The Holy Spirit led Jesus into the desert. There the devil tempted him (Jesus). 2 After 40 days and 40 nights of going without eating, Jesus was hungry.
3 The tempter came to him. He said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” 8 Finally, the devil took Jesus to a very high mountain. He showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 “If you bow down and worship me,” he said, “I will give you all of this.” 10 Jesus said to him, “Get away from me, Satan! It is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God. He is the only one you should serve.’” 11 Then the devil left Jesus. Angels came and took care of him. (Mathew 4:1-11)
Is it conceivable that an All-Mighty God can become tempted by the devil to whom God created; is God susceptible to being swayed by His own creation? If Jesus is God then there lies some issues for the Bible says:
James 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil,nor does he tempt anyone.
It is so clear here that Jesus (pbuh) cannot be God, for he was tempted to do evil. And God cannot be swayed with temptation.
It says in verse 8: Finally, the devil took Jesus to a very high mountain. He showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 “If you bow down and worship me,” he said, “I will give you all of this.”
God, owner of the worlds, the creator of all animate and inanimate objects, the giver of life and death, the sustainer of all. How if Jesus is God can the devil say to a God I shall give you all this, if you worship me? It just is not possible for this scene to occur if the devil was really speaking to God. It is thus self-evident that Jesus is not God for even the devil knew Jesus was not. Hence why he tempted him with such material gains.
Joel, hey bro, it’s been quite some time since we last discussed about something, i’ve always wondered about something interesting about this event in the NT, well basically if Jesus was tempted and suffered for so many days, then he must have coveted right? But doesn’t that contradict the Trinitarian claim that He knew about his nature while on earth? I mean He was supposed to have claimed his divinity while on earth itself(for e.g John 8:58) so if He knew he was God, then what exactly was he tempted about(which even made him suffer) when everything already belongs to Him? He was supposed to know that He was a God right?
God cannot be tempted by evil, so it means the Divine Nature of Jesus was not tempted, but His human nature was tempted, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:15
The question is answered by the fact that Jesus has two Natures – a Divine Nature (John 1:1-5; John 20:28; Mark 2:28, etc.) and a human nature (as in Matthew 4, Luke 4 – temptation in the wilderness), John 4 – getting tired and thirsty, and not knowing the day of His second coming in Mark 13:32/Matthew 24:36 – that was speaking about His human nature; but in His post resurrected glorified state (John 17:5), of course He knows.
Nothing was destroyed, if you understand that Jesus has two natures; which Christians have always understood and taught, and this was more specifically spelled out in theological development at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. But it was there in the Scriptures, before, as I showed above, and discussed in the 200s to 451 AD. Formal doctrinal formulations and specific language come later (451 AD) as they wrestled with all the relevant texts of Scripture. (100-451 AD) (which were already revealed from around 45 AD to 96 AD).
“if you understand that Jesus has two natures; which Christians have always understood and taught”
These fictional stories can only be said in the churches, Ken not here! Again, you are talking with muslims. Remember that always before you jump to the preaching style.
Nothing was destroyed, if you understand that Jesus has two natures; which Christians have always understood and taught, and this was more specifically spelled out in theological development at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. But it was there in the Scriptures, before, as I showed above, and discussed in the 200s to 451 AD
I say;
The problem is that, we have so many 2 nature or multi natared Gods like Hindus cow God, Monkey God, Elephant God, God Man etc. and if you believe such thing can happen as it happened to you, then why blaming Mother Theresa for saying the Hindus Gods are also God?
You have the same principles with Hindus i.e. God has 2 natures or became flesh or emptied Himself, veil himself etc. that are incoherent.
Watch your friend Paul Williams who will not allow a Christian to eat his cake and still has it at the same time.
Paul Williams. I like this video. If Christians are searching for truth, most of them would have converted to Islam after watching this video.
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
It just amazes me that these xtians think they are actually making solid arguments.
Wow! Just woow!!!
Is jesus ignorant (as he is a human being) or all-knowing (as he is allegedly God) or both (and hence a logical self contradiction)?
Is jesus limited in power (as he is a human being) or all-powerful (as he is allegedly God) or both (and hence a logical self contradiction)?
Is jesus in need of food (as he is a human being) or free of all need (as he is allegedly God) or both (and hence a logical self contradiction)?
Can jesus be tempted (as he is a human being) or not (as he is allegedly God) or both (and hence a logical self contradiction)?
What ‘religion’. How anybody can believe in this is just beyond me.
Paulus i don’t think that “Nature” is the right translation, i remember reading in a book that lexicons are in disagreement concerning the “Morphē”, those who are in favour of “outward form” have a stronger case due to the fact that Mark and the LXX refers this word as an “Outward appearance” but i remember Dustin finding a closely related word in 2 Timothy so i looked for it and it’s at 3:5, the word is “μόρφωσιν” “morphōsin”, and it refers to an outward disposition/character…
Paulus
November 25, 2017 • 3:22 am
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness
I say;
With all due respect my dear Paulus, there are so many contradictions, illogicality, irrationality, nonsense, stupidity etc. in the above verse. Anyone with good brain and intellect can clearly see the problems.
1.” 6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;”
What nonsense is this? “being in a very nature God, did not consider equality with God”
How will God not consider Himself equal with God? That is nonsense.
2. 7 rather, he made himself nothing
God made Himself nothing. Blaspheme. Do you know the meaning of “nothing”? Then if God is nothing or has surrendered his divinity then he is not God. Why worship someone who is not God? You can’t have it both ways, you Christian cheats.
3. “by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness”
What do you mean? By taking human likeness he is still God? Some Christians will say he veiled Himself.
Veiling Himself is completely opposite to emptying himself or making himself nothing. You can’t have both.
Watch this video.
Paulus, with all due respect, stop quoting your nonsense here other wise you will be disgraced like how Paul Williams and Speakers Corners Highlights disgraced the Christian in the video.
Paul Williams
November 25, 2017 • 4:42 pm
I have not seen this before
I say;
It is not surprising because in a day you can have different people filming your wonderful conversations. You may not see all but we are seeing and propagating all. May Allah Bless you for bringing any inconsistency out.
Clearly this text refutes the OP. The incarnation of Christ demonstrates that Jesus “took on” the form of humanity. He did not “give up” divinity. As such, being human he could face temptation like us.
Unless you actually engage with Christian thought these types of posts are rather childish and easily refuted for their fallacious nature
Paulus, in case you didn’t notice i’m not here to refute anything, i’m only pointing out that “nature” isn’t the proper translation so i don’t see how exactly i was “Childish” for pointing this out, so being honest is bad nowadays? Maybe i should resort to the so called “Taqiyya” right?… and if i wanted to “engage” you i would have told you that in the LXX “morphe” is used as a translation for the word for “tselem” in Daniel 3:19, why is that? Wouldn’t that mean that Adam is God in Genesis 1:26?
Paulus, if you’re talking about my question to Joel then still it doesn’t answer the question that about what was he tempted when he already knew he was God? Erasmus was saying that he had to earn his glory and stuff but didn’t Jesus himself willingly took the form of a servant to fulfill his mission? and seriously are you guys implying that the Kingdom of heaven is nothing compared to what satan was offering to Jesus?
I’ve studied koine Greek and I’d be happy to discuss etymology or grammatical points.
However, I’m not convinced you have any training on the topic, so if t would not be worth my time discussing with you if you simply rely upon Islamic websites.
So, if you wish to proceed, can you please tell me what training you have in koine Greek to discuss the nuances of translations.
Paulus, First of all i never use Islamic Websites, i tend to read books and there are blogs that i follow… secondly i don’t have any training in Koine Greek, i’m simply stating what i see and i’ve been seeing i.e “Morphe” doesn’t mean “Nature” but Outward Appearance…it would be great of you could shed some light on why your translators chose to translate it as “Nature”…the question i asked you about “Huparchon” doesn’t involve advanced grammar by the way…
It’s very common for unitarians to insist that morphe means outward appearance. I’m quite happy with the translation “form”. Lexicons tend to favour nature and form.
“Who being in the very form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.”
As with anything, context determines usage, so if you think it should be translated “outward appearance”, then please provide an exegetical co textual reason.
“Who being in the outward appearance of God, did not consider equality with avid something to be grasped.”
Keep in mind that the word “being”, (“Who being in the very form of God”), is from the ancient Greek verb huparchein, which “describes that which a man is in his very essence and which cannot be changed. It describes that part of a man which, in any circumstances, remains the same.”
So for morphe to me a outward appearance you need to provide grammatical reasons to ignore “being” as well as the grammatical correlation to “equality with God”
“I say;
With all due respect my dear Paulus, there are so many contradictions, illogicality, irrationality, nonsense, stupidity etc. in the above verse. Anyone with good brain and intellect can clearly see the problems.”
But the early christians obviously did not agree with you:
Chalcedonian Creed
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the
same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;
truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father
according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things
like unto us, without sin;
Erasmus, but the Chalcedonian creed came in the 400s right? By the way i’ve got a Trinitarian friend who talks about a “Mutation” of faith, can you please give me your opinion about this? Here’s an overview…
Ignoramus, there were many Christians who did not agree with the Chalcedonian creed, and were brutally persecuted as a result. The Copts are Monophysites and refused to accept the Chalcedonian creed.
Erasmus, i get your point but the real question is did Jesus desire this? I mean He knows that He is God, He knows that the Dominion over the Heavens and the Earth will eventually be for Him so the question still remains that why was he tempted? The fact that He Himself took the Form of a servant though he was a God points out that He didn’t desire comfort and stuff…by the way correct me if i’m wrong, the context of Matthew 8:20 is that Jesus was warning the Scribe the He had to live a life full of poverty if He had to follow him right? I mean if Jesus was “complaining” about his miscomfort then his temptation and suffering in the Desert would make sense…
Then the Son of Man is not God because it is blaspheme to say God has no where to lay his head. Why worship the Son of Man if he is not God?
Saying the Son of a Man is God is blaspheme. God Almighty is not Son/son to anyone whether physical son, adopted son or metaphorical son. Anyone who is a Son/son is not God.
Erasmus, but still the Son of Man did know what was awaiting Him, He is the same son of Man who proclaimed his Divinity from time to time…He knew he was God so there was no reason for him to be tempted….
” I mean He knows that He is God, He knows that the Dominion over the Heavens and the Earth will eventually be for Him so the question still remains that why was he tempted? ”
But as the Son of Man he had to earn this through obedience, and not take a short cut or be satisfied with something less, which the devil was tempting him to do.
“Erasmus, i get your point but the real question is did Jesus desire this?”
If it was his right he must have desired it or not? And he must have lost it to become a man, or not?
Erasmus, “But as the Son of Man he has to earn this through obedience, and not take a short cut or be satisfied with something else which the devil was tempting him to do”
Sorry for the short reply i gave bro i was busy with revision and stuff, i’m having exams nowadays… okay but Jesus himself said that he already shared glory with the Father during his pre-existence, so logically(IMO) he didn’t have to earn it as he would share it again when he would return…you do seem to make a good point but i wonder why would Jesus be satisfied with the Earthly pleasures that Satan was offering him when he knew that the Heavenly Kingdom is much better, i mean this type of temptation would be pretty ironic for someone who was preaching people about the Kingdom of God….
“If it was his right he must have desired it or not? And he must have lost it to become a man, or not?”
good points indeed… But once again, he knew he was going to return to his former glory anyway after fulfilling his destined mission of dying for the sins of mankind…correct me if i’m wrong, but the Temptation follows three patterns but nowhere does the devil tempt him to immediately return to his former glory in heaven as far as i know…
Paulus, thanks for wishing me luck bro i really appreciate it 👍
So you have no problem with “Form” right? But i still have one question, in what context is “Huparchon” used throughout the NT, i know that you’ve already quoted David Guzik but most of the time i see that word being used(in the NT) it denotes a beginning(at some point) of something…i’m pretty sure you’d agree that my doubt is legitimate as it would contradict the Fact that Jesus was eternal unless you have a good explanation for it…
Concerning “equality with God”, can you shed some light over “Ison”?
Paulus, i don’t know why exactly but i have the feeling that you won’t take me seriously, nevermind bro, as from today i’m gonna dig every good books on Amazon to build my collection on Greek and biblical grammar then i’m gonna start learning….only then i’ll be taken seriously i guess…
Hahahaha, don’t take it personally brother Shaad. Didn’t you know that Cerbie knows all? When you make a claim about the NT or Greek or Hebrew, he will accuse you of copying from websites, and when you provide actual scholarly references, he will dismiss them as “liberal”. The guy is a crackpot, so don’t take him seriously.
I’d appreciate if you’d provide some exegetical reasons why we should understand morphe as “outward appearance”.
Grammatically speaking, there appears to be a connection between “equality with God” and “form of God”. I’ve read some good academic discussions on that topic by Greek professors. You’d be best reading them for yourself, but it’s very advanced and complex. But in short, you can’t isolate the latter from the former, which makes it near impossible to exegrtically claim that “form of God” is not an essential claim to Jesus divinity.
Porky- maybe it’s because I’ve studied all those topics academically under professors and you’ve learnt how to use google? And rely upon others?
Bwahahaha, yeah I’m sure we are all VERY impressed! You still haven’t said under what illustrious professors you have studied under or what prestigious university you got your degree from. I asked you that a while ago and you never responded.
The scholars that you so easily dismiss because they are “liberal” have also studied under professors. In fact, many have received training from prestigious universities and publish their works in peer-reviewed journals. But let’s face it. You only dismiss them because they do not agree with you preconceived conservative views.
First of all, I never said I had a degree in religious studies, but then I never question people’s credentials unless it is based on evidence. You, on the other hand, do just that. You dismiss people’s claims without any substantive response, and when confronted with evidence from scholarly publications (especially with regard to the Bible and Christianity), you dismiss them as “liberal”. Hmm, I wonder if Professor Riddell tought you that?
Now, as for your education under Professor Riddell, how exactly does that make you an expert on the NT, the Bible in general or Biblical exegesis? According to the link you provided, Professor Riddel’s field of expertise is:
“Southeast Asian History, Islamic Studies, Christian-Muslim Relations”
WOW!! Look at that! How in the world did a troll like you end up learning from someone as distinguished as Professor Riddell? I wonder what Professor Riddell would think about the fact that you are an Islamophobic troll? Here’s an interesting excerpt from one of Professor Riddell’s articles on the Quran which I think exposes you for what you are: a fraud.
From his article “Reading the Qurʾān Chronologically: An Aid to Discourse Coherence and Thematic Development”:
“Q 9:5 is sometimes cited to argue that the Quran advocates killing non-Muslims, with no regard given to other verses that impose clear limits on military engagement with non-believers.”
In any case, the fact is that this does not give you the credentials to become a know-it-all expert on Islam. Moreover, it actually proves that you have no training whatsoever on NT studies. Professor Riddell does not seem to be much involved in Biblical studies. So thank you, Cerbie, for showing that all your talk about being educated is all just bluster.
You’re surely no that daft, are you? I gave you information for something I thought might be of relevance, Christian-Muslim relations. Of course I didn’t do my Greek and Nt exegesis with Prof Riddell.
And since when do students have to agree with their research professors? That’s dumb even for you. While I certainly respect Prof Riddell I certainly didn’t agree with him on everything.
And look at that, you even went and googled an article of his. How predictable. Stop pretending to be a know all little kid
LOL, come now Cerbie! Don’t cause more damage to yourself than you already have.
Hmm, let’s see. Who has more credibility here? Your professor, a distinguished scholar who has published peer-reviewed articles? Or neutered little you?
I’m still wondering how an Islamophobic creep like you ended up studying Christian-Muslim relations? And again, how does that make you an expert on the topics that are covered on this blog? Topics like Biblical studies? Exegesis? History? Theology?
So, all your talk about being educated was all bluster, huh? You actually have no credibility. No expertise. I think I will stick with the “liberal” scholars, thank you very much. Okay?
You didn’t answer my question. What was your Master’s thesis on?
When did I claim to be an expert? I said I had studied Koine Greek and NT exegesis academically, which I have. You’ve learnt how to study google at the masjid.
Prof Riddell was just one of many people I studied under. He oversaw my thesis. I thought by sharing my history with him you might be less of a pig. Clearly not. I also studied Paul and his theology under Colin Kruse, one of the leading scholars on Nt exegesis and Paul. You’ve learnt how to search yahoo answers.
My thesis was on Islam in Se Asia. Happy?
Now, let’s enjoy watching you do a bit more google and character assissination. Mo has taught you well…
Paulus, hello mate, i’ve been thinking about your comment, so basically what you mean that in v6 there’s anaphoric link between “Morphe” and “Equality with God”, which kinda explains the NIV translation, i remember reading about this somewhere, it was the well known NT Wright if i’m not wrong, I do have Denny Burk’s essay somewhere in my PC or my phone, i’m gonna have to search for it, his arguments against Wright was very complex for me to properly understand, well i guess i’m gonna go full on greek grammar once i’m done with my exams to understand those kind of stuff, i’ve already chosen some books by the way…
But for now, i’m gonna agree(i have to) that there is indeed an anaphoric link between those words in v6, so would you agree that “Equality with God” as well as “harpagmon” opens the door for other different interpretations of “Morphe”?
You are correct, but that discussion you reference is an intra-christological one, I.e between scholars who affirm the two natures of Christ from the text. It is for this reason that it is completely absurd to claim Paul was a Unitarian.
If you still wish to maintain a translation of external appearance I think you will find almost no exegetical support for your position. I’ve never
Sorry for the late reply mate, i thought you had something to add by the way, something to clarify apparently…i mean you finished your sentence by “i’ve never” so i thought it was something important…
“Your reference is an intra-Christological one, i.e between scholars who affirm the two natures of Christ from the text”
Yeah they are both trinitarians, but are you sure that they both agree on the two natures in 2:6? I mean i do remember that Denny does affirm 2:6 denotes the Pre-existence but he also says that he holds the view of External Appearance in his Essay…more accurately “Divine beauty”…well correct me if i’m wrong about him by the way…
Concerning the Translation, though i’ve been studying through books, theses, essays and stuff on 2:6(mostly Trinitarian) since yesterday, i think it’s still too early for me to give more arguments due to the fact i’m still not quite sure, i do think that external appearance in totally comfortable with 2:6 compared to an ontological interpretation but the latter does seem to make sense to some extent because of the apparent anaphoric link…i did find good reasons to “reject” the mainstream view but i’m still very skeptical….i’m gonna have to look more into this mate…
Awww, I seem to be upsetting you Cerbie. But hey, don’t blame me for exposing your facade.
That’s a very vague description of your thesis. What about Islam in SE Asia? A thesis is usually much more specific.
The point of all this is to show that despite all your bluster, you actually have zero credibility. So, going forward, perhaps you should actually try to respond to people’s arguments rather than questioning their credentials (because you have none yourself) or dismissing scholarly evidence as “liberal”. How’s that? Sounds fair, right? Try to make substantive responses, rather than the childish dismissals you usually make. Kay?
” but the Temptation follows three patterns but nowhere does the devil tempt him to immediately return to his former glory in heaven as far as i know…”
I didn’t mean that as I don’t think it was at Satan’s disposal anyway. He only had an earthly kingdom to give, of some kind, in some way, but immediately without any suffering. This would be a substitute for the kingdom which the Father would give him in reward for his obedience.
Yes, it is the same glory but as the Son of Man he has really earned it through his obedience, or not?
” I mean He knows that He is God, He knows that the Dominion over the Heavens and the Earth will eventually be for Him so the question still remains that why was he tempted? ”
But as a human being nothing is automatic. It is all conditional on obedience. Nothing is for free.
It is all very interesting but the bible is not written to satisfy inquisitive minds on all matters. My faith does not need an answer to all the problems associated with harmonizing divine and human knowledge resulting from the incarnation.
Theoretically human nature has no knowledge except innate and acquired knowledge. If Jesus was really human, as I believe, as well as divine, then he only had the same knowledge as you or I at birth. Innate knowledge and a blank sheet.
How can he also be omniscient at the same time in the same mind? I don’t know and the bible does not tell me. ls that an insuperable obstacle to faith? Not for me. For you yes. Ce la vie.
Theoretically human nature has no knowledge except innate and acquired knowledge. If Jesus was really human, as I believe, as well as divine, then he only had the same knowledge as you or I at birth. Innate knowledge and a blank sheet.
How can he also be omniscient at the same time in the same mind? I don’t know and the bible does not tell me. ls that an insuperable obstacle to faith? Not for me. For you yes. Ce la vie.
I say;
You forgot to mention that, some people just like you are worshiping dual or multi nature Gods i.e. cow God, Elephant Gods, Monkey Gods, God Man(Jesus, Ali, Haile Selaissie, Sai Baba etc),etc.
So, it is better to use a baseline from the Bible to determined with your mind, brain, intellect etc. to know what is not God.
The Bible said;
– God is one, only and alone, no one else.
-God is not a man.
-Nothing on earth, even nothing in heaven is like God.
-Nothing on earth, above, below and even in heaven must be worshiped as God.
-God is immortal and invincible.
-And many more.
The above and many are the baseline or yardstick to determine Jesus Christ is not God at all. You can believe by faith, just like Hindus believe by faith in that God can become his creature at the same time God without using your brain. That is pure idolatry, polytheism and blaspheme punishable in hell fire, if one does not repent.
Do you think God gave us brain to only prepare and eat food? No, we have to use our brain to determine what is true and what is false. God said he is 1 and you are insisting He is 3 persons one God without God saying that. That is not Ce la vie but being stubborn by rejecting the truth.
The Copts and the other Monophysites ( they prefer Mia-physite) believed in the Trinity and the Nicean (325 AD), Constantinople (381) and Council of Ephesus ( 431 AD) – they only defined that the human nature of Jesus was absorbed into the Divine nature after His resurrection and glorification. (John 17:5) – they believed Jesus had two natures while on earth, but the human nature was absorbed into the Divine nature in the resurrection and glorification. Hence, “one nature”.
“emptied” means that by becoming a man, by taking on a human nature, He veiled His use and prerogatives and advantages of using His divine powers temporarily. Dr. White has a scholarly article on Philippians 2, The Carmen Christi.
“emptied” means that by becoming a man, by taking on a human nature, He veiled His use and prerogatives and advantages of using His divine powers temporarily. Dr. White has a scholarly article on Philippians 2, The Carmen Christi.
I say;
Stop mixing veil and empty. They are 2 opposite things. You can eat you cake and still have it. Again, watch this video and digest.
I am quite not disappointed at all by your comments on the church fathers Mr Temple. Years ago, my inner self would have exuded disgust. After following you for a long time however, I am not shocked at all. You are a perfect definition of the term ‘broken record’.
Anyway, the subject of the early fathers and what they believed is one of great controversy in our world today. There exist too many opinions and schools of thoughts with a lot of scholars backing each of them. Merely claiming that they are definitely all trinitarians without backing that up with evidence isn’t at all convincing. Guess you do need to do a bit more study.
By the way (as a side talking point), do you agree that there was a form of theological development through the early centuries of christianity (the trinity being one of them)? A lot of trinitarian scholars seem to be adopting that position in recent times. James White himself shocked me when he admitted in a debate with Adnan Rashid that he is also a proponent of the position. Sure, he dismissed it as irrelevant (saying the early christians did not individually possess all of scripture). However, that he has been pushed into admitting it is quite remarkable. What do you know that James White doesn’t?
Can you kindly move my comment above Bro Williams to under Ken Temple’s own (statements) about the church fathers? It was meant to be there but for an accident. I’m sorry I misclicked.
These fictional stories can only be said in the churches, Ken not here! Again, you are talking with muslims. Remember that always before you jump to the preaching style.
he apparently was responding to this:
“if you understand that Jesus has two natures; which Christians have always understood and taught”
how are they fictional stories when our Scriptures teaches:
Jesus is God by nature. John 1:1-5; 20:28; Mark 2:28; Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8, 10-12; Philippians 2:5-8; Romans 9:5; John 8:24; 56-58; John 5:17-18; John 10:30
Jesus is also man – John 1:14; John 4, all through the Synoptic gospels.
Therefore, Jesus had 2 natures.
Christians have always believed that – the twin truths are there in the Scriptures, written between 45 AD to 96 AD.
Just as you use the Qur’an in your Da’wa, we use the Bible in our evangelism and Apologetics.
Not all Christians believed/believe Jesus has 2 natures. Arians, Ebionites etc. where persecuted and outlawed because they do not believe Jesus Christ is God. Now, we have Unitarians i.e. Anthony Buzzard, Dr. Kemball Cook etc., Jehovah Witness etc. who do not believe Jesus is God and also do not have 2 natures.
In the Bible you will not find “Jesus has 2 natures” or “Jesus is God”,”3 persons 1 God”, “Trinitas Unitas” etc. So, it is not true to say Jesus has 2 natures. Moses was called God in the Bible. Does that merit his status to be divine? or 2 natures?
correction: were persecuted.and outlawed not where persecuted and outlawed.
My dear Reverend. There were different types of Christians after the death of Jesus Christ even James the Brother of Jesus and Paul of Tarsus could not agree to with regards to Paul teachings.
Arians, Ebionites, Gnostics – sorry “Intellect” – these were NOT Christians – even the Ebionites never considered themselves Christians. They were a small Jewish sect that died out.
These folks were NOT persecuted for 300 + years. The Arians did not exist until around 311 AD. Arius was deemed a heretic but he was exiled.
James the brother of Jesus, Paul, and Peter all agreed with each other on the gospel – see Galatians 2:7-9 and Acts chapter 15.
they certainly were christians Ken. You dont get to decide, like some pope, who is one. In fact in the first centuries there were many different Christianities preaching different gospels. The gospel of Paul is quite different from that of Jesus. Islam corrects this corruption with the truth about Jesus.
Extensive writings of the early church fathers proves that you are wrong, Paul Williams. They were considered heretics and non-Christians by the Christians of the first 4-5 centuries. You are so wrong.
Clement, one of the elder-bishops of Rome ( 96 AD)
Ignatius ( martyred around 107 AD)
Papias, bishop of Heiropolis (died around 135 AD)
Polycarp ( martyred in 155 AD)
Justin Martyr ( martyred in 165 AD)
Irenaeus (wrote about 180-202 AD)
Tertullian (wrote 190-220 AD)
All of these either explicitly called the Gnostics and Docetic groups heretics, or wrote doctrine in a way that shows that they would have said the Gnostics were heretics and not Christians. They decided long ago that they groups were not Christians.
Clement of Alexandria ( 215 AD)
Cyprian ( 258)
Origen ( 254) ( Was orthodox on most issues, but was heretical on some things – like believing that Satan and unbeleivers would go through centuries of hell and eventually be saved.
Athanasius ( died 373 AD) – wrote extensively against the Arians.
Hillary ( 300s)
Ambrose ( 300s)
Augustine ( 354-430 AD)
John Chyrsostom ( died 407)
Gregory of Nyssa (300s)
Gregory of Nazianzus ( 300s)
Basil of Caesarea ( 300s)
Epiphanius (310-403 AD) is another who catalogued most of the known heresies – including Ebionites.
“you don’t get to decide” – I agree; that was already clearly decided and clearly written about in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries.
Colossians and 1 John are clearly teaching that proto-Gnostic and Docetic ideas were heretical. That is why Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Augustine, and Epiphanius were so clear that these groups were not Christian.
You need to read Irenaeus and Tertullian. They are long before (180-220 AD) any so called “Pope” was around.
actually Paul and Peter had a big fall out see Galatians and Acts tells us men from James came to sort Paul out 2:12. We know James followed Judaism like his brother. Paul was an apostate Jew who taught others not to follow the law.
Also, James calls Jesus “the glorious Lord” = Yahweh of glory. James 2:1
Also, James believed in the death and resurrection of Christ – 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (verse 7 is about Jesus’ resurrection appearance to James, the half brother of Jesus).
Along with Acts 15 and Galatians 2:7-9, your (Paul Williams) arguments are defeated soundly and completely.
Acts is not reliable historically as the consensus of critical scholars has long argued.
The appearances started off as “visions” which over time became embellished and mythologised into the stories we read in the gospels written many years after Jesus.
Paul refers to the resurrected Jesus appearance as a “vision”. It is of the same nature as the appearances to the disciples of Jesus. That is what Paul says. The stories in the gospels, written many years later by unknown Christians, are the product of a long development where these stories became embellished and mythologised as religious stories often do.
no it does not. Its pious religious myth. Like I said the resurrection appearances started life as visions then became more physical and mythologised as the years rolled by.
But the earliest recorded appearances refer to a vision that Paul had of the resurrected Jesus of the same nature and character as to James etc. That is what Paul claims. Yet the people with Paul saw nothing! So many years later after much embellishment and mythologisation (which was very common 2000 years ago) we have the three anonymous gospels telling fictionalised accounts involving flesh and bones and a bodily resurrected Jesus. So you are wrong.
Matthew 28, Luke 24; Mark 16; John 20-21 are earlier events than Paul’s seeing the resurrected Jesus in Acts 9, 22, 26. 1 Cor. 15:3-8 – “last of all, He appeared to me”
but the events of the death and empty tomb and resurrection appearances in the gospels took place in 30 AD, before Paul’s conversion around 33-34 AD, recorded in Acts 9, 22, 26.
I get the theory that liberals have that the Gospels were embellished and made up later and written later, Mark, around 70
AD and Luke and Matthew in 80s and 90s; but those are just theories and speculations. I get that and that you are also convinced of that.
However,
Mark was probably written between 45-60 AD
Matthew 55-65.
Luke, definitely 61-62 AD, because of the way Acts abruptly ends, in 62 AD.
They are God-breathed, so accurate and the empty tomb and appearances to the women and disciples are historically true.
nowhere does it say in the Bible that the gospels are ‘God breathed’. They are the products of sinful men just like you Ken and full of discrepancies, errors and myths with some history. You follow Christian conservative scholars who are biased and have a vested interest in presenting a sanitized christian view.
It might be implied it is God-breathed, but that inference is tenuous. I think one rendering of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 uses the phrasing “God breathed”. I don’t think the Gospels, even Mark, were written yet. I also think 2nd Timothy is a forgery. Or that’s 1st Timothy?
“The “Form” of God
Most of the discussion of this passage has focused upon what it means that Christ existed in the “form of God.” Paul’s term is morphe, translated literally as “form.” The NIV renders the phrase “being in very nature God,” the NLT oversimplifies with, “though he was God,” but the majority of translations render it “being in the form of God.”[i] When we refer to the “form” of God, what do we mean? Is this saying nothing more than “Jesus was a spirit”? Or is there more to the word?
Part of the answer is found in the word “existing.” Paul does not say “came to exist” or “entered into existence,” but uses the present tense to indicate on-going existence. [present participle] And since the time-frame of the passage is clearly eternity past,[ii] the beginning assertion is that the One we know as Jesus Christ eternally existed in the very form of God, that which communicates the inner reality to the outer senses. The “form of God” is not merely a category of existence (like “spirits” or “creatures”). The “form of God” presents a direct correspondence to reality itself: that which exists in the “form of God” is truly deity. Warfield was correct when he said:
Paul does not say simply, “He was God.” He says, “He was in the form of God,” employing a turn of speech which throws emphasis upon Our Lord’s possession of the specific quality of God. “Form” is a term which expresses the sum of those characterizing qualities which make a thing the precise thing that it is….When Our Lord is said to be in “the form of God,” therefore, He is declared, in the most express manner possible, to be all that God is, to possess the whole fulness of attributes which make God God.[iii]
The idea of temporarily existing in this form is inconceivable, which only emphasizes the continuous existing that we just mentioned. Paul makes it plain: the pre-incarnate Son who did not consider equality with God something to be held on to at all costs made the decision to make Himself nothing while existing in the very form of Deity itself.”
James White
BEYOND THE VEIL OF ETERNITY / Dr. James R. White
In modern times great emphasis has been placed upon the next important phrase in our ancient hymn, that being the term kenow, literally, “to empty.” The “Kenosis” refers to the “emptying” of Christ, based upon this very passage. But what is the text saying? Does it mean that Christ ceased to be in the form of God?
The first thing to realize is that Paul never uses this term in a literal fashion. In the four other places Paul uses this verb (Romans 4:14, 1 Corinthians 1:17, 9:15, 2 Corinthians 9:3) he uses it in a metaphorical, not a literal, sense. Most carry the meaning of making a boast “empty” or “vain.”
Next, this is something the Son does! This fact is often overlooked, even in scholarly discussions. There is no outside power “emptying” Christ of something, but instead this is an action He takes with reference to Himself. What condescension! Christ voluntarily and without compulsion undertakes this great act of humble servitude.
I have translated the term “made Himself nothing” to capture the thrust of Paul’s appeal: He who eternally existed in the form of God, the Creator and Maker of all things (Colossians 1:16-17), enters quietly into His very own creation so as to become a servant. The Incarnate One does not “stand out from the crowd,” does not appear with halo or angelic glow, “had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2, NIV). He makes Himself “nothing,” for in comparison to the infinite and eternal, mankind is “a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away” (James 4:14).
But how was this action of making Himself “nothing” accomplished? It is just here that we must listen to this hymn from the balcony of heaven itself. We must hear the words from a divine and heavenly perspective. The Son makes Himself “nothing” by taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of man.[vii] From the human realm, “being made nothing” by taking does not seem right. But when we see the glory and majesty and power of the One who is here condescending to enter into creaturely existence when He Himself is the Creator, we can begin to appreciate how this act of being made nothing is properly described as taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of man. Daniel B. Wallace, an eminent Greek scholar, sees both terms “taking” and “being made” as the means by which the “being made nothing” is accomplished.[viii]
The biggest difficulty with seeing labwn (taking) as means is that emptying is normally an act of subtraction, not addition. But the imagery should not be made to walk on all fours. As an early hymn, it would be expected to have a certain poetic license….The Philippians were told not to puff themselves up with “empty glory,” because Christ was an example of one who emptied his glory. If this connection is intentional, then the Carmen Christi has the following force:
Do not elevate yourselves on empty glory, but follow the example of Christ, who, though already elevated (on God’s level), emptied his glory by veiling it in humanity.[ix]
So the means of the kenosis is the addition of a human nature, the veiling of the divine in the creaturely. This is important to understand, for many interpret Paul to mean that Christ abandons the “form of God” rather than seeing this as an addition of the human nature to the eternal divine nature that was Christ’s. It is this addition that “veils” the form of God. While there are certainly many who see this passage teaching that Christ did indeed lay aside the “form of God,” the words of Paul do not present such a concept.”
James White
Beyond the Veil of Eternity
see the link above
Ken, thanks mate, i did read it…👍 don’t get me wrong but i’m still very skeptical, judging from what i’ve been reading since the past few days, Trinitarians are divided on this subject but i’m sure a definitive answer lies somewhere, i really like James White’s explanation on this subject, it’s very informative…
Ken, hello mate, sorry for the late reply i was not online…you are correct by the way, this is exactly how my name is written and it is indeed Persian, it is synonymous with Joy and happiness….
What about “Ken”? I found quite a lot of meanings for it, in Japanese it means “Healthy & Strong” but in Scottish it means “Handsome”, are you scottish?
Whenever it see your name in the comments it always reminds me of Ken from Street Fighters…he was my favorite character ever since i started playing the franchise since i was 6 years old…
Ken, i’m not Persian by the way, I’m Mauritian, and i’m half Indian…my dad was a “Surtee” from the state of Gujurat, reminds me that some Surtees in my country(we are very tiny minority by the way) claim that our ancestors were Arab or Persian merchants but i really don’t care to be honest, ancestry may be important for them but not for me…one thing’s for sure, many of my brethren do look quite different which sparks a lot of curiosity and questions…there have been times when people mistook me for a foreigner…
Repeating the non sense of christian belief has never been the way to refute the powerful and truthful message of Islam even in your dreams. You may preach like that in the churches but not in a debate with muslims!
Dr. Ally not only he refuted that non sense belief, but also he destroyed it completely. I know that you know that inside yourself, but you cannot admit it. Ask Allah(sw) to rmove that pride from your heart.
Blogging Theology 
Jesus Is Tempted
The Holy Spirit led Jesus into the desert. There the devil tempted him (Jesus). 2 After 40 days and 40 nights of going without eating, Jesus was hungry.
3 The tempter came to him. He said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” 8 Finally, the devil took Jesus to a very high mountain. He showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 “If you bow down and worship me,” he said, “I will give you all of this.” 10 Jesus said to him, “Get away from me, Satan! It is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God. He is the only one you should serve.’” 11 Then the devil left Jesus. Angels came and took care of him. (Mathew 4:1-11)
Is it conceivable that an All-Mighty God can become tempted by the devil to whom God created; is God susceptible to being swayed by His own creation? If Jesus is God then there lies some issues for the Bible says:
James 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil,nor does he tempt anyone.
It is so clear here that Jesus (pbuh) cannot be God, for he was tempted to do evil. And God cannot be swayed with temptation.
It says in verse 8: Finally, the devil took Jesus to a very high mountain. He showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 “If you bow down and worship me,” he said, “I will give you all of this.”
God, owner of the worlds, the creator of all animate and inanimate objects, the giver of life and death, the sustainer of all. How if Jesus is God can the devil say to a God I shall give you all this, if you worship me? It just is not possible for this scene to occur if the devil was really speaking to God. It is thus self-evident that Jesus is not God for even the devil knew Jesus was not. Hence why he tempted him with such material gains.
Jesus said lastly: ‘Worship the Lord your God. He is the only one you should serve.’ Jesus made it clear that the only person that should be worshipped is God alone and no one else.
quoted from : Ten reasons why Jesus is not God
https://salvationinjesus.wordpress.com/2017/08/09/ten-reasons-why-jesus-is-not-god/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fatima
How does jesus’ temptation counter the trinity?
LikeLike
Did Satan know about the Trinity?
LikeLike
Joel, hey bro, it’s been quite some time since we last discussed about something, i’ve always wondered about something interesting about this event in the NT, well basically if Jesus was tempted and suffered for so many days, then he must have coveted right? But doesn’t that contradict the Trinitarian claim that He knew about his nature while on earth? I mean He was supposed to have claimed his divinity while on earth itself(for e.g John 8:58) so if He knew he was God, then what exactly was he tempted about(which even made him suffer) when everything already belongs to Him? He was supposed to know that He was a God right?
LikeLike
God cannot be tempted by evil, so it means the Divine Nature of Jesus was not tempted, but His human nature was tempted, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:15
The question is answered by the fact that Jesus has two Natures – a Divine Nature (John 1:1-5; John 20:28; Mark 2:28, etc.) and a human nature (as in Matthew 4, Luke 4 – temptation in the wilderness), John 4 – getting tired and thirsty, and not knowing the day of His second coming in Mark 13:32/Matthew 24:36 – that was speaking about His human nature; but in His post resurrected glorified state (John 17:5), of course He knows.
LikeLike
The elementary questions can easily destroy christianity as whole.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Nothing was destroyed, if you understand that Jesus has two natures; which Christians have always understood and taught, and this was more specifically spelled out in theological development at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. But it was there in the Scriptures, before, as I showed above, and discussed in the 200s to 451 AD. Formal doctrinal formulations and specific language come later (451 AD) as they wrestled with all the relevant texts of Scripture. (100-451 AD) (which were already revealed from around 45 AD to 96 AD).
LikeLike
“if you understand that Jesus has two natures; which Christians have always understood and taught”
These fictional stories can only be said in the churches, Ken not here! Again, you are talking with muslims. Remember that always before you jump to the preaching style.
LikeLike
The Right Reverend Ken Temple
Nothing was destroyed, if you understand that Jesus has two natures; which Christians have always understood and taught, and this was more specifically spelled out in theological development at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. But it was there in the Scriptures, before, as I showed above, and discussed in the 200s to 451 AD
I say;
The problem is that, we have so many 2 nature or multi natared Gods like Hindus cow God, Monkey God, Elephant God, God Man etc. and if you believe such thing can happen as it happened to you, then why blaming Mother Theresa for saying the Hindus Gods are also God?
You have the same principles with Hindus i.e. God has 2 natures or became flesh or emptied Himself, veil himself etc. that are incoherent.
Watch your friend Paul Williams who will not allow a Christian to eat his cake and still has it at the same time.
Paul Williams. I like this video. If Christians are searching for truth, most of them would have converted to Islam after watching this video.
Thanks.
LikeLike
You know, when I first glanced at the picture, it looked like the girl from The Ring. Creepy…
LikeLiked by 2 people
And she’s coming for the Christians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
LikeLike
Well, how convenient! So what exactly did Jesus do to prove that he was “God”?
LikeLike
you’re not trying to change topic are you?
LikeLike
So your god gave up his divinity status to be nothing? What a religion!
LikeLike
Paulus refuted: if Jesus gave up his divinity to become human, then as a human he was not God.
LikeLike
Paul
Fallacy of affirming the consequent – you are presupposing modlaism.
Fail.
LikeLike
there is no such thing as modlaism LOL
LikeLike
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Modalism”.
LikeLike
It just amazes me that these xtians think they are actually making solid arguments.
Wow! Just woow!!!
Is jesus ignorant (as he is a human being) or all-knowing (as he is allegedly God) or both (and hence a logical self contradiction)?
Is jesus limited in power (as he is a human being) or all-powerful (as he is allegedly God) or both (and hence a logical self contradiction)?
Is jesus in need of food (as he is a human being) or free of all need (as he is allegedly God) or both (and hence a logical self contradiction)?
Can jesus be tempted (as he is a human being) or not (as he is allegedly God) or both (and hence a logical self contradiction)?
What ‘religion’. How anybody can believe in this is just beyond me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Paulus, that verse you quoted answers the age-old Atheist question with a resounding YES. I almost feel bad for you guys.
LikeLike
Also, is that translation accurate? Equal WITH instead of equal TO?
LikeLike
Paulus i don’t think that “Nature” is the right translation, i remember reading in a book that lexicons are in disagreement concerning the “Morphē”, those who are in favour of “outward form” have a stronger case due to the fact that Mark and the LXX refers this word as an “Outward appearance” but i remember Dustin finding a closely related word in 2 Timothy so i looked for it and it’s at 3:5, the word is “μόρφωσιν” “morphōsin”, and it refers to an outward disposition/character…
LikeLike
Paulus
November 25, 2017 • 3:22 am
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness
I say;
With all due respect my dear Paulus, there are so many contradictions, illogicality, irrationality, nonsense, stupidity etc. in the above verse. Anyone with good brain and intellect can clearly see the problems.
1.” 6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;”
What nonsense is this? “being in a very nature God, did not consider equality with God”
How will God not consider Himself equal with God? That is nonsense.
2. 7 rather, he made himself nothing
God made Himself nothing. Blaspheme. Do you know the meaning of “nothing”? Then if God is nothing or has surrendered his divinity then he is not God. Why worship someone who is not God? You can’t have it both ways, you Christian cheats.
3. “by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness”
What do you mean? By taking human likeness he is still God? Some Christians will say he veiled Himself.
Veiling Himself is completely opposite to emptying himself or making himself nothing. You can’t have both.
Watch this video.
Paulus, with all due respect, stop quoting your nonsense here other wise you will be disgraced like how Paul Williams and Speakers Corners Highlights disgraced the Christian in the video.
Thanks.
LikeLike
I have not seen this before.
LikeLike
Paul Williams
November 25, 2017 • 4:42 pm
I have not seen this before
I say;
It is not surprising because in a day you can have different people filming your wonderful conversations. You may not see all but we are seeing and propagating all. May Allah Bless you for bringing any inconsistency out.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Clearly this text refutes the OP. The incarnation of Christ demonstrates that Jesus “took on” the form of humanity. He did not “give up” divinity. As such, being human he could face temptation like us.
Unless you actually engage with Christian thought these types of posts are rather childish and easily refuted for their fallacious nature
LikeLike
Paulus, in case you didn’t notice i’m not here to refute anything, i’m only pointing out that “nature” isn’t the proper translation so i don’t see how exactly i was “Childish” for pointing this out, so being honest is bad nowadays? Maybe i should resort to the so called “Taqiyya” right?… and if i wanted to “engage” you i would have told you that in the LXX “morphe” is used as a translation for the word for “tselem” in Daniel 3:19, why is that? Wouldn’t that mean that Adam is God in Genesis 1:26?
LikeLike
Paulus, if you’re talking about my question to Joel then still it doesn’t answer the question that about what was he tempted when he already knew he was God? Erasmus was saying that he had to earn his glory and stuff but didn’t Jesus himself willingly took the form of a servant to fulfill his mission? and seriously are you guys implying that the Kingdom of heaven is nothing compared to what satan was offering to Jesus?
LikeLike
Paulus, talking about 2:6, doesn’t “Huparchon” denote a beginning?
LikeLike
Hi Shaad.
I’ve studied koine Greek and I’d be happy to discuss etymology or grammatical points.
However, I’m not convinced you have any training on the topic, so if t would not be worth my time discussing with you if you simply rely upon Islamic websites.
So, if you wish to proceed, can you please tell me what training you have in koine Greek to discuss the nuances of translations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paulus, First of all i never use Islamic Websites, i tend to read books and there are blogs that i follow… secondly i don’t have any training in Koine Greek, i’m simply stating what i see and i’ve been seeing i.e “Morphe” doesn’t mean “Nature” but Outward Appearance…it would be great of you could shed some light on why your translators chose to translate it as “Nature”…the question i asked you about “Huparchon” doesn’t involve advanced grammar by the way…
LikeLike
Paulus, oh well you’ve studied Koine Greek…that’s cool….
LikeLike
Paulus, let’s continue the discussion bro, i’m good to hold on though i’m an amateur there’s no need to worry…👍
LikeLike
It’s very common for unitarians to insist that morphe means outward appearance. I’m quite happy with the translation “form”. Lexicons tend to favour nature and form.
“Who being in the very form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.”
As with anything, context determines usage, so if you think it should be translated “outward appearance”, then please provide an exegetical co textual reason.
“Who being in the outward appearance of God, did not consider equality with avid something to be grasped.”
Keep in mind that the word “being”, (“Who being in the very form of God”), is from the ancient Greek verb huparchein, which “describes that which a man is in his very essence and which cannot be changed. It describes that part of a man which, in any circumstances, remains the same.”
So for morphe to me a outward appearance you need to provide grammatical reasons to ignore “being” as well as the grammatical correlation to “equality with God”
Good luck!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paulus, my reply went down below to the bottom, sorry about that mate, please check it out
LikeLike
Talking about Dustin, in his article about 2:6 he wrote that the Aramaic equivalent of “morphē” is used in Genesis 1:26-27 about Adam of course…
LikeLike
Wait wait, sorry my bad, he weirdly equals those two words together but i think know why he did that…
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6755.htm
LikeLike
What on earth am i doing, oh my God exams are killing me… that’s hebrew…sorry once again…
LikeLike
“I say;
With all due respect my dear Paulus, there are so many contradictions, illogicality, irrationality, nonsense, stupidity etc. in the above verse. Anyone with good brain and intellect can clearly see the problems.”
But the early christians obviously did not agree with you:
Chalcedonian Creed
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the
same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;
truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father
according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things
like unto us, without sin;
LikeLike
Erasmus, but the Chalcedonian creed came in the 400s right? By the way i’ve got a Trinitarian friend who talks about a “Mutation” of faith, can you please give me your opinion about this? Here’s an overview…
http://faithandscripture.blogspot.fr/2017/05/jewish-roots-of-trinity.html?m=1
LikeLike
Ignoramus, there were many Christians who did not agree with the Chalcedonian creed, and were brutally persecuted as a result. The Copts are Monophysites and refused to accept the Chalcedonian creed.
LikeLike
“so if He knew he was God, then what exactly was he tempted about(which even made him suffer) when everything already belongs to Him? ”
Didn’t he say that the foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests but he had nowhere to lay his head?
LikeLiked by 1 person
God has no where to lay his head? Blaspheme Erasmus. Why do Christians keep blaspheming God?
LikeLike
Erasmus, i get your point but the real question is did Jesus desire this? I mean He knows that He is God, He knows that the Dominion over the Heavens and the Earth will eventually be for Him so the question still remains that why was he tempted? The fact that He Himself took the Form of a servant though he was a God points out that He didn’t desire comfort and stuff…by the way correct me if i’m wrong, the context of Matthew 8:20 is that Jesus was warning the Scribe the He had to live a life full of poverty if He had to follow him right? I mean if Jesus was “complaining” about his miscomfort then his temptation and suffering in the Desert would make sense…
LikeLike
Erasmus
Then the Son of Man is not God because it is blaspheme to say God has no where to lay his head. Why worship the Son of Man if he is not God?
Saying the Son of a Man is God is blaspheme. God Almighty is not Son/son to anyone whether physical son, adopted son or metaphorical son. Anyone who is a Son/son is not God.
Thanks.
LikeLike
The Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head.
Please note the distinction.
LikeLike
Erasmus, but still the Son of Man did know what was awaiting Him, He is the same son of Man who proclaimed his Divinity from time to time…He knew he was God so there was no reason for him to be tempted….
LikeLike
Erasmus, oops i didn’t check the timing of the comments, i thought this was one of your new replies, sorry about that…
LikeLike
” I mean He knows that He is God, He knows that the Dominion over the Heavens and the Earth will eventually be for Him so the question still remains that why was he tempted? ”
But as the Son of Man he had to earn this through obedience, and not take a short cut or be satisfied with something less, which the devil was tempting him to do.
“Erasmus, i get your point but the real question is did Jesus desire this?”
If it was his right he must have desired it or not? And he must have lost it to become a man, or not?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Erasmus, okay i get your point…thanks
LikeLike
Erasmus, “But as the Son of Man he has to earn this through obedience, and not take a short cut or be satisfied with something else which the devil was tempting him to do”
Sorry for the short reply i gave bro i was busy with revision and stuff, i’m having exams nowadays… okay but Jesus himself said that he already shared glory with the Father during his pre-existence, so logically(IMO) he didn’t have to earn it as he would share it again when he would return…you do seem to make a good point but i wonder why would Jesus be satisfied with the Earthly pleasures that Satan was offering him when he knew that the Heavenly Kingdom is much better, i mean this type of temptation would be pretty ironic for someone who was preaching people about the Kingdom of God….
“If it was his right he must have desired it or not? And he must have lost it to become a man, or not?”
good points indeed… But once again, he knew he was going to return to his former glory anyway after fulfilling his destined mission of dying for the sins of mankind…correct me if i’m wrong, but the Temptation follows three patterns but nowhere does the devil tempt him to immediately return to his former glory in heaven as far as i know…
LikeLike
Paulus, thanks for wishing me luck bro i really appreciate it 👍
So you have no problem with “Form” right? But i still have one question, in what context is “Huparchon” used throughout the NT, i know that you’ve already quoted David Guzik but most of the time i see that word being used(in the NT) it denotes a beginning(at some point) of something…i’m pretty sure you’d agree that my doubt is legitimate as it would contradict the Fact that Jesus was eternal unless you have a good explanation for it…
Concerning “equality with God”, can you shed some light over “Ison”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paulus, i don’t know why exactly but i have the feeling that you won’t take me seriously, nevermind bro, as from today i’m gonna dig every good books on Amazon to build my collection on Greek and biblical grammar then i’m gonna start learning….only then i’ll be taken seriously i guess…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hahahaha, don’t take it personally brother Shaad. Didn’t you know that Cerbie knows all? When you make a claim about the NT or Greek or Hebrew, he will accuse you of copying from websites, and when you provide actual scholarly references, he will dismiss them as “liberal”. The guy is a crackpot, so don’t take him seriously.
LikeLike
Shaad.
I’d appreciate if you’d provide some exegetical reasons why we should understand morphe as “outward appearance”.
Grammatically speaking, there appears to be a connection between “equality with God” and “form of God”. I’ve read some good academic discussions on that topic by Greek professors. You’d be best reading them for yourself, but it’s very advanced and complex. But in short, you can’t isolate the latter from the former, which makes it near impossible to exegrtically claim that “form of God” is not an essential claim to Jesus divinity.
Porky- maybe it’s because I’ve studied all those topics academically under professors and you’ve learnt how to use google? And rely upon others?
LikeLike
Bwahahaha, yeah I’m sure we are all VERY impressed! You still haven’t said under what illustrious professors you have studied under or what prestigious university you got your degree from. I asked you that a while ago and you never responded.
The scholars that you so easily dismiss because they are “liberal” have also studied under professors. In fact, many have received training from prestigious universities and publish their works in peer-reviewed journals. But let’s face it. You only dismiss them because they do not agree with you preconceived conservative views.
LikeLike
Sure. Here you go.
I completed my masters thesis under the direction of Prof Peter Riddell
https://www.soas.ac.uk/staff/staff81620.php
How about you? Let’s see what qualifications you have other then shares in google.
Don’t be shy Porky pug
LikeLike
Good Morning you two,
Paulus, i will try to find an answer to what you asked me about morphe when i wake up tomorrow morning… thanks for the advice by the way…
LikeLike
ROTFL!!! Are you serious, Cerbie?
First of all, I never said I had a degree in religious studies, but then I never question people’s credentials unless it is based on evidence. You, on the other hand, do just that. You dismiss people’s claims without any substantive response, and when confronted with evidence from scholarly publications (especially with regard to the Bible and Christianity), you dismiss them as “liberal”. Hmm, I wonder if Professor Riddell tought you that?
Now, as for your education under Professor Riddell, how exactly does that make you an expert on the NT, the Bible in general or Biblical exegesis? According to the link you provided, Professor Riddel’s field of expertise is:
“Southeast Asian History, Islamic Studies, Christian-Muslim Relations”
WOW!! Look at that! How in the world did a troll like you end up learning from someone as distinguished as Professor Riddell? I wonder what Professor Riddell would think about the fact that you are an Islamophobic troll? Here’s an interesting excerpt from one of Professor Riddell’s articles on the Quran which I think exposes you for what you are: a fraud.
From his article “Reading the Qurʾān Chronologically: An Aid to Discourse Coherence and Thematic Development”:
“Q 9:5 is sometimes cited to argue that the Quran advocates killing non-Muslims, with no regard given to other verses that impose clear limits on military engagement with non-believers.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311546056_Reading_the_Quran_Chronologically_An_Aid_to_Discourse_Coherence_and_Thematic_Development
BUSTED!!!
In any case, the fact is that this does not give you the credentials to become a know-it-all expert on Islam. Moreover, it actually proves that you have no training whatsoever on NT studies. Professor Riddell does not seem to be much involved in Biblical studies. So thank you, Cerbie, for showing that all your talk about being educated is all just bluster.
By the way, what was your Master’s thesis?
LikeLike
You’re surely no that daft, are you? I gave you information for something I thought might be of relevance, Christian-Muslim relations. Of course I didn’t do my Greek and Nt exegesis with Prof Riddell.
And since when do students have to agree with their research professors? That’s dumb even for you. While I certainly respect Prof Riddell I certainly didn’t agree with him on everything.
And look at that, you even went and googled an article of his. How predictable. Stop pretending to be a know all little kid
LikeLike
LOL, come now Cerbie! Don’t cause more damage to yourself than you already have.
Hmm, let’s see. Who has more credibility here? Your professor, a distinguished scholar who has published peer-reviewed articles? Or neutered little you?
I’m still wondering how an Islamophobic creep like you ended up studying Christian-Muslim relations? And again, how does that make you an expert on the topics that are covered on this blog? Topics like Biblical studies? Exegesis? History? Theology?
So, all your talk about being educated was all bluster, huh? You actually have no credibility. No expertise. I think I will stick with the “liberal” scholars, thank you very much. Okay?
You didn’t answer my question. What was your Master’s thesis on?
LikeLike
When did I claim to be an expert? I said I had studied Koine Greek and NT exegesis academically, which I have. You’ve learnt how to study google at the masjid.
Prof Riddell was just one of many people I studied under. He oversaw my thesis. I thought by sharing my history with him you might be less of a pig. Clearly not. I also studied Paul and his theology under Colin Kruse, one of the leading scholars on Nt exegesis and Paul. You’ve learnt how to search yahoo answers.
My thesis was on Islam in Se Asia. Happy?
Now, let’s enjoy watching you do a bit more google and character assissination. Mo has taught you well…
LikeLike
Paulus, hello mate, i’ve been thinking about your comment, so basically what you mean that in v6 there’s anaphoric link between “Morphe” and “Equality with God”, which kinda explains the NIV translation, i remember reading about this somewhere, it was the well known NT Wright if i’m not wrong, I do have Denny Burk’s essay somewhere in my PC or my phone, i’m gonna have to search for it, his arguments against Wright was very complex for me to properly understand, well i guess i’m gonna go full on greek grammar once i’m done with my exams to understand those kind of stuff, i’ve already chosen some books by the way…
But for now, i’m gonna agree(i have to) that there is indeed an anaphoric link between those words in v6, so would you agree that “Equality with God” as well as “harpagmon” opens the door for other different interpretations of “Morphe”?
LikeLike
Hi shaad.
You are correct, but that discussion you reference is an intra-christological one, I.e between scholars who affirm the two natures of Christ from the text. It is for this reason that it is completely absurd to claim Paul was a Unitarian.
If you still wish to maintain a translation of external appearance I think you will find almost no exegetical support for your position. I’ve never
LikeLike
Paulus, i think your comment is not complete, seems you were about to continue…
LikeLike
Paulus, Hello there,
Sorry for the late reply mate, i thought you had something to add by the way, something to clarify apparently…i mean you finished your sentence by “i’ve never” so i thought it was something important…
“Your reference is an intra-Christological one, i.e between scholars who affirm the two natures of Christ from the text”
Yeah they are both trinitarians, but are you sure that they both agree on the two natures in 2:6? I mean i do remember that Denny does affirm 2:6 denotes the Pre-existence but he also says that he holds the view of External Appearance in his Essay…more accurately “Divine beauty”…well correct me if i’m wrong about him by the way…
Concerning the Translation, though i’ve been studying through books, theses, essays and stuff on 2:6(mostly Trinitarian) since yesterday, i think it’s still too early for me to give more arguments due to the fact i’m still not quite sure, i do think that external appearance in totally comfortable with 2:6 compared to an ontological interpretation but the latter does seem to make sense to some extent because of the apparent anaphoric link…i did find good reasons to “reject” the mainstream view but i’m still very skeptical….i’m gonna have to look more into this mate…
LikeLike
Awww, I seem to be upsetting you Cerbie. But hey, don’t blame me for exposing your facade.
That’s a very vague description of your thesis. What about Islam in SE Asia? A thesis is usually much more specific.
The point of all this is to show that despite all your bluster, you actually have zero credibility. So, going forward, perhaps you should actually try to respond to people’s arguments rather than questioning their credentials (because you have none yourself) or dismissing scholarly evidence as “liberal”. How’s that? Sounds fair, right? Try to make substantive responses, rather than the childish dismissals you usually make. Kay?
LikeLiked by 1 person
” but the Temptation follows three patterns but nowhere does the devil tempt him to immediately return to his former glory in heaven as far as i know…”
I didn’t mean that as I don’t think it was at Satan’s disposal anyway. He only had an earthly kingdom to give, of some kind, in some way, but immediately without any suffering. This would be a substitute for the kingdom which the Father would give him in reward for his obedience.
Yes, it is the same glory but as the Son of Man he has really earned it through his obedience, or not?
” I mean He knows that He is God, He knows that the Dominion over the Heavens and the Earth will eventually be for Him so the question still remains that why was he tempted? ”
But as a human being nothing is automatic. It is all conditional on obedience. Nothing is for free.
It is all very interesting but the bible is not written to satisfy inquisitive minds on all matters. My faith does not need an answer to all the problems associated with harmonizing divine and human knowledge resulting from the incarnation.
Theoretically human nature has no knowledge except innate and acquired knowledge. If Jesus was really human, as I believe, as well as divine, then he only had the same knowledge as you or I at birth. Innate knowledge and a blank sheet.
How can he also be omniscient at the same time in the same mind? I don’t know and the bible does not tell me. ls that an insuperable obstacle to faith? Not for me. For you yes. Ce la vie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Erasmus, thanks for the answer mate, are you French?
LikeLike
Erasmus
You said;
Theoretically human nature has no knowledge except innate and acquired knowledge. If Jesus was really human, as I believe, as well as divine, then he only had the same knowledge as you or I at birth. Innate knowledge and a blank sheet.
How can he also be omniscient at the same time in the same mind? I don’t know and the bible does not tell me. ls that an insuperable obstacle to faith? Not for me. For you yes. Ce la vie.
I say;
You forgot to mention that, some people just like you are worshiping dual or multi nature Gods i.e. cow God, Elephant Gods, Monkey Gods, God Man(Jesus, Ali, Haile Selaissie, Sai Baba etc),etc.
So, it is better to use a baseline from the Bible to determined with your mind, brain, intellect etc. to know what is not God.
The Bible said;
– God is one, only and alone, no one else.
-God is not a man.
-Nothing on earth, even nothing in heaven is like God.
-Nothing on earth, above, below and even in heaven must be worshiped as God.
-God is immortal and invincible.
-And many more.
The above and many are the baseline or yardstick to determine Jesus Christ is not God at all. You can believe by faith, just like Hindus believe by faith in that God can become his creature at the same time God without using your brain. That is pure idolatry, polytheism and blaspheme punishable in hell fire, if one does not repent.
Do you think God gave us brain to only prepare and eat food? No, we have to use our brain to determine what is true and what is false. God said he is 1 and you are insisting He is 3 persons one God without God saying that. That is not Ce la vie but being stubborn by rejecting the truth.
Thanks.
LikeLike
The Copts and the other Monophysites ( they prefer Mia-physite) believed in the Trinity and the Nicean (325 AD), Constantinople (381) and Council of Ephesus ( 431 AD) – they only defined that the human nature of Jesus was absorbed into the Divine nature after His resurrection and glorification. (John 17:5) – they believed Jesus had two natures while on earth, but the human nature was absorbed into the Divine nature in the resurrection and glorification. Hence, “one nature”.
“emptied” means that by becoming a man, by taking on a human nature, He veiled His use and prerogatives and advantages of using His divine powers temporarily. Dr. White has a scholarly article on Philippians 2, The Carmen Christi.
http://jesusiscreator.org/?p=298
LikeLike
The Very Reverend
“emptied” means that by becoming a man, by taking on a human nature, He veiled His use and prerogatives and advantages of using His divine powers temporarily. Dr. White has a scholarly article on Philippians 2, The Carmen Christi.
I say;
Stop mixing veil and empty. They are 2 opposite things. You can eat you cake and still have it. Again, watch this video and digest.
Thanks.
LikeLike
“Erasmus, thanks for the answer mate, are you French?”
Hi Shaad, no I am english. Just picked it up by the wayside. Spelt it wrong anyway, should be c’est la vie or something like that 🙂
Good luck with your exams mate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Erasmus, Thanks bro 👍
LikeLike
I am quite not disappointed at all by your comments on the church fathers Mr Temple. Years ago, my inner self would have exuded disgust. After following you for a long time however, I am not shocked at all. You are a perfect definition of the term ‘broken record’.
Anyway, the subject of the early fathers and what they believed is one of great controversy in our world today. There exist too many opinions and schools of thoughts with a lot of scholars backing each of them. Merely claiming that they are definitely all trinitarians without backing that up with evidence isn’t at all convincing. Guess you do need to do a bit more study.
By the way (as a side talking point), do you agree that there was a form of theological development through the early centuries of christianity (the trinity being one of them)? A lot of trinitarian scholars seem to be adopting that position in recent times. James White himself shocked me when he admitted in a debate with Adnan Rashid that he is also a proponent of the position. Sure, he dismissed it as irrelevant (saying the early christians did not individually possess all of scripture). However, that he has been pushed into admitting it is quite remarkable. What do you know that James White doesn’t?
LikeLike
Can you kindly move my comment above Bro Williams to under Ken Temple’s own (statements) about the church fathers? It was meant to be there but for an accident. I’m sorry I misclicked.
LikeLike
sorry that is beyond the technology of wordpress.
LikeLike
Abdullah1423 wrote:
These fictional stories can only be said in the churches, Ken not here! Again, you are talking with muslims. Remember that always before you jump to the preaching style.
he apparently was responding to this:
“if you understand that Jesus has two natures; which Christians have always understood and taught”
how are they fictional stories when our Scriptures teaches:
Jesus is God by nature. John 1:1-5; 20:28; Mark 2:28; Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8, 10-12; Philippians 2:5-8; Romans 9:5; John 8:24; 56-58; John 5:17-18; John 10:30
Jesus is also man – John 1:14; John 4, all through the Synoptic gospels.
Therefore, Jesus had 2 natures.
Christians have always believed that – the twin truths are there in the Scriptures, written between 45 AD to 96 AD.
Just as you use the Qur’an in your Da’wa, we use the Bible in our evangelism and Apologetics.
LikeLike
The Very Reverend Ken
Not all Christians believed/believe Jesus has 2 natures. Arians, Ebionites etc. where persecuted and outlawed because they do not believe Jesus Christ is God. Now, we have Unitarians i.e. Anthony Buzzard, Dr. Kemball Cook etc., Jehovah Witness etc. who do not believe Jesus is God and also do not have 2 natures.
In the Bible you will not find “Jesus has 2 natures” or “Jesus is God”,”3 persons 1 God”, “Trinitas Unitas” etc. So, it is not true to say Jesus has 2 natures. Moses was called God in the Bible. Does that merit his status to be divine? or 2 natures?
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jehovahs Witnesses and Anthony Buzzard, etc. are new groups, the JWs started in the 1800s.
LikeLike
The Most Reverend Ken
correction: were persecuted.and outlawed not where persecuted and outlawed.
My dear Reverend. There were different types of Christians after the death of Jesus Christ even James the Brother of Jesus and Paul of Tarsus could not agree to with regards to Paul teachings.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arians, Ebionites, Gnostics – sorry “Intellect” – these were NOT Christians – even the Ebionites never considered themselves Christians. They were a small Jewish sect that died out.
These folks were NOT persecuted for 300 + years. The Arians did not exist until around 311 AD. Arius was deemed a heretic but he was exiled.
James the brother of Jesus, Paul, and Peter all agreed with each other on the gospel – see Galatians 2:7-9 and Acts chapter 15.
LikeLike
they certainly were christians Ken. You dont get to decide, like some pope, who is one. In fact in the first centuries there were many different Christianities preaching different gospels. The gospel of Paul is quite different from that of Jesus. Islam corrects this corruption with the truth about Jesus.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Extensive writings of the early church fathers proves that you are wrong, Paul Williams. They were considered heretics and non-Christians by the Christians of the first 4-5 centuries. You are so wrong.
Clement, one of the elder-bishops of Rome ( 96 AD)
Ignatius ( martyred around 107 AD)
Papias, bishop of Heiropolis (died around 135 AD)
Polycarp ( martyred in 155 AD)
Justin Martyr ( martyred in 165 AD)
Irenaeus (wrote about 180-202 AD)
Tertullian (wrote 190-220 AD)
All of these either explicitly called the Gnostics and Docetic groups heretics, or wrote doctrine in a way that shows that they would have said the Gnostics were heretics and not Christians. They decided long ago that they groups were not Christians.
Clement of Alexandria ( 215 AD)
Cyprian ( 258)
Origen ( 254) ( Was orthodox on most issues, but was heretical on some things – like believing that Satan and unbeleivers would go through centuries of hell and eventually be saved.
Athanasius ( died 373 AD) – wrote extensively against the Arians.
Hillary ( 300s)
Ambrose ( 300s)
Augustine ( 354-430 AD)
John Chyrsostom ( died 407)
Gregory of Nyssa (300s)
Gregory of Nazianzus ( 300s)
Basil of Caesarea ( 300s)
Epiphanius (310-403 AD) is another who catalogued most of the known heresies – including Ebionites.
LikeLike
“you don’t get to decide” – I agree; that was already clearly decided and clearly written about in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries.
Colossians and 1 John are clearly teaching that proto-Gnostic and Docetic ideas were heretical. That is why Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Augustine, and Epiphanius were so clear that these groups were not Christian.
You need to read Irenaeus and Tertullian. They are long before (180-220 AD) any so called “Pope” was around.
LikeLike
‘You need to read Irenaeus and Tertullian.’ Who were they? Never heard of them or read them.
LikeLike
Irenaeus, Against Heresies. (180-202 AD)
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.i.html
LikeLike
Tertullian ( writing around 190-220 AD)
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03
LikeLike
thanks Ken I learn something new every day.
LikeLike
Are you joking or serious?
You must be joking.
LikeLike
Ken on a brainwashing mission
LikeLike
“twin truths” oh dear
LikeLike
James the brother of Jesus, Paul, and Peter all agreed with each other on the gospel – see Galatians 2:7-9 and Acts chapter 15.
LikeLike
actually Paul and Peter had a big fall out see Galatians and Acts tells us men from James came to sort Paul out 2:12. We know James followed Judaism like his brother. Paul was an apostate Jew who taught others not to follow the law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
how can that be when Galatians 2:7-9 says the opposite of what you claim.
“came from James” does not mean “sent from James with his approval”.
LikeLike
lol yeh right Ken. How desperate
LikeLike
“So then, the law is good, and holy, and righteous.” Romans 7:12
The apostle Paul
1 Timothy 1:8-11
“We know that the law is good if one uses it properly . . . ”
the apostle Paul
LikeLike
Also, James calls Jesus “the glorious Lord” = Yahweh of glory. James 2:1
Also, James believed in the death and resurrection of Christ – 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (verse 7 is about Jesus’ resurrection appearance to James, the half brother of Jesus).
Along with Acts 15 and Galatians 2:7-9, your (Paul Williams) arguments are defeated soundly and completely.
LikeLike
“the glorious Lord” = Yahweh of glory.
Sheer evangelical spin.
Acts is not reliable historically as the consensus of critical scholars has long argued.
The appearances started off as “visions” which over time became embellished and mythologised into the stories we read in the gospels written many years after Jesus.
LikeLike
If Acts is not reliable, then Acts 21 is not reliable, the text you spin to try and overturn Acts 15, Galatians 2:7-9; James 2:1; 1 Cor. 15:3-8, etc.
“visions” – no – Luke 24:39 and John 20:27-28 are clear that Jesus rose physically in the same body.
LikeLike
Paul refers to the resurrected Jesus appearance as a “vision”. It is of the same nature as the appearances to the disciples of Jesus. That is what Paul says. The stories in the gospels, written many years later by unknown Christians, are the product of a long development where these stories became embellished and mythologised as religious stories often do.
LikeLike
No; Luke 24:39 proves you wrong.
LikeLike
no it does not. Its pious religious myth. Like I said the resurrection appearances started life as visions then became more physical and mythologised as the years rolled by.
Luke 24:39 proves my point.
LikeLike
No, Luke 24:39 proves my point – Jesus said, touch Me and see that a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as I have.
and later, Jesus ate fish in His glorified body.
You jump to Luke when confronted with Mark 10:45; but you cannot have it both ways. All of Luke is true.
LikeLike
But the earliest recorded appearances refer to a vision that Paul had of the resurrected Jesus of the same nature and character as to James etc. That is what Paul claims. Yet the people with Paul saw nothing! So many years later after much embellishment and mythologisation (which was very common 2000 years ago) we have the three anonymous gospels telling fictionalised accounts involving flesh and bones and a bodily resurrected Jesus. So you are wrong.
LikeLike
Matthew 28, Luke 24; Mark 16; John 20-21 are earlier events than Paul’s seeing the resurrected Jesus in Acts 9, 22, 26. 1 Cor. 15:3-8 – “last of all, He appeared to me”
LikeLike
the commonly accepted scholarly dating for the gospels is around 70AD to the end of the 1st century.
Paul had his vision of Jesus a few years after Jesus – around 33 AD.
So you are wrong. Again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
but the events of the death and empty tomb and resurrection appearances in the gospels took place in 30 AD, before Paul’s conversion around 33-34 AD, recorded in Acts 9, 22, 26.
LikeLike
you just don’t get it.
LikeLike
I get the theory that liberals have that the Gospels were embellished and made up later and written later, Mark, around 70
AD and Luke and Matthew in 80s and 90s; but those are just theories and speculations. I get that and that you are also convinced of that.
However,
Mark was probably written between 45-60 AD
Matthew 55-65.
Luke, definitely 61-62 AD, because of the way Acts abruptly ends, in 62 AD.
They are God-breathed, so accurate and the empty tomb and appearances to the women and disciples are historically true.
This is a good book:
https://www.amazon.com/Redating-Matthew-Mark-Luke-Synoptic/dp/0830817603
LikeLike
nowhere does it say in the Bible that the gospels are ‘God breathed’. They are the products of sinful men just like you Ken and full of discrepancies, errors and myths with some history. You follow Christian conservative scholars who are biased and have a vested interest in presenting a sanitized christian view.
LikeLike
It might be implied it is God-breathed, but that inference is tenuous. I think one rendering of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 uses the phrasing “God breathed”. I don’t think the Gospels, even Mark, were written yet. I also think 2nd Timothy is a forgery. Or that’s 1st Timothy?
LikeLike
both forgeries according to most scholars.
LikeLike
“The “Form” of God
Most of the discussion of this passage has focused upon what it means that Christ existed in the “form of God.” Paul’s term is morphe, translated literally as “form.” The NIV renders the phrase “being in very nature God,” the NLT oversimplifies with, “though he was God,” but the majority of translations render it “being in the form of God.”[i] When we refer to the “form” of God, what do we mean? Is this saying nothing more than “Jesus was a spirit”? Or is there more to the word?
Part of the answer is found in the word “existing.” Paul does not say “came to exist” or “entered into existence,” but uses the present tense to indicate on-going existence. [present participle] And since the time-frame of the passage is clearly eternity past,[ii] the beginning assertion is that the One we know as Jesus Christ eternally existed in the very form of God, that which communicates the inner reality to the outer senses. The “form of God” is not merely a category of existence (like “spirits” or “creatures”). The “form of God” presents a direct correspondence to reality itself: that which exists in the “form of God” is truly deity. Warfield was correct when he said:
Paul does not say simply, “He was God.” He says, “He was in the form of God,” employing a turn of speech which throws emphasis upon Our Lord’s possession of the specific quality of God. “Form” is a term which expresses the sum of those characterizing qualities which make a thing the precise thing that it is….When Our Lord is said to be in “the form of God,” therefore, He is declared, in the most express manner possible, to be all that God is, to possess the whole fulness of attributes which make God God.[iii]
The idea of temporarily existing in this form is inconceivable, which only emphasizes the continuous existing that we just mentioned. Paul makes it plain: the pre-incarnate Son who did not consider equality with God something to be held on to at all costs made the decision to make Himself nothing while existing in the very form of Deity itself.”
James White
BEYOND THE VEIL OF ETERNITY / Dr. James R. White
http://jesusiscreator.org/?p=298
LikeLike
“He Made Himself Nothing (“emptied Himself”)
In modern times great emphasis has been placed upon the next important phrase in our ancient hymn, that being the term kenow, literally, “to empty.” The “Kenosis” refers to the “emptying” of Christ, based upon this very passage. But what is the text saying? Does it mean that Christ ceased to be in the form of God?
The first thing to realize is that Paul never uses this term in a literal fashion. In the four other places Paul uses this verb (Romans 4:14, 1 Corinthians 1:17, 9:15, 2 Corinthians 9:3) he uses it in a metaphorical, not a literal, sense. Most carry the meaning of making a boast “empty” or “vain.”
Next, this is something the Son does! This fact is often overlooked, even in scholarly discussions. There is no outside power “emptying” Christ of something, but instead this is an action He takes with reference to Himself. What condescension! Christ voluntarily and without compulsion undertakes this great act of humble servitude.
I have translated the term “made Himself nothing” to capture the thrust of Paul’s appeal: He who eternally existed in the form of God, the Creator and Maker of all things (Colossians 1:16-17), enters quietly into His very own creation so as to become a servant. The Incarnate One does not “stand out from the crowd,” does not appear with halo or angelic glow, “had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2, NIV). He makes Himself “nothing,” for in comparison to the infinite and eternal, mankind is “a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away” (James 4:14).
But how was this action of making Himself “nothing” accomplished? It is just here that we must listen to this hymn from the balcony of heaven itself. We must hear the words from a divine and heavenly perspective. The Son makes Himself “nothing” by taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of man.[vii] From the human realm, “being made nothing” by taking does not seem right. But when we see the glory and majesty and power of the One who is here condescending to enter into creaturely existence when He Himself is the Creator, we can begin to appreciate how this act of being made nothing is properly described as taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of man. Daniel B. Wallace, an eminent Greek scholar, sees both terms “taking” and “being made” as the means by which the “being made nothing” is accomplished.[viii]
The biggest difficulty with seeing labwn (taking) as means is that emptying is normally an act of subtraction, not addition. But the imagery should not be made to walk on all fours. As an early hymn, it would be expected to have a certain poetic license….The Philippians were told not to puff themselves up with “empty glory,” because Christ was an example of one who emptied his glory. If this connection is intentional, then the Carmen Christi has the following force:
Do not elevate yourselves on empty glory, but follow the example of Christ, who, though already elevated (on God’s level), emptied his glory by veiling it in humanity.[ix]
So the means of the kenosis is the addition of a human nature, the veiling of the divine in the creaturely. This is important to understand, for many interpret Paul to mean that Christ abandons the “form of God” rather than seeing this as an addition of the human nature to the eternal divine nature that was Christ’s. It is this addition that “veils” the form of God. While there are certainly many who see this passage teaching that Christ did indeed lay aside the “form of God,” the words of Paul do not present such a concept.”
James White
Beyond the Veil of Eternity
see the link above
LikeLike
Ken, thanks mate, i did read it…👍 don’t get me wrong but i’m still very skeptical, judging from what i’ve been reading since the past few days, Trinitarians are divided on this subject but i’m sure a definitive answer lies somewhere, i really like James White’s explanation on this subject, it’s very informative…
LikeLike
Ken, but that doesn’t mean i’m gonna sit back and wait for an answer, i already dived myself into books…
LikeLike
Thanks Shaad – that was a nice response.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shaad – is your name شاد – ? – if so, that is Persian / Farsi – meaning “joy”. شاد باشید means “rejoice” or “be joyful”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shaad – are you Persian?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken, hello mate, sorry for the late reply i was not online…you are correct by the way, this is exactly how my name is written and it is indeed Persian, it is synonymous with Joy and happiness….
What about “Ken”? I found quite a lot of meanings for it, in Japanese it means “Healthy & Strong” but in Scottish it means “Handsome”, are you scottish?
Whenever it see your name in the comments it always reminds me of Ken from Street Fighters…he was my favorite character ever since i started playing the franchise since i was 6 years old…
http://streetfighter.wikia.com/wiki/Ken_Masters
LikeLike
Ken, i’m not Persian by the way, I’m Mauritian, and i’m half Indian…my dad was a “Surtee” from the state of Gujurat, reminds me that some Surtees in my country(we are very tiny minority by the way) claim that our ancestors were Arab or Persian merchants but i really don’t care to be honest, ancestry may be important for them but not for me…one thing’s for sure, many of my brethren do look quite different which sparks a lot of curiosity and questions…there have been times when people mistook me for a foreigner…
LikeLike
Mauritius is a beautiful island nation. Thanks for sharing those details. You have a good demeanor in debating. Very respectful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken, Thanks mate, you too as well…
LikeLike
Dr. Shabir Ally in his amazing refutation of non sense christian belief.
LikeLike
actually Tony Costa explained it right and refuted Shabir.
LikeLike
Repeating the non sense of christian belief has never been the way to refute the powerful and truthful message of Islam even in your dreams. You may preach like that in the churches but not in a debate with muslims!
Dr. Ally not only he refuted that non sense belief, but also he destroyed it completely. I know that you know that inside yourself, but you cannot admit it. Ask Allah(sw) to rmove that pride from your heart.
LikeLike