Yale: “The Synoptic Gospels do not portray Jesus as preexistent”

This will come as a shock to most people to learn that New Testament scholarship is broadly in agreement that the gospels of Matthew and Luke do not portray Jesus as preexistent and have no awareness of the notion of the Incarnation of God. In the light of Christian teaching about the origins of Jesus this is surprising as both gospels have extended birth narratives where such ideas would naturally be mentioned. Here is an extract from a recent academic discussion from Yale University in the USA.


Page 209 from the Conclusion of 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.


Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity, God, History, Scholarship

188 replies

    • “But the Holy Spirit can only guide someone who has studied the issues throughly in the Scriptures; and then uses their intellect & knowledge to give them good answers to people’s questions.”

      Ken Temple


  1. They can’t have it both ways.

    Did disciples of Jesus ( and john the baptist ) know who Jesus was? Christian theologians claim that his disciples knew who he was and that’s why they derive this type of theology from Gospels who was given by disciples ( or followers of disciples)​ according to their belief

    However if they knew ​who Jesus was ( e.g God according to their belief) ​

    Then​ the question arises, ​why ​​they ​didn’t ​worship him as God? When I asked this same question to a group of missionary who came last month to our mosque, they said disciples of Jesus were knuckleheads!!!! what a disgusting description of Disciples of Jesus. To us they were holy people. Quran describes them ( the disciples) as “hawariyoon” who were completely and totally dedicated to Jesus and were willing to die for him and his message. So they were certainly not knuckleheads.

    So ​they have to ​choose ​one of the two logical options:

    ​Option #​1. They knew who Jesus was: ​B​ut ​we know based on Gospel records that ​they didn’t worship ​Jesus as God which they would have done in every gathering had they known Jesus was God. Since they didn’t worship Jesus as God means they knew Jesus was NOT God.

    ​Option# ​2. They didn’t know Jesus was God: Well in that ​case no one else ​ would​ know divinity of Jesus either. The knowledge from them as per their belief is contained in Gospels. and they use Gospel records to understand teaching and position of Jesus! now they have this dilemma that they (disciples) didn’t know Jesus was god and somehow later theologians came to know Jesus was God? How silly and ridiculous is this conclusion.

    Some ​will ​say Jesus revealed everything about himself to his disciples after resurrection. Well ​that also doesn’t help. ​ ​Based on Gospel records, ​Jesus was with his disciples for few days after ​his Resurrection. But then too we see that they didn’t worship Jesus as God during that time either. Isn’t this a clear proof that Jesus is not God?

    So in either case it is clear that for Disciples and John the Baptist, Jesus was not God. ​Now what do you do with verses that teach Jesus is God. Well there are both type of verses. The verses that show humanity of Jesus and also verses that has been used to raise Jesus to the level of divinity.

    Ones you understand the correct position of disciples of Jesus then you would interpret verses in bible correctly. They are not very difficult either and they are not road blocks. You need some hermeneutics and historical critical methods to understand the correct meaning. None of those verses are explicit in saying Jesus was God. Also there were many sects in 1st/2nd century who rejected divinity of Jesus like ebionites. So it is possible to reconcile teachings/practices of Jesus, his disciples , John the Baptist of Bible with humanity of Jesus but not with his divinity.


    • RationalMuslim,
      Your comment makes a lot of sense. I would add that if ANYONE knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus was in fact actually the one true God himself, it would have been the ones who knew him the best – His parents. And yet, nowhere in the Bible do we see Joseph and Mary worshipping Jesus as God!! This combined with your comment about the Disciples provides solid evidence that Jesus was not considered to be a God, or worshipped as a God by his own contemporaries in his lifetime.

      The exaltation of Jesus from a human Prophet/Preacher to the Son of God occurred after the crucifixion as Bart Ehrman has made clear in his book: How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee


    • “His parents.”

      john the baptist already seemed to have divine revelation in the womb of his mother

      When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

      yet it seems that when the baptist becomes an adult he had know knowledge that yhwh was in a womb.


    • “We have a lot of those words in Farsi..”

      Never discuss with Persians!

      And Ken, actually you as a Christian do believe that the Torah was corrupted (Oral Torah). Christians do not like to mention this fact like all their problems with Jews.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken is obsessed with an irrelevant Farsi language, of no relevance to exegesis of the Quran


    • Thomas worshipped Jesus as God and he is portrayed as the last of the disciples to be pursuaded to believe:

      Jesus Appears to Thomas

      24But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.


    • But Jesus was not Yahweh, as Jesus said he had a God as we do (see John 20:17) . Conclusion: Thomas uses an honorific title, not to be take literally.


  2. Jesus does not speak of God as a “bodiless person”, but he does speak of God as a “spirit”, which implies that God is a “bodiless person”. Does Jesus ever claim to be a “spirit”? There are no passages in any of the canonical Gospels where Jesus claims to be a spirit. There are, however, passages where Jesus implies that he is NOT a spirit (Mark 14:8, 14:22, 14:37-39, Luke 24:39, John 20:27).

    Because Jesus NEVER claimed to be a “bodiless person”, and NEVER claimed to be a “spirit”, and because Jesus repeatedly asserted that he had a physical body made of “flesh and bones”, Jesus clearly implied that he was NOT a spirit and NOT a bodiless person. Therefore, Jesus clearly implied that he was NOT God.



  3. εἷς Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν. [Ephesians 4:6 ]

    One God and Father of all, who [is] over all, and through all, and in all. [Ephesians 4:6 ]

    Ephesians 4: 6 destroys the Triune Being since it declares Πατὴρ the ”Father”, who is one of the persons in the Trinity, as one ”who [is] over all, and through all, and in all”. In addition to being declared superior to everything and everyone, the Father is declared as ”Θεὸς” or as ”God” but not Jesus or the Spirit in the verse. This fact that the Son and the Spirit are ”co-equal and co-eternal” with the Father in the Trinity, should have been mentioned so as to avoid Unitarian misconceptions. But the author is clearly unaware of this, since the Trinity had not been invented yet.The Father is regarded as being the God and nobody else. In the NT the Father or ”Patēr” as being synonymous with God, yet Trinitarians regard the term ”God” , ”Yahweh” , ”Elohim” etc as being synonymous with the singular identity known as the ”Trinity” or the Triune being.

    heis Theos kai Pater destroys the Triune Singular Being since ONLY one of the Persons as explicitly identified as being God-as throughout the NT and also as superior. Same thing in Mark 12: 28-32; John 17: 3 etc etc.

    In the final analysis two quotes by heavyweight Trinitarian scholars shall expose the truth even further.

    ”Jesus did not think he was God, Jesus did not claim to be God, and Jesus did not insist he should be worshipped! ” NT Professor Larry Hurtado!

    ‘there was no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly be called a consciousness of divinity’

    Christology in the Making, 2003, p. 60. James D.G Dunn


    • Conserning the quote from Larry Hurtado that Jesus never thought he was God – wasnt this said by him only in relation that Jesus didnt think he was God THE FATHER? I thought this material dedicated to that quote of Hurtado was already refuted a month or smth ago in the comments.


    • In Judaism only the Father was/is God


  4. World Heavyweight Biblical Scholar and a Trinitarian Christian Declares the Truth

    “Some of these Jewish Christian groups could trace a respectable line of descent from the earliest form of Jewish Christianity in Jerusalem. But as Christianity grew and developed, as the emphases of Paul, of Gentile Christianity and of John became accepted as integral parts of Christianity proper, so these older underdeveloped forms of Christianity became dated and increasingly unacceptable to catholic Christians. For the Jewish Christian of the second and third centuries, Jesus was simply a prophet, James the first sole leader of the Jerusalem church was the great hero, and Paul who had transformed the faith by opening the door so wide to the Gentiles was a renegade and apostate. Such Jewish sects survived for a century of two, but without the vitality of Catholic Christianity or the determined purpose of rabbinic Judaism they slowly withered and died. With them what had been a wing of apostolic Christianity effectively disappeared from the spectrum of Christianity, diminishing that spectrum, and giving free-er rein to some less than desirable anti-Jewish tendencies among the remaining catholic faithful.”

    [Dunn, J. D. G. (1985). The Evidence for Jesus. Louisville, Kentucky: The Westminster Press. p. 96]

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Interestingly, Hurtado also holds the view that the Synoptic gospels do not proclaim or articulate the notion or concept of preexistence about Jesus as conceptualized in Trinitarian thought. Refer to book Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity

    Liked by 3 people

  6. @mimimw12345 Paul Williams uses liberal theology w/ anti-supernatural pre-suppositions that don't allow for harmony @DennyBurk agrees w/ me— Ken Temple (@Kenneedsgrace) January 9, 2017



    • I do not use ‘liberal theology’. I use informed expert analysis of the texts. The fact you cannot see that speaks volumes about your fundamentalism Ken.

      Do you agree that the gospels of Matthew and Luke do not portray Jesus as preexistent? If not give your reasons.

      Liked by 2 people

    • This has nothing to do with anti-supernatural pre-suppositions.

      Whoever wrote “Gospel of Matthew” and “Gospel of Luke” had ample opportunity to declare that Jesus is pre-existent/inherently constituent of God/co-substantial with the Father/member of the Trinity etc.

      The fact that they did not at any point explain or even articulate any of this.

      You can reach this conclusion just by reading the two gospels regardless of your view on the supernatural.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Matthew 2:1-2
      We have come to worship Him
      Matthew 2:11
      opening their gifts they worshiped Him

      Matthew 14:33
      “You are the Son of God!” and they worshiped Him

      Matthew 28:9
      they worshiped Him
      Matthew 28:16
      they worshiped Him


    • Proves absolutely nothing.


    • On the contrary, it shows Matthew’s intent to show that the Messiah Jesus was God in the flesh, born of the virgin Mary, fulfillment of prophesy, “God with us”; and Deity and worthy of worship.


    • To whom did the phrase ‘God with us’ originally apply to in the Jewish scriptures?


    • There is a double fulfillment going on in Isaiah chapters 7-9.

      But a miraculous virgin birth is the future Messiah, who is both “God with us” (Isaiah 7:14)and “the Mighty God”
      (Isaiah 9:6)

      The child born in Isaiah 8 was not from a virgin, but had to do with the circumstances of the war of N. Israel and Aram (Syria) allied to try and attack the Southern Kingdom of Judah; and then they (Israel N. and Aram) were defeated by the invasions of the Assyrians.

      Kostenberger and Stewart write:

      Between 740 and 732 BC, Syria and Israel tried to force king Ahaz of Judah to join their military coalition against Assyria. When he refused to join their alliance, they invaded with the intention of deposing him and setting up a king in Judah who would join their side. Rather than trusting God, Ahaz appealed to Assyria for help. Assyria did help but at a very high cost: in essence, Judah became a vassal state of Assyria and was forced to pay heavy tribute. This series of events is known as the Syro-Ephraimite War.

      In the midst of this crisis, the prophet Isaiah came to King Ahaz with a word of encouragement and an invitation to trust God: “Be careful, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint. . . . It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass. . . . If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all” (Isaiah 7:4a, 7b, 9b).

      Ahaz, however, doubted God and did not think God would deliver. In Ahaz’s mind, his only hope was Assyria. Ahaz refused to trust God or receive a sign of God’s commitment to rescue, and Isaiah responded:

      Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold the virgin [‘almah] shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. (Isaiah 7:14–16)

      God’s sign to Ahaz in Isaiah 7:14 likely had an immediate fulfillment that directly related to the original historical situation in the Syro-Ephraimite War. The Hebrew word translated “virgin,” ‘almah, denotes a young woman who in most contexts in the Old Testament was also an unmarried virgin. [2] The young woman could have been a member of the royal family but was more likely the “prophetess” of Isaiah 8:3. Given the flow of the narrative, Isaiah’s own son probably fulfilled the prophecy. The parents might easily have given the child two names, particularly when they chose the names symbolically as signs or portents.

      Pointing to Jesus

      How does a historical fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah’s day relate to Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23 to refer to Jesus?

      To answer this question, it is important to look at the birth of one more child in the context following Isaiah 7. Isaiah 9:1-7 is linked to the prior prophecies by reference to the birth of a son, but unlike the previous passages, the description of the child here easily and quickly leads to a picture of one who is more than human and will accomplish a deliverance that extends far beyond the original historical context of the Syro-Ephraimite War.

      Significantly, the translators of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek in the Intertestamental period translated the Hebrew word ‘almah with the Greek word parthenos, a much more specific term for “virgin.” This may indicate that even before Jesus was born, Jewish readers viewed the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 in light of Isaiah 9:1–7 and thought that the birth of the promised child would be supernaturally accomplished “in the latter time.” Matthew clearly knew the further prophecy in Isaiah 9:1–7, because he later invoked part of this passage to describe Jesus’s ministry in Galilee in Matthew 4:15-16.

      All of this leads us to interpret Isaiah’s reference to the virgin conceiving a child in terms of double fulfillment. The prophecy makes complete sense in its original historical context, but other factors within the context—the name Immanuel and the description of the child in Isaiah 9:6–7—also point forward in time to the birth of another child.

      Jesus was the true and final embodiment of Immanuel, “God with us,” the one who would sit “on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore.”

      Andreas Kostenberger and Alexander Stewart


    • Ken thanks for the cut and paste job.

      My question was simple:

      To whom did the phrase ‘God with us’ originally apply to in the Jewish scriptures?

      Try and avoid mentioning Jesus or the NT in your answer.


    • Its in there towards the beginning, so you don’t have to strain yourself too much and read too much.


    • The child born in Isaiah 8 was not from a virgin, but had to do with the circumstances of the war of N. Israel and Aram (Syria) allied to try and attack the Southern Kingdom of Judah; and then they (Israel N. and Aram) were defeated by the invasions of the Assyrians.


    • Ken why won’t you answer the question? Who was ‘God with us’ according to Isaiah? Hint: it was not Jesus!


    • Liberal theology’s starting point is a pre-commitment to no miracles and that God does not inspired prophets, apostles or books. they think the religious books are man’s deeper thoughts about God; rather than God’s revelation to man.


    • Most of the biblical scholars I quote do not subscribe to that world view.


    • Bart Ehrman has that worldview.

      and James D. G. Dunn also seems to:

      “Here we also need to be aware of the biological and theological corollaries of insisting that the virginal conception/birth was a historical fact. E. g. Arthur Peacocke concludes his brief study, “DNA of Our DNA,” in G. J. Brooke, ed. The Birth of Jesus: Biblical and Theological Reflections (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), 59-67, with the blunt statement: “For Jesus to be fully human he had, for both biological and theological reasons, to have a human father as well as a human mother and the weight of the historical evidence strongly indicates that this was so – and that it was probably Joseph. Any theology for a scientific age which is concerned with the significance of Jesus of Nazareth now has to start at this point.” (Dunn, Jesus Remembered, page 347, in footnote # 48]

      “Any theology for a scientific age” sounds something like, “the miraculous virgin conception/birth of Christ is too incredible for anyone in our modern scientific world to believe in.”

      Yet, Muslims accept the virgin birth of Christ (Qur’an Surah 3:45-48; Surah 19:16-33; 66:12), because of the Qur’an, and its dependency on the previous Scriptures. The Qur’an says that Allah revealed the Torah to Moses and the Injeel to Jesus and it confirmed the previous Scripture. Muslims believe the Qur’an confirms the previous Scriptures, both the Injeel of Jesus and the Torah of Moses. Yet, it contradicts the Injeel and the Torah in many areas. On the issue that it does not contradict, the virgin birth, Muslim apologists use liberal scholarship who don’t believe in the virgin birth, to cast doubt on the Bible in other contexts other than the virgin birth. That, is inconsistent.


    • @Ken,

      What is the Greek word used for “worship” for Jesus in the NT and does it appear in the LXX concerning human beings?


    • There are two words in Greek that denote “worship” for God – προσκυνεω proskuneo and λατρευω latreuo

      Depending on the context, sometimes proskuneo is used for doing respect or homage to kings or higher ranking humans. (as in Genesis 37:9; 43:26; 1 Chronicles 29:20)

      But Jesus Al Masih the NT uses both words in Matthew 4:10, quoting Deut. 6:13, “You shall worship the LORD your God and serve Him only.” It uses both words for the one Hebrew concept of עבד (avad, cognate with the Arabic عبد and عبادت

      The way Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 use proskuneo, it shows that that word also came to mean worship of God, and Matthew’s usage, in context, also demonstrates this.

      Rev. 3:9 in context, does not mean “worship”, but respect or homage, as in the Lxx examples in Genesis 37:9, 43:26, and 1 Chronicles 29:20 (gave proskuneo both to God and the king) There it means worship for God and respect for the king.

      Roman Catholics like to use this argument that when they bow down to statues of Mary or other pictures or statues of other dead saints, they are not worshipping them as God, but giving proskuneo/ bowing down in respect / dulia (Latin for “service”) or honor and veneration, rather than Latria (Latin form of “latreuo” – worship only for God).
      This has caused Muslims for centuries to think that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are giving worship to Mary and others. Probably why the Qur’an mistakenly thought Mary was part of the Trinity – Surah 5:116; 5:72-78.

      But Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 uses proskuneo for worship only reserved for God.


    • and “the Mighty God”
      (Isaiah 9:6)

      if others are called “mighty god” in the bible, then are you ready to worship them right this minute?

      Liked by 1 person

    • “liberal scholarship” is just a figment of your fundamentalist imagination Ken.


    • you don’t think it even exists? What about John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and Robert Funk, Bultmann, Schleirmacker, etc.


    • the error of your view is to think that ALL scholars who do not share your fundamentalist theology are all ‘liberal’, which is just silly.

      There are other views, which can be defined as conservative, moderate, radical etc.

      Your binary word view does not allow for nuance.


    • I recognize Richard Bauckham as more conservative than James Dunn, who is more conservative than John Dominic Cross or Bart Ehrman, so I do see a spectrum of views, rather than a binary world view as you accuse me of.

      So, you are wrong.

      Most of what Richard Bauckham writes is excellent; though I don’t agree with some things. Bauckham completely demolished your arguments on Mark 10.


    • you don’t normally see any spectrum. If you don’t like a view you usually just dismiss it as “liberal”, a shallow and discredited tactic – your protests here non-withstanding.


    • And James D. G. Dunn is not always wrong. Here he completely demolishes your viewpoint on trying to divide Jesus’ teaching from the apostle Paul:

      “Here it becomes obvious that Paul was able to differentiate within the law . He maintains that some laws, here the law of circumcision no longer counted, but in the same breathe he reasserts the importance of keeping the law of God.

      Does this not remind us of Jesus? . . .

      Paul drew his attitude to the law from Jesus, no other explanation makes such sense of the evidence available to us. It was Jesus’ teaching and example which showed him that in Christ neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision but faith operating effectively through love. [Galatians 5:6] It was no doubt this teaching and that example that Paul had in mind when he speaks of “the law of Christ”.

      Dunn concludes:

      “Should we then speak of a gulf between Jesus and Paul? NO!

      Should we deduce that Paul departed from or corrupted the good news which Jesus brought? No!

      Should we conclude that Paul transformed Jesus’ message into something that Jesus Himself would not recognize? No! . . . ”

      Jesus’ discriminating attitude to the law and the love command . . . ”

      (James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels. Eerdmans, 2011, pages 114-115)

      I have this book, and David Wood quoted it in his debate vs. Shabir Ally:



    • Jesus in Matthew contradicts Paul on the requirement to obey the Jewish law. This is well known to other Christian scholars. Dunn’s view is odd in the light of this fact.


    • “I have this book” – I bet you have’t read it!


    • @Ken,

      You have a habit of not replying to the point and digressing.

      Proskuneo is the only word translated as worship used for Jesus in the NT not lateruo.

      As you said proskuneo can be understood as showing respect.

      The reason I brought this up was because you quoted the “Jesus is worshipped” passage as evidence that he was considered to be God. Even though the word translated as “worship” can simply mean showing respect. Thus, these passages do not prove your point at all.

      The fact remains If Matthew and Luke wanted us to believe Jesus is full deity, member of a Trinity etc, they did not convey this.

      As for Mary, she is indeed worshipped as “Queen in Heaven”,”Omnipotent by grace not by nature”. The Byzantines prayed to her in their war against the Sassanids and her icons were called upon to defeat enemies. People considered saints have said about her that her relation to God is like a child to his mother because Jesus the God-Man takes her as his mother in his humanity and since Jesus is one person this means the second person of the Trinity treats her as his Mother. They say just as a child obeys her mother so does God obey Mary. You may consider them heretics but they are the majority. So the Quran is correct in pointing out that Mary is worshipped as deity. Nowhere does the Quran say she is considered part of the trinity.

      Quran 5:72 condemns modalism.
      5:73 condemns the Trinity.
      5:75 simultaneously refutes both Maryolatry and the Chalcedonian creed. Compare this verse to:”They traded their glorious God for the statue of a bull that eats grass”[Psalms 106:20]
      Clearly the author/speaker of Psalms 106:20 does not consider it acceptable to worship any being that depends on food for sustenance. This includes an embryo in his mother’s womb depending on her food for his sustenance.


    • why did the author of Revelation use proskuneo only for worshiping God in Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 ?

      Your other points about Mary prove why Protestants consider the Eastern orthodox and Roman Catholics as giving a bad witness to Muslims and violating Scripture and indeed are heretics and give too much exaltation to Mary and worship her and seem to worship her, – by what they do before icons and statues and prayers to her.

      Prayer should be only to God.

      Romanism violates 1 Timothy 2:5 by making Mary another mediator; a mediatrix.

      Surah 5:116 and 5:72-75 shows that the Qur’an mis-understood the doctrine of the Trinity, and puts Mary as equal to the Father and Jesus, and is proof that the Qur’an is not from God; because God would have known what 600 years of history taught.


    • “Surah 5:116 and 5:72-75 shows that the Qur’an mis-understood the doctrine of the Trinity, and puts Mary as equal to the Father and Jesus,”

      the word “equal” does not exist in the arabic text, only exists in your human worshipping/3 gods worshipping pagan mind .

      mary held your god in her womb. your god lived in her uterus and then 2 natures exited one woman. i would say that mary had to be deified to hold your pagan “lord and saviour”

      ” and is proof that the Qur’an is not from God; because God would have known what 600 years of history taught.”

      600 yeas of history taught that there were many gods. christians believed that there were many others gods, many other gospels. one christian called paul believed that the krist he preached was not the krist preached by the bewitchers “foolish galatians who bewitched you….”


      yes, many different sects. many different christianties some which surely died out.

      600 years of ugly history toying and playing with “the word of god”
      600 years of “uncontrolled copying” reading into text to harmonise with sectarian beliefs.

      richard carrier said that your canon is contradictory just like the nicene creed and nobody needs to be an atheist to know this.


    • @Ken,

      I showed you that Quran 5:72-75 deals with multiple heresies-
      1)Modalism – dealt with in 5:72
      2)Trinity – dealt with in 5:73
      3)Maryolatry dealt with in 5:75
      4)Chalcedonian creed dealt with also in 5:75

      Now you consider only two of the above to be heresies.

      But from our perspective all these 4 are heresies and whoever wrote/spoke Psalms 106:20 would agree with Quran 5:75. He would not agree with the Chalcedonian creed.


    • Proskuneo can be used for God and man. It is used in the LXX for human beings.

      This is similar to saying I serve God. I serve my family. I serve my parents. I serve my community and so on. The word ‘serve” can be used in different ways.

      Say I write a biography of a great man whom many people served and payed homage to. Does this mean that I think he was God?

      So what is your evidence that people doing proskuneo to Jesus in the NT were not paying homage but considering him to be ontologically God?

      Liked by 1 person

  7. First time I have embedded a tweet. Why all the code on the platform link?

    “expert analysis” – those are some of the experts, but their anti-supernaturalism and presuppositions against God speaking and inspiring prophets and apostles controls their exegesis. If they applied the same presuppositions to the Qur’an, then the Qur’an is not inspired either and just another human book.

    Not mentioning pre-existence is not the same thing as being against the pre-existence of Jesus. All four gospels and the epistles give us the fuller revelation.


    • ‘Not mentioning pre-existence is not the same thing as being against the pre-existence of Jesus.’

      But surely if the first three gospels had believed in such an important idea they would have mentioned it?


    • But you do use liberal theology and liberal scholars. You never give a fair shake to conservative scholars who hold to inerrancy or infallibility of the Scriptures, which is the view that Muhammad / Qur’an had in Surah 5:47; 10:94; 5:68; 3:3-4; 2:136; 29:46


    • I never give fundamentalist scholars any credibility because they deserve none.

      Liked by 1 person

    • But Muhammad and the Qur’an is fundamentalist – believing in the fundamental doctrines and believing that the previous Scriptures were inspired from God. Surah 5:47; 5:68; 10:94; 2:136; 3:3-4

      “no one can change the word of God” – Surah 6:34; 6:116; 10:65; 18:27


    • no Ken you are just wrong.


    • Ken,

      You appeal to 5:47 to support your aberrant opinion, but neglect the verse immediately following it. In fact, 5:48 provides the details needed to correct your misunderstanding – if only you were sincere.

      “‘no one can change the word of God.'”

      As I believe someone else pointed out, that “word” refers to القدر و القضاء rather than actual كلام.

      Silly boy.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken doesn’t read Arabic so that’s not surprising

      Liked by 1 person

    • He sure makes out like he does…

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yeh but he doesn’t. Bluff.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Surah 5:48 says the Qur’an confirms and protect the written text of the Injeel; and the only text at that time of the people of the Gospel was the NT, established for centuries.

      The contexts of all those other verses (Surah 18:27; 6:114-115; 6:34; 10:64-65) I looked, and I did not find that they have القدر و القضاء (decrees, destiny, control of events), rather they all refer to written books.

      وَاتْلُ مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيْكَ مِن كِتَابِ رَبِّكَ ۖ لَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ وَلَن تَجِدَ مِن دُونِهِ مُلْتَحَدًا
      Surah 18:27
      And recite that which hath been revealed unto thee of the Scripture of thy Lord. There is none who can change His words, and thou wilt find no refuge beside Him.

      کتاب means writing, scripture, book

      Surah 6:114 –
      أَفَغَيْرَ اللَّهِ أَبْتَغِي حَكَمًا وَهُوَ الَّذِي أَنزَلَ إِلَيْكُمُ الْكِتَابَ مُفَصَّلًا ۚ وَالَّذِينَ آتَيْنَاهُمُ الْكِتَابَ يَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّهُ مُنَزَّلٌ مِّن رَّبِّكَ بِالْحَقِّ ۖ فَلَا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْمُمْتَرِينَ
      [Say], “Then is it other than Allah I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?” And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters.

      الْكِتَابَ مُفَصَّلًا ۚ
      “the book explained in detail” – refers to written things; Scripture, book.

      وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ صِدْقًا وَعَدْلًا ۚ لَّا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ ۚ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ
      And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.
      Surah 6:115

      clearly referring to written books.


    • Most western scholars would disagree with you Ken. But they know Arabic and you don’t.


    • who are the “western scholars” ? Muslims or non-Muslims?
      can you site any of these western scholars?
      There was one you talked to (Abdel Haleem) who agreed that the Qur’an never says the previous Scriptures were corrupted in their text.

      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. (Unfortunately)

      “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)


      If you now say that you mis-understood him, you should attempt to have an appointment with him and get the exact facts down and also ask him to maybe write an article on the subject. That would be an important and useful task, given the nature of this issue, for Muslim and Christian apologetics.

      About Dr. Abdel Haleem in the wikipedia article:
      Muhammad A. S. Abdel Haleem, OBE, is Professor of Islamic Studies at SOAS, University of London[1] in London, England, and editor of the Journal of Qur’anic Studies.[2]

      Born in Egypt, Abdel Haleem learned the Qur’an by heart during his childhood, and is now a hafiz.[3][4] In 2004, Oxford University Press published his translation of the Qur’an into English. He has also published several other works in this field.[1]

      Abdel Haleem claims to abide by the Qur’an and authentic prophetic teachings as a practicing Muslim.[5] He argued, for example, that British Muslims, until they gave up their citizenship or permit to live in United Kingdom, could not fight against British forces in the Afghanistan conflict.[6]

      Abdel Haleem was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the Queen’s 2008 Birthday Honours.[7] in recognition of his services to Arabic culture, literature and to inter-faith understanding.[8]


    • Yeah, great, you know Farsi. So what? I know some Latin… why don’t I go act like I can understand the Septuagint in Greek 🤔😧

      Anyway, 5:48 in no way says what you want it to say – the meanings of مهيمن and ما بين يديه من الكتاب have somehow escaped you. And what a surprise, what with all that Farsi you know 😂

      And yeah, fair enough I didn’t check all the verses you cited (I’m on my phone at work), but you don’t seem to have checked them either lol. 18:27, for instance, is referring to the Qur’ān itself – so yeah, neato, you uncovered one of the proof-texts for the Sunni position that the Qur’ān is كلام الله. Thanks, I guess?

      Your attempt to link “word” to “book” in 6:114-115 is a bit stupid, too. But you’re a dishonest Christian who likes to think he knows Arabic because a completely unrelated language he does know has some Arabic loanwords in it. But it’s okay, I’ll explain it for anyone who’s actually sincere in the audience. تمت in the verse is referring to وعد, for which كلمت is in this case مجاز. If you want to say كلمت is مجاز for كتاب, then the verse is talking about “completing a book,” and makes no sense in the context. We even have the same metaphor in English – I give you my word! Your attempts at obfuscation are all the more laughable when you realize that some translations have actually rendered كلمت in the verse as “promise!” 😂

      For 6:34 and 10:64-65, same deal as above.


      Liked by 1 person

    • The Arab Muslim invasions and conquering of Persia was so deep, converting the Persians to Islam, etc. that Persian/Farsi (from Parsi) – the script was changed to Arabic script and has 40% Arabic words and many Qur’anic phrases and terms.

      Even if 18:27 is referring to the Qur’an, it is about written Scripture and since it is flowing chain in Surah 5:42-48, the principle that “no one can change the word of God” includes the Injeel and the Torah and Zobur. The Injeel confirmed the Torah and the Qur’an confirms the Injeel and they are all guidance and light.

      6:114-115 is clearly about written texts and books, and even talks about the previous books. you failed.

      also, if you are trying to say that وعد is “promise”, I don’t think so.
      وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ صِدْقًا وَعَدْلًا ۚ لَّا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ ۚ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ

      وعدلا is “and justice”, from Adl, عدل = “justice”
      we have this word also in Farsi, and related words.
      عدل – justice
      عادل – someone who or something that is just, fair, righteous
      عدالت – justice, righteousness

      the phrase صِدْقًا وَعَدْلًا is “truth and justice”

      All the English translations I checked have “truth and justice”. they don’t say “a truthful promise”


    • Lol nope. See? You’re insincere and stupid. Like I said, my reply was meant for people who use their brains and care about truth.

      You go ahead and keep thinking تمت كلمت ربك means “your Lord’s book was completed.”


      Liked by 2 people

    • lol. nope.

      I didn’t say it mean “your Lord’s was completed”; rather that 6:114-115, along with the other Scriptures that show a chain back to the Torah, in Surah 5:44-48; it shows that “no one can change the words of God”; and is talking about written Scriptures.

      what about “promise” وعد vs. “justice” عدل ؟



    • I made no connection between وعد and عدل lol. You can’t even read English! My point still stands… 6:115 ain’t talkin’ about “scripture.”

      “Words?” Why are you making it plural? Stick to Farsi, bud 😂

      Liked by 1 person

    • We have a lot of those words in Farsi (but without the definite article “the” ال “Al”) I recognize them and their roots and they can mean what I have written below, depending on context.
      قدر – power, decree, much, amount
      قضا – destiny, decree, lot, sovereign happening, “chance”
      کتاب – book, writing, scripture
      مبدل – to change, to alter
      کلمات – words
      کلام – word, message
      مفصل – in detail, explained in detail; summarized.


    • also:
      مصدق – confirm
      تصدیق – confirm
      صادق – honest, truthful
      صدق – truth, reality


    • Also:
      حق – truth
      عدل – just, justice
      رب – lord, master, boss

      من = “from” or “of” – this is not in Farsi, but I recognize this as cognate with the Hebrew מן “Min” = “from”, “of”


    • ken , which pagan gods walked the earth and glowing ?

      do you trust the ancient writers when they said their gods were glowing ?


    • I don’t know what you are talking about


    • Prophet Muhammad (sws) did not hold to the inerrancy or infallibility of the previous Scriptures:

      “They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded.” 5:13

      So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah ,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. 2:79

      Liked by 2 people

    • “distorting words from their proper context and forgetting a portion” does not mean corruption of the text; it means distorting the meaning of the text. The text portion and context is still there. What they forgot is still there.

      5:13 is similar to 3:78

      Context of Surah 2:75-79

      Muslims try to say 2:79 means the Torah was completely corrupted.

      Surah 2:75 – “a party/sect/group from among them” ( the Jews) ” فریق منهم , who used to hear the words of Allah and distort / change (the Torah) after they had understood it.
      This goes with Surah 3:78 – منهم لفریقا – “from among them there is a party/group” – a party among them who distort the Scriptures with their tongues

      Surah 7:159 – a faithful party / group of the Jews.

      Surah 3:113-115 – a faithful party of the Jews who stayed up late at night reciting the Scriptures.

      One party cannot totally corrupt all of the Scriptures because there are so many other copies globally of the Scriptures.

      So, it cannot mean that all of the original Torah was corrupted or lost.

      In context of 2:79, Keep reading to 2:85 – condemns people who don’t accept ALL of the Word of God. (in context, meaning The Torah or Tanakh)
      The context of 2:75-79 points to some parts that people were making up and going apart and saying “this is from Allah”, but it could not effect all the other Scriptures all over the world.

      I would add that 2:78 shows that this group is:
      a. Uneducated / illiterate
      b. Don’t know the Scriptures
      c. Only going by what they hear

      so this group of 2:79 are uneducated and illiterate and don’t know the Scriptures and only going by what they hear.

      This is seems to be what Muhammad did – he is just hearing things, doesn’t have the Scriptures in Arabic, and cannot read Hebrew or Greek, so he doesn’t know everything about the previous Scriptures and is just assuming that he understands them and approves of them, and assumes the Christians and Jews are teaching wrong things with their tongues (orally interpreting the text, but not changing the text)


    • i am asking you about glowing gods. do you read about glowing gods in the ancient Mediterranean?

      romulus was a glowing god for example.


    • Quotes from MDI:
      “The scriptures Islam confirms are not the modern day scriptures Jews and Christians possess with them. When Islam confirms the previous scriptures, it is quite specific, the Torah Islam confirms is the one that was given to Moses, and the Gospel confirmed by Islam is the Gospel given to Jesus.
      The Quran says nothing about confirming what is called the New Testament, which includes 4 gospels, and several other books. The Quran never even mentions the Gospel in the plural form, i.e. believe in the gospels, it always refers to a specific and singular revelation that was given to Jesus, the Gospel of Jesus. This is where most of the confusion lies as non-Muslim apologists never understand this context, that the Quran is referring to the original revelations, which we do not possess with us. Now within the Jewish Bible, and the Christian New Testament, there still is a lot of truth contained within these scriptures that Muslims believe in and would affirm. As Muslims we would argue that these teachings are part of the original teachings that have managed to remain in the book, despite the corruption that exists within them.”

      “Quran is referring to the original revelations, which we do not possess with us.”

      “Interestingly enough, modern day scholarship and academia has confirmed the Islamic perspective as well, that the previous scriptures have indeed been altered, changed, and corrupted. These major scholarly studies have also been done by people that are not Muslims, with many of them being Christians as well. And in these scholarly findings, they also show how the modern day texts we have, i.e. the Jewish and Christian Bibles are in fact not the originals. One can easily consult the works of scholars such as Dr. Bruce Metzger and Dr. Bart Ehrman. So the Quran and hadiths claims have even been proven, which in of itself is another proof of Islam’s divine origin, as it made these claims 1400 years ago, before major studies-scholarship were able to verify and prove it.”


      Liked by 1 person

    • “no one can change the word of God” relates to divine decrees


    • تمت in the verse is referring to وعد, for which كلمت is in this case مجاز. If you want to say كلمت is مجاز for كتاب, then the verse is talking about “completing a book,” and makes no sense in the context. We even have the same metaphor in English – I give you my word! Your attempts at obfuscation are all the more laughable when you realize that some translations have actually rendered كلمت in the verse as “promise!”

      Sahih International: And We caused the people who had been oppressed to inherit the eastern regions of the land and the western ones, which We had blessed.

      And the good word of your Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel because of what they had patiently endured. And We destroyed [all] that Pharaoh and his people were producing and what they had been building.

      i see your point bro, similar wording in the above ayah .
      i see your point about مجاز

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mr. Heathcliff, do you even know what مجاز means?

      We also have this in Farsi. 😉


    • Sahih International: Except whom your Lord has given mercy, and for that He created them. But the word of your Lord is to be fulfilled that, “I will surely fill Hell with jinn and men all together.”

      i see your point bro abu talha.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Mr. Heathcliff, do you even know what مجاز means?”

      yaa mushrik , ana a3lamu /a3rifu ma3na almajaazi, anta la ta3lamu aya shay.

      Liked by 2 people

    • we have some of that in Farsi also.
      شی means a thing or object. It is also in Turkish.


    • “Muslims try to say 2:79 means the Torah was completely corrupted”
      That’s simply not true. However, that verse is explicit about ( the texual corruption), and you cannot deny it.
      Stop saying ” we” have x&y in Farsi!
      Farsi has borrowed many words from Arabic. What’s the point?! Farsi & Arabic are not related languages though.

      You brought David’s argument about some verses which is based on his ignorance in Arabic. For example, surah 6:112! This verse has nothing to do with scriptures! Read all tafesirs you want! It’s about verdicts/promises of Allah. Allah when he says that disbelivers would lose this battle, for example, then they will lose definitely since no one can change the word’s of Allah(i.e his verdict).

      The Textual corruption is proved by Quran & Sunnah, and I cannot see the reason why christians think it’s the ” later muslims” who invented this ! Quran gave a specific definition of what the Injil is. Quran qouted from that Injil even.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Stop saying ” we” have x&y in Farsi!

      I can if I want to.
      we have
      in Farsi


    • What’s the point? You still need to learn Arabic if you want to study Quran or understand it. Borrowing words between the languages is not something unique. It’s well known. However, the other language could use these words for specific meanings while the words have broad meanings in their original language and vice versa.
      Surah 6:112 is clear a evidence how christians got wrong because of their ignorance in Arabic. The same problem happaned with many orientalists.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Ken is always showing off his Farsi.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Mr. Heathcliff, do you even know what مجاز means?”

      //yaa mushrik , ana a3lamu /a3rifu ma3na almajaazi, anta la ta3lamu aya shay.//

      LOL, 7owa 2aqod yuhib an to7ahy 😉

      Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken,

      You said “so this group of 2:79 are uneducated and illiterate and don’t know the Scriptures and only going by what they hear.”


      Since when do illiterate people “write books with THEIR HANDS”?

      This verse refers to educated people writing things and attributing it to God. The reference to the illiterate people in the previous verse is because they are swayed by the corruptions of the literate religious elite.

      Do you want an example of something similar to this?

      Consider Augustine and John 17:3-(taken from an article by Anthony Buzzard)

      “The celebrated Augustine, unable to find his beloved Trinity in Jesus’ words, decided to rewrite the
      utterance of Jesus to accommodate a creed about which Jesus knew nothing. Here is how he deals with
      John 17:3 in his Homilies on John: “‘And this,’ He [Jesus] adds, ‘is eternal life, that they may know
      You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.’ The proper order of the words is,
      ‘That they may know You and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent, as the only true God”[End quote]

      Augustine lived in a time when Trinitarians and subordinationists were both powerful and the future direction of Christianity was an open question. Trinitarians had to manipulate John 17:3. Imagine you were an illiterate person in North Africa in the 400s and you hear Arians saying that Jesus said the One True God is the One who sent him. Then imagine you hear the manipulated version of this text. How would you know which is true. Perhaps you would trust someone like Augustine who you think is more distinguished.


    • Surah 2:78 says that they in context of 2:79 are illiterate. There are different levels of literacy. the whole context of 2:75-2:79 describes them.


    • @Ken,

      The faction that wrote additions to the scripture were literate scholars/scribes etc.

      The Quran is describing how the corruptions by the literate faction affects illiterate people who cannot know any better.

      I already showed an example within the Christian context of Augustine pushing forward the Trinity idea with his manipulations of scripture. The illiterate people cannot do anything remotely similar.

      The Quran explicitly says “BY THEIR HANDS”.

      The notion that illiterate people wrote scripture with their hands is absurd.


  8. earliest gospels say Jesus is a suffering servant and going to give His life as a ransom for many. Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28

    They allude to Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12

    If you make your case only on Synoptics because John is later and had more developed theology; then you have to take Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 as truth.

    The Yale scholars spend a couple of pages on Gathercole’s book that argues for the pre-existence of Jesus in the teaching of the Synoptics. I don’t have Gathercole’s book, but it seems they just dismissed his argument out of hand without much argumentation. They have some argumentation, but not much.

    Noticing some basic things the Yale scholars left out that I was surprised at – 1. they left out important information that has significant bearing on parthenos / virgin and Isaiah 7:14 (page 59-60)

    and 2. They left out important exegetical material on proskuneo and worship. (page 212 – leaving out Matthew 2 and Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 seems like a major omission.)

    seeing how they left out such basic stuff and impacts the exegesis, they may have left out some significant material of Gathercole in his argument.

    I will have to get Gathercole’s book in order to critique Collins and Collins more on that.

    Also, on page 98, Collins and Collins say that the son of man figure in Daniel 7 is “an individual, not a collective symbol”.

    and on page 86 they admit that the son of man figure in Daniel 7 is pre-existent and Jewish in background and context.

    So, if Mark and Matthew and Luke use Daniel 7 and Psalm 110:1, as in Mark 14:60-64, then the synoptics could certainly have understood the Messiah and Son of God as pre-existent.


  9. on page 86 the Yale scholars admit that the son of man figure in Daniel 7 is pre-existent and Jewish in background and context.

    So, if Mark and Matthew and Luke use Daniel 7 and Psalm 110:1, as in Mark 14:60-64, then the synoptics could certainly have understood the Messiah and Son of God as pre-existent.

    All three synoptic gospels quote and allude to Daniel 7:13-14 and Psalm 110; and both Matthew and Mark use them at Jesus’ trial – as in Mark 14:60-64

    Therefore, Jesus is pre-existent in the Synoptics.


  10. nothing startling; but there is good material that actually is on our side. But I don’t agree with some of their conclusions, argumentations, and it is a deficit that they left out key material on what I mentioned.

    but overall, one of their main points is that the Messiah and Son of God = Deity of Christ is from a Jewish context, not a Greco-Roman pagan context.


    • I was impressed by the passages in the Hebrew Bible that use the word ‘God’ of men, eg Psalm 45.


    • “but overall, one of their main points is that the Messiah and Son of God = Deity of Christ is from a Jewish context, not a Greco-Roman pagan context.”
      I highly doubt that. Certainly, there’re some pagan elements in the hebrew bible,yet they did not reach to associate a divine being who is equal with God of Israel in the jewish beliefs. Also, even if there were some violations to the central belief of judaism in the jewish history, those violations must be seen as heretics and violations.
      Paul himself was socked with hellenic ideas though he was a jew. Being a jew doesn’t mean that you’re immune from the culture around you.
      The divine messiah idea has every thing to do with Greco-Roman context, IMO.


    • yet they did not reach to associate a divine being who is equal with God of Israel in the jewish beliefs.

      But those two Yale scholars that Paul Williams likes to promote say otherwise – they wrote that the idea of the Messiah / Son of Man, from Daniel 7:13-14 and Psalm 110:1 and other Inter-testamental Apocryphal texts show pre-existence and divine powers shared with the “Ancient of Days” and is all a Jewish Monotheistic context and background and NOT a Greco-Roman pagan background. Those two scholars, Collins and Collins argue that, and show that.


    • But those two Yale scholars that Paul Williams likes to promote say otherwise – they wrote that the idea of the Messiah / Son of Man, from Daniel 7:13-14 and Psalm 110:1 and other Inter-testamental Apocryphal texts show pre-existence and divine powers shared with the “Ancient of Days” and is all a Jewish Monotheistic context and background and NOT a Greco-Roman pagan background”

      ken, imagine if yhwh came down as a female jew. what would you have been doing ?
      you would be looking at jewish INTERPRETATIONS created later on that yhwh was in a husband and wife relationship eternity past

      just think about it. imagine if father = husband. son= wife.

      they also thought that sophia of yhwh was the consort of yhwh and was the creator of the universe.

      dr ehrman:

      But Sophia also came to be thought of as a (subservient) divine being in Jewish circles as well. Speculation on Sophia begins with the Hebrew Bible, especially Proverbs 8.

      do you believe that this was from jewish monotheistic context , nothing to do with greco-roman ideas?


    • ken, problem with you is you christians use jewish texts which are completely corrupt. scholars can’t even make sense of them. there are readings which are “harder readings” and later variants try to fix them up. the question is, what is the text saying and why did christianity take ONE variant reading and run with it?

      for example , check this out

      no one knows what the psalmist is even saying .it is PURE guess work .
      yet christianity TAKES one READING and spreads it across the globe. why ?


    • “the problem with you Christians” etc.
      Except Muslim Paul Williams is agreeing that these imminent scholars of Yale are saying that the idea was a Jewish Monotheistic idea.


    • Indeed – but I don’t agree they are ‘imminent’ lol


    • eminent

      Sorry I mis-spelled the word.

      I was playing off of Ahmad Deedat’s common expression whenever he would use liberal scholars. I am being kind of sarcastic here, as they are not that famous, but they are scholars, although from a liberal perspective.

      Liked by 1 person

    • And Psalm 22 has nothing to do with the Hebrew texts that the 2 imminent Yale scholars write about in their scholarly exegesis.


    • Ken, I think Dr Ehrman talked about that ” jewish context” which violated the most impratant thing in Judaism suach as the ( wisdome of god), and how some jews believed about it. I say what Quran says. It’s an imitating the disbelievers’ saying of old. It should be seen as heretics. It’s very odd to isolate these heretic ideas from the culture around jews at that time according to those scholars. Again, being a jew doesn’t mean that you’re immune from the pagan culture around you.


    • “Except Muslim Paul Williams is agreeing that these imminent scholars of Yale are saying that the idea was a Jewish Monotheistic idea.”

      ken, so in a monotheistic context , did yhwh have a consort called sophia and it was of the same substance as him?

      MONOTHEISTIC jews used proverbs to prove yhwhs female WISdom (HIKMAH/HOKMAH) created the universe

      was jesus originally female?


    • “Except Muslim Paul Williams is agreeing that these imminent scholars of Yale are saying that the idea was a Jewish Monotheistic idea.”

      maybe you can find yale expert who believes god was named when he was a baby and all these are jewish monotheistic ideas

      btw ken, do you believe in 1 echad or 3 individual echads?

      you don’t believe that god is fully echad, right?

      you have 3 echads + another external echad, right?


  11. Ken Temple, which specific verse in the Gospel of Mathew, provides clear proof of Jesus pre-existence and the doctrine of Incarnation? How about something as clear as Mathew 4: 10

    ‘‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and you shall serve him only.’” This is clear and easy to understand. Why not something similar along the lines of the below?

    ”I am of the same ousia as the Father and the Spirit” Why does this not exist?

    ”I am Yahweh. I have two natures.”

    ”I worship the Father only in human nature”

    ”False Prophets will deny that I am God”

    ”Muhammad is a False Prophet”

    ”My Sheep hear my voice. They know I am their God”

    No wonder we have scholars accepting that Jesus was not claiming to be God, due to absence of such preaching from the earliest strata of the NT data. Even in John, one finds proof that Jesus is not God! John 17: 3

    Liked by 1 person

    • Matthew 2:1-12
      The Magi came to worship the child Jesus – proof of His Deity, and if Deity, pre-existent. (Matthew 2:1-2 and verse 11.

      Matthew 14:33 – they worshipped Jesus as the Son of God. (meaning same substance with the Father from all eternity, demonstrating His power over nature. context of Matthew 14:22-33.

      A literary inclusio – worship in Matthew 2:1-12 and at the end of the book in 28:9 and 28:17.
      Demonstrates the unity of the book of Matthew and part of the author’s original intention was demonstrating that Jesus is fulfillment of Prophesy, the Messiah, the Son of God, and Deity.

      Interesting that chapter 14 is right in the middle of 28 chapters.

      The first verse of his gospel, Matthew 1:1, shows Matthew’s intent to ground the life of Jesus in the OT prophesies of the Messiah being the son of David and the son of Abraham.

      Only God deserves worship – as demonstrated by Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 and John 4:23-24.


    • Ken quite a verse is not “proof” – that is fallacious reasoning. Muslim so not view the 4 gospels as divine Revelation.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Matthew 1:18-25, the virgin birth (no human father, same nature/substance as God the Father)
    and 1:23 also shows this, as His name is Immanuel = “God with us”


    • Who was ‘God with us’ before Jesus?


    • what a joke . god did not say that “god with us” means god becoming a baby. this is mental thinking .

      mary did not even call your god immanuel. jesus was not even considered to be “immanuel”

      “god with us ” = name. god does not need to be named.
      christians are pagan. god REVEALS his names, but he doesn’t ever get NAMED


  13. Ken quite a verse is not “proof” – that is fallacious reasoning. Muslim so not view the 4 gospels as divine Revelation.

    It is both a proof; and also the Qur’an prevents the previous Scriptures as inspired – Surah 5:47; 5:68; 10:94; 2:136; 3:3-4; 29:46

    by Muhammad’s time “the gospel” was all the NT; but he was ignorant of the contents, etc. But he really thought the Scriptures of the Christians was not corrupted.

    In Surah 2:79; 3:78; and 5:13, it does not mean the text was corrupted, but that some people distorted the meaning of the text by wrong interpretations or by forgetting and taking things out of context.


  14. It was at the time of Muhammad and Qur’an and early tafsirs. Only later did they realize they had to change their view, because they realized the contradictions in content.

    But at the time of those verses, in the 600s (say between 613-656 AD) – the Qur’an obviously thought the “Gospel” was the book of the Christians, and the book of the Christians was the NT (even though Muslims did not know that) was not corrupted.


  15. There are also Hadith that indicate it was not corrupted.

    And Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Surah 3:78 refers to Al Bukhari


  16. sorry, I accidentally hit send before I finished.

    There are also Hadith that indicate it was not corrupted.

    And Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Surah 3:78 refers to Al Bukhari as reporting that Ibn Abbas said that the Ayeh means that they orally mis-interpret the text, and that no one can remove God’s words from the actual text.


  17. If I recall rightly, I have seen the Hadith that you have quoted here before, (that seems to say the text was corrupted) but I don’t remember it exactly; can you repeat it here?;

    but the one referred to by Ibn Kathir contradicts that.

    Also there is also the Hadith of Sunan Abu Dawood Book 33, number 4434, about the Torah, which shows Muhammad believed the text of the Torah was not corrupted at that time.


  18. Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 2:196 – reports both views – Tahrif Al nassتحریف النص (corruption of text) and Tahrif Al-maana تحریف المعانی

    Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn `Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and add although none among Allah’s creation can remove the Words of Allah from His Books, they alter and distort their apparent meanings. Wahb bin Munabbih said, “The Tawrah and the Injil remain as Allah revealed them, and no letter in them was removed. However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books that they wrote themselves. Then,

    ﴿وَيَقُولُونَ هُوَ مِنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ﴾

    (they say: “This is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah;)

    As for Allah’s Books, they are still preserved and cannot be changed.” Ibn Abi Hatim recorded this statement. However, if Wahb meant the books that are currently in the hands of the People of the Book, then we should state that there is no doubt that they altered, distorted, added to and deleted from them. For instance, the Arabic versions of these books contain tremendous error, many additions and deletions and enormous misinterpretation. Those who rendered these translations have incorrect comprehension in most, rather, all of these translations. If Wahb meant the Books of Allah that He has with Him, then indeed, these Books are preserved and were never changed.

    my emphasis in bolding



    Liked by 1 person

    • Anyway, here is the authentic hadith which clearly teaches textual corruption of the Bible:

      Liked by 2 people

    • Wahb ibn Munabbih was a christian converted to Islam, so I’m wondering what Injeel was he refrred to?
      Ibn Abbas(ra) in Sahih Bukhari talked about the ( Textual corruption).
      Quran talked about both.

      Liked by 3 people

    • That makes it even more powerful, since there was no other Injeel than the NT, which had been around for 600 years.


    • there were other gospels, even the NT mentions them. Jesus preached a gospel which was quite different to the one you follow Ken.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Whatever Luke refers to in Luke 1:1-4, the Greek indicates that many other “set their hand to writing” – seems to mean unfinished books or narrations or teachings (logia – sayings) ( referred to by Papias ?) of Jesus – these are probably the fragments of different traditions and oral teachings of Jesus, and including Mark and Matthew, which were written before Luke (it seems) – things that are repeated in all 4 of them – and could be portions of what eventually became the Gospel according to John. One of them may be the tradition of John 7:53-8:11 that Papias seems to refer to; but that is not in the oldest manuscripts of the Gospel of John.
      There is no evidence of any other gospel that is extant from the first century.

      The other gospels that we know of are forgeries and fakes and Gnostic gospels of the mid to late second century and 3rd and 4th Centuries that are full of myths and legends and forgeries and false doctrines (Gnostic stuff like that Jesus did not have a body – that the physical world is evil – stuff and world view that Islam disagrees with.)


    • Also, Surah 5:46-47 shows that the written Gospel existed in the days of Muhammad with the people of the Gospel – it is not referring to something that has been lost since the first century. Luke 1:1-4 – But Luke says, “so you will know the exact truth of what you have been taught” – he shows no indication of contradiction to the things that that others and eyewitnesses and servants are writing; in fact; he indicates that the “many” did not finish writing their “gospel account”; but could include Mark and Matthew also, or the beginning drafts of what will eventually become Mark and Matthew. You are implying that Luke 1:1-4 refers to things/writings no longer in existence, but that cannot be what the Qur’an in Sura 5:46-47 is talking about – those verses require that something is written down that the people of Gospel had in their possession, so that they can judge what is written down in it and see its guidance and light.

      وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِهِم بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ ۖ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ
      “And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him [literally: what is before him, or between his hands” لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ = an open written book] in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.”
      Surah 5:46

      وَلْيَحْكُمْ أَهْلُ الْإِنجِيلِ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فِيهِ ۚ وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

      “And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.”
      Surah 5:47

      The way it reads “in it” فیه (v. 47) and “the Gospel in it is guidance and light”الْإِنجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ (v. 46) is not saying “some stuff is good and guidance and light and some stuff is not” – it does not indicate that at all. It reads like the author of the Qur’an thought all of the book of the Gospel was true and guidance and light.

      Surah 5:48 is about the Qur’an, and it is saying it is the protector and guardian of the written books before it.

      وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَمُهَيْمِنًا عَلَيْهِ ۖ فَاحْكُم بَيْنَهُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ ۖ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ عَمَّا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْحَقِّ ۚ لِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مِنكُمْ شِرْعَةً وَمِنْهَاجًا ۚ وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ لَجَعَلَكُمْ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَلَٰكِن لِّيَبْلُوَكُمْ فِي مَا آتَاكُمْ ۖ فَاسْتَبِقُوا الْخَيْرَاتِ ۚ إِلَى اللَّهِ مَرْجِعُكُمْ جَمِيعًا فَيُنَبِّئُكُم بِمَا كُنتُمْ فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ

      To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;”

      And verse 48 indicates that the Qur’an is a protector of the written text, not a “corrector”. The word مُصَدِّقًا (Mosadeqa) means to confirm. The word مُهَيْمِنًا points to protection, guarding it, not correction. مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَمُهَيْمِنًا

      “If the Qur’an’s author believed his message to be consistent with that of the Torah and Injeel out of ignorance, he easily could have made such a claim honestly.” (James White, What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur’an, page 188)

      Since the text of the Gospel for the people of the Gospel had been the NT for centuries, and the text is full of details of the trials, suffering, crucifixion, resurrection of Jesus, and calling Him the Son of God, etc. Muhammad was ignorant of what the NT actually taught.

      But the Qur’an honestly thought it was confirming all of the NT (Gospel) and the Torah and Zobur of the Jews.


    • The Injeel, the NT, which had been around for 600 years, whether in individual scrolls in the first and second centuries, or Codex forms in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries.


    • the thing is that a man worshipping pagan like you wouldn’t have even known about your pagan canon 1 to 2 hundred years after jesus.

      it is possible matthew was glued to books you never knew of.

      The striking thing is that all of the various Christian groups could back up their claims to represent the “true” interpretation of Christianity because all of them had books that were allegedly written by the apostles of Jesus themselves. And so there were Gospels of Matthew, and John, and Peter, and Thomas, and James, and Philip, and Mary and—and on and on, for a very long way. There were various accounts of the apostles’ lives; there were letters allegedly written by Peter, Paul, James, and others; there were apocalypses allegedly written by John, Peter, Paul, Isaiah, and yet others.


    • ken,

      what was going on in the first century?
      what were these christians considering the word of god?

      i quote :

      “Jacoby argues the early church didn’t feel free to make stuff up, because they had issues that the gospels didn’t conveniently address. ”

      “We actually *don’t know* what the big issues were in the latter half of the first century, and have only vague information about the early second century. It’s also assuming a monolithic top-down church with a consistent agenda, when in fact it was hundreds of diverse communities and sects with different interests from each other, and the Gospels just represent four of those communities (just as other Gospels, e.g. Thomas, represent yet others; and for most, we have no Gospel at all to tell us what their concerns were). […] the authors of the Gospels had specific goals they were trying to accomplish; they were not writing “church manuals” to address every issue whatever. They only cover the biggest and most common issues (e.g. dealing with intra-family tension, creating symbolic models for baptism, creating evidence of jesus’ divinity and resurrection), and in most cases are responding to each other rather than arguments outside the Gospels. Finally, no non-fundamentalist scholar agrees with Jacoby.

      They all concur that sayings are being fabricated (especially in John, to argue against and for specific issues John’s authors deemed important; but also in Matthew, whom everyone recognizes is trying to write an anti-Mark, and his main goal is to support the Torah-observant Jewish Christianity, and has put words in Jesus’ mouth to that effect; likewise Luke, who is inventing things to whitewash the conflict between Matthew and Mark).

      For example, Gregory Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (1995) and David Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (1998) and Boris Repschinski, The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form and Relevance for the Relationship between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism (2000), and Richard Pervo, The Mystery of Acts (2008). Those show how real scholars treat the evidence, including the fact that each author had specific agendas, to which other issues took a backseat for them, being not their specific interest or important enough to them to squeeze in.”


    • That’s not true. We don’t say that’s impossible that some copies had remained intact till the time of the prophet peace be upon him, especially in Arabia where the power of Rome & councils were far away. That’s the postion of Imam Ibn Tymyyiah. Also, I have no idea why you repeat the “NT” notion when we talk about the Injil which was given to Jesus.
      Just think about why Wahb, who was scholar in christianity said that if that saying was authentically attributed to him.
      You may think about Abdullah ibn Salam, the jewish Raabi, who converted to Islam, and why he testified for the prophet pbuh.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Only a fool like Ken could believe that damning and incontrovertible evidence against him is


    • Even from the quote you provided from Wahb Ibn Munabbih “However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books that they wrote themselves…
      (they say: “This is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah;)”

      This shows that what is passed off by people as Torah and Injil is not the original even if Wahb thought that the original books were preserved on earth as opposed to in the Heavenly tablets.

      We are not saying here that nothing from the previous scriptures remains. Rather, we are saying segments from those previous revelations and human written texts are passed off as scripture.

      Even you cannot disagree with this Ken. I assume you don’t follow the Catholic or Ethopian canons. If you agree that those cannons have both scripture and man-made writings then in principle you agree with the Muslim position.

      The difference is we think there are things in your cannon which are also not divinely-inspired.


    • The Quran gaurds the previous revelations by bringing out the original message which is still present in what is passed off as scripture while discarding the falsehood of human additions.


    • As for the word “sadaqa”.

      Indeed Allah shall fulfil the true vision which He showed to His Messenger[Quran 48:27]

      Here Allah is confirming the vision shown to the Prophet by fulfilling it.

      The Quran is “musadiqa” of the previous revelations by being the fulfilment of the revelations given to the Prophets.

      You have to make giant leaps of logic to then say Mark, Matthew,Luke,John,Romans,Galatians etc is being confirmed as being from God!


    • The two types of Tahrif are not contradictory.

      They can happen together.


  19. ken bigley,

    (6:115:1) watammat And (has been) fulfilled وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ صِدْقًا وَعَدْلًا
    (7:137:12) watammat And was fulfilled وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ الْحُسْنَىٰ عَلَىٰ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ بِمَا صَبَرُوا
    (7:142:7) fatamma so was completed فَتَمَّ مِيقَاتُ رَبِّهِ أَرْبَعِينَ لَيْلَةً
    (11:119:7) watammat And will be fulfilled وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَةُ رَبِّكَ لَأَمْلَأَنَّ جَهَنَّمَ مِنَ الْجِنَّةِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ

    ken, how can you understand the word “word” refer to the bible?

    Liked by 1 person

  20. The Quran explicitly states that a group among the Jews physically distorted the Torah with their own hands:

    [002:075] Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?- Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of God, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it.

    [002:076] Behold! when they meet the men of Faith, they say: “We believe”: But when they meet each other in private, they say: “Shall you tell them what God hath revealed to you, that they may engage you in argument about it before your Lord?”- Do ye not understand (their aim)?

    [002:077] Know they not that God knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal?

    [002:078] And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.

    [002:079] Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:”This is from God,” to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

    The context is clear that the Quran is referring to TWO GROUPS of people, the literate and illiterate corrupters. It is dishonest to ignore the PLAIN reading of the verse 2:79 and project everything through vv. 75-78 because it is describing two groups. The illiterate corrupters are mentioned in the verse 3:78 too. Christians simply ignore the plain and explicit meaning of 2:79, they wrote the Book (Torah) with their OWN HANDS and claimed it is from Allah. Those weren’t commentary books about the Torah, it was the Torah itself, otherwise the Quran would’ve said “They write the books (plural) with their own hands…” Likewise, the Quran nowhere mentions the word “gospels” (plural) but rather the Gospel (Injeel) given to Jesus himself before the New Testament existed. The Injeel during the Prophet’s time was a collection of Jesus sayings.

    The following Hadith makes it clear that ‘the Book given to Moses’ is actually the Torah::

    Narrated Ikrimah:
    The Holy Prophet (pbuh said to Ibn Suriya’: I remind you by Allah Who saved you from the people of Pharaoh, made you cover the sea, gave you the shade of clouds, sent down to you manna and quails, SENT DOWN THE TORAH TO MOSES, do you find stoning (for adultery) in your Book? He said: You have reminded me by the Great. It is not possible for me to belie you. He then transmitted the rest of the tradition.

    Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (way peace be upon him) as saying:
    There was argument between Adam and Moses. Moses said to Adam: You are our father. You did us harm and caused us to get out of Paradise. Adam said to him: You are Moses. Allah selected you (for direct conversation with you) and wrote with His own Hand THE BOOK (Torah) FOR YOU. Despite this you blame me for an act which Allah had ordained for me forty years before He created me. Allah’s Apostle (pbuh) said:. This is how Adam came the better of Moses and Adam came the better of Moses.

    We certainly gave THE BOOK OF MOSES, but differences arose therein: had it not been that a word had gone forth before from thy Lord, the matter would have been decided between them, but they are in suspicious doubt concerning it. (Q. 11:110)

    “They distort the words from their right places” (Q. 5:13)

    This verse can be interpreted to mean BOTH verbal and physical corruption. If the Verse is talking only about verbal distortion (as Ken would claim) it convey some indication that it is ONLY referring to verbal distortion and not physical tampering too. What are the descriptive keywords the Quran employs to mean verbal distortion and twisting? Consider the following verses:

    “They seek to extinguish the light of Allah WITH THEIR MOUTHS, but Allah refuses but to perfect His light, though the disbelievers may resent it ” (Q. 9:32)

    “They desire to extinguish the light of Allah with the breath of their MOUTHS but Allah will perfect His light” (Q. 61:8)

    “Some of them twist THEIR TONGUES and distort the scriptures (Q. 3:78)

    “With evil intent they would assault you with their hands AND THEIR TONGUES” (60:2)

    “They attribute to God what they hate (for themselves) AND THEIR TONGUES assert falsehood that all good things are for themselves” (Q. 16:62)

    There is among them a section who distort the Book WITH THEIR TONGUES: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, “That is from God,” but it is not from God: It is they who tell a lie against God, and (well) they know it! (Q. 3:78)

    If the Quran (5:13) is only referring to verbal distortion it would’ve mentioned “by their mouths” or “by their tongues” but leaves the matter open, allowing both interpretations that verbal and physical corruption took place. Once again, we cannot ignore the PLAIN and EXPLICIT meaning of the verse 2:79 (tampering of the actual texts), we must interpret Q. 5:13 in the light of the verses 2:75-79 and vice-versa.

    Please read the following article, the Quran says the Decree of Allah cannot be changed, it is NOT referring to the previous scriptures:



  21. No, I just found it on google


  22. Christians claim that Jesus is God because he is called God such as in Hebrews 1:8. However, the OT also calls Human Beings ”Gods” in Psalm 82: 6. The Term used is Elohim, the name of God. Should they be worshipped and regarded as Divine? If not then, why Jesus?


    • Because the context and rest of Psalm 82 demonstrates God is rebuking the unjust judges of the earth and political leaders who think they are “gods” by their arrogant power. Read the whole Psalm.
      context is key.

      “you think you are “gods”, but you will die like men”


    • “You think you are “gods”, BUT YOU WILL DIE LIKE MEN”
      This speaks volumes, Ken!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Ken Temple, Jesus is never called ”God the Son” in the NT, nor is he ever referred to as ”The Second Person of the Trinity”, much as Trinitarians would have wanted that. But more importantly, Jesus is not Yahweh according to NT Experts, for any of the NT Writers. Additionally, in the NT, Jesus is never called ”Ho Theos”, which is a Title reserved fro Yahweh alone. In crude English terms, Ho Theos means ”THE GOD” and refers to the supreme God of all existence, whose Throne is unapproachable and whom nobody has seen. Jesus is never called that. If Jesus is Yahweh, then why not? Strong’s concordance explains that the term ”Ho Theos” is synonymous with the ”Father” alone. Which Father? THE GOD OF JESUS, WHO CREATED HIM.

      I expect an answer from you Ken. By the way, the definite article ”Ho” is very important.

      Liked by 1 person

  23. Jesus is called “Ho Theos” = ὁ θεός, in John 20:28

    ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου

    Also, Jesus Christ is called “the true God” ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς in 1 John 5:20.

    οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος

    20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.


    Hebrews 1:8

    πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου

    8 But of the Son He says,

    “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
    And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.

    2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 also use the definite article “the”, and show the Granville-Sharp rule that shows the Deity of Christ. The Greek grammar shows that Jesus is both God and Savior.


    Romans 9:5 – look it up yourself


    • Ken are you aware of those times in the Jewish Bible when men are called “God” and elohim?


    • It’s amazing that all verses you qouted are not from the mouth of Jesus.
      Hebrew book, it’s a book you don’t know who worte it even. Doesn’t this tell you something, Ken?
      1 John 5, it differs from the definition that Jesus himself gave in John’s gospel for the eternal life, so why do you leave Jesus’ saying to someone else? Regardless that the passage in 1 john 5 might be read in another way.

      You did not give a comment in Psalms while God of Israel was arguing how those people could be called gods while they will die like men?!

      Liked by 1 person

    • All of the 27 books of the NT are “God-breathed”; not just the words of Jesus while He was on earth.

      Liked by 1 person

    • none of them claim to be. Odd that.


    • Yes, some of them do, although in different words.
      But 2 Tim. 3:16 is clear and it is expanding from verse 15 about the OT to the NT by “all Scripture”, since Paul already wrote 1 Tim. 5:18 and equated the OT with the Gospel (the quote is in both Matthew and Luke) as Scripture; and he considered his apostolic preaching and writings as “God’s Word”.

      “For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.” 1 Thessalonians 2:13

      and then in 2 Thess. 2:15 he includes both his oral preaching and teaching and letters as the tradition that is the Word of God. (with 1 Thess. 2:13)

      All through 1 Cor. 1:18-2:16 he is writing of his message as the message of God’s Spirit.

      And Peter affirms all of Paul’s letters as Scripture – 2 Peter 3:16


    • Ken when was the canon of the NT (as we know it today) finally agreed upon by the Church?


    • First, see this:
      10 Misconceptions About the NT Canon: #4: “Books Were Not Regarded as Scripture Until Around 200 AD”

      Irenaeus and Tertullian (their writings are around 180-220 AD) show the early church agreed upon most of the 27 books of the NT. (Irenaeus only does not mention 4 of the 27, and even that does not mean he is not aware of them, he just did not use them in his book “Against Heresies”. Irenaeus doesn’t mention 2 Peter, 3 John, Philemon, and James. Tertullian doesn’t mention 5 of them, the same 4 that Irenaeus does not mention and 2 John. But 2 John is quoted by Polycarp, who is earlier (155 AD), and Philemon is mentioned by Ignatius, who is even earlier (110 AD) Before Irenaeus and Tertullian, we don’t have any other author who wrote as extensively as they did in which we have the documents survived (are extant). Origen around 250 AD names all the 27 books of the NT, in his commentary on Joshua.

      Article on Origen’s list of all 27 books in the NT – I will put on subsequent answer to avoid this auto going into moderation.

      Eusebius later around 325 AD says that there were about 5-7 that were disputed by some, but Irenaeus and Tertullian already agreed with some of those, like Hebrews and Revelation. Papias is very early and mentions the book of Revelation as Scripture.

      It was the smaller books, like 2-3 John, Philemon, Jude (though mentioned by Tertullian) that were in dispute, with 2 Peter, James, Hebrews, and Revelation – by some churches. but Hebrews was accepted and quoted as early as 1 Clement around 96 AD.

      The Muratorian Canon is around 160 AD that has most of the NT books.

      Complete extant lists of all 27 NT agreed upon books:

      Origen in 250- AD
      Athanasius list in Festal letter 39, in 367 AD
      Council of Hippo – 393 AD
      Council of Carthage – 397 AD


    • Ken, that is just 1 scholar. Btw Origen and virtually all the church had a different OT from yours!


    • Full list of the 10 articles on 10 mis-conceptions about the NT canon.
      Very useful for everyone to read and understand, as many people have many mis-understandings about the canon of the NT.



    • the NT canon evolved slowly over the centuries. It took many generations before the NT took the shape it has today. Paul a mere mortal could not have known about this, thus proving you wrong about 2 Tim 3:16.

      The OT canon used in the early church was quite different to yours Ken.


    • Most of it was clear by 160-180 AD, that we have extant testimony.

      Jerome, Athanasius, Mileto of Sardis, and those that were familiar with the Hebrew language did not agree with all or most of the Apocrypha books as canonical Scritpure.
      Jerome clearly rejected all of the Apocrypha and he was a scholar of Hebrew and went to Palestine to live with the Jews and talk to them and learn of their views. (even later Roman Catholics such as Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome in 596-604 AD and Cardinal Cajetan (1500s, who interviewed Luther in 1518, when investigating allegations of heresy) wrote that “all must follow the view of Jerome”)

      Origen mentions Maccabees and the Epistle of Jeremiah, but not the others. Maccabees itself admitted that prophesy ceased around the time that both Jews and Protestants agree with – the last books being Chronicles and Malachi. around 430 BC. The Jews, Josephus (Against Apion 1:8), Jerome, and Jesus (Luke 11:51-52; 24:44) agree with the Protestants on the OT canon.


    • “Most of it was clear by 160-180 AD” – but far from all.

      Jerome was not the church. His view did not hold sway. Other scholars disagreed wit him eg Augustine – who had a different Bible from yours Ken.


    • His view held sway until the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which is actually the first time that the canon of all Scripture is dogmatically defined by an Ecumenical council, per the Roman Catholic understanding of church history. The councils of Hippo and Carthage were provincial local councils that did not have dogmatic authority over all Christendom.


    • “held sway” may be too strong; rather the OT canon was debated from Jerome and Augustine’s time until Trent. The only reason Trent wanted those books is because they seemed to have verses that people pray to the dead for their salvation – cause they wanted to have that practice and purgatory – to pray for people in purgatory to eventually come out of purgatory. A very bad heresy.


    • ” The only reason Trent wanted those books..” was because it was the canon of the early church. Your bible is a recent innovation.


    • “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
      And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.”

      Where is that a quote from Ken?


      Romans 9:5:

      “to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”


    • Hebrews 1:8 is quoting from Psalm 45:6, and Hebrews says it is “about the Son, it says, “O God, Your throne . . . ”


    • “Hebrews 1:8 is quoting from Psalm 45:6”


      Here is the psalm in full. Tell me, what is the psalm about? And whom is being addressed in verses 6 & 7?

      Psalm 45
      Ode for a Royal Wedding
      To the leader: according to Lilies. Of the Korahites. A Maskil. A love song.

      1 My heart overflows with a goodly theme;
      I address my verses to the king;
      my tongue is like the pen of a ready scribe.
      2 You are the most handsome of men;
      grace is poured upon your lips;
      therefore God has blessed you for ever.
      3 Gird your sword on your thigh, O mighty one,
      in your glory and majesty.
      4 In your majesty ride on victoriously
      for the cause of truth and to defend[a] the right;
      let your right hand teach you dread deeds.
      5 Your arrows are sharp
      in the heart of the king’s enemies;
      the peoples fall under you.
      6 Your throne, O God, endures for ever and ever.
      Your royal sceptre is a sceptre of equity;
      7 you love righteousness and hate wickedness.
      Therefore God, your God, has anointed you
      with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;

      8 your robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia.
      From ivory palaces stringed instruments make you glad;
      9 daughters of kings are among your ladies of honour;
      at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.
      10 Hear, O daughter, consider and incline your ear;
      forget your people and your father’s house,
      11 and the king will desire your beauty.
      Since he is your lord, bow to him;
      12 the people of Tyre will seek your favour with gifts,
      the richest of the people 13 with all kinds of wealth.
      The princess is decked in her chamber with gold-woven robes;
      14 in many-coloured robes she is led to the king;
      behind her the virgins, her companions, follow.
      15 With joy and gladness they are led along
      as they enter the palace of the king.
      16 In the place of ancestors you, O king, shall have sons;
      you will make them princes in all the earth.
      17 I will cause your name to be celebrated in all generations;
      therefore the peoples will praise you for ever and ever.



    • The New Testament apostles and writers of Scripture had authority to interpret the OT properly. Barnabas is the best candidate for the human writer of Hebrews, and he is called an apostle in Acts 14:4 and 14:14, with Paul. He is a Levite (Acts 4:36, which shows why author of Hebrews is so familiar with Levitical book and priestly details of the tabernacle and temple, the son of Encouragement (see hint in Hebrews 13:22, and knows Timothy – 13:23). Tertullian also put forth that Barnabas wrote Hebrews.

      So, the writer of Hebrews was inspired by God to write “But of the Son, it says, “Your throne, O God . . . ”

      It is God-breathed truth.


    • “All of the 27 books of the NT are “God-breathed”; not just the words of Jesus while He was on earth”
      Who said that ? Jesus? His disciples?
      The other question is why do you think that the words of Paul to be words of God himself? Just because Paul said that?

      Liked by 1 person

  24. “Therefore God, your God, has anointed you
    with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;”

    You shot yourself in the foot there Paul.

    God does have companions, through the incarnation.

    We have it here in this Psalm in black and white.

    In the context it is clear that the companions referred to are other human beings.

    This is contrary to the teachings of Islam.


    • In the context of the psalm the king is called “God”.

      6 Your throne, O God, endures for ever and ever.
      Your royal sceptre is a sceptre of equity;

      It is against Islamic teaching – yes – but the Bible has been corrupted. Only the Quran is pure and unaltered by men.

      Liked by 1 person

    • quote :
      Do you need Psalm 45 to be read to you? You are reading very selectively and ignoring the text that kills your belief.
      That is the cognitive dissonance at work.
      See Psalm 45:9-11 about the queen. Verse 11 says “the king will desire your beauty.” Jesus would pluck his eye out. Verse 9 has the queen in “the gold of Ophir”. Jesus seemed to prefer more humble women. OTOH, why would Jesus’ queen wear heavenly pavement?
      Since the passage is clearly not about Jesus, the author of Hebrews was wrong. Verse 16 is not about Jesus, either. The throne of God was just what the Hebrews called their human king’s throne.
      Therefore, Hebrews 1 does not support the Trinity belief.


      Many translations have “O God” in Psalm 45:6 with footnotes to the phrase.
      b.Psalm 45:6 Or Your throne is a throne of God, it
      c.Hebrews 1:8 Or God is your throne
      c.Psalm 45:6 Here the king is addressed as God’s representative.

      The context of Psalm 45 is that it is a love song to the king, not to Jesus. See

      Psalm 45:16 (NIV)
      16 Your sons will take the place of your fathers;
      you will make them princes throughout the land.
      Are you going to argue that Jesus will have sons to take his place?

      Without the “O God”, the trinitarian interpretation falls apart. Your belief system is in shambles.


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: