20 replies

  1. And Jesus fears his God.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 61 as the Servant of the LORD, anointed by the Holy Spirit.
      Luke 4:21

      “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

      Luke as the author of both the Gospel according to Luke and the book of Acts, points back to Jesus as the suffering servant also, in Isaiah 52:13-15; 53:1-12; 49, etc.

      Luke 22:19-20 – new covenant in His blood (see also Mark 14:24 and Matthew 26:28) and Mark 10:45

      Luke 22:37 – quoting Isaiah 53:12

      Acts 8:32-33 – quoting Isaiah 53:7-8

      While He was incarnated on earth, of course He honored the Father as God who is in heaven.


    • Ken,
      I know it’s so difficult for you to accept that your god fears his God, so that why christians turn to be just preachers once we face them by this nonsense doctrine.
      Come to the truth. There’s no way to Allah(sw) except by Islam.


  2. Trinitarian Evangelical Reading:

    The Spirit of ME is upon ME, because I anointed ME to bring glad tidings to the poor. I have sent ME to proclaim Liberty (With freedom (from the divine Law) and (Christian supremacist justice) for all).


    • It would actually be worse, because he’s supposedly God, a part of God, and the Son of God all at the same time, defying all logic and reason


  3. This is a short piece I’ve written sometime ago on the Didache according to Aaron Milavec, Doctor in Theology. It contains important points on early christian monotheism and non-Pauline Christianity. I hope the brothers find benefit in it.

    Aaron Milavec (ThD) is considered an authority on the Didache, and has written a well-received book analysing the ancient document. His arguments are sound and in line with methods used in mainstream scholarship. You’ll find them interesting and informative concerning the historical faith of Jesus.

    His main arguments are as follows:

    1) Although the Didache in its present form dates to the early 2nd century, it is of Jewish origin (albeit christianized), and thus dates the origin to 50-70 CE.

    2) He disagrees with other scholars who understand it to be a church manual, he convincingly argues that it was a manual of instruction (didache=teaching) for new converts.

    3) Unlike other scholars, he considers it to be independent from the gospels.

    4) In contrast with the Pauline gospel which is Christ-centric and based on the redemptive death of Christ and his exaltation; the Didache, along with the Q gospel and the Gospel of Thomas are mainly concerned with the teachings of Jesus. They constitute a “gospel” which is dissimilar to the gospel of Paul.

    The Didache contains interesting themes and points:

    The argument of Jewish-Christian origin is strong (not of the document itself, but many of the teachings in it). The first 5 chapters talk about “the way of life and the way of death”, one finds similar language is found in the Dead seas scrolls. There is no mention of the death and resurrection of Christ. It re-affirms the commandments, preaches against false teachers and false prophets. It prohibits food offered to idols, considering it service to dead gods.

    Jesus is called the “servant” of God multiple times (pais in Greek), the Didache provides no exaltation of Christ in the Pauline form.

    The Eucharist is altogether unlike its depiction in the gospels or 1 Corinthians, there’s no mention of the body and blood of Christ, instead the eucharist symbolises the “spiritual food” i.e: life and knowledge as spoken by Jesus the “servant” of God. There are two thanksgivings with a doxology, before and after the meal, directed to God the Father.

    Important point: Milavec contends that the invocations of “Hosanna” and “Maranatha” here are directed to God the Father, unlike in Paul’s epistles and the gospels which direct them to Christ.

    The eschatology is of a future kingdom of God with a gathering and resurrection.

    Another Important point: Milavec argues that the expectation of the Lord coming in the clouds is of God the Father, not Jesus Christ. (compare with Quran 2:210)

    The triadic baptismal formula is possibly an interpolation, as the Didache itself also mentions baptism in the name of the Lord. The same issue is also found in the great comission in Matthew’s Gospel, Eusebius is said to report a different reading, citing baptism in the Lord’s name.


    • An online version of the Didache is found at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html


    • It is very curious and highly interesting to know that the Didache supports early christian monotheism (which often agrees with Islamic theology) and provides little to no evidence in support of the heretical proto-orthodoxy which became Paulinian Trinitarian Christianity.


    • Indeed. The Didache along with Q and the pre-gnostic layer in the Gospel of Thomas are very different from Paul’s gospel, it would hardly not raise an eyebrow.


    • Ibn Awad,
      Agreed. I have read the book by John S. Kloppenborg, “Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus” It is very scholarly and technical, also highly interesting.

      The Didache, The Gospel of “Q”, Gospel of Thomas, and other evidence based on NT historical Criticism, taken together offer an entirely different picture from Paul and modern Christianity, on the very nature of the mission of Jesus. It is a truth that is closer, if not the same, as that portrayed of Nabi Jesus (as) in the Qur’an.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ibn Awad,
      Thanks for posting the link to the Didache. I read the English translations, which I had never done before. I found it very interesting, and you are right in that it is good for Muslims to have some knowledge about it.


  4. The Didache confirms Matthew 28:19 and the Trinity:
    There is no evidence that this is some kind of “interpolation” or later addition. And no textual variants exist for Matthew 28:19 on that issue of the 3 persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

    7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
    7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
    7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
    7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
    7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
    7:6 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able;
    7:7 and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.


    • “The Didache confirms Matthew 28:19 and the Trinity”

      Wrong. First of all, baptising in the name of the three is a far cry from it being a confession of the trinity. A trinitarian confession would be: “There are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE” 1 John 5. Can you spot the difference? That is, if you haven’t realised this verse is an interpolation according to scholarly consensus.

      Secondly, Eusebius of Caesaria in his Historia Ecclesiastica, quotes the Great Commission on multiple instances as follows:
      “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME.”
      Eusebius lived contemporary to the earliest witnesses we have today, like the Codex Siniaticus and Vaticanus, so it could indeed be considered a valid variant.

      There are other NT verses which mention baptism in the name of Jesus
      Acts 2:38: “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins’”
      Acts 8:16: “They had simply been baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus”.
      Acts 10:48: “So he ordered that they be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ”
      Acts 19:5: “On hearing this, they were baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus”

      The Didache itself mentions the same in the section on the Eucharist:
      “But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptised into the name of the Lord”

      Liked by 1 person

    • maybe he thought jesus was a modalist?

      “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations iN mY nAME.”


    • Baptising in the name of Jesus or even the Holy Spirit does not give them divine status.

      “I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptised into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” 1 Corinthians 10:1-2

      I think it would generally mean an acknowledgement of the prophet’s authority


    • Also, Eusebius of Caesaria was one of the bishops who agreed (voluntarily or involuntarily) to the Nicene Creed, so I doubt he would change this particular verse for a “heretical” notion


    • “Wrong. First of all, baptising in the name of the three is a far cry from it being a confession of the trinity. A trinitarian confession would be: “There are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE” 1 John 5. Can you spot the difference? That is, if you haven’t realised this verse is an interpolation according to scholarly consensus.”

      if they say “these 3 are one” then was the interpolater a modalist who saw the 3 as 1 thing?
      i think saying “are one” leaves the statement very ambiguous.


    • ken temple himself commits the heresey of modalism on this blog, just ask burhanudeen .


    • But this specific interpolation at 1 John 5:7 dates from the middle ages, while Modalism died around the time of the ecumenical councils.


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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: