messages to be brought], then in regard to Him who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form in like manner as the two angels who came with Him, AND WHO WAS GOD EVEN BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD, it were reasonable for you to entertain the same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation…

      Justin: Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said TO HAVE APPEARED TO ABRAHAM, AND TO JACOB, AND TO MOSES AND WHO IS CALLED GOD, is distinct from Him who made all things—numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world—above whom there is no other God—has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with…

      Justin: The Scripture just quoted by me will make this plain to you. It is thus: ‘The sun was risen on the earth, and Lot entered into Segor (Zoar); and the Lord rained on Sodom sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and overthrew these cities and all the neighbourhood.’ Genesis 19:23…

      Justin: (After another pause.) And now have you not perceived, my friends, that one of the three, WHO IS BOTH GOD AND LORD, and ministers to Him who is in the heavens, is Lord of the two angels? For when [the angels] proceeded to Sodom, He remained behind, and communed with Abraham in the words recorded by Moses; and when He departed after the conversation, Abraham went back to his place. And when he came [to Sodom], the two angels no longer conversed with Lot, but Himself, as the Scripture makes evident; AND HE IS THE LORD WHO RECEIVED COMMISSION FROM THE LORD WHO [remains] IN THE HEAVENS, i.e., the Maker of all things, to inflict upon Sodom and Gomorrha the [judgments] which the Scripture describes in these terms: ‘The Lord rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrha sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.’

      Here Justin explains that Jesus is called Angel because he delivers messages from God the Father, NOT BECAUSE HE IS A CREATED SPIRIT CREATURE NAMED MICHAEL! He then proceeds to quote Genesis 18:1-33 and 19:1-29 to prove that Jesus is the God and Jehovah who appeared to Abraham as a man along with two other angels, and who brought fire down from another who is said be Jehovah in the heavens. Lord willing, I will have more quotes from Justin later in the day.

      Here are some more nuggets from Justin Martyr. In these next quotes you will see Justin identifying Jesus as the God of Abraham and the Jehovah of hosts of the Hebrew Bible:

      Chapter 36. HE PROVES THAT CHRIST IS CALLED LORD OF HOSTS

      Trypho: Let these things be so as you say—namely, that it was foretold Christ would suffer, and be called a stone; and after His first appearance, in which it had been announced He would suffer, would come in glory, and be Judge finally of all, and eternal King and Priest. Now show if this man be He of whom these prophecies were made.

      Justin: As you wish, Trypho, I shall come to these proofs which you seek in the fitting place; but now you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove THAT CHRIST IS CALLED BOTH GOD AND LORD OF HOSTS, and Jacob, in parable by the Holy Spirit; and your interpreters, as God says, are foolish, since they say that reference is made to Solomon and not to Christ, when he bore the ark of testimony into the temple which he built. The Psalm of David is this:

      The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof; the world, and all that dwell therein. He has rounded it upon the seas, and prepared it upon the floods. Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or who shall stand in His holy place? He that is clean of hands and pure of heart: who has not received his soul in vain, and has not sworn guilefully to his neighbour: he shall receive blessing from the Lord, and mercy from God his Saviour. This is the generation of them that seek the Lord, that seek the face of the God of Jacob. Lift up your gates, you rulers; and be lifted up, you everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord strong and mighty in battle. Lift up your gates, you rulers; and be lifted up, you everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory.

      Accordingly, it is shown that Solomon is not the Lord of hosts; but when our Christ rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, the rulers in heaven, under appointment of God, are commanded to open the gates of heaven, THAT HE WHO IS KING OF GLORY may enter in, and having ascended, may sit on the right hand of the Father until He make the enemies His footstool, as has been made manifest by another Psalm. For when the rulers of heaven saw Him of uncomely and dishonoured appearance, and inglorious, not recognising Him, they inquired, ‘Who is this King of glory?’ And the Holy Spirit, either from the person of His Father, or from His own person, answers them, ‘The Lord of hosts, He is this King of glory.’ For every one will confess that not one of those who presided over the gates of the temple at Jerusalem would venture to say concerning Solomon, though he was so glorious a king, or concerning the ark of testimony, ‘Who is this King of glory?’

      Chapter 37. The same is proved from other Psalms

      Justin: Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth Psalm, REFERENCE IS THUS MADE TO CHRIST: ‘GOD WENT UP WITH A SHOUT, THE LORD WITH THE SOUND OF A TRUMPET. Sing to OUR GOD, sing: sing to our King, sing; for God is King of all the earth: sing with understanding. God has ruled over the nations. God sits upon His holy throne. The rulers of the nations were assembled along with THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, for the strong ones of God are greatly exalted on the earth.’ And in the ninety-eighth Psalm, the Holy SpiriT reproaches you, AND PREDICTS HIM WHOM YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE KING TO BE KING AND LORD, both of Samuel, and of Aaron, and of Moses, and, in short, of all the others. And the words of the Psalm are these:

      The Lord has reigned, let the nations be angry: [it is] He who sits upon the cherubim, let the earth be shaken. The Lord is great in Zion, and He is high above all the nations. Let them confess Your great name, for it is fearful and holy, and the honour of the King loves judgment. You have prepared equity; judgment and righteousness have You performed in Jacob. Exalt the Lord our God, and worship the footstool of His feet; for He is holy. Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among those who call upon His name. They called (says the Scripture) on the Lord, and He heard them. In the pillar of the cloud He spoke to them; for they kept His testimonies, and the commandment which he gave them. O Lord our God, You heard them: O God, You were propitious to them, and [yet] taking vengeance on all their inventions. Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at His holy hill; for the Lord our God is holy.

      Justin applies Psalm 24, 47 and 99 to Jesus in order to identify him as Jehovah of hosts, Jehovah our God whom believers are to worship at his footstool, the Jehovah who sits enthroned upon the cherubim, and the God of Abraham. More in the next post.

      Now seeing that Justin identified Jesus as the Jehovah God Almighty who appeared to the OT saints such as Abraham and Moses, and seeing that Jehovah is uncreated by nature, this conclusively proves that Justin DID NOT think that Jesus is a part of creation, but is uncreated by nature. This is precisely what we find Justin saying:

      Chapter 61. Wisdom is begotten of the Father, as fire from fire

      Justin: I shall give you another testimony, my friends, from the Scriptures, that God begot BEFORE ALL CREATURES a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] FROM HIMSELF, WHO IS CALLED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, NOW THE GLORY OF THE LORD, NOW THE SON, AGAIN WISDOM, AGAIN AN ANGEL, THEN GOD, AND THEN LORD AND LOGOS; AND ON ANOTHER OCCASION HE CALLS HIMSELF CAPTAIN, WHEN HE APPEARED IN HuMAN FORM TO JOSHUA THE SON OF NAVE (NUN). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, WHO IS HIMSELF THIS GOD BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER OF ALL THINGS, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following:

      Note that Justin does not believe that Jesus was created from nothing but that he proceeded from the Father himself without ever severing from him, and therefore is separate from all creation, which is why he can say that Christ was begotten before all creatures. Clearly then, for Justin Jesus is not a part of the creation which the Father made out of nothing, but is the eternal Logos of the Father who resided within him in eternity and was then brought forth at the point in which the Father decided to bring all creation into being by that very Word/Wisdom that he eternally possessed. So much for Graham’s abuse and misuse of Justin since he does not believe that Justin is correct in identifying Jesus as the Jehovah God Almighty of the OT who appeared to all the OT prophets and saints. Lord willing, I have a question for Graham to answer which I will ask later in the day.

      Like

  28. You are misunderstanding what Tertullian meant, he’s making a DISTINCTION between the Logos and Son. The Logos is eternal, the Son is not eternal, the Son is what the Logos BECAME when God uttered His eternal Word (logos) that became a conscious living being. The Christians shuffled the terminology around by claiming “person” over being and entity. Justin, on the other hand, seems to say Logos and Son are the same thing, disagreeing with Tertullian’s view. The majority of Trinitarians accepted the Logos and Son are synonymous and interchangeable (as you believe) but others made a distinction between the Logos and Son, like the Byzantine bishop Marcellus of Ancyra. However, if Justin really believed the Logos and Son are the same person and eternal, he wouldn’t have said “begotten” (brought into existence by someone else), he was God in a LOWER and INFERIOR sense than the Father. The Logos was God’s wisdom and thought, it BECAME a living “person” when God uttered it, the same way humans THINK their mental logos before speaking it. The eternal Logos became the Son, who was retrospectively identified as the Logos itself, the same way a human voice (expressed word) is identified as being the Thought itself. The problem is that NOBODY on this earth says their word is another person distinct from himself!

    You have clearly highlighted the parts where Justin teaches subordinationism, the Son was BROUGHT INTO BEING (begotten) by the Father.

    “In another place Justin likens Christ’s relationship to God to a fire that is used to start another fire. The second fire exists independently of the first, but it could not have come into existence without the other. Moreover, when it is started, the new fire does not diminish anything of the first fire, making it less than it was to begin with. The first fire is just the same as it was before. But the second fire is just as fully fire as the first. And that’s how it is with God and Christ. CHRIST CAME FORTH FROM GOD, and became his own being, and yet God was not diminished in the slightest when that happened (Dialogue 61). Thus Justin stresses that Christ is a separate being from God and is ‘numerically distinct from the Father’ (Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, pp. 332-334)

    He doesn’t say the Son generated himself but needed the Father to bring him into existence as one candle LIGHTS another. The candle becomes fire itself, so the begotten “person” called the Son only BECAME God when generated, not that he always existed AS God. This is a perversion of monotheism from the Islamic view. If Justin meant the Logos/Son is eternal, there wouldn’t be any need for Origen to introduce “eternal generation” after him. This is only because Origen couldn’t accept the idea (found in Justin Martyr and Tertullian) that Christ was begotten once.

    The problem is Justin Martyr says NOTHING about the Son/Logos being eternally generated (begotten) by God. The New Testament also says NOTHING about eternal generation.

    Consider the following quotes:

    “The Trinity relies on the idea of the Son having been “eternally begotten.” Does that make the slightest sense? How can someone who has no beginning be begotten? Why are there absolutely NO VERSES which speak of Jesus being BEGOTTEN by the Father in ETERNITY? Why do all references to the begetting of Jesus refer either to his conception and birth Luke 1:35; Matt. 1:20; Acts 13:33, describing the beginning of his life, while v. 34 refers to his resurrection) or to his appointment to kingship (Ps 2)? Without an eternal begetting of the Son, THERE CAN BE NO DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY”. (Anthony Buzzard, Who is Jesus? Do the Creeds Tell us the Truth about Him? Source; http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/jesus.htm)

    “The notion that the Son was begotten by the Father in eternity past, not as an event, but as an inexplicable relationship, has been accepted and carried along in the Christian theology since the fourth century…. We have examined all the instances in which ‘begotten’ or ‘born’ or related words are applied to Christ, and we can say with confidence that the Bible has HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER to say about ‘begetting’ as an eternal relationship between the Father and the Son.” (J. O Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Zondervan, 1962, p. 110)

    “The Christian writers of the second and third centuries considered the Logos as the eternal reason of the Father [note: not the eternal Son], but as having at first no distinct existence from eternity; he [the Son of God] received this ONLY WHEN THE FATHER GENERATED HIM from within his own being and sent him to create the world and rule over the world. The act of generation then was not considered as an eternal and necessary life-act but as one which had a BEGINNING IN TIME, which meant that the Son was not equal to the Father, but subordinate to Him. Irenaeus, Justin, Hippolytus and Methodius share this view called Subordinationism. (Michael Schmaus, Dogma, Vol. 3, God and His Christ, Sheed and Ward, 1971, p. 216)

    ”…before Christ came forth from God—when he was resident within him—HE WAS NOT YET THE SON; he could be the Son only when he came forth at the incarnation. And so before that time he was the Word of God (abstract non-consciousness), within the Father. Moreover, on the basis of his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, which says that at “the end” of all things, Christ will “hand over the kingdom to God the Father”, Marcellus maintained that Christ’s kingdom was not eternal. Ultimately, God the Father is all sovereign; Christ will deliver his kingdom to the Father; and then he will return to be resident within him. This view obviously toed the line on the major Christological issues of the second, third, and early fourth centuries. Christ was God, he became man, and he was only one person. And it was not a modalist view. But other church leaders thought it sounded too much like modalism and condemned it as a heresy”. (Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, pp 367)

    I challenge you to find one Church Father who called the Son autotheos (God of Himself). The term doesn’t appear in the voluminous writings of the Church Fathers except Origen, who exclusively applied the term to the Father alone. The Greek word means ‘independently God’. In other words, according to Origen, the Son wasn’t God of Himself but a derived “person” from the Father’s substance. You also admitted by highlighting Justin’s words that the Son was generated from the Father, he was brought into being. The eternal Logos became the Son, others said the Logos wasn’t a person until the incarnation event.

    Like

    • ANTHONY BUZZARD:

      This reading of the passage provides vital support for the traditional doctrine of the Godhead, shared equally by Father and Son from eternity. Paraphrased versions sometimes go far beyond the Greek original. The Contemporary English Version interprets John to mean that two beings were present at the beginning. “The Word was the One who was with God.” No doubt, according to that translation, the Word would be equivalent to an eternal Son. It would certainly be understood in that sense by those schooled on the post-biblical creeds.

      But why, Kuschel asks, do readers leap from “word” to “Son”? The text simply reads, “In the beginning was the word,” not “In the beginning was the Son.” The substitution of “Son” for “word,” which for millions of readers appears to be an automatic reflex, has had dramatic consequences. It has exercised a powerful, even mesmerizing influence on Bible readers. But the text does not warrant the switch. Again, John wrote: “In the beginning was the word.” He did not say, “In the beginning was the Son of God.” There is, in fact, no direct mention of the Son of God until we come to verse 14, where “the word [not the Son] became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of a unique Son, full of grace and truth.” Until verse 14 there is no mention of a Son. The Son is what the word became, but what is the word?

      Imagine I told my child, “Our car was once in the head of its designer, and now here it is in our garage.” The child might respond: “How could that car fit into the head of the designer? It would be too big.” Fair point, but based on a large misunderstanding. The application to our problem in John 1:1 is simply this: The fact that the word became the man Jesus, the Son of God, does not necessarily or automatically imply that Jesus, the Son of God is one-to-one equivalent to the word before Jesus’ birth. What if the word, the self-expression of God, became embodied in, was manifested in, the man Jesus? That makes very good sense of John 1:14. It also avoids the fearful, never-resolved complexities of Trinitarianism by which there are two or three who are fully and equally God. If our theory is right, John will have been speaking about a preexisting divine Purpose, not a second divine person.

      It is commonly known to Bible readers that in Proverbs 8 wisdom was “with [Hebrew, etzel; LXX, para] God.” That is to say, God’s wisdom is personified. It is treated as if it were a person, not that Lady Wisdom was really a female personage alongside God. We accept this sort of language, usually without any confusion. We do not suppose that Prudence, who is said to be dwelling with Wisdom (Prov. 8:12), was herself literally a person. When the famous St. Louis Arch was finally completed after several years of construction a documentary film announced that “the plan had become flesh.” The plan, in other words, was now in physical form. But the arch is not one-to-one equivalent with the plans on the drawing board. The arch is made of concrete; the plans were drawn on paper.

      http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/john1.htm

      Have you ever wondered what is meant by “eternal generation”? (You are supposed to believe that Jesus is the “eternally generated Son” in order to be orthodox and fit for salvation.) To generate means to bring into existence, to cause to exist, to begin. “Eternal” describes that which has no beginning. “Eternal generation” therefore has no intelligible meaning. You cannot bring into existence what has always existed. Yet this is the “orthodox” belief about the Son of God. Not only it is a contradiction in itself, it also collides with the statement of Gabriel in Luke 1:35 that the conception in Mary’s womb (through the holy spirit) “generated” the Son of God, i.e. brought him into existence. Note also Matt. 1:20 “that which is generated [begotten] in you is from the Holy Spirit.” There is no “eternal Son” in the Bible (a Son is anyway by definition a person derived in time from another). The whole Trinitarian idea of an “eternal son” is a mystification and a mirage. It is time for believers to question it in the light of Scripture.

      http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/gnosis.htm

      Like

  29. The Lord our God is one Lord! Jesus is God in the flesh, while the Holy Spirit is God’s great presence and communication with us. The trinity is false doctrine, as there is only one God. Jesus tells his disciples, “if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father” (John 14). 1 Timothy 3:16 also says that “God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirt, seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, and received up into Glory”, GOD was! I used to believe in the trinity until I searched the Word of God for myself. Search the Bible and ask the Lord to reveal His truth to you. God bless.

    Like

  30. company :
    the fact or condition of being with another or others, especially in a way that provides friendship and enjoyment.

    the 3 gods within the trinity enjoy each other

    how can you worship a company?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: