How Jesus became a god. Two Yale professors describe the historical process

Last month I posted about an academic work I am reading by two of America’s leading biblical scholars entitled: King and Messiah as Son of God, Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature by Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins – both professors of biblical criticism and interpretation at Yale University.

I have nearly finished the book and I thought readers might like to peruse another extract. The professors describe the historical process whereby Jesus was initially understood to be an agent of God, then after the ascension of Jesus leading to further speculation about his pre-existent status. But a crucial factor appears to be the influence of pagan cults where men who were once human beings were honoured and worshiped as gods. The authors highlight the practices of the Imperial cults as a crucial element in the proclamation of Jesus as God. Here is a snapshot taken on my humble iPhone of page 174 (see note 105 too).

img_2719 img_2721

Advertisements


Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity, God, History, Recommended Reading

184 replies

  1. The Invented Three-Person God

    The Unmentioned God: The Missing Three-Person-God

    The God the Bible Fails to Mention

    The Bible is our story of the Creator of the Universe and his relationship with humanity. The story begins with the account of God creating the universe and the first human known to all of us as “Adam.” The Bible is the account of humanity’s relationship to God and how God is redeeming humankind through his Son Jesus Christ and bringing all things into perfection. The most important and significant character of the story of God and humanity is the Supreme Being Creator known most commonly to English speakers as “God.” The character “God” is mentioned thousands of times in this story. God is the main character of the Bible.

    The confessed God of Trinitarians is a three person God. And the most interesting thing about their God is that this alleged three person being is not once mentioned in the entire story of God and humanity. The three person God is never described anywhere in pages of the Scriptures. This God is ignored, neglected, forgotten, overlooked, disregarded, unheard-of, unmentioned, unacknowledged, unconfessed, and non-existent on the pages of the Bible. This three person God is nowhere disclosed anywhere on those pages. Yet Trinitarians themselves insist that their doctrine of a three person God is the most central doctrine of the Christian faith.

    Is it not just a little bit crazy to claim the main character of the Bible is an identity who is never once mentioned or confessed in the entire Bible where God is the main character and mentioned thousands of times? One can search from the first page to the last and never find one mention of a three person God. Although God is mentioned thousands of times on the pages of the Bible, not once is God identified as a three person being. The Trinitarian three person God is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

    Unacknowledged in Scripture: Three-person-God

    Acknowledged in Scripture: God the Father, Son of God, Holy Spirit of God,

    Now of course, being creative human beings, Trinitarians are quite capable of imagining a three person God into the Bible wherever they think it is possible and convenient for them to do so. They choose to see a three person God wherever they want to see this alleged being and choose to see this supposed three person being wherever they think it is possible to make such a claim without appearing too awfully disingenuous. “Oh yes, here is our God at Matthew 28:19 and Genesis 1:26” they insist. Yet there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to presume either of these passages is referring to a three-person God. What the overwhelming majority of Trinitarians do not realize is that they start by accepting the preconceived notion this three person God actually exists without any reliable evidence this three person God actually does indeed exist. And then they take this preconceived notion and read it back into the text of the Bible when there is absolutely no reason to do so. Of course, the Trinitarian thinks in his own mind he does have evidence. But where is this evidence of a three person God in the Scriptures? It is nowhere to be found. This three person God concept was created by men. Perhaps this is the reason the Jews had never conceived of a three person God? Although this three person God is not confessed anywhere in the Scriptures, this fact does not seem to bother the Trinitarian. It rarely occurs to him, if ever, that he could be worshiping a God that does not even exist – a false god, an idol. Indeed, most Trinitarians will not even allow themselves to entertain the possibility.

    The concept of a three person God for the Trinitarian does not begin on the pages of Scripture since he simply cannot find a three person God reported anywhere therein. Rather, his three person God begins as an idea in his own mind. His God is created and fashioned; it is built as one builds an idol. The Bible is a very large book. One can create almost any concept if he picks and chooses ideas from its pages. So the Trinitarian begins with an idea of his creation in his mind and then travels through the pages of Scripture looking for building materials to make his God. And when he has collected enough building materials to satisfy himself, he creates his own god with his collected materials.

    The Trinitarian mind works very oddly at this point. Since God presents himself as “I” and “Me” and is described as “He” and “Him,” the Trinitarian ordinarily imagines his God to be the Father of Jesus Christ. However, when he perceives a discussion of his three person God might be in view, it becomes necessary for him to shift his mind to another God, the three person God. Now, he points to passages where God is speaking and uses terms like “us” and “our” and imagines these three individuals in the mentioned group are the three persons of his God. When this occurs, his God now becomes an “Us” and “Our,” and by implication, a “They” and “Them.”

    The Trinitarian God is a God created by men. Of course they deny that to be the case even though they can’t find their God anywhere in the Scriptures. The Trinitarian can provide no evidence whatsoever this three person God actually exists. Rather, he would like to read his three person God into the Biblical text where he thinks he can get away with it. Perhaps he begins with ignorance thinking that counting “one, two, three” at Matthew 28:19 amounts to one single three-person-God. And so he would like to show you how he fashions and builds his three person God from the Scriptures he selects for this creation. Since he can’t find this God in the Scriptures, He would like to show you how to create this God for yourself. One of the reasons he feels such a need to go hunting through the Scriptures to build, and then justify, this unmentioned God is just for that reason; his God is unmentioned and therefore needs to be manufactured.

    Most Trinitarians do this because they find themselves sitting smack dab in the middle of a church that insists that he believes in the Trinity. And another reason he feels a need to create his unreported God is because all these other folks also serve this God and he would like to be approved among his peers. Being approved to God is much less important to him. And he also feels a need to believe in this unmentioned God because he finds some passages in the Bible which confuse him unless he creates a three person God to make these passages work for him. His God is a God of necessity and a requirement designed to suit his own needs. Without his three person god he is left confused and does not know what to do with John 1:1 and John 20:28. So instead of looking for the truth, as Jesus taught us to do, he decides to create his own truth, his own three person God.

    Let there not be a strange God among you and do not bow down to a strange God. (Psalm 81:9).

    The Neglected God: The Forgotten Three-Person-God

    The God that Needed to be Retrieved

    Trinitarians like to pretend the doctrine of the Trinity was a doctrine believed by the very first Christians. Unfortunately, this necessarily means the Triune God was completely forgotten. Yes, the most central doctrine of the faith somehow got lost through the decades that immediately followed the pages of the Bible. Not only did anyone forget to mention this three person God in the Bible, a large segment of the entire early church seems to have simply forgotten about this God too.

    When the Modalists later showed up in the second century, many Christians had simply forgotten about the Triune God. Indeed, there were church leaders who thought the Modalist model of God was a pretty doggone good way to describe God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Other Christians who rejected the Modalist model didn’t seem to know anything about the Trinity doctrine that was allegedly taught by the apostles and handed down to their successors. If the church had always had this doctrine of the Trinity they could have roundly refuted the Modalist position by simply pointing out that Christians had always believed in the doctrine of the Trinity since the time of the Apostles. But that is not what happened because no such concept existed in the early church.

    For the next 200 years after Modalism erupted, men within the church argued about the nature of Jesus and his relationship to God. Did anyone stand up and try to refute all challenges by simply pointing out the church had always believed in the doctrine of the Trinity, three persons in one God? No, that did not happen because no such thing existed. Such a doctrine did not exist until around the end of the fourth century.

    The historical facts show the doctrine of the Trinity was a developed concept over two centuries of debating the issue. This reveals quite plainly to thinking people that this teaching was not something handed down by the apostles. This plain fact is devastating to Trinitarian claims. And so, for Trinitarians, these historical facts are quite simply….. denied. An imaginary account of history is much more congenial to their doctrine: Revisionist History.

    Trinitarians feel much better pretending to themselves, and to others, that the doctrine of the Trinity was something believed and taught by the apostles and henceforth passed on to the Christians who lived immediately thereafter and so on and so on. Even though they have absolutely no proof that this is the case, and even though the facts indicate otherwise, this is what they want to believe. And that is what they need to believe. Because if that is not the case, their doctrine is found to be a fairy tale developed by wayward men of the fourth century. Unfortunately for them, the facts of history reveal otherwise. And that is something which calls for outright denial of the historical facts on the part of Trinitarians. They simply must deny that their three person God was forgotten by the early church if indeed this teaching has been taught by the Apostles.

    Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He YOUR FATHER who has bought you? He has made you and established you…. You neglected the Rock who begat you, And forgot the God who gave you birth….See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides ME. (Deuteronomy 32).

    The Jigsaw Puzzle God – One Three-Person-God: Assembly Required

    The God which Requires Construction

    The Triune God is a God which requires assembly. You must construct this God. You must build this God for yourself. Since this God can nowhere be found in the pages of the Bible, you must gather up building materials from the pages of Scripture. But you must follow the instructions to build this God correctly. You must gather up the prescribed building materials. And having gathered them up, you must fit them together as prescribed and instructed by Trinitarians. And having fitted them together you have constructed for yourself your very own three-peron God.

    The sober minded and clear thinking Christian will quickly and readily see that this is idol building. When you construct your own God what you have is an idol.

    What profit is the idol when its maker has carved it, or an image, a teacher of falsehood? For its maker trusts in his own handiwork when he fashions speechless idols. (Habakkuk 2:18).

    The Hide and Seek God: The ‘Where’s Waldo’ Three-Person-God

    The Elusive God which Needs to be Caught

    Another way this three-person-God is perceived by Trinitarians is a secret and elusive God which needs to be “discovered” and which the Jews had never discovered. While the Bible should be God’s revelation of himself to mankind, it is unfortunate that God, and his inspired prophets, completely failed to mention the three-person-God. But as if God is like a child playing “catch me if you can” or a child playing a game of hide and seek, one must discover this God by catching glimpses of this three person being here and there in various places in the Bible as if God is throwing out clues and playing a game with us. In short, God is playing a game of “Where’s Waldo.”

    We worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. (John 4:22).

    The Invented God: The Three-Person-God Product of Human Philosophy

    And Man said, “Let us make God in our imagination according to our liking”

    The God which Resulted from Human Imaginations

    Since no three person God can be found mentioned anywhere in the entire Bible, and instead of concluding this likely means a three-person-God doesn’t exist, Trinitarians believe they can demonstrate the existence of a three-person-God by human logic. This is demonstrated in the common statement of Trinitarians:

    Premise 1: The Bible teaches that there is only one God.

    Premise 2: The Bible teaches that there are three distinct persons called God, known as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    Conclusion: The three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one God.

    Now the above logical conclusion is a farce due to the fallacy of equivocation in the argumentation. However, that is beside the point here. The point here is that Trinitarians actually have a God who is the product of the human mind. Their God is the result of human philosophy. In words, their God is the result of their own imaginations. A three person God is required for them to satisfy their theological requirements especially with respect to their own interpretations of the Bible and to satisfy those interpretations. In they have an image of God, an image from their imagination, an image created by their imaginations to satisfy their intellectual needs. It is complete madness.

    “Those who barter for another God multiply their sorrows.” (Psalm 16:4).

    Liked by 2 people

  2. The Deceptive Triune God

    As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was ancient of days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool” (Daniel 7:9).

    The Trinitarian God is a new god. A three person god was not the God of the Israelites nor was a three person being the God of Jesus. We have absolutely no reason to believe the Old Testament Jews, or Jesus, knew anything about serving a three person God. The Israelite God was not a three person God. Jesus, an Israelite, also served a one person God, his Father and only his Father.

    “My Father and your Father, my God and your God.” – Jesus
    When confronted with the very serious gravity of this problem, Trinitarians contrive a response that usually goes something like “God had not fully revealed Himself” to anyone before the birth of Christ. In other words, God told the truth, just not the “whole truth.” Does such a claim really pan out? Did God simply refrain from revealing the number of persons of God? Or is this a disingenuous claim of a people worshiping a disingenuous God created by men? Did the one God of Israel indeed represent himself as one singular person to the people of Israel? Yes, He most certainly did.

    Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, the God which Old Testament Jews worshiped was indeed a three person God. Now let us suppose this three person God never once even offered a hint as to the number of persons that constituted the entity known as “God.” And let us suppose the Chosen people of God, the Israelites, had absolutely no evidence whatsoever to indicate how many persons God was. Let us suppose that no evidence at all from God existed that would lead the Israelites to believe one way or the other. If that were the case, then could we say that God simply “did not fully reveal” the number of persons that made up the entity “God?” Yes we could. If that was indeed the case, one could claim “God had not fully revealed himself” just as Trinitarians do. But was this the case? No, it is most certainly not.

    This new Trinitarian three person God is a very disingenuous God. He is downright deceptive. In the Old Testament, we find the one God of Israel led His people to think that he was simply one person, the Father, and the Spirit of God was what he was, His divine power, energy and presence, the Holy Spirit of the Holy God. But the Trinitarian would have us believe that we are to understand the Old Testament Holy Spirit was a third divine person of the Triune Godhead in addition to God the Father and Jesus. God just coyly forgot to mention this three person multiplicity to the thousands of people who lived, and followed Him, and died believing He was one person. This three person God spent an inordinate amount of effort revealing everything under the sun to the Israelites but forgot to mention what Trinitarians claim is the most important doctrine of the faith: that God was three persons and not one.

    Trinitarians attempt to say that God simply refrained from revealing all the facts and this is His perogative. But that is not the situation we have and the situation is much, much worse than God refraining from telling His chosen people the whole truth about Himself. The Triune God knowingly led his people to think otherwise. This is deception. The three person God was a deceptive God representing himself himself as one person when He was actually three all along. He spoke of Himself profusely with the singular personal pronouns “I,” and “Me,” and inspires his prophets to describe Him with the singular personal pronouns “He,” and “Him,” even though he was a three person being all along. God knows very well that humans understand this kind of language is used to refer to a single person. If indeed God was three persons he was knowingly misleading his own people.

    And God represented himself as a singular person by invoking anthropomorphic terminology as well. He portrayed himself in terms of a single human person. Of course we all know he wasn’t trying to convey he was a human being of flesh. But it is also quite plain that God fully intended to give the Jews the notion that he was one person by describing himself in this manner. He describes himself as “a soul,” the Hebrew word for a person. He went for walks in the Garden of Eden like a singular human person would; He portrays himself with the visual images of singular person who has eyes, ears and a heart, arms and fingers, a back, the white hair of an old man, and sits on a throne in heaven surrounded by angels, the Father of his chosen people, the Israelites being His firstborn son. These are all things we are conditioned to ascribe to a singular person. And of course this is something God knows. And God also knows that it is absolute deception to know that such language would cause people to think one thing if indeed another thing was actually the truth. The Trinitarian three person God is an extremely disingenuous God who misled His own people into believing He was one person when He never was. All along while the faithful Israelites chanted the Shema, “the LORD our God, the LORD is one” and thought to themselves that God was one singular person because He had presented Himself to them as one person in many and various ways, Trinitarians would have us believe that He was actually one trio of three persons all along. The new Trinitarian God is a very deceptive God.

    Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:56).

    The Trinitarian God finds no problem with creating total chaos and confusion among His own chosen people due to the fact he regularly represented himself in a way that He knew would lead His people to think He was one person. In the Old Testament, Yahweh identifies Himself in singular person terminology and as the Father of His Chosen People and they are all commanded to remember that “the Lord our God the Lord is One” with all these singular person images implanted in their minds by God Himself. In fact, Yahweh, explicitly identifying himself as the Father, told the Israelites there was no other God besides “Me.” How misleading. This “Father” was a three person being all along. The prophesied Messiah is understood to be the son of Yahweh and begotten of Yahweh. Who was this one God who would beget this Son? A three person being? Jesus is the Son of God Most High and identifies his God as his Father and his Father as his God. Indeed, we too are sons of this God. Who is this God who begets these sons? A three person God? We are told even further that the one God is the Father of the spirits of all men and all men are his offspring who live and move and have their being in Him. A three person God? The Lord and God of Jesus was Yahweh God and He still is the Lord and God of Jesus. Who was Jesus’ God? One person or three? Jesus’ apostle, Paul, refers to the Father as “the one God” and Jesus is the mediator between men and this one God. We are told that the Father of Jesus is the only one who possesses self-immortality. Jesus’ apostle, Jude, describes the Father as “the only God.” God’s Son Jesus describes the Father as “the only God.” John describes the Father as “the true God.” Paul describes the Father as the “living and true God.” Jesus refers to His Father as “the only true God.” But according to Trinitarians, we are not to understand that any of these statements mean that the Father alone is the only true God. No, no, don’t be silly. We are to believe that God Most High is a three person being who had unfortunately led the naive Israelites into supposing he was one person, their Abba Father, and in spite of the plain fact that this supposed three person God is not once reported anywhere in the Scriptures.

    We have one Father – God (John 8:41).

    Did a three person God simply refrain from “fully revealing” His true identity? No. Nothing could be further from the truth. The God of the Old Testament revealed himself to the Israelites in many and various ways that normally indicate one singular person to people. If indeed He is one person He was being quite truthful with everyone. But if He is actually three persons this God was being totally deceptive. The Triune God knew all along these representations would lead his people into thinking he was one person, just as they do to this very day. The Trinitarian three person God is a very deceptive God.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. The Suspicious Nature of Trinitarian Claims

    How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

    If you look just a little beneath the surface of Trinitarian claims you will be confronted with a very disturbing realization. Once a person looks more carefully into the actual facts concerning these claims, he will notice something quite troubling. Why do so many Trinitarian claims have such a suspicious quality about them? Why are Trinitarian claims so highly questionable? Why are facts inconvenient to Trinitarian doctrine passed over, slighted or trivialized? And why do Trinitarian apologists usually refrain from disclosing all of these facts? And why do so many Trinitarian claims appear to be contrivances designed to suit their doctrine?

    Indeed, Trinitarian apologists no longer even bother to mention 1 John 5:7 since this verse has now been exposed as a counterfeit. A similar thing has occurred with the KJV rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16. Both these verses were once favorites of Trinitarian apologists. But since the truth is now upon them, Trinitarians are now forced to confess there is absolutely no support for them in either of these passages.

    Those two verses are only the beginning of their suspicious claims. Trinitarian apologists are not in the habit of acknowledging very important ancient manuscripts of Acts 20:28 which read “church of the Lord” rather than “church of God” since that would not be congenial to their apologetic mission. Even further, they do not like to point out that a respected and widely accepted Trinitarian translation, the RSV, translates the verse as “blood of His own Son” rather than “His (God’s) own blood” and many scholars agree with the RSV rendering because both external and internal evidence indicates this is how ancient Koine speakers went about saying such a thing. Why don’t Trinitarian apologists forthcoming about these facts?

    And these disturbing problems occur over and over and over. The same suspicious character of their claims arises when we come to John 1:18. Why do so many ancient manuscripts, and early Christian quotations, say “Son” rather than “God.” Again, do they really expect people to rest their faith upon such specious evidence? And why do Trinitarian apologists forget to tell anyone that the very important ancient manuscript Codex Sinaiticus does not read “God and Savior” a 2 Peter 1:1 but “Lord and Savior?”

    Why do Trinitarians translate the Hebrew word EL as “God” at Isaiah 9:6 but refuse to consistently do the same thing when the very same word refers to men, mountains and trees? Why do they translate this exact same word as “mighty” when it refers to King Nebuchadnezzar but refuse to do likewise at Isaiah 9:6? Moreover, why do they translate EL as “Mighty One” when the context makes it quite clear that the word is a reference to God himself in other places but refuse to translate it as “mighty” or “power” at Isaiah 9:6? How do they decide when they want the word EL to be translated as “mighty” or “power” or “strength” and when they want to translate the same word as “God”? And have they also not noticed that a name given to something in the Old Testament Scriptures is not necessarily identifying what that thing is? For example, shall we conclude that when Jerusalem is called “Yahweh Our Righteousness” that Jerusalem is being identified as God?

    And it certainly does not stop there. Trinitarian scholars admit the Greek grammar of Hebrews 1:8 allows a different translation than the one they prefer. And strangely enough, that different translation not only fits perfectly with the context, it makes sense with what immediately follows, “God, YOUR God, has anointed you.” Why then do they deny it? And how do they live with a translation that consequently results in God’s God anointing God so that God could make God above God’s peers? It’s absurd but it seems they don’t care.

    The same absurdity occurs at Zechariah 12:10 where the Trinitarian translation has Yahweh being pierced but the people mourning for someone else. Why don’t they bother to appreciate how the Apostle John himself cites the verse? But it seems they don’t really care if their translation is completely incoherent nor do they bother to tell anyone that many scholars insist the verse should be translated as “They shall look to me concerning the one they pierced and they will mourn for him.” No, they don’t tell you these facts nor do they tell you that there are alternative manuscript readings of this verse that do not read “me” but “him” (or “the one”).

    Under every single turned stone one finds the same thing. At John 1:1, their own Trinitarian scholars admit the second occurrence of the Greek word theos (“God/god”) means “divine” in a qualitative sense (what the Word was). Yet they translate the word as it if was the quantitative sense (who the Word was). Why do they resort to such things? And how is it that Trinitarians, who claim to know all about the Greek text in John 1:1, fail to see the problem with having two different definitions for the word “God” in the same breath where both instances are joined by a conjunction in the Greek! And why do these same Trinitarians inconsistently translate John 10:33 as “a man make yourself God” rather than “a man make yourself a god” especially of Jesus’ response in the next verse which demonstrates how he himself understood the Jewish charge? Why does this translation bear all the marks of a “made to fit” exercise?

    And why do Trinitarians ignore verses like John 12:45 and John 14:9 when they interpret John 20:28? Are such observations too inconvenient to their claims? Why do they make a convenient exception to the rules of Greek grammar concerning John 20:28? Why do they fail to see that John 20:28 is about seeing and believing and Jesus had taught his disciples what to think about He and His Father in terms of seeing and believing at John 14:9? And when they interpret John 10:30, why do they also ignore John 17:22 where Jesus prays his disciples will be one “just as we are one.” Is it because these obvious facts would completely nullify their claims?

    Why do Trinitarian apologists claim Jesus was omniscient, all-knowing, in spite of the fact that Jesus himself said ONLY one person, the Father knows the day and hour of his return? Why do they also fail to see that this means the third person of the Trinity doesn’t know either? And why do they cite verses where Jesus is said to “know all things” but hypocritically pass over 1 John 2:20,27 which say Christians “know all things?”

    Why do Trinitarian apologists isolate the words in Titus 2:13, “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” in order to claim this verse appear as though Jesus is “our great God and Savior,” when they know very well the whole text actually refers to Jesus as “the glory of our God and Savior”? And why do they have such a deep desire to change the noun “glory” (doxa) into the adjective “glorious” in this verse. Is it not obvious their motives are to suit their claims? This is the “evidence” which people are supposed to stake their faith upon?

    At every turn one finds the same thing. And it gets even worse. Why do Trinitarian apologists so often misrepresent the testimony of the earliest Christians? Why do they suggestively imply that Justin Martyr was a Trinitarian just as they are, when Justin called Jesus “another god” who was subject to the “most true God”? And why do they suggest Irenaeus was a Trinitarian, just as they are, when Irenaeus repeatedly insisted the Father alone was the only true God? Why do they insist upon misrepresenting these early Christians? And why do they present Tertullian as a Trinitarian just as they are, when he insisted the Son was inferior to the Father and there was a time when the Son did not exist? Why all the dishonesty?

    Why do Trinitarians resort to unbridled eisegetical interpretations everywhere we look while screaming how wrong it is to do such things out of the other side of their mouth? For example, why do they imagine a three person God into Genesis 1:26 and Matthew 28:19 when there is absolutely no reason to do so? Why do they insist the “US” and “OUR” of Genesis 1:26 are the three persons of the Trinity without having any evidence whatsoever that they should indeed make such claims? Are we really supposed to just use our imaginations without regard for the facts?

    And why do Trinitarians find it so necessary to spill so much ink trying to justify their doctrine? Should not the identity of our God be just a little more simple than this? Did not Jesus come to show us the way to the true God? Who was that? The entire Bible is about God but we are supposed to believe that the true identity of God is not that easy to see? They resort to writing volumes of books to try and justify their doctrine. Why is it so necessary to write volumes upon volumes of books that try to justify the true identity of God? Did God really make it that difficult to figure out who he is? Why do Trinitarians indicate that God is like a puzzle that must be assembled? One God, assembly required. Isn’t that just a bit absurd? And do they not know that their definition of their God is a written man-made image of God rather than the Living God himself? It seems they do not.

    And why is it that Trinitarian apologists so often seem to be denying the above facts are significant? Is it because they need to water down inconvenient facts? And why do they deny all the facts which indicate their doctrine is completely wrong? For example, why do they conveniently deny “the Lord” of 2 Corinthians 3:17 is Jesus even though the context demands it is Jesus? Is it because this verse proves their doctrine is simply wrong? And why have so many contrivances been designed to avoid the implications of evidence which indicates their doctrine is wrong? Why do they find it necessary to do such things? And why do those contrivances fall apart under the scrutiny of intelligent minds?

    These are but a few examples of the myriads of problems with their claims. The suspicious character of Trinitarian claims is found everywhere one looks. They go to great lengths to try and make their claims “sound good” and “appear correct” but when an honest and reasonable person looks just a little closer, it become quickly obvious that things are not what they were made to appear. Why? If their claims have any veracity whatsoever, why do they have so many highly suspicious problems attached to them? Why do they need to work so hard to justify their claims? And why do they need to make so many excuses for themselves. Why are these problems associated with every single claim they make?

    Any honest and rational person will realize that when someone makes a host of claims, and every single one of them is highly questionable, that something is wrong, very wrong. And all this is just what anyone can find on the surface of things if he actually looks. When a person digs even deeper, there he will find the foundations of corruption.

    Jesus came to show us the way to the only true God, the Living God, his God. Eternal life is to know the only true God, his God. There is nothing complicated about it at all. Why it is not clear to people that men have corrupted this truth to lead people away from the true and living God and to another God of their own making?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Regardless of the alleged atonement death of Jesus or his status of being messiah.
    Imagine that you teach & affirm that Jesus was born miraculously from a virgin birth & he was taken to the heaven as Islam teaches, yet the people whom you teach are already worship human beings as gods and sons of gods. What would you expect from this audience?
    According to the bible itself this kind of people started worshipping the ones who teach about Jesus before they started to worship Jesus.
    “Even with these words they scarcely restrained the people from offering sacrifice to them” Acts 14:18.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Paul Williams thanks for your advice, have you read my comments at all? Please be honest…thanks

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Why do Trinitarians translate the Hebrew word EL as “God” at Isaiah 9:6 but refuse to consistently do the same thing when the very same word refers to men, mountains and trees?

    Can you give us an example where “EL” אֵל means men, or mountains, or trees?

    Why do they translate this exact same word as “mighty” when it refers to King Nebuchadnezzar but refuse to do likewise at Isaiah 9:6? Moreover, why do they translate EL as “Mighty One” when the context makes it quite clear that the word is a reference to God himself in other places but refuse to translate it as “mighty” or “power” at Isaiah 9:6? How do they decide when they want the word EL to be translated as “mighty” or “power” or “strength” and when they want to translate the same word as “God”?

    I thing you have made a mistake because “mighty” is from “Gabbor” in Isaiah 9:6, not from “El”.

    The Hebrew phrase is אֵל גִּבֹּור = “El Gabbor” = “God of Might”, or “Mighty God”. El is not translated “mighty”; rather “Gabbor” is translated “mighty”. This Hebrew word is cognate related to the Arabic, Jabbar = جبار

    Like

    • Why do Trinitarian apologists so often misrepresent the testimony of the earliest Christians? Why do they suggestively imply that Justin Martyr was a Trinitarian just as they are, when Justin called Jesus “another god” who was subject to the “most true God”? And why do they suggest Irenaeus was a Trinitarian, just as they are, when Irenaeus repeatedly insisted the Father alone was the only true God? Why do they insist upon misrepresenting these early Christians? And why do they present Tertullian as a Trinitarian just as they are, when he insisted the Son was inferior to the Father and there was a time when the Son did not exist? Why all the dishonesty?

      Like

    • 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 proceeds from himself, 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.” –
      Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch. 2.

      Like

    • “There is one only God,”

      your words are a LIE

      you worship a parent and parented god

      you worship a commanded and commander god

      you worship a sent and sender god

      you worship a greater and less than greater god

      you worship a god who is subjected to his own powers

      they are separated like the universe is created separate FROM God

      like the sun, the moon , the stars are separate from Him

      you worship 3 separate gods

      3 beings

      3 conscious souls / spirits and beings

      3 gods

      Like

    • There is only one being /substance of God. God is one. (Mark 12:29; 1 Tim. 2:5; Deut. 6:4) The Reason/Word (the eternal Son) and Spirit of God were always with God and in God and proceed out from God, so there are 3 persons in personal relationship from all eternity past. John 1:1

      Like

    • But The Synoptics do not say Jesus pre-existed. That’s only found in the last gospel, John.

      Like

    • Although Luke 1:26-35 does not say explicitly that Jesus pre-existed, the virgin conception and birth is consistent with the teaching of the pre-existance of the Son/Word in John 1:1-5 and 1:14 and John 17:5 and 17:24, and Philippians 2:5-8, etc.

      We accept all 27 books of the NT as revelation from God; God-breathed.

      And if you accept the Synoptic Gospels, then Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 and Luke 24:20, 25-27, 44-47 prove that Islam is false, since it denies the crucifixion and death of Jesus in Surah 4:157. All of Mark 14, 15, 16, Matthew 26, 27, 28; Luke 22, 23, 24, and John 18, 19, 20, 21 provide so many details all related to the crucifixion and resurrection that is indeed incredible that one man would come along 600 years later and deny that historical reality.

      Like

    • cognitive dissonance
      nounPSYCHOLOGY
      the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change.

      Like

    • … after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven…

      so some of god was in PLACE x while 2/3rds of his was separate from his creation?

      quote:

      cognitive dissonance
      nounPSYCHOLOGY
      the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change.

      Like

    • You mean God used to be alone then he made another two from himself which = 3 separate gods

      You see , I note you aren’t really against worshipping 3 separate you just add different handle to it. Like the Quran says… Same old pagan language…. Same old pagan wording.

      So how did it work exactly

      You got a high God separated and then a low one passing wind and invoking his high God

      In which thought can one assume there was an incarnation and at the same time there wasn’t?

      You can bring your best lawyers, but even people who need special needs will be able to see right through your polytheism

      You worship separated gods and paradoxically the high God always remains separate from the spare god which he created from himself, how come?

      Like

    • God is one? But the”one” here is personless

      It is either alive or not alive if it is alive you worship 4 separate persons

      Shame on you

      Like

    • James White was getting stumped not long ago when an inquiring man worshippers kept on asking “but where is God”

      Jesus was a human, had a human soul and spirit, breath like human, so the guy kept on asking where was God in this ? Where?

      James White needed “divine reavaltion ” to tell him that two natures came out of a vagina.

      Like

    • One person with 2 natures. Your mocking of Jesus’ birth is disrespectful.

      Islam also teaches that Jesus Al Masih عیسی المسیح was born of the virgin Mary, so watch it bud.

      Like

    • Ken : “so there are 3 persons in personal relationship from all eternity past”

      actually, you worship 3 distinct eternal divine gods in personal relationship from all eternity past

      Trinitarian monotheism is in direct opposition and contradiction to Biblical monotheism

      Biblical monotheism is biblically conceptualized as He, who is the One true God…He is one God and there is no other deity but Him alone….

      Jesus worship He, the One God of biblical monotheism…

      Jesus knew nothing about a false notion where He, the one God of Israel is comprised of 3 distinct divine persons in “personal relationship from all eternity past”

      Liked by 1 person

    • “the virgin conception and birth is consistent with the teaching of the pre-existance of the Son/Word in John 1:1-5 and 1:14 and John 17:5 and 17:24, and Philippians 2:5-8, etc”

      in any of the synoptics where does jesus say that he is

      1. bodiless.
      2. spirit

      ??

      virgin birth?

      neither mark and john have it. john thinks jesus did not need a virgin to pop into existence

      mark thought that jesus’ family thought he was “out of himself”
      there is no way mark knew of “virgin birth”

      there are absolutely no eyewitnesses to the overshadowing of mary

      Like

    • quote:
      One person with 2 natures. Your mocking of Jesus’ birth is disrespectful.

      lets me mock it again

      james white needs “divine revelation” to believe that 2 natures came out of a vagina.

      i don’t call this crap mockery , i call it blasphemy.

      Like

    • “since it denies the crucifixion and death ”

      paul does not tell us that pilate crucified jesus.
      paul does not know where jesus was crucified

      how long was jesus on the cross? don’t trust the lies in the gospels

      was jesus nailed ? don’t trust the lies in the gospels?

      were there any jesus sympathizers who could have quickly taken him off the cross and fixed him up ? don’t look for an answer in the synoptics they all need jesus to DIE and they are writing as BELIEVERS

      jesus was probably nailed in an unknown place away from public eye

      scholars are only assuming

      they say that none of the gospels are eyewitness reportage

      so they are only guessing looking at other crucifxion accounts, but lena einhorn thinks the whole story is anachronistic

      do you see how desparately you need “scripture” to fill out details in your mind?

      it seems that mark was playing the same game.

      quote:
      And on top of that, the very idea that the crucifixion would have taken place during the Passover festival is completely absurd, beyond all realm of realistic possibility. The fact that this hasn’t been more widely questioned and itself undermined the whole story is beyond me. The Jews didn’t execute people during Passover, period. That never ever would have happened, and the fact that all of the Gospel writers just copy that narrative down from “Mark” (who was clearly placing the crucifixion on Passover for symbolic and ironic impact) shows that the other Gospel writers had no clue at all of what they were even talking about. They had absolutely no knowledge at all of any real life or death of this supposed person.

      quote:
      If Jesus’ real crucifixion was such a powerful event that it inspired the rise of this religion, then how can it possibly be that EVERY SINGLE account of it it based on a single fictional story? Given that paul was already talking about the crucifixion, clearly it was, from the beginning, a critical element of the religion. If this critical
      element developed based on real world events, then surely SOMEONE would have been able to record at least one single real detail from it. Yet, clearly we have nothing at all. Clearly what we have is a single account that is based on a literary allusion set in a time that is symbolic but could never have actually happened (Passover), and EVERYONE repeats that fictional account.

      Like

    • Why do you demand that the apostle Paul has to repeat every detail already written in Matthew, Mark, and Luke ? (at the time of Paul’s writings (50-65 AD), since John was probably written later, between 80-90 AD)

      Like

  7. Paul, you are right; that was too much to read. My eye happened to just catch the part about Isaiah 9:6 and EL, and I noticed that mistake about EL and “mighty”; but I did not read the rest.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Read all of my material carefully. Thank you sir. Read it again. Here is one specifically for you.
      All the Trinitarian verses that you previously quoted, can be easily explained.

      Translation Trickery: Trinitarian Sleight of Hand

      General

      “Lord” vs “sir” or “master” or “lord”

      Trinitarians like to suggest that if Jesus is “Lord” that means he is God. Observe that whenever the Greek word kyrios is used of Jesus, Trinitarian translators will provide you with the capitalized word “Lord.” But whenever the exact same word is used of anyone else, they translate it as lower case “lord” or “sir,” or “master.” The reason for this translation discrepancy should be obvious to readers.

      Begotten vs. Born

      Trinitarians believe that Jesus was begotten before all ages. But they will never say he was born before all ages. Observe that whenever the Greek word gennaō is translated in reference to people in general, it is translated as “born.” However, when this same Greek word is translated in reference to Jesus, it is typically translated as “begotten.” The only real exception seems to be concerning the birth of baby Jesus. Trinitarians would like you to think Jesus was “begotten of God” but everyone else is “born of God” as if there is a difference of some kind. But there is no difference. Let the reader understand that “You must be begotten again” and “You must be born again” are both appropriate translations which mean exactly the same thing. Either English word is translating the exact same Greek word. It just wouldn’t be convenient for Trintarian doctrine to say Jesus “born” before all ages or for people to notice that Christians are begotten of God just as Jesus was begotten of God.

      Anointed [One] vs. Christ/Messiah

      Trinitarians like to think of Christ Jesus as the only Christ who ever existed. However, this is not true. “Messiah” or “Christ” or “Anointed One” all mean exactly the same thing, no more, no less. The English word “Christ” is simply an anglicized form of Greek Christos and “Messiah” is simply an anglicized form of Hebrew Mashiach. All these words mean exactly the same thing: Anointed One. You Bible says that King David was God’s Anointed One, God’s Christos/Christ, God’s Mashiach/Messiah. Even King Cyrus was called God’s Christos/Christ, God’s Mashiach/Messiah.

      However notice what Trinitarian translators do to draw your attention away from this fact. Whenever the word Mashiach or Christos is used to refer to Jesus, you will see “Messiah” or “Christ” in your translations. But when the exact same word is used of anyone else, such as King David, you will see “Anointed One” in your Bible. The only exceptions are when they think the same verse might apply to both Jesus and David. Then you will see “Anointed One” used again. The reason why they are doing this should be obvious to the reader.

      Verse Specific

      John 10:33

      Trinitarian translations typically have something like, “you being a man, make yourself God.” However, if a Greek speaker wanted to say, “you being a man, make yourself a god,” the Greek text is just how he would say it. And when we examine how Jesus responded to this charge, it is abundantly clear that he understood the Jews to mean, “you being a man, make yourself a god.”

      “Calling upon God” (Acts 7:59 KJV)

      The KJV translation reads, “And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” KJV translators added the word “God” to the text. The Greek text simply doesn’t say Stephen was calling upon God. The Greek text literally says Stephen was “calling upon and saying, ‘Lord Jesus receive my spirit.'”

      Morphē – “very nature” (Philippians 2:6)

      The NIV translates this Greek word as “very nature.” The idea here is to promote the Trinitarian doctrine that Jesus has a divine nature as if Paul had fourth century Trinitarian philosophy in mind. However, the best English word here is “form.” There is no reason to suppose morphē refers to anyone’s intrinsic nature. This Greek word refers to one’s state or condition which is why the form of God is contrasted with the form of a servant. One is a noble state or condition and the other is a humble state or condition. In ancient Rome, the difference between a King and a slave was drastic and could be seen in the clothing they wore (a slave was required to wear a specified kind of clothing). To be in the morphē of a King involved the appearance of his royal majesty as well as his imperial authority and status over others. To be in the morphē of a servant involved the appearance of a servant as well as his subservience to the authority of others.

      Paul is also here referring to the exalted and glorified state of the risen Jesus. God subjected all things to the risen and set him over all the works of His hands giving him all authority in heaven and earth. The risen man Jesus now sits on the throne of God (Rev 3:21; see 1 Chronicles 29:23). Paul then explains how Jesus came to be in this exalted state and why every knee will bow before him. He is equal to God in the sense that God has given Jesus the right to execute the authority of the throne of God, that is, he exercises his God’s authority (this was also granted to David over the nation of Israel). Jesus did not regard a plunder to have this equality with God, that is, the form of God. Rather, he humbled himself to his God and was obedient to death. For that reason, God highly exalted him and seated Jesus at His right hand.

      Harpagmos – various translations (Philippians 2:6)

      The word harpagmos at Philippians 2:6 has been translated in a great variety of ways by Trinitarian translators:

      ASV counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped
      DRA thought it not robbery to be equal with God
      ESV did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped
      KJV thought it not robbery to be equal with God
      NASB did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped
      NET did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped
      NIV did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage
      NRSV did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited
      RSV did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped
      Let the reader clearly see the radical differences here. Some treat harpagmos as something which Christ already had but did not exploit (NIV, NRSV). Other translators treat harpagmos as something Christ did not have and did not grasp at (ASV, ESV, NASB, NET, RSV). The KJV and DRA translates harpagmos as “robbery” and their interpretors have Christ not supposing it would be robbery to be equal to God. Why would God ever suppose it would be robbery to be equal to God? It should be obvious to anyone that these translators are struggling to comprehend what Paul is talking about here. The NIV and NRSV are perhaps the worst perpetrators since they are implicitly defining harpagmos as something Jesus already has which he did not exploit. However, there is no reason whatsoever to interpret this Greek word in such a manner.

      The Greek word harpagmos refers to something snatched or seized for one’s self. It commonly refers to a booty or a plunder, a prize taken for one’s self as the outcome of a victory. It comes from the Greek word harpazō, to snatch up, seize. Very obviously, Paul is telling us that Jesus did not regard a plunder to be equal to God. He is telling us what Jesus did not do. Jesus did not have his eyes upon equality with God as if it were something to be plundered. Rather, Paul tells us, he humbled himself to his God and served his God as positionally higher than himself and for that reason God highly exalted him. Jesus was not exalted because he plundered an exalted status for himself; God exalted him for his humility. Paul’s point is that Jesus never attempted to exalt himself to equality with God but humbled himself. Rather than having his eyes on an exalted status as if it were some kind of thing to plunder, he humbled himself. And that is precisely what Jesus himself taught, “He who exalts himself will be humbled but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 14:11).

      “OVER” – “firstborn over all creation” (Colossians 1:15)

      The Greek text simply does not say Jesus is the firstborn “over” all creation. Trinitarian translators are here trying to give Paul’s words a spin to work for their own theology. The Greek text says he is the firstborn OF all creation. What Paul intends here is made clear in verse 18 where he refers to Jesus as the “firstborn out of the dead.” See Acts 13:30-33; Hebrews 1:4-5; Revelation 1:5. The reference is to the risen Jesus who is the image of the invisible God, “life-giving Spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45; see also 2 Corinthians 3:17-4:4). In the risen Christ all things are created anew, that is, in the firstborn of all creation, the firstborn out of the dead.

      En – “by Him” (Colossians 1:16)

      Several Trinitarian based translations have “by him” at Colossians 1:16. The translation “by Him” makes it sound like Jesus is the Creator. However, the Greek word en simply means “in.” The expression “in him” is typical Pauline language to describe our position in the risen Christ. There simply is no excuse for translating this typical Pauline expression as “by him” in this verse but “in him” everywhere else Paul uses the term. Note: In their most recent edition, the NIV has changed their translation from “by Him” to “in Him.”

      Ginomai – “He might come to have” (Colossians 1:18)

      Translations similar to the above are found in several Trinitarian based translations. However, this is not what the Greek text actually says. The Greek word in question is not the word “to have” but the word ginomai, “to be.” The Greek text literally says, “that he might come to be pre-eminent in all things,” or “that he might become pre-eminent in all things.” Now let the reader understand that Trinitarians want verse 16 to refer to Jesus as the Creator. But it just isn’t going to sound very good for verse 18 to say the Creator became pre-eminent over his own creation is it? Again, it should be obvious to the reader why translators are doing this.

      Hebrews 1:2 – through whom he made the /world/universe

      Several translaters attempt make it sound like God created the heavens and earth through the Son in this verse (i.e. Genesis act of creation). However, the Greek text actually says, “through whom He made the aions.” Aions refer to the ages and their reality and this verse is referring to the risen and glorified Son who had made purification of sins and had sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High (v.3-4). The reference is to the aions God makes in the risen son, the “coming ages.”

      Hebrews 2:7 – a little while lower than the angels

      Although Psalm 8:5 is clearly referring to position rather than time, and their own translations reflect that fact, Trinitarian translators slip in the word “while” at Hebrews 2:7 to make is sound like their pre-existent Son came to be temporarily lower than the angels – “for a little while.”

      Legei – “He says” (Hebrews 1:6,7)

      At Hebrews 1:6-7, Trinitarian translations will typically have “HE says” leading the reader to suppose God Himself is saying these words. And because they have “HE says,” at Hebrews 1:6-7, some translations, such as the NIV, will go even further and add “He says” to Hebrews 1:8 (which is not in the Greek text). The NIV doesn’t even stop there and adds “He also says” to Hebrews 1:10 (which is also not in the Greek text).

      But when you actually check the facts, their error is obvious. The Hebrews writer quotes four different Psalms between Hebrews 1:6 and 1:12. If you turn back the pages and actually check all four of these Psalms, you will discover that God is not the speaker in any of them.* It is the Psalmist who is the speaker in all of them. Yet these translations make is appear that God is the speaker of all four of these Psalms.

      The Greek word legei is translated as “he says,” and “she says” and “it says” in the New Testament. It was used by New Testament writers to refer to what a woman says, what Scripture says and what the Law says. It doesn’t necessarily mean “HE says.” Here it is obvious that the Hebrews writer is not referring to what God says but to what Scripture says, or at the very least, what the Psalmist says. We know this for certain since God is not the one speaking these words in these Psalms. And God isn’t the one speaking the words at John 7:20; 8:48 either. The Bible has many speakers. In the four Psalms quoted at Hebrews 1:6-12, God is not the speaker in any of them. Yet Trinitarian translations attempt to make it appear that God was the speaker in all of them.

      *Some believe that Hebrews 1:7 is quoting Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX and not Psalm 104:4. However, it makes no difference. The very same situation applies there as well. God is not the speaker; Moses is the speaker.

      Like

  8. Interesting about the footnote 105, those scholars left out Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 where the word proskuneo προσκυνεω is used and it definitely means “worship that is only for God”, so the use of proskuneo in Revelation 4:10 and 5:13-14 shows the same worship is given to God the Father (the one who sits on the throne) as the Lamb. Therefore, this is a proof of the Deity of Jesus the Messiah, the Son, who is also like a lamb in that He willingly sacrificed His life for us as a substitutionary sacrifice (Revelation 5:5-6; 5:9- redeemed by the blood of the lamb”)

    While in context, Revelation 3:9 does not mean worship for God only (the context is clear), but homage or honor; But the context of Revelation 4:10; 5:13-14; 19:10; and 22:8-9 clearly points to worship that is only for God.

    The same glory and honor and power and worthiness is given to the Lamb (the Son Jesus Messiah) in Revelation 5:12, 13, and 14, as was given to God the Father (the one who sits on the throne) in Revelation 4:11 and 5:13-14.

    It seems not very scholarly for those 2 scholars to leave that information out.

    Like

    • “It seems not very scholarly for those 2 scholars to leave that information out.”

      Ken your arrogance and fundamentalist distain does you discredit.

      Like

    • except that the way John uses proskuneo in Revelation 4:10 and 19:10 and 22:8-9 (for God alone) is very important for understanding Revelation 5 and the worship given to the Lamb.

      Like

    • KEN TEMPLE, PAUL WILLIAMS

      Does worship of Jesus demonstrate he is God?

      “Let all the angels of God worship him.”

      Trinitarian Claim

      A very common claim by Trinitarians is to claim “Jesus is God” because we find both men and angels worshiping Jesus in the Bible.

      Examination of the Claims

      Proskyneo and the English word “Worship.”

      In Greek, there are two words which have been translated as “worship.” Neither one of these Greek words do themselves contain the whole constellation of ideas which are usually associated with the English word “worship.” In many minds, the English word “worship” is something one only does to the one God. This article deals with the Greek word proskyneo and demonstrates why Trinitarian claims concerning this particular Greek word are false.

      This claim is extremely disingenuous because the English word “worship” does by itself imply a special kind of devotion to a divine being and in Christianity, God. However, what Trinitarian apologists often do not disclose is that the English word “worship” is used to translate two different Greek words, proskuneo, and latreuo. The first Greek word means simply to bow down before a higher authority. The second word refers to do divine service such as temple service. Most of the Trinitarian claims concern the word proskyneo and we shall soon see here that this word was used by the ancient Greek speaking people to refer to “worship” of ANY higher authority.

      1. How the Greek word proskyneo is used in the Bible.

      The are many, many examples in the Scriptures that show us how this Greek word is used. The corresponding Hebrew word is shachah. If we translated the word proskyneo as “worship” then Lot worshiped two angels (Genesis 19:1-2), Abaham worshiped the Hittites (Genesis 23:7,12), Isaac blesses Jacob to have all nations on earth worship him (Genesis 27:29), Jacob worshiped Esau (Genesis 33:1-4), Joseph’s brothers worship him (Genesis 27:9-10; 42:3-6; 26-28), Abigail worshiped David’s servants (1 Samuel 25:40-41), Saul worshiped the dead man Samuel (1 Samuel 28:14), the sons of the prophets worshiped Elisha (2 Kings 2:15), David worshiped the Temple (Psalm 5:7) and all the people of Israel worshiped King David (1 Chronicles 29:20). And there are many more examples.

      2. The Magi

      Trinitarians will even sometimes use the example of the Magi to insist that proskyneo worship of Jesus necessarily demonstrates he was God. But this particular claim is absurd. The Magi were not Jews. They were pagan starwatchers who had seen Jesus’ star; they were astrologers. We are told they came to bow down before a human King, not to God. They came to proskyneo worship a human infant not God. The reason they came to proskyneo worship this human being was because he was the King of the Jews. Again we see that the reason they would do proskyneo worship was because they were respecting a higher authority.

      3. Matthew 4:10: You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only

      However, Trinitarians can’t seem to get these facts through their heads or perhaps more rightly, they don’t want to get the facts straight in their minds. And so they ignore the facts and appeal to some of their other mistaken interpretations of the Scriptures. One example of this kind of blunder is Matthew 4:10 where Jesus is being tempted by the devil to accept authority over the whole world if he will only bow down and worship him. Jesus then responds by quoting the Law, “You will worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.” As usual, Trinitarians are so blinded by their own desires they do not see the problems with their own claims.

      First, if the Trinitarian interpretation of this verse had any merit, then Lot, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and David were all sinning when they proskyneo worshiped other identities and indeed David even worshiped the temple. Even further, according to the Trinitarian interpretation, the whole assembly of Israel then sinned when they proskyneo worshiped both YAHWEH and the King.

      Secondly, Trinitarians completely fail to see the time frame when Jesus made this statement. Jesus was made lower than the angels. And in Hebrews 1:6, all the angels were to bow down before Jesus only after God had raised him from the dead, after God gave him all authority in heaven and upon the earth, after God made him Lord, and after God sat him down at his right hand making him superior to the angels just as we read at Hebrews 1:4-5.

      Furthermore, the word “only” in this verse does not qualify the word proskyneo which is translated as “worship.” It only qualifies the word latreuo which is translated as “serve.” Nowhere is Jesus given latreuo worship. And even IF he did now did receive latreuo worship, the Trinitarian would still be still left with the time frame problem just mentioned above.

      In his temptation, Jesus was being tempted to DISOBEY God and rather do the devil’s will. Jesus’ response was that he would rather submit to his God and Father’s authority and serve Him alone.

      4. The Angels Worship Jesus

      Another blind claim is to say that since the angels worshiped Jesus (Hebrews 1:6) then he must be God Himself. However, this complely ignores the context which tells us precisely WHY they are to bow down in subjection to Jesus. Being a man, the writers tells us that Jesus was made lower than the angels (2:7) but now in his resurrection he is crowned with glory and honor (2:7) and in this way has become superior to the angels have inherited a better name than the angels (1:4). In his resurrection God made him “Lord” (Acts 2:36) giving him all authority in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18) when he sat Jesus down at his right hand. In this way, he became superior in position to the angels, his God anointing him to be above the angels (Heb 1:9).

      You have put all things in subjection under his feet. (Heb 2:8).

      Jesus is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, and having angels and authorities and powers subjected to Him. (1 Peter 3:22)
      It is quite clear why angels are to proskyneo worship Jesus. He now sits in a position higher than the angels having sat down on his Father’s throne (Rev 3:21) and in this way he has become better than the angels.

      Indeed, carefully regard the following:

      Then King David said to the entire assembly… Then David said to all the assembly, “Now bless YAHWEH your God.” And all the assembly blessed YAHWEH, the God of their fathers, and bowed low and WORSHIPED YAHWEH and the King…. Then Solomon sat on the Throne of YAHWEH as King instead of David his father; and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him. All the officials, the mighty men, and also all the sons of King David pledged allegiance to King Solomon. (1 Chronicles 29).

      Notice how King David had sat on “the throne of YAHWEH” and all the assembly of Israel proskyneo worshiped both YAHWEH and King David. And indeed, the entire first chapter of the book of Hebrews is about the fact that Jesus has sat down at the right hand of God; Jesus now sits on the throne of YAHWEH. And Jesus has not only been given authority over Israel like his father David but he was given authority over all things when God raised him from the dead. The one God has put his son in charge of everything. For this reason also, we are told that God has appointed a man through whom He, God, will judge all men (Acts 17:30-31).
      5. Peter and Cornelius

      Another way Trinitarians attempt to misrepresent the facts is by quoting the following passage:
      “When Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter raised him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am just a man.” (Acts 10:25-26).
      The word here too is proskyneo. Here, Trinitarians often claim, is evidence that Peter knew that nobody was to bow down before anyone but God. However, this is reading an extraneous concept into the text. Peter is not a King nor was there any reason for Cornelius to bow down to him. Cornelius was bowing down to Peter because God had given him a vision to send men to bring Peter to his household. Hence, Cornelius was in a state where he perceived that God himself considered Peter to be a very important man. But Peter was taught by Jesus to serve and not lord over anyone. Hence, Peter was taught by Jesus to serve people and not have them bow down to him.

      In the Scriptures, it is plain that there was nothing wrong with bowing down in subjection to higher authorities (proskyneo) other than God. However, there was a big problem with bowing down before the host of heaven or other gods. God forbids anyone to do this type of thing. But he forbids no one from bowing down before higher authorities. In fact, we read at Romans 13:1ff that the authorities which exist were estalbished by God. To refuse to bow down before these authorities is to disobey God.

      In his temptation, Jesus was being tempted to DISOBEY God and rather do the devil’s will. Jesus’ response was that he would rather submit to his God and Father’s authority and serve Him alone.

      6. The Angel and John

      Another Trinitarian contraption is to quote this verse and interpret it as they please:

      And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. But he said to me, “Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours.” (Revelation 22:8-9).
      Here again we will find how Trinitarians are blinded with their own desires that they can’t see the truth right in front of their own noses. They claim that this angel refused proskyneo worship because this is only due to God. But again Trinitarians are caught in their own lies when it is observed that Lot did indeed proskyneo worship the angels of YHWH who were sent by YHWH and there was no problem with it at all. Indeed, during this act of submission, he refers to them as “Lords.” And even further yet, Trinitarians are caught with their foot in their mouth at Revelation 22:8-9. Follow the speaker.

      And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of THE ANGEL who showed me these things. But HE said to me, “Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God. And HE said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy. Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
      Shall we conclude this angel, who had admonished John for bowing down before him, is the Alpha and Omega? Or shall we conclude this was Jesus who told John not to bow down before him and rather “Worship God?” Either way, the Trinitarian is caught in his own folly.

      7. Jews worshiping Christians

      I know your deeds. Behold, I have put before you an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept My word, and have not denied My name. Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie–I will make them come and worship (proskyneo) at your feet, and make them know that I have loved you. Revelation 3:8-9.

      Conclusion

      When we have all the facts before us the truth is plain to see. People all over the Bible are bowing down before higher authorities who are not God. The Israelites were not allowed to bow down before other gods since doing so would be a gesture that they were submitting to the authority of these gods and not to Yahweh their God, a jealous God. And when we come to the New Testament, we find people appropriately bowing down before the higher authority Jesus because he is the King of Israel and because he is the Son of God Most High. He was royalty and humans bow down before royalty, their King, and rightly so. God has appointed all authorities in heaven and on earth. And when the man Jesus is resurrected and ascends to the very throne of God, all creation is subject to him. We are told this resurrected man is above all other authority and rule with all the angels subject to him. Indeed, we are told that God made him “Lord” in his resurrection (Acts 2:30-36) and have given him all this authority (Matthew 28:18) having sat down at the right hand of God until he puts all his enemies under his feet. The Trinitarian claim is a farce.

      Notes:

      Proskyneo: The word proskyneo simply means “to bow down before,” or to prostrate one’s self before another in the sense that one is acknowledge his low estate as compared to the high estate of the person he is bowing down before. It is a gesture of submission to a higher authority. This Greek word does not come packed with the the constellation of religious ideas that we have with the English word “worship.”

      Latreuo. This Greek word is still not exactly the same as the English word “worship” but it is much closer and usually denotes religious worship. It carries the idea of serving a higher authority in a religious or spiritual sense. While this word also does not itself connotate service to a divine being, the concept of serving a divine being is indeed usually implied.

      Like

  9. I am reading the same book, but have skipped around a lot.

    A comment on page 98 was interesting:

    “”one like a son of man” in Daniel 7. Both [the two apocryphal Jewish texts, 4 Ezra 13 and the Similitudes of Enoch, ] assume that the figure in Daniel is an individual, not a collective symbol.”

    and on page 133:

    referring to Jesus’ trial before the high priest in Mark 14:60-64

    “When the high priest asks Him, Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed one? and He answers, “I am”

    and Jesus quotes from Daniel 7:13-14 and Psalm 110:1

    “The relation between the question and the answer, especially the opening statement “I am”, shows clearly the equivalence of “messiah” and “Son of man” for the author of mark and the assuption that the audience would understand and accept it.” (page 133)

    also, page 132-133:

    the anointing of the woman in Mark 14:3-9

    “Yet the gesture is reinterpreted by Jesus as anointing for burial; this reinterpretation contributes to the author’s redefinition of Messiahship to include suffering and death.” ( P. 133)

    Indeed !!

    Like

  10. “Jesus is clearly depicted as pre-existent in this hymn.” (about Philippians 2:5-8)

    page 116, Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins; “King and Messiah as Son of God”

    Like

    • so? I agree with them. But read their detailed discussion of the passage and you will find that Jesus is not portrayed as God.

      Like

    • Yes, that is their opinion on pages 114-115. But it is their opinion and conclusion, based on God the Father exalting Jesus, after His resurrection. I respectfully disagree with their opinion, because “although existing in the form of God” and “did not consider equality with God something to be held onto at all costs” or “grasped” points to Jesus being the eternal Son of the same substance as the Father.

      Like

  11. On page 60, these scholars leave out the main verses of Genesis 24 that proves Alma of Isaiah 7:14 also means “virgin”, as the Lxx understood, παρθενος – Genesis 24:16 (betula = virgin) with Genesis 24:43 (maiden – alma)

    Like

  12. I agree that I will later read it more systematically, but first I like to get a feel for the whole book. They leave out a lot of information when they analyze a text – it is amazing to me so far, what I have noticed that they don’t include, as the examples I have shown.

    Like

  13. The main conclusion of the book by Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins; “King and Messiah as Son of God” is:

    “The early Christian proclamation of Jesus as son of God must be seen in this context of Jewish messianic expectation. Contrary to the thesis of Bousset, who saw this proclamation as a later development in the Gentile church, under Hellenistic influence, the belief that Jesus was “son of God” was entailed in the first instance by the conviction that he was the Messiah.”

    page 207

    This is very good. They show the belief that Jesus is the Son of God and Messiah is based on Jewish culture and milieu and Scriptures of the OT and Jewish apocryphal texts also; it is not based on Hellenistic Greek and Roman / Gentile context, which you guys are constantly saying.

    Like

    • cherry picking bits and pieces that take your fancy. I accept Jesus was the Messiah and ‘son of God’ in the metaphorical Jewish sense. Of course you ignore my post which you have conspicuously failed to comment on.

      The professors describe the historical process whereby Jesus was initially understood to be an agent of God, then after the ascension of Jesus leading to further speculation about his pre-existent status. But a crucial factor appears to be the influence of pagan cults where men who were once human beings were honoured and worshiped as gods. The authors highlight the practices of the Imperial cults as a crucial element in the proclamation of Jesus as God.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The sections on page 174 that speak of the Hellenistic cultural environment and ruler cults and imperial cults and their statements “men who were once human beings were honored and worshiped as gods” and “given the practice of imperial cults, it is not surprising that Jesus was viewed as a god and that worship of him became an alternative to the worship of the emperor.”

      This is their opinion of a parallel.

      The problem is that the NT does not portray Jesus as a man becoming a god; as in the Roman and Greek pagan context; but God becoming a man, and then being exalted back to His glory.

      John 17:5 – “restore to Me the glory which I had with You Father, before the creation of the world.”

      Luke 24:25-27 – “the Messiah to suffer and enter into His glory”

      John 1:1 – In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the Word was God.”

      no Roman emperor was seen as pre-existent and God by nature in eternity past. They were humans who became gods; not God who became human.

      I disagree with their opinion on that issue.

      Like

    • Ken stop embarrassing yourself. These Yale professors are not fundamentalists. They have a very different way of reading the Bible and the historical context from you.

      You will never understand their scholarship without thinking outside of your box. Can you do that?

      Like

    • These Yale professors are not fundamentalists.

      I know.

      They have a very different way of reading the Bible and the historical context from you.

      True; and they leave out a lot of relevant information to Greek and Hebrew word studies, contexts.

      You will never understand their scholarship without thinking outside of your box. Can you do that?

      I understand them completely; but understanding them does not mean I have to agree with them. Their conclusions are bare assumptions without much proof.

      Like

    • rubbish. You have not even read their book and you dismiss them. Pathetic.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Paul you said “These Yale professors are not fundamentalists.”

      This seems to be a standard with you. So are you a “fundamentalists” Muslim?

      A fundamentalist Muslim defined on how ever you define a Christian “fundamentalists”.

      Like

  14. Paul, can your Yale scholars speak in Farsi like Ken?
    Ken Temple 1. Liberal scholars 0.

    Liked by 2 people

    • yep you are right. No need to read the book. Just ask Ken.

      Like

    • Paul William, Eric bin Kasim & Ijaz

      Why do Trinitarian apologists so often misrepresent the testimony of the earliest Christians? Why do they suggestively imply that Justin Martyr was a Trinitarian just as they are, when Justin called Jesus “another god” who was subject to the “most true God”? And why do they suggest Irenaeus was a Trinitarian, just as they are, when Irenaeus repeatedly insisted the Father alone was the only true God? Why do they insist upon misrepresenting these early Christians? And why do they present Tertullian as a Trinitarian just as they are, when he insisted the Son was inferior to the Father and there was a time when the Son did not exist? Why all the dishonesty?

      Like

  15. @Ken: You still haven’t answered why you want to worship a God that Jesus didn’t worship?

    Liked by 1 person

  16. This is fascinating I personally believe the deification of prophet Jesus had strong connection with greco roman mythology and legends. It was little to do with monotheistic religion of Jesus peace be upon him.

    Thanks for sharing brother Paul,

    Liked by 1 person

    • You also believe that Mohamed is a prophet so whats one more false belief.
      Unfortunately for you Jesus own words prove you wrong.

      “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”

      All the Roman Greco gods acted on their own, they sought their own will, had their own domains and their own powers.

      Jesus continues to prove you wrong…

      “For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing.”

      The Roman Greco gods where often at war with each other, they had secrets plans and conspiracies etc… None of them shared with each other much less shared fully with each other what the other was doing.

      Jesus continues to prove what you believe is false…

      “For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son”

      Although there where god or goddesses of love and fertility and harvest etc.. none of them where considered a “LIFE GIVER” in the sense that they gave life to whom ever they where pleased to give life to, or even where the creator of everything out of nothing.

      Jesus continues to prove that what you believe is wrong…

      ” that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. ”

      No Greek GOD would say such a thing. For instance Jupiter would not say you must honor me as you honor Neptune or vice versa. Hercules would not say you must honor me the same way you honor Zeus or vice versa.

      I could go on but I think thats enough.

      Now lets see if you are man enough to admit that you where wrong and repent, or if you are going to continue in your un belief?

      Like

    • Not sure I understand your comment but I take it that you disagree that worshipping christ has connection to greco roman deities. My advice is you write a scholarly response to these Professors not waffling at me..

      Liked by 1 person

    • Eric wrote… “Not sure I understand your comment ”

      Really? Not sure I can dumb it down for you any further. But I will try.

      Roman Greco Gods NOT same as Judean\Christian GOD. Is that simple enough for you?

      You wrote… “I take it that you disagree that worshipping christ has connection to greco roman deities.”

      My response: Ya think? I thought you just said you didn’t understand my comment so what was your first clue that I “disagree that worshipping christ has connection to greco roman deities”

      Eric wrote… “My advice is you write a scholarly response to these Professors not waffling at me..

      My response: So you can’t defend your false belief? Typical. Let me know when you can ok

      Like

    • BLM

      Irrespective of the differences or similarities between worshipping Jesus and the worship of the gods. The one thing they had in common is the worship of human beings, the elevation of human beings to godhood and the utter seperation between them and the Jewish belief in the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

      The God who is not a man and cannot die. Jesus repeatedly denied his deity when affirming that God is seperate from him. If you want proof for this just take a look at the first quote you presented.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Patrice wrote…”Irrespective of the differences or similarities”

      First there are NO similarities second so it doesn’t matter to you that there are “differences”? LOL.wow thank your demonstrating you lack the utter capacity to reason and think critically.

      You continue to demonstrate this by saying “The one thing they had in common is the worship of human beings, the elevation of human beings to godhood”

      Lets just see how wrong you can be.

      First Jesus was NOT elevated “In the begging was the WORD and the WORD was with GOD and the WORD was GOD… And the WORD became FLESH…Being the very NATURE GOD did not consider this something to be held on to at all cost…”

      So Jesus was GOD from the Beginning.

      Second Christians do NOT worship a human being we worship GOD who became a human being. This is a big difference as Muslim well know, since they continue to misrepresent what we believe and attack what we don’t believe.

      Like

    • “Christians do NOT worship a human being we worship GOD who became a human being.”

      So you DO worship a human being lol even though you believe he is more than just that.

      Like

    • Paul thank you for demonstrating once again that you are clueless as to a faith that you claim you once professed.

      Liked by 1 person

    • lol hardly. You are very confused. You protest you do not worship a human being (which of course is rank idolatry), then in the next sentence say you do!

      Duh!

      You appear to lack intelligence.

      Like

    • Paul please provide the quote where I ever said I or Christians worship a human-being?

      Like

    • “Christians do NOT worship a human being we worship GOD who became a human being

      Which proves your lack of intelligence. You worship Jesus who is fully human (even if you believe he is a god too). You commit idolatry.

      Time to repent!

      Like

    • Paul you quoted me ” GOD who became a human being”, I asked you to quote me where I ever said we worship a Human-being”. Can you do that or not?

      Like

    • lol are you dense? You admitted in as many words that you do. Jesus is fully human (unless you are a heretic). You worship Jesus. Ergo you are an idolater.

      Now will you repent of your idolatry or will you stubbornly persist in serious sin?

      Like

    • Paul the only one who is dense is you. Please provide me a quote where I said I or Christians worship a human-being?

      I will clue you in since you pretend to be clueless.

      What is different between these two sentences.

      I worship a GOD who became a human-being.
      I worship a human-being.

      Point out the difference. Come on Paul I know you can do it.

      Like

    • lol

      answer this simple question:

      do you worship Jesus?

      yes or no?

      if yes you worship a man (who I agree you believe is also a god).

      So Jesus is a composite being. You worship it all, the man and the god.

      Clear now?

      REPENT!

      Like

    • Paul wrote…

      “you believe is also a god”

      There is no ALSO, show me where I used the word ALSO?

      No point out the difference.

      I worship a GOD who became a human-being.
      I worship a human-being.

      Point out the difference. Come on Paul I know you can do it.

      Like

    • Paul, I Wrote..

      “Point out the difference. Come on Paul I know you can do it.”

      I now say…

      Maybe I was being to optimistic, maybe I was giving you to much credit, so I will come at this another way.

      Do you see a difference in these two sentences?

      I worship a GOD who became a human-being.
      I worship a human-being.

      If you do please tell me what the difference is and if you don’t please explain how there is no difference in those two sentences>

      Like

    • Of course the two sentences are different Bobby.

      But they have ONE THING IN COMMON:

      Jesus, whom you worship, is fully human in both sentences.

      Ergo you are an idolater. QED.

      Liked by 1 person

    • So you do see the difference but yet you continue to misrepresent what we believing by insisting we worship a human-being.

      So its not that you can not understand its that you are willing dishonest.

      I’m sorry Paul I can’t help you then

      Like

    • So when you worship the God-man do you consciously focus on the divine part of his person so as not to commit idolatry by worshiping the man?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Before the pagan gods became humans and animals and took on forms, what were they ?
      You currently worship a pagan triplet g od who has human being residing in it. Actually the same person is fully human even now

      Repent of your dirty and disgusting idolatry.

      Liked by 1 person

    • All scholars will inform that the early Hebrews did not view yhwh as unlimited controller of the heavens and the earth . El was the daddy and yhwh Got his inheritance .
      Crosstianity fused later Jewish beliefs and tried to fixate paganism to Judaism and try to paganism Jewish ideas, but even then , we note that the wills of the gods are different

      The father is greater than I
      Not my will but your will

      So they are not always in agreement

      The father fathers and commands and controls the son

      Christianity couldn’t get rid of the commanding chief God

      The parent God is the high God

      The human god is limited and is brought out of Egypt, yet EL BRINGS out of Egypt, see the difference?

      Like

    • It seems like this Cristian terrorist r wells has different accounts.

      When the Jews were saved from danger , did they remember yhwh by eating and drinking him? Which Hebrew remember his invisible God by munching on his blood and flesh? You man worshippers are fully worshipping a human being and yet you come here and lie and deceive
      Your heart can see only image before you

      Like

    • Yes Bobby goes under many names.

      Like

    • quote:
      15 Since you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire, take care and watch yourselves closely, 16 so that you do not act corruptly by making an idol for yourselves, in the form of any figure—the likeness of male or female, 17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. 19 And when you look up to the heavens and see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, do not be led astray and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples everywhere under heaven. 20 But the Lord has taken you and brought you out of the iron-smelter, out of Egypt, to become a people of his very own possession, as you are now.

      why can’t man/human worshippers see it?

      no form, no theophany, no image, no meat and flesh nothing

      formless

      humanless
      imageless

      speaker

      the idol worshippers do not see that the logos/ WHO

      fully experienced finite WHAT

      when a WHO fully experiences a FINITE what, what do we call this?

      it is FULLY human being

      if jesus was calling to the worship of himself, then the passage above THOROUGHLY condemns him

      the “logos” fully EXPERIENCED

      :

      The nervous system has a specific sensory system or organ, dedicated to each sense. Humans have a multitude of senses. Sight (ophthalmoception), hearing (audioception), taste (gustaoception), smell (olfacoception or olfacception), and touch (tactioception) are the five traditionally recognized.

      jesus is DIRECTLY condemned by the jewish bible.

      your WHO is fully experiencing being a finite WHAT which makes him a CREATURE

      why is this not realised ?

      why is something simple like this not realised?

      why are you ashamed of worshipping a man, when you god FULLY experienced being a man?

      are you ashamed of your god?

      Like

    • BLM

      The only source you use to prove that Jesus was eternal is based on a text that has virtually no relationship to the Jesus of history but is rather the highly theological interpretation of the author. No other Gospel makes this statement and if it were true don’t you think they would have included it? Its a rather significant detail about Jesus.

      According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke; Jesus came into existence at a certain time and received the Holy Spirit from God upon baptism, no mention of his pre-existence. But even if he was, he is still fully human and fully God. Do you then seperate the two and worship one part of Jesus? or do you worship all of him, both God and man? in which case you worship a man.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Exactly. Let’s see if Robert will answer

      Liked by 1 person

    • Paul what is the heresy again when Cristian’s separate the SAME person from the SAME person?

      Like

    • Paul writes…

      “So when you worship the God-man do you consciously focus on the divine part of his person so as not to commit idolatry by worshiping the man? ”

      My response: LOL come on Paul do better. You claim you where a “fundamentalist Christian” for 15 years and you studied theology at the “advanced level” you should know that your question is a false dilemma, straw man.

      Seriously how would you have answered this question when you where a “fundamentalist Christian” for 15 years?

      Like

    • Your bluster is a mere side show to deflect the straightforward question:

      ‘So when you worship the God-man do you consciously focus on the divine part of his person so as not to commit idolatry by worshiping the man? ‘

      Be a man and answer…

      Like

    • Patrice throws in the towel…

      “The only source you use to prove that Jesus was eternal is based on a text that has virtually no relationship to the Jesus of history but is rather the highly theological interpretation of the author.”

      What do you do when you can not deal with what the text says? You throw away the text lol. Classic.

      Seriously Patrice you are way out of your depth with me.

      Get back to me when you can actually deal with what the text says.

      Like

    • mr.heathcliff

      I told you before unless you are willing to answer the question I asked several blog posts ago about the man-god you worship, then keep remain silent.

      I will give you another chance…

      You said that the quran says that everything will pass away, will perish will be “destroyed” except allahs face.

      So my question is what about your man-gods two right hands, or his shin, or his feet etc… will those also perish, pass way be “destroyed”?

      Like

    • BLM

      You still haven’t answered my questions about Jesus. Let me reproduce it;

      “According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke; Jesus came into existence at a certain time and received the Holy Spirit from God upon baptism, no mention of his pre-existence. But even if he was, he is still fully human and fully God. Do you then seperate the two and worship one part of Jesus? or do you worship all of him, both God and man? in which case you worship a man.”

      You do have four Gospels and only one of them says this about Jesus including all the sayings you have quoted, why don’t the other Gospels quote this material?

      Liked by 1 person

  17. Professor proves that Jesus Rejected The Trinity

    Like

    • Avi

      Thanks for sharing. There were different brands of Christianity and those who worship the Father alone i.e. the God of Jesus were true Christians. As time past, Allah sent the last and final prophet Mohammed to all mankind to correct all that the God of Jesus is the Father alone. Ken Temple and some Christians will not convert to Islam because the force on the other side of them is very strong to let them stay in the untruth Christianity even thought they have seen the truth.

      Any “experience” or “feelings” that prevent a person from accepting the truth might come from satan.

      Thanks.

      Like

  18. Nestorianism was making Jesus into 2 persons.

    but 2 natures in one person was right; and eventually Nestorius himself agreed (in his work, The Bazaar of Hericlidies) with Leo’s tome in 451 AD, which became the Chacedonian Creed about Jesus, who is one person with 2 natures.

    http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nestorius_bazaar_0_intro.htm

    Like

  19. quote:
    Why do you demand that the apostle Paul has to repeat every detail already written in Matthew, Mark, and Luke ? (at the time of Paul’s writings (50-65 AD), since John was probably written later, between 80-90 AD)

    why could paul repeat again and again that his pagan sacrificed god was nailed, but never repeat who nailed him?

    why did paul repeat that ruling authorities were the agents of god, and held no terror for the innocent and did not bear the sword for nothing?

    why would this guy need to repeat again and again that his god got NAILED if this was already known and believed ?

    what we do know is that EARLIEST sources of your religion are very silent on things they could have easily said

    “and he was crucified by pontius pilate and buried by jay of arimathea”

    but he doesn’t

    why not?

    quote:

    Of course, paul had to write letters telling christians to proclaim jesus’ death (1 Corinthians 11)
    But why did christians have to proclaim that jesus was dead? Everybody knew that jesus was dead. Why did Christians have to continually proclaim that jesus wasdead, if everybody already knew it?
    Why does paul have to tell christians that jesus was dead, when we are continually told that he wouldn’t repeat something everybody already knew?

    Like

  20. The problem with the Hypostatic Union is the belief that the two natures constituted a union. The Divine and Human are completely polar opposite, just as a square and a circle are distinguished and separate. They cannot be united together. If the square became a circle it is no longer a square. Take the following analogy, consider the square to represent the “divine nature” and the circle to represent the human body. We know a square can possibly dwell within the circle without becoming it, which is basically one property or element inhabiting another. This is essentially what the Gnostics believed, that Christ literally possessed the body of Jesus. They were literally two separate beings and objects. Hence, the Gnostics never faced the dilemma of answering how a square can change into a circle (human flesh) without ceasing to be square. The problem is that Christians don’t believe the Christ spirit (the Son) merely indwelled the human body like a cocoon, they believe the Son (the “second person” of the mythical Godhead) literally BECAME the flesh. This is contrary to reason and scripture (Num. 23:19, Mal. 3:6, Hosea 11:9). The claim that Jesus was both man and God is analogous to saying “The square has become the circle but doesn’t cease to be square” which is complete absurd. The matter gets tremendously worse, the Christians believe the two natures constituted a union (the Hypostatic Union) that doesn’t mix together. How could the two natures NOT mix together when the cosmic Son became the flesh itself? They believe the Divine substance changed into flesh and adopted a human nature without mixing with the Divine part. However, that is not very dissimilar to what the Gnostics believed, that Jesus adopted a human nature without mixing with the divine nature. That is because, according to the Gnostics, the Christ agent (later deemed the Son) only cocooned Jesus’ body. The Hypostatic Union leads to a grave dilemma. If the two natures are united and inseparable it means both natures participated in the same action. This shockingly implies when Jesus answered the call of nature as a human being that was the Divine element doing the same thing! When Jesus stormed the Temple and apparently lashed people that was the “divine nature” working too. When Jesus performed miracles it was humanity (something created) that participated too. If the Christians claim they exclusively worship the divine nature (not the humanity) that is committing Nestorianism of separating the natures. If they claim to worship the Divine element that is similar to the Hindus who worship the imaginary “divinity” within the stone idol, not actually the stone itself. According to the Hypostatic Union (dual nature) both natures must have perished on the cross, which is impossible because God cannot die, otherwise he wouldn’t be God in the first place. If only the human nature perished that leads back to the Nestorian heresy. If God suffered death the Universe would’ve collapsed, that obviously never happened. Christians find themselves in the dilemma to explain how the square (the Son) literally became the circle (Human flesh) without ceasing to be square. Logically, it is problematic to say Jesus was both completely 100 percent Man and God, that is analogous to a squared circle. The image of a circular-shaped square is not acceptable because that is part circle and part square. Trinitarians don’t believe Jesus was part man and part God (hybrid) but completely both. The egg analogy also doesn’t work because it leads to Partialism. The root of the problem is not the incarnation but wrongly attributing the miracles to Jesus himself instead of God. Notice whenever Jesus performed a miracle in the Gospels the people always attribute the miracle to God, never to Jesus himself (Luke 7:16). The pagan mentality of deification and overpraise is demonstrated by Acts 14. The same people would later worship Jesus himself.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. @BLM: quote

    Well why don’t you answer this simple question.Why do you want to worship a God that Jesus didn’t worship. This is the exact same question that Br Paul has been asking you, only formulated differently to make it easy for people like you.

    Jesus worshiped the One True God whom he called the Father. He didn’t worship God the Son or the God the Holy ghost ( even if there are such things). But you worship these two persons, e.g God the Son or the God the Holy ghost , in addition to God the father. So while Jesus offered worship only to 1 person, you do to three persons.

    Once you have answered this question, we can deal with the text.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Patrice wrote:
    ” . . . based on a text that has virtually no relationship to the Jesus of history but is rather the highly theological interpretation of the author.”

    “virtually no relationship to the Jesus of history . . . ”

    Richard Bauckham in “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”, shows lots of evidence that the Gospel according to John was based on eyewitness testimony based on internal evidences and the external evidence of testimony of Papias, Polycarp, Polycrates of Ephesus, Ireneaus, and Eusebius.

    ” This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.” John 21:24

    “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

    35 Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples,
    36 and he looked at Jesus as He walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!”
    37 The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
    38 And Jesus turned and saw them following, and said to them, “What do you seek?” They said to Him, “Rabbi (which translated means Teacher), where are You staying?”
    39 He said to them, “Come, and you will see.” So they came and saw where He was staying; and they stayed with Him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.
    40 One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
    41 He found first his own brother Simon and *said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which translated means Christ).
    42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

    Like

  23. Bauckham also has a very interesting section and discussion of the “we” authority of “who has believed our report?” – the eyewitness historical basis of quoting of Isaiah 53:1

    John 12:36-43

    36 While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light.”
    These things Jesus spoke, and He went away and hid Himself from them.
    37 But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him.
    38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” [ Isaiah 53:1 ]
    39 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,
    40 “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.” [ Isaiah 6:9-10]
    41 These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.
    42 Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue;
    43 for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.

    This also explains why you who don’t believe, don’t believe. but God can open your heart. God knows best.

    Like

    • Ken – I copied and pasted this from your comment above:

      Patrice wrote:
      ” . . . based on a text that has virtually no relationship to the Jesus of history but is rather the highly theological interpretation of the author.”

      “virtually no relationship to the Jesus of history . . . ”

      Richard Bauckham in “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”, shows lots of evidence that the Gospel according to John was based on eyewitness testimony based on internal evidences and the external evidence of testimony of Papias, Polycarp, Polycrates of Ephesus, Ireneaus, and Eusebius.

      ” This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.” John 21:24

      ———————–

      Actually Patrice is closer to the facts than you. When I first got my hands on a copy of Richard Bauckham’s “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” I went straight to the index and looked up the references to the question of the historicity of John’s gospel. Did Bauckham (contrary to virtually all other NT scholars) actually believe Jesus said all the long discourses attributed to him? Did Jesus really utter the famous ‘I AM’s?

      According to Bauckham the historical Jesus did not actually say these things. They are the product of an eye-witness testimony – yes – but they come from a man who has highly coloured and extensively reinterpreted the sayings of Jesus.

      You have failed to grasp this point Ken in your propagandist attempt to co-opt Bauckham to your fundamentalist cause. So Patrice has a valid point.

      Like

  24. Bauckham covers a lot more than just the “I am” statements in John.

    So, you have failed to grasp all the other evidence.

    Like

    • But he does not think Jesus actually said those words. This is VERY significant as Bauckham is no liberal scholar but an evangelical like you.

      Like

    • But Bauckham spends much more time on the ideas of “testify” and “I” and the “we of authority”, the literary inclusios at the beginning (1:15) and end of the book (19:35, 20:30-31; 21:24-25) and the seven witnesses, and whole chapters on the testimonies of Papias, Polycrates of Ephesus, and Irenaeus – about John and the 4th Gospel, etc.

      19:35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.

      with 21:24

      Like

    • That does not alter the point.

      Like

    • “The absolute ‘I am’ sayings declare who Jesus is
      in his divine identity, while the ‘I am’ sayings with predicates declare what he is in his
      salvific work as the one who gives eternal life. The absolute ‘I am’ sayings
      correspond to and give a Johannine interpretation of the ‘I am’ of Mark 6:50 (= Matt
      14:27), a saying which appears in John (6:20) as one of John’s seven. The ‘I am’
      sayings with predicates are all christological interpretations of parabolic actions
      (6:48; 11:25) or parabolic sayings of Jesus (8:12; 10:7, 11; 14:6; 15:1), most of which
      occur in the Synoptics (for the parabolic sayings, see Mark 4:21; Matt 18:12-13 =
      Luke 15:3-6; Matt 7:13-14 = Luke 13:23-24). At this point those who are used to
      studying the Synoptics without reference to John may well question the legitimacy of
      John’s christological reading of these aspects of the Jesus traditions. It is perhaps the
      most remarkable aspect of the christological concentration common to the whole
      Fourth Gospel (which can be observed even in category (a) above). But for a
      canonical reading of the four Gospels, John can be read as making explicit – or
      bringing to light and to full expression – the Christology implicit in the Synoptics.
      That the salvation Jesus gives is inseparable from Jesus himself and his divine
      identity is implied in the whole of each Synoptic portrayal of Jesus.”
      Richard Bauckham, “The Johannine Jesus and the Synoptic Jesus ” page 7

      Like

    • btw the christian abdulaki akbar meant irreconcilable with the synoptics.

      Like

  25. Bauckham makes some excellent points that the Beloved disciple whom Jesus’ loved was able to perceive the deeper spiritual meaning of Jesus’ deeds and words, because he shared a more intimate closeness to Jesus as evidenced by many factors in the Gospel of John – he was there with Jesus at the beginning in chapter 1 with Andrew (before Peter !) and then Andrew found Peter; John was at key events, at the cross and at the empty tomb with Peter, the vivid details of some of the key events (Jesus’ legs not broken, blood and water flowing, head scarf / wrapping folded neatly in the empty tomb, number of fish caught, details of the charcoal fire with Peter, etc.) , noting the time of day, night, etc. These details may indicate that John actually heard Jesus make those “I am” statements, and that the other disciples’ did not hear them or understand them, if they did.

    And on page 411, Bauckham makes this very sharp insight:

    “The author’s eyewitness status authorizes the interpretation. Thus, whereas scholars have often supposed that this Gospel could not have been written by an eyewitness because of the its high degree of interpretation of the the events and the words of Jesus, by contrast with the Synoptics, in fact the high degree of interpretation is appropriate precisely because this is the only one of the canonical Gospels that claims eyewitness authorship.” (bolding my emphasis)

    Amen!

    Like

    • There’s no reason to believe that John is written by an eyewitness. The fact that the author saw fit to pass off his/her own interpretation as the revelation of Jesus, twisting his words in order to fit his agenda is as good a sign as any of this work not being considered holy scripture. The purpose of Johns gospel according to the author is to convince us to believe in Jesus as the saviour. He needed to embezzle the truth in order to try and convince us.

      Not impressed.

      Liked by 2 people

    • You should read Bauckham’s book, “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” – very good and scholarly.

      Like

    • “These details may indicate that John actually heard Jesus make those “I am” statements, and that the other disciples’ did not hear them or understand them, if they did.”

      this was not a key event ?

      quote :
      “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

      7 Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?”

      “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said.

      8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.”

      ////////////////////////////////

      so how come none of these guys reported what “i am he” did to the soldiers ?

      sure they were not dumb to see what ” i am he” did the the soldiers and surely they saw all this fiction, but none of them REPORTED it in any of the synoptics

      why is that?

      Like

    • why was it important for john to omit jesus falling to the ground 3 times and begging his father , but have the soldiers fall to the ground instead?
      how is it possible that “i am he” did not cause any of the other desiples to see what was happening before their eyes?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken, when Bauckham refers to:

      “the high degree of interpretation” in John

      to what is he referring?

      Like

    • Ken

      and you should answer my questions regarding the authenticity of Johns Gospel. Eventhough Bauckham believes the material is from an eye witness, he nevertheless acknowledges the reinterpretation of Jesus’ words. This is a serious issue and means that we must be careful when we are quoting it as if they are what Jesus said.

      We also need to ask why this reinterpretation does not exist in the other four Gospels, they did not share the same view of him as John does eventhough they are also based (supposedly) on eye witness testimony.

      As a great theologian once said “inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument” 😉

      Liked by 1 person

    • a great theologian indeed 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

    • The 4 gospels complete the revelation of the details of Jesus’ teaching and deeds while He was on earth – what we need to know about those 33 years, including resurrection and ascension into heaven.

      Like

    • ‘The 4 gospels complete the revelation’ – says who? The NT? It does not claim that.

      In fact there were many other gospels from the first century which probably gave a quite different life of Jesus. But they have been lost – or deliberately destroyed.

      Like

    • there were no gospels from the first century; all other gospels are false because of their content and because they are second and third centuries.

      Like

    • “there were no gospels from the first century” – of course there were!

      Like

    • no other gospels other than the 4 that we have.

      Like

    • “All Scripture is God-breathed” in 2 Tim. 3:16 expands the principle from the OT in 3:15 to the NT in 3:16; as also Paul quoted from both Torah and Gospel and called them both Scripture – 1 Tim. 5:18. Peter confirmed all Paul’s writings in 2 Peter 3:16. Peter described how the writers of the OT and NT are inspired – 2 Peter 1:19-21.

      Interestingly, Shabir Ally, in his recent debates with Tony Costa, one on Paul and one on Muhammad, claimed 2 Peter 1:21 for Muhammad (at beginning of one on Muhammad), but when it came for Paul, made the common assertion by liberals that 2 Peter is a forgery. (in the one on Paul) He undermined his own claim for Muhammad.

      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/12/31/was-muhammad-a-prophet-of-god/

      Like

    • It is spiritual insight of perception, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus bringing to remembrance all that He spoke – John 14:26

      Like

    • Ken your dodging my questions. Why would John the Apostle invent sayings of Jesus in order to convince people that they need to believe in him? Why doesn’t the other synoptic Gospels not contain any of these statements considering they too are meant to be based on eyewitness testimony?

      Remember Ken what a world famous theologian said “inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument” 😉

      Liked by 1 person

    • He did not invent anything. The Holy Spirit brought to their remembrance all that Jesus said and did. John 14:26

      Like

    • According to your favourite evangelical scholar John put the I AM sayings onto Jesus’s lips!

      Liked by 1 person

  26. Do you see brothers. When evangelicals are corned they stop answering your question. Neither Ken nor BLM can answer simple question that I and Br Paul have been posing?

    Instead they go about text of John. You interpret a text or saying of Jesus or about Jesus based on what JESUS did. If Jesus didn’t choose to worship anyone besides God the Father, then the entire question, whether or not any other text “purports” to prove divinity of other persons, is mute.

    But it is very tough pill to swallow for the Trinitarians. It undermine their very foundation of their faith.

    Like

    • Not a tough pill to swallow at all – it was so unimportant as to be ignored. But since you insist –

      Not a very compelling argument or question, since Jesus was on earth in His incarnation body; and He prays to the Father in heaven; there is no need for Him to explicitly worship Himself.

      Jesus shows His humility by NOT seeking His own glory (see verses below), but testifies that the Father does glorify the Son.

      However, Jesus testifies many times that the Father glorifies Him (Jesus) and / or that Jesus would be glorified.

      John 8:45
      John 7:18
      John 7:39
      John 8:50
      Hebrews 5:5 (referring to Psalm 2:7 – the Father’s testimony of the Son )

      and also the Father testified to the Son at Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration)

      Your question is another example of demanding something that are just that – your own human demands; rather than reading the text verse by verse, starting at 1:1 and going through the whole book, chapter by chapter , asking God to speak and reveal Himself.

      Like

    • @Ken

      Did you realize that you inserted words into words and actions of Jesus?

      you wrote ” He prays to the Father in heaven; there is no need for Him to explicitly worship Himself.”

      Did Jesus tell you that “there is no need for Him to explicitly worship Himself” because of XYZ reasons. Why invent something that is not there?

      But suppose your logic is correct then how about Holy Ghost? What prevented him from worshiping that “person” that you devoutly worship?

      Like

    • BTW also why also not answer Br Paul’s question. When you worship Jesus do you worship him as man or god? but you believe that Jesus is 100% human and 100% divine but these two natures are not separable. So essentially you are worshiping human Jesus AND divine Jesus at the same time. That means you are committing idolatry.

      Liked by 1 person

  27. p. 387, Bauckham – about the seven witnesses in first 12 chapters:
    John the Baptist (1:7)
    Jesus Himself (3:11)
    the Samaritan woman (4:39)
    God the Father (5:32)
    Jesus’ works or signs (5:36)
    The Scriptures (5:39)
    the crowd at the raising of Lazarus (12:17)

    and two more in the 2nd half of the book:
    the disciples (15:27)
    John the beloved (19:35)

    Like

    • Ken, when Bauckham refers to:

      “the high degree of interpretation” in John

      to what is he referring?

      Like

    • Bauckham speaks of the eyewitnesses who “saw” Jesus’ glory – John 1:14; 2:11 – they saw and perceived who Jesus really is, beyond just seeing a regular human being. As Josh McDowell wrote the book by the famous title, “More Than a Carpenter”.

      It is the deeper spiritual insight into the meaning of who Jesus is, based on eyewitness testimony, and the leading of the Holy Spirit into all the truth (John 14:26, 16:12-13) and the Holy Spirit bringing to their remembrance (14:26) the significance of Jesus’ words and actions. Bauckham gives examples of at the time, the disciples did not understand, but later, they understood the meaning of events and Jesus’ teachings – (John 2:22; 12:16; 14:26; 20:8-9).

      Bauckham, in another work, shows that Jesus’ claims to be the way, the good shepherd, and the light of the world are based on His parables and teachings in the Synoptics. (which I quoted above)

      “The ‘I am’
      sayings with predicates are all christological interpretations of parabolic actions
      (6:48; 11:25) or parabolic sayings of Jesus (8:12; 10:7, 11; 14:6; 15:1), most of which
      occur in the Synoptics (for the parabolic sayings, see Mark 4:21; Matt 18:12-13 =
      Luke 15:3-6; Matt 7:13-14 = Luke 13:23-24).” see above

      Like

    • Ken I refer to the copious extracts from his work that gives a filler picture of his views.

      Like

    • And on page 411, Bauckham makes this very sharp insight:

      “The author’s eyewitness status authorizes the interpretation. Thus, whereas scholars have often supposed that this Gospel could not have been written by an eyewitness because of the its high degree of interpretation of the the events and the words of Jesus, by contrast with the Synoptics, in fact the high degree of interpretation is appropriate precisely because this is the only one of the canonical Gospels that claims eyewitness authorship.” (bolding my emphasis)

      His statement about the author of the 4th Gospel putting on the lips of Jesus the “I am” statements is from another book, as you have quoted. He does not make that statement in this book, “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”.

      Of course, I disagree with him with on that conclusion.

      The main point is that Bauckham pretty much proves that the writer of John’s gospel was an eyewitness.

      Jesus sent the Holy Spirit later and gave the writers of the NT books more revelation and deeper insight.

      John 16:12-13
      I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

      12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

      John 14:26
      26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

      Like

    • you pic and chose what you like in Bauckham’s work.

      Like

    • as you also do; whatever disagrees with Islam and the 600 year later claim by one man, you don’t accept. You pick and choose from the OT and NT whatever you like; but your Qur’an says all of the OT and NT is revelation from God. Surah 5:47; 10:94; 2:136; 29:46

      Like

    • “your Qur’an says all of the OT and NT is revelation from God.” No it does not.

      your fake references do not prove that in the slightest.

      Like

    • Yes it does; you even wrote an article from an Islamic scholar who agreed with this; but you got rid of that old blog.

      Like

    • As guy will know because I clarified this point with you before (!), I misunderstood him and I have changed my mind.

      Like

    • And remember, Paul Williams even admitted Islamic scholar Abdel Haleem told him the Qur’an does not say that the Bible was corrupted. But he took that old web-site down.

      “According to Paul Williams, world-renowned Islamic scholar Abdel Haleem confirmed for him in a phone conversation one of the two claims that Christians often make regarding the Bible. In the view of Professor Haleem, the Qur’an does NOT teach that the Bible was corrupted. Instead, it teaches that the Bible has been misinterpreted. Prof. Haleem’s statements in this connection, as PW says, “put Muslim apologist Bassam Zawadi (who has argued many times for the view that the Quran teaches textual corruption) in the wrong.” This, as Paul Williams also says, serves to “vindicate the oft-stated views of Sam Shamoun and David Wood.”
      (Summary by Anthony Rogers)

      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/08/18/paul-williams-refuted-in-old-articles/

      Like

    • but as i have repeatedly pointed out – it appears i misunderstood him at this point. So don’t play silly games Ken.

      Like

    • Your favourite Christian scholar Ricard Bauckham writes:

      ‘The Gospel of John places on the lips of Jesus during his ministry another of the characteristically Deutero-Isaianic declarations of unique divine identity. The Johannine choice is the concise statement ‘I am he,’ usually translated in the Septuagint Greek as ego eimi (‘I am’), the form in which it appears in John’s Gospel.’

      Like

    • ken, how is it possible that the disciples heard “i am he” and those words floored the guards , yet only john records what “i am he” done to the guards?
      why are johns “i am ” statements missing like the flooring of the guards?
      was each pal of jesus dumb?

      if they were dumb, why do you trust anything they say?

      Like

    • quote:
      quote :
      “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

      7 Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?”

      “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said.

      8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.”
      end quote

      quote from mark

      Immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived; and with him there was a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders. 44 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45 So when he came, he went up to him at once and said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46 Then they laid hands on him and arrested him. 47 But one of those who stood near drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 48 Then Jesus said to them, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? 49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” 50 All of them deserted him and fled.

      no sign in john.
      no kissing in john
      john even has jc’s pals loosed.
      johns jesus is in control of the situation

      mark could record all those DETAILS yet omit what “i am he ” did
      ?

      these are you oral traditions and eyewitness accounts?

      Like

    • every detail is not necessary to repeat in each of the 4 gospels. That is why we have 4 – to give us all that we need from the history of Jesus’ life, teachings, death, and resurrection, while He was on earth. The other 23 books of the NT complete the revelation that we need.

      Like

    • the NT does not claim to be Revelation. That is your belief.

      Like

    • Bauckham writes:

      ‘The Gospel of John places on the lips of Jesus during his ministry another of the characteristically Deutero-Isaianic declarations of unique divine identity. The Johannine choice is the concise statement ‘I am he,’ usually translated in the Septuagint Greek as ego eimi (‘I am’), the form in which it appears in John’s Gospel.’

      Like

    • “every detail is not necessary to repeat in each of the 4 gospels.”

      did you pathetically forget your own words?

      quote:
      “These details may indicate that John actually heard Jesus make those “I am” statements, and that the other disciples’ did not hear them or understand them, if they did.”

      NONE of the synoptics have jesus saying “i am…”

      when “i am he” floors the guards all of jeuss’ pals are there

      yet not 1 synoptic writer picked up on this.

      how can you MISS words FLOORING guards?

      he just IDENTIFIEs himself and then BOOM they FALL

      why would john never have jesus BEG his father and fall to the ground?

      ” That is why we have 4 – ”

      how could one MISS out what MERE words did to the guards?

      these are “eyewitness” testimony

      and peter WAS marks INFORMANt

      “to give us all that we need from the history of Jesus’ life, teachings, death, and resurrection, while He was on earth.”

      lets have a look at mark again

      :

      Immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived; and with him there was a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders. 44 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45 So when he came, he went up to him at once and said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46 Then they laid hands on him and arrested him. 47 But one of those who stood near drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 48 Then Jesus said to them, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? 49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” 50 All of them deserted him and fled.

      1. judas IDENTIFIEs jesus
      2. the GRABBED jesus (contrast to john)
      3. your pals were WATCHING what was going on , they even cut off an ear
      4.jesus SPEAKS

      mark could RECORD all this fiction, but not tell readers the “flooring effect” ?

      Like

    • ken, how come in mark we have “this evil and adulterous generation will not get signs”

      yet in john even disbelieving soldiers get a sign?

      they get FLOORED

      just by a few words

      AND none of the synoptics record this

      is it because in the synoptics disbelievers like arresting authorities do not see signs
      emanating from jehsoz

      ??

      Like

    • ken, WHY did pals who were “eyewitnesses” COMPLETELY omit ” i am he” and what “i am he” done to the guards?

      how can this “i am he” go missing

      it is EVEN greater than simply saying

      “i am”

      when jesus says “i am” he runs away

      when he says ” i am this or that….”

      quote:

      Again, I completely agree. The seven “signs” are not historical records. John explicitly doesn’t call them “miracles.” It is striking that in the Synoptics Jesus refuses to do “signs” (that is, to show who he really is). In the Gospel of John, that’s virtually *all* he does. Moreover, in the Synoptics he never teaches about himself. And in John, again, that’s virtually all he does. So unlike the Synoptics, Jesus in John teaches who he is (the one sent from heaven to provide eternal life) and does signs to prove it that what he says about himself is true (so he says he is the bread of life, and then he feeds the multitudes with the loaves; he says he is the light of the world, and then he heals a man born blind; he says he is the resurrection and the life, and then he raises a man from the dead; and so on.

      CAUSE and effect ken, cause and effect, yet this is ALL missing from your synoptics?

      why ??

      Like

    • ken , how did an “i am he…” statement which floored the guards go missing in the synoptics?

      these are words which actually do something.

      i’ll let you know

      why

      quote:

      Again, I completely agree. The seven “signs” are not historical records. John explicitly doesn’t call them “miracles.” It is striking that in the Synoptics Jesus refuses to do “signs” (that is, to show who he really is). In the Gospel of John, that’s virtually *all* he does. Moreover, in the Synoptics he never teaches about himself. And in John, again, that’s virtually all he does. So unlike the Synoptics, Jesus in John teaches who he is (the one sent from heaven to provide eternal life) and does signs to prove it that what he says about himself is true (so he says he is the bread of life, and then he feeds the multitudes with the loaves; he says he is the light of the world, and then he heals a man born blind; he says he is the resurrection and the life, and then he raises a man from the dead; and so on.

      quote:
      In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus flat-out refuses to do signs in order to demonstrate his personal identity. In Matthew 12:38-42, the Pharisees request a “sign” from Jesus; from the context it is obvious what they mean: they want a physical demonstration – a miracle – to prove that he is the messiah sent from God. Jesus refuses to do a sign, and tells them that “no sign will be given to this adulterous and sinful generation” except, he says, the “sign of Jonah.”

      quote:

      In the meantime, Jesus insists, he will not do any other signs to prove himself. He will not perform a miracle to prove his identity. And so Jesus’ miracles are not called signs in the Synoptics.

      Like


    • January 1, 2017 • 4:45 pm
      every detail is not necessary to repeat in each of the 4 gospels.”

      you said that

      1. writers of the synoptics were either eyewitnesses or they had informants who were eyewitnesses

      “i am” is nothing in comparison to

      “i am he” which causes arresting “Evil and adulterous” generation to

      FALL to the ground

      why did each synoptic writer not know about this

      if they knew , why did they omit it?

      was the beloved pal lying ?

      Like

    • “he other 23 books of the NT complete the revelation that we need.”

      when john was converting jesus into a born again christian, you books were not even super glued together. john was part of no canon.

      how is it possible that before canonisation, one reading luke would have said that jesus’ introduction floored the guards?

      there is nothing in the arrest narrative which even gives a hint that jesus was is control of the situation

      Like

    • JUXTAPOSE these texts

      quote:

      quote :
      “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

      7 Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?”

      “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said.

      8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.”
      end quote

      ::::::::::::::::

      44 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45 So when he came, he went up to him at once and said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46 Then they laid hands on him and arrested him. 47 But one of those who stood near drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 48 Then Jesus said to them, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? 49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” 50 All of them deserted him and fled.

      end quote

      ken, here is a quiz question:

      where in john is there even one indication that judas went upto jesus and kissed him to identify him?

      why would john need judas when john has jesus’ mouth?

      Like

    • “Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, “Whom are you looking for?” 5 They answered, “Jesus of Nazareth.”[a] Jesus replied, “I am he.”[b] Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. 6 When Jesus[c] said to them, “I am he,”[d] they stepped back and fell to the ground. 7 Again he asked them, “Whom are you looking for?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.”[e] 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he.[f] So if you are looking for me, let these men go.”

      1. he, pagan lamb , needs not judas to come to him
      2. the lamb-god comes to his slaughterers

      3.the lamb-god speaks and they fall (john removed marks begging jesus)
      4. the pagan lamb said “let these men go”

      all in control . no need for judas. no need for the kiss. no need for anyone to grab jesus, jesus “lamb-god” will walk with you guys after mere words floored you and no one recorded them in the synoptics.

      this was windows 2003 turned into windows 10

      Like

  28. All scholars, whatever their views of the redactional work of the Synoptic Evangelists and of the historical reliability of the Gospel of John, agree that the latter presents a much more thoroughly and extensively interpreted version of the story of Jesus.”

    Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, page 410

    Like

  29. This is an extract from my book: Jesus as Western Scholars See Him; A Resource for Muslim Dawah Carriers.

    ‘Richard Bauckham (Professor of New Testament Studies in the University of St Andrews, Scotland)
    has also authored a little known (at least outside of scholarly circles) book entitled God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament. He argues that the first Christians included Jesus in the unique identity of the God of Israel in a way that was compatible with Jewish monotheism. In other words, Bauckham claims the early Church redefined Jewish monotheism in such a way as to include Jesus within its conception of God.

    One of the weaknesses of his argument is his use of texts that he himself clearly believes are fictionalised accounts of Jesus’ teaching. Consider these statements taken from his book God Crucified (emphasis mine):

    ‘The Gospel of John places on the lips of Jesus during his ministry another of the characteristically Deutero-Isaianic declarations of unique divine identity. The Johannine choice is the concise statement ‘I am he,’ usually translated in the Septuagint Greek as ego eimi (‘I am’), the form in which it appears in John’s Gospel.’ (page 55)

    ‘We observed earlier [p 55] how John places Deutero-Isaiah’s great monotheistic self-declaration of God – ‘I am he’ – on the lips of Jesus in the series of seven absolute ‘I am’ sayings.’ (page 63)

    If the author of the Fourth Gospel knowingly placed the I am statements in ‘on the lips of
    Jesus’, then Jesus obviously by definition he did not say them, and John has invented sayings which countless generations of Christians have nevertheless taken as the actual words of Jesus.

    But if John’s portrayal of Jesus represents a ‘highly interpreted’ and partly fabricated account of his life and teaching why should we believe what it says? Readers of the gospel may wish to know the unaltered, original words and teaching of Jesus rather than a “highly interpreted” later account. Bauckham’s views are based on a detailed analysis of the gospels’ genre and a comparison of the synoptic gospels and John. His views on the historicity of Jesus’ sayings in John are widely shared by other scholars (outside of fundamentalist seminaries)

    Bauckham argues that the fourth gospel stems from an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, namely, the disciple John. At the same time, however, Bauckham also acknowledges the significant differences between the fourth gospel and the Synoptics and argues that John is a more reflective and a highly interpreted account of the life and ministry of Jesus. Regarding the four gospels in general, he concludes:

    ‘In all four Gospels we have the history of Jesus only in the form of testimony, the testimony of involved participants who responded in faith to the disclosure of God in these events. In testimony fact and interpretation are inextricable; in this testimony empirical sight and spiritual perception are inseparable.’

    Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony,
    2006, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 411.

    As we have already seem above, regarding the gospel of John Bauckham says:

    All scholars, whatever their views of the redactional work of the Synoptic Evangelists and of the historical reliability of the Gospel of John, agree that the latter presents a much more thoroughly and extensively interpreted version of the story of Jesus.’
    (Ibid. p. 410.)

    According to Bauckham, the eyewitness author of the gospel of John did not just simply
    rehash mere eyewitness reports, but he also weaved into his story of Jesus his highly
    reflective interpretations and understanding of the events:

    ‘… we can also apply the contrast between Mark (or the Synoptics in general) and John
    more widely. The greater selectivity of events recorded, the more continuous narrative with
    its more strongly delineated plot, the lengthy discourses and debates – all these distinctive
    features of the Gospel of John, as compared with the Synoptics, are what make possible
    the much fuller development of the author’s own interpretation of Jesus and his story, just
    as comparable features of the works of the Greco-Roman historians enable the expression
    of their own understanding of the history, making their works more than mere reports of
    what the eyewitnesses said. But in the case of the Gospel of John these characteristics
    are linked with its claim to be entirely the testimony of an author who was himself an
    eyewitness. In this case, the whole historiographic process of eyewitness observation and
    participation, interrogation of other eyewitnesses, arrangement and narrativization in the
    formation of an integrated and rhetorically persuasive work – all this was the work of an
    eyewitness, whose interpretation was, of course, in play at every level of the process, but
    in what one might think of as a cumulative manner, such that the finished Gospel has a
    high degree of highly reflective interpretation. The eyewitness claim justifies [really?] this
    degree of interpretation for a context in which the direct reports of the eyewitnesses were
    the most highly valued forms of testimony to Jesus. In the case of the other Gospels it was
    important that the form of the eyewitness testimonies was preserved in the Gospels. The
    more reflective interpretive Gospel of John does not, by contrast, assimilate the
    eyewitness reports beyond recognition into its own elaboration of the story, but is, as it
    stands, the way one eyewitness understood what he and others had seen. The author’s
    eyewitness status authorizes the interpretation. Thus, whereas scholars have often
    supposed that this Gospel could not have been written by an eyewitness because of its
    high degree of interpretation of the events and the words of Jesus, by contrast with the
    Synoptics, in fact the high degree of interpretation is appropriate precisely because this is
    the only one of the canonical Gospels that claims eyewitness authorship.’
    (Ibid. pp. 410 – 411.)

    Note that Bauckham does not deny the “highly reflective interpretational” status of the
    gospel of John. He only justifies it by arguing that the author was an eyewitness.

    In light of the above, even if we are to accept the fourth gospel as a product of an
    eyewitness (and it should be noted that most experts disagree with Bauckham), it does not
    mean that we can simply read off from its surface the words attributed to Jesus as if Jesus
    literally uttered them in during historical ministry.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Paul Williams, you wrote a statement, that was simultaneously shocking and lacking clarification:

    ”But The Synoptics do not say Jesus pre-existed. That’s only found in the last gospel, John.”

    Does this view find support (at some levels) from all strands of Biblical scholarship? Could you elaborate on this? Additionally, the last Gospel is it considered a historically reliable document, to knowing what Jesus taught and personally believed and how he interacted with the world? Thanks. I do not mind reading a long list of writings, extracts etc. By the way, I really hope you write a large lengthy book on this subject, Sir.

    Like

  31. the Qur’an:

    Affirms/confirms مصدق the inspiration of the previous Scriptures – Surah 3:84, 2:136; 3:3-4
    Affirms/confirms مصدق the preservation of the previous Scriptures – Surah 5:47; 10:94 (between the hands – بین یدیه = what they have at the time of Muhammad)
    Affirms/confirms the authority of the previous Scriptures – 5:43 – why do they come to you when they have the Torah?
    5:47 – let the people of the Gospel judge by what God has revealed therein –

    5:68 – O people of the Scripture, اهل الکتاب you have no standing unless you observe/uphold/ hold fast to / do / obey the Torah and the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.”

    “Say, “O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.” And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people.” Qur’an Surah 5:68, Sahih International translation

    10:94 – Gospel and Torah authoritative for Muhammad also. Resort to the previous Scriptures; Ask the people of the book.

    and since none can change the words of Allah – Surah 6:114-5 (or 116 depending on different English translation/numbering system) and 18:27; (see also 6:34, 10:65)

    therefore, the previous Scriptures were not corrupted.

    Like

    • are you so blind that you can’t see how changed and updated johns’ jesus is?

      this “lamb-god” willingly comes forward
      he has a mouth which floors guards
      he needs no introduction, he introduces himself by coming forward.

      Like

    • “John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”

      So what else is not recorded by John/Gospel writers?

      Like

    • “Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us..”

      Luke 1. There were many other 1st century gospels.

      Like

    • Matthew Henry Commentary
      John 21:25 Only a small part of the actions of Jesus had been written. But let us bless God for all that is in the Scriptures, and be thankful that there is so much in so small a space. Enough is recorded to direct our faith, and regulate our practice; more would have been unnecessary. Much of what is written is overlooked, much forgotten, and much made the matter of doubtful disputes. We may, however, look forward to the joy we shall receive in heaven, from a more complete knowledge of all Jesus did and said, as well as of the conduct of his providence and grace in his dealings with each of us. May this be our happiness. These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name, ch. 20:31.

      So Muslim position is that the current “Gospels” don’t contain everything that Jesus preached. Also there are other “early christian” writings which also contain “element” of truths. For us the authenticity of “canonical” and non canonical work is on the same footing. One is “no more” or “less” authentic than others. Rather all of them have authentic and non-authentic materials. So each of the works needs to be analyzed with rigorous historical textual methods. So for christian to constantly quote “Qur’anic” verse that it proves NT authenticity is disingenuous at best.

      More over Muslims believe the Gospel given to Jesus not what that came to known as “Gospel” about Jesus. There is evidence that there was “the Gospel of Jesus”..

      Mark 8:35 For whoever wants to save their life[a] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it.

      Matthew 26:13 Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”

      As anyone can see there is ” the Gospel” that Jesus preached. Please notice “singular” Gospel not “plural” gospels.

      Like

    • @Ken:

      Also pay close attention to what Quran says about previous scriptures. It say “fihi” meaning “IN IT” is guidance and light. Meaning existing books that Jews and Christians hold as scripture do hold elements of truth .e.g “shema”, “lord’s prayer” etc.

      But Qur’an doesn’t confirm ALL that they think is scripture, rather only a portion of what is inside those covers. So read scriptures with care.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The text does not say “judge by some things in it and reject other things”. “in it” فیه points back to “the Gospel” الانجیل

      The Qur’an never says in exact words, “the text of the Injeel between the hands that Christians are reading now has been corrupted.”

      Like

    • All the verses that you have quoted, are referring to the central creed of the Qur’an, which according to Islam, has always been the central creed of previously revealed scriptures: Monotheism. The Qur’an is saying that this creed is still evident, in previous scriptures, though the Qur’an has preserved it’s **correct** essence. The Qur’an is interpreted through the lens of the Hadith, however much the devils hate this. This is proof that the correct interpretation is that the previous scriptures were changed.

      Volume 9, Book 93, Number 613:

      Narrated ‘Ikrima:

      Ibn ‘Abbaas said, “How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about their Books while you have Allah’s Book (the Qur’an) which is the most recent of the Books revealed by Allah, and you read it in its pure undistorted form?”

      Volume 9, Book 93, Number 614:
      Narrated ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah:

      ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbaas said, “O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book, which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, ‘This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it. Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur’an ) which has been revealed to you.

      The Qur’an states that the Previous Scriptures were Corrupted. The Hadith States and Proves that the Qur’an teaches the corruption of the Previous Scriptures. The Qur’anic verses used by todays Islamic Apologists to prove that the Qur’an teaches the corruption of the previous scriptures, were used by the earliest Muslims to teach the Qur’an teaches the corruption of the Previous Scriptures. Besides, the main argument of this page is:

      JESUS DID NOT CLAIM TO BE GOD. TWO YALE PROFESSORS TEACH THAT JESUS REJECTED THE TRINITY AND WORSHIPPED GOD ALONE. YOU HATE THIS, BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU ARE A PAGAN.

      Like

  32. Paul Williams, have you got any quotations from Scholars, with regards to the Historicity of John (or lack of)? You should post them here, so we can use them in discussions and debates.

    Like

  33. @Paul: Thanks for pointing out Luke 1: Commentary below for ready reference

    Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
    Forasmuch as many – It has been doubted who are referred to here by the word “many.” It seems clear that it could not be the other evangelists, for the gospel by “John” was not yet written, and the word “many” denotes clearly more than “two.” Besides, it is said that they undertook to record what the “eye-witnesses” had delivered to them, so that the writers did not pretend to be eye-witnesses themselves. It is clear, therefore, that other writings are meant than the gospels which we now have, but what they were is a matter of conjecture. What are now known as spurious gospels were written long after Luke wrote his. It is probable that Luke refers to “fragments” of history, or to narratives of “detached” sayings, acts, or parables of our Lord, which had been made and circulated among the disciples and others. His doctrines were original, bold, pure, and authoritative. His miracles had been extraordinary, clear, and awful. His life and death had been peculiar; and it is not improbable – indeed it is highly probable that such broken accounts and narratives of detached facts would be preserved. That this is what Luke means appears farther from Luke 1:3, where “he” professes to give a regular, full, and systematic account from the very beginning – “having had perfect understanding of “all things from the very first.” The records of the others – the “many” – were broken and incomplete. His were to be regular and full.

    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: