Gullible and stubborn…

Screen Shot 2018-02-28 at 22.03.50
Screen Shot 2018-02-28 at 21.58.52.png

Advertisements


Categories: Christianity, God

553 replies

  1. Or… just like believing In the trinity when Jesus says about the commandments that, “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

    Or….just like believing in faith based redemption and atonement by the crucifixion, when Jesus says that salvation comes to those who give charity and do good works. ~ Matthew 25:31–46

    Or….just like believing that Jesus is God when he clearly indicated that he worships God. Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19; John 20:17; and that he has no power except by the will of God John 5:30

    Or……

    Or…..

    Liked by 1 person

    • very true, and when I point these things out to Christians they are…just gullible and stubborn

      Like

    • Or…perhaps you’ve just Islamised the texts?

      Like

    • He didnt Islamise the text,he just proved a verse wrong through different interpretations of YOUR scholars,

      Apparently anything that has to do with facts or Logic is classed as “Islamised” by christians.

      Liked by 2 people

    • You are quoting Matthew in chapter 25, but ignore Matthew 28:18-20 – the basis of doctrine of the Trinity is there, as in 2 Cor. 13:14 and many other places, like Matthew 3:13-17.

      The doctrine of the Trinity does not contradict Deut. 6:4 or Mark 12:29 or the Oneness of God.
      Trinity is ONE God, in three persons. The personal relationships show the very nature of God is relationship of pure spiritual love from all eternity. God is Love.

      You also refer to John 20:17, but need to accept John 17:5 and 1:1-5; 1:14 and 20:28 and 5:16-7 and 8:24; 8:56-58 and 10:30 also.

      You are not allowed to cut it up and use one part without accepting the author’s harmony and unity of all his writings in his book.

      Like

    • Historically there were many sects in early Christianity who had a range of beliefs regarding Jesus [1]. Some believed Jesus was God, others believed Jesus was not God but partly divine, and yet others believed he was a human being and nothing more. Trinitarian Christianity which is the belief that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one in three persons became the dominant sect of Christianity, once it was formalised as the state religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th Century. Christians who denied Jesus being God were persecuted by the Roman Authorities [2]. From this point onwards the Trinitarian belief became widespread amongst Christians. There were various movements in early Christianity which denied the Trinity, among the more well known of them is Adoptionism and Arianism.

      Dr Jerald Dirks who is an expert on early Christianity had this to say on the subject:

      “Early Christianity was quite conflicted about the issue of the nature of Jesus. The various Adoptionist positions within early Christianity were numerous and at times dominate. One can even speculate that Arian and Nestorian Christianity might well be an extremely sizable source within Christianity today, if it were not for the fact that these two branches of Christianity, which were located primarily in the middle east and in North Africa were so similar to the Islamic teaching regarding the nature of Jesus that they quite naturally were absorbed into Islam at the beginning of the seventh century.” Excerpt from ‘˜Islamic Trajectories in Early Christianity’ by Dr Jerald Dirks.

      Since there were so many sects in early Christianity, each with different beliefs about Jesus and with their own versions of the Bible, which one can we say was following the true teachings of Jesus?
      It doesn’t make sense that God sends countless Prophets like Noah, Abraham and Moses to tell people to believe in one God, and then suddenly sends a radically different message of the Trinity which contradicts his previous Prophets teachings. It is clear that the sect of Christianity who believed Jesus to be a human Prophet and nothing more, were following the true teachings of Jesus. This is because their concept of God is the same as that which was taught by the Prophets in the Old Testament.

      http://www.onereason.org/jesus-in-islam/

      Like

    • “Nope. You have not even come close ever.”

      We are not expecting that much from mindset of 3=1, BTW.

      Like

  2. “Or do you think that most of them hear or reason? They are not except like livestock. Rather, they are [even] more astray in [their] way. ” QT.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Like the Qur’an and Islam denies established history (Surah 5:157) that even John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman and Reza Aslan know; and also comes along 600 years later and claims God inspired it; yet he did not know the doctrine of the Trinity that was around for centuries; and wrongly thought Christianity taught Mary was part of the Trinity. (Surah 5:116; 5:72-75) and thought Christians thought “Son of God” means God had a wife. (6:101; 19:88-92)

    Yes, humans are gullible and stubborn.

    Like

    • Why the Crucifixion Has No Foundation in the Bible.

      by Many Prophets One Message on April 5, 2014

      http://www.manyprophetsonemessage.com/2014/04/05/why-the-crucifixion-has-no-foundation-in-the-bible/

      Like

    • “established history (Surah 5:157)”
      O please, your entire NT is unreliable! The only reason Ehrman thinks the crucifixion happened is because of the principle of embarrassment.
      “and wrongly thought Christianity taught Mary was part of the Trinity”
      O really? Where does the Quran or the Prophet (saw) say that Mary (ra) is part of the trinity?
      Where does the Quran or the Prophet (saw) even mention ‘trinity’?

      Like

    • Surah 5:116; 6:101; 5:72-75

      Like

    • Surah 4:157 is refuted by established history from multiple witnesses and the previous Scriptures. Surah 5:47; 10:94 shows the Qur’an never says the text of the previous revelations was changed.
      “No one can change the words of Allah.”

      The Qur’an does confirm the Bible in Surah 5:47 and 10:94 and 2:136 and 29:46 and 5:68.

      “no one can change the words of God”
      Arabic:
      وَلَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ

      “And there is no changing the words of Allah” (This phrase is from Surah 6:34, and see 6:115 (116); 10:64 (65); and 18:27

      Since we have many older manuscripts than 600 AD, and the Qur’an confirms the Bible at the time of Muhammad, then the Qur’an never says the text of the Injeel or Torah or Zabur of Davood was changed.

      Like

    • then why do the vast majority of Western specialists on the Qur’an (academics in the top universities) disagree with you Ken? You can’t even read Arabic. They can. They all say the Qur’an teaches the Bible has been corrupted. Muslims agree.

      Like

    • Ken,
      We have answered and refuted your claims many times regarding both the crucifixion.

      I like this verse from Qur’an
      “….. Allah is our Lord and your Lord. For us are our deeds, and for you your deeds. There is no [need for] argument between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and to Him is the [final] destination.”

      Let’s just wait …

      “And say to those who do not believe, “Work according to your position; indeed, we are working.
      And wait, indeed, we are waiting.” ”

      And to Allah belong the unseen [aspects] of the heavens and the earth and to Him will be returned the matter, all of it, so worship Him and rely upon Him. And your Lord is not unaware of that which you do.” QT

      “Say, “Each [of us] is waiting; so wait. For you will know who are the companions of the sound path and who is guided.” ” QT.

      Ken said
      “and wrongly thought Christianity taught Mary was part of the Trinity”
      We have answered and refuted that already. However, the irony here is that that authors of your own bible had no idea about your Trinity, and this the big elephant in the room.
      Qur’an has never said that Mary whom many christians have been worshiping till this day is a part of your Trinity ever! But the real problem is the fact that the authors of your bible had no idea about your trinity that you preach today. The arrogant James While keeps saying that muslims today understand the trinity more than the author of Qur’an, which is not true whatsoever. Your problem as Americans – maybe- that you have no idea that christianity has never been a monolithic belief. It’s like when the mindset of most white American zealous evangelicals think Jesus is a white dude. But again, the real problem that it’s obvious that you and James understand the trinity more than the authors of your own bible. Here’s the real issue!

      When Qur’an and in very clear language states that Allahعزوجل is the only true God, Jesus is just a creature, and christians have to stop this notion of THREE , then the whole of your religion by all its shades has been refuted toe to toe. All sort of perspectives regarding the nature of the trinity has been crushed and destroyed perfectly.

      On the other hand, what are you going to do with (John 17:3), (1 Timothy 2:5), and (Revelation1:4-5)?
      Why is it so clear that you can preach this trinity better than the authors of your bible?

      Why do you think Mike Licona has come with this conclusion?

      Liked by 2 people

    • We have answered and refuted your claims many times regarding both the crucifixion.

      Nope. You have not even come close ever.

      Like

    • James White and John McArthur are right; but Rob Bowman, if you listen to him carefully, does say that something is wrong, if over time, a person who claims to be a Christian and is against the Trinity, that something is wrong. Many people become converted without knowing the details of the doctrine of the Trinity yet; but when they are taught the details later, a true believer is not going to fight against it or refuse it. It has to be taught in discipleship classes – Matthew 28:18-20 – “teaching them to obey all that I have commanded” – it is required before baptism, because “baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”.

      2 Cor. 13:14
      May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (the Son), the love of God (the Father), and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

      see also Matthew 3:13-18
      Voice of the Father from heaven
      Jesus getting baptized
      Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove.

      1 Peter 1:1-2
      according to the foreknowledge of God the Father
      By the sanctifying work of the Spirit
      That you obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood.

      Ephesians 4:1-6
      One God and Father
      One Lord Jesus Christ
      One Spirit

      1 Corinthians 12:4-6
      The same God and Father
      The same Lord Jesus
      the same Spirit

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      March 3, 2018 • 7:04 pm
      Surah 4:157 is refuted by established history from multiple witnesses and the previous Scriptures. Surah 5:47; 10:94 shows the Qur’an never says the text of the previous revelations was changed.
      “No one can change the words of Allah.”

      The Qur’an does confirm the Bible in Surah 5:47 and 10:94 and 2:136 and 29:46 and 5:68.

      “no one can change the words of God”
      Arabic:
      وَلَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ

      “And there is no changing the words of Allah” (This phrase is from Surah 6:34, and see 6:115 (116); 10:64 (65); and 18:27

      Since we have many older manuscripts than 600 AD, and the Qur’an confirms the Bible at the time of Muhammad, then the Qur’an never says the text of the Injeel or Torah or Zabur of Davood was changed

      I say;
      Yes. If God says;

      “there is no one like Yahweh our God.” Exodus 8:10
      “Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” Deuteronomy 4:35
      “Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.” Deuteronomy 4:39
      “See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
      “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!” Deuteronomy 6:4
      “You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You” 2 Samuel 7:22
      “For who is God, besides Yahweh? And who is a rock, besides our God?” 2 Samuel 22:32
      “Yahweh is God; there is no one else.” 1 Kings 8:60
      “You are the God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth.” 2 Kings 19:15
      “O Lord, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You” 1 Chronicles 17:20
      “You alone [bad] are Yahweh.” Nehemiah 9:6
      “For who is God, but Yahweh? And who is a rock, except our God” Psalm 18:31
      “You alone, Lord, are God.” Isaiah 37:20

      No one can change it. It is still clear that God is one and not 3 Persons/persons 1 God which is false.

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

      to be continued…………

      Like

    • …….continued

      People can write Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Luke, Gospel of Mark, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, Epistle of Banabas, Shepherd Hermas, Gospel of Judas, Arians Gospels that was burned by other Christians etc. and say it is from God.

      The Christians have to select the Gospels and then compiled them without others. The Quran did not confirm the selected books by Christians which is the Bible. The Quran confrimed the previous scriptures that was given to the prophets i.e. Gospel of Jesus(that is what the Quran says) and not the Gospel of Mathew, Luke, John and Mark.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      The names of the prophets who got the revelations we must believe is clearly stated in the Quran and no mention of John, Banabas, Thomas, Luke, Mathew, Mark, Judas etc.

      5:46 And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had
      come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and
      confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to
      those who fear Allah.

      2:136 We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac,
      Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all)
      prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them . . .

      4:163 We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we
      sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah,
      Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms

      My dear Ken, the Quran never defined Trinity and so is the Bible until Christian councils upon councils defined Trinity.

      Bart Ehrman did not witness the crucifixion, so he can not say for sue it happened. Jesus’s disciples fled and did not witness the crucifixion. Some Gospels says some women saw it from distance. May be they saw someone other than Jesus crucified because there are many thieves to be crucified.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • “Surah 5:116; 6:101; 5:72-75”
      O really? I don’t see anywhere in those verses that it says anything about trinity.
      FAIL.

      Liked by 2 people

    • It is obvious that the human author (s) of the Qur’an wrongly thought that the Trinity was God, the Mother of Jesus, Mary, and Jesus; because of Surah 5:116 – “Did I say take me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?” and with the verses earlier in 5:72-75 – they are wrong who say “Allah is the 3rd of three” and 4:171 (say not three) and “Jesus and Mary used to eat their daily food”; there is only one God, “not three” – it is obvious that the Qur’an wrongly thought the doctrine of the Trinity was the Father God, Mother, and Jesus.

      Also it is obvious that the author of the Qur’an wrongly thought that when Christians said “Jesus is the Son of God”, they wrongly thought “God had sex with Mary and pro-created Jesus” – Surah 6:101 – “God cannot have a son since there is no wife for him”; and 19:88-92 – the Christians say God has taken to himself a son – what a horrible idea! The heavens almost rupture and the earth splits and the mountains collapse at such a horrible thought – Istaqfr’allah ! استغفرالله

      So, it is obvious that since the contents of the Qur’an wrongly thought about what Christians believe, that the true God did not inspire that book. It is completely human book.

      Like

    • “It is obvious that the human author (s) of the Qur’an wrongly thought that the Trinity was God, the Mother of Jesus, Mary, and Jesus”

      No it’s not. It’s just your forced interpretation (or rather mutilation) of the text and you know it.
      NOWHERE does it say such a thing. Adding the word ‘obvious’ doesn’t give your potato argument any validity. You’re taking verses from different places and just smashing them together and pretending they mean what you want them to mean. You would NEVER accept if we did the same thing to your bible where we take some verses and say ‘this is OBVIOUSLY what it means’ without any evidence. Give us a a single hadith/saying of the Prophet about him making the point you were making or else just don’t say anything at all. You’re making a fool out of yourself by default.

      FAIL AGAIN.

      Like

    • “Jesus is deity”

      what the …. does that mean? Another piece of “trinitarian” creativity. Excellent, really.

      Like

    • Ken,
      It’s obvious that repetitive preaching has damaged your brains. It’s not our problem at all that you think christianity has been a monolithic belief throughout the history, or it’s begun with the founder of your sect.
      There have been all sorts of beliefs within christianity.

      You are demanding that Qur’an has to talk for each sect and domination, while Qur’an and in very eloquent manner has demolished all shades of beliefs within your invented religion. FYI, Mary till this day has been called “the mother of God”.
      Dr. William Lane Craig said that “Christian church has affirmed, and it has held that the second person of the Trinity eternally ((derives)) from the first person, much as light proceeds from the sun. That is why the first person is called the Father and the second person the Son, since the first person ((begets)) the second”

      Again, why do you and James understand this trinity better than the authors of your bible?! Here’s the real question, I think.
      Why do you think that Mike Licona, a conservative christian scholar, has come with the conclusion of “I don’t know” regarding whether the trinity is an obligatory belief to be saved or not.

      Liked by 1 person

    • FYI, Mary till this day has been called “the mother of God”.

      Yes, I know – especially Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. But orginally, the Greek phrase “Theo-tokos” meant “God-bearing one” – meaning that Jesus the Son / eternal Word (John 1:1-5; 1:14) was Deity from conception; ie, He entered into humanity and became human from the start and existed as pure Spirit as the Son in eternity past. (John 17:5; John 1:1; Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8, 10-12; John 20:28)

      WLC is talking about eternal generation (same idea as someone’s thoughts/mind/ and words that are an expression of His thoughts/mind/soul are always with him and when expressed they emanate out from him. (John 1:1 – The Word / logos was with God; and the Word was God (by nature, substance, essence).

      You are not fair to say “your brains are fried” because truth does not change; and I cannot help it if you and others don’t like repetition. You as Muslims are repeating the same kinds of arguments also. You can do better than ad hominem. The Qur’an obviously did not understand what was going on, they (Muhammad and the Arabs and whoever were final human editors with up until Uthman’s final edition, etc. (with the power of the sword/state to enforce), they had no clue and totally misunderstand. Even Roman Catholics don’t mean what you think they mean. All the phrase means is that Jesus was always Deity, even in the womb of Mary. it does NOT mean that Mary brought God into existence. (what is sound like.) Nestorius was right to object to the phrase. (though wrong in seeming to say that Christ was 2 persons.) Christ is one person with 2 natures. Even today you and most Muslims still have that misunderstanding.

      It is clear that the Scriptures (OT and NT) affirm the doctrine of the Trinity.
      Matthew 28:19
      2 Cor. 13:14
      Matthew 3:16-17
      1 Peter 1:1-2
      Ephesians 4:4-6
      1 Cor. 12:4-8

      Like

    • Hi Ken, please reply to my other comment when you get the chance.

      I also have two questions regarding Matthew 28:19 :

      (1) Is this the only place where Jesus taught the trinity (by trinity I don’t mean supposed verses of divinity)?

      (2) Is Matthew 28:19 a DIRECT ORDER from Jesus , i.e that whenever baptism is to be performed (by the disciples) it has to be done in the triune formula?

      Thank you for your time

      Like

    • “Muhammad and the Arabs and whoever were final human editors with up until Uthman’s final edition, etc. (with the power of the sword/state to enforce), they had no clue and totally misunderstand”

      Nothing but statements. ZERO proof!!!
      No evidence presented by this paulian crusader. NOTHING!

      Like

    • “they had no clue and totally misunderstand” what Christians believed:

      Actually, I provided lots of evidence from the text of the Qur’an itself:
      The Qur’an thinks Christians think God had sex with Mary: Surah 6:101; 19:88-92; 5:116; Surah 112 (even Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do NOT believe that.)

      The Qur’an thinks the Trinity is God, Mary, and Jesus. Surah 5:116; 4:171 (say not three) and 5:72-75 – “third of three” and “Jesus and Mary ate their daily food” – they are both human and not divine, there is only one God, etc.

      Like

    • “It is clear that the Scriptures (OT and NT) affirm the doctrine of the Trinity.”
      Buahahaha.

      Like

    • Ken said
      “I know…. but originally..”
      Thank you! This is our point from the beginning!
      Qur’an is not interested of what American zealous evangelicals in the 21 century think it’s the “original belief” in the christianity, rather it’s interested to refute what people believe if that belief is wrong.
      Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy have no place in the lense of history

      It’s very obvious that christians have been disputing about how the Father-Son relationship works.
      I mean let’s be honest the image in Luke 1 was very psychical even according to dr. Ehrman, and I have no idea why the Holy Spirit had to enter in the line!
      Moreover, look to the phraseology used there
      “And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; (((THEREFORE))) the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God”

      Dr William said this though I have no idea what (((eternally begotten))) means, For God sake!
      “Christ is the Son of the Father, not in his divine nature, as on [the traditional view], but in his human nature in virtue of his virginal conception. So we have two alternative ways of accounting for Jesus’ relation to God as his Father: either (i) because he is eternally begotten by the Father in his divine nature or (ii) because he was miraculously begotten through Mary’s virginal conception of Jesus in his human nature. That would explain why Jesus thought of God as his Father ”

      It’s like your trinity ! There’s has not been one understanding till this day. Many of christians nowadays go with modalism or partialism whether you and James like that or not. If Qur’an refuted all these variant shades of beliefs, you cannot object by saying Qur’an has gotten it wrong. You are the one who has gotten it wrong since you think christianity has begun with the founder of your sect’s understating. However, we know all this has never been the case with your invented religion.

      Ken said :
      “You are not fair to say “your brains are fried” because truth does not change”
      Well…. I think I am fair. It seems you repeat most sayings as a recorder without even a serious attempt to study your own bible nor to listen to what others say. Don’t take it personally, but this goes with all evangelical preachers. Muslims, on other hand, have been using many methodologies & variant angles to approach your thick head.
      Even children, to whom he kingdom of heaven belongs, go crazy with this nonsense repetitive preaching

      Liked by 1 person

    • Qur’an is not interested of what American zealous evangelicals in the 21 century think it’s the “original belief” in the christianity, . . .

      But not interested in what Christians believed at the time of it being written (613-656 AD, Uthman revision, etc.) shows it is not an inspired book of God. It does not matter what Americans in 21st century say; I never claim anything on that; rather, the Qur’an cannot even get real history at the time right; proves it is not from God.

      Like

    • A “Spirit” overshadowing and “coming upon” means non-physical – like a shadow – there is nothing physical about it. It is a miracle of God putting His own nature in the womb of Mary without any physical touching or sexual relations. Totally a spiritual action, unseen, that causes the holy child to be conceived with 2 natures, one human and one divine.

      Like

    • I think you just repeat yourself. So I’m just saying that indeed Qur’an has gotten your own belief right and refuted it with other shades of the same religion as well in very eloquent fashion .

      Ken said
      “Totally a spiritual action, unseen, that causes the holy child to be conceived with 2 natures, one human and one divine.”
      This’s just your own view!, and BTW it doesn’t solve the problem. Also, Jacobites believed that Jesus has just ONE nature. In fact, till this day the coptic church says that Jesus has just ONE nature.
      What are you gonna say now? 🙂

      Let me just make a list for the things you couldn’t answer or deny.
      1) You and James understand the trinity better than the authors of your bible, which is the main problem in this discussion, I think.
      2) The christian belief has never a monolithic one.
      3)There’s no any sense for this word (eternally begotten).
      4) Luke’s narrative was vivid physical.
      5) Luke and in very clear manner states that the idea of Father- Son relationship is a result of that physical act “(((THEREFORE))) the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God”
      6) Why did the Holy spirit has to enter in the line to make Mary be pregnant with the son?

      Finally, it’s very ironic when christians try to make a point against Qur’an by pointing to Uthman (ra) 😂
      Christians have a problem with Uthman, the major companion of the prophet and the prophet’s son in law, while in the same time they consider the personal letters of Paul,who looked to the Jesus’ companions as nothing, to be the word of God Himself! 😪
      I’m not sure how christians’ brains work!

      And as we say in Arabic
      لا يضر السحاب نبح الكلاب
      “The clouds are not gonna be stopped/affected by the barking of dogs”

      Like

    • The Jacobite Syrians and Coptic Church believe Jesus had 2 natures while on earth – only after the resurrection do they believe that the human nature was swallowed up into the Divine Nature, resulting in one nature. (they refer to themselves as Mia-physite; and they are called “Mono-physite” by the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox). They all agreed on the Nicean and Constantinopolitan Creeds.

      Like

    • So, it is not just my view, all Christians believe Jesus existed eternally as the Son / the Word (John 17:5; John 1:1-5) in eternity past, a Spirit, non-physical. (John 4:23-24 – God is Spirit) The Copts and Jacobite Syrians agreed with this.

      Like

    • “The Jacobite Syrians and Coptic Church believe Jesus had 2 natures while on earth – only after the resurrection do they believe that the human nature was swallowed up into the Divine Nature”
      Not true! They say Christ has one nature regarding the incarnate God, and that why they discussed when Jesus felt hungry, did that affect the Christ as whole or not. I’m aware that they play gams with the words as all christians do. However, Qur’an has ripped of the whole of this invented religion apart. But it’s very interesting that they say this to defend their view about the one nature
      “In such case, the death of the human nature alone is insufficient . Accordingly St. Paul Says: “For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory. ” (1 Cor. 2:8).
      He did not say; they would not have crucified the man Jesus Christ. The term “Lord of
      Glory” here affirms the One Nature and its necessity for redemption”

      A reminder for the list
      1) You and James understand the trinity better than the authors of your bible, which is the main problem in this discussion, I think.
      2) The christian belief has never been a monolithic one.
      3)There’s no any sense for this word (eternally begotten).
      4) Luke’s narrative was a vivid physical one
      5) Luke and in very clear manner states that the idea of Father- Son relationship is a result of that physical act “(((THEREFORE))) the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God”
      6) Why did the Holy spirit has to enter in the line to make Mary be pregnant with the son?

      Like

    • this same ehrman believes that your god was so UNKNOWN that nobody would have known who he was even while crucifying him.he says that we like to ASSUME that everyone knew the person crucified because people like to think there was “video camera” like focus on jesus , but ehrman says that this is not true, he is saying that your god, just like any crucified criminal would have been an unknown.

      the women were too afraid to tell the “good news” to peter.

      mark is clear that fear took over the women and he does not even MENTION APPEARANCES considering this guy likes to talk about stuff which no one is witness too, so why he left out APPEARANCES ?

      in neither mark or matthew does peter or any pal of jesus come to check the location of jesus’ tomb. The man in the tomb tells them to head NORTH because he is ALREADY on his way”going before you”

      If mark really wanted them to report he would have said what luke and matthee said, but

      1.last peter is seen denying and lying
      2.no appearances
      3.women too afraid to tell.

      why would his pals want to stick around to hear few words from a man in a tomb could really imply that his coward deciples already disappeared to galilee . there were no witnesses to your crucifixion event and the only ones left to spread the lies are the enemies of your god.

      Like

    • A “Spirit” overshadowing and “coming upon” means non-physical – like a shadow – there is nothing physical about it. It is a miracle of God putting His own nature in the womb of Mary without any physical touching or sexual relations. Totally a spiritual action, unseen, that causes the holy child to be conceived with 2 natures, one human and one divine.

      it makes you wonder if luke himself knew christians who believed that mary had physical contact with “holy spirit”

      he said “i investigated everything….”

      “god putting his own nature ”

      and then getting popped out as fully god and fully man

      orthodox christianity says that god became a physical thing with human feelings and desires and only way a god can be known is by becoming creature with desires and temptations

      now show evidence from the quran that physical touching was required between God and consort to produce children.

      did not even the PAGANS believe that non-physical acts with women can produce children?

      for example :

      https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11161

      Like

  4. Reza Aslan: “Jesus was most definitely crucified”

    Allan Ruhl has an excellent article:

    http://allanruhl.com/muslims-on-the-crucifixion-a-new-argument/#more-1314

    Like

  5. “He didnt Islamise the text”

    Except he did. He assumed his Islamic Unitarianism into the text for example. Or his soteriology into another. What he apparently doesn’t realise is that Christians affirm the very texts he cited, but with one major exception. We form our theology based on the entirety of the textual corpus. We don’t cherry pick a verse that sound Islamic or suits our current favoured theological position.

    Like

    • OR…….he just proved a verse wrong through different interpretations of YOUR OWN scholars.

      Like

    • OR…..maybe we just pointed out some obvious contradictions in your Bible, that have major theological implications in relation to Christian doctrines.

      Like

    • Don’t you find it odd that you create these contradictions only after Islamising the text?

      As I said, Christians have affirmed those texts for thousands of years.

      Like

  6. Sorry sweet cheeks but Christians affirm monotheism and the old covenant. We just don’t limit ourselves to isolated texts and ignore the rest, like you. We study the life of Christ in its entirety. We don’t form our soteriology based on one text isolated from his life and ministry and teaching.

    You see, we are not like muhammadans…

    Like

    • Paulus,
      “Sweet cheeks” – Really? Keep that to yourself, ok?

      Repeating yourself ad nauseum doesn’t lend any weight to your statements.

      Just as you and your co-religionists would not like to be referred to as “Jeeezuzians” neither are we to be referred to as “Muhammadans.” But I’m sure you prefer to insult and antagonize, more than anything else.

      Liked by 3 people

    • We are Christians- followers of Christ.

      You are a muhammadan- follower of muhammad.

      You follow the sunnah. Ergo, you follow muhammad. Ergo you are a muhammadan.

      Sorry sweet cheeks

      Like

    • WE follow Almighty God whom we submit our will to in Islam as Muslims…….

      ……YOU follow a mythologized Greco-Romanized Jesus ergo you are a “Jeeezuzian.”

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Ken Temple , I was wondering if you could answer two quesitons:

    (1) Is there a trinity being taught in the Old Testament? Did the Prophets of the Old Testament teach the trinity?

    (2) And before we get into verses of divnity, would you agree that Jesus didn’t teach the concept of the trinity?

    Like

    • 1. The OT gives hints at the Trinity, but it is not explicitly taught. The hints are that Elohim is plural – the word related to Allah in Arabic אלהים (Elohim, root “El”, semitic relation to Al-ilah, etc. and the prophesies of the Messiah being the Son of God. (same nature as God the Father) – Psalm 2:1-12; Psalm 110:1, etc.

      2. Jesus refers to the doctrine and lays down the foundation by teaching that God is one (Mark 12:29) and also by the 3 persons by claiming Deity for Himself (John 5:16-17; 8:24; 8:56-58; 10:30; 20:28; Mark 2:1-12 (Only God can forgive sins); Mark 2:28 – claims to be Yahweh, the creator of the Sabbath Day – of Genesis 1-2, etc., accepting worship(Matthew 14:33), etc. and saying the ONE name in three persons – “in the name (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19) and also referring to the Holy Spirit as “another comforter” and “the Spirit of Truth” who proceeds from the Father – John 14:16-17; 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-15)

      Like

    • Thank you for your reply Ken,

      You mentioned:

      “The OT gives hints at the Trinity, but it is not explicitly taught. ”
      So if someone believes in God, with the same understanding as the Prophets of the Old Testament, would that person be going to hell?

      “Elohim is plural ”
      Is Moses a plural entity in Exodus 7:!?
      7 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god(ELOHIM) to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

      ” Jesus refers to the doctrine and lays down the foundation….”
      Like I mentioned in my question, BEFORE we get into so-called verses of divnity, would you agree that Jesus did not teach the trinity explicitly? If so, how many verses are there where Jesus EXPLICITLY taught the concept of the triune doctrine?

      ” ONE name in three persons – “in the name (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19) ”
      Please refer to my other comment on this question.

      Thank you for your time.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The context of a verse is key to understanding it. It is a different context in Exodus 7:1, obviously.

      The New Testament انجیل حقیقی (The true Injeel, true gospel) revelation gives us more information and God requires fuller belief in the newer revelation – the true Injeel انجیل حقیقی , the 27 books of the New Testament.

      Like

    • Yes, Matthew 28:19 is a direct command of Jesus.

      The other questions I already answered.

      Like

    • Thank you Ken Temple for your reply. You mentioned the following:’

      “Yes, Matthew 28:19 is a direct command of Jesus.”

      So it has to be done in the formula of the triune doctrine? I.e. Whenever baptism is performed it has to be done in the trinity, NO EXCEPTIONS? Correct?

      I just wanted to clarify your position, before I continue my argument.

      Like

    • In the book of Acts, we see that it says there several times, “be baptized in the name of Jesus”. or “they were baptized in the name of Jesus”. That is not a contradiction because that means “on the authority of Jesus” – which looks back to His command in Matthew 28:19. The name is the same as authority in the book of Acts.

      Like

    • Thanks for your reply Ken, you mentioned :

      “In the book of Acts, we see that it says there several times, “be baptized in the name of Jesus”. or “they were baptized in the name of Jesus”. That is not a contradiction because that means “on the authority of Jesus” – which looks back to His command in Matthew 28:19. The name is the same as authority in the book of Acts.

      Wait, wait , wait..please do not insert your interpretation into the text. I think the point has been made, baptism was ALWAYS performed in the Name of Jesus, and never in the triune formula. Would you agree with that? Can you show me ONE INSTANCE in the New Testament where baptism is performed “in the Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost”, just one?

      Moreover, does being baptised into someone, make that someone God?

      Liked by 1 person

    • The book of Acts does not give us all the details. The name of Jesus is His character and authority and He gave the command in Matthew 28:19, so all the Acts passages are looking back to His command.

      Like

    • Hi Ken,

      Thank you for your reply.

      “The book of Acts does not give us all the details. The name of Jesus is His character and authority and He gave the command in Matthew 28:19, so all the Acts passages are looking back to His command.”

      I’m still confused, you agree that the command in Matthew 28:19 is a DIRECT ORDER from Jesus, he didn’t say baptize into “his name” to save time, he said to go and baptize into the name of “father, son and holy ghost.” So my question is why are the disciples disobeying Christ?

      And also please answer the question, as to whether being baptized into someone , make them God?

      Like

    • “unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” John 8:24
      one must believe in the Deity of Christ to be saved.
      The Deity of Christ forces the Doctrine of the Trinity, since there is only one God, which means the Father and Son, and Holy Spirit are One God by nature, but three in person, when you look at all the other verses for the Deity of Christ, the Deity of the Holy Spirit, and the personhood of Christ and the Holy Spirit. One God in three persons.

      Like

    • Hey Ken Temple,

      You mentioned:

      ““unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” John 8:24
      one must believe in the Deity of Christ to be saved.
      The Deity of Christ forces the Doctrine of the Trinity, ,,,,,.”

      Alright, let me understand this, the Prophets of the Old Testament not only believed in the deity of Jesus , but also in the Trinity? Have I understood your position correctly?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Before the Messiah came, true faith was in the one true God, Yahweh יהוה AND His coming Messiah – Genesis 15:1-6; Galatians 3:16 (The Promised Seed of Genesis 15:1-6 was the Messiah); Genesis 12:3; 22:18 – John 8:56-58 – Abraham rejoiced to see My day and was glad . . . before Abraham was born, I am ( Yahweh) .

      Like

    • Read some good books on the doctrine of the Trinity:
      The Forgotten Trinity by James R. White
      Why You Should Believe in the Trinity; by Robert Bowman
      The Holy Trinity, by Robert Letham
      Delighting in the Trinity, by Micheal Reeves
      “Is the Father of Jesus the god of Muhammad?” by Timothy George

      Like

    • Hello Ken, How are you doing mate?

      You said:

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

      “one must believe in the Deity of Christ to be saved.”

      Ok so how exactly does John 8:24 speaks about the “Deity” of Christ?

      Liked by 2 people

    • @Dear Ken,

      “John 8:56-58 – Abraham rejoiced to see My day and was glad . . . before Abraham was born, I am ( Yahweh) .”

      So “Eimi” means “Yahweh”…aight, so how exactly please? Let’s discuss about it for a bit if you want….

      Like

    • Ken, don’t forget about me…

      Like

    • I’ll give Ken the benefit of the doubt and say hes not “selectively” answering questions, but rather doesn’t have time to answer them all……..

      Like

    • Seems he’s busy…alright then, any other Christian to discuss John 8:58 with me? Paulus what about you? Let’s have a nice discussion if you want mate…

      Like

    • Or maybe John 1:1…pick one of the two my dear Christian friends…👍

      Like

  8. I have a question for you regarding the Crucifixion , hopefully you could give it some consideration along with my other questions I have posed to you….

    My questions is that, are you one of those Christians, who use the writings of Tacitus and Josephus to prove that the crucifixion has occurred? If so, I have a follow-up question.

    Like

    • The New Testament writings – 9 authors of the 27 books.
      And
      Tacitus
      and
      Josephus
      and
      others also.

      All together it is a lot of historical evidence.

      Bart Ehrman and other scholars that Paul Williams likes to use also agree.

      The Historical Evidence for Jesus’ Death by Crucifixion

      There are at least three reasons pertinent to our discussion for believing that Jesus of Nazareth died as a result of being crucified. Jesus’ death by crucifixion is multiply attested by a fair number of ancient sources, Christian and non-Christian alike. It is very probable that Josephus reported the event in his original version of Antiquities 18:3.[8] Tacitus, Lucian, and Mara bar Serapion are all certainly aware of the event.[9] Lucian adds that Jesus’ crucifixion took place in Palestine.[10] In Christian sources, Jesus’ execution is widely reported, with and without specifying the mode of crucifixion. All four canonical Gospels report Jesus’ death by crucifixion as do numerous other books and letters of the New Testament that refer to it regularly.[11] Jesus’ death and/or crucifixion are abundantly mentioned in the non-canonical literature.[12] Moreover, there is no ancient evidence to the contrary.[13]

      The reports of Jesus’ death by crucifixion are early. Paul mentions Jesus’ death by crucifixion no later than AD 55 and said he preached the same to those in Corinth in AD 51 or within twenty-one years of Jesus’ crucifixion.[14] Jesus’ death may be alluded to in Q, which may be contemporary to Paul.[15] It appears numerous times in the kerygma of the oral formulas. The earliest report of Jesus’ death is found in the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3. Virtually all scholars who have written on the subject hold that Paul here provides tradition about Jesus which he received from others.[16] There is likewise widespread agreement that it was composed very early, reflected what was being taught by the Jerusalem apostles, and is the oldest extant tradition pertaining to the resurrection of Jesus.[17] It is really quite amazing to think that we are probably reading what was taught by the original disciples of Jesus.

      From, “The Death of Jesus and the Defeat of Islam”, by Mike Licona:
      https://www.risenjesus.com/the-death-of-jesus-the-defeat-of-islam

      Also from Licona’s article:
      “McIntyre comments,

      Even those scholars and critics who have been moved to depart from almost everything else within the historical content of Christ’s presence on earth have found it impossible to think away the factuality of the death of Christ.[22]

      McIntyre is quite correct. Atheist Lüdemann writes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.”[23]For the Jewish scholar Vermes, “The passion of Jesus is part of history.”[24] The rather skeptical scholar Paula Fredriksen writes, “The single most solid fact about Jesus’ life is his death: he was executed by the Roman prefect Pilate, on or around Passover, in the manner Rome reserved particularly for political insurrectionists, namely, crucifixion.”[25]

      In summary, the historical evidence is very strong that Jesus died by crucifixion. The event is multiply attested by a number of ancient sources, some of which are non-Christian and, thus, not biased toward a Christian interpretation of events. They appear in multiple literary forms, being found in annals, historiography, biography, letters, and tradition in the form of creeds, oral formulae, and hymns. Some of the reports are very early and can reasonably be traced to the Jerusalem apostles. Finally, the Passion narratives appear credible, since they fulfill the criterion of embarrassment. That Jesus was crucified and died as a result is granted by the overwhelming majority of scholars studying the subject.”

      Like

    • the Quran states that it ‘appeared to them’ – the Jews – that Jesus was crucified so it is not surprising that people thought that he was. But God, who has perfect infallible knowledge, knows best and tells the world the truth in His Word, the Qur’an.

      Liked by 1 person

    • A made up idea that they got from the Gnostic Basilides, whom Irenaeus mentions.

      Anyone can come along 600 years later and say, “well, it looked like it happened in history; and many people recorded that it actually happened; but God really faked everyone out (deceived, tricked – Surah 3:54-55) into believing it happened, but it really did not happen.” Anyone can claim that kind of thing. It is non-falsifiable by human historical methods and historical standards and principles; the very principles you constantly claim for your other attacks on the Bible and using liberal scholarship. Totally inconsistent.

      Like

    • Thank you Ken,

      So you do rely on Tacitus and Josephus as historical evidence for the crucifixion., Ok good, just wanted to establish your position on their writings. So what is your opinion when Tacitus and Josephus are contradicting the Bible:

      In Bart Ehrman’s New Testament textbook, he mentions the following:

      “Contrary to what Luke indicates, historians have long known from several ancient inscriptions, the Roman historian Tacitus, and the Jewish historian Josephus that Quirinius was not the governor of Syria until 6 C.E., fully ten years after Herod the Great died. If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, then Quirinius was not the Syrian governor.”

      So please tell me Ken, if we use Tacitus and Josephus as HISTORICAL EVIDENCE for the crucifixion, would you also accept that the Gospel of Luke is HISTORICALLY INACCURATE?

      (https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2018/01/31/josephus-and-tacitus-versus-luke-new-testament-contradiction-and-christian-hypocrisy/)

      Like

    • This video answers the issue of Quirinius and the census. Yes, Luke was a very accurate historian.

      Like

    • Also, so many different witnesses to the crucifixion and death of Jesus – 9 NT authors and Josephus and Tacitus and the others that Licona mentions.

      Like

    • Ken Temple you mentioned witnesses,

      where can I find the 500 mentioned in this verse, I can’t seem to find any of their testimonies:

      For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.—1 Corinthians 15:3-9 (ESV)

      Like

    • It is enough that that holy Scripture tells us the 500 other witnesses saw Jesus in His resurrected body. I Corinthians 15 is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16) Scripture; inspired.

      More powerful than the Qur’an, just a human book.

      Like

    • Ty for your reply Ken,

      Keeping aside the interpretation of the Bible, I think it is time to venture forth into the topic of whether YOU HAVE THE BIBLE. Since you mentioned ” the Qur’an is a human book”.

      Please tell me how many manuscripts do you have of the Bible in the first Century of your Christian Calendar?
      In the first century of our Islamic Calendar we have 91.7 % of the Qur’an, for the Bible it is 0% ,
      Would you agree with that statement?
      (https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/91-7-of-the-quran-in-first-century-ah-vs-0-of-the-bible-in-first-century-ad/)

      And I would also like to bring up this quote from Bart Ehrman in regards to this issue:

      Taken from Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus, page 10:

      “This kind of realization coincided with the problems I was encountering the more closely I studied the surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. It is one thing to say that the originals were inspired, but the reality is that we don’t have the originals—so saying they were inspired doesn’t help me much, unless I can reconstruct the originals. Moreover, the vast majority of Christians for the entire history of the church have not had access to the originals, making their inspiration something of a moot point. Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later—much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places. As we will see later in this book, these copies differ from one another in so many places that we don’t even know how many differences there are. Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”

      Like

    • Using Ehrman backfires on you because the Qur’an at the time of Muhammad confirms the NT, the true Injeel; and the OT (TaNaKh) also. Surah 5:47; 5:68; 10:94.

      There is no changing the words of Allah.
      “no one can change the words of God”
      Arabic:
      وَلَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ

      “And there is no changing the words of Allah” (This phrase is from Surah 6:34, and see 6:115 (116); 10:64 (65); and 18:27

      Since we have many older manuscripts than 600 AD, and the Qur’an confirms the Bible at the time of Muhammad, then the Qur’an never says the text of the Injeel or Torah or Zabur of Davood was changed.

      Like

    • the NT is not the words of Allah Ken.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yes they are – they are “God-breathed” and even the Qur’an confesses this in Surah 10:94; 5:47 and 5:68

      Like

    • lol very silly. Nowhere does the Quran mention the NT.

      Liked by 1 person

    • shows that the author of the Qur’an is ignorant of history and Christianity, since the only true Gospel Scripture that can be rightly called the Injeel (Gospel) is the NT.

      Like

    • Silly and ignorant. According to Mark Jesus preached “the gospel” in Mark 1:14-15. That is obviously not the same as the 4 stories about the life of Jesus written much later than Jesus’s own lifetime. Ken go to school and get an education on Christian history and the Bible!

      Like

    • Thank you for your reply Ken,

      We can get into the verses of the Qur’an regarding the Injeel, no problem.

      But before we go on any tangents and try to escape any questions by throwing out red herrings, let us first agree that what you CLAIM to be the Bible, does not exist in the first century? Would you agree? How many centuries does it take for you to get the Bible?

      I’m hoping your not one of those Christians who think Jesus went around speaking Shakespearean English and in every house in Galilee they had a leather-bound KJV

      The reality is quite grim. I think we can both agree that Christians can not make a claim for an oral tradition, while Muslims can. There is no Christian today who has memorised the words of Jesus in Aramaic, let alone the Greek or the Latin or the English which you read every day. As for Muslims, WE CAN MAKE THE CLAIM (whether you agree with it or not), that we have an oral tradition, you can’t even make that claim.

      Keeping aside an oral tradition, lets look at your manuscript tradition. Do you have anything in the first century ? NOTHING, you have pieces of scraps and papers all the way up to the 4th century, when you FINALLY have complete Bible, or rather what you claim to be a Bible . Keep in mind everyone, they don’t radiocarbon-date their stuff, while we do, but that is a discussion for another day.

      Let’s keep that aside and let’s say that you had a KJV from day 1. Christians were too illiterate to even read it. Literacy during the time of Jesus was 3%, and that was AMONG THE JEWS.

      And finally let’s assume you had KJV, and Christians were literate enough to read it, for more than 1000 years you were not allowed to read your Bible. Even up till the 70s when Catholics were told not to . The first person to translate the Bible into English ,was William Tyndale and he was burned at the stake for his efforts.

      Now tell my which is more worthy to be called a “Book from God” or a “human book” (as you have said it). We have an oral tradition, we have manuscripts, we could read and write, and we had access to it and were encouraged to recite it from day 1. As for your tradition, you have nothing in all of these categories.

      ———————

      Also just to remind you, in case you forgot, please address the following at your earliest convenience :

      “I’m still confused, you agree that the command in Matthew 28:19 is a DIRECT ORDER from Jesus, he didn’t say baptize into “his name” to save time, he said to go and baptize into the name of “father, son and holy ghost.” So my question is why are the disciples disobeying Christ?

      And also please answer the question, as to whether being baptized into someone , makes them God?”

      Like

    • No; the NT was written in the first century, so it certainly did exist. Each of the 27 books was written between 45 AD to 96 AD, so they existed as individual scrolls sent to different areas. A codex (flattened out loose sheets tied together) did not exist yet. The codex came into existence in late second to third century. The codex later developed into what we know as a “book” that we have today.

      Like

    • Wrong. The NT was not canonised till much later in the early 4th century in the form you know it today. Most scholars today recognise it contains forgeries like 2 Peter.

      Like

    • Does not matter how long it took for people to discern /discover the apostolic books, they ALL existed by 96 AD. So you are wrong.

      Like

    • No you are wrong. Most of the individual books existed in the 1st century (though some like 2 Peter were probably written much later). But their compilation into a CANON OF SCRIPTURE took much longer. A process only more or less complete by the 4th century. Get school Ken. You are way above your pay grade here. Shocking ignorance.

      Like

    • they are canon κανων (rule, criterion, standard) as soon as they were written, but it took time for all the churches to agree on all of them.
      The two big writers of the second century, and the first two large body of works outside of the NT, are by Irenaeus (writing from around 180-200 AD) and Tertullian – 190-220 AD – they quote from and allude to and name the books of 22-23 out of 27.
      The whole NT can be supplemented by the early church fathers – so it is misleading to speak of the NT as “non-existing” until the 4th century. Origen listed all 27 books around 250 AD. So you are wrong. The human sifting and discerning and discerning process of collecting them all together under one “book cover” as a “canon” – a list – is the result of them first being “rule”, “standard”, “criterion” from the first century.

      Like

    • so when was 2 Peter recognised as scripture by the church?

      Like

    • Clement (96 AD) seems to quote from it; but no one mentions it until Origen in 250 AD. There is silence, except for some allusions. (of what I know; there may be others who mention it between Origen and Athanasius)
      Eusebius mentions it as disputed, meaning some accepted it but others did not.
      Clearly Athanasius (367 AD) and the North African councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) under Augustine (354-430 AD) and Jerome (347-420 AD) recognize it.

      Like

    • Thanks for confirming what I have said: your New Testament canon did not exist as you have it today till the fourth century.

      Like

    • All the books existed as individual scrolls by 100 AD. The “canon” means “criterion”, “standard”, “rule” . There was no such thing as a book / codex in the first and most of second century AD. You mislead by the way you frame the argument.

      Like

    • Wrong. Vast majority of mainstream NT experts date 2 Peter to the 2nd century along with the possibility that John is 2nd century too. The NT only came to the form you know it in the 4th century. This is history 101. I learnt that in my first term at university.

      Stop embarrassing yourself Ken.

      Like

    • I don’t agree that those 2 books are 2nd Century; but even if they were, then there are 25 that already existed in the first century; even Bart Ehrman agrees that Romans, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 Thess. are 50s-60 AD, by Paul the apostle.

      Like

    • but we have no copies at all of any of the books from the 1st century

      Like

    • Hey Ken,

      Please respond to my other points when you get the chance, also in response to your assertion that :

      “The whole NT can be supplemented by the early church fathers – so it is misleading to speak of the NT as “non-existing” until the 4th century”

      That is blatantly incorrect, even your Wallace agrees with us:

      https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2017/08/05/clarification-by-wallace-on-using-patristic-witnesses-to-re-construct-the-new-testament/

      https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2017/05/25/can-the-new-testament-be-reconstructed-from-the-writings-of-the-church-fathers-muslims-answer/

      Daniel Wallace mentions the following :

      I’m embarrassed to say that sometimes there are Muslim apologists who have done really decent research on the nature of the New Testament or on the transmission of the text or things along those lines, and they have cleared up kind of an apocryphal story that Christians believed in.

      There was one example: a number of scholars have passed on saying someone had pointed out that in the first three centuries of Christianity, only eleven verses of the entire New Testament had not been able to be found in those Church Fathers’ writings. Well, that was a garbled story that went back to the early 1800s, and it was a third-hand story of a fellow by the name of David Dalrymple. He was the one who actually was doing the research, and somebody heard about this at a party and not directly from Dalrymple but from somebody else, and then put into a book, and it’s been stated for the last 200 years as though it was Gospel fact.

      What Dalrymple actually said was in the first two centuries of the Christian faith through A.D. 300, that all but eleven verses of John’s Gospel had been found in the Church Fathers’ writings [Wallace said that Dalrymple found all but 11 verses of the Gospel of John in the Ante-Nicene fathers, but Dalrymple’s notes do not bear this out]. He wasn’t talking about the whole New Testament, so this got communicated in such a way that said it was the whole New Testament that’s been found. That’s just irresponsible and not at all helpful. It was Muslim apologists who discovered the error, and it’s been quoted by apologists, even text critical scholars, and it was the Muslims who (……. 58:18) [did the] research and said sorry that’s not the case.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks for that research on what Daniel Wallace said. Very good; I concede that point. Remember that he is limiting it to 40-299 AD. “early” = 0-299 AD in D. Wallace’s definition, but many include 300s and 400s in “early church fathers”, but ok, good point.

      There are not many first century early church fathers outside of the NT books.
      Didache and 1 Clement are probably the only ones written before 100 AD, and scholars date the Didache from 70 AD to 120 AD. 1 Clement is usually dated to 96 AD.

      2nd Century is 101-200
      Lots of quotes from Tertullian and Irenaeus, Justin Martyr (John & Gospels), Polycarp, etc.
      3rd Century – 201-299 – Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, many others

      But if one extends into 300s and 400s, then probably all the NT is quoted, but I don’t know for sure. Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, Hillary, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, John Chysostom, etc.

      Very good find; I did not know that about Dalrymple.

      It would be interesting to know exactly what the statistic is on how much is quoted from the NT until 299 AD.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Very good; I concede that point.”

      Thank you for your reply Ken and for you intellectual honesty,

      This reminds me of a saying from one of our sages of jurisprudential law, Imam Shafi’i:

      “Never do I debate a man with a desire to hear him err in his speech, or to expose the flaws in his argument, and thus vanquish him. Whenever I face an opponent in debate I silently supplicate, ‘O Lord, help him so that truth may manifest itself in his heart and on his tongue. If it be that the truth is on my side, may he follow me; and if the truth be on his side, may I follow him.’”

      —————

      But let’s get back to the discussion at hand, you mentioned :

      “It would be interesting to know exactly what the statistic is on how much is quoted from the NT until 299 AD.”

      There is much more to consider when bringing up the Church Father quotations,. For example, the same way we don’t have the original writings of the NT, we don’t have the “originals” of any of the writings of the church fathers. They too were handed down in manuscript form as scribes copied them. So let us not use fault texts to confirm faulty texts.

      That is one point to bring up for now.

      —————-

      Br. Ijaz Ahmed also has something similar on his site about Wallace, which I bring up just for reference:

      https://callingchristians.com/2015/07/20/clarification-by-wallace-on-using-patristic-witnesses-to-re-construct-the-new-testament/

      Like

    • Hi Ken, In response to :

      “Didache and 1 Clement are probably the only ones written before 100 AD, ”

      https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/is-the-didache-apostolic/

      The Didache cannot be taken as a reliable source for tradition received from Jesus’ disciples, because it was written (as is the opinion of the majority of scholars) in the second half of the second century, by an unknown author who had not, obviously, met the disciples.

      Johannes Betz, “The Eucharist in the Didache,” in Jonathan A. Draper, ed. The Didache in Modern Research, Leiden: Brill, 1996, p.244

      Like

    • ‘Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, Hillary, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, John Chysostom’ – all good Catholics who would be horrified at your Protestant heresies Ken.

      Like

    • “catholic” yes; Roman Catholic, no.
      None of the later developments of a Pope (bishop over all other bishops), Transubstantiation, Purgatory in its final form; treasury of merit; statues, icons; prayers to statues or icons; Mary as Immaculately conceived and bodily assumed into heaven – none of that existed in their day.

      there is some smaller things – yes – like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (especially Jerome and Augustine), priests as clergy, apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration, real presence (can be spiritual), etc. – but none of the dogmas of 1215 (Transubstantiation), 1302 (Unam Sanctum – one must submit to the Pope in order to be saved); 1545-1563 (Council of Trent); 1854 (IC of Mary); 1870 (Infallibility of the Pope); 1950 (Bodily Assumption of Mary)

      Like

    • They called themselves Catholic, and had beliefs about the eucharist, papacy and Mary that are much closer to modern RCs than your views. They would have viewed you as a heretic.

      Liked by 1 person

    • wrong; even the Eastern Orthodox agree with Protestants on the Papacy and Purgatory.

      Like

    • Hey Ken,

      Don’t forget about me 🙂

      Like

    • I did not forget; but I have a life and have to sleep and work and do other things. I just saw the new posts this morning. Thanks again for the Daniel Wallace and Dalrymple find. Very good.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      Anyone can come thousands of years to form councils and say God is 3 Persons/persons one God.

      The Quran says it appeared to them(Jews). Jesus’s disciples did not believed he(Jesus) will come and die for their sins, because when they saw him(Jesus), they were surprised. Yes, sometimes God plans against His enemies and not everyone. If it appeared to them they killed Jesus while God saved him(Jesus), it does not mean deception to all people but it appearing to them.

      When Moses parted the red sea, Pharoah and his soldiers were deceived into believing that, they can follow Moses and his people and capture them, but after Moses and his people left the sea, all the enemy chasing them were drowned. Do you call it deception by God to all people? No. It is God plan to his(God) enemies at that time. Some people did not believe Moses parted the red sea but some people believed so. Does that make Moses God?

      to be continued……

      Like

  9. ……continued

    Do not copy David Wood and Dr. James White who said Allah created Christianity by making it appear to the Jews they kill Jesus. God of the Christians makes himself appeared like man Jesus. Did the God of Christianity created Islam and Judaism etc. who see their scripture and reject a God-Man as false God?

    Thanks.

    Like

    • According to the Qur’an and Islam, Allah created Christianity by deceiving the Jews and Romans, yet also caused them (the believers in Jesus) to be the most victorious, numerous, superior, obvious.
      Qur’an 3:54-55 – caused the believers in Jesus to be superior فوق
      Qur’an 61:14 – they (the believers, disciples, helpers of Jesus) became the dominant ones.ظاهرین

      يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُونُوا أَنصَارَ اللَّهِ كَمَا قَالَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ لِلْحَوَارِيِّينَ مَنْ أَنصَارِي إِلَى اللَّهِ ۖ قَالَ الْحَوَارِيُّونَ نَحْنُ أَنصَارُ اللَّهِ ۖ فَآمَنَت طَّائِفَةٌ مِّن بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ وَكَفَرَت طَّائِفَةٌ ۖ فَأَيَّدْنَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا عَلَىٰ عَدُوِّهِمْ فَأَصْبَحُوا ظَاهِرِينَ – 61:14

      إِذْ قَالَ اللَّهُ يَا عِيسَىٰ إِنِّي مُتَوَفِّيكَ وَرَافِعُكَ إِلَيَّ وَمُطَهِّرُكَ مِنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَجَاعِلُ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوكَ فَوْقَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ ۖ ثُمَّ إِلَيَّ مَرْجِعُكُمْ فَأَحْكُمُ بَيْنَكُمْ فِيمَا كُنتُمْ فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ – 3:55

      The dominant group of believers in Jesus all through the 600 years until Islam were the Christians – the disciples, and those that followed their teachings – those that believed in the 27 books of the NT and the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.

      Like

    • Hey Ken ,

      3:55

      And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me ye will (all) return, and I shall judge between you as to that wherein ye used to differ.

      Yes, those who believe in Jesus will be superior to those who disbelieve in Jesus, until the day of Resurrection.. What does this mean? This means that the disciples who believed in the message of Jesus, will be eternally superior even till the day of Resurrection as opposed to the Jews who at that time rejected his message .

      —————————-
      61:14
      O ye who believe! Be Allah’s helpers, even as Jesus son of Mary said unto the disciples: Who are my helpers for Allah? They said: We are Allah’s helpers. And a party of the Children of Israel believed, while a party disbelieved. Then We strengthened those who believed against their foe, and they became the uppermost.

      Notice it says A PARTY OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, not to the gentiles but the Jews who believed in Jesus . So any claim you make for ALL OF CHRISTIANITY, is null and void when the verse is only talking about non-gentile Christians..

      Liked by 1 person

  10. “The Qur’an states that Allah helped spread Christianity. Once God had caused belief in Jesus death and resurrection, he then worked diligently to aid the Christians in spreading their false message:

    O you who believe! be helpers (in the cause) of Allah, as [Jesus] son of Maryam said to (his) disciples: Who are my helpers in the cause of Allah? The disciples said: We are helpers (in the cause) of Allah. So a party of the children of Israel believed and another party disbelieved; then We aided those who believed against their enemy, and they became uppermost.[16] Qur’an 61:14

    This verse is extremely important, for it means that Allah helped the followers of Jesus against the Jews who rejected Jesus, and that these followers “became uppermost.” So who were these followers of Jesus who became stronger than the Jews? The only people in history who fit such a description are orthodox Christians, who believe in Jesus’ death, resurrection, and divinity. In other words, Muslims can’t claim here that Jesus’ message was corrupted and that the true Gospel was wiped out, because that clearly isn’t the group that the Qur’an refers to in this passage. Even if there was a group of first century Muslim-Christians, this group never gained an upper hand over anyone. Indeed, they must have been snuffed out immediately. The only group of Jesus’ followers that ever became strong enough to overshadow the Jews was composed of Christians, once Christianity had spread throughout the Roman Empire. These Christians believed in the foundational doctrines that Christians hold even today. Yet, according to the Qur’an, Allah helped these people rise to power!

    How, then, did Christianity spread and become the dominant world religion? It spread by the power of Allah! And who started the Christian message about Jesus’ death on the cross? God invented this message! Even non-Christian historians are convinced that Jesus’ death is one of history’s best-established facts.[17] Where did historians get this idea? They got it from God, who tricked so many people into believing in Jesus’ death that we now have tons of historical evidence for this event. Since there are roughly two billion Christians on earth at the present moment, it seems that Jesus and God are responsible for starting the only religion in the world that overshadows Islam.

    If Islam Is True . . .

    Needless to say, I think the Islamic view is extremely problematic. It requires us to believe that God deceived billions of people. God even led Jesus’ followers astray by tricking so many people into believing that Jesus died. This could have been avoided if God hadn’t been so intent on deceiving people. But this leads to more questions: Why would God want people to believe that Jesus was dead when he really wasn’t? Muslims can’t argue that God did it to protect Jesus from the Jews or Romans, since God was taking Jesus away safely anyway. So, why would God want to give Jesus’ enemies the satisfaction of seeing Jesus killed? Why not raise Jesus up without deceiving everyone about it? There seems to be no reason at all for God to deceive these people, especially since such a deception would soon lead to the formation of Christianity.

    This is a difficult pill to swallow, yet Islam forces us to view the origin of Christianity in this way. If Islam is true, God deceives people who believe the prophets he sends. If Islam is true, God spreads false teachings until they become dominant in the world. If Islam is true, Jesus, the Messiah, was completely incompetent and should never have been sent by God, since Jesus’ life ended up leading more people astray than any other life in history. Because the Muslim view is at odds with any traditional understanding of God’s nature (including the Islamic understanding), Islam is an incoherent religious system, which should be rejected by all rational people. Islam has a poor and contemptible explanation for the origin of Christianity. If Islam is true, the existence of Christianity makes no sense at all.”

    David Wood

    He makes very good points. Yes, I cut and pasted that, from the article below.

    http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/deceptive_god.htm

    Like

    • Ken,
      Notice that you take your understanding of Qur’an from a man who made this devastating mistake because of his ignorance in Arabic.

      The followers of Jesus (((among))) jews had been above jews who didn’t believe in Jesus. Then that promise for Jesus’ followers by God has been fulfilled finally by Islam because Qur’an praises Jesus’ disciples. The uppermost status of Jesus’ disciples has been manifested because they have been praised in Qur’an.

      Liked by 1 person

    • David is very confident and not afraid of doing things like dressing up in women’s clothing to make his point on that issue that there is Hadith about Muhammad on that.

      Of course, I would have never done that; because of how you and other Muslims poison all of his other good argument by looking through that lens of that silly picture. He was unwise to do that; and gave you guys a sound-bite type photo to set up the problem that you would not listen to anything else he says.

      But, it does not bother him at all.

      And Shabir Ally debated him recently, so obviously Shabir does not think that one thing of his (dressing up in women’s clothes) makes him crazy or goofy or unworthy of debate.

      Like

    • “David is very confident and not afraid of doing things”
      Interesting!
      “A woman must not put on men’s clothing, and a man must not wear women’s clothing. Anyone who does this is detestable in the sight of the LORD your God.”

      “so obviously Shabir does not think that one thing of his (dressing up in women’s clothes) makes him crazy or goofy or unworthy of debate”

      First , we disagree with dr Ally in this regard. However. Shabir may have the same attitude toward David as we have, yet he might think that debating David is important because he has a lot of crazy followers.

      Finally, David is really a liar and delusive man. He has been exploiting the ignorance of lay Christians about Islam to promote his lies agianst Islam. Also, I think he did Mubahalh, and in general I have a negative attitude toward those who do it against Islam.

      Like

    • Mubahalh = ?

      I have yet to see him being refuted on the issues.

      Sometimes he emphasizes the Jihad – terrorism stuff too much, but putting those issues aside, and the women’s clothing issue aside;

      on issues relating to the text, Deity of Christ, Bible and history issues, he has made excellent points that none of you have refuted.

      Like

    • The quote from Deuteronomy means don’t be a transvestite or transgender. David was just doing that for the video to make a point about the several Hadith saying Muhammad that.
      Here is just one of them.

      From Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith Number 2393

      Volume Title, “Grace and its Virtues.”

      Chapter Title, “What was Granted to the Companions and the Wives.”

      Narrated by Ismail, narrated by his brother, narrated by Sulaiman, narrated by Hisham ibn Urwah, narrated by his father, narrated by Aisha who related that the wives of the prophet were divided into two groups. One group consisted of Aisha, Hafsa, Safiya and Sawdah while the other group consisted of Um Salamah and the rest of the women that belonged to the prophet. The Muslims had learned of the great love that the prophet had for Aisha so that if one of them had a gift he desired to give to the prophet, he would delay giving it until the prophet came to Aisha’s house.

      Then the group who sided with Um Salamah came to Um Salamah and asked her to tell the prophet that he should command the people that if any of them had a gift to give to the prophet, they should give it him in whatever house of his wives the prophet was in at the time.

      So Um Salamah went and talked with the prophet but he did not respond to her. When the group asked her what the prophet said she told them that he did not respond. So they asked her to go talk to him again until he responds… then the prophet said to her, “Do not hurt me with Aisha, for the inspiration did not come upon me when I was IN (fee) A WOMAN’S GARMENT (Thawb) EXCEPT THAT OF AISHA.”

      Source- http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=2393&doc=0

      يأتيه الوحي وهو في ثوب عائشة

      ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏إسماعيل ‏ ‏قال حدثني ‏ ‏أخي ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏سليمان ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏هشام بن عروة ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبيه ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏رضي الله عنها ‏أن نساء رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏كن حزبين فحزب فيه ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏وحفصة ‏ ‏وصفية ‏ ‏وسودة ‏ ‏والحزب الآخر ‏ ‏أم سلمة ‏ ‏وسائر نساء رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏وكان المسلمون قد علموا حب رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏فإذا كانت عند أحدهم هدية يريد أن يهديها إلى رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏أخرها حتى إذا كان رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏في بيت ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏بعث صاحب الهدية بها إلى رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏في بيت ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏فكلم حزب ‏ ‏أم سلمة ‏ ‏فقلن لها كلمي رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏يكلم الناس فيقول من أراد أن يهدي إلى رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏هدية فليهده إليه حيث كان من بيوت نسائه فكلمته ‏ ‏أم سلمة ‏ ‏بما قلن فلم يقل لها شيئا فسألنها فقالت ما قال لي شيئا فقلن لها فكلميه قالت فكلمته حين دار إليها أيضا فلم يقل لها شيئا فسألنها فقالت ما قال لي شيئا فقلن لها كلميه حتى يكلمك فدار إليها فكلمته فقال لها ‏ ‏لا تؤذيني في ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏فإن الوحي لم يأتني وأنا في ثوب امرأة إلا ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏قالت فقالت أتوب إلى الله من أذاك يا رسول الله ثم إنهن دعون ‏ ‏فاطمة بنت رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏فأرسلت إلى رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏تقول إن نساءك ينشدنك الله العدل في بنت ‏ ‏أبي بكر ‏ ‏فكلمته فقال يا بنية ألا تحبين ما أحب قالت بلى فرجعت إليهن فأخبرتهن فقلن ارجعي إليه فأبت أن ترجع فأرسلن ‏ ‏زينب بنت جحش ‏ ‏فأتته فأغلظت وقالت إن نساءك ينشدنك الله العدل في بنت ابن ‏ ‏أبي قحافة ‏ ‏فرفعت صوتها حتى تناولت ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏وهي قاعدة فسبتها حتى إن رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏لينظر إلى ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏هل تكلم قال فتكلمت ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏ترد على ‏ ‏زينب ‏ ‏حتى أسكتتها قالت فنظر النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏إلى ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏وقال إنها بنت ‏ ‏أبي بكر

      Like

    • “I have yet to see him being refuted on the issues.”
      Rather he has been schooled many times by the lions of Islam. He has not presented any real argument agianst Islam except that he is using the hypocritical nature that christians are soaked in already.
      The only reason you said that is because you’re just one of his ignorant students who don’t bother to read or to listen to the other side, and the evidence is that you still try to make a point for him by using the same hadith. How pathetic!
      Just admit it that you are one of his ignorant followers , Ken, .
      Also, christians and in a general sense want just to hear to the one who tells them what they want. They are not interested to seek the truth. They are more than happy by believing that God did die. Most of what David Wood says against Islam are lies based on his own psychic framing of the texts. Also, many of his vapid polemic arguments are just double standards which can be easily returned on his religion. Even the arrogant James White admits that.

      Mubahalah is praying for a curse to the liar between 2 debaters.

      Like

    • “It is not a matter of not liking; rather it is a matter of being honest with history and historical fact and evidence.”
      Indeed christians have never been honest in this matter.

      Like

  11. Hey Ken,

    You mentioned :

    “No; the NT was written in the first century, so it certainly did exist. Each of the 27 books was written between 45 AD to 96 AD, so they existed as individual scrolls sent to different areas. A codex (flattened out loose sheets tied together) did not exist yet. The codex came into existence in late second to third century. The codex later developed into what we know as a “book” that we have today.”

    And I can find these manuscripts where …….? Where is your manuscript evidence?

    Here let me give you a homework assignment, what is the earliest fragment/papyrus/manuscript you have of the New Testament?

    Liked by 3 people

    • P-52 from John 18
      The John Rylands fragment
      Dated around 120 AD

      Like

    • “P-52 from John 18
      The John Rylands fragment
      Dated around 120 AD”

      Thank you again Ken Temple, now let’s compare the earliest Christian manuscript/ffragment P52, to the earliest Muslim manuscript, Birmingham manuscript:

      https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2017/05/30/p52-vs-birmingham-manuscript-comparing-the-earliest-biblical-manuscript-to-the-earliest-quranic-manuscript/

      Date

      P52: 125-175 CE (Dated using paleography and NOT radiocarbon dating) . This is the oldest, no manuscript is seen from the lifetime of Jesus or even the first century.

      Birmingham: Between c. 568 and 645 using Radiocarbon dating( A more accurate method to date than paleography) . This could very well mean during the time of the Prophet, if not the early first century following his death.

      Size:

      P52: Credit Card Sized (measuring only 3.5 by 2.5 inches (8.9 by 6 cm) at its widest; and conserved). The oldest manuscript is nothing but a scrap of paper.

      Birmingham: folio size (343mm by 258mm at the widest point) and are written on both sides . One two-page leaf contains verses 17–31 of Surah 18 (Al-Kahf) while the other leaf the final eight verses 91–98 of Surah 19 (Maryam) and the first 40 verses of Surah 20 (Ta-Ha), all in their present day sequence and conforming to the standard text.

      ——-

      Here is a question for you, why don’t Christians radiocarbon-date their manuscripts, I don’t know the answer to this question?

      Liked by 2 people

    • its dated somewhat later by the most recent scholarly analysis.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Notice none of these are radio carbon dated, i find that curious……

      Like

    • Ken, I give you points for not going further back than P52, as your co-religionist Cerbie (Paulus) did with DSS 7Q5. He was shown the error of his ways. But still, you lost points for being so predictable. We have all heard the Christian appeals to P52, and almost all try to give the fragment the earliest possible date. Scholars never give an exact date for ancient manuscripts. They always give a range. So, while 120 CE may be part of the range, it is not at all conclusive that P52 was actually written in the year 120 CE or even “around” it.

      Also, as brother Paul pointed out, recent studies have suggested even later dates for P52. Brent Nongbri of Yale University states that any serious consideration of P52 must includes dates in the late 2nd century and even early 3rd century. So, you need to keep trying. Are there any definitive 1st-century MSS of the New Testament?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Keep in Mind, NONE of these manuscripts and codices are radiocarbon-dated, which casts even more doubt on whether Christians even have a New Testament from the 4th Century.

      Liked by 2 people

  12. Ken is getting blasted as usual. All the guy can do is mutter the same propaganda that has been refuted, like a broken record. Ken, no one buys your nonsense. No one will be convinced, except those who have already surrendered their reason to your religion. It just doesn’t fly anymore in light of modern research on your Bible. Sorry…

    Liked by 4 people

    • poor Ken. Fundamentalism was never less fun

      Liked by 1 person

    • At least he gets some yummy food out of it. Sometimes.

      Liked by 1 person

    • How did I get blasted?

      Not really, even with the Dalrymple / Daniel Wallace information; which I concede; we have so much evidence for the NT from the church father, etc. that does not damage our apologetics at all. And we are honest about our textual variants, etc.

      Dr. White’s material and book on The King James Only controversy, and Dan Wallace’s materials are excellent.

      In the lecture that “ArchivesIslam” links to, there is much more there that Dan Wallace says, and many more scholarly resources that he points to.

      Like

  13. Ken you mentioned: ” we have so much evidence for the NT from the church father….”

    So I would like to confirm, do you agree that you lack the evidence for the NT from your manuscript tradition, or lack there of?

    If so, then we can move on to the topic of Church Father quotations.

    Thank you for the continued discourse.

    Like

  14. Yes, I knew that. These are the 2 most famous and oldest:

    Codex Vaticanus (300-325 AD)

    Codex Siniaticus (330-360 AD)

    The problem comes that framing the issue AS IF the books did not exist as individual scrolls in first, second, and third centuries AD.

    Like

    • there was no such thing as a Codex in 1st or most of 2nd Century AD. Romans starting flattening out papayri and tying them together late in 2nd century. Later, Christians made the codex popular and wider-spread. It was a new thing of flattening out the sheets and tying them together – the tie later became a binding, much later.

      Like

    • Ken, I don’t recall have these codices been radiocarbon-dated

      Like

    • A K. Temple classic:

      “P-52 from John 18
      The John Rylands fragment
      Dated around 120 AD”

      vs

      “there was no such thing as a Codex in 1st or most of 2nd Century AD.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • A scroll is not the same as a codex.

      Like

    • the earlier manuscripts are scrolls – rolled up papyri or animal skins. The later manuscripts are combined books – flattened out sheets and tied together into a codex – the tie later developed into a binding of a book.

      Like

    • …And are any of these radiocarbon-dated?

      Like

    • I don’t know.

      Does the use of that method require destruction of part of the piece being tested?

      And is it not applied to organic material to the time of death of the organic material?

      There is a gap between the death of the plant (Paprus, papyri) and animal (for manuscripts made of animal skins) – so would that not be inaccurate?

      Like

    • Thanks for your reply Ken,

      Just curious, how are Muslims able to radiocarbon-date all of their manuscripts, but the Christians are not able to?

      Moreover, for the superiority of radiocarbon-dating over paleography, please check out this:

      https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2017/05/30/the-quran-is-radio-carbon-dated-why-not-the-bible-also-a-short-examination-of-paleography/#more-2397

      Liked by 1 person

    • I don’t know – see the Larry Hurtado quote and article- you have to destroy part of the manuscript in order to do the test, that is why the RadioCarbon 14 test is not used on Biblical manuscripts.

      But the newly found Green collection, according to Hurtado – they are going to, (?) (? have done, or going to in the future?) to do Carbon Dating tests – and it will confirm the accuracy of the Paleography methods. Takes time.

      Like

    • “Many major libraries (e.g., the British Library) have a policy that does not permit any destruction of an item in any measure. So, since Carbon-dating requires that a tiny piece of an item be cut off and burned, hardly ever are we going to have Carbon-dating of items in these major collections.” Larry Hurtado

      Like

    • Carbon 14 dates back to the death of the plant or animal.
      there is a gap between the death of the plant or animal and the time of writing.
      so, that is another problem with that method.

      Like

    • Radiocarbon dating of Qur’anic manuscripts is a well-known practice and undertaken by many museums, universities and institutions alike. However, the same can not be said of Biblical manuscripts/papyri. Why this discrepancy ?

      Some may claim that Paleography (the study of ancient writing systems to date historical manuscripts) is just the same as Radio-Carbon dating. From the onset, it should be obvious that a subjective science like Paleography can in no way stand up to rigorous, tested and proven science which Radiocarbon dating provides. Below is a discussion regarding the pitfalls of using paleography:

      Taken from here: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/radio.html

      On the other hand, palaeography is a relative dating method which gives an order of events without giving an exact age. Thus, generally speaking, it cannot be used to pinpoint dates with high precision. Is palaeography a form of science? Commenting on the issues regarding the dating of inscriptions, William M. Schniedewind says:

      The so-called science of paleography often relies on circular reasoning because there is insufficient data to draw precise conclusion about dating. Scholars also tend to oversimplify diachronic development, assuming models of simplicity rather than complexity.[88]

      In other words, palaeography can at best be termed as an inexact science, filled with uncertainties and imprecisions. It is not judicious to upscale palaeography for its reliability whilst, on the other hand, putting down radiocarbon dating for its alleged lack thereof. So, what is the general “rule of thumb” followed in dating manuscripts via palaeography?

      This kind of precision dating defies the realities of scribal activity. The productive writing life of a scribe was probably around thirty or thirty-five years. Add to that the fact that the scribal profession was an apprenticed trade, with students learning a particular style from a teacher, and we find that a given hand may be present over multiple generations of scribes. Thus the “rule of thumb” should probably be to avoid dating a hand more precisely than a range of at least seventy or eighty years.[89]

      [88] W. M. Schniedewind, “Problems Of Paleographic Dating Of Inscriptions” in T. E. Levy, T. Higham (Eds.), The Bible And Radiocarbon Dating Archaeology, Text And Science, 2005, Equinox Publishing: London & Oakville, p. 405.

      [89] B. Nongbri, “The Use And Abuse Of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls In The Dating Of The Fourth Gospel“, Harvard Theological Review, 2005, Volume 98, p. 32, footnote 27. The issue of uncertainty and imprecision has been long recognized as an issue in palaeography. For example, citing Eric Turner, Nongbri says ( p. 25, footnote 6):

      Paleography is a last resort for dating… We would also do well to remember the standard rule of thumb for precision in paleographic dating, Turner writes, “For book hands, a period of 50 years is the least acceptable spread of time“.

      [90] B. W. Griffin, “The Paleographical Dating Of P46“, 1996 (November). This paper was delivered to the Society of Biblical Literature, New Testament Textual Criticism Section, New Orleans. Its transcript can be found here (accessed on 5th June 2016). Griffin comments:

      Until more rigorous methodologies are developed, it is difficult to construct a 95% confidence interval for NT manuscripts without allowing a century for an assigned date. If we use the 50-year period that is currently standard for the Oxyrhynchus series, then I would prefer AD 175-225 as the most probable date for P-46. But if we want a 95% confidence interval for P-46, then at present AD 150-250 is probably the narrowest range that we can use.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Another Temple classic blunder.

      “the earlier manuscripts are scrolls –”

      vs. your claim

      The earliest manuscript is P52 – from a codex!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Because it has text written on both sides, it is determined to be from a codex – so the dating range by some some scholars pushes the dating into 150 AD beyond.

      However:
      ” If it dates from the first half of the second century, this fragment would be amongst the earlier surviving examples of a literary codex . . .” (Brent Nongbri, p. 31, cited in the Wikipedia article; but scholars disagree with each other on these things; some arguing for earlier and some for later.)

      I was not arguing that P-52 is from a scroll; rather that the first century and most of first half of second century are scrolls.

      A codex is just starting to be used around the time of P-52.

      Like

    • Temple you lost credibility long time ago.

      “A scroll is not the same as a codex.” + “there was no such thing as a Codex in 1st or most of 2nd Century AD.”

      vs

      I was not arguing that P-52 is from a scroll; rather that the first century and most of first half of second century are scrolls.

      boo

      Liked by 1 person

    • You are mixing up issues. about the scroll vs. codex issue was about the canon and the fact that individual scrolls are from first century, whereas Codices are from 150 onward, but they are not widespread until later – 200s and onward. I was not saying P-52 is from a scroll; although I can see why you are making that connection. I provided the quote from Brent Nongbri, etc.

      Like

    • Temple you still want to have your cake and eat it. Although you are backing down now.

      If “Codices are from 150 onward,”

      (before you insisted “Romans starting flattening out papayri and tying them together late in 2nd century…)

      P52 cannot be from 120. Got it now?

      Like

    • there is debate among scholars about that. Maybe, maybe not. It would show that codices were beginning to be used earlier than previously thought; but hey, so P-52 could be from 150-175; ok. But the debate still goes on among scholars. I don’t claim to be a scholar.

      Even so, someone like Ehrman still agrees that most of the NT was written in 50s, 60s 70 Ad, 80-90 Ad in scrolls. He probably believes 2 Peter and the Pastorals were written in 120s to 130 AD (?), but even he agrees that most of the others were written between 70 AD to 99 AD; and he agrees that 7 of Paul’s letters are original to Paul (not forgeries) and written between 50-65 AD.

      How does even he and others hold to that by historical methods, when there is a gap between 70-90 AD up until 150-175 AD?

      Like

    • Temple you are no scholar you are a waste of time. Now you are turning to Ehrman to change the subject and save your neck.

      “Even so, someone like Ehrman still agrees that most of the NT was written in 50s,… Ad in scrolls.”

      Muuuahhahhhaaaa. Maybe you should look up an ancient greco roman letters.

      Stick with preaching. That’s beyond objective knowledge. What a mess.

      Like

    • no; it is the same subject over historical methods to determine dating. the question is why most scholars, even liberal and skeptic ones, agree that Paul’s letters were written in 50s-60s AD and Gospels 70-90, etc. (except for 2 Peter and 1-2 Tim. and Titus – which the more liberal scholars put in early 100s (120-135 AD).

      I never claimed to be a scholar.

      Like

  15. For the Quran we have 91.7% in our first century AH while you have zilch in the first century of your Christian calendar. Now tell me Ken, who has a superior manuscript tradition?

    Liked by 1 person

    • You are comparing apples vs. oranges, because the Bible era is considered ancient history by historians, but the Islamic era – 600s AD and beyond, is considered the Middle / Medieval Age by historians.

      Also, Uthman destroyed all the earlier evidence.

      Also, you had the state government with the power of the sword to protect your manuscripts.

      The Christians had no such thing. There was lots of off and on persecution, and the Romans burned many of the manuscripts.

      The honesty of the Christian tradition and the lack of state government power speaks volumes to the superiority of the NT text, and the lack of a planned out strategy like Uthman’s, to re-write the text as the original and burn all the other copies.

      Like

    • no; those are massive reasons and issues.

      Like

    • Which did God preserve as His last and final message, the Quran or what you claim to be the injeel? Who can make the better claim?

      Like

    • This list of NT manuscripts is impressive for our side. This does not include all the lectionaries, other translations, and Early church fathers quotes and 300s – 500s church father quotes.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri

      Like

    • Ninety percent of your manuscripts are from middle ages, you do know that?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, but they agree with all the earlier manuscripts. that listing I provided are the earlier ones – papyri – that list does not include Middle Ages, except some are 500s and 600s; but most in that list are 200s, 300s, 400s; and also 100s like P-52, etc.

      Like

    • “Second Treatise of the Great Seth” is dated from the third century , coming earlier than your complete Bible. Strictly from a dating perspective, you should have no problem accepting that into your book….

      Like

    • No; since that was never even considered part of inspired /God-breathed quality. Lots of heretical writings / Gnostic and others were written in 2nd and 3rd century.

      Irenaeus and Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria in 200 AD (and others) exposed those heresies.

      Like

    • “his list of NT manuscripts is impressive for our side. This does not include all the lectionaries, other translations, and Early church fathers quotes and 300s – 500s church father quotes.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri

      I’m glad you brought the wiki link, you may want to look at this table which compiled from it:

      https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2017/05/22/25000-new-testament-manuscripts-big-deal/

      And Ehrman mentions:

      Ref: https://ehrmanblog.org/the-text-of-the-new-testament-are-the-textual-traditions-of-other-ancient-works-relevant/

      94% of our surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament date from after the ninth Christian century. That is 800 years (years!) after the so-called originals

      Your whole Bible is based off of the middle ages, and you hypocritically criticise the Qur’an , when the Qur’an comes earlier to the majority of your textual tradition.

      Like

    • the article I linked to is not about ALL the 5,800 manuscripts, but about the 136 Papyri – the earliest Papyri manuscripts from 0 to 700s. Only two of them are from 700 and 750 AD. Big difference.

      Look again at the chart I gave. totally different article.

      136 earliest Papyri is a big difference from the 5,800 total number of manuscripts, which is the one your articles are referring to.

      Like

    • “136 earliest Papyri is a big difference from the 5,800 total number of manuscripts, which is the one your articles are referring to.”

      I don’t see why arguing for fragments and scraps will bolster your cause. Bottom line, your Bible is not complete until the 4th Century. For a religion which lacks an oral tradition, and is completely dependent on a textual one, I don’t see how you can be confident that you have the original. You should know your acceptance of the Bible is purely on faith and lacks the textual evidence, which is sorely missing.

      Like

    • some of them are fragments; but many are large sections of many of the NT books from 200-300s.

      Every time an older scrap or fragment if found, it agrees with what we already have, except for the few variants which are already confessed as not in the oldest manuscripts ( Like Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11)

      Like

    • “except for the few variants which are already confessed as not in the oldest manuscripts””

      EXCEPT FOR, yes , you make it seem very casual. These are huge changes, which affect doctrine and theology.

      There was a time when Christians believed that 1 John 5:7, the women taken into adultery, and the last 12 verses of Mark were authentic. And they base their doctrine, moral practices , snake biting off of these verses. But when you find out they are not authentic, views change.

      What will the future show, that would be interesting to see.

      I have a question, hypothetically if you were to find a fragment of Matthew not containing Matthew 28:19, would you still believe in the trinity?

      Like

    • There is no proof that the Qur’an is inspired at all. It is just a human book of one man’s claim; and the problems of God denying real established history (4:157), not knowing what Christians taught about “son of God” (Surah 6:101; 112) and the doctrine of the Trinity (5:116; 5:72-75, 4:171, etc. are big problems.)

      Dr. White did an excellent job on Surah 10:94 on the DL from Tuesday, from 1:30 onward (see the whole discussion started much earlier than that)

      Dr. White: “The text of Surah 10:94 says the people of the book, NOT a Jewish convert out of the people of the book”
      Boom!

      Ijaz’s article was refuted big time.

      Like

    • I’m at my masjid, will respond when i come back

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      Quran is in our memory from the time of our prophet till today. Quran means recitation. The angel recited the the Quran to our prophet and he recited it to his disciples. In addition to recitation in memory, the disciples wrote what they know on goat skins, leaves, bones and many other materials. Othman ordered people to burn their personal copies and he did not go to the house of every Muslim to force them to burn their personal copy of the Quran/.

      The official one was with Hafsa and was used for verification and validation purposes and was later returned to her and was not burned. To say the evidence was burned, is just another tactics by the Christians.

      The tradition of preserving the Quran by memory, recital and writing started from the time the angel recited it to our prophet till today. Many people have memorized the Quran at any given time from the time of our prophet till today.

      to be continued……..

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      Quran is in our memory from the time of our prophet till today. Quran means recitation. The angel recited the the Quran to our prophet and he recited it to his disciples. In addition to recitation in memory, the disciples wrote what they know on goat skins, leaves, bones and many other materials. Othman ordered people to burn their personal copies and he did not go to the house of every Muslim to force them to burn their personal copy of the Quran/.

      The official one was with Hafsa and was used for verification and validation purposes and was later returned to her and was not burned. To say the evidence was burned, is just another tactics by the Christians.

      Like

    • continued…….

      So, Othman cannot burn the evidence. It is not bad to control anything that will proliferate into entirely different things. When anything is left uncontrolled, there will be catastrophe. Allah starts to control the Quran as He promised, when the angel recited it to our prophet and keeps coming back to recite the same Quran with our prophet and the disciples keep reciting it in prayers, memory, casual and anything and passed the tradition on till today.

      Thanks

      Like

    • Hi Ken,

      You state:

      [[There is no proof that the Qur’an is inspired at all. It is just a human book of one man’s claim; and the problems of God denying real established history (4:157),]]

      A man dying on a cross does not “deny” history. The Qur’an clearly says it appeared so to some.

      [[not knowing what Christians taught about “son of God” (Surah 6:101; 112) and the doctrine of the Trinity (5:116; 5:72-75, 4:171, etc. are big problems.)]]

      The Qur’an does not only reference one group of Christians but rather engages multiple kinds of Christianities, it is your arrogance to assume every mention of a related belief must refer to your sect.

      [[Dr. White did an excellent job on Surah 10:94 on the DL from Tuesday, from 1:30 onward (see the whole discussion started much earlier than that)]]

      To me he did a really poor job, he even literally says he doesn’t know if there are hermeneutics of the Qur’an….while reading a Tafseer from my website. Cognitive dissonance much?

      [[Dr. White: “The text of Surah 10:94 says the people of the book, NOT a Jewish convert out of the people of the book”
      Boom!]]

      Not sure why the big boom, premature booming is a problem you need to be treated for. Yes, it does not say A as in a single person, but you read scripture contextually. Dr. White’s big issue with having to go between Surah 10 and Surah 46 is quite a bit shoddy, don’t you have to go back to the Psalms and to the Prophets to reference “shadowed” verses? So that was a non-point to begin with, seems as if he had nothing good to say so manufactured an issue.

      On the other hand, there are multiple former people of the book who accepted Islam which 46:10 fulfils, Salman al Farsi, Abdullah ibn Salam and Zaid ibn Sanah (may Allah be pleased with them all). So there is no issue here. Part of exegesis (which White questioned whether or not the Muslims do, while reading a commentary), is to interpret scripture with scripture, so there is literally no problem here.

      As for the third strawman he concocted, well that’s easy to answer, if its Makki, it’s a prophecy which was shortly confirmed thereafter, if it was Madani, then its a confirmation at the very same time, so either way, it proves the point: that witnesses did exist that affirmed the message of the Qur’an.

      [[Ijaz’s article was refuted big time.]]

      I may have missed that part!

      Regards,
      Br. Ijaz.

      Like

  16. According to Hadiths, Al Bukhari and Muslim, Uthman ordered ALL other copies be burnt.

    Sahih Al-Bukhari, 6.507, 509-510

    Like

  17. Dr. White did a great job on the Uthman revision and quotes from Hadith Sahih Al Bukhari

    Like

  18. I noticed Shaad had some questions way up in the discussion. I just noticed that. (about “I am” and the Deity of Christ) Too busy responding to these other questions; and doing other things at work.

    Shaad’s comments disappeared from the notification thingy that allows direct response.

    In sum, the response of the Pharisees and Jewish leaders wanting to stone Jesus proves that when He said “I am” and “before Abraham was, I am” – that He was claiming Deity, because they said He is blaspheming, etc.

    The background is from Isaiah 43:10 and Exodus 3:14

    “I am that I am” is a form of Yahweh יהוה

    Isaiah 43:10 is even stronger.

    Like

    • @Ken, Thanks for answering Ken, how are you doing by the way? Hope you’re having an amazing fantastic day…

      “I am that I am” is a form of Yahweh יהוה”

      -Isn’t the correct translation supposed to be “I will be”? Can you shed some light on this please?

      “Isaiah 43:10 is even stronger.”

      John uses a predicateless “Ego Eimi” for the blind man at 9:9 BUT the predicate is expressed through the context , the same could be said about 8:58 ergo we can safely say that Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah because he uses “Ego Eimi” to identify himself as the Messiah in 4:26…he’s affirming his pre-existence at the same time…

      Infact, i think the most correct rendering is that of the NWT…

      “In sum, the response of the Pharisees and Jewish leaders wanting to stone…”

      The jews accused him of blasphemy when he admitted being the Messiah at Matt 26:59-68, Luke 22:71…

      Like

    • Hebrew verbs and grammar is different than English. Hebrew as two basic verb forms – 1. Perfect (completed action – which renders into English as simple past) and 2. Imperfect (incomplete action) –

      “Hebrew, therefore, knows of no past, present or future tenses, but instead a Perfect and an Imperfect . . . ” (J. Weingreen, Phd. A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew, page 56.)

      The Imperfect form of “to be” in Exodus 3:14-15 includes both present and future.

      “The Imperfect, as opposed to the Perfect, represents actions, events, or states which are regarded by the speaker at any moment as still continuing, or in process of accomplishment, or even as just taking place.” (Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, page 313.

      “God is directly disclosing Himself to Moses by saying,
      “I am truly He who exists and who will be dynamically
      present then and therein the situation to which I am sending
      you. ” Joseph Flatt, “The God who Is!” EXODUS 3:14-15 , page 109

      “And God said unto Moses, I am that I am,…. This signifies the real being of God, his self-existence, and that he is the Being of beings; as also it denotes his eternity and immutability, and his constancy and faithfulness in fulfilling his promises, for it includes all time, past, present, and to come; and the sense is, not only I am what I am at present, but I am what I have been, and I am what I shall be, and shall be what I am.” John Gill, commentary on Exodus 3:14

      “Our Lord seems to refer to this name, John 8:58, and indeed is the person that now appeared; and the words may be rendered, “I shall be what I shall be” (b) the incarnate God, God manifest in the flesh:
      thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you; or as the Targum of Jonathan has it,”I am he that is, and that shall be.”This is the name Ehjeh, or Jehovah, Moses is empowered to make use of, and to declare, as the name of the Great God by whom he was sent; and which might serve both to encourage him, and strengthen the faith of the Israelites, that they should be delivered by him.” John Gill, commentary on Exodus 3:14-15

      In sum, the Hebrew form of that verb includes both present and future ideas – “I am, and I will be with you”.

      Matthew 26:59-68 and Luke 22:69-71 — also Mark 14:60-64

      Jesus admitted that He is the Messiah, the Son of God – “son” means having the same nature of God Himself.

      The New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is not a reliable translation, since they translate John 1:1 wrongly “a god” (committing polytheism, since there is only One God) and they add a word to Colossians 1:15 – they add the word “other”, distorting the meaning.

      Like

    • Shaad –
      Thanks for your friendly comments! I am doing well today; very nice sunny today where I live; Spring is getting close. Still a little chilly, but that’s ok.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks Ken…i’ll reply to you later, i’m a bit busy…

      Liked by 1 person

    • Many articles on the problems with Jehovah’s Witnesses:
      https://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses

      Like

    • No problem that you are busy; I understand. Sometimes it takes me a day or two to respond also, because I am busy.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Good Evening Ken, sorry for being late, finally got some time to read your response…glad to know that you’re doing fine by the way 👍

      Thanks for clearing up my confusion about Exodus 3:14, i’m not familiar with Hebrew compared to Greek grammar but i’ll certainly take a look at it in more details…

      As far as my response is concerned, i see that my point still stands i.e the predicate can be supplied through the context as well (take John 9:9 as a small example), so if you take a look at how Jesus use εγο ειμι in John’s Gospel and the Synoptics you’ll see that He uses εγο ειμι to identify himself as the Messiah…so in John 8:58 Jesus is affirming his Pre-Existence and claiming that he’s the Messiah at the same time…

      Thank you for the links Ken, i really appreciate it 👍…moving on to the NWT’s rendering of John 8:58, as far as i’ve studied, i see that it can be grammatically justified alongside the context…the Greek at 8:58 fits an idiom called the “Extension from Past” it’s easily explained in McKay’s “A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach pg 41,42”

      https://ibb.co/cE00Nn

      https://ibb.co/nJF6v7

      you’ll find something quite similar in Wallace’s “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics”, here’s the pictures from an abridged version (pretty much the same in GGBB)…

      https://ibb.co/iaYbv7

      https://ibb.co/fYA0Nn

      Like

    • I have Dan Wallace’s “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” – you need to provide the page numbers of what you are talking about. I have the full book, not the abridged version – whatever that is. There is not enough context to understand what your pictures are communicating. Wallace understands the Greek verb and structure. So much that even Paul Williams had to admit that John 1:1 taught that Jesus is God. see my interaction with Paul Williams from 2012 at another blog that I sometimes also write for:

      http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/01/muslim-agrees-with-greek-of-john-11.html

      Like

    • The response from the Jews still proves that Jesus is claiming to be eternal God.

      The questions the high priest ask Jesus at His trial, etc. Mark 14:60-64 also demonstrate this truth; the Jews understood Messiah to also be Son of God and therefore, the same nature as God, and therefore “God the Son”, “God in the flesh”, etc. – with Daniel 7:13-14 – the one who deserves worship and will have a kingdom from all peoples and nations and languages worshiping Him.

      Like

    • What is the greek word for worship? And was it only meant for Jesus?

      Like

    • You said:

      ” “son” means having the same nature of God Himself. ”

      My response:

      Depends on which preconceived Christology is applied to the text, i don’t think the title “Son of God” has any ontological implications in relation to God…

      About NWT’s rendering of John 1:1c you said:

      “The New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is not a reliable translation, since they translate John 1:1 wrongly “a god” (committing polytheism, since there is only One God)”

      My response:

      Thanks for the warning Ken, i really appreciate it man 👍…as far as i’ve studied, an indefinite rendering is grammatically possible and it doesn’t necessarily imply polytheism, we can have a nice discussion about this if you want…

      Like

    • Oops correction…should be *εγω ειμι

      Like

    • *sorry i meant in “relation to JESUS” instead of “God”

      Like

    • I have a question Ken about this name Yahweh :

      (1) Can I find this name in the Greek New Testament?
      (2) Did Abraham know the name of Yahweh?

      Like

    • 1. Yes, it is translated “kurios” κυριος in the New Testament. THE most quoted verse in the NT is Psalm 110:1, and the most alluded to verse, about Jesus’ sitting down at the right hand of God the Father is Psalm 110:1.
      2. Yes – Genesis 15:1-6, verse 6 –

      4 Then behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, “This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir.” 5 And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”
      6 Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

      Genesis 15:4-6

      “in the LORD” = בַּֽיהוָה

      וְהֶאֱמִן בַּֽיהוָה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לֹּו צְדָקָֽה׃
      verse 6
      and he believed in the LORD, and it was credited to him as righteousness.

      This verse is quoted in Romans 4, Galatians 3, and James 2 – showing justification is by faith in Christ alone, not by the merit or pre-conditions of good works.

      But true faith does not stay alone, it always results in change, fruit, character, growth in holiness, good works, etc.

      Like

    • @Ken, sorry for not using the Full version, i forgot where i kept it so i had to look for it and luckily it was found…anyway It’s on page 519…

      Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken, thanks for your reply by the way…i’ll respond to you tomorrow…tired right now, going to sleep…have an Amazing day!

      Liked by 1 person

    • I hope you don’t mind an unsolicited interjection.

      John 8 has frequent references to the identity of the Father of Jesus and the father of Jesus’ interlocutors.

      Jesus said their father was the devil! No wonder they hated him.

      And so while John 8 does not explicitly say why they wanted to kill Jesus, the same author says the following:

      American Standard Version
      John 19:7
      The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

      This fits the context of John 8 and the discussion the identity of Jesus’ Father.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Hello everyone, this is Georg Kaplin my best friend on the internet…Georg welcome to Blogging Theology….

      Liked by 2 people

    • @Ken, Ah finally got a little bit of free time Ken, i’ve been reading your response…i see i have nothing more to respond as Georg’s points are spot on…The Son of God title was for the Messiah, it doesn’t necessarily have any ontological implications and that’s how the Jews understood it…and i see that their reaction is pretty consistent with Mark 14:60-64…

      Georg made a really good point…

      I’ll try to discuss NWT’s rendering of John 1:1 with you later or tomorrow…

      Like

    • If Gerog is saying that the Jewish opponents were not trying to kill Jesus; well, Georg is wrong.

      John 8:40 – “but now you seek to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth . . . ”

      John 8:59 – they picked up stones to throw a Him

      John 8:44 – you want to do the desires of your father, the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning . . .

      obviously they wanted to kill Jesus.
      Along with
      John 5:17-18 – “they were seeking all the more to kill Him . . .because He was calling God His Father, making himself equal with God” (shows “son” means the same nature as the Father, therefore John 19:7

      John 10:31-39 – they picked up stones to kill Him.

      Mark 14:60-64 shows Mark is consistent with all of that; because the Jewish high priest asked Jesus about being the Messiah, the Son of the blessed one” = so the Jews knew the Messiah is also the Son of God, as Psalm 2, Psalm 110; Psalm 16; 2 Sam. 7:14a shows; and the disciples interpreted those passages that way, in Acts chapter 2 and 13 and Hebrews chapter 1 and 5.

      Like

    • For Ken Temple:

      Georg’s first post to Ken:

      I hope you don’t mind an unsolicited interjection.

      John 8 has frequent references to the identity of the Father of Jesus and the father of Jesus’ interlocutors.

      Jesus said their father was the devil! No wonder they hated him.

      And so while John 8 does not explicitly say why they wanted to kill Jesus, the same author says the following:

      American Standard Version
John 19:7
The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
      This fits the context of John 8 and the discussion the identity of Jesus’ Father.

      Ken replies to Shaad:
      If Gerog is saying that the Jewish opponents were not trying to kill Jesus; well, Georg is wrong.

      GK:
      That is not what Gerog said 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

    • so how is John 8:40 NOT explicit, with the rest of the context on down to John 8:56-59.
      seems explicity as to why; along with what you quoted – John 19:7
      AND
      John 5:17-18
      AND
      John 10:30-39
      AND
      John 11:53 and context

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken said:
      so how is John 8:40 NOT explicit, with the rest of the context on down to John 8:56-59.
      seems explicity as to why; along with what you quoted – John 19:7
      AND
      John 5:17-18
      AND
      John 10:30-39
      AND
      John 11:53 and context

      GK:
      John 8 is explicit. The context is Jesus’ claim of superiority to those Jews because of being sent from God, for example 8:42.

      However, it appears from your previous comments on John 8, that you interpret the context as a claim by Jesus to be God.

      Let’s take your John 5:17-18 passage and see if Jesus was claiming to be God.

      American Standard Version John 5:19a “Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself”

      The Greek phrase rendered “of himself” is AP hEAUTOU. The sense is that of being the source of something.

      Jesus says he never does anything that way. That does not sound like a claim to be Yahweh. As you claim in your alleged Jn 8:58-Is 43:10-Ex 3:14 connection.

      Interestingly, this phrase can inform our view of whether or not Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh as you assert.

      The Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon ties together the capabilities of Yahweh in Isaiah and Jesus in John.

      Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, 951 אֵת(page 87) (Strong 854) … c. expressing origination: … Is 44:24 Qr מֵאִתִּי of myself (cf. ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ John 5:30; Kt is מִי אִתִּי who was with me?), 54:15 אֶפֶס מֵאוֹתִי not at my instance (cf. לֹא מִנִּי30:1, לֹא מִמֶּנִּי Ho 8:4).

      Note that what Yahweh always does, of himself, in Isaiah 44:24 with the phrase Mi-Etti, is said to be equivalent to AP hEMAUTOU at John 5:30.

      “I can do nothing on my own (AP hEMAUTOU). As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. – ESV

      So, Jesus was not claiming to be Yahweh in his response. In fact, this proves he is not Yahweh.

      I realize that you may have a view of the Trinity where the Father is the source and the Son is intermediate agent in creation.

      However what Yahweh always does in Isaiah is what Jesus said he never does. Jesus in answering the Jews in your passage denies equality with his Father.

      He also cannot be the Yahweh of Isaiah.

      But there is more:

      19b but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner…

      The Trinitarian might see this as proof Jesus is God, for if one does what God does, does that not mean he is God?

      Not if we continue to read what Jesus said…

      American Standard Version John 5:20
      For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and greater works than these will he show him, that ye may marvel.

      The Son said that he did not know everything the Father knew and that he would show him new things in the Future.

      The Trinity teaches that the Father and Son are both omniscient. The word “show” there has been defined as a divine revelation.

      So, rather than teaching Jesus claimed to be Yahweh, his answer makes that interpretation quite impossible.

      His entire response is a refutation and denial of false charges and he gives all glory to his Father, God.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Georg Kaplin,
      Sorry for my delay; I was busy for a few days and unable to respond.

      On John 5:17-29:

      No; rather is the opposite of what you are saying. If Jesus had said, “I do whatever I want to without the Father; yet I am equal to the Father” – it would have communicated 2 Gods; and that is blasphemy.

      John 5:17-29 is one of the strongest passages on the Deity of Christ and implies the Doctrine of the Trinity.

      Jesus is saying, just as God the Father is still working in creation and providence and healing, even on the Sabbath Day, so also Jesus is working (the Son is working in creation, providence, and healing – He is Lord of the Sabbath Day – unity with Mark 2:28, etc.)
      He is the Creator and sustainer of all things even now. (Sovereignty, Providence)
      Just as God the Father is Judge, Jesus the Son is the Judge. The Father does not judge without the Son. (verse 22, 27)
      Just as God the Father deserves to be honored, Jesus the Son has the same worth to be honored. (verse 23)
      Just as God the Father has life, created life, has life in Himself, so also the Son has life eternally within Himself. (v. 21, 26; 28-29) (resurrection life and judgment)

      John 5:19 is not saying Jesus is some lower god or angel; rather Jesus is saying whatever the Son does, the Father did it. He is expressing His total Unity with the Father. They are ONE God, in this context 2 persons acting, Father and Son, and with the other verses about the Holy Spirit, One God in Unity, three persons.

      Jesus is saying He is in equal unity with the Father in all these areas that are only for the One True Creator Sovereign God to have the ability to do:

      Creator
      Sovereign Providence (continuing to control creation beyond the Sabbath Day)
      Healer, miracle worker
      Judge
      Life in Himself
      Honor
      Resurrection Power
      Judgment Day

      The passage is saying Jesus is equal to the Father in all these things, and does not do them independently by Himself, because if He did; that would mean “2 gods”. As the Muslims say, “Estaqfir-Allah !” استغفرالله (literally, “I seek the forgiveness of God” or “God forbid !”

      Georg Kaplin – are you a Jehovah’s Witness, or Arian, or Modalist, or Oneness Pentecostal, or some other kind of Unitarian? (non-Trinitarian)

      Like

    • Ken, thanks for the reply. I am copying your response and my reply below, to remind you of the subject at hand. Could you possibly address the points I made directly?

      My position was that in both John 5 and 8, Jesus speaks about himself in a way that prevents him from being identified as Yahweh. You did teach earlier that he identified himself as Yahweh in John 8, did you not?

      About 3 days ago you said to my comments on John 8:

      “so how is John 8:40 NOT explicit, with the rest of the context on down to John 8:56-59.seems explicity as to why; along with what you quoted – John 19:7
      AND
      John 5:17-18
      AND
      John 10:30-39
      AND
      John 11:53 and context”

      To which, I, Georg Kaplin, replied;
      John 8 is explicit. The context is Jesus’ claim of superiority to those Jews because of being sent from God, for example 8:42.

      However, it appears from your previous comments on John 8, that you interpret the context as a claim by Jesus to be God.

      Let’s take your John 5:17-18 passage and see if Jesus was claiming to be God.

      American Standard Version John 5:19a “Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself”

      The Greek phrase rendered “of himself” is AP hEAUTOU. The sense is that of being the source of something.

      Jesus says he never does anything that way. That does not sound like a claim to be Yahweh. As you claim in your alleged Jn 8:58-Is 43:10-Ex 3:14 connection.

      Interestingly, this phrase can inform our view of whether or not Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh as you assert.

      The Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon ties together the capabilities of Yahweh in Isaiah and Jesus in John.

      Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, 951 אֵת(page 87) (Strong 854) … c. expressing origination: … Is 44:24 Qr מֵאִתִּי of myself (cf. ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ John 5:30; Kt is מִי אִתִּי who was with me?), 54:15 אֶפֶס מֵאוֹתִי not at my instance (cf. לֹא מִנִּי30:1, לֹא מִמֶּנִּי Ho 8:4).

      Note that what Yahweh always does, of himself, in Isaiah 44:24 with the phrase Mi-Etti, is said to be equivalent to AP hEMAUTOU at John 5:30.

      “I can do nothing on my own (AP hEMAUTOU). As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. – ESV

      So, Jesus was not claiming to be Yahweh in his response. In fact, this proves he is not Yahweh.

      I realize that you may have a view of the Trinity where the Father is the source and the Son is intermediate agent in creation.

      However what Yahweh always does in Isaiah is what Jesus said he never does. Jesus in answering the Jews in your passage denies equality with his Father.

      He also cannot be the Yahweh of Isaiah.

      But there is more:

      19b but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner…

      The Trinitarian might see this as proof Jesus is God, for if one does what God does, does that not mean he is God?

      Not if we continue to read what Jesus said…

      American Standard Version John 5:20
      For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and greater works than these will he show him, that ye may marvel.

      The Son said that he did not know everything the Father knew and that he would show him new things in the Future.

      The Trinity teaches that the Father and Son are both omniscient. The word “show” there has been defined as a divine revelation.

      So, rather than teaching Jesus claimed to be Yahweh, his answer makes that interpretation quite impossible.

      His entire response is a refutation and denial of false charges and he gives all glory to his Father, God.”

      [Now your response. My comments will be in brackets.]

      Georg Kaplin,
      Sorry for my delay; I was busy for a few days and unable to respond.

      On John 5:17-29:

      No; rather is the opposite of what you are saying. If Jesus had said, “I do whatever I want to without the Father; yet I am equal to the Father” – it would have communicated 2 Gods; and that is blasphemy.

      [ GK: Ken, what Jesus did say in response was that he never did anything “of himself.” Do you have BDAG (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Greek Lexicon)? It confirms what I quoted from the Hebrew BDB lexicon below. BDAG says that the phrase “of himself” means “responsible agent” in this very passage.

      (If you are unable to interact with my Hebrew and Greek arguments due to lack of training or some other reason, please let me know.)

      Your position was that Jesus, at John 8:58, is claiming to be Yahweh by making reference to the ani hu and EGW EIMI sayings of Jesus in Isaiah. (Ani Hu is literally “I He”)

      But in Isaiah 44:24, Yahweh claims to everything “of myself” and Jesus denies this with the same exact words in John 5:18 and 30!

      You did not address this. Please do so. You continue: ]

      Ken:
      John 5:17-29 is one of the strongest passages on the Deity of Christ and implies the Doctrine of the Trinity.

      Jesus is saying, just as God the Father is still working in creation and providence and healing, even on the Sabbath Day, so also Jesus is working (the Son is working in creation, providence, and healing – He is Lord of the Sabbath Day – unity with Mark 2:28, etc.)

      [Ken, if it is true that Jesus is Yahweh, then why did he say the Father needed to show him what he did first? And more to the point that in the future, he would do more, but only after the Father shows him?

      Jesus claims, in the context of divine activity, that he needs to be shown things.

      Again, he is claiming that he relies on his Father for knowledge. Yahweh does not rely on anyone for knowledge. He knows everything and does all things “of himself” but Jesus denies both. Rather than claiming he is equal to Yahweh, he affirms that the Father is greater than he is. (John 14:28)

      You continue:]

      Ken:
      He is the Creator and sustainer of all things even now. (Sovereignty, Providence)
      Just as God the Father is Judge, Jesus the Son is the Judge. The Father does not judge without the Son. (verse 22, 27)
      Just as God the Father deserves to be honored, Jesus the Son has the same worth to be honored. (verse 23)
      Just as God the Father has life, created life, has life in Himself, so also the Son has life eternally within Himself. (v. 21, 26; 28-29) (resurrection life and judgment)

      [GK: And yet the Father is the source of his life and all those things you mention. Note his own words:

      American Standard Version
      John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave [DIDWMI] he to the Son also to have life in himself:

      How does Jesus eternally have life when it was given to him? It appears you are reading your theology into this passage.

      I have heard of eternal generation, but never eternal giving :). Also, the verb is aorist, and not imperfect. Where do you get the idea of an eternal giving? By the way, I use the Nestle Aland 28th Greek text. Can we use this as the standard for our discussion?

      You continue:]

      Ken:
      John 5:19 is not saying Jesus is some lower god or angel; rather Jesus is saying whatever the Son does, the Father did it.

      [GK:
      The Son said he did what the Father showed him but that he still needed the Father to show him more. So he is not all knowing like Yahweh, and also does nothing “of himself” while Yahweh does all things that way… see BDB on Is 44:24.

      You continue:]

      Ken:
      He is expressing His total Unity with the Father. They are ONE God, in this context 2 persons acting, Father and Son, and with the other verses about the Holy Spirit, One God in Unity, three persons.

      Jesus is saying He is in equal unity with the Father in all these areas that are only for the One True Creator Sovereign God to have the ability to do:

      [GK: That is your theology speaking, not Jesus. Of course he is in unity with his Father. More so than anyone else. But he is not Yahweh because he does not know what Yahweh knows, does not do anything “of himself” and the Father GAVE him life.

      You continue:]

      Ken:
      Creator

      [GK: Jesus is never the subject of the word “create.” He is represented as the intermediate agent. How can an intermediate agent be Creator Ex Nihilo?

      As the ESV says at John 3:35:
      “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.”

      As we saw in John 5:26 that you cited, the Father also GAVE Jesus life.

      You continue:]

      Ken:
      Sovereign Providence (continuing to control creation beyond the Sabbath Day)
      Healer, miracle worker
      Judge
      Life in Himself
      Honor
      Resurrection Power
      Judgment Day

      The passage is saying Jesus is equal to the Father in all these things, and does not do them independently by Himself, because if He did; that would mean “2 gods”. As the Muslims say, “Estaqfir-Allah !” استغفرالله (literally, “I seek the forgiveness of God” or “God forbid !”

      [GK: as we have seen, when one looks both at what these verses teach, and especially with the help of the original languages, Jesus does not claim to be Yahweh as you asserted. You appear to have reduced your argument to Jesus being God in some sense, so does that mean you concede he is not Yahweh?

      Either way, what kind of Almighty God is not omniscient, does not do things “of himself”, has his very life given to him as well as all things?

      You continue:]

      Ken:
      Georg Kaplin – are you a Jehovah’s Witness, or Arian, or Modalist, or Oneness Pentecostal, or some other kind of Unitarian? (non-Trinitarian)

      [GK: I have a unitarian theology. I am a CalMinian with regards to my reformed status. I am double reformed. I am also a partial preterist in that I two fulfillments to Mt 24. I would prefer at first to not get involved with denominational discussion, but if you decide to continue our discussions, perhaps later.

      I would ask that you directly address points I have made, particularly the grammatical foundations of my arguments, that is, if you are able. Have you studied Hebrew and/or Greek? I cannot tell from your response.

      Thank you for your kind response. I hope you don’t find my directness offensive. I don’t intend it that way. ]

      Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks for your interaction Georg.
      Yes, I know Hebrew and Greek, had 1 year of Hebrew in Seminary 1987-1988; and 2 years of Greek; 1983- spring of 1985. In fall of 85 to end of 1986 I had to take off in order to earn more money to go back and finish. I can work with both, looking up things I have forgotten in the grammar and lexicons and syntax – the problem comes when one does not have a critical-exegetical commentary that goes into the details of the grammar and syntax of a passage, since the grammars and lexicons don’t always give comments on specific passages.

      Yes, I have BDAG and BDBG – I will look deeper into that and come back with interaction on those. I just went straight to the text of the Hebrew and Greek by itself without the Lexicons that you have cited, but ok, I will look at those and come back with more.

      I have forgotten a lot of Hebrew; but I did look at the passages that you cited, both Greek and Hebrew. The Lxx of Isaiah 44:24 does not translate it in the way that it is rendered in English. It is not even close to the same phrase as in John 5:19
      ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲν
      The Son to do from Himself nothing
      the Lxx of Isaiah 44:24 says:
      τίς ἕτερος = “Who other?”

      The Hebrew could be translated “who (was) with Me?” or “with water”; along with “by Myself” – it is unclear.

      I will have to look at the grammar in a deeper way and come back.

      Even so, in the OT, “by Myself”, when God is speaking, does not contradict Trinitarian theology, because there is only ONE God – so the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all three within the “I Myself” as they are completely unified in their actions in creation, providence, sovereignty, judgment, life, honor.

      “gave” has to mean “an eternally giving” – from all eternity past.
      The Father is still the Father and the Son is still the Son in their fixed roles and relationship.

      1. J. I. Packer, Knowing God (1973). (Packer is probably the best-known living evangelical theologian, and is sometimes called “the gate-keeper of evangelicalism.”)
      ”Part of the revealed mystery of the Godhead is that the three persons stand in a fixed relation to each other ….It is the nature of the second person of the Trinity to acknowledge the authority and submit to the good pleasure of the first. That is why He declares Himself to be the Son, and the first person to be His Father. Though co-equal with the Father in eternity, power, and glory, it is natural to Him to play the Son’s part, and find all His joy in doing His Father’s will, just as it is natural to the first person of the Trinity to plan and initiate the works of the Godhead and natural to the third person to proceed from the Father and the Son to do their joint bidding. Thus the obedience of the God-man to the Father while He was on earth was not a new relationship occasioned by the incarnation, but the continuation in time of the eternal relationship between the Son and the Father in heaven.” Knowing God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 54-55.

      See the other many quotes in the Reformation 21 article about the Father being the source; but that the Son is eternally generated (and the Spirit eternal proceeds) – they are God by substance, but different in roles and are in personal relationship with one another.

      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/eternal-functional-subordination-in-the-trinity/

      Liked by 2 people

    • Ken, I look forward to your reply. Don’t forget the immediate context of J 5:20 where the Son needs to be shown something by the Father in the future, thus denying he knows all the Father knows.

      Like

    • given in verse 26 is not meant to communicate that there was a time in the past that the Son did not have – so it has to be an eternal giving – since there is only one God and the Son / Word was with the Father in eternlty past – John 1:1-5; 17:5

      John 1:3 – nothing has come into being apart from Him, that has come into being. (Jesus, the Word, the Son)

      show – verse 20 – that you may marvel – points to the future time of while the Son is incarnated on earth – while the Son is incarnated on earth in time and space, one has to speak in that way – with future tense; for they are yet to be revealed.
      But the Son had the same glory with the Father in eternity past – John 17:5 and John 1:1, so those temporal elements of the verbs “give” in verse 26 and show in verse 20 do not contradict the doctrine of the Trinity nor the Deity of Christ.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken, you are reading your theology into the texts. John 1:1-5, rather than prove the Word was eternal, actually describes when life came to be in the Word.

      I see you have quoted an English text that appears not to be faithful to our latest critical editions, such as the NA28.

      ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ⸀ἦν,

      With the text as quoted by the earliest fathers as found in the Nestle Aland, one find a predicate nominative construction. “What came into being in him was life.”

      If you look at “life” in BDAG for both John 5:26 and 1:3-4 (from memory) you will find the two texts related. And so, at least according to BDAG, and I concur, this was the beginning of life in the Word.

      Thus one must not be dogmatic.

      Are you a proponent of the Textus Receptus and the KJV?

      Liked by 1 person

    • No, I am not proponent of TR or KJV as superior Greek text platform.

      But Accordance (Bible Software for Mac/Apple computer) has John 1:3 as:
      πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν
      same as GNT28
      Adding a period after ‘ev / ‘εν is the committee’s decision, but it is a subjective decision that includes verse 4 also.

      The Greek text itself has not changed. only the punctuation.

      They seem to be reading their anti-Trinitarian theology into the text, if influenced by Ehrman and other liberals.

      Like

    • Ken,
      That is not the reason. I have NA27 and UBS4 in hardcopy and even my NA28 for IOS has the apparatus.

      If one looks at the ANF quotations one finds the earliest quotes, including your friend Athanasius, quotes with a full stop before hO GEGONEN.

      Later a group called the PNEUMOMAChIANS (fighters against the spirit) began to assert that the Holy Spirit was created by the Father through the Word. So they started to change the punctuation.

      This is very well documented.

      Like

    • I don’t agree; but give me the reference to Athanasius.

      Liked by 1 person

    •  

      [In response to posts from Ken Temple, to my post, here]

      Ken,

      You assert that Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh at John 8:58 and give John 5 as support. But at John 5, Jesus said he could only do what the Father showed him and that the Father would show him more in the future.

      But Jesus said he was given life at John 5:26 and to allow this to fit into your theology you say he was given it eternally. And for this you cite John 1:1-5. But to make this work, you fight against the latest scholarly edition of the Greek text as found in Nestle Aland.

      I presented evidence from the Nestle Aland that Athanasius quoted the reading that refutes you. To this you say, you are not convinced. That is why I remind you how we got to this point. You bear the burden of proof, as this is necessary for your assertions that are not found explicitly taught in Scripture. That being said, I am happy to provide the evidence, as I did this research decades ago.

      Here is the page from the United Bible Societies with the critical apparatus. It is easier to follow that the Nestle Aland and they have the same text. I have highlighted the authors who punctuate in the same way as the text for the NA and USB critical editions. Athanasius is there.

       

      What I did next, was to take the list of authors to get the dates they wrote. I put these into a table. I have Athanasius highlighted in red.

      Next, let’s look at the authors who favor your punctuation.

      I then plotted the dates for a visual.

       

      The data does not lie, and is very consistent. This is the reason why our critical editions favor the punctuation as found in the main text

       

      Best Regards,

      Georg

       

       

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken, my attempt to post the visuals for the critical edition that documents the two reading did not work. Please see this link on my WordPress blog.

      https://georgkaplin.wordpress.com/2018/03/17/the-two-readings-at-john-13-4/

      Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks Georg. I learned a lot from that, and the discussions of the issues in Philip Comfort and also D. A. Carson has some good comments in his commentary. I have basically the same textual apparatus as the one you photocopied (United Bible Society 3rd Edition). I see what you mean now by all the early church fathers readings, etc. I had not noticed all of that material from the early church fathers before. Either reading is orthodox doctrine. Carson makes the point of a scholar who argues for beginning verse 4 with “in Him” because this is a very common way that John throughout his Gospel and in his epistles begins a sentence. But the Westcott-Hort reading you are emphasizing does not contradict Trinitarian theology or the eternality of the Son or the Deity of the Son either. “What came into being in Him was life” or “What came into being by Him was life” also affirms that Jesus is the author of life and created life – a prerogative only for God / Yahweh. Thanks for your efforts! You created a blog for yourself just for that? (I only see that one article)

      Like

    • Ken,
      “What came to be in him [the Word] was life” in no way makes him the author of his very own life.

      Jesus said he lives because of the Father and that the Father gave him life in John 5 and 6.

      American Standard Version
      John 6:57
      As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me.

      So the Word is not the author of life. His “living Father” is the author and creator.

      It seems you only have time to make assertions and citations with no attempt to prove them.

      Do you know of any Trinitarian scholar who does make a grammatical case for the eternal Word?

      I made that site so I could post here with an account. I was introduced ed here by Shaaad. Did not know what I would use it for and couldn’t figure out how to post the graphs otherwise.

      Best Regards my friend,
      Georg

      Liked by 1 person

    • The Father is the source, through the Son; and they are in eternal spiritual relationship – the Son always was there with the Father – John 1:1; 17:5; Philippians 2:5-8

      Yes, John 1:1 has the grammatical case for eternality. John 17:5 does also.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken, thank you for conceding that the Father is the source of the life of the Son. You are now line with scripture.

      There is no legitimate grammatical argument that the Word is eternal from the Greek text of John 1.

      We have seen that his very life came into existence, in him, in that passage.

      I had asked you for a scholar who makes a grammatical case for the view you express from J 1:1.

      Can you think of one whose exegesis you support?

      I would like to read it.

      Like

    • The Monarchy of the Father (but not “Monarchianism” or Arianism or Modalism) and eternal generation of the Son and Eternal Functional subordination of the Son are also Trinitarian in doctrine.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I feel sorry for you people. Stuck in your convoluted argumentation…..

      Ken Temple, let’s start from a blank slate, and disregard all scriptures (which is or is not from God), all theologies/doctrines derived from man, and strictly consider the world around us. What conclusion would you draw:

      (A) There is no god
      (B) There are multiple gods
      (C) There is a triune god.
      (D) There is one God

      To reiterate, which conclusion would someone draw if they strictly observed the physical phenomena around us and considered nothing else?

      I would be curious to see your position, as well as others on this topic.

      Like

    • Ken,
      I think you will find that very few Unitarians care about specific Trinitarian terms that are not explicitly taught in scripture by bible writers in context.

      Writers like Daniel Wallace (who I think I have seen you quote) don’t believe that the Trinity was taught in Scripture.

      Look at the footnote on the last page of this article by Wallace.

      Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit.

      https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2003a_05_Wallace_HolySpirit.pdf

      I cite Daniel Wallace as a hostile witness. He says:

      In general, I would agree with Alister McGrath (Christian Theology: An Introduc- tion [2d ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1997], 294) on how to construct the Trinitarian doctrine: “The doctrine of the Trinity can be regarded as the outcome of a process of sustained
      and critical reflection on the pattern of divine activity revealed in Scripture, and con- tinued in Christian experience. This is not to say that Scripture contains a doctrine of
      the Trinity; rather, Scripture bears witness to a God who demands to be understood in
      a Trinitarian manner.” If this is so, then we must engage in careful thinking about what the apostles consciously embraced about God, as well as what they were groping to un- derstand and express

      Like

    • Thanks for the link to the article by Dan Wallace! Excellent material.

      ” . . . Scripture bears witness to a God who demands to be understood in
      a Trinitarian manner.” Dan Wallace

      Indeed; I agree with that part.

      The first part, IMO, it would have been better to write, “explicit” in there.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Why didn’t God reveal his triune nature to Moses or Abraham or any of the other Prophets of the OT?

      Like

    • I don’t know.

      But if the NT is the true Injeel (which we believe it is), why is that not good enough?

      Like

    • So let me understand this.:
      – You know about the trinity
      -Prophets of the OT, did not

      So would you say that you have a superior understanding of God compared to the Prophets of the OT?

      Like

    • I would not use the word “superior”; rather “more complete”.
      because we have the NT revelation.
      Hebrews 11 even says that.
      “that they would not be complete without us” (Hebrews 11:40)

      Like

    • That is pretty arrogant of you my friend, to say you know MORE about God than Abraham or Moses.

      Like

    • It is not arrogant if God has revealed more revelation in the NT era, which came long after Abraham and Moses were alive. I don’t claim a deeper experience, just that God has given more revelation in the NT.

      Also, Jeremiah 9:23-24 – God Himself says that we believers can boast about knowing God personally, since it was God who revealed Himself to us. This boasting is not an arrogant or sinful boasting, but a boasting that gives glory to God, since it took God and His power to remove the veil and cause our spiritual eyes and heart to see and open and be made new in order to truly see the truth. Ezekiel 36:26-27 God has to take away the heart of stone and give us a soft humble heart that repents and believes.

      Like

    • If someone dies believing like Abraham and Moses did that God is One and not triune. Is that person destined to hell?

      Like

    • Yes, because
      John 3:18

      18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten (or only unique one) Son of God.

      “judged already”
      because of sin – all are lost and enslaved to sin.
      John 8:34
      Ephesians 2:1-3

      That’s why we believe in evangelism and sharing the good news of God’s love with you.

      John 3:16

      that whoever believes in Him should not perish.

      every one is already perishing in their sins, unless they hear, repent, and believe in Christ as NT teaches.

      John 14:6
      Romans 10:13-15
      Acts 4:12

      Like

    • I find this interesting, whenever you ask a Christian about the trintiy, they automatically jump to salvation, sins,

      These constant red herrings…….

      Like

    • no, believing in Christ includes His Deity – John 8:24; Romans 10:9-10 (Lord), etc.
      Which leads to the Trinity; as one is taught and discipled in the faith – a true believer will not fight it once they are taught.
      Matthew 28:19
      2 Cor. 13:14

      Like

    • John 3:18 “already” (Greek Aedae ‘ηδη
      shows that all men and woman are already under sin and condemned.

      faith in Christ means faith in all that He is as taught in the NT.
      so, it is not a red-herring.

      Like

    • Now that we have come back to the topic of sin, Is Jesus considered the lamb to be brought as the sin offering for mankind?

      Like

    • Yes, John 1:29
      Revelation 5:1-10
      Revelation 7:9
      Romans 3:19-26
      Isaiah 52:13-15
      Isaiah 53:1-12
      Mark 10:45
      1 John 2:2

      Like

    • Ok…..This is a very pertinent question and is in no way meant to offend, but …Is Jesus Male or Female?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jesus is human male, in His human nature; and also God in His divine nature. One person, two natures.

      Like

    • According to you Jesus is the lamb that is the sin offering of mankind, and you agree that Jesus is male. What you have stated goes in contradiction to the OT:

      Leviticus 4:32

      New International Version
      “‘If someone brings a lamb as their sin offering, they are to bring a female without defect.

      Like

    • A lamb can be either male or female. It is a young sheep. That verse does not negate all the other verses about lamb sacrifices that include both male lambs and female lambs. Isaiah 53:7; Genesis 22:8; Leviticus 14:21-25; Exodus 12 – Exodus 12:5 says “a male” – 1 Cor. 5:7 – Jesus is our Passover Lamb”

      Like

    • seems like a contradiction, as the many that exist in the Bible

      Like

    • You brought up the subject of sin automatically when you mentioned “condemned to hell”.

      Like

    • Since you believe in John the Baptist ( Yahya, یحیی ) you also are required to believe that Jesus’ death on the cross was an atonement for sin, like a lamb sacrifice from the OT – cause the Qur’an confirms in some sense substitutionary ransom atonement – Surah 37:107; and also because the Qur’an affirms the previous Scriptures as from God – Surah 5:46; 5:68; 10:94; 2:136

      Like

    • Again you make seem that your gospel was the one the Qur’an was referring to, when only AFTER the Qur’an was revealed did the Gospel you believe to the true Gospel, became popular, As Ehrman mentions:

      “94% of our surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament date from after the ninth Christian century. That is 800 years (years!) after the so-called originals.”

      Just because you have a leather-bound KJV in your hands right now, don’t be under the delusion that this text existed during that time like the Governor of Texas once said:

      “If english was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for the schoolchildren of Texas”

      Like

    • I don’t go by the KJV or Textus Receptus or the manuscripts in the middle ages.

      What we have today is confirmed by all the manuscipts that we have centuries before Islam – like the Papayri of 120 AD – 300s and 400s and 500s AD and Codexes of 300s AD and 400s and 500s AD.

      You are making Red herrings by the Ehrman quote about 94 % of ALL Greek manuscripts (that just means a lot of them were made in the 800s-1300s, etc.) and massive red herring by bringing up KJV, as if that had anything to do with me.

      I agree with James White book, The King James Only Controversy, which destroys arguments for King James Version Only-ism.

      Like

    • You have misunderstood my argument, this is a different one from the past few days, thought it does involve your manuscript tradition. I am making the argument that your Bible did not become popular until 200 years after the advent of Islam and the Qur’an. So what you consider to be the Bible, doesn’t mean it is the Bible that the Qur’an is referring to. As we know there were many Bibles that existed before that time.

      Like

    • “become popular” is moving the goal-posts.
      Everything is confirmed by the earlier manuscripts from 120 AD to 500s AD. We have plenty of evidence long before Islam.
      It is obvious Muhammad or Uthman or if others were involved in compiling the Qur’an, etc. THOUGHT they were talking about the Injeel – the book of the Christians, which existed long before Islam (27 books of NT all were in existence by 96 AD; and even if one accepts 2 Peter and 1-2 Tim. as early second century ( I don’t), that is still LONG before Islam.

      Like

    • ““become popular” is moving the goal-posts.
      Everything is confirmed by the earlier manuscripts from 120 AD to 500s AD. ”

      Again this is a different argument from last two weeks. Today I am not going to get into the earliest manuscripts you have of the Bible. Though that is a subject we have not finished…..

      TODAY, I am arguing is that what YOU consider to be the Bible has only become popular 200 years after the advent of Islam. Clearly this is not the book that the Qur’an needed to address.

      I need to do something for a bit, Paul needs to put up a chat box perhaps on this site, lol

      BRB

      Like

    • Earlier manuscripts of 120-500s AD prove you are wrong.

      Like

    • you did not ONLY ask about the Trinity, but about the issue of “being condemned to hell”, which automatically is talking about salvation and sin.

      Like

    • I find few Trinitarians that agree with all he writes in this paper.

      Do you?

      Like

    • I skimmed it in order to find the quote you gave (at the end of 29 pages). I would have to read and study the whole thing over time in order to answer that question. The content is dense; so I cannot answer that question yet.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken, I have videos on that too. In fact I have a play list. One is really short, 1:42.

      Like

    • I don’t think the quote from Dan Wallace makes him a “hostile witness”; just more nuanced and precise; but it agrees with Scripture as the basis for the contents of the theological doctrine of the Trinity.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken,
      I use the term hostile witness in the sense that Perry Mason interrogated the witness for the prosecution as he defended his client.

      To me, Wallace is a hostile witness. For you, he is not.

      Like

    • I know that Dr. James White has made the point that the Greek imperfect past (was = ‘ην – points to ongoing into the past, as apposed to using an aorist tense of a verb. I will have to find other quotes that are written up on from a scholar. But Dan Wallace made the point in my article you liked at my blog.

      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/11/13/john-11-and-the-word-was-god/

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken, thank you. I know White. I will have comments on his exegesis soon. Perhaps I will blog it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • D. A. Carson discusses John 1:1 on pages 114-117 of his commentary on John; and it is too much to type out. Nevertheless, in his discussion of the imperfect past verb, “was” ‘ην – he clearly states that this verb indicates – “frequently signals existence”; and “In the beginning, the Word was already in existance. Stretch our imagination backward as we will, we can find no point in time where we may agree with Arius, who, speaking of the Word, said, “there was a time when he was not.” (page 114)

      Like

    • F. F. Bruce also confirms the grammar, etc. and also quotes from C. K. Barrett. (page 30-31, The Gospel of John)

      Like

    • “John’s first assertion is that “In the beginning was the Word.” Which beginning? Considering the whole context of the prologue, many have identified this beginning as the same beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1. But most see that the assertion of the Apostle goes far beyond that.

      The key element in understanding this, the first phrase of this magnificent verse, is the form of the word “was,” which in the Greek language in which John was writing, is the word en (the “e” pronounced as a long “a” as in “I ate the food”). It is a timeless word – that is, it simply points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin. One can push back the “beginning” as far as you can imagine, and, according to John, the Word still is. Hence, the Word is eternal, timeless. The Word is not a creation that came into existence at “the beginning,” for He antedates that beginning.

      John is very careful in his language at this point. Throughout this section, John carefully contrasts the Word, and all other things. He does so by consistently using en of the Logos, the Word, and by consistently employing a totally different verb in reference to all other things. This other verb is “to become” (egeneto). It is used of John the Baptist in verse 6, of the world in verse 10, and the children of God in verse 12. Only when we come to verse 14 does John use “to become” of the Word, and that is when the Word “became flesh.” This refers to a specific point in time, the incarnation, and fully demonstrates John’s intentional usage of contrasting verbs.

      John is not alone in this. Jesus contrasted Abraham’s “becoming” with His own eternal existence in John 8:58 in the same way. The Psalmist contrasted the creation of the world with the eternity of God in Psalm 90:2 (LXX) by using the same verbs found in John 1:1 and 14. Hardly seems coincidental, does it?”

      James R. White

      http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken, I created a video on this subject. If you would like to see it, I can post a link.

      Like

    • Here it is:

      You may also find my reviews of each chapter of James White’s, The Forgotten Trinity of interest.

      Regards,
      Georg

      Liked by 2 people

    • Georg,
      I was busy and also you have a lot of videos that were fascinating to look over and digest (just a few of them).
      You have a lot of interesting material. Some of cartoons / computerized drawings and speaking of people are really good; Amazing what technology can do. I have never seen that before. Dr. White and Wallace look like that, but the Gregory of Nyssa cartoon was bad, IMO.

      The quote from Gregory of Nyssa about combining Jewish Monotheism and the best from Greek pagan thought, etc. is a quote I have never heard before, but I don’t think he is saying that Greek paganism is the “source” of the doctrine of the persons / hupostasis – rather the quote clearly says “The Jewish dogma (Unitarian Monotheism) is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit . . . ” These are Biblical sources; not Greek paganism – and many scholars see the hints of the “word” (logos) in Genesis 1 (God spoke by His word everything into existence) and the Spirit also is there in Genesis 1 – 1:2 – “And the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters”. So even those 2 aspects are rooted in Jewish Monotheism.

      Furthermore, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Athanasius and Hillary and others had expressions of the Trinity in centuries (and at the same time – Athanasius and Hillary) before Gregory of Nyssa. Ignatius is clear on the Deity of Christ in early second century (around 107-110 AD) and has a simple expression of the Trinity –

      “For Ignatius God is Father, and by ‘Father’ he means primarily ‘Father of Jesus Christ’ : ‘There is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son’ (Magn. 8.2). Jesus is called ‘God’ 14 times (Eph. inscr. 1.1, 7.2, 15.3, 17.2, 18.2, 19.3; Trall. 7.1; Rom. inscr. 3.3, 6.3; Smyrn. 1.1; Pdyc. 8.3). He is the Father’s Word (Magn. 8.2), ‘the mind of the Father’ (Eph. 3.3), and ‘the mouth through which the Father truly spoke’ (Rom. 8.2). He is ‘His only Son’ (Rom. inscr.), ‘generate and ingenerate, God in man . . . son of Mary and Son of God . . . Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Eph. 7.2). He is the one ‘who is beyond time the Eternal the Invisible who became visible for our sake, the Impalpable, the Impassible who suffered for our sake’ (Polyc. 3.2).

      “. . . he does sometimes mention Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together. He urges the Magnesians to ‘be eager . . . to be confirmed in the commandments of our Lord and His apostles, so that “whatever you do may prosper” . . . in the Son and Father and Spirit’ (Magn. 13.2). And in one of his most famous passages he declares: ‘Like the stones of a temple, cut for a building of God the Father, you have been lifted up to the top by the crane of Jesus Christ, which is the Cross, and the rope of the Holy Spirit’ (Eph. 9.1).” Edmund J. Fortman, at a Greek Orthodox web-blog. ( I use that for convenience only; as Protestants, Roman Catholics, and E.Orthodox agree on the doctrine of the Trinity.
      This is very early, over 2 centuries before Gregory of Nyssa.

      Also, Tertullian, around 190-220 AD, used the basic words, “Trinitas Unitas” (three in one) and “persona” (the Latin equivalent of hypostatis) over 1 century before the Cappadocian Fathers, as did Origen around 250 AD.

      Also, I purchased Murray J. Harris’ Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament on John, and he actually gives cogent reasons for accepting the punctuation of John 1:3 that makes 1:4 begin with “in Him was life . . . ” – page 23. Too much to type out, maybe Google books will allow you to see it.

      Like

    • Ken, some of my earliest videos are pretty raw. I did not know I would ever make this many. I am redoing three on J 1:1.

      Maybe I will revisit Nyssa at some point, but I cannot violate copyrights and hence the handmade original and yes, corny, graphics.

      As for the punctuation issue, I don’t see how one can argue for the later readings considering all the data we have.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Someone made videos of 3 parts on Dr. White’s earlier comments on John 1:1 – 18; more extensive than the one you put up; and verses 14 and 18 show the Deity of Christ by nature/substance and how one must look at the whole paragraph. Also, John 1:8-9 on how Jesus is the light and John the baptist is not the true light, etc. along with John 8:12 and that Jesus is the life in John 14:6 and 11:25 adds to the understanding of what John is saying in the early verses. Listen to all 3 videos. Part 1 is here.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken,
      I only review known scholars. I also specialize in the grammar to eliminate subjectivity.

      The idea that HN makes the Word eternal is frankly nonsense.

      Have you seen Shaad’s comments? I think he makes some good points.

      Liked by 1 person

    • See the article by Brian J. Wright, I liked to at my blog and at the bottom here. His conclusions, after going over ALL instances of Theos in the NT and many in ECF (Ignatius in footnote 13, etc.) – his summary conclusion is decisive.

      Like

    • Given all the info in the scholarly article I linked to, by Brian J. Wright; it makes good sense.

      Like

    • Ken, I am not inclined to review material that does not directly address the grammatical deficiencies of James White in my review of him. There are plenty of Trinitarian commentaries who state their opinions. Those do not interest me.

      Like

    • But it is very scholarly on the Greek word Theos and examines all occurrences. you should look at it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken,
      I did look at it. I am not inclined to review it as it does not address the grammatical problems with James White on J 1:1.

      In fact, except for mentioning the text, in a different context, it has no impact at all on my review of White. So it really is no response at all.

      Like

    • Murray J. Harris, whom you used another of his works, has extensive scholarly argument that ‘ην (was) means that the Logos eternally existed into the past; already existed. (pages 18-21; Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: John)

      ‘ην Therfore signifies timeless existance: (In the beginning the Word) was already existing . . . ” (page 18)

      “His eternal pre-existence ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν , vv. 1a, 2)” (page 21)

      Like

    • Ken,
      Harris does not rescue White. I quoted Harris as a hostile witness, BTW.

      Like

    • Yes he does in the newer book, which I quoted above. Says “eternally existed” is the meaning of ην

      Like

    • Ken,
      If that is the case, then Stanley Porter, a Trinitarian grammarian, refutes him too, just like White.

      Remember, the one who makes the statement bears the burden of proof.

      If they address Porter, then we can evaluate this.

      Like

    • Ken, I said Harris does not rescue White. You say he does in his newer book. Please consider the following:

      Ken, you are correct that Harris argues for the Eternal HN, at John 1. But you are incorrect that he makes an argument like James White (who remains refuted in my video).

      You are also incorrect that Harris makes a grammatical argument. He makes a contextual argument based on his assertion that ARXH (beginning) is a reference to a time period in eternity.

      Lets look at more than the short quote you gave and see how he reached that conclusion. I will add comments in brackets.

      A. The Logos and God ( 1 :1–2 )

      1:1a Ἦν 3rd sg. impf. of εἰμί , “be.” Since the Greek Bible begins with the expression ἐν ἀρχῇ , it is likely that John is alluding to Gen 1:1.

      [GK: First note that Harris asserts that John 1:1 has the same reference as Genesis 1:1.]

      Although ἐν ἀρχῇ is anar., the sense is def., “in the beginning,” since the art. is often omitted in prep. phrases, esp. those denoting time (BDF § 255 [3]; R 791–92). The sense is not “From the very beginning,” which would be ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς (1 John 1:1; 3:8).

      [GK: Note next that Harris says that this means before the world was created.]

      “In the beginning” means in effect “before the world was created” (GNB; cf. John 17:5, 24; Eph 1:4).

      [GK: Now note that Harris appeals to the Greek Septuagint (LXX) of Proverbs 8 where ARXH occurs. There without any proof, he says this means “before time was.” Also note that if HN is taken by itself, he would not consider it to be from eternity. It is only his view of ARXH that makes it so. This is not a grammatical argument, but a contextual one. But it gets him in trouble. ]

      In Prov 8:23–24 (LXX) ἐν ἀρχῇ clearly means “before time was” and “before he (the Lord) made the earth.” In itself v. 1a speaks only of the pretemporality or supratemporality of the Logos, but through the conjunction of ἐν ἀρχῇ and ἦν (not ἐγένετο ) John implies the eternal preexistence of the Logos.

      [GK: When one looks at Proverbs 8:23-24 in the LXX, one finds a parallel with another text which describes the same event, Job 38:4. Yahweh asks Job, where were you when I founded the earth? In Proverbs, Wisdom was “before the beginning of the earth.”

      Harris makes the same mistake I have seen before. In Job, there were others who witnessed this event. “All the Sons of God shouted for joy” – ESV Job 38:7.

      The angels witnessed this event. If being before the earth was created makes one eternal, then all the angels are eternal. ]

      Ἦν therefore signifies timeless existence: “(In the beginning the Word) was already eternally existing” or “(At the beginning the Word) had always been in existence” (cf. McHugh 9, “there existed”). — Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: John Copyright © 2015 Murray Harris

      [GK: So, Harris, stumbles here. That being said, he does not make a grammatical argument. But White does, and he remains refuted. ]

      Liked by 2 people

    • Nice video Georg, i wonder why James White keeps pushing this preposterous argument that the imperfect necessarily implies eternal existence just because the logos was there “in the beginning”…that’s merely wishful thinking, Yes the logos was present but it doesn’t necessarily imply eternal existence, it’s as simple as that…and that’s literally the weakest grammatical argument i’ve come across…

      Liked by 1 person

    • “but through the conjunction of ἐν ἀρχῇ and ἦν (not ἐγένετο ) John implies the eternal preexistence of the Logos.”

      Seems like a good grammatical argument to me.

      Amazing you got it and typed it all out. Good for you.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Over 50 years ago I took typing in summer school.

      Question: if all the sons of God shouted in applause when God created the earth as recorded at Job 38:7, would that have included the only begotten Son of God?

      Like

    • How did you get the book so fast? I took typing also about 40 years ago; but it is still tedious to transcribe and also to switch to Greek font and English, etc.

      Like

    • Murray J. Harris is now a hostile witness against your arguments, regarding ‘ην
      in John 1:1 and 1:2.

      Like

    • Ken, so you say… I already considered Harris to be a hostile witness, a Trinitarian scholar who refutes some Trinitarian arguments. But until you present him on J 1:1 with regard to what he says about HN, not just his conclusion, we won’t know more than that.

      You have the book, so why not share the reasons for his conclusion, if he really provides it?

      Like

    • too much to type up right now – you should get the book for yourself.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken,
      You have not provided any evidence he helps White with the grammatical problems I refuted at J1:1 which he presented.

      I does not impress me when a Trinitarian presents his Trinitarian conclusions.

      Like

    • Ken, interesting that White takes his interlocutor to task for both not informing him of the book but also for not engaging The Forgotten. Trinity.

      Not only did I review each chapter of FT, but I emailed aomin.org as each chapter was published.

      Then I entered his IRC chat room and told him in person.

      Here is the playlist for the Forgotten Trinity.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I know about your videos now; I looked at a few of them, espcially the one with the Gregory of Nyssa and John of Damascus quotes. I disagree that Greg. of N. is saying “source” – rather “Word and Spirit” are NT ideas and the source. Not paganism.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Here is the complete quote from Wolfson:

      Harry Austryn Wolfson, in his book The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, pages 362-363

      Wolfson
      =======
      But evidently the opposition of orthodoxy to Arianism was not so much on the ground that it was a combination of Jewish monotheism and heathen polytheism as on the ground that the combination was not to its liking. In fact, its own conception of the Trinity was looked upon by the Fathers themselves as a combination of Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism, except that to them this combination was a good combination; in fact, it was to them an ideal combination of what is best in Jewish monotheism and of what is best in pagan polytheism, and consequently they gloried in it and pointed to it as evidence of the truth of their belief.

      We have on this the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa – one of the great figures in the history of the philosophic formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity – and his words are repeated by John of Damascus the last of the Church Fathers.

      The Christian conception of God, argues Gregory of Nyssa, is neither the polytheism of the Greeks nor the monotheism of the Jews and consequently it must be true, for

      Gregory of Nyssa
      =============
      “the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality.”

      [15 Oratio Catechetica 3 (PG 45 17 D-2O A)]

      Wolfson:
      =======
      As restated by John of Damascus, this ideal combination in Christianity of what is best in Judaism and paganism reads as follows:

      John of Damascus
      ==============
      “On the one hand, of the Jewish idea we have the unity of God’s nature, and, on the other, of the Greek, we have the distinction of hypostases, and that only.”

      [16 De Fide Orth. I,7 (PG 94, 808 A).] — Harry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, pages 362-363
      .

      Liked by 2 people

    • “The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, . . . ”
      My main point is here, that Gregory of Nyssa does not say the source of the doctrine comes from paganism; rather from the New Testament revelation, about the Word (John 1:1-5; 1:14; 1 John 1:1-3; Revelation 19:13) and the Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:2; John chapter 14, 15:26; chapter 16; Acts 5:3-5; Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14, etc.)

      The source is New Testament Revelation.

      Like

    • You say:
      “The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, . . . ”
      My main point is here, that Gregory of Nyssa does not say the source of the doctrine comes from paganism; rather from the New Testament revelation, about the Word (John 1:1-5; 1:14; 1 John 1:1-3; Revelation 19:13) and the Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:2; John chapter 14, 15:26; chapter 16; Acts 5:3-5; Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14, etc.)

      The source is New Testament Revelation.

      And yet Gregory of Nyssa
      said:

      “the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality.”

      [15 Oratio Catechetica 3 (PG 45 17 D-2O A)]

      And you forgot about this:

      John of Damascus rewords it a bit:

      “On the one hand, of the Jewish idea we have the unity of God’s nature, and, on the other, of the Greek, we have the distinction of hypostases, and that only.”

      [16 De Fide Orth. I,7 (PG 94, 808 A).] —

      Clearly the theology of the time was a mix of Judaism and Greek.

      Where did you say the Greeks fit in?

      Liked by 1 person

    • John of Damascus defended using icons in worship contexts (vs. Islam), so he does not hold much credibility with me.

      It does not matter anyway from what you are trying to extract from Gregory of Nyssa, as he is not the final say or infallible, etc. His point is that paganism had diversity, and the 3 persons within the ONE Nature/substance is a kind of diversity. But the problem is that long before Gregory of Nyssa, Ignatius (107-110 AD) was clear on the Deity of Christ, and had basic Triadic statements of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and Irenaeus (180-202 AD), Tertullian (190-220 AD), Origen (250 AD), Athanasius (325-373 AD), etc. – they used NT Scripture to make their arguments, rather than Greek paganism. It is misleading for you to promote Gregory of Nyssa’s statement as the sudden explanation of where the doctrine of the Trinity came from. Besides, when Gregory of Nyssa clearly wrote “because of belief in the Word and the Spirit” – he shows the real source is NT revelation, not paganism.

      Like

    • Ken,
      What about John of Damascus? There are two witnesses here. Apparently this teaching was commonly known.

      When it comes to the question of the origin of the Trinity doctrine, what source is better than those who who were there when it happened.

      You need to harmonize these two expressions of the same teaching, and incorporate John of Damascus.

      Also, if you look at the Greek I provide in my video, you will see that their doctrine was EK (from) the Greeks.

      Do you know the implications of that?

      Christendom today would never say their doctrine was EK the pagans. But back then, it was not a problem.

      That is called syncretism. That is why you have Easter eggs from rabbits added to your celebration of the resurrection.

      It started back then.

      Eostre is the name of the pagan goddess of fertility. That is where the name estrogen comes from. And the name of your Easter services.

      Like

    • As I indicated, Gregory of Nyssa, nor John of Damascus are infallible and though you bring them as “two witnesses”; I will bring 10-15 others, earlier and contemporaneous that don’t use that kind of argument from paganism. (Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martry, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyrpian, Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, Hillary, etc. – that’s 12 and there are many others also, Theophilus of Antioch, etc. that’s 13; that used NT revelation, rather than “paganism”.

      There is no doubt that Christianity tried to overcome the paganisms of holidays and celebrations, by contextualization or replacing the old holiday celebrations; but they are harmless if one is taught rightly about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as the true meaning of “Easter”. (Esther’s name also, from Asteroid, “star” ) Like Santa Claus at Christmas – and Christmas trees – they are harmless cultural assimilations as long as the truth of NT is taught. It is only when ONLY those things are emphasized to children and if parents and churches don’t teach or explain the true meaning of the holidays that replaced the paganism – that is a problem.

      It seems you are a Jehovah’s Witness.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken,
      What is needed is others who describe how the Trinity was formulated. Of course they all claim the Bible teaching are consistent with the Trinity.

      When I quoted Wallace on the issue as whether the Trinity is taught in the NT, you agreed it was not.

      So at some point it happened. Those who came later can not describe it as eye witnesses. But John and Gregory could.

      So, why not believe them? There writings on this were not destroyed as were those of Athanasius.

      Like

    • no; I only agreed that the doctrine of the Trinity was not Explicitly taught with all the formulations of one substance in 3 persons in one verse. But the doctrine is taught in the NT, by consistent exegesis and a consistent theology of all the Scripture, including the allusions to it in the OT – as in Genesis 1:1-3 – the spoken word of God; and the Spirit of God hovering over the waters, etc. Word and Spirit – even Gregory of Nyssa also said that.

      Like

    • Ken , why didn’t Jesus lay out this doctrine succinctly and explicitly ? Why do you rely on men and not on scripture ? Are you trying to tell us Jesus told his disciples secretly?t

      Like

    • What you described is not a bible writer teaching a concept in context.

      Like

    • Is Ken backtracking now? Is he claiming Matthew 28:19 is not an explicit teaching of the Trinity?

      Ken i apologize for not addressing you directly, I’m on mobile and it’s hard for me to get to your comment

      Liked by 1 person

    • He says he agrees with Wallace in the paper I linked, Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit. In that paper, Wallace admits that the 1st century bible writers showed no evidence they conceived of the Holy Spirit as a person.

      There are various reasons, and I explain it in my videos.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken,
      When the Jews were deported from Jerusalem they were given Persian names. Her Jewish name was Hadassah, and means “Myrtle.”

      She had no choice.

      It remains a pagan name, although not at heinous as the goddess of fertility Eostre.

      Like

    • That is true that the Persians gave her that name from their culture, which means “star” and is also in Greek, where we get “asteroid” from. Persian and Babylonian religions were focused on the changing of the seasons, Winter solstice and Spring Equinox, and fertility gods and goddesses; true.

      The other comment about agreeing with Dan Wallace is not totally true. I did not agree [yet; maybe I will after I study it more] with his point on the personality of the Holy Spirit and prounouns, as yet I have yet to digest the whole article. I said it was dense and will take me a while to read and study.

      What I agreed with was the 2nd half of his conclusion (I think it was Allistair McGrath’s statement) that the doctrine of the Trinity is not “explicitly” articulated – I would add – in one verse – meaning that the words “one substance” and “three persons” are not explicit in a formula. I should have been clearer and said I disagreed with the first part of Wallace’s statement in that I though he should have used the word “explicit”.
      Here is what I wrote:
      Thanks for the link to the article by Dan Wallace! Excellent material.

      ” . . . Scripture bears witness to a God who demands to be understood in
      a Trinitarian manner.” Dan Wallace

      Indeed; I agree with that part.

      The first part, IMO, it would have been better to write, “explicit” in there.

      https://bloggingtheology.net/2018/02/28/gullible-and-stubborn/#comment-67099

      However, the doctrine of the Trinity is taught in the NT (and alluded to in the OT) by proper exegesis and consistent theological hermeneutics when all the relevant verses are put together in a systematic and logical way.

      Like

    • “However, the doctrine of the Trinity is taught in the NT (and alluded to in the OT) by proper exegesis and consistent theological hermeneutics when all the relevant verses are put together in a systematic and logical way.”

      Yay connect-the-dot theology, it’s sad that a fundamental doctrine which can determine whether someone goes to heaven or hell, has to be DERIVED from scripture by men.

      Who is your MASTER Ken, Jesus or someone else?
      Why didn’t Jesus teach this plainly and openly?
      Are you telling me Jesus taught this doctrine in secret?

      Like

    • Jesus did teach all the elements of the doctrine. One God, that He and the Father are one; that He is eternal (John 17:5) that He is the Son; He received worship and did not rebuke anybody for worshiping Him, as the angel did in Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9; and He spoke of the Holy Spirit who is to come – John 14; 15:26; 16 and He implies the doctrine of the Trinity by the baptism formula of “one name” (teaches one substance; one God) in the three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) and He also clearly claimed Deity all through the gospel of John, and some in Mark and Matthew and Luke also. He clearly said you must believe in His Deity in order to be saved – John 8:24 – which if one believes in Christ’s Deity and that there is only One God – that necessarily will lead a born again person to agree with the doctrine of the Trinity by faith, when they are taught on all the other revelation and relevant verses on the Holy Spirit and the personal interaction between the persons. The Father loves the Son, the Son prays to the Father; the Spirit testifies to the Son, etc.

      Furthermore, Jesus Himself and the Holy Spirit inspired all the other writings of the 27 books, so what the apostle Paul and others wrote down is God-breathed and so believe in the Deity of Christ and doctrine of the Holy Spirit is Jesus’ words and doctrine and teaching and so only Trinitarians truly submit to Jesus as Lord and Master.

      Like

    • ” Jesus did teach all the elements of the doctrine….”
      VERSUS
      Deuteronomy 6:4 New International Version (NIV)
      4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

      Mark 12:29 New International Version (NIV)
      29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a]

      —————

      Again , it’s sad that you have to rely on such “reasoning” to believe in your doctrine. That is all I can say.

      As for the manuscripts and papyri that come before the codices in the 4th century, they all do not align with what you have in the Bible. More to come on this….

      Like

    • But Trinitarians fully believe Deut. 6:4 and Mark 12:29. Jesus in the same book claims to forgive sin (Mark 2:1ff) and be the Lord of the Sabbath Day (Mark 2:28), and deserve worship from all from all nations (by following the quote to Daniel 7:13-14) and be co-reigning with His Father at the right hand of power. (Mark 14:60-64, see Daniel 7:13-14 and Psalm 110:1)

      Like

    • Ken,
      Agreed, one cannot use Esther to rationalize Easter from Eostre.

      As for Wallace on the Holy Spirit found here: https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2003a_05_Wallace_HolySpirit.pdf

      You can consider my videos as a tutorial. I do my best to teach and simplify it.

      Once you absorb the information, you will see this article as a game changer.

      Every common argument Trinitarians use for the Holy Spirit is debunked by Wallace.

      Like

    • This seems more accurate on the issue of the word “Easter” and where it came from into English.

      Like

    • “CONCLUSION
      No one contests that the NT usually reserves the title θεός for God the Father. Yet this usage, though dominant, is not exclusive.146 The textual proof of the designation θεός as applied to Jesus in the NT merely confirms what other grounds have already established. In fact, the title θεός only makes explicit what is implied in other Christological titles such as κύριος and υἱὸς θεοῦ. Harris adds:

      Even if the early Church had never applied the title θεός to Jesus, his deity would still be apparent in his being the object of human and angelic worship and of saving faith; the exerciser of exclusively divine functions such as creatorial agency, the forgiveness of sins, and the final judgment; the addressee in petitionary prayer; the possessor of all divine attributes; the bearer of numerous titles used of Yahweh in the OT; and the co-author of divine blessing. Faith in the deity of Christ does not rest on the evidence or validity of a series of ‘proof-texts’ in which Jesus may receive the title θεός but on the general testimony of the NT corroborated at the bar of personal experience.147

      The question now before us is not whether the NT explicitly ascribes the title θεός to Jesus, but how many times he is thus identified and by whom.148 Therefore, with at least one text that undoubtedly calls Jesus θεός in every respect (John 20.28), I will conclude by answering my initial question: When did this boldness to call Jesus θεός begin? It began in the first century. It was not a creation of Constantine in the fourth century. It was not a doctrinal innovation to combat Arianism in the third century. Nor was it a sub-apostolic distortion of the apostolic kerygma in the second century. Rather, the church’s confession of Christ as θεός began in the first century with the apostles themselves and/or their closest followers and therefore most likely from Jesus himself.”

      Brian J. Wright
      Jesus as Theos

      https://bible.org/article/jesus-%CE%B8%CE%B5%E1%BD%B9%CF%82-scriptural-fact-or-scribal-fantasy

      Like

    • Three videos on Dan Wallace and John 1:1

      Liked by 1 person

    • it seems that you are a Jehovah’s Witness. Are you?

      I understand the point you are making about Dan Wallance; etc. Even if the NWT included comments on the qualitative aspect of John 1:1 in their footnotes in the 1980s. ( I am not going to take the time to get all the details; I listened once to all three videos; so I summarize for time and space). It seems to me, as I recall, by the questions put to the leaders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses about Greek and Hebrew (documented in Walter Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults. yes, I saw Dan Wallace’s comment on Walter Martin’s mistake about the Colwell rule, etc. – ok.
      Nevertheless, the NWT even to today, still translates John 1:1c as “a god”; and they deny the Deity of Christ. They teach that Jesus is the first created being, an angel, Michael the Archangel, right? and so how does “a god” fit with Monotheism? It seems that they are saying that there is another “god” in existence.

      If you counter with 2 Cor. 4:4 that Satan is called “the god of this world”, etc. – if it is about Satan, then the idea is harmonious with John 12:31 – “the ruler of this world”; and John 14:30 – “the ruler of this world”and John 16:11. It does not mean literally that Satan is another “god”, but that he is ruling and influencing the world systems of mankind, men as sinners, and cultures and political systems by getting people to sin and fight and war and steal, against each other, etc.

      but 2 Cor. 4:4 MIGHT be talking about the true one God, who is sovereign and who is the one who opens eyes to see the light of the gospel of God, and prevents unbelievers justly in their sins to be passed over (the non-elect get justly left in their sin – blinded their eyes.) Dr. White has mentioned a Dr. Hartley who has written a paper on this.

      The point is still, “a god” is a bad translation, as Dan Wallace shows and even by admitting the mistakes of others taking the Colwell rule wrong and too dogmatically, the translation of John 1:1 understood by Trinitarians all through history – Ignatius, Justin Martry, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius, Cappodocian fathers, Augustine, Jerome, Hillary, etc. – they all testify that “the Word was God” is right – that Jesus is God by substance/nature/essence, and that the lack of the article demonstrates that John 1:1 is denying modalism / Sabellianism.

      Like

    • Ken,
      The 2013 NWT has in its main text “a god” with the footnote, “or divine.”

      That is not indefinite, but qualitative-indefinite.

      Trinitarians cannot make a case against the NWT without misrepresentation.

      Why not buck that trend,

      I have a quick exercise for you, as a monotheist. Search for the term “one God” in your English translation and tell me who is identified as the one God in the OT and NT?

      The word QEOS/Elohim is used for those who represent God as his agents.

      But the mono-theist (ie one-God), we worship the one God.

      Trinitarians appear to me to be theists, not monotheists.

      Liked by 1 person

    • πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν
      John 1:3 still stands
      “All things through Him came into being and apart from Him whatever came into being, nothing, not one thing has come into being.” (My own translation)

      Like

    • I have NA28 on Accordance for Mac, but not a hard copy.
      My hard copy Greek Text is UBS 3rd Edition (from seminary in 1983-1988)
      I also have the NA 27 in the NET English and Greek – Novum Testamentum Gracece
      It is confirmed by P66, Codex Siniaticus, and others.

      Like

    • Philip Comfort also has an extended discussion of the punctuation differences in John 1:3-4 on pages 252-253 of his New Testament Text and Translation Commentary.

      Like

    • ok, yeah; I see what you are referring to in Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon on page 87 – “from Me”, or “with Me” – the BDBG refers to John 5:19, yes; but that is now how the Lxx translates the phrase, so it is not clear; and looking at the Hebrew text without grammars, etc. – it could be translated several ways – my accordance software gives several choices for the Hebrew. It is unclear; and the Lxx makes it unclear also.

      The BDAG comments on ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ (“from myself”) on page 212 say:
      “to do something of one’s own accord” . . . . without orders from a higher authority”, etc.

      as I said, if Jesus had said, “I Myself do these things of Myself without My Father”, it would indicate two gods and disunity and that is not acceptable.

      The grammar, etc. and aorist tense of “give” in verse 26 do not show that Jesus is lower or an angel or not Yahweh God; rather they express the unity and Deity that the Son shares with the Father, while protecting the Monarchy of the Father – source, the Son is eternally generated (coming out from, like the words that express the mind – as in John 1:1; like rays from the sun).

      Liked by 1 person

    • Again thanks. I believe you will find Gesenius also has a similar comment as does BDB.

      This is not an argument from the LXX. They are saying that the Hebrew phrase is equivalent to the Greek in J 5, and specifically make that connection.

      The fact remains that Yahweh always does things in a way that Jesus never does. And this militates against your interpretation of J 5 and 8:58.

      Murray Harris in “Jesus as God” gives convincing evidence that Yahweh in the OT is always the Father.

      Have you seen that book?

      Like

    • No, I don’t have Murray Harris’ book; though I remember there was some controversy about his view about the glorified body of Jesus, a few years back. (verses Norman Geisler) I agreed with Geisler on that issue. That was about 28 years ago.

      Like

    • I looked it (Murray J. Harris’ book) up on Google books – see pages 315-316 – Implicit Christology and Explicit Christology – Murray J. Harris agrees with me – John 8:56-58 and 1 Peter 3:14-15 are explicitly teaching Jesus is Yahweh.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken,
      I remember seeing a chart near the back of his book where he lists allusions. When I get home to see my hardcopy I will confirm it.

      However, I had page 47, fn 112 in mind. Also, I quote Harris as a hostile witness.

      P 37 fn112. A related question demands brief treatment. To whom did the NT writers attribute the divine action described in the OT? To answer “the Lord God” (YHWH elohim) = LXX KURIOS hO QEOS) is to beg the question, for the authors of the NT wrote of OT events in the light of their Trinitarian understanding of God. A clear distinction must be drawn between what the OT text meant to its authors and readers and how it was understood by the early Christians who lived after the advent of the Messiah and the coming of the Spirit. Certainly the person who projects the Trinitarian teaching of the NT back into the OT and reads the OT through the spectacles of the dynamic or Trinitarian monotheism of the NT is thinking anachronistically. On the other hand, it does not seem illegitimate to pose a question such as this” To whom was the author of Hebrews referring when he said (1:1), “At many times and in various ways God spoke in the past to our forefathers through the prophets”? That it was not the Holy Spirit in any ultimate sense is evident from the fact that in neither the OT nor the NT is the Spirit called “God” expressis verbis. And, in spite of the fact the LXX that the LXX equivalent of YHWH, viz., KURIOS, is regularly applied to Jesus in the NT so that it becomes less a title than a proper name, it is not possible that hO QEOS in Heb. 1:1 denotes Jesus Christ. for the same sentence (in Greek) contains “(the God who spoke…) in these last days has spoken to us in a Son (EN hUIW).” Since the author is emphasizing the continuity of of the two phases of divine speech (hO QEOS LALHSHS… ELALHSEN), this reference to a Son shows that the one who speaks in both eras and hUIOS as his final means of speaking shows that in the author’s mind it was not the Triune God of Christian theology who spoke to the forefathers by the prophets. That is to say, for the author of Hebrews (as for all NT writers, one may suggest) “the God of our fathers,” Yahweh, was no other than “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (compare Acts 2:30 and 2:33; 3:13 and 3:18; 3:25 and 3:26; note also 5:30). Such a conclusion is entirely consistent with the regular NT usage of hO QEOS. It would be inappropriate for elohim or YHWH ever to refer to the Trinity in the OT when in the NT QEOS regularly refers to the Father alone and apparently never to the Trinity

      Liked by 2 people

    • In copy it is on page 316.

      Like

    • In my copy page 316. There is no identification. Harris says these are OT passage “referring to Yahweh applied to Jesus.” This is not identification. Since Harris identifies the Father as Yahweh, what you attribute incorrectly to him would be modalism.

      Like

    • Ken, let me understand your argument, your saying that since the JEWS WANTED TO KILL JESUS, therefore he is God?

      By that train of thought John the Baptist was claiming to be God? And the other Prophets which the Jews killed , claimed to be God?

      Matthew 23:37

      “”Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, ”

      Also the SON does not have the same nature as the FATHER. By that line of reasoning, David is God:

      Psalm 2:7

      I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father.

      ====================
      Also please answer my other questions, when you get the time.

      Like

    • Because the texts say because of His claims to be Son of God and God the Son – John 5:17-18; etc. John 8, 10; 11; 19 – read the whole flow of all the chapters.

      Psalm 2 is about David being anointed at the time of David, yes; but also a prophesy of the Son of God to come in the future; the future Messiah – that is the WHOLE reason why the Jews had belief in a Messiah to come in the future, who would be a descendent of David, etc. Duh. The NT apostles/disciples/writers of Scripture understood this – Acts chapter 2, 13; Hebrews chapter 1, 2, 5, etc.

      I will be probably be unavailable to comment further for a few days; not enough time to keep responding to things already clear; I have work and other things in life.

      Liked by 1 person

    • No worries Ken, we had a good discussion. If I you may indulge me, could you please answer the following questions before you go:

      (1) You said Kyrios is the translation of Yahweh, so every occurrence of Kyrios refers to Yahweh?
      (2) Did Abraham know the name of Yahweh or did he not (Exodus 6:3)?
      (3) What is the Greek word for Worship, and was Jesus the only one who was worshipped?

      Ty you for your time

      Liked by 1 person

    • 1. no, context determines; but the quotes in the NT of Psalm 110:1 are clear that Yahweh and Adonai are both Kurios = both God by nature/substance/essence. Many other contexts show Jesus is Yahweh / Lord/ kurios – for example 1 Peter 3:13-15 – “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts” (v. 15a) points to the context and quote (verse 14) in verses 13-14, From Isaiah 8:12-13
      “you are not to fear what they fear nor be in dread of it; It is the LORD (Yahweh) of hosts whom you should regard as holy, and He shall be your fear . . . ”
      Clearly Peter is saying Christ is Yahweh/ LORD/ kurios.

      Like

    • Thank you for your reply in this issue of “Yahweh”, let us recap the conversation for the benefit of me, you and the rest of the readers:

      Me: Can I find this name in the Greek New Testament?
      You: Yes, it is translated “kurios” κυριος in the New Testament…….
      Me: You said Kyrios is the translation of Yahweh, so every occurrence of Kyrios refers to Yahweh?
      You: No, context determines….

      So I am confused, have you changed your position? Are you NOW claiming that the word Yahweh has not been translated as Kyrios/Kurios in the NT? Either it has been translated as Kurios and every occurrence is Yahweh OR it has not been translated, and therefore you can not find the name Yahweh in the NT?

      Please clarify your position, so I can give a proper response.

      Like

    • No; every time Yahweh is referred to from the OT, in quotes or allusion, it is rendered kurios in the NT. But kurios is also used for “master” in other contexts. It was you who added “every occurrence of kurios” – you seem to be deliberately trying to confuse. Every instance of Yahweh from the OT is translated as kurios in the NT, and most occurances of it by itself – and all about Jesus as Lord means Jesus is Yahweh; but kurios by itself in other contexts can mean, “sir” or “master”, those depend on context.

      But when used of Jesus, it means He is both Yahweh (God) and Adonai (Master, Boss).

      Like Romans 10:9-10
      If you confess that Jesus is Lord (kurios) = Yahweh – you will be saved . . .

      Like

    • Psalm 110 is clear that Yahweh is translated always as kurios; and see 1 Peter 3:14-15 also, which I already mentioned.

      Like

    • It seems you did not look at the 1 Peter 3:13-15 and Isaiah 8:12-13.

      Like

    • 2. Abraham uses Yahweh in Genesis 15:2 when speaking to God, so it seems that Abraham did know this term, but the emphasis in Exodus 6:3 is the main term or terms that God emphasized most of the time with the patriarchs before Moses was “Elohim” and “El-Shaddai” (the Almighty).

      Other times that Yahweh as God’s name was revealed to the patriarchs – (Gen. 24:3, 7, 12, 26:22; 27:27; 28:21)
      So, as the ESV study Bible puts it, basically, “yahweh” in Exodus 6:3 is revealing the deeper significance of the name to Moses, in that “I AM with you” to accomplish what I want to through you in confronting Pharoah and the gods of Egypt and redeeming Israel out of Egyptian slavery. (page 153, ESV study bible, my summary, for space and time.)

      Like

    • Thank you for your reply Ken Temple, regarding whether Abraham knew the name Yahweh. You mentioned:
      “Abraham uses Yahweh in Genesis 15:2 when speaking to God, so it seems that Abraham did know this term”
      Let us examine EXODUS 6:3 again:

      New Living Translation
      I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El-Shaddai–‘God Almighty’–but I did not reveal my
      N-A-M-E Yahweh, to them.

      VS

      Gen 12:8

      And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the LORD, and called upon the N-A-M-E of the LORD (Yahweh).

      Notice N-A-M-E ….
      ————————————————
      The TEXT IS CLEAR, when you have a contradiction, you should admit it, and not try to reconcile verses through convoluted means.

      Like

    • No; I already answered that.

      Like

    • the Lxx of Genesis 12:8 also translates Yahweh both times as kurios.

      Like

    • Let’s not try to muddle the discussions by combining the topics of “lack of the name of Yahweh in the NT” and the “contradiction of Yahweh in the OT”, let’s us answer each one respectively :

      Like

    • I already fully answered the issue.

      Like

    • 3. Two words for worship in the Greek NT and Lxx. Proskunew is used most often, and usually does mean “Worship by prostrating or bowing down”, but can mean, depending on context, “honor given to a superior” – like a king or general in war, etc. The other word is “latreuo” λατρευω – and it is used exclusively for worship of Deity.

      But in the NT, Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 only proskunew / προσκυνεω is used, and only for God.

      Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he *said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 19:10

      Proskuneo is used both times here. And many other times for worship of God, that Jesus receives constantly in the NT.

      But there is a related term to latreuo / λατρευω – λειτουργεω – which can mean serve God or serve people.

      Context is the most important.

      Like

    • Ty you Ken for your reply,

      So the word “Proskunew ” is used exclusively for Jesus and God? Nobody else was Proskunew-ED?

      Like

    • Depends on context, but obviously it can mean only for God, as Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 show. You have to be intelligent about word studies – words have meaning in context.

      Like

    • “obviously it can mean only for God,”

      Well, I guess in Rev 3:9, the Church of Philadelphia are also part of the trinity, making it a…..idk, a pantheistic religion like Hinduism at this point:

      Rev 3:9 (King James Bible)
      Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

      The word for Worship is Proskenu

      Reference
      https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/does-worship-actually-mean-worship-in-the-new-testament/

      Like

    • If you say its context, then why do Christians use it as evidence for the deity of Christ? The claim that Jesus is worshipped, can not be used by in-itself , IF you use this argument you have brought up.

      Let me reiterate , :

      You say: Jesus is God, because He was worshipped
      I say: But others are worshipped
      You say: Well you have to look at context.

      Basically:
      Jesus is God, because he was worshipped. And he was worshipped like a God because he is God.
      And how do we know he is God, because he was worshipped………….

      CIRCULAR REASONING.

      Would you agree that if someone were to ask the question, “where did Jesus claim divinity?” You can not answer that “He is God , because he was worshipped”.

      Like

    • The context shows that Jesus is Deity – He combines both the proskuneo root and Latreo root in Matthew 4:10 – worship and serve the Lord only.

      He was worshiped as a child – Matthew 2:1-12 and in the boat after He calmed the storm – Matthew 14:33.

      Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9 make it clear. Worship (proskuneo root) God only.

      Hebrews 1:6 – “Let all the angels of God worship Him” – clear!

      Hebrews 1:8 – “but of the Son, it says, “Thy Throne, O God . . . ” – calling the Son Jesus ο θεος

      Like

    • Thanks Ken for your reply….however your not really answering the question. Perhaps I have not done a good job, in articulating my point. Let me try again.

      The word Proskenu is used for other than God and/or Jesus : (See Rev 3:9 and numerous places in the LXX (https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2018/01/12/proskuneo/)

      So my question is that, if I ask a Christian “Where did Jesus claim Divinity? “, Is it logically and rationally cogent for a Christian to say “YES, he accepted and was worshipped”. Now you may claim that he was WORSHIPPED AS GOD, and not like man. Ok, but don’t tell me that the reason he is God is because he was worshipped, it doesn’t add up, since others were worshipped(proskenued) as well.

      If that was too much, let me sum it up for you in one question:

      Can one claim the divinity of Christ, strictly by saying that he was/accepted worship?

      ——-

      Oh yes I forgot,, is Abraham Yahweh?
      Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord [kurios] (1 Peter 3:6).

      Like

    • context of 1 Peter 3:6, not, it means “master”, “sir” there; and does not mean God in Rev. 3:9

      But in contexts with Jesus, it means He is God by substance, Yahweh in the flesh.

      Like

    • Ken, you don’ answer the question, instead you are constantly evading, and backtracking on what you say. I don’t know what to say…..

      Like

    • I already answered that.

      Like

    • If they say for “blasphemy” and “for making Himself equal with God”, etc. then it is clear.

      Like

    • You can’t simply toss it off by saying it’s “clear” Ken, there’s a context behind it…anyway, since the conversation is about Georg, i’ll leave it to him to respond…

      Liked by 1 person

    • And you believe their lies? They were trying to twist his words and accuse him of blasphemy,…

      But we can get into this later, please answer my other questions at your earliest convenience

      Liked by 1 person

    • Here is another view from a well respected Trinitarian, James McGrath

      https://tinyurl.com/y9nksnxg

      Liked by 2 people

    • oh cool, thanks will check it out

      Like

    • context and intent of the author of the book of John shows that the enemies response to Jesus is that they understood Him as claiming to be God. Also in Mark 14:60-64

      Like

    • Ah seems Ken is free at last…how are you doing Ken? Hope you’re fine…👍

      Like

    • “If they say for “blasphemy” and “for making Himself equal with God”, etc. then it is clear.”
      Nothing is clear in John’s gospel about Jesus’ deity.

      If you are going to built your religion depending on the false jews’ accusations agianst Jesus, we build our case depending on Jesus’ refutation for them (John 10:34-35).

      It’s ironic, isn’t it?

      Liked by 1 person

    • If you go to the quotes in Psalm 82; Jesus is showing that God is mocking the proud dictators and judges of the earth who think they are “gods”, but will die like men, and don’t judge justly. Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees and calling them those unjust judges (if He calls them “Gods” to whom the word of God came – in Psalm 82, then how much more is He God who the Father sanctified and sent into the world?

      Like

    • What a desperate try to avoid the obvious!, Ken. :).

      You and James switch off your brains once you approach these CLEAR verses in John’s gospel.
      Why don’t you just admit it? Be honest with yourself, Ken. It’s the Hellfire that you are playing with.
      Is it ok to win an argument with a muslim superficially, yet the end is the Hell?

      This is a sign of misguidance according to Qur’an.
      “Do you hope that they will believe in you, when some of them used to hear the Word of God, and then deliberately distort it, even after understanding it?” QT.

      Like

    • No; it is called exegesis and looking at the context and background and grammar, etc. of what Jesus is referring to in Psalm 82.

      Like

    • Rather it’s called “I’m wrong, and I know that I’m wrong, but I like it to remain like this”

      Forget about this discussion! What is your heart telling you, Ken?

      Like

    • no; going back to Psalm 82 and studying it clears up what Jesus is referring to in John 10.

      “The Lord is my strength and He is my shield; my heart trusts in Him; and I am helped; my heart leaps for joy in song.”
      Psalm 28:7

      Psalm 28:7 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
      7 The Lord is my strength and my shield;
      My heart trusts in Him, and I am helped;
      Therefore my heart exults, (greatly rejoices)
      And with my song I shall thank Him.

      Like

    • @Ken, let’s continue for a bit mate…😄

      “If you go to the quotes in Psalm 82; Jesus is showing that God is mocking the proud dictators and judges of the earth who think they are “gods”, but will die like men, and don’t judge justly. Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees and calling them those unjust judges (if He calls them “Gods” to whom the word of God came – in Psalm 82, then how much more is He God who the Father sanctified and sent into the world?”

      Interesting, but I don’t see anything in the context that strongly back up this conclusion Ken, can you please elaborate? It can also mean that The judge is commissioned by God to be “god” to men…

      Like

    • Ken, you made a claim about Psalm 82 so please back it up and let’s discuss about it as i honestly see no strong reason for someone to come to this conclusion…☺

      Another question, how can ἦν necessarily points out to eternal existence when it is used to denote the beginning of something throughout John’s Gospel? Well there are many examples but John 8:44 is a good one…

      ~Shaad

      Like

    • “No; rather is the opposite of what you are saying. If Jesus had said, “I do whatever I want to without the Father; yet I am equal to the Father” – it would have communicated 2 Gods; and that is blasphemy.”

      does the son NEED the father to say ” i am ” ?

      does the father NEED the son to say ” i am ” ?

      does the son need the father to SEE everything and know everything ?

      does the father NEED the son to see everything and know everything ?

      can the father do WHATEVER he wants without the son ?

      you said the following :

      Creator
      Sovereign Providence (continuing to control creation beyond the Sabbath Day)
      Healer, miracle worker
      Judge
      Life in Himself
      Honor
      Resurrection Power
      Judgment Day

      does the son NEED to seek PERMISSION from the father to do the list you mentioned ?

      does the father need to seek permission from the son ?

      Like

    • “Even so, in the OT, “by Myself”, when God is speaking, does not contradict Trinitarian theology, because there is only ONE God – so the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all three within the “I Myself” as they are completely unified in their actions in creation, providence, sovereignty, judgment, life, honor.”

      Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer,
      who formed you in the womb:
      I am the Lord, who made all things,
      who alone stretched out the heavens,

      when god says “alone ” what you mean is alone + 3 persons ? 3 in 1 speakers?

      Like

    • Ken, you brought a claim God is simply mocking the Judges who “thinks” they’re “gods”… i see absolutely nothing which suggests that, so can you please elaborate? it may simply be a honorific title (which is used for others in the OT)…talking about John 10:30, again i see that the most accurate translation is that of the NWT, both in terms of grammar and context…

      Like

    • God is obviously mocking them, since there is only one God (Deut. 6:4; Psalm 96 – see Psalm 96:5 – “all the gods of the nations are idols”. Every other philosophy and every other religion, whether a god of the mind or stone or gold or wood, they are idols of the mind) who is the Creator-Sovereign God who Judges righteously.
      (verse 8)
      Verses 2-7 show that God is talking about the unjust rules / dictators/ leaders who oppress the people, etc.
      vs. 7 “they will die like men” – shows they are not really gods, but arrogant political rulers who think they are “gods” by their political and military power. A common problem all through history.
      verse 6 – “I said you are gods” – it does not say, “you are truly gods”, but “I said” ( I am calling you that mockingly because of your arrogance and injustice and oppression of the people and you don’t know everything and you walk in darkness – verses 2-5.

      Psalm 82
      God takes His stand in His own congregation;
      He judges in the midst of the rulers. [ literally: “gods”]
      2 How long will you judge unjustly
      And show partiality to the wicked? Selah.
      3 Vindicate the weak and fatherless;
      Do justice to the afflicted and destitute.
      4 Rescue the weak and needy;
      Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.

      5 They do not know nor do they understand;
      They walk about in darkness;
      All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
      6 I said, “You are gods,
      And all of you are sons of the Most High.
      7 “Nevertheless you will die like men
      And fall like any one of the princes.”
      8 Arise, O God, judge the earth!
      For it is You who possesses all the nations.

      Jesus, by quoting this in John 10:34, is calling the Pharisees unjust rulers of Israel (see also Matthew chapter 23) – verse 35 – “to whom the Word of God came” – He calls them “gods” – verse 35, but they are not really gods. in verse 36 Jesus is saying that He is truly the eternal Son of God that God the Father set apart and sent into the world, whereas the “gods” of Psalm 82 are unjust arrogant rulers / dictators/ leaders who think they are gods but they are not; and God is mocking them because they don’t judge righteously, whereas the true God judges righteously. (see Psalm 89:14; Psalm 97; 94; 85:10)

      Liked by 1 person

    • sorry i meant 10:33

      Like

    • “God is obviously mocking them, since there is only one God (Deut. 6:4; Psalm 96 – see Psalm 96:5 – “all the gods of the nations are idols”. Every other philosophy and every other religion, whether a god of the mind or stone or gold or wood, they are idols of the mind) who is the Creator-Sovereign God who Judges righteously.
      (verse 8)
      Verses 2-7 show that God is talking about the unjust rules / dictators/ leaders who oppress the people, etc.

      ……….”

      Sure there’s only one God, but “God” in terms of what? (if you get what i mean) that doesn’t exclude the fact that “god” is used as a honorific title for some characters in the OT, infact Philo explicitly calls Moses “god and king of the whole nation” (Philo of Alexandria-The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged” page 475), that indeed points out how Jews understood this term when used as a honorific title…many Trinitarians agree on that…Judges are called gods in Exodus 22:9 as well…so i see nothing which points out to a mockery or anything…so the NWT has once again proven it’s accuracy as well by rendering Θεόν as indefinite as it (sorry for repeating it) fits both the syntax and the context….i wonder why you ignored me all this time, did i say anything rude? my apologies if that’s the case…

      Like

    • Judges were called “God” only because they were God’s representative on earth when they made a judicial decision according to the Law. It does not mean that they are “God”; rather they represent God’s decision, since God is invisible and they are making the judicial decision. But Psalm 82 shows that even the judges can be arrogant and oppressive, so my point still stands on Psalm 82 and John 10.

      Like

    • I am not meaning to deliberately ignore you; it is just that responding to Georg AND Islamarchives AND Faizy AND Abdullah1423, and the Shamounian type “mrheathcliff” (whom I mostly ignore because his manners are evil and methods are bad; but if he makes a comment that is easy for me to respond to; sometimes I will.)

      Bottom line, time, and energy to look up things with comprehension, etc. and this post is up to almost 500 or maybe more than 500 – we have pretty much exhausted everything; but you guys are just stubborn in not seeing what all Christians have always seen in Scripture and church history. heresies like Arianism and modern cults like Jehovah’s Witnesses have been discredited a long time ago.

      We Believe in One True God:
      Father, Son and Spirit

      Like

    • “Jesus, by quoting this in John 10:34, is calling the Pharisees unjust rulers of Israel (see also Matthew chapter 23) – verse 35 – “to whom the Word of God came” – He calls them “gods” – verse 35, but they are not really gods.”

      the pharisees who came to jesus did not claim to be gods
      they weren’t even rulers, they were ruled by others.
      they said jesus blasphemed :

      The Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.”

      if we plug in ken temples interpretation , then jesus has not answered the jews. he is AGREEING with them that he is MAKING blasphemy when he makes himself into god.

      34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law,[d] ‘I said, you are gods’?

      this rebuttal makes no sense because according to ken jesus is claiming to be CO-EQUAL with the father. not ABOVE in rank than the gods in psalm 82

      35 If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

      again, this makes no sense if jesus is saying that he is IDENTIFIED as god himself.

      Like

    • No; Jesus is saying that the Scripture “calls” the unjust rulers “gods” mockingly; but that He is indeed the Son of God, ie, God by nature/substance/essence, truly, because the Father sanctified Him / set Him apart and sent Him and so “Son” means “same substance” and also has to be taken in light of the whole book of John – John 1:1-18; 5:16-17; 8:24; 8:56-58; 18:1-6; 19:6-7; 20:28 (My Lord and My God), etc.

      Like

    • Ken,
      I am confused about your position. It is not merely scripture that calls the wayward judges “gods” but God Himself.

      American Standard Version
      Psalms 82:6 I said, Ye are gods, And all of you sons of the Most High.

      He also called them his sons.

      BDAG says to compare Ps 82 and Ex 7:1 John 1:1 where the Word has QEOS predicated to him.

      Have you consulted the lexicons, including BDB and KB?

      Your explanation is at odds with them.

      Liked by 1 person

    • A lexicon just gives straight data as to occurrences. The reference “of persons ” and listing John 10:34 (Psalm 81:6 (82:6) and Exodus 7:1 and 22:27 cannot in that distinguish between the contexts of those passages. It is obvious that God is mocking the unjust rulers and polticial leaders because of their arrogance and oppression and that they will die like men – so it is not saying that they are literally “gods” – because there is only one God – “I said, you are gods” means, “I am calling/saying that” because you think you are by your political power, arrogance, injustice, etc. – but when you die like every other mortal, it just proves you are not God.
      Jesus used that as evidence against the Pharisees because the word of God came to those leaders in Psalm 82 and also is now rebuking the Pharisees in their sin and hypocrisy and injustice (see Matthew chapter 23). Jesus is saying He really is the Son of God, who the Father set apart and sent into the world, so He really is the Son of God or God in flesh/ by substance, etc. – that is why their reaction is to still try and seize Him or kill Him or arrest Him and bring Him to trial, which fits with the rest of the gospel in chapters 5, 8, 10, 18-19, etc. and climaxes in 20:28 (Thomas said to Him: My Lord and My God!” (‘ο θεος )

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

      There is also good discussion of Romans 9:5 as it calls Jesus Christ Theos, but also gives alternative interpretation, etc.

      The article under θεος gives a lot more information, also many of the occurrences of where Ignatius calls Jesus θεος .

      Like

    • Ken, who says the judges are literally gods? They represent God. God calls them gods because of who they represent, not because of how well they do it.

      As for BDAG, the lexicon is certainly making a statement comparing Ps 82 and Ex 7:1 John 1:1. This is certainly not just straight data, whatever that means.

      Also, BDAG compares John 20:28 in a similar way.

      Read BDAG carefully.

      BDAG
      2. Some writings in our lit. use the word θ. w. ref. to Christ (without necessarily equating Christ with the Father, and therefore in harmony w. the Shema of Israel Dt 6:4; cp. Mk 10:18 and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate. In Mosaic and Gr-Rom. traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one’s society. Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: ὃς ἃ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ λάβων ἔχει, ταῦτα τοῖς ἐπιδεομένοις χορηγῶν, θεὸς γίνεται τῶν λαμβανάντων

      one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients

      (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27f of a mother). Such understanding led to the extension of the mng. of θ. to pers. who elicit special reverence (cp. pass. under 4 below; a similar development can be observed in the use of σέβομαι and cognates). In Ro 9:5 the interpr. is complicated by demand of punctuation marks in printed texts. If a period is placed before ὁ ὢν κτλ., the doxology refers to God as defined in Israel (so EAbbot, JBL 1, 1881, 81-154; 3, 1883, 90-112; RLipsius; HHoltzmann, Ntl. Theol.2 II 1911, 99f; EGünther, StKr 73, 1900, 636-44; FBurkitt, JTS 5, 1904, 451-55; Jülicher; PFeine, Theol. d. NTs6 ’34, 176 et al.; RSV text; NRSV mg.). A special consideration in favor of this interpretation is the status assigned to Christ in 1 Cor 15:25-28 and the probability that Paul is not likely to have violated the injunction in Dt 5:7.—If a comma is used in the same place, the reference is to Christ (so BWeiss; EBröse, NKZ 10, 1899, 645-57 et al.; NRSV text; RSV mg. S. also εἰμί 1.—Undecided: THaering.—The transposition by the Socinian scholar JSchlichting [died 1661] ὧν ὁ=‘to whom belongs’ was revived by JWeiss, D. Urchristentum 1917, 363; WWrede, Pls 1905, 82; CStrömman, ZNW 8, 1907, 319f). In 2 Pt 1:1; 1J 5:20 the interpretation is open to question (but cp. ISmyrna McCabe .0010, 100 ὁ θεὸς καὶ σωτὴρ Ἀντίοχος).

      In any event, θ. certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. ὁ θεός 1:1a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel’s tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 [cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6];

      on θεός w. and without the article, acc. to whether it means God or the Logos, s. Philo, Somn. 1, 229f; JGriffiths, ET 62, ’50/51, 314-16; BMetzger, ET 63, ’51/52, 125f), 18b. ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου my Lord and my God! (nom. w. art.=voc.; s. beg. of this entry.—On a resurrection as proof of divinity cp. Diog. L. 8, 41, who quotes Hermippus: Pythagoras returns from a journey to Hades and appears among his followers [εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν], and they consider him θεῖόν τινα) J 20:28 (on the combination of κύριος and θεός s. 3c below). Tit 2:13 (μέγας θ.). Hb 1:8, 9 (in a quot. fr. Ps 44:7, 8). S. TGlasson, NTS 12, ’66, 270-72. Jd 5 P72. But above all Ignatius calls Christ θεός in many pass.: θεὸς Ἰησοῦς Χριστός ITr 7:1; Χριστὸς θεός ISm 10:1. ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν IEph ins; 15:3; 18:2; IRo ins (twice); 3:3; IPol 8:3; τὸ πάθος τοῦ θεοῦ μου IRo 6:3. ἐν αἵματι θεοῦ IEph 1:1. ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος θεός 7:2. θεὸς ἀνθρωπίνως φανερούμενος 19:3. θεὸς ὁ οὕτως ὑμᾶς σοφίσας ISm 1:1.—Hdb. exc. 193f; MRackl, Die Christologie d. hl. Ign. v. Ant. 1914. ὁ θεός μου Χριστὲ Ἰησοῦ AcPl Ha 3, 10; Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ὁ θ[εός] 6, 24; cp. ln. 34 (also cp. Just., A I, 63, 15, D. 63, 5 al.; Tat. 13, 3; Ath. 24, 1; Mel., P. 4, 28 al.).—SLösch, Deitas Jesu u. antike Apotheose ’33. Cp. AWlosk, Römischer Kaiserkult ’78.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I never argued that they were literally “God” Ken…

      Like

    • So, in Jehovah’s Witness theology, which apparently you are a JW, what exactly is John 1:1c saying by calling the Word “a god” or “divine” ; and not meaning “Deity” and “God, as to substance/nature/essence” ?

      “a god” means that there is another god, and that is polytheism.

      If Jesus is just an exalted angel, then that violates all the other passages that teach about His Deity.

      The Judges in Israel were sometimes referred to “Elohim” only in a judicial context as (you are right in those contexts that they represent God in judging law-court trials). Moses and Aaron are made “like” Elohim before Pharaoh – I agree that the truth of Monotheism requires the interpretation of “like” or “as” in Exodus 7:1, being added in translation.

      But Psalm 82 not only includes the unjust judges of Israel but all the unjust rulers of the nations also – the oppressive dictators, etc. verse 1, in the midst of the council of the “gods” and verse 8 demonstrate the context is extended to all evil rulers and dictators who think they are “gods” – they will be judged for their arrogance and oppression and injustice.

      “Arise, O God, judge the earth!
      For it is You who possesses all the nations.”

      But Jesus in John 10 is just saying if the Scritpure calls them “gods” mockingly because of their arrogance and they will die like men, etc. – how much more it is true that Jesus is truly the eternal Son of God, since the Father truly did sanctify / set Him apart and sent Him into the world for redemption and explaining who God is – exegeting (fully explaining) God – John 1:18 – the only unique monogenes God / Son who in from the Father’s side/heart/bosom.

      Like

    • Ken,
      You are welcome to your opinion, but I cited the Lexicon finances by the Lutheran Missouri Synod, a Trinitarian organization, as a hostile witness.

      Why do they say to compare Ex 7:1 and Ps 82 to John 1:1?

      This lexical evidence is
      at odds with your Trinitarian commentary.

      Like

    • no it is not; it just giving other examples of theos usage. It is the exegetes responsiblity to interpret the data properly according to context.

      John 1:1 is much more than “like” or “as” and it is certainly not mocking, as Psalm 82 clearly is mocking the unjust rulers of the political systems of both Israel and the nations who think they are gods by their arrogance and injustice and dictator like actions.

      Like

    • Ken,
      Where are you getting the like or as from?

      Moses was “a god” to Pharaoh at Ex 7:1, and there is no “like” or “as”’in the Greek. It’s not in the Hebrew either. He really was God’s agent.

      Just admit BDAD does not support you.

      In Ps 82:6 when God calls them gods and in parallel sons, was he mockingly calling them sons too?

      Ditch that bad argument.

      Like

    • You are wrong; the example of John 20:28 and the eleven examples of Ignatius prove that you wrong.

      I don’t know what you mean by “Lexicon finances by the Lutheran Missouri Synod”, etc.

      Are you saying the University of Chicago Press (the publishers) is run by the Lutherans ?

      Like

    • Ken said:
      Are you saying the University of Chicago Press (the publishers) is run by the Lutherans ?

      GK:
      No, LCMS financed BDAG. Look at the forward.

      Like

    • I posted the BDAG section on QEOS as used of the Son. If you look where J 20:28 is cited it says see the beginning of the entry. There they quote a 2nd century Christian writer Dg. The Greek shows the same syntax as found at N 1:1, the preverbal anarthrous predicate nominative. The English rendering is “a god.” This is qualitative-indefinite.

      Like

    • I see the discussion on page vii of the Missouri State Synod in 1947 contributing to translating Bauer’s work from German to English and professorship of Dr. WF Arndt of Concordia Seminary, a Lutheran seminary; ok.
      But that is not relevant to the discussion. They site John 20:28 and 11 examples of Ignatius in favor of the Deity of Christ, along with Romans 9:5, without leaving out other issues on Romans 9:5 as to punctuation and interpretation.

      Like

    • Ken, BDAG, the 3rd ed. was also financed by LCMS.

      And J 20:28 is also referenced with the beg. Of the entry.

      Also keep reading after Ro 9:5. You won’t like their reasons. They cite 1 Co 15:28 … see it (fr memory)

      Like

    • Re Romans 9:5, read the whole thing:

      In Ro 9:5 the interpr. is complicated by demand of punctuation marks in printed texts. If a period is placed before ὁ ὢν κτλ., the doxology refers to God as defined in Israel (so EAbbot, JBL 1, 1881, 81-154; 3, 1883, 90-112; RLipsius; HHoltzmann, Ntl. Theol.2 II 1911, 99f; EGünther, StKr 73, 1900, 636-44; FBurkitt, JTS 5, 1904, 451-55; Jülicher; PFeine, Theol. d. NTs6 ’34, 176 et al.; RSV text; NRSV mg.). A special consideration in favor of this interpretation is the status assigned to Christ in 1 Cor 15:25-28 and the probability that Paul is not likely to have violated the injunction in Dt 5:7.—If a comma is used in the same place, the reference is to Christ (so BWeiss; EBröse, NKZ 10, 1899, 645-57 et al.;

      Like

    • Actually, the Lexical evidence is in favor of the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity.
      contra your take.

      Like

    • Ken,
      BDAG says lower case deity, if you read them. And they define deity to be a divine being, not a word for “nature.”

      This is not my first rodeo.

      Like

    • Not when citing John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8, 9, Titus 2:13; and the 11 instances of when BDAG cites Ignatius.

      Like

    • Ken:
      Not when citing John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8, 9, Titus 2:13; and the 11 instances of when BDAG cites Ignatius.

      GK:
      They don’t use uppercase deity at all for the Son, and never in the Trinitarian sense of nature.

      Ignatius cannot inform our view of NT usage and BDAG does not say it does. Plus the writings of those old dead guys have not been inspired or protected from tampering.

      I do cite BDAG as a hostile witness, even though it helps the Unitarian.

      John 20:28 is said to conform to the individual who is called “a god” in the Dg. Quote at the beginning of the entry.

      Titus 2:13 in the entry for savior says the rendering in the margin of the NRSV is explained by KAI, and that rendering does not call Jesus God.

      BDAG is a disaster for you.

      Like

    • no; not at all; it lists John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9; Titus 2:13 and 11 examples of Ignatius for Jesus as Theos. (among others)

      Like

    • Ken,
      BDAG provides both that QEOS at Hebrews 1:8 is vocative or nominative. I am fine with either. The fact I that at Hebrews 1:8, it is a quote from Psalms where a Hebrew king is called elohim. No biggy. Lets look at the rest:

      Ken, perhaps you have not had time to look at these entries carefully. Allow me to assist.
      If you look at John 20:28 in BDAG QEOS section II, it says to see the beginning of the entry.
      Note: ὁ θεός μου my Lord and my God! (nom. w. art.=voc.; s. beg. of this entry.

      So lets do that. My omments in brackets.

      Beginning of the entry:
      2. Some writings in our lit. use the word θ. w. ref. to Christ (without necessarily equating Christ with the Father, and therefore in harmony w. the Shema of Israel Dt 6:4; cp. Mk 10:18

      [GK: So lets look at Mk 10:18 in the NRSV.

      NRS Mark 10:18 Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. (Mk. 10:18 NRS)

      According to BDAG, financed by the Missouri Synod of Lutherans, we need to interpret John 20:28 in light of not “equating Christ with the Father” and that no one is good but God. And also it says to look at section 4a, which I have below. This is “god” of a human who is worthy of special reverence.

      ### 4a ###
      4a
      4. that which is nontranscendent but considered worthy of special reverence or respect, god … a. of humans θεοί )as (אֱלֹהִים J 10:34f )Ps 81:6; humans are called θ. in the OT also Ex 7:1; 22:27; …

      ### end 4a ###

      This is the beginning of the entry and applies to John 20:28.]

      and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate. In Mosaic and Gr-Rom. traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one’s society. Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: ὃς ἃ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ λάβων ἔχει, ταῦτα τοῖς ἐπιδεομένοις χορηγῶν,

      —> θεὸς γίνεται a god <—-

      to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27f of a mother).

      [ Did you notice that the beginning of this entry includes Greek that is the same syntax as John 1:1c? They say this means "a god." Note the preverbal anarthrous predicate nominative.]

      Next you say Titus 2:13. Not so fast. In the Titus 2:13 Entry for Savior we find: ]

      our great God and Savior Christ Jesus Tit 2:13 (cp. PLond III, 604b, 118 p. 80 [47 AD] τῷ μεγάλῳ θεῷ σωτῆρι; but the presence of καί Tit 2:13 suggests a difft. semantic aspect and may justify the rendering in NRSV mg).

      [So, the NRSV margin does not call Jesus God here]

      Yes, above all, you do have Ignatius.

      I don't consider Ignatius important, though.

      Liked by 1 person

    • no; it uses upper case translation of θεος for John 20:28 and there is also has the article, ‘ο θεος / ho Theos = “The God”. You are trying to hard to read the Lexicon through Jehovah’s Witness glasses. John 1:1c is clearly saying the Word existed from all eternity and is God by substance/nature/essence.

      Like

    • Ken,
      It says see the beginning of the entry… that refutes you. BDAG uses the NSRV for all its citations. The unique verbiage is noted separately and in the glosses. And you should know, I am fine with J 20:28 referring to Jesus.

      As for J 1:1, BDAG does not support you. You consider QEOS there a reference to a divine substance, a 100% qualitative noun,as Wallace does, but BDAG does not.

      Like

    • 2. Some writings in our lit. use the word θ. w. ref. to Christ (without necessarily equating Christ with the Father, and therefore in harmony w. the Shema of Israel Dt 6:4; cp. Mk 10:18

      My BDAG stops at
      2. Some writings in our lit. use the word θ. w. ref. to Christ (without necessarily equating Christ with the Father),
      and continues with:

      though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate.

      The rest is about Romans 9:5 ff.

      It is so complicated to understand you; because my BDAG does not have what you have, which tells me I have an earlier edition. Mine is 1979, which I purchased with my last $60 or $50 ( exactly, I don’t remember).

      Nevertheless, even what you write is not understandable.

      If they are saying John 1:1c is “a god”; they are wrong; and the Gospel of John would not have written that, in light of John 17:3-5.

      Also, the phrase
      (without necessarily equating Christ with the Father)
      means without saying that the Father and Christ are the same person – as in modalism, Sabellianism, etc. (at least that it what sincerely seems to be saying to me.)

      Like

    • Ken,
      Yes I am using BDAG, you are using BAGD. But I did post the entire section, correct? That also explains why you had no information on LCMS financing the 3rd edition.

      If you want to comment on what I posted, you will need to read it from BDAG.

      Like

    • I purchased the 1979 edition of BDAG in 1983, when in seminary.

      Like

    • Ken,
      You have BAGD, not BDAG. Gingrich died and Danker took his place.

      I have BAG, BAGD, and BDAG.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ok, now I know why it was so hard to understand you. (smile)

      Although mine is older; I seem to remember everybody calling it “BDAG”, but maybe that is just my mind projecting others who have mentioned it since the internet (like in Dr. White’s videos and DL shows) as saying “BDAG”.

      However, the proper translation of John 1:1c is still, “and the Word was God”.

      It just so happens that Rich Pierce of Alpha and Omega Ministries just tweeted this:

      http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/1985/01/01/john-11-meaning-and-translation/

      Like

    • Ken,
      Thanks for your opinion, and that dated material.

      Like

    • From Dr. White’s excellent article:

      This last phrase has come under heavy fire throughout the ages. The correct translation of this passage is here given, and anyone interested in the technical aspects of the argument are referred to Section II. Basically, the passage teaches that the Word, as to His essential nature, is God. John does not here call the Word “a divine one,” as some polytheistic Greek might say. He did not use the adjective, theios, which would describe a divine nature, or a god-like one. Instead, he used theos, the very word John will use consistently for the Father, the “only true God” (John 17:3). He uses the term three times of Jesus in the Gospel, here, in John 1:18, and in John 20:28. It can not be doubted that John would never call a creature theos. His upbringing and Jewish heritage forbade that.

      How then are we to understand these two phrases?

      Benjamin B. Warfield said: “And the Word was with God.” The language is pregnant. It is not merely coexistence with God that is asserted, as of two beings standing side by side, united in local relation, or even in a common conception. What is suggested is an active relation of intercourse. The distinct personality of the Word is therefore not obscurely intimated. From all eternity the Word has been with God as a fellow: He who in the very beginning already “was,” “was” also in communion with God. Though He was thus in some sense a second along with God, He was nevertheless not a separate being from God: “And the Word was” — still, the eternal “was” — “God.” In some sense distinguishable from God, He was in an equally true sense identical with God. There is but one eternal God; this eternal God, the Word is; in whatever sense we may distinguish Him from the God whom He is “with,” He is yet not another than this God, but Himself is this God. The predicate “God” occupies the position of emphasis in this great declaration, and is so placed in the sentence as to be thrown up in sharp contrast with the phrase “with God,” as if to prevent inadequate inferences as to the nature of the Word being drawn even momentarily from that phrase. John would have us realize that what the Word was in eternity was not merely God’s coeternal fellow, but the eternal God’s self.3

      The Beloved Apostle walks a tight line here. By the simple omission of the article (“the”, or in Greek, ho) before the word for God in the last phrase, John avoids teaching Sabellianism, while by placing the word where it is in the clause, he defeats another heresy, Arianism, which denies the true Deity of the Lord Jesus. A person who accepts the inspiration of the Scriptures can not help but be thrilled at this passage.

      John goes on in verse two to reiterate the eternal fellowship of the Father and Son, making sure that all understand that “this one,” the Word, was (there it is again) in the beginning pros ton theon, with God. Their fellowship and relationship precedes all else, and it is timeless.

      As icing on the cake, John then precludes anyone from misunderstanding his claim that Jesus is eternally God by writing verse 3. “All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” One can hardly be more inclusive than that. There is simply nothing that is existent anywhere that was not created by the Word. He created everything. Obviously, therefore, if one can be described as creating everything, one must be the Creator, and certainly not a creation. The Word is the Creator. All people reading John’s words would understand that the Creator is God, not some lower being created by God to do the work for Him. By not qualifying his statement, John assured that we could correctly understand his intention and his teaching concerning Christ, the Word. He is eternally God, the Creator.

      Section II
      En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.

      Almost all the controversy surrounding John 1:1 revolves around the fact that the theos of the last phrase kai theos en ho logos is anarthrous, i.e., it has no article. Some have gone so far as to assert that the correct translation, therefore, is “the Word was a god,” basing the argument on the lack of the definite article ho before theos. What does the lack of the article indicate? Is it necessary to what John is saying?

      I begin with the most quoted scholar on this subject, Dr. A. T. Robertson:

      And the Word was God (kai theos en ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1 John 4:16 ho theos agape estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of the Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.4

      As Robertson made reference to his voluminous Grammar in the above quotation, I will include it in its entirety:

      The word with the article is then the subject, whatever the order may be. So in John 1:1, theos an ho logos, the subject is perfectly clear. Cf. ho logos sarx egeneto (John 1:14). It is true that ho theos an ho logos (convertible terms) would have been Sabellianism. See also ho theos agape estin (1 John.4:16). “God” and “love” are not convertible terms any more than “God” and “Logos” or “Logos” and “flesh.” Cf. also hoi theristai angeloi eisin (Mt.13:39), ho logos ho sos alatheia estin (John 17:17), ho nomos hamartia; (Ro. 7;7). The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea.5

      Note that Robertson translates the phrase, “the Word was God.” His argument is summed up well in the following passage:

      A word should be said concerning the use and non-use of the article in John 1:1, where a narrow path is safely followed by the author. “The Word was God.” If both God and Word were articular, they would be coextensive and equally distributed and so interchangeable. But the separate personality of the Logos is affirmed by the construction used and Sabellianism is denied. If God were articular and Logos non-articular, the affirmation would be that God was Logos, but not that the Logos was God. As it is, John asserts that in the Pre-incarnate state the Logos was God, though the Father was greater than the Son (John 14:28). The Logos became flesh (John 1:14), and not the Father. But the Incarnate Logos was really “God only Begotten in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18 correct text)6 ”

      James R. White

      see the whole article linked to above.

      Like

    • Ken,
      I have already reviewed every chapter in the Forgotten Trinity.

      Like

    • Your video on Gregory of Nyssa and John of Damascus demonstrates you are skipping over all the earlier witnesses of the Deity of Christ and basically same thing as doctrine of the Trinity – Tertullian and Athanasius have basically same thing as Cappodocian fathers.

      Also, avoiding that phrase “by belief in the Word and the Spirit” shows you skipping the source as NT revelation for the second parts of their statements that imply source as paganism. Paganism is not the source of the doctrine of the Trinity; rather NT revelation itself in first century.

      Like

    • Ken,
      What Christian theologian in the centuries between the two quotes denies that their theology is a combination of Jewish and Greek teachings? You know they read it.

      Like

    • Belief in the Word (John 1:1-5; 14; I John 1:1-3; Revelation 19:13) and in the Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-14; Genesis 1:1-3; Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Acts 5:3-5) and the Didache (quoting Matthew 28:19); Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr; Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch; Tertullian; Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius, Hillary, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, – shows you are wrong.

      Like

    • Ken,
      You are not addressing the entire quotes or Wolfson’s studies conclusion:

      But evidently the opposition of orthodoxy to Arianism was not so much on the ground that it
      was a combination of Jewish monotheism and heathen polytheism as on the ground that the
      combination was not to its liking. In fact, its own conception of the Trinity was looked upon by
      the Fathers themselves as a combination of Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism, except
      that to them this combination was a good combination; in fact, it was to them an ideal
      combination of what is best in
      Jewish monotheism and of what is best in pagan polytheism, and consequently they gloried in it
      and pointed to it as evidence of the truth of their belief. We have on this the testimony of
      Gregory of Nyssa – one of the great figures in the history of the philosophic formulation of the
      doctrine of the Trinity – and his words are repeated by John of Damascusthe last of the Church
      Fathers.
      The Christian conception of God, argues Gregory of Nyssa, is neither the polytheism of the
      Greeks nor the monotheism of the Jews and consequently it must be true, for “the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is
      useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the
      belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity
      of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality.” 15 As restated by John of Damascus, this
      ideal combination in Christianity of what is best in Judaism and paganism reads as follows: “On
      the one hand, of the Jewish idea we have the unity of God’s nature, and, on the other, of the
      Greek, we have the distinction of hypostases, and that only.” 16 .

      Like

    • I don’t agree with Wolfson, because the earlier Christian centuries (NT itself and first 4 centuries) and earlier church writers and fathers (Clement of Rome, the Didache, Tertullian, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius, Ambrose, Hillary, Athanasius, Jerome, etc. and even Gregory of Nyssa himself, by the phrase, “because of belief in the Word and the Spirit”, totally destroys the argument that you and he are trying to make.

      Like

    • You just keep repeating the same thing; without the essence of the source of the Trinity, the NT teaching of the Word (the Son, the Deity of Christ) and the Spirit, which even Gregory of Nyssa admitted in the quote.

      Like

    • Ken,
      Where your explanation falls apart is the “of the Greek” in both quotes.

      When I brought that up you said you did not agree with them. Fact is they say that there is something EK the Jews and EK the Greeks. EK of source. So if you say EK of the Jews is source, it is also true of the Greek.

      Like

    • Ken,
      I have taken the quotes and categorized the elements into a table that you may find helpful in understanding what John of Damascus and Gregory of Nyssa say about the Origin of the Trinity including what they say about the Greek.

      https://wordpress.com/post/georgkaplin.wordpress.com/62

      Like

    • “and the Didache”

      https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/is-the-didache-apostolic/

      “gnatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr; Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch; Tertullian; Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius, Hillary, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, ”

      First, just as is the case with the writings of the NT, we don’t have the “originals” of any of the writings of the church fathers. They too were handed down in manuscript form as scribes copied them. And changed them in places.

      Like

    • Most scholars thing the Didache was late first century to early second century, from anywhere around 70 AD to 120 AD.

      No one has any originals of any thing from ancient history. Things have rotted by time and age/bugs/microbes/ persecution/burning, they wear out with age. It is wrong to apply Medieval and modern standards back onto the ancient era.

      Like

    • “Most scholars thing the Didache was late first century to early second century, from anywhere around 70 AD to 120 AD.”
      It’s like you didn’t even read the link I provided you with *sigh*: “The Didache cannot be taken as a reliable source for tradition received from Jesus’ disciples, because it was written (as is the opinion of the majority of scholars) in the second half of the second century, by an unknown author who had not, obviously, met the disciples”
      Johannes Betz attributed this point of view to the majority of scholars. (See Johannes Betz, “The Eucharist in the Didache,” in Jonathan A. Draper, ed. The Didache in Modern Research, Leiden: Brill, 1996, p.244) ↑

      “No one has any originals of any thing….It is wrong to apply Medieval and modern standards back onto the ancient era.”
      It’s interesting, you claim that the bible can be supported by Church Father quotations, but when I disprove them , you say, “well how can we preserve them” . Your using faulty texts to confirm faulty texts, and when your arguments are exposed, you make excuses. I don’t know what to say…….

      Like

    • That is just one scholar’s opinion. I have not seen the view that it was earlier (late first century to early second century) been over-turned.

      Even so, if the modern academy is controlled by the Ehrman types, then I don’t give much credibility to their conclusions and presuppositions.

      Like

    • “That is just one scholar’s opinion. I have not seen the view that it was earlier (late first century to early second century) been over-turned.

      Even so, if the modern academy is controlled by the Ehrman types, then I don’t give much credibility to their conclusions and presuppositions.”

      I guess all of what I copy and paste below , are all scholars who along with Ehrman are part of a HUGE LIBERAL CONSPIRACY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD MUWAHHAHHAHAH!

      ——
      https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/is-the-didache-apostolic/

      The Didache cannot be taken as a reliable source for tradition received from Jesus’ disciples, because it was written (as is the opinion of the majority of scholars) in the second half of the second century, by an unknown author who had not, obviously, met the disciples. [28]

      We cannot take the Didache as a proof for the existence of the canonical Gospels as we know them today, even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the Didache was written in the first century. This is because, due to the noticeable differences between the Didache text and our four Gospels, the opposite view should lead us to one of two options: either to believe that the text of the Gospels used by the Didachist was too different from the canonical version we know, or that the Didachist felt free to reshape Jesus’ sayings by mingling them with extra-canonical material and attributing its words to himself, not to Jesus.[29]

      Aaron Milavec, who is an authority in the Didache studies, insists after thorough and careful consideration that the Didache is totally independent of the Gospels in the internal logic, theological orientation, and pastoral practice that runs decisively counter to what one finds within the received Gospels. [30]

      28 Johannes Betz attributed this point of view to the majority of scholars. (See Johannes Betz, “The Eucharist in the Didache,” in Jonathan A. Draper, ed. The Didache in Modern Research, Leiden: Brill, 1996, p.244)

      29 See William. L. Petersen, “The Genesis of the Gospels,” p.53

      30 See Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003, p.xiii ↑

      Like

    • “No; Jesus is saying that the Scripture “calls” the unjust rulers “gods” mockingly”

      the scripture also tells moses to judge israelite who calls himself god.
      the pharisees sit on moses seat, so according to the law of moses, they were right to call jesus out for his blasphemy. there was no injustice here.

      when they said that jesus as a man was claiming to be god, how were they unjust ?


      ; but that He is indeed the Son of God, ie, God by nature/substance/essence, ”

      when they called out jesus for his blasphemy, how were they unjust?

      “truly, because the Father sanctified Him / set Him apart and sent Him and so “Son” means “same substance” and also has to be taken in light of the whole book of John – John 1:1-18; 5:16-17; 8:24; 8:56-58; 18:1-6; 19:6-7; 20:28 (My Lord and My God), etc.”

      so jesus brings out a part of the psalms which did not address the pharisees charge.

      Like

    • 34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law,[d] ‘I said, you are gods’?

      “If you go to the quotes in Psalm 82; Jesus is showing that God is mocking the proud dictators and judges of the earth who think they are “gods”, but will die like men, and don’t judge justly. Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees and calling them those unjust judges (if He calls them “Gods” to whom the word of God came – in Psalm 82, then how much more is He God who the Father sanctified and sent into the world?”

      there is no injustice for calling out a jew for his blasphemy according to the law yhwh gave to the jews.

      “how much more” ? the comparison he uses is FALSE gods? he is trying to prove he is yhwh by COMPARING himself to unjust rulers?

      pharisee : you blasphemed
      jesus : you are called FALSE gods
      pharisee : but we aren’t gods
      jesus : i am much more of a god than false gods, i am his son .

      so pharisee have more support that jesus did do blasphemy.

      Like

    • Thanks for the link brother Heathcliff….

      Like

    • I mean the link above

      Like

    • “how much more” ? the comparison he uses is FALSE gods? he is trying to prove he is yhwh by COMPARING himself to unjust rulers?

      the “how much more” is not comparing false gods vs. true God, rather that the Scripture wrote and said “I said you are gods” vs. Jesus saying “I am the Son of God” – that the Scripture (mockingly) called them that, is the point; “how much more” is when He truly is the one who is truly the Son that he Father has set apart and sent, when He calls Himself “the Son of God”, then Jesus is saying His calling Himself is true, because it is true by reality and substance; whereas the Scripture calls them mockingly “gods” – the fact that it was written.

      Like

    • shaad, it seems that bro jangles is agreeing with kaplin when he says , thats why i linked to the article for you to see . ken is simply changing the meaning of the verse.

      quote :

      It’s basically a reference to people given divine authority by God. There are a few places in the Hebrew Bible where the word elohim is used to refer to earthly authorities (Ex. 22:8.9, 1 Sam. 2:25). It’s usually translated as “judges,” but the Hebrew actually says elohim – “gods.”

      quote :

      I was trying to explain that he word “God” is often used in a figurative manner to imply something that has divine authority (I’d recommend Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God for an excellent treatment about the rhetorical range of the designation “God” in the Old Testament). I think John is presenting Jesus the person as a conduit for the Logos, not the Logos itself. Jesus is basically “channeling” God’s word. John is saying that this not unprecedented when he has Jesus quote the Psalm (this is more theoretical, but Steven L. Davies’ Spirit Possession and the Origin of Christianity gets at it).

      Even in Mark, Jesus is essentially possessed by the Holy Spirit and does his miracles under this power. I think this basic understanding explains a lot of John. If Jesus was perceived or presented himself as a man possessed by the Holy Spirit (or Logos) speaking through him, then he would be speaking as “God” in the sense, that his words were from God, but without himself necessarily being literally God. (This is the hypothesis, not the argument. The argument is long, but a scholarly argument can be made). This is also the kind of distinction that could easily become ambiguous to the point of disappearing over time. Much easier just to divinize the whole person.

      That’s not to say this hypothesis has to be correct, but it attempts to make sense of all of John’s Jesus sayings, not the just the ones that support the preconceived Christological assumptions of the reader. You also have to deal with all the verses where Jesus is saying he and the father are different entities. You can’t just ignore that.

      Like

    • quote :
      the “how much more” is not comparing false gods vs. true God, rather that the Scripture wrote and said “I said you are gods” vs. Jesus saying “I am the Son of God” – that the Scripture (mockingly) called them that, is the point; “how much more” is when He truly is the one who is truly the Son that he Father has set apart and sent, when He calls Himself “the Son of God”, then Jesus is saying His calling Himself is true, because it is true by reality and substance; whereas the Scripture calls them mockingly “gods” – the fact that it was written.

      no, jesus said scripture says that “ye are gods” then he says “if ye are gods, then what is wrong when i say i am his son ?

      you are saying, ” scripture says you are unjust gods therefore i am almighty god.”

      Like

    • No, Jesus says “the Scripture says I said you are gods” (Is it not written in your law? . . . etc.) and if Scripture says that, even if mockingly, then how much more is it true that I am the Son of God since in reality I am and the Father set Me apart (for redemption purposes, incarnation and atonement), and sent Me into the World.

      Like

    • i don’t really see how exactly it should necessarily refer to a mockery, i found Trinitarian studies on this subject who goes along with the flow when it comes to the Mainstream interpretation…infact they make more sense…

      Like

    • Psalm 82 is mocking the unjust judges as “gods” because they are arrogant, unjust and will die like men – Verses 2-7 are clearly rebuking them for their unjust, dictatorial, arrogant behavior. So “I said” you are gods” is mockingly calling them “gods” because political dictators think that within themselves. and “you will die like men” shows they are not really gods. the last verse “nations” and first verse “council of the gods” – shows the Psalmist is talking about all leaders, rulers, political leaders who are unjust and arrogant.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks for replying Ken, i’ll respond to you tomorrow, going to sleep…hope you have an Amazing Fantastic day by the way!

      Liked by 1 person

    • @Heathcliff, yeah thanks Akhi i saw it…

      Like

    • shaad, what is “scriptures” INSTRUCTION on a FELLOW israelite who MAKES himself into YHWH ?
      DID the pharisees SAY anything unjust ?

      i have asked for explanation on “ye are gods”

      what does it mean “ye are gods”

      See Ps 82.6. This is Jesus’ answer to the charge that he is making himself God (v. 33): it is God who has consecrated him as God’s son. This is consistent with the biblical and Second Temple idea that certain people such as Jeremiah (Jer 1.5), the priests (2 Chr 26.18) or Moses (Sir 45.4) are chosen to do God’s work.

      Liked by 1 person

    • @Heathcliff, yeah if i apply a Trinitarian interpretation to it, then i don’t think what they said would be unjust, infact they would be right that Jesus made himself “God”…so i don’t see any reason for Jesus to point out their so called “wrong Judgment” because what he said is indeed blasphemy…if i think like a Trinitarian of course…

      Like

    • @Ken,

      You said: “Psalm 82 is mocking the unjust judges as “gods” because they are arrogant, unjust and will die like men – Verses 2-7 are clearly rebuking them for their unjust, dictatorial, arrogant behavior.”

      Once again, nothing suggests that they are necessarily being mocked, just like Georg pointed out “They represent God. God calls them gods because of who they represent not because of how well they do it”.

      You said: “So “I said” you are gods” is mockingly calling them “gods” because political dictators think that within themselves. and “you will die like men” shows they are not really gods.”

      Still that’s just your own interpretation Ken, i can also do the same to prove my point but i’ll do something even better…i’ll back my argument with commentaries, i’ll simply quote the relevant parts to keep it short and easier….as far as i can see, God is simply reminding them that they will face consequences for the evils they’ve done when they die…

      Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:

      “I is emphatic. It is by God’s appointment that they have been invested with divine authority to execute judgement in His name. Cp. the language used of the king, Psalm 2:7; Psalm 89:27…..”

      “…..Nevertheless. Though they bear this high title, it will not exempt them from punishment. They shall die like common men, and fall like any other princes whose ruin is recorded in history”

      Matthew Poole’s English Annotations on the Holy Bible:

      “But ye shall die: but let not this make you insolent and secure; for though you are gods by name and office, yet still you are mortal men, you must die and give up your account to me your superior Lord and Governor; and you shall die and fall by the hands of my justice, if you persist in your unjust and ungodly courses.”

      Whedon’s commentary on the Bible:

      “7. Ye shall die like men—Your high office and titles will give you no immunity, from the common fate of mortal men. You “shall die” like those poor whose cause you have despised, (see Psalms 49:11-14,) and like all other princes of the earth. The form of speech is similar to Judges 16:7; Judges 16:11; Judges 16:17, “Then shall I be weak, and be as another man.”

      See? that’s just a reminder…as far as i can see of course….

      You said: “the last verse “nations” and first verse “council of the gods” – shows the Psalmist is talking about all leaders, rulers, political leaders who are unjust and arrogant.”

      before quoting a commentary on Psalm 8:28, i would like to point out what Jesus said in John 10:35…

      John 10:35 New International Version (NIV)

      35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—

      look carefully, Jesus says that the “Word of God” came to those “gods”, which points out they were appointed and commissioned to act as God’s agents (according to your commentaries)…and from whom were God’s agents? From his chosen people of course….and who were his chosen people? i’m sure you know who they were…

      Anyway i’ll back my point on Psalm 8:28 with a commentary…

      The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:

      “8. The Psalmist has watched the trial and condemnation of Israel’s judges; and the sight stirs him to appeal to God Himself to assume the office of Judge not only for Israel but for all the world. If Israel’s judges have failed so lamentably in their duty towards their own countrymen, how can Israel rule the world, though all the nations have been promised to its kings for their inheritance (Psalm 2:8)? Nay, God Himself—Thou is emphatic—must take possession of all the nations as their Sovereign and their Judge”

      Like

    • No, it just means the word of came to that ancient Israelites at that time, including the unjust rulers/leaders. Jesus says “how much more” it is true of Him who is really the Son of God, than the unjust arrogant rulers who think they are “gods” but are not.

      Like

    • Hello Ken,

      <>

      So what is the Word of God according to you then? The most logical one i saw in the commentaries was the “word” being a “command” or “commission”….i didn’t make that up by the way, see for yourself…….please……

      https://www.studylight.org/commentary/john/10-35.html

      Were there other nations who were believers except the Israelites at that time? A nation where there were Judges to represent God?

      Even if your interpretation of verse 8 is a possible one (which i don’t think it is for now), then i’ve already shown you a different way that verse can be logically interpreted in the last commentary so your interpretation isn’t the only “plausible” one….in simple words, i’ve already thought about that scenario…

      <>

      You’re simply repeating the same stuff my dear Ken…Okay let’s both look at what Jesus says then,

      “35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;”

      “36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”

      I see nothing in what Jesus said that properly back up your point Ken…Jesus could also meant that if those Judges

      Like

    • My Apologies Ken, i accidentally clicked on reply…so i’ll continue where i left…

      (Continued)

      ….Jesus could also mean that if those Judges are rightfully known as “gods”, so can He as He was the Messiah, the Son of God…the NWT is correct by rendering 10:30 as “a god”…

      Like

    • @Ken…i quoted parts of your response in my reply but i wonder why don’t appear…you can easily guess about what part of your response i’m talking about anyway…☺

      Like

    • John 10:34-35 “word of God” means “written Scripture” – Is it not written in your law? and “the Scripture cannot be broken”. Law sometimes referred to all the TaNakh (all the OT), not just the first 5 books.

      Like

    • also, they want to stone Jesus for blasphemy and also because He is implying that they as the leaders of Israel at that time, are like the arrogant and unjust rulers of Psalm 82, who think they are “gods” but are not.

      Like

    • Good Evening Ken,

      You said: “John 10:34-35 “word of God” means “written Scripture” – Is it not written in your law? and “the Scripture cannot be broken”. Law sometimes referred to all the TaNakh (all the OT), not just the first 5 books.”

      Thanks Ken, but weren’t the Israelites the only ones who recieved the Scriptures?

      My interpretation still stands in whatever circumstances anyway…

      You said: “also, they want to stone Jesus for blasphemy”

      Couldn’t agree more…indeed claiming to be the Messiah was certainly considered a blasphemy and we already discussed about this a few days ago methinks…

      John 10:36
      “….. Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”

      Mark 14:61-64

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

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

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

      You said: “and also because He is implying that they as the leaders of Israel at that time, are like the arrogant and unjust rulers of Psalm 82, who think they are “gods” but are not.”

      You’re simply repeating yourself on that one Ken, my previous response (and the others) still stands when it comes to that one as well….

      Like

    • @Ken, P.S i never argued that they were literally “Gods” like Yahweh Ken

      Like

    • Forgot to add that “Son of God” doesn’t denote any ontological implications….my apologies for not pointing this out… 🙂

      Like

  19. January 27, 2007 / James White

    Qur’an 101: the Uthmanic Revision
    Sometimes just having a small number of specific vocabularly terms mastered will help you feel more at home in a conversation or discussion. This is especially the case when it comes to Islam. For regular readers of this blog, you have undoubtedly heard me make reference to the “Uthmanic Revision.” It is best to give you the direct statement from “official” Muslim sources. Here is the relevant material from the Hadith literature as recorded in Sahih Al-Bukhari, 6.507, 509-510:

    (The Caliph ‘Uthman ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Said bin Al-As, ‘Abdullah bin Az-Zubair and ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham to write the Qur’an in the form of a book (Mushafs) and said to them, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit (Al-Ansari) regarding any dialectic Arabic utterance of the Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, for the Qur’an was revealed in this dialect.” So they did it.
    Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet’s Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), “Umar has come to me and said: ‘Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the Qur’an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur’an be collected.” I said to ‘Umar, “How can you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?” ‘Umar said, “By Allah, that is a good project.” ‘Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which ‘Umar had realized.” Then Abu Bakr said (to me). ‘You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur’an and collect it in one book).” By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur’an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, “How will you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?” Abu Bakr replied, “By Allah, it is a good project.” Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. So I started looking for the Qur’an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is:
    “Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty…(till the end of Surat-Baraa’ (At-Tauba). (9.128-129) Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur’an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with ‘Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of ‘Umar.
    Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to ‘Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an) as Jews and the Christians did before.” So ‘Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, “Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.” Hafsa sent it to ‘Uthman. ‘Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, ‘Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. ‘Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.” They did so, and when they had
    written many copies, ‘Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. ‘Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, “A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): ‘Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.’ ” (33.23)

    Here we have the traditional Islamic statement of the Uthmanic Revision, that point in time where Uthman, prompted, according to this form of the tradition, by others, and by the death of a number of the Qurra (those who knew the Quran by heart), gathered up the Qur’an from various sources and compiled an “authoritative” version. Note that part of the concern was so that the Muslims would not argue over the text of the Qur’an “as Jews and the Christians did before.” This is vitally important (I have often made reference to the same concept in KJV Onlyism: exchanging truth for certainty, an issue I will address in the upcoming series on textual criticism). But note especially the destruction by fire of “all other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies.” Given the reference to differing recitations based, clearly, upon different readings in the collections that had already come into existence, we have here evidence of textual variation in the pre-Uthmanic Qur’anic manuscripts. Uthman’s action, then, destroys the very means that could have been used to arrive at a far clearer picture of the original compilation and reading of the Qur’an.
    However, in 1972, fragments of what may well be a pre-Uthmanic compilation of the Qur’an were found in Sana’a, Yemen. The picture above comes from the same manuscript find, specifically, from what is today Surah 5, with part of ayah 60, 61, and part of 62.
    So when you hear someone speaking of the “Uthmanic Revision,” this is what they are referring to. Of course, there is much discussion concerning just how accurate this tradition itself is, and what truly prompted Uthman’s actions, etc. But even from the most conservative Islamic perspective, there is clear evidence of pre-Uthmanic textual variation in the text of the Qur’an.

    Like

    • Before you bring up Uthman(RA), and your claim that we don’t have any manuscripts….I submit for your perusal:

      The BIRMINGHAM manuscript:

      Dated between: 568 and 645 (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33436021)

      Uthman burned his books in the year 653 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran)

      THERE YOU GO, A MANUSCRIPT THAT SURVIVED THE BURNING……

      ——————-

      Moreover, I don’t see why bringing up burning would help your case as a Christian, after all your scripture was burned as well. Albeit, because of persecution, but the end result is the same. If your argument is knowledge was lost because scripture was being burned, then the same argument can be brought forth to you as well.

      Liked by 2 people

    • the difference is your Hadith says “ALL” other Qur’anic material was burnt, and by order of Uthman, government controlled, etc.

      When the Romans burnt SOME manuscripts, they did not burn all.

      And we have older manuscripts.

      Like

    • Ken, the point is that manuscripts have survived the burning of Uthman, and we have a document which has been confirmed through scientific methods.

      Like

    • I don’t have time to read the whole thing or research that fully right now.
      So, what is the size and amount of text of the Birmingham manuscript from the Qur’an ?
      It is a fragment or piece? how many verses does it have?
      Are they the same as standard Qur’anic text?
      Even so, all it shows is that that section (or however much, if it all agrees with standard Qur’an) was preserved.
      It does not prove Qur’an is revelation. The fact that it comes 600 years later, and contradicts previous revelation, yet claims to be in the line of the previous revelation; and yet THINKS it knows the NT (Injeel), yet clearly has not much clue (beyond oral tradition of calling it “Gospel” and that Jesus is Al Masih, did miracles, taught gospel, was virgin born (gotten by hearing it orally / audibly from both nominal groups on caravan routes to Syria and heretical groups in N. Arabia and others in Yemen, Ethiopia, etc. ) – all of that; along with historical mistakes and other contradictions shows it is not inspired from God. Just a human book of one man’s claim for revelation.

      Like

    • How could Birmingham be from 568 Ad when Muhammad was BORN in 570 AD ?

      His supposed revelation did not even start until around 610-613.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “These tests provide a range of dates, showing that, with a probability of more than 95%, the parchment was from between 568 and 645.

      “They could well take us back to within a few years of the actual founding of Islam,” said David Thomas, the university’s professor of Christianity and Islam.

      “According to Muslim tradition, the Prophet Muhammad received the revelations that form the Koran, the scripture of Islam, between the years 610 and 632, the year of his death.””

      Prof Thomas says the dating of the Birmingham folios would mean it was quite possible that the person who had written them would have been alive at the time of the Prophet Muhammad.

      “The person who actually wrote it could well have known the Prophet Muhammad. He would have seen him probably, he would maybe have heard him preach. He may have known him personally – and that really is quite a thought to conjure with,” he says.

      http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33436021

      In any case, this particular manuscript, was written BEFORE the burning done by Uthman, and so has SURVIVED the burning. And there are no variant meanings or differences compared to the Qur’an we have today.

      Do you have ANYTHING similar in your religious tradition?

      Like

    • you are still comparing apples and oranges of ancient evidence vs. Medieval evidence, power of state/sword to protect, etc.

      Like

    • “you are still comparing apples and oranges of ancient evidence vs. Medieval evidence, power of state/sword to protect, etc.

      Through whatever means, and events that have occurred (by the WILL of God) ; which did HE preserve the Qur’an or what you consider to be the Bible? Who can make that claim?

      Moreover, for centuries Christians did not have access to the Bible; whether it be because there is no oral tradition, or because of low literacy rates or just plainly they were not allowed to read their Bible.

      Which scripture can make the claim that it is for ALL of MANKIND, the Qur’an or the Bible?

      Like

    • The Bible is for all of mankind, as Revelation 5:9 (from every nation, tribe, language, and people there are people who have been redeemed by the blood of the lamb) and 7:9 (from all nations, languages, tribes, peoples, clothed in white robes and worshiping God)
      and John 3:16 (God so loved the world that He gave His only unique Son . . . ”
      and Colossians 3:10-11 (Jews and Gentiles, etc.) and Galatians 3:28 (Jews, Gentiles, men, women, all classes, etc.) teach.

      The Bible was always being translated into other languages from the beginning, in order to spread the message –
      unfortunately it got stuck in Latin for western Europe for a while as the main language – but the Reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Tyndale, Knox, etc.) freed Christendom from the bondage of the Roman Catholic Church, and restored the proper Biblical doctrines, theology and zeal for translation.

      Like

    • “Just when I thought I was out…they pull me back in.” -Godfather III

      https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/why-christians-were-denied-access-to-their-bible-for-1000-years_b_3303545.html

      “Wouldn’t you assume that the newly established Church would want its devotees to immerse themselves in the sanctioned New Testament, especially since the Church went to great lengths to eliminate competing Gospels? And wouldn’t the best way of spreading the “good news” be to ensure that every Christian had direct access to the Bible?

      That’s not what happened. The Church actually discouraged the populace from reading the Bible on their own — a policy that intensified through the Middle Ages and later, with the addition of a prohibition forbidding translation of the Bible into native languages.”

      Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”

      Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned…”

      Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “…helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.” For this “heresy” Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council’s decree “Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River.”

      Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.

      ———————–
      https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2018/01/10/catholics-not-allowed-to-read-the-bible-all-the-way-up-to-the-1970s/

      We’ve interviewed dozens of older Catholics, and ex Catholics, including those who now go to Evangelical Churches, to try to gain an understanding of the charge that Catholics weren’t allowed to read their Bibles in the 1930’s – 1970’s.

      It is true that earlier in this century, in some Catholic circles, people were not encouraged to read their Bibles. This discouragement was a mistake. The Church does not claim that these types of mistakes have not been made.
      ….

      Liked by 4 people

    • That’s all Roman Catholic policies and they were wrong.
      That was not the practice in the early centuries nor after the Reformation freed European culture from the bondage of Roman Catholicism.

      Like

    • Protestantism started much later in 1517, which means for 1500 years, you guys weren’t reading your Book. We were reciting, memorising, reading our book since Day 1.

      Liked by 3 people

    • No, the Bible was translated for centuries before Roman Catholicism made Latin the official Bible version. Many other languages in the first 5-6 centuries translated – Armenian, Coptic, Georgian, Ethiopian, Latin, Syriac, etc. Greek was in the East.

      But even then, sometimes the Roman Catholic Church did translate into other languages; it was just not done well and not widely distributed.

      Like

    • “No, the Bible was translated for centuries before Roman Catholicism made Latin the official Bible version. Many other languages in the first 5-6 centuries translated – Armenian, Coptic, Georgian, Ethiopian, Latin, Syriac, etc. Greek was in the East.”

      Out of curiosity, could you name these Bibles?

      And second question, were they literate enough to read? Literacy during the time of Jesus was 3%, and that WAS AMONG THE JEWS.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Also, Ulfilas translated Bible into Gothic in 4th century.

      Like

    • Was the common Goth literate enough to read the Bible, and if they did were they allowed to?

      Like

    • “The Bible is for all of mankind,….
      The Bible was always being translated into other languages from the beginning, in order to spread the message –”

      “No, the Bible was translated for centuries before Roman Catholicism made Latin the official Bible version. Many other languages in the first 5-6 centuries translated – Armenian, Coptic, Georgian, Ethiopian, Latin, Syriac, etc. Greek was in the East.”

      ———————-

      Alright ,Ken let me understand your argument. Your saying the Bible was translated from the very beginning into other languages. And you mention various languages, Ok. NOW, for your argument to hold any water, you would have surviving manuscripts of those texts, and Bibles being produced from those texts .

      Let me reiterate, do you have any modern Bibles that ARE NOT BASED off of the Greek? If your claim is that it was for all mankind from the very beginning then we should have many modern translations of the Bible based off of those languages you have mentioned.

      But we don’t, so the argument stands, since the Catholic’s had control of the Bible, and you(Protestants) have to rely on them for the Bible, then you would have no choice but to agree that for the majority of Christian history, Christians were not allowed to read their text.

      https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/why-christians-were-denied-access-to-their-bible-for-1000-years_b_3303545.html

      Like

    • If you know anything about Greek textual critical issues, you can see the textual apparatus at the bottom foot notes and they include references to other languages that were translated – such as the Armenian, Syriac, Gothic, Coptic, Ethiopian, Georgian, Coptic, etc.

      Like

    • “If you know anything about Greek textual critical issues, you can see the textual apparatus at the bottom foot notes and they include references to other languages that were translated – such as the Armenian, Syriac, Gothic, Coptic, Ethiopian, Georgian, Coptic, etc

      Perhaps you have misunderstood the point I am making. Please tell me where I can find an equivalent of a COMPLETE bible in the aforementioned centuries, 1st to 3rd. I want a whole new textual tradition, showing that the Bible was in fact maintained in other languages . If you can’t show that, then you have no choice but to concede the point, that the Bible was not available in all languages and was only maintained in the greek textual tradition. And therefore, not available to all of mankind.

      Like

    • You are demanding a complete Bible manuscript from all these ancient languages?
      It is an amazing demand.
      The fragments of Greek that we have found that are older have all agreed with what we have in later centuries; and the other cultures who became Christian have their traditions also.
      Irenaeus speaks of the oral tradition of the rule of faith that barbarian tribes learned.
      The rule of faith was a summary doctrinal statement that is in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, etc. – they agree with the basic “Apostle’s Creed” and “Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed”.

      Of course the Greek is the best, because that is what the originals were written in. The other languages confirm it.

      The only difference is in the small amount of textual variants and that don’t affect doctrine. Dr. White’s “The King James Only Controversy” is a good source on that issue.

      Also, the Latin translation of dikaow / δικαιοω (count righteous, justify) and metanoew / μετανοεω (repent)

      were wrong. “do penance” in Latin and “make righteous” in Latin.

      The clouded the issues for centuries in theology of salvation; but the truth existed in the original Greek, which thankfully, the Reformers recovered.

      Like

    • I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on whether the Bible was free or controlled by the Church , I have nothing more to add to that topic.

      I do want to address an important, I find when you mention textual variants you leave out 1 John 5:7 , and you just mentioned that “The only difference is in the small amount of textual variants and that don’t affect doctrine. “, this statement is incorrect:

      https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2017/06/25/do-any-of-the-textual-variants-affect-christian-doctrine/

      Taken from Bart Ehrman’s “Jesus Interrupted”:

      In response to the assertion, made by conservative evangelicals, that not a single important Christian doctrine is affected by any textual variant, I point out:

      a. It simply isn’t true that important doctrines are not involved. As a key example: the only place in the entire New Testament where the doctrine of the Trinity is explicitly taught is in a passage that made it into the King James translation (1 John 5:7–8) but is not found in the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. I would suggest that the Trinity is a rather important Christian doctrine. A typical response to this rebuttal is that the doctrine of the Trinity can be found in Scripture without appealing to 1 John 5:7–8. My reply is that this is true of every single Christian doctrine. In my experience, theologians do not hold to a doctrine because it is found in just one verse; you can take away just about any verse and still find just about any Christian doctrine somewhere else if you look hard enough.

      Like

    • Ignatius (107-110 AD) Irenaeus (180), Tertullian(190-220) , Origen (250) Athanasius (300-373) , etc. defended the Deity of Christ and the Trinity without 1 John 5:7, so your point is moot.

      Like

    • “Ignatius (107-110 AD) Irenaeus (180), Tertullian(190-220) , Origen (250) Athanasius (300-373) , etc. defended the Deity of Christ and the Trinity without 1 John 5:7, so your point is moot.”

      Ok, before I get into the Church Fathers and their quotations, you agree there is no explicit verse teaching the Trinity either in the OT or on the lips of Jesus?

      Like

    • Entire books are written defending the Doctrine of the Trinity without 1 John 5:7, so you don’t have any point at all.

      Like

    • So you agree there is no explicit mention of the trinity either in the OT or on the lips of Jesus?

      Like

    • Before we get into books, you do agree that there is no explicit mention of the Trinity in the OT or on the lips of Jesus?

      Like

    • Does not have to be explicit, since it is a theological truth derived from proper exegesis of many passages that teach 1. God is one, 2. the three persons, (like Matthew 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14, etc. 2. Deity of Christ, 3. Deity of the Holy Spirit 4. Each person is equal in substance, Yahweh, but different in role and personal relations with each other (talk to one another, etc. – spiritual)

      Like

    • Btw, Ken please respond to my questions regarding :
      (1) About Kyrios being used for others than Jesus and God
      (2) Did Abraham know the name Yahweh vs. Exodus 6:3
      (3) What is the greek word for worship, and was Jesus the only one who was worshipped?
      —————

      As for your comment, before we get into so-called verses of divnity, i think we should both agree there is no triune doctrine being taught explicitly. Would you agree with that statement, that Jesus didn’t teach a trinity explicitly ?

      Like

    • see list of entire books at the end of this article; no one (except goofy KJV-Onlyists ) uses 1 John 5:7.

      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/the-doctrine-of-the-trinity-trinitas-unitas-unitas-trinitas/

      Like

    • F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) was a biblical scholar who taught Greek at the University of Edinburgh and the University of Leeds, chaired the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield, received an honorary Doctor of Divinity from Aberdeen University, and served as the Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester. He wrote over 40 books and served as Editor of The Evangelical Quarterly and Palestine Exploration Quarterly. Bruce declared: “The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the N.T. affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice” (1975, pp. 19-20, emp. added). He also stated:

      In view of the inevitable accumulation of such errors over so many centuries, it may be thought that the original texts of the New Testament documents have been corrupted beyond restoration. Some writers, indeed, insist on the likelihood of this to such a degree that one sometimes suspects they would be glad if it were so. But they are mistaken. There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament (1963, p. 178, emp. added).

      Bruce further insisted:

      Something more ought to be said, and said with emphasis. We have been discussing various textual types, and reviewing their comparative claims to be regarded as best representatives of the original New Testament. But there are not wide divergencies between these types, of a kind that could make any difference to the Church’s responsibility to be a witness and guardian of Holy Writ…. If the variant readings are so numerous, it is because the witnesses are so numerous. But all the witnesses, and all the types which they represent, agree on every article of Christian belief and practice (1963, p. 189, emp. added).

      Like

    • Without 1 John 5:7 you get no trinity, as Bart Ehrman has already mentioned from the aforementioned quote. As for it being attested, as I have already mentioned the majority of these texts come from after the 8th century, the earliest ones matter, which you don’t have, just scroll up to the graph, scroll up to the research, no reason to repeat myself, friend.

      Like

    • no true; Athanasius defended the Trinity without 1 John 5:7, as did Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, and earlier Tertullian in 200 AD.

      Like

    • I’m not talking about your heretical church father believed, I am asking you a very simple question, is there any explicit mention of the trinity, without resorting to 1 john 5:7, the answer is no. You don’t Jesus never taught a triune doctrine.

      Like

    • We know how the original New Testament books read because we have three surviving classes of evidence by which to reconstruct the original New Testament: Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and patristic citations. The current number of Greek manuscript copies containing all or part of the New Testament now stands at 5,795. This amount of manuscript evidence for the text of the New Testament is far greater than that available for any ancient classical author. The time between the writing of the original books of the New Testament and the earliest surviving copies is relatively brief. Although no two manuscript copies agree in every detail, the degree of accuracy achieved by most scribes was remarkably high. The vast majority of textual variants involve minor matters that do not alter any basic teaching of the New Testament. No feature of Christian doctrine is at stake. Suitable solutions to these differences are detectable. Even if they weren’t, manuscript evidence is so prolific that the original reading is one of the extant options. Even those variants that some might deem “doctrinally significant” (e.g., Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11) pertain to matters that are treated elsewhere in the Bible where the question of genuineness/certainty is unquestioned. We can confidently affirm that we have 999/1000ths of the original Greek New Testament intact. The remaining 1/1000th pertains to inconsequential details.

      Additionally, a wealth of ancient versions provides further verification of the purity of the biblical text, including Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Old Slavonic, and others. Textual critics through history have steadfastly affirmed the value of these ancient versions in reconstructing the New Testament text. For example, Vaganay observed: “After the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the versions constitute the most valuable source for writing the history of this text” (1934, p. 28; cf. Vogels, 1923, p. 84—“The versions are very valuable for establishing the original text of the Bible.”). Though noting the limitations, the Alands admitted: “[T]he importance of the versions is substantial” (1987, p. 182).

      The same may be said for the wealth of textual materials available via the so-called “Church Fathers,” i.e., early Christian writers who quoted, paraphrased, and otherwise alluded to passages from Scripture in their letters, commentaries, and correspondence. This latter source of information is so prolific that Metzger affirmed: “Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament” (1968, p. 86).

      Like

    • The fact is you don’t have a complete Bible till the 4th century, and the majority of your manuscripts come in the middle ages AFTER the revelation of the Qur’an. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on whether your manuscript tradition can attest to the originality of your Bible.

      As for the Church Father quotations, let me start off with the following:

      https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2017/05/18/value-of-the-apostolic-fathers-quotations/

      Frederic George Kenyon: “Quotations from the New Testament are found in the earliest writers of the sub-apostolic age, but they are so scanty as to be of little service for our present purpose.”[14]

      A. T. Robertson: “Little help is gained from the Greek Apostolic Fathers for the text.”[15]

      Bruce Metzger: “The Apostolic Fathers seldom make express citations from New Testament writings.”[16]

      Marvin R. Vincent: “The Apostolic Fathers are of little value for patristic quotation, since they do not so much quote as blend the language of the New Testament with their own.”[17]

      William L. Petersen: “It is clear that the vast majority of passages in the Apostolic Fathers for which one can find likely parallels in the New Testament have deviations from our present, critically reconstructed New Testament text. It must be emphasized that the vast majority of these deviations are not minor (e.g., differences in spelling or verb tense), but major (a completely new context, a substantial interpolation or omission, a conflation of two entirely separate ideas and/or passages).” [18]

      Caspar René Gregory professes, despite his apologetic tone, that “the very earliest of the Christian writers did not make a point of quoting the New Testament with any precision.”[19]

      ——————————————–

      Frederic George Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p.209 ↑

      A. T. Robertson, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1925, p.134 ↑

      Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, Its Origin, Development, and Significance, p.40 ↑

      See Marvin R. Vincent, A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, New York: Macmillan Company, 1899, p.38 ↑

      William L. Petersen, “Textual Traditions Examined: What the Text of the Apostolic Fathers tells us about the Text of the New Testament in the Second Century,” in Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett, eds. The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, New York: Oxford University Press, 2005, p.33 ↑
      Caspar René Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament, New York: Charles Scribner, 1907, p.425 ↑

      Like

    • It appears you don’t know the difference between “apostolic fathers” vs. “apostolic writings” and “apostolic fathers” vs. “church fathers” vs. “early church fathers” – all of them are different groups. The quotes are mis-leading the way you are using them.

      Like

    • Perhaps we have understood these terms differently, please clarify these terms for the benefit of myself and others

      Like

    • Interesting web site, Sami. Thanks for sharing. Good to finally know your name.
      What does it mean “New Age” Muslim scholar? does that mean you use “New Age” principles of using Hinduism with scientific terms?
      or just a new / modern / recent scholar for the contemporary age (today’s world and culture)

      “Dr. Sami Ameri
      A New Age Muslim scholar, is interested in building bridges between intellectuals in the West and Islam. “

      Like

    • that isn’t my name, but i do take stuff from him,

      Like

    • oh; I thought that was you. ok.

      Like

    • Yes, I cut and pasted from this article, because on this issue, other Protestant’s agree; and they are compiling truths from Evangelical Protestant scholars.
      (they seem to be a conservative group of “Churches of Christ”; I have looked at this site many times over the years.
      On the issue of the text of the Bible; they have compiled very good material)
      I use them for convenience and time constraints; since I have F.F. Bruce’s books they quote, but don’t want to take time to type it all out.
      http://www.apologeticspress.org/HTHPubPage.aspx?cid=5196

      Like

    • Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

      Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”

      See here:
      http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

      Like

    • Any argument against Qur’an regarding its preservation by christens, it leads necessarily to accuse the Bible because the latter doesn’t have the 1/1000 of what we say about Qur’an regarding the preservation.

      Like

    • No, the fact that Islam had the power of the state and blasphemy laws to control what it determined was the text (done by man, and enforced by the sword), and Uthman burning all the older materials – great difference.

      Whereas the Bible was free under persecution and no one was controlling it by the state government. (human methods, rather than God’s power and sovereignty.)

      Like

    • What are you saying , Ken? 🙂
      Please don’t tell me that you’re with the vapid argument of James because no one does take it seriously.
      “the free transmission is the best way to preserve an ancient text” 😂…oh dear!

      Why do you think that James & David keep saying that the Qur’an preserves the message of the prophet pbuh? Because they know if they said the opposite, then that would be necessarily an accusation against their bible.

      Imagine if muslims accused christians like this:
      “Christians have the only book which was given by Jesus’ disciples. And that book has been distributed in an empire governed only by Jesus’ disciples”
      Wouldn’t that be the best “accusation” you ever get?

      Imagine if muslims were so proud that they have books who had no clue who wrote them and had no clue how they ended up to be considered as scriptures.

      Like

    • By historiographical standards, the freedom and honesty speaks volumes vs. the state control and force and burning older materials. What Uthman did looks like trying to hide and cover up and desire for certainty and comfort over truth and historical reality.

      Historians are rightly skeptical of governments who do that kind of force and dictator / tyrant/ Al Jabbar type of activity in order to cover up what really happened.

      skeptics and atheists and all the liberal scholars that Paul Williams constantly quotes think that way about the Qur’an and the government control and force it did. But they are afraid for their lives to criticize, as Bart Ehrman admitted.

      honesty as to textual variants, openness, freedom, historical reality is on our side. On your side is force and government control and dictators/tyrants/Jabbar’s جبار

      Like

    • Hahahahaha😂😂
      I have told you before! Confronting Islam is a suicide mission. You have to throw your brains away to speak against Islam.
      I like the fact that you and James don’t like if your books had been delivered safely by Jesus’ disciples. That would’ve been very bad for you seemingly! I mean how would’ve you get the personal letters of Paul as scripture then?😂

      “to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
      And the leaders of the church had nothing to add to what I was preaching. (By the way, their reputation as great leaders made no difference to me, for God has no favorites.”

      When Abdullah ibn Saba’ aand his followers wanted to do that inside of Islam. The lion of Islam, Ali ibn Abi Talib, burned them!

      Like

    • You misquoted Galatians 2:5-6 by leaving out verse 4 –

      “to them we did not yield in submission” (verse 5) refers to the false teachers of verse 4, not to the other apostles.

      Let’s see what the context is. (like Ijaz jumping too quickly out of immediate context)

      But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.
      6 But [new subject ] from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.
      7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised
      8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Peter and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
      Galatians 2:4-9

      Proves the total unity between the gospel that Paul preached and the gospel that Peter, James, and John preached.

      Boom!!

      Like

    • It is not a matter of not liking it if the books had been delivered safely by Jesus’ disciples. Anyway, the Holy Spirit inspired them and Paul and some friends and secretaries (amanuensis) of the apostles to write them – Mark wrote for Peter; Silvanus for Peter in 1 Peter; Jude for Peter in 2 Peter (or another anamuensis, dictated by Peter from prison, before his execution), Luke writing for Paul, etc.

      It is not a matter of not liking; rather it is a matter of being honest with history and historical fact and evidence.

      Like

    • “But [new subject ] from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.”

      The best translation for your teacher James says
      “AND from those who seemed…” 😂

      Jesus said this about Peter and other disciples
      “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
      “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

      Paul, on the other hand, thought this about Peter and other disciples
      “But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong.”
      “And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.”

      Boooom!

      Like

    • non sequiter; not relevant to the point.

      Like

    • Ken,

      You appear to be insinuating that Uthman (RA) may have altered the Qur’an and enforced his redaction as the official version. This is implausible and demonstrates a poor understanding of early Islamic history and Uthman’s (RA) role in Qur’anic preservation.

      In reality, Uthman’s hold on power was weak and opposed by a sizeable minority amongst the Muslim community (the Shia) who saw him and his two predecessors as denying divine will and the instructions of the prophet. Indeed he and his predecessor were both assassinated.

      Any attempt by Uthman (RA) to change the Qur’an would be seen as the worst possible affront to Islam and would quickly be seized upon as a rallying cry by the Shia. In reality, there was no such accusation ever made.

      No such accusation or attempt to purge the Qur’an of any corruption was forthcoming when the caliphate passed to Ali (RA) and his Shia administration either.

      Furthermore, any attempt by Uthman (RA) to legitimise his rule would be by modifying the Qur’an to lend support to him and his predecessors, yet the Qur’an is tellingly silent on this topic and the Sunni-Shia schism in general.

      Like

    • Why do you call Dan Wallace a joke? that is not good method and not obedience to Surah 29:46.
      You obviously have not listened to him very well and the several debates he did with Ehrman, nor know of his Greek Grammar book, nor have understood all the excellent work he has done.

      Like

    • “Why do you call Dan Wallace a joke? that is not good method and not obedience to Surah 29:46.”

      You are right, I apologise for that remark.Rather, what I would like to say is that I am perplexed as why you would rely on him as a Textual Critic and an expert in the Biblical manuscript tradition, when he can make a HUGE BLUNDER as claiming to have a First-Century Mark and then never following through. This is highly questionable scholarship that you rely on.
      ——————

      Also pls answer the other questions I have posed to you, at your earliest convenience .

      Liked by 1 person

    • Human beings are fallible; they make mistakes. Dr. Wallace got too excited over the possibility that the ancient fragments in the Mummy mask was from first century Mark. But aside from that, he and Dr. White and Dr. Kruger of Reformed Seminary in Charlotte, NC are excellent scholars.

      Like

    • “Human beings are fallible; they make mistakes….”

      Indeed they do, but when a so-called “expert ” in his field, can make such a hasty conclusion, it speaks volumes about his scholarship. If I were you , I would be wary of where you are taking your information from.

      Let’s compare him to Ehrman for example; call him what you want; liberal, agnostic, atheist….antichrist, lol. But you would never see him making such a blunder

      Like

    • “as I said, if Jesus had said, “I Myself do these things of Myself without My Father”, it would indicate two gods and disunity and that is not acceptable.”

      if we say that jesus is performing act of creating along with his father, then the power to create is more important or the father ?

      each person have access to each others powers , none of them need each other.

      each person does not require to borrow power from the other person.

      each person is by himself not the other person

      nothing the father can give the son to increase him and nothing the son can give the father to increase him, so why did jesus say “i myself cannot do anything ” ?

      Like

  20. Ijaz,
    Denying that Jesus Al Masih was crucified and died on the cross is a denial of established history.

    Anyone can come along 600 years later and say, “it is just appeared that way”.
    there is no way to falsify that by historical methods; therefore, it is a bogus argument.

    as for your other points, Dr. White’s argument stands; he refuted you big time.

    Surah 10:94, along with 5:47 and 5:68 and 2:136 and 29:46 show that the author (s) of the Qur’an did not teach that the text of the Injeel or Taurat was corrupted at the time of the Qur’an.

    Since we have earlier manuscripts in 120-150; 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500s, 600s, etc.
    and they agree with others of the 5,800 manuscripts, etc.; then this shows the Bible has not been hopelessly corrupted or lost.

    (taking into account textual variants such as John 7:53, 8:1-11 and Mark 9:9-20)

    Like

    • Ken,
      We have refuted you and James many tines on this blog.

      Like

    • No; you guys have not refuted these issues.

      Like

    • Indeed we have, yet you don’t care to read or to learn as your teachers. It’s not our problem at all.

      https://bloggingtheology.net/2018/03/09/response-to-james-white-on-quran-1094/

      Like

    • I read it; he still did not refute Dr. White’s point about the context of Surah 10:94 and those who have been reading the Scriptures before you; the doubts of Muhammad; and that the people of the book is said, not, “a few converts out of the people of the book”.
      Epic fail.

      Like

    • “Denying that Jesus Al Masih was crucified and died on the cross is a denial of established history.”

      I’m hoping your not relying on the Bible as a source.

      Like

    • I have seen/ listened to that (Ehrman’s debate with Licona) several times before – Ehrman is talking about other issues – other issues than the crucifixion – EVEN He, Ehrman with all that skepticism about the NT text as preserved fully, still believes the crucifixion and death of Jesus is an established fact of history.

      Like

    • Ken,

      ‘Anyone can come along 600 years later and say, “it is just appeared that way”.
      there is no way to falsify that by historical methods; therefore, it is a bogus argument’

      -A non-falsifiable argument does not make it a ‘bogus’ argument, it simply cannot be tested by the historical method.

      However, the larger component of the Islamic claim – namely that Jesus preached the pure monotheism of Islam and not the Trinitarian heresy of Christianity – is visible and validated by historical scrutiny.

      That the Qur’an and Sunnah teach that the Injeel and Tawrat have been textually adulterated is the overwhelming consensus of Qur’anic and Arabic experts.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. Alright Ken, thank you for the discourse.I’m going to have to step out of this conversation. Your welcome to visit my blog, and read some of my stuff. Just click my name.

    And I leave you with these words from the Qur’an:

    Surah 18:110

    Say, “I am only a man like you, to whom has been revealed that your god is one God. So whoever would hope for the meeting with his Lord – let him do righteous work and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone.”

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Hey Archivesislam,
    I also appreciate the interaction we had; you make your points better and follow Surah 29:46 better than some (like Faiz, who constantly insults and uses ad hominem.)

    Like

    • Awww kenny, you’re breaking my heart. I didn’t realize you were such a drama queen.

      Either way, archive still completely demolished your polemical nonsense, as pretty.much everyone has one way or another. I just use jokes and sarcasm especially against the likes of bible-thumping missionaries like you. Get over it. 😉

      Like

    • You get over it and start obeying Surah 29:46.

      Like

    • LOL, what are you, like 5 years old? Honestly Kenny, you act like a pouty child.

      I don’t need a lecture on the Holy Quran from a Bible-thumper who regularly attacks the Quran with his bias and ignorance. Keep your advice to yourself. Maybe you should start obeying the Quran’s injunction to worship Allah (swt) alone and not worship His creation. Maybe you should start obeying Jesus (pbuh) who worshiped Allah (swt) and referred to Him as “my God”. Grow up, Kenny. Stop being a drama queen.

      Like

    • Faiz,
      are you 3 years old? you are a whiny baby.
      Obey Surah 29:46

      Like

  23. “No, the fact that Islam had the power of the state and blasphemy laws to control what it determined was the text (done by man, and enforced by the sword), and Uthman burning all the older materials – great difference.

    Whereas the Bible was free under persecution and no one was controlling it by the state government. (human methods, rather than God’s power and sovereignty.)”

    ———————–

    Please read the article again,
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/why-christians-were-denied-access-to-their-bible-for-1000-years_b_3303545.html

    ” the Church went to great lengths to eliminate competing Gospels…”

    Also by your own admission:
    “that’s all Roman Catholic policies and they were wrong.
    That was not the practice in the early centuries nor after the Reformation freed European culture from the bondage of Roman Catholicism.”

    So let me summarise your situation for you. Your a Protestant, who has taken their religious text from the so-called preservation done by the Catholic Church, a Church you would agree was dictatorial and tyrannical.

    So the argument you have made :
    “Whereas the Bible was free under persecution and no one was controlling it by the state government. (human methods, rather than God’s power and sovereignty.)””

    It is incorrect statement and its contradicting what you have said before, So the very accusations you throw on the burning of the Qur’an done by Uthman, is hypocritical stance, since your own Bible is the product of a papal state.

    Like

    • No; since Erasmus found Greek NT manuscripts texts; and used them to produce a new Greek text in 1516 which inspired Luther and Calvin and Zwingli in the doctrines that were clouded by the Latin; and it inspired Luther to make a fresh translation of the NT into German; and it inspired Tyndale to translate into English.

      The Greek manuscripts were in the east, which had been conquered by Islam (since the 638 until that time) – in 1453 the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople, but Greek monks and scholars escaped to Europe which probably provided the manuscripts that Erasmus was able to get so he could make a fresh Greek Text.

      The Latin translation was not totally wrong. It was wrong on justification / dikaow / dikaousuna, etc. (“make”, rather than the Greek, “count”) and repentance. (do penance)

      Even so, the Roman Catholic Church did sometimes translate into other languages. They even had some old translations of German before Luther, but they were not understandable, wooden, and not published much. The common person could not get a hold of it. (R. C. Sproul quotes other scholars on this issue in his book, Faith Alone – even German translations of Romans 3:28 had the German “alone” for Romans 3:28, so Luther was not wrong in giving the sense of the text.

      Also, the Greeks send missionaries to Serbia, Bulgaria, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, etc. and they translated into Russian, etc. – very famous -they created the Russia alphabet and script for them and Bible was basis for their literacy from 800s AD onward.

      “Orthodox Christian Constantinople’s greatest mission outreach was to areas known as Kievan Rus that are now the states of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Christianity was introduced into Kievan Rus by Greek missionaries from Byzantium in the 9th century. In 863–869, Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius translated parts of the Bible into Old Church Slavonic language for the first time, paving the way for the Christianization of the Slavs. There is evidence that the first Christian bishop was sent to Novgorod from Constantinople either by Patriarch Photius or Patriarch Ignatius, circa 866-867 AD.[3]” (from the Wikipedia article)

      Like

  24. Ken you may have forgotten or perhaps havent had the time to address some of my questions on Matthew 28:19 , i shall summarize them below:

    (1) Does being baptised into someone, make that someone God?

    (2) If there was a copy of Matthew before the established Bible in the 4th century, which didn’t have Matthew 28:19, would you abandon the belief of the trinity?

    (3) What do you think about these scholarly quotes on Matthew 28:19?
    https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/revised-english-version-on-matthew-2819/
    https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2017/03/10/the-fabrication-of-matthew-2819/

    Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
    “The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form cannot be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church.”

    James Moffett’s New Testament Translation:
    In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: “It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing “in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +.”

    The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
    Dr. Peake makes it clear that: “The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-“into My Name.”

    The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under “Baptism,” says:
    “Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus.”

    The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, page 275:
    “It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.

    Like

  25. The Didache, one of the oldest, if not the oldest Christian writing outside of canonical books, dated from 70 AD to 120 AD – includes Matthew 28:19.

    Didache 7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water.

    “Many English and American scholars once dated the text to the late 2nd century AD,[3] a view still held today,[13] but most scholars now assign the Didache to the first century.[14][15]”

    There are no textual variants on that section of Matthew 28:19 in extant Greek manuscripts.

    There is no evidence for the speculations for those scholars that you quote. Most of them are more liberal leaning.

    Like

    • Since the Father is clearly God, your question does not make any sense.
      The text puts the Son and the Holy Spirit equal with the Father, as do many other NT passages.

      2 Cor. 13:14
      1 Peter 1:1-2
      Matthew 3:13-17
      Ephesians 4:4-6
      I Cor. 12:1-8

      John 14, 16 – the paraclete, the Spirit of truth, etc.

      Like

    • Please refer to my previous comment on the didache but let me reproduce below:

      https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/is-the-didache-apostolic/

      Of apostolic origin no one should presume to speak, since the text of the document makes no such claim, and internal evidence is obviously against such a suggestion”

      The Didache cannot be taken as a reliable source for tradition received from Jesus’ disciples, because it was written (as is the opinion of the majority of scholars) in the second half of the second century, by an unknown author who had not, obviously, met the disciples. [28]

      We cannot take the Didache as a proof for the existence of the canonical Gospels as we know them today, even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the Didache was written in the first century. This is because, due to the noticeable differences between the Didache text and our four Gospels, the opposite view should lead us to one of two options: either to believe that the text of the Gospels used by the Didachist was too different from the canonical version we know, or that the Didachist felt free to reshape Jesus’ sayings by mingling them with extra-canonical material and attributing its words to himself, not to Jesus.[29]

      Aaron Milavec, who is an authority in the Didache studies, insists after thorough and careful consideration that the Didache is totally independent of the Gospels in the internal logic, theological orientation, and pastoral practice that runs decisively counter to what one finds within the received Gospels. [30]

      28 Johannes Betz attributed this point of view to the majority of scholars. (See Johannes Betz, “The Eucharist in the Didache,” in Jonathan A. Draper, ed. The Didache in Modern Research, Leiden: Brill, 1996, p.244)

      29 See William. L. Petersen, “The Genesis of the Gospels,” p.53

      30 See Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003, p.xiii ↑

      F.E. Vokes, in his work The Riddle of the Didache(10), regards it as a fictitious reconstruction… He places it at the end of the 2nd century/beginning of the 3rd

      (10) F.E. Vokes, The Riddle of the Didache. (1938).

      Taken from here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

      Stevan Davies comments on the Didache (Jesus the Healer, p. 175): “The Didache is a text that gives instruction on how a Christian community should treat itinerant Christian prophets. It was written sometime in the late first or early second century