I recently learned from academic biblical that christian god has commander and chief. It say that it has been sent with commandment on what to do and what to say
This is problem because it has been commanded pre-incarnation
So who commands the almighty ? NOBODY , GOD is his own authority.
To command is to control
Nobody control the almighty
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same-substance ( homo-ousias) – all three persons are God by nature/substance, but there is only One God. One nature/substance ذات، جوهر، ماهیت but three persons.
When you call Jesus as your God, then there’re necessitations for that label/belief. One of them is that he has created you otherwise it’s pointless to believe that Jesus is your God. No?
Having said that, what’s the necessitation when Jesus call the Father as ( his God) ?
“the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same-substance ( homo-ousias) – all three persons are God by nature/substance, but there is only One God. One nature/substance ذات، جوهر، ماهیت but three persons.”
but what makes the father the father, the son does not have
what makes the son , the son, the father does not have
what makes the ghost, ghost, the father and son does not have .
how can “one yhwh” have 3 DIFFERENT SELVES within it?
or how is “one yhwh ” 3 different and distinct selves?
Where does the Bible use philosophical terms like substance/ousia/Jawhar/dhaat etc?
In the Trinity doctrine each member has a distinct self-identity.
As Heathcliff mentioned below. What defines the Father as Father is not present with the Son or Spirit. What defines the Son as Son is not found in the other two. How can they be said to be one substance.
Furthermore, according to the Chalcedonian understanding of the doctrine, the Son incarnated as a two-natured individual. How can the Son alone incarnate as a man if He is con substantial with the other members?
There are lots of Scripture verses that say: the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
There are other verses that say “God is one” and there is only one God.
and other verses speak of the personal relationships within the Trinity – the Father loves the Son, the Son is sent by the Father, the Spirit is grieved and testifies to the Son, etc.
Putting them all together in a harmonized, non-contradictory way means that the nature of the three persons is ONE nature/substance (One God) and three persons that relate to another.
John 1:1 – the third clause is key, “and Word was God” means the Word (logos, λογος, کلمه kalameh ) is God by nature, substance. But the second clause “the Word was with God” shows the two persons in communication and spiritual relationship.
ذات
جوهر
ماهیت
or
ماهیه
Are Arabic words that have entered into Farsi, because of Islam. They just don’t have the definite article in front of them, الذات = the substance, the essence; same for the other two words. (except the ending of “Maheey’at” has the “t” ت on the end; but all three words come from Arabic that communicate the basic essence or substance or nature of something.
I appreciate all languages and the need to learn other languages in order to communicate accurately to people.
Revelation 5:9; 7:9
Some from all nations and languages and people groups and tribes have been purchased/redeemed by the blood of the lamb (the eternal Son, the Word, who became human – Jesus Christ)
Mark 10:45 – He gave His life as a ransom for many
Even the Qur’an communicates this about the meaning and prophesy of the Messiah to come in the narrative about Abraham and his son. (from Genesis 22)
“we have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice” (Qur’an, Surah 37:107)
So, when Muslims quote the Arabic of the Qur’an and say Arabic to English speaking audience, showing the source of something, that is showing off and pride?
Very few English speakers in the audience understand Muslims quoting the whole Qur’anic text, yet they constantly do this; it seems to show the source/original. so to say it is pride is judging motives, and that is wrong – 1 Corinthians 4:5
“do not judge motives, but wait until judgment day, when God will expose the motives and secrets of men’s hearts”
Ken you are a proud man who likes to show off knowledge of a language that no one probably understands on this blog and is not the language of the Bible or the Quran or the sunnah.
Omar Ibn Al Kattab, the second Khalif, and many other Khalifs after him, and generals of Islam (Amirs), who attacked Persia (Iran) and conquered them, we very interested and converted them by force into Islam and changed the language so that 40 % of Farsi today (and Turkish also) is Arabic roots. Indonesian and other languages also have lots of Arabic in them.
John 1:1 – the third clause is key, “and Word was God” means the Word (logos, λογος, کلمه kalameh ) is God by nature, substance. But the second clause “the Word was with God” shows the two persons in communication and spiritual relationship.”
what does the father use to communicate with jesus? speech ? jesus ? how does it work ? is jesus speech and not person ? does father generate jesus in his voice box? please explain .
”
Putting them all together in a harmonized, non-contradictory way means that the nature of the three persons is ONE nature/substance (One God) and three persons that relate to another”
but they each are DIFFERENT things doing DIFFERENT things. that you said “relate” implies they MUST be SEPARATED in order to RELATE.
where does this DIFFERENCE GENERATE from? who/ what does it?
“Omar Ibn Al Kattab, the second Khalif, and many other Khalifs after him, and generals of Islam (Amirs), who attacked Persia (Iran) and conquered them, we very interested and converted them by force into Islam and changed the language so that 40 % of Farsi today (and Turkish also) is Arabic roots. Indonesian and other languages also have lots of Arabic in them.”
if i post this claim of yours on sci.lang and they disagree with it, then will you admit you are a liar for jesus and your people are scum bags for killing cultures and languages and replacing other peoples languages with english language?
so list all farsi words with arabic roots and make sure you show 40 %
also show evidence that it was not naturalized but done by force.
is argument
roots found in language x is from arabic
therefore conquering is to blame?
“Even the Qur’an communicates this about the meaning and prophesy of the Messiah to come in the narrative about Abraham and his son. (from Genesis 22)”
Yawn. And how is this related to your philosophical speculations about the “trinity”? Polyconfusion at its best. Poor thing.
Why did Muslims write philosophical works also? (Al Ghazzali, etc.) and Sufi mystical works and poetry ? (Rumi, Hafez, Saadi, etc.) there is nothing wrong with commentaries and theological works that use philosophical language in order to communicate the meanings of deep and ancient concepts and that were written in other languages in an ancient context.
Sola Scriptura does not say that other words (like Trinity, homo-ousias, hupostasis/persona) cannot be used to explain the Biblical data. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and all recognized this.
“There are lots of Scripture verses that say: the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.”
And there is not one that says God is a trinity. Or God is three persons. Or God is one divine substance. Ot there is perichoresis within the trinity. Nothing, zilch, rien, nada.
there is only three that are called “God” in the NT – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14 are limited to three persons.
“Matthew 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14 are limited to three persons.” It doesn’t say that at all. You make that stuff up. Most Christians probably understand that to be three modes.
There is not one verse that says God is a trinity. Or God is three persons. Or God is one divine substance. Ot there is perichoresis within the trinity. Nothing, zilch, rien, nada.
I never throw the OT under the bus. Psalm 82 is mocking proud and arrogant and unjust political leaders and judges who think they are “gods” (because of their worldly power), but they are not; they will die like men.
my son mys son why have you forsaken me? matt 27:46 & mark 15:34 our son in heaven,hallowed be your name. matt 6:9 the son is greater than I(father) john 14:28
The Son was on the earth and incarnated (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8) and said, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” (quoting Psalm 22:1) and since the Father is God, there is no contradiction there.
The Son voluntarily bore the wrath of God against sin for all the people from all nations for all time who would believe in Him.
I will bet you know what Mark 10:45 says and Isaiah 53, because you have dealt with those verses before.
You could probably quote some of them.
Mark 10:45 – the Son of Man came to serve and give His life as a ransom for many.
Isaiah 53:6 – “the LORD has caused the sin of us all to fall upon Him (the Suffering servant)”
Galatians 3:10-13
Jesus Christ became the curse (judgement/took the punishment/ voluntarily took the wrath) for us (on the cross).
Because He voluntarily, out of love, came and took the curse for us, and accepted the punishment for our sins, He cried out “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” because the Father poured out His justice on Jesus on the cross who came and took the punishment for us, for people from all nations and cultures and languages.
John 10:18 – Jesus voluntarily gave His life by His own authority and power; and raised Himself up from the dead also – see also John 2:19-22
“destroy this temple (the temple of His body), and in three days I will raise it up again.”
He was speaking out of His human weakness as He bore the wrath of God the Father – there is no ontological split in the nature of the Trinity. Jesus was also quoting Psalm 22 in order to point to other parts in the Psalm that were prophesies of suffering servant Messiah descendent of David.
So Jesus was just plain wrong when he said he was abandoned by God. If he was correct then there must have been a split in God into two pieces. Just like in Greek mythology,
Romans 5:6-11
We were yet sinners(5:8), ungodly (5:6), helpless(5:6), enemies of God(5:10), yet Jesus came and died for us on the cross.
We are saved from the wrath (justice of God against sin) of God by His blood. (verse 9)
6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Intercession yes. Jesus taught like Muhammad that we should pray directly to God. So you have corrupted the faith of Jesus. Come back to the narrow path Ken.
“But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God,
And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.” Isaiah 59:2
I am already on the narrow path – Matthew 7:13-14 – jesus is the only path to God the Father – John 14:6 – Isa Al Masih said, “I am the Way” (the only path to God)
You mean David, in Psalm 51. You refer to verse 17, but one has to take all the verses of Psalm 51.
What is the hyssop for? (verse 7)
Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
hyssop was a tree branch used as a brush to spread the sacrificed blood; so David includes the blood atonement sacrifice in the temple (verse 7) along with true heart repentance (verse 17 and the whole Psalm).
So he did not need Jesus to commit suicide for him. Thanks for proving my point Ken. Jesus taught us in the Lord’s Prayer to go directly to Allah, not Jesus or Mary.
the temple sacrifices, applying the blood by the hyssop branch, were prophesies of the ultimate sacrifice, the future Messiah, Jesus, which is why He is called “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”. by Yahya, a great prophet, John 1:29
You must repent and believe in the prophets’ messages – Isaiah and Yahya (John the baptizer)
to get the intercession/prayer one must seek God directly in this life. what is wrong if a prophet, angels, or righteous people make prayer for someone , in this life or the hearafter
ONE STILL NEED TO SEEK GOD DIRECTLY , RIGHT?
“I am already on the narrow path – Matthew 7:13-14 – jesus is the only path to God the Father – John 14:6 – Isa Al Masih said, “I am the Way” (the only path to God)”
yhwh detests human sacrifice
he does like barbecue and animal blood though
“hyssop was a tree branch used as a brush to spread the sacrificed blood; so David includes the blood atonement sacrifice in the temple (verse 7) along with true heart repentance (verse 17 and the whole Psalm).”
“the temple sacrifices, applying the blood by the hyssop branch, were prophesies of the ultimate sacrifice, the future Messiah, Jesus, which is why He is called “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”. by Yahya, a great prophet, John 1:29
You must repent and believe in the prophets’ messages – Isaiah and Yahya (John the baptizer)”
when the jews were seeking god while they were in danger, did they imagine a sacrificed dying one?
lol
ken :
“But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God,
And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.” Isaiah 59:2
For your hands are stained with blood,
your fingers with guilt.
Your lips have spoken falsely,
and your tongue mutters wicked things.
What do you even mean? I have never “held a bloody cross”.
Protestants don’t even have crucifix’s like the Roman Catholics do; we usually have an empty cross, as a symbol of Christ’s finished atonement and that He rose from the dead, never to die again, death no longer is master over Him.
Romans 6:10
10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all (meaning, He paid the price for our sins); but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
the empty cross is a symbol of His resurrection power from the dead, and proof of the efficacy of the final sacrifice on the cross.
I don’t like blood sacrifices; God required them in the OT tabernacle and temple sacrificial system – Exodus 12, Leviticus chapters 1-7, 16-17, 1 Kings chapter 8, etc.
Even the title of the 2nd chapter of the Qur’an, Al Baqarah (the Cow, or the Heifer) – even this shows that the Qur’an understood some basic level that the law of Moses commanded sacrifice.
And (remember) when Moses said to his people:
‘Surely, Allah commands you that you should sacrifice a cow’…”
Surah 2:67
The English of the first question is not understandable. I don’t know what you are trying to ask.
No. 2 is all through the OT and sacrificial system.
No. 3 is about doing the ritual without heart repentance and faith. God required both 1. sacrifice and 2. true heart repentance and faith.
yes, you don’t like what your torah told you to do. you TRASH your gods wish.
quote:
So Dr. Brown is arguing for the importance and the centrality of the blood offerings described at length in the book of Leviticus. Does Dr. Brown hear what he is saying? Is he encouraging you to obey the Torah and bring the offerings that Moses commanded us to bring? When was the last time that Dr. Brown brought a goat to the Temple in Jerusalem to atone for his sins? Does he yearn to fulfill God’s commandments concerning the sacrifices as do the Jewish people? Of course not! He doesn’t care about the animal sacrifices that are described in the Torah.
But it gets even worse. Does he really believe God when He says that the animal sacrifices brought in the Temple have the power to atone? Or does he believe that Book of Hebrews which declares that the animal sacrifices never atoned to begin with (Hebrews 10:4)? Dr. Brown believes that the sacrifices described at length in Leviticus never really atoned for sin at all and that once Jesus came on the scene, they were discarded and done away with. Is this “acknowledging the centrality of the offerings”? I am sorry, this is just a mockery of God’s word.
end quote
I could say the same thing about the lack of using your brain in denying that Jesus was crucified and dead in history and that the Qur’an did not know what the doctrine of the Trinity is; nor did the author of the Qur’an know what Christians meant by “Son of God”.
”
The Son was on the earth and incarnated (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8) and said, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” (quoting Psalm 22:1) and since the Father is God, there is no contradiction there.”
is the son saying that a shared nature has forsaken him ? if jesus = 1 person, 2 natures, then he speaks through both natures.
so did jesus say a shared nature forsook him?
a person MINUS shared nature forsook him?
Do you mean:
“Why was it necessary that Jesus called the Father “My God” ?” (in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 when on the cross)
You are using that word “necessary”, when the text just says that what Jesus said. The text does not say “it was necessary for Jesus to cry “My God”, rather He just did, because He was quoting Psalm 22. Since the Father is God also, it is not a contradiction; obviously.
why do you demand that you frame the issue as “necessary”? it is there, “My God, My God . . . ” it doesn’t say “necessary”.
Two things:
1. He was quoting Psalm 22:1, which would alert the Jews to refer to it and read the rest of it, and see Psalm 22:8 and 22:14-19 and the fulfillment of several other things in those verses. (see also Matthew 27:43, quoting Ps. 22:8 and Luke 23:34 b is quoting Psalm 22:18 (and John 19:24); and Psalm 22:16 is a description of the crucifixion (they pierced my hands and feet) [ I am aware of the textual variant in Hebrew, but the LXX Greek is clear. ]
2. He is expressing the feelings of being forsaken as He bore the wrath of God against sin. (Galatians 3:10-13; Isaiah 53:6; Isaiah 53:10) But He was not abandoned, even though it seemed like it, because He was bearing the penalty and wrath of God against sin; He was bearing God the Father’s justice against sin. verses 19 to the end of Psalm 22 shows that God vindicated the Son Jesus; and there is no abandonment or “split” in the Trinity. Feelings of abandonment is not actual abandonment; and bearing the wrath of God was very heavy and serious and He really experienced and felt that.
When you call someone/believe in someone as (your God), you imply something by that ( i.e there’re necessary consequences of that belief theologically).
For example, when you call Jesus (my God), that means, rather it has to mean that Jesus has created you in your heart & mind, doesn’t it ?
Based on that, I’m asking about when Jesus himself calls the Father as (his God), what does that have to mean/imply?
“ATwo things:
1. He was quoting Psalm 22:1, which would alert the Jews to refer to it and read the rest of it, and see Psalm 22:8 and 22:14-19 and the fulfillment of several other things in those verses.”
why did the Jews think that 1 person, 2 natures was calling out to eliyah? Those Jews were so dumb that they didn’t know psalm 22? why did it take 40 years for mark to make link to psalm ? How did mark know what Jesus was saying on the cross when crowds of screams would have put out jesus voice considering that prior he got a whooping by the pagans?
To tell readers that your god was “feeling” abandoned would imply a problem. when people will be punished by god, do they have any divine support? When Noah’s people were drowning, did they receive divine support at the same time? if your pagan god was FEELING abandoned, then JUSTICE has not been done, your god bUilt himself “to take” his own wrath I.e he was EATING his “Popeye spinach” as he was punishing himself, this would mean it could not MAKE IT a real and TRUE suffering in the SENSE people in hell will SUFFER.
so the ppl in hell get it more than jesus on the cross. since god saved himself from eternal damnation and built himself to take his punishment, then your god CHEATED.
If the father did not really experience and the ghost did not experience, you already created a separation in who was really experiencing what. You are saying on one hand tha t the person is REALLY losing his eye and on the other hand , he just HAS the feeling of loss of eye, but the eye is still there. So which is it? Separated eye or not?
Blogging Theology 
I recently learned from academic biblical that christian god has commander and chief. It say that it has been sent with commandment on what to do and what to say
This is problem because it has been commanded pre-incarnation
So who commands the almighty ? NOBODY , GOD is his own authority.
To command is to control
Nobody control the almighty
Christian god was commanded.
LikeLike
The Father is God, so it does not contradict that Jesus Christ is also God by nature/substance as the Father.
LikeLike
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same-substance ( homo-ousias) – all three persons are God by nature/substance, but there is only One God. One nature/substance ذات، جوهر، ماهیت but three persons.
LikeLike
When you call Jesus as your God, then there’re necessitations for that label/belief. One of them is that he has created you otherwise it’s pointless to believe that Jesus is your God. No?
Having said that, what’s the necessitation when Jesus call the Father as ( his God) ?
LikeLike
It contradicts they are the same God
LikeLike
“the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same-substance ( homo-ousias) – all three persons are God by nature/substance, but there is only One God. One nature/substance ذات، جوهر، ماهیت but three persons.”
but what makes the father the father, the son does not have
what makes the son , the son, the father does not have
what makes the ghost, ghost, the father and son does not have .
how can “one yhwh” have 3 DIFFERENT SELVES within it?
or how is “one yhwh ” 3 different and distinct selves?
LikeLike
“The Father is God, so it does not contradict that Jesus Christ is also God by nature/substance as the Father.”
the father is g
the son is g
tell me how it makes any sense “not by person ” but “by nature”
WHAT makes its person different but not its nature ?
LikeLike
“The Father is God (NATURE), so it does not contradict that Jesus Christ is also God(NATURE) by nature/substance as the Father.”
father = nature
son = nature
ghost = nature
father is not son
ghost is not son
so you are saying then that father IS NOT NATURE
LikeLike
“by nature/substance as the Father”
father = shared thing
son = shared thing
shared thing is not shared thing
LikeLike
Where does the Bible use philosophical terms like substance/ousia/Jawhar/dhaat etc?
In the Trinity doctrine each member has a distinct self-identity.
As Heathcliff mentioned below. What defines the Father as Father is not present with the Son or Spirit. What defines the Son as Son is not found in the other two. How can they be said to be one substance.
Furthermore, according to the Chalcedonian understanding of the doctrine, the Son incarnated as a two-natured individual. How can the Son alone incarnate as a man if He is con substantial with the other members?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ken is happy to use pagan language from unbelievers to describe his man god.
LikeLike
There are lots of Scripture verses that say: the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
There are other verses that say “God is one” and there is only one God.
and other verses speak of the personal relationships within the Trinity – the Father loves the Son, the Son is sent by the Father, the Spirit is grieved and testifies to the Son, etc.
Putting them all together in a harmonized, non-contradictory way means that the nature of the three persons is ONE nature/substance (One God) and three persons that relate to another.
John 1:1 – the third clause is key, “and Word was God” means the Word (logos, λογος, کلمه kalameh ) is God by nature, substance. But the second clause “the Word was with God” shows the two persons in communication and spiritual relationship.
LikeLike
Ken you believe in three divine beings each of which is folly god. That is not the faith of Jesus, Moses or Muhammad. Come back to Tawheed!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“How can the Son alone incarnate as a man if He is con substantial with the other members?”
Perichoresis to the rescue
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Ken is happy to use pagan language from unbelievers to describe his man god.”
Yep. “Sola scriptura” under the bus when needed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An uneasy synthesis of Christianity and paganism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ذات
جوهر
ماهیت
or
ماهیه
Are Arabic words that have entered into Farsi, because of Islam. They just don’t have the definite article in front of them, الذات = the substance, the essence; same for the other two words. (except the ending of “Maheey’at” has the “t” ت on the end; but all three words come from Arabic that communicate the basic essence or substance or nature of something.
I appreciate all languages and the need to learn other languages in order to communicate accurately to people.
Revelation 5:9; 7:9
Some from all nations and languages and people groups and tribes have been purchased/redeemed by the blood of the lamb (the eternal Son, the Word, who became human – Jesus Christ)
Mark 10:45 – He gave His life as a ransom for many
Even the Qur’an communicates this about the meaning and prophesy of the Messiah to come in the narrative about Abraham and his son. (from Genesis 22)
“we have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice” (Qur’an, Surah 37:107)
LikeLike
FARSI FARSI FARSI. No one is interested Ken.
LikeLiked by 1 person
they are Arabic root words.
LikeLike
You are showing off as usual. Pride.
LikeLike
So, when Muslims quote the Arabic of the Qur’an and say Arabic to English speaking audience, showing the source of something, that is showing off and pride?
Very few English speakers in the audience understand Muslims quoting the whole Qur’anic text, yet they constantly do this; it seems to show the source/original. so to say it is pride is judging motives, and that is wrong – 1 Corinthians 4:5
“do not judge motives, but wait until judgment day, when God will expose the motives and secrets of men’s hearts”
LikeLike
Ken you are a proud man who likes to show off knowledge of a language that no one probably understands on this blog and is not the language of the Bible or the Quran or the sunnah.
You will get your reward.
LikeLike
Omar Ibn Al Kattab, the second Khalif, and many other Khalifs after him, and generals of Islam (Amirs), who attacked Persia (Iran) and conquered them, we very interested and converted them by force into Islam and changed the language so that 40 % of Farsi today (and Turkish also) is Arabic roots. Indonesian and other languages also have lots of Arabic in them.
LikeLike
Pride comes before a fall Ken.
LikeLike
John 1:1 – the third clause is key, “and Word was God” means the Word (logos, λογος, کلمه kalameh ) is God by nature, substance. But the second clause “the Word was with God” shows the two persons in communication and spiritual relationship.”
what does the father use to communicate with jesus? speech ? jesus ? how does it work ? is jesus speech and not person ? does father generate jesus in his voice box? please explain .
LikeLike
”
Putting them all together in a harmonized, non-contradictory way means that the nature of the three persons is ONE nature/substance (One God) and three persons that relate to another”
but they each are DIFFERENT things doing DIFFERENT things. that you said “relate” implies they MUST be SEPARATED in order to RELATE.
where does this DIFFERENCE GENERATE from? who/ what does it?
LikeLike
“Omar Ibn Al Kattab, the second Khalif, and many other Khalifs after him, and generals of Islam (Amirs), who attacked Persia (Iran) and conquered them, we very interested and converted them by force into Islam and changed the language so that 40 % of Farsi today (and Turkish also) is Arabic roots. Indonesian and other languages also have lots of Arabic in them.”
if i post this claim of yours on sci.lang and they disagree with it, then will you admit you are a liar for jesus and your people are scum bags for killing cultures and languages and replacing other peoples languages with english language?
so list all farsi words with arabic roots and make sure you show 40 %
also show evidence that it was not naturalized but done by force.
is argument
roots found in language x is from arabic
therefore conquering is to blame?
is this your argument?
LikeLike
“Even the Qur’an communicates this about the meaning and prophesy of the Messiah to come in the narrative about Abraham and his son. (from Genesis 22)”
Yawn. And how is this related to your philosophical speculations about the “trinity”? Polyconfusion at its best. Poor thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why did Muslims write philosophical works also? (Al Ghazzali, etc.) and Sufi mystical works and poetry ? (Rumi, Hafez, Saadi, etc.) there is nothing wrong with commentaries and theological works that use philosophical language in order to communicate the meanings of deep and ancient concepts and that were written in other languages in an ancient context.
LikeLike
So you happily mix PAGAN concepts and language into your theology? You are very inconsistent Ken. You do not really believe in sola scriptura.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sola Scriptura does not say that other words (like Trinity, homo-ousias, hupostasis/persona) cannot be used to explain the Biblical data. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and all recognized this.
LikeLike
You use unbiblical words and concepts taken from pagan philosophy. You justify this by appealing to man’s wisdom not God’s.
LikeLike
Towhid توحید is a word and doctrine that is not used in the Qur’an
LikeLike
“There are lots of Scripture verses that say: the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.”
And there is not one that says God is a trinity. Or God is three persons. Or God is one divine substance. Ot there is perichoresis within the trinity. Nothing, zilch, rien, nada.
LikeLike
None of muslim philosophy was turned into orthodox creed. Your philosophical speculation is your confession of faith. Your philosophy is your God.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pagan godless concepts literally define Ken’s holy God!
LikeLiked by 1 person
the word Towid توحید is actually not in the Qur’an, so you are wrong. Boom.
LikeLike
God is al-Wahid.
Where does it say “God is three”? Apart from a forgery in 1 John? Come on, don’t be shy, Mr boombastic missionary fail.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14 – if one can count “the Father” ( 1 ) and the Son (2) and the Holy Spirit (3), then one can see the three persons.
LikeLike
No three persons defined anywhere. Nothing, rien.
What about the other persons called “God” in the Bible? If one can count, you get more than three persons. Boomshackalacka.
LikeLiked by 1 person
there is only three that are called “God” in the NT – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14 are limited to three persons.
LikeLike
“Matthew 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14 are limited to three persons.” It doesn’t say that at all. You make that stuff up. Most Christians probably understand that to be three modes.
There is not one verse that says God is a trinity. Or God is three persons. Or God is one divine substance. Ot there is perichoresis within the trinity. Nothing, zilch, rien, nada.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oui rien
LikeLike
“there is only three that are called “God” in the NT”
Ha. And throwing the OT under the bus when it suits you. What a lousy missionary.
LikeLike
I never throw the OT under the bus. Psalm 82 is mocking proud and arrogant and unjust political leaders and judges who think they are “gods” (because of their worldly power), but they are not; they will die like men.
LikeLike
my son mys son why have you forsaken me? matt 27:46 & mark 15:34 our son in heaven,hallowed be your name. matt 6:9 the son is greater than I(father) john 14:28
LikeLike
The Son was on the earth and incarnated (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8) and said, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” (quoting Psalm 22:1) and since the Father is God, there is no contradiction there.
The Son voluntarily bore the wrath of God against sin for all the people from all nations for all time who would believe in Him.
John 10:18
Mark 10:45
Galatians 3:10-13
Romans 5:6-11
Isaiah 52:13-15
Isaiah 53:1-12
LikeLike
Why should we look up all these verses? You should quote them. I bet no one ever reads your lists.
LikeLike
then you are lazy
LikeLike
Your loss. I’m sure no one bothers to look up all your Bible references. You at too lazy to quote the verses in full,
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will bet you know what Mark 10:45 says and Isaiah 53, because you have dealt with those verses before.
You could probably quote some of them.
Mark 10:45 – the Son of Man came to serve and give His life as a ransom for many.
Isaiah 53:6 – “the LORD has caused the sin of us all to fall upon Him (the Suffering servant)”
Galatians 3:10-13
Jesus Christ became the curse (judgement/took the punishment/ voluntarily took the wrath) for us (on the cross).
Because He voluntarily, out of love, came and took the curse for us, and accepted the punishment for our sins, He cried out “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” because the Father poured out His justice on Jesus on the cross who came and took the punishment for us, for people from all nations and cultures and languages.
John 10:18 – Jesus voluntarily gave His life by His own authority and power; and raised Himself up from the dead also – see also John 2:19-22
“destroy this temple (the temple of His body), and in three days I will raise it up again.”
LikeLike
So God (Jesus) felt abandoned by God (father) resulting in a split in the Trinity into two. Wow
LikeLiked by 1 person
feeling abandoned as He bore the wrath is not a split in the Trinity. There is no split.
LikeLike
Really? So when Jesus complained he was “abandoned” by God he was wrong! If only you had been around to put Jesus right.
LikeLike
He was speaking out of His human weakness as He bore the wrath of God the Father – there is no ontological split in the nature of the Trinity. Jesus was also quoting Psalm 22 in order to point to other parts in the Psalm that were prophesies of suffering servant Messiah descendent of David.
LikeLike
So Jesus was just plain wrong when he said he was abandoned by God. If he was correct then there must have been a split in God into two pieces. Just like in Greek mythology,
LikeLike
so if there was no split, how come nothing leaked into the father and ghost?
LikeLike
“feeling abandoned as He bore the wrath is not a split in the Trinity. There is no split.”
how did the flesh bit give “feeling” to the spirit bit? how did the world of flesh put anything into the world of spirit ?
LikeLike
“He was speaking out of His human weakness as He bore the wrath of God the Father – there is no ontological split in the nature of the Trinity.”
there is because then you would have to have all 3 punishing FLESH vessel,
so 1 person , 2 natures was speaking about why father POURED on him .
if he was POURING on himself, then that would mean he was POURING WRATH on the trinity .
“Jesus was also quoting Psalm 22 in order to point to other parts in the Psalm that were prophesies of suffering servant Messiah descendent of David.”
the psalm does not say
“ooh, look the narrator’s getting ripped apart… the Lord is my shepherd.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Romans 5:6-11
We were yet sinners(5:8), ungodly (5:6), helpless(5:6), enemies of God(5:10), yet Jesus came and died for us on the cross.
We are saved from the wrath (justice of God against sin) of God by His blood. (verse 9)
6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
LikeLike
Jesus taught that repentant dinners sinners did not need mediator to be forgiven. Just turn I Allah. I agree.
LikeLike
Then why do these two Hadith indicate that actually Muhammad is mediator/intercessor on the last day?
Sahih Al-Bukhari, 6:236
Hadith Qudsi 36
LikeLike
Intercession yes. Jesus taught like Muhammad that we should pray directly to God. So you have corrupted the faith of Jesus. Come back to the narrow path Ken.
LikeLike
Your sin separates you from God.
Isaiah 59:1-2
“But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God,
And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.” Isaiah 59:2
LikeLike
I am already on the narrow path – Matthew 7:13-14 – jesus is the only path to God the Father – John 14:6 – Isa Al Masih said, “I am the Way” (the only path to God)
LikeLike
daniel says you don’t need jesus but a contrite heart.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You mean David, in Psalm 51. You refer to verse 17, but one has to take all the verses of Psalm 51.
What is the hyssop for? (verse 7)
Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
hyssop was a tree branch used as a brush to spread the sacrificed blood; so David includes the blood atonement sacrifice in the temple (verse 7) along with true heart repentance (verse 17 and the whole Psalm).
LikeLike
So he did not need Jesus to commit suicide for him. Thanks for proving my point Ken. Jesus taught us in the Lord’s Prayer to go directly to Allah, not Jesus or Mary.
LikeLiked by 3 people
the temple sacrifices, applying the blood by the hyssop branch, were prophesies of the ultimate sacrifice, the future Messiah, Jesus, which is why He is called “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”. by Yahya, a great prophet, John 1:29
You must repent and believe in the prophets’ messages – Isaiah and Yahya (John the baptizer)
LikeLike
to get the intercession/prayer one must seek God directly in this life. what is wrong if a prophet, angels, or righteous people make prayer for someone , in this life or the hearafter
ONE STILL NEED TO SEEK GOD DIRECTLY , RIGHT?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I am already on the narrow path – Matthew 7:13-14 – jesus is the only path to God the Father – John 14:6 – Isa Al Masih said, “I am the Way” (the only path to God)”
yhwh detests human sacrifice
he does like barbecue and animal blood though
LikeLike
“hyssop was a tree branch used as a brush to spread the sacrificed blood; so David includes the blood atonement sacrifice in the temple (verse 7) along with true heart repentance (verse 17 and the whole Psalm).”
where is violent opening of jesus found here?
LikeLike
“the temple sacrifices, applying the blood by the hyssop branch, were prophesies of the ultimate sacrifice, the future Messiah, Jesus, which is why He is called “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”. by Yahya, a great prophet, John 1:29
You must repent and believe in the prophets’ messages – Isaiah and Yahya (John the baptizer)”
when the jews were seeking god while they were in danger, did they imagine a sacrificed dying one?
lol
LikeLike
ken :
“But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God,
And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.” Isaiah 59:2
For your hands are stained with blood,
your fingers with guilt.
Your lips have spoken falsely,
and your tongue mutters wicked things.
ken, why do you hold a bloody cross?
LikeLike
What do you even mean? I have never “held a bloody cross”.
Protestants don’t even have crucifix’s like the Roman Catholics do; we usually have an empty cross, as a symbol of Christ’s finished atonement and that He rose from the dead, never to die again, death no longer is master over Him.
Romans 6:10
10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all (meaning, He paid the price for our sins); but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
the empty cross is a symbol of His resurrection power from the dead, and proof of the efficacy of the final sacrifice on the cross.
LikeLike
ken, since you like blood sacrificies, i wanted to ask u few questions
1. who told hebrews to look after the animal?
2. when the hebrew is slicing the neck of the animal is he obeying his god?
3. does yhwh say that OBEDIENCE IS BETTER THAN sacrifice?
LikeLike
I don’t like blood sacrifices; God required them in the OT tabernacle and temple sacrificial system – Exodus 12, Leviticus chapters 1-7, 16-17, 1 Kings chapter 8, etc.
Even the title of the 2nd chapter of the Qur’an, Al Baqarah (the Cow, or the Heifer) – even this shows that the Qur’an understood some basic level that the law of Moses commanded sacrifice.
And (remember) when Moses said to his people:
‘Surely, Allah commands you that you should sacrifice a cow’…”
Surah 2:67
The English of the first question is not understandable. I don’t know what you are trying to ask.
No. 2 is all through the OT and sacrificial system.
No. 3 is about doing the ritual without heart repentance and faith. God required both 1. sacrifice and 2. true heart repentance and faith.
LikeLike
1. who told hebrews to look after the animal?
Not understandable English. Try to formulate your questions with better English.
LikeLike
“I don’t like blood sacrifices;”
even human sacrifices ? why not ?
LikeLike
quote :
1. who told hebrews to look after the animal?
Not understandable English. Try to formulate your questions with better English.
end quote
i will try to use british english .
yhwh, your god, says that he does not like BLEMISHED animals. he likes UNBLEMISHED meat. is it a good deed to look after an animal ?
LikeLike
quote :
I don’t like blood sacrifices
end quote
yes, you don’t like what your torah told you to do. you TRASH your gods wish.
quote:
So Dr. Brown is arguing for the importance and the centrality of the blood offerings described at length in the book of Leviticus. Does Dr. Brown hear what he is saying? Is he encouraging you to obey the Torah and bring the offerings that Moses commanded us to bring? When was the last time that Dr. Brown brought a goat to the Temple in Jerusalem to atone for his sins? Does he yearn to fulfill God’s commandments concerning the sacrifices as do the Jewish people? Of course not! He doesn’t care about the animal sacrifices that are described in the Torah.
But it gets even worse. Does he really believe God when He says that the animal sacrifices brought in the Temple have the power to atone? Or does he believe that Book of Hebrews which declares that the animal sacrifices never atoned to begin with (Hebrews 10:4)? Dr. Brown believes that the sacrifices described at length in Leviticus never really atoned for sin at all and that once Jesus came on the scene, they were discarded and done away with. Is this “acknowledging the centrality of the offerings”? I am sorry, this is just a mockery of God’s word.
end quote
LikeLike
you heard that ken, the jewish people are saying, “you don’t really give a shit about animal sacrifices “
LikeLike
”
He was speaking out of His human weakness as He bore the wrath of God the Father – there is no ontological split in the nature of the Trinity”
there you go again like all christians splitting the person into parts. so where did fully god go then ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No doctrinal Christian believes there was an ontological split in the Trinity. You are making that up out of thin air.
LikeLike
If you use your brain rather than blinding following doctrine you will see the point Ken: God split!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I could say the same thing about the lack of using your brain in denying that Jesus was crucified and dead in history and that the Qur’an did not know what the doctrine of the Trinity is; nor did the author of the Qur’an know what Christians meant by “Son of God”.
LikeLike
who poured on jesus ? trinity or just the father ?
if just the father , then what did the father have to pour on jesus ?
LikeLike
”
The Son was on the earth and incarnated (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8) and said, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” (quoting Psalm 22:1) and since the Father is God, there is no contradiction there.”
is the son saying that a shared nature has forsaken him ? if jesus = 1 person, 2 natures, then he speaks through both natures.
so did jesus say a shared nature forsook him?
a person MINUS shared nature forsook him?
what forsook jesus?
LikeLike
Ken,
What’s the necessitation when Jesus calls the Father as ( his God)?
May you answer?
LikeLike
I don’t understand your question.
Do you mean:
“Why was it necessary that Jesus called the Father “My God” ?” (in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 when on the cross)
You are using that word “necessary”, when the text just says that what Jesus said. The text does not say “it was necessary for Jesus to cry “My God”, rather He just did, because He was quoting Psalm 22. Since the Father is God also, it is not a contradiction; obviously.
why do you demand that you frame the issue as “necessary”? it is there, “My God, My God . . . ” it doesn’t say “necessary”.
Two things:
1. He was quoting Psalm 22:1, which would alert the Jews to refer to it and read the rest of it, and see Psalm 22:8 and 22:14-19 and the fulfillment of several other things in those verses. (see also Matthew 27:43, quoting Ps. 22:8 and Luke 23:34 b is quoting Psalm 22:18 (and John 19:24); and Psalm 22:16 is a description of the crucifixion (they pierced my hands and feet) [ I am aware of the textual variant in Hebrew, but the LXX Greek is clear. ]
2. He is expressing the feelings of being forsaken as He bore the wrath of God against sin. (Galatians 3:10-13; Isaiah 53:6; Isaiah 53:10) But He was not abandoned, even though it seemed like it, because He was bearing the penalty and wrath of God against sin; He was bearing God the Father’s justice against sin. verses 19 to the end of Psalm 22 shows that God vindicated the Son Jesus; and there is no abandonment or “split” in the Trinity. Feelings of abandonment is not actual abandonment; and bearing the wrath of God was very heavy and serious and He really experienced and felt that.
LikeLike
When you call someone/believe in someone as (your God), you imply something by that ( i.e there’re necessary consequences of that belief theologically).
For example, when you call Jesus (my God), that means, rather it has to mean that Jesus has created you in your heart & mind, doesn’t it ?
Based on that, I’m asking about when Jesus himself calls the Father as (his God), what does that have to mean/imply?
LikeLike
A reminder for mr. Ken.
LikeLike
“ATwo things:
1. He was quoting Psalm 22:1, which would alert the Jews to refer to it and read the rest of it, and see Psalm 22:8 and 22:14-19 and the fulfillment of several other things in those verses.”
why did the Jews think that 1 person, 2 natures was calling out to eliyah? Those Jews were so dumb that they didn’t know psalm 22? why did it take 40 years for mark to make link to psalm ? How did mark know what Jesus was saying on the cross when crowds of screams would have put out jesus voice considering that prior he got a whooping by the pagans?
LikeLike
To tell readers that your god was “feeling” abandoned would imply a problem. when people will be punished by god, do they have any divine support? When Noah’s people were drowning, did they receive divine support at the same time? if your pagan god was FEELING abandoned, then JUSTICE has not been done, your god bUilt himself “to take” his own wrath I.e he was EATING his “Popeye spinach” as he was punishing himself, this would mean it could not MAKE IT a real and TRUE suffering in the SENSE people in hell will SUFFER.
so the ppl in hell get it more than jesus on the cross. since god saved himself from eternal damnation and built himself to take his punishment, then your god CHEATED.
he was just ACTING
doing a stage play.
LikeLike
If the father did not really experience and the ghost did not experience, you already created a separation in who was really experiencing what. You are saying on one hand tha t the person is REALLY losing his eye and on the other hand , he just HAS the feeling of loss of eye, but the eye is still there. So which is it? Separated eye or not?
LikeLike