Best of both worlds

Brother Paul.jpg

Paul “Bilal” Williams, Muslim blogger, bibliophile.

Advertisements


Categories: Wisdom

Tags: , ,

68 replies

  1. Amazing grace

    Liked by 2 people

  2. “No you don’t get both, you get Muhammad and some phantom named Isa a name which never existed until the time of Muhammad”

    but a pagan god with two Contradictory NATURES did exist ?

    phantom
    ˈfantəm/Submit
    noun
    a ghost.
    “a phantom who haunts lonely roads”
    synonyms: ghost, apparition, spirit, spectre, wraith, shadow; More
    a figment of the imagination.

    a “man-god” with 2 CONTRADICTORY natures did exist?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. And nothing you write has anything to do with what Jesus actually taught. LOL

    Like

  4. Some believe the man-god still exists. Some don’t.

    Super-smart, fantastic, great. It’s true

    Liked by 2 people

  5. “Mr Heathcliff nothing you wrote has anything to do with what Christians believe.”

    “i don’t know the hour because i don’t know my fathers brain”

    “i know the hour because i have full access to my fathers brain”

    do you really believe that this figment of imagination really exists?

    it is a LIE invented by human worshippers.

    Like

  6. Super Smart do believe the God-man still exists? What about the Christians who don’t?

    Like

  7. “l I know what Jesus (Yeshua) did and taught,”

    you mean you know what matthew who stole 90% of mark told you about jesus ?
    you mean you know what luke told you about jesus by stealing from mark and other written sources.
    you mean you know about jesus from john who was happy to put jesus on steroids.

    Like

  8. An Islamic Jesus is not the true Jesus.

    The true Jesus is communicated in all 27 books of the NT. (about 500-600 years before Islam came on the scene)

    Jesus taught His own Deity – John 14:9; John 10:27-30; 8:24: 8:56-58 and received worship – Matthew 14:33; 2:1-12; 28:9; 28:16.

    Jesus taught the doctrine of the Trinity in seed form in Matthew 28:19 – “baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”.

    The rest of the NT expands upon those truths. John 1:1-5; 1:14-18; 5:17-18; John 20:28;
    Mark 1:1, 1:11; 3:11; 5:7; 14:60-64; 15:39; Luke 1:26-35

    Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8, 10-12
    Colossians 1:15-20
    Philippians 2:5-8
    Romans 9:5
    Romans 1:2-4

    Like

  9. “Of course I believe the God-man still exists, he is the God-man”

    the pagan fiction with 2 CONTRADICTORY natures believed that it was jewish god which was brought out from a woman

    it thought that it had to kill itself to put an end to its eternal jewish law.

    Like

  10. “You must be quoting from that missing Islamic injeel. The book the islamic ISA is said to have had but just like the islamic isa you have no proof of such a book ever existing. LOL”

    so you believe that handicapped pagan fiction you believe in doesn’t know the mind of the father?

    i thought the human nature didn’t know but the divine bit did?
    or is the divine bit unable to have full access to the same knowledge as the father?
    how then are they “co-equal” ?

    Like

  11. Super Smart I would suggest you go and bring the other bible-proof self acclaimed true Christian “heretics” in line. Should keep you busy. When you are finished then you come back and annoy Muslims.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. When you say bibliophile does that mean lover of books or lover of the Bible?

    Liked by 1 person

  13. “Except even Bart Ehrman admits that the non-canonical Gospels (the non-4) are second century Gnostics; ”

    but ehrman in reply to a question about lost 1st century gospels said :
    Bart January 16, 2017
    Yes, I think there probably were other Gospels. I’m not sure how many. Luke himself says there were “many” (Luke 1:1-4)

    so how does bart ehrman know for surety that gnosticism didn’t go back to 1st century?


    whereas the 4 that are the true Gospels, were all written before 100 AD.”

    quote :
    The side that won these conflicts claimed they had always been the majority view within the religion. And they appealed to their own books to prove it, and rejected the books of the other groups. And so Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were “in,” and the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, James, and Mary were “out.” It was all a matter of having written authorities to support your views.

    /////

    ” The 4 true ones are first century.”

    what about the 1st century gospels that did not make it in today’s bible?

    “The false ones – “gospel of Peter”(150-200 AD), “gospel of Thomas”(140-200 AD), “gospel of philip” (180-350 AD) and “gospel of mary” etc. are all second and some are third century.”

    These are all Gnostic gospels and forgeries of the authorship claims, since all these people died in the first century.”

    quote :
    Bart January 8, 2017
    Yes, that’s correct. The reason is that the NT Gospels are our earliest ones. So they did manage to get those in at least! But unfortunately there were probably even earlier Gospels that somehow got lost (e.g., Q; and Luke says there were “many” who had written Gospels before him).

    It’s striking that all these other groups could, and did, appeal to the canonical Gospels in support of their own views just as much as the orthodox did.

    //////////

    SO HOW Does ehrman know that marcionism, gnosticism,docetism and ebionite doesn’t have early support?

    Liked by 1 person

  14. you said :
    whereas the 4 that are the true Gospels, were all written before 100 AD.

    okay, lets see

    quote :

    Given the standard dating of early Christian literature, most of our literary sources about Jesus come from the end of the first century, not too long before the early second century, in which apocryphal tales of Jesus flourished. From a historical perspective, I don’t see how you can have any confidence that the late first century sources preserve only true recollections about Jesus, but that early second century sources are apocryphal.

    /////

    Like

  15. “therefore, your argument is false.”

    the truth is that christianity left no system for verification .

    here is proof :

    Christians cherry-pick what they want out of the early Church fathers, cite is as historically correct within the cloak of “tradition,” and then ignore those writings counter to their position.

    They embrace Papias when it comes to authorship of Mark and Matthew; ignore and abandon him when it comes to Judas’ death, Jesus statements, or the Gospel of Hebrews because he becomes inconvenient. Embrace Acts of Peter regarding how Peter died; ignore Acts of Peter why Peter died. Same with Acts of Paul. Discard Gospel of Peter as “too fanciful;” embrace Gospel of Matthew as historical fact. Point out Ignatius’ use of the star phenomenon at Jesus’ birth; ignore it is nothing like the account of Matthew.

    Write off the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, hold as historical the petulant Jesus child of Luke 2. Point out 1 Clement’s use of Jesus’ saying; ignore that pesky phoenix. The list goes on and on and on.

    Perhaps more relevant to our present topic, utilize Clement of Alexandria for the gospel order; disregard Clement’s claim Cephas and Peter were two separate people.

    As these discussions go, the Christians’ method becomes apparent—if it was written within the 1st or 2nd Century AND it helps the Christian’s immediate argument—then consider it “historical.” If it does not, either ignore it, or discard it for being “too late” or “legendary.”

    Why the first 100 years? (“100 years” from what?) Why such an arbitrary number? Why not 80? Or 120?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Why the first 100 years? (“100 years” from what?) Why such an arbitrary number? Why not 80? Or 120?

      Because the apostles of Jesus Christ died by 100 AD, and revelation ceased and all the 27 books were already written by then. and most scholars believe Revelation was last and written around 96 AD.

      see John 17:8

      word of the Father – to Jesus, and from Jesus to the disciples

      John 14:26 and 16:12-13

      “lead you into all the truth” and “bring to your remembrance all that I have spoken to you” teaches the principle that revelation ends with them and/or someone associated with them to write.

      Jude 3 – “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”

      Shows a finalization to revelation. A finished body of doctrine revealed.

      Like

    • “most scholars believe Revelation was last and written around 96 AD.”

      This is incorrect. Most scholars believe 2 Peter was written last around the mid 2nd century.

      Notice that neither Jesus nor his disciples spoke of forming an additional canon of Scripture to the Hebrew Bible. Your NT took centuries to compile – reaching its definitive form only in the mid to late 4th century.

      Also, the NT as a distinct Book of Scripture was not part of the faith and doctrine of the Church in the 1st century.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. quote :
    Why the first 100 years? (“100 years” from what?) Why such an arbitrary number? Why not 80? Or 120?

    “Because the apostles of Jesus Christ died by 100 AD”

    this is not proof that they believed in the 27 books.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The early church took a while to discover, discern and gather under one book cover all 27, true, (they were persecuted, and the Romans burned lots of Scriptures) but another fact that you forget is that there was no such thing as a book like our modern books in AD 100; the 27 books/ letters were all individual rolled up scrolls; but they agreed on most of them and all the gospels very early; and given what we have extant and the testimony of Tertullian and Irenaeus ( 180-220 AD) (they both testified of all 4 gospels, all of Paul’s letters except for Philemon, and they testified for 1 Peter and 1 John, Jude, and Hebrews), most of the NT books were known and considered canonical. (it seems that they either did not know about 3 John or Philemon or James, or had no use to quote from them. Tertullian does not use 2 John, but Irenaeus does.) and earlier writers did refer to Philemon, and 2 earlier writers seem to allude to or quote from 2 Peter.

      The parchment or papyrii sheets had to be flattened out and tied together, and that was called a codex (developed in the mid second and early third centuries – 150-250 AD); and then later developed into a “book” with a binding.

      The Christian writers before Irenaeus and Tertullian did not write much that we have extant. Clement of Alexandria was around the same time as Tertullian and his use of the NT books is about the same as Tertullian and Irenaeus. But that still does not mean that they did not know about those other small books.

      The Christian writers before them only wrote a few things, much smaller letters than Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria’s works, – such as I Clement (96 AD), Pseudo-Barnabas (130 AD), the Didache(70-120 AD), Polycarp (155 AD), Ignatius (110 AD), The Epistle to Diognetes (150-225 AD), the Shepherd of Hermas (130-150 AD), and Justin Martyr (165 AD). Justin Martyr’s works are larger than those, but only seems to know about the gospels. Papias was early, but all we have are some fragments of his works. Eusebius reports that he wrote a lot, but we don’t have them extant.

      Like

    • “(they were persecuted, and the Romans burned lots of Scriptures)”

      don’t know if you are referring to the same thing lizzie was referring to but
      when i got her claim checked out , here is what was said

      quote :
      Completely made up as described. Dis you ask what alleged documents they were talking about and the evidence that persecutors destroyed then.
      This sounds like it could be a mangled understanding about what the early Catholic Church did to competing Christian sects (i.e. “heretics” whose texts the Church did try to destroy. The Catholic Church became “orthodoxy” basically because they were the last man standing and their version of events became official “history,” but there was no early incident of non-Christian “persecutors” destroying early Christian texts or trying to rewrite Christian history. Does the apologist in this debate actually name any of those alleged documents?
      It’s possible they may be talking about the destruction of official Roman archives in Judea (archives that some early Christian writers contained the birth record of Jesus); but that building was burned down by the Jewish Zealots during the first Jewish Revolt, not to persecute Christians but to destroy debt records
      So this person is either fabricating something completely or is garbling something.

      Like

  17. ok
    “most conservative, believing scholars believe Revelation was last and written around 96 AD.”

    They were God-breathed / inspired the moment the ink dried, and all existed in the first century.
    If they were God-breathed at the time of writing, then then are also canonical (meaning criterion, standard) from God’s viewpoint, no matter how long it took for all the Christians all over the empire in all or most of the churches to agree.

    Like

    • “no matter how long it took for all the Christians all over the empire in all or most of the churches to agree.”

      jesus had no control over what people said about him. for this reason one has 27 different opinions.
      in 100 years a lot of lies were written about the man.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Notice that neither Jesus nor his disciples spoke of forming an additional canon of Scripture to the Hebrew Bible.

    2 Timothy 3:16 – “all Scripture” is an expansion from verse 15, which is about the OT Hebrew Bible.

    The apostle Paul quoted Gospels (from both Matthew and Luke) along with Law in 1 Timothy 5:18 as Scripture.

    and Peter affirmed all of Paul’s letters. ( 2 Peter 3:16)

    2 Timothy was Paul’s last letter, and he views his preaching, teaching, and writing it down as “God’s Word” (I Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:15 – “by oral word or by letter”) and “spiritual truths taught by the Spirit” ( I Corinthians chapters 1 – 2) .

    Like

    • Ken,
      What’s the clearest statement that Jesus declared tha he’s God for the people who had been taught that god is not a man for almost 1500 yeras. What do you think the best statement that Jesus made in your opnion?

      Like

    • “The apostle Paul quoted Gospels (from both Matthew and Luke) along with Law in 1 Timothy 5:18 as Scripture.”

      so how come he (paul) never has his jesus PREDICT his resurrection ?

      Like

  19. Jesus said, “Before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:56-58) – the Pharisees and Jews opposed to Him picked up stones to stone Him.

    Jesus said, “Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” John 8:24

    Like

    • I agree with the vast majority of New Testament scholars who think the historical Jesus did not say these words – they were put in his mouth decades after his time.

      Liked by 2 people

    • It does not matter what those scholars say; the historical Jesus said them, as testified by the apostle John.

      Like

    • How do you know Jesus actually said them? What evidence do you have?

      Like

    • Because the Gospel of John is God-breathed, inspired; God’s word; 500 years before Islam and Muhammad.

      Like

    • “John is God-breathed, inspired; God’s word” – does the gospel say that it is?

      Like

    • Where do you get the demand that every book of Scripture has to explicitly say it is itself “God-breathed” ?

      John 17:17 – “Your Word is Truth”

      , along with John 17:8 – The Father’s Word was committed to Jesus, and Jesus word was committed to the disciples

      14:26 – “The Holy Spirit will teach you all things; and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you”

      John 16:12-13 – 2 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
      13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.”

      along with 20:30-31
      Faith in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God results in eternal life.
      This is also parallel with Paul’s statement in 2 Tim. 3:14-15 – that the OT is able to give one the wisdom leading to salvation. So John 20:30-31 puts His entire gospel on par with the OT in ability to lead a person to salvation.

      and the ending testimony – in 21:24 – “this testimony is true”

      The Gospel of John claims to be the truth and studying all these verses together, is claiming to be the Word of God.

      If it is the “Word of God” and “truth”, then it is God-breathed / inspired.

      And, for believers in Christ, the characteristics/qualities of the Gospel of John demonstrate the nature of the book; and so it is self-authenticating as “God’s Word” and “inspired” and “God-breathed”.

      Like

    • “Where do you get the demand that every book of Scripture has to explicitly say it is itself “God-breathed” ?”

      Straw man – I never asked that.

      I simply asked you where does the gospel of John say that it is the Word of God?

      You have not given a single verse that says it is. Therefore this is your belief – not taught in the Fourth Gospel.

      Liked by 1 person

    • gospel of john made a ritual out of jesus

      Like

    • “It does not matter what those scholars say; the historical Jesus said them, as testified by the apostle John.”

      “apostle john” was long dead when gospel of john was written.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “It does not matter what those scholars say; the historical Jesus said them, as testified by the apostle John.”

      Because he wrote in his own chapter, “We know his testimony is true.”

      smh

      Like

    • Ken, you wrote
      “Jesus said, “Before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:56-58) – the Pharisees and Jews opposed to Him picked up stones to stone Him.
      Jesus said, “Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” John 8:24”
      Good! I wanna talk with the sincere man inside you not the apologist who tries making points, first.
      Now, the simple and the most rational question is if that statement is the clearest and the best one in which Jesus declared his divinity, how on earth Q, M, L, Mark, Matthew, and Luke could forget to tell us about it. This is a question made by Dr Ehrman, and I think it’s fair from our side to ask this simple question.

      Second, we’re talking about people who had been taught that their God is not a man for almost 1500 years, and that was done generation after generation. It’s embedded firmly in their hearts and their minds, so why I would think that the best way to declare your divinity by saying (before Abraham was I’m ) with a context in which Jesus had defined who he is in the same incident while he was talking to them in which he said “but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God” (John 8:40)? Also in the same incident, Jesus defined who their God is in which he said “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God” (John 8:54)?
      I mean what did Jesus expect from those people to understand after he said (Before Abraham was I am ) with that context that he’s a man who hears from God, and if he glorified himself then his glory is nothing? What could have those people understood?
      Believe me, Ken. I find that the worst way to declare your divinity for poor people who were not guilty except by following what they had been taught from their God through his prophets for 1500 years. It’s bizarre and not rational, and it has nothing to do with all loving god! Don’t you think?

      Third, in the same gospel we read in (John 18) that Jesus was so confident about his teaching. When Jesus got captured, and he was questioned, Jesus said “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said NOTHING IN SECRET. Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said.”(John 18:20-21)
      Now, the simple question is how on earth did jews forget that Jesus said (before Abraham was born I am) while that was the clearest statement made by Jesus affirming his blasphemy? It turned out that no one could’ve testified against him. Just think about it, Ken.
      Jesus again hammered those jews by his confidence by saying “If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?”, yet no one could’ve quoted him substantiated Jesus’ balspanmy! Why? I cannot understand why no one could’ve testified against him?

      Forth, in same chapter (John 18), we read when the soldiers was looking for Jesus, Jesus asked them “Whom do you seek?”, they answered “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I AM he.”
      Then the scene is repeated, So he asked them again, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus answered, “I told you that I AM ”
      If you noticed , Ken Jesus interpreted (egō eimi/ I AM). Let ‘s us just make a backward sequence:
      I AM ====> Jesus of Nazareth ====> A MAN who hears the truth from God.
      So, if you asked me who he was, I would answer he was Jesus of Nazareth, a man who hears the truth from God. I don’t find this to be anything close for declaring “divinity” !

      Finally, Jesus said in (John 11:26-27)
      “and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
      She answered “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”
      I testify and believe that Jesus is the christ ,a prophet & man who hears the truth from God. This is the teaching the prophet ﷺ taught us after 600 years from Jesus’ time. I cannot see why you have objection in this statement? If the prophetﷺ had come with different teachings dramatically, I would not have any problem to go with his pure massage that Allah revealed to him not with books you don’t know who wrote them. However, this is not the case since what the prophetﷺ taught is compatible perfectly with:
      the earliest teachings of Jesus himself, with OT, and with the major outlines you find in John’s gospel.
      If you’re going to insist to raise a such objection, then what should jews say about your religion which came 1500 years later? Jews have every excuse to reject what christians present about Jesus which is not the case with muslims.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Q, M, L, = theoretical non-existent documents.

      no time right now to write more; but Lord willing, later.

      Like

    • Bart Ehrman is working from the presuppositions of the Bauer hypothesis, which is thoroughly refuted by the book, “The Heresy of Orthodoxy” by Michael J. Kruger and Andreas Kostenberger

      Like

    • “Second, we’re talking about people who had been taught that their God is not a man for almost 1500 years, and that was done generation after generation.”

      That is still true, “God is not a man” -that He should lie (because God cannot lie – Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18), nor the son of man, that He should repent” – Numbers 23:19 – God cannot lie and does not change His mind like a human and cannot repent, because God can never sin, and God knows all things in the future infallibly. But it doesn’t mean that from our point of view, it does not seem like He changed His mind, as in Jonah 3:4 and 3:10. The statement in Jonah 3:4 is properly understood with “unless you repent”; and God knows that the Assyrians will repent.

      So, Numbers 23:19 is still true in the sense that the OT used it and meant it. But the OT never said that God cannot become a man, and also at the same time maintain His divine nature, as in the incarnation of Jesus the eternal Son, the second person of the Trinity.

      Like

    • “a man who told you the truth” is not contradictory to the Trinity or Deity of Christ, because He is both 100 % man and 100 % God by nature.

      “which I heard from God” (John 8:40) is also not contradictory because the Father is God for sure. He means “God the Father” there.

      and John 11:25-26 – the phrase “Son of God” means the same nature as the Father – homo-ousias (same substance), and Luke 1:34-35 testifies to that also – the power of the most High and the nature of the Holy Spirit show that the Son is the same substance as the Father and the Spirit; which results in the revelation of the Trinity. “. . . The Word was with God and the Word was God.” John 1:1

      The point you make about “the Jews” who rejected Christ – the Pharisees and Jewish leadership rejected Him, yes; but not all Jews rejected Him – almost all (90-95 % ?) the first century believers/followers of Jesus were Jews!

      Like

    • yet no one could’ve quoted him substantiated Jesus’ balspanmy! Why? I cannot understand why no one could’ve testified against him?

      Yes they did; you have to keep reading – it is clear in John 19:6-7 – they are recalling John 5:17-18; 8:24; 8:56-58; 10:27-30, etc.

      Like

    • john does not have the blasphemy charge like one finds in the other gospels . the guy knew that importing it from the synoptics would contradict john 8:48 – 59 and john 10:22-42

      Like

    • quote :
      “If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?”, yet no one could’ve quoted him substantiated Jesus’ balspanmy! Why?

      i think john messed up badly on that one. he couldn’t make jesus divine when jesus was getting interrogated .
      he needed everyone to have amnesia including his jesus, he knew that he couldn’t take the route of the synoptics.

      Like

    • “Yes they did; you have to keep reading – it is clear in John 19:6-7 – they are recalling ”

      quote :

      But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.”

      7The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”

      /////
      33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

      the high priest blasphemy charge is not to be found in johns version . john is portraying the jews as idiots.

      what is this “son of god”

      i thought the charge was “claim to be god”

      ??

      john is not saying that they are serious.

      he is portraying the religious jews as idiots.

      marks version :

      Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

      62“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

      ///
      63The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64“You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

      ///

      quote :
      Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am god’s son’?

      oh, i forgot, that’s not from mark, that’s from john .

      where do you find this blasphemy charge in johns version ?

      quote :

      20“I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. 21Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.”

      22When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby slapped him in the face. “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” he demanded.

      23“If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?” 24Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.

      jesus is not getting done by the jews for blasphemy in johns version .

      quote :
      Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am god’s son’?

      Like

    • Ken, I still try to communicate with the sincere man inside you.
      Have you noticed your answers?! It’s the kind of thinking that you want to force upon the text. However the text itself does not bear these meanings that you refer to. In fact, the text cannot bear these meanings.
      It seems you lost the point of discussion. I’m not asking about how christians reflect their understanding for their god.
      I was asking about the (clearest & the best) statement made by Jesus in which he declared his divinity. Your answer was ( Before Abraham was born I am).
      I gave many reasons about this statement using John’s gospel itself that it should NOT be understood as divinity claim, let alone to be the clearest and the best way for Jesus to declare his divinity.
      When I said that god -man idea even doesn’t match with the clear idea about God for jews which is shown in the same incidence where that statement appeared, you want to argue about how god can be man? Ken, this is your justification for something Jesus clearly didn’t intend in that chapter. Let’s just be honest. I mean what did Jesus expect from those people to understand after he said (Before Abraham was I am ) with that context that he’s a man who hears from God, and if he glorified himself then his glory is nothing? What could have those people understood? Divinity? It’s impossible. I find that the worst way to declare your divinity for poor people who were not guilty except by following what they had been taught from their God through his prophets for 1500 years. It’s bizarre and not rational, and it has nothing to do with all loving god! Don’t you think?

      You wrote :
      ” Q, M, L, = theoretical non-existent documents”
      This is not a problem at all although as I know that most NT scholars including conservative ones don’t disagree about these documents. However, you still have Mark, Matthew, and Luke! The question still stands. Again, how on the world could they forget to tell us about the clearest and the best statement verifying Jesus’ divinity?

      You wrote:
      “almost all (90-95 % ?) the first century believers/followers of Jesus were Jews!.”
      Ok ! Just read John’s gospel to see what kind of belief that those people concluded from (I AM) which you consider the clearest and the best declaration that Jesus made about his divinity.
      We read in (John 4) , When Jesus talked with the Samaritan woman, she concluded and said
      “Sir, I perceive that you are a PROPHET”….
      “The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.”
      Jesus instantly said “I who speak to you am he/Egō eimi/Ἐγώ εἰμι,”
      Then when she went to her people, she said “Come, see a MAN who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?” ….. “Many Samaritans from that town BELIEVED in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me all that I ever did.”….”And many more believed because of his word”…

      In (John 7) , People were arguing about Jesus with many titles. They don’t include divinity.
      In ( John 7:31) & ( John 7:40), those people BELIEVED in him as a prophet and the christ. That’s it. Jesus didn’t even try to correct them for believing in that alone.

      You wrote:
      “Yes they did; you have to keep reading – it is clear in John 19:6-7 – they are recalling John 5:17-18; 8:24; 8:56-58; 10:27-30, etc.”
      I cannot believe what I just read!
      Ken, have you noticed that when Jesus was urging them to bring anything wrong he said, the couldn’t. However, when Jesus was delivered to Pilate, they tried to make a point against him? What a courage?
      Which thing that Jesus said against their law ?
      The answer is (he has made himself the Son of God) !
      Are you serious, Ken?
      This very point Jesus defended himself clearly in (John 10)!
      Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken”
      do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

      I find it very strange that you took those jews’ view and left what Jesus said!
      Why would you claim to be christian ( the one who follows the christ) then?

      May Allah open your heart to the truth.

      Like

    • Hard to understand your points here. Sorry; I don’t understand you.

      Like

    • KT “It does not matter what those scholars say; the historical Jesus said them, as testified by the apostle John.”..

      This statement from you alone KT is enough to know that you cannot be taken seriously or have the propensity to engage in any objective discussion about who the historical Jesus was, according to your own sources…

      Like

    • KT “Again, you guys demand things that are not necessary to demand – just accept what is there and read and study it in context and ask God to reveal Himself to you”

      KT you seriously need to be sincere, objective and take your own advice mate… and be sincere and ask *God* to reveal *Himself* to you….

      Wait!.. which *god* from the godhead to reveal himself?… did you mean them?..lol…

      Like

    • Which part that you could not understand?
      For example, the fact the Mark, Mattew, and Luke did not mention that statament of Jesus when he said ( I am ) which makes us be wondering why? Is this hard to understand?
      The fact that you neglected Jesus’ explanation that the ( Son of God) cannot be blasphemy in ( John10), but you adopted the jews’ veiw about that title. Is this hard to understand?

      Like

    • Jesus was right in John 10; but the Jews continued to think and charge Him with blasphemy. (John 10:39 – they continued to try and arrest Jesus and kill Him; and John 19:1-7) To be “Son of God” was making Himself equal with God Himself – John 5:17-18. The whole gospel of John hangs together as a unified document.

      It is not necessary to demand that Matthew, Mark, and Luke have to have the same material that John has. That is why there are 4 gospels, to complete the revelation of what we need from the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. And the rest of the NT gives us rest of the revelation.

      At least that short version synopsis was much easier to understand; thanks for clarifying.

      Like

  20. so how come he (paul) never has his jesus PREDICT his resurrection ?

    Because Jesus already predicted His resurrection in the Gospels, see Matthew 16:21; 17:9; 17:22-23; Mark 8:30-31; 9:31; 10:32-35; Luke 9:22; 18:31-33;

    why would the apostle Paul need to write about Jesus’ prediction, since it was already quite clear and repeated in the synoptic gospels?

    Again, you guys demand things that are not necessary to demand – just accept what is there and read and study it in context and ask God to reveal Himself to you.

    Like

    • “The apostle Paul quoted Gospels (from both Matthew and Luke) along with Law in 1 Timothy 5:18 as Scripture.”

      so paul quoted the gospels but he thought there was no point in talking about his jesus predict his resurrection even in the EARLIEST of creeds given to the corinthians ?

      Like

    • you missionaries are a joke .

      Liked by 1 person

    • “…study it in context and ask God to reveal Himself to you.”

      It should be ask God to reveal themselves to you? No? Remember: 3 Who’s, one What? No?

      Like

    • barhanudin

      on the other hand denis giron is promoting the version of trinity which says that each person is an attribute or a bit embedded within the “one god”

      it is like saying “the all seeing one” is not “the all hearing one” because these are attributes /persons EMBEDDED within the one god

      so how many attributes is “the son” ?
      how many attributes is “the father” ?

      what is the “one god” then? how many attributes does it contain?

      your eye is in you but it isn’t you, but girons god is an attribute a “you”

      do you remember william lane craigs version of trinity in which he has 3 heads attached to one body? giron is promoting this version of trinity.

      Like

    • William Lane Craig’s illustration of that dog Cerberus from Greek mythology was terrible !!

      Like

  21. Meh, silly and inaccurate statement to make. Not only is Jesus not in the Quran but you Muslims can keep your Muhammad.

    If you ask me my retort at the time was better and to the truth.

    “You also get a one way ticket to hell”

    Like

Please 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: