What if Jesus said, “I am not God!”

In the New Testament there is at least one passage in which I believe Jesus explicitly claims not to be God, that is of course Mark 10:18:

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.” (NIV)

Of course, our Christian brethren have interpreted this to mean that Jesus is saying that he is God, that it’s not a denial but an affirmation. What most of them miss however is that this is a riposte from the Cynic philosophical school in the form of a chreia statement, I don’t believe that anyone at Jesus’ time would have interpreted a popular saying from a popular philosophical school to mean the opposite of what was the general understanding of such a statement. It would be like someone 100+ years from now saying that the Nike trademark slogan, “Just do it!” really means “don’t do it”.

That however isn’t the point of this post, a question that we should consider however is how would the Christian apologists of today respond to a quote of Jesus saying, “I am not God”. I think that they would interpret such a statement to mean that Jesus is claiming deity and would find a way to re-interpret it. I think the main argument they would use is the same as the one responding to Jesus not knowing the hour, or when cursing the fig tree.

The Son’s glory was veiled and so in that moment as God-incarnate, he was speaking as a human to fellow humans.

Alternatively, in light of Jesus on the cross, another explanation could be:

Jesus was speaking in reference to his human and not his divine nature.

As I discussed in my recent dialogue with Dr. Robert Price, it doesn’t seem to matter what Jesus said, as Christians will generally interpret it to fit the popular view that he was a God. So here’s a question I think that needs to be asked.

What statement would Jesus have to make in the New Testament for Christians to believe he’s not God? Furthermore can our Christian brothers and sisters provide a consistent set of criteria that can be used for both determining when Christ is claiming divinity and when he is not?

Advertisements


Categories: Christianity, Jesus

Tags: , , , ,

225 replies

  1. Amazing topic , bor Ijaz! May Allah reward you!

    We have to know that the entry of this subject that Jesus didn’t need to deny that he’s god to begin with because he’s not god! This subject is like that if I asked a christian person whether he denies that he’s an animal or not so that I affirm that he’s a human being! This is a crazy idea!

    Moreover, christians are very elusive and not sincere when they approach this subject. They always read the gospels backward with the lens of the nonsense of the trinity while there’s no obligation to read the gospels like that. Rather the one should exclude these later nonsense developed ideas if he wants to be faithful to the text.

    Once we play with the language, then anything can be true. muslims scholars have responded to this kind of thinking which called (AR. Sufsata’iah).

    QT 5:13-14.
    “13. Because of their breaking their pledge, We cursed them, and made their hearts hard. They twist the words out of their context, and they disregarded some of what they were reminded of. You will always witness deceit from them, except for a few of them. But pardon them, and overlook. God loves the doers of good.

    14. And from those who say, “We are Christians,” We received their pledge, but they neglected some of what they were reminded of. So We provoked enmity and hatred among them until the Day of Resurrection; God will then inform them of what they used to craft.”

    Like

  2. No; this is not some kind of Greek philosophical method, etc. rather Jesus is trying to get the man to think – “Why do you call me good?”

    If he recognizes Jesus as truly good; and the Jews knew that only God is truly good. (see Psalm 14; Psalm 100)

    Jesus is not denying that He is good or God, but in an indirect way, Jesus is actually claiming to be God. In effect, Jesus is saying, “If you recognize Me as good and call Me good, then you should see that I am God, since only God is good.” But the man didn’t really understand absolute goodness.

    Muslims love to use Richard Bauckham to try and cast doubt on the NT and the gospels. While Bauckham is not an inerrantist, and not as conservative as I am or as Dr. White is; Bauckham is hardly a good source for Muslims to use, because on this particular radio discussion, Bauckham believes Jesus is claiming to be God in Mark 10:17-18.

    Shabir Ally and Paul Bilal Williams use some quotes from Bauckham as somehow trying to show that the gospels are not reliable and changed, yet in this program, Bauckham takes Paul Williams’ favorite passage (Mark 10:17-19) and demonstrates that Muslims are wrong on its meaning. Williams brings up Mark 10:17-19 many times at his own blog.

    see more here, and the radio program where Richard Bauckham calls Jesus’ method a “wonderful double entendre”

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/one-of-a-muslims-favorite-scholars-refutes-islamic-mis-use-of-mark-1018/

    Like

    • “If you recognize Me as good and call Me good, then you should see that I am God, since only God is good”

      It just makes me cringe to even read that. The fact that you can take that and just turn it upside down like that.
      Woow! Just wooow!

      Q.2:18: Deaf, dumb and blind – so they will not return [to the right path].

      And there is the good old ‘O you quote a scholar but LOOK!!!! He has something he disagrees with you about so you shouldn’t quote him at all!’ card that’s being played.
      As if accepting some of a scholars argument means that one should accept all is just a convenient excuse to weasel your way out of criticism.
      The verse in Mark doesn’t say ANYTHING about him being God. He denies it.

      I mean if someone came to me and asked ‘Are you a potato?’ and my response was ‘Why do you call me a potato. No one is a potato except Ken alone’ EVERYONE would know what that means. It means I am denying to be a potato!
      The level of mental/verbal gymnastics from Christians to try and justify shirk is UNBELIEVABLE.

      Liked by 2 people

    • You are not a potato, but maybe you are a nut.

      Like

    • Hahahaha, Ken the potato…

      Like

    • Notice Ken has not answer Ijaz’s questions:

      “What statement would Jesus have to make in the New Testament for Christians to believe he’s not God? Furthermore can our Christian brothers and sisters provide a consistent set of criteria that can be used for both determining when Christ is claiming divinity and when he is not?”

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken,
      It’s a obvious that you’re in denial. That passage in Mark is so clear, and it doesn’t need to be interpreted.
      When muslims use scholars, they don’t use them blindly. as you and James think. No!
      We analyze their works, and we look to the evidences and reasons they provide.

      Richard Bauckham s very unreasonable rather he is so absurd when he tries to interpret that passage by the exact opposite meaning! What kind of mindset is this which would do that? He obviously was so biased with his christian background, and I don’t think any other scholars would take his absurdity seriously.
      That passage is a sword against you that even Matthew had to corrupt that dialogue.

      Why would Jesus do that to indicate that he’s divine? That jewish man had no clue! He approved what Jesus said, and Jesus didn’t even try to correct his “misunderstanding” !

      I almost swear by God that you know the truth, Ken, but you’re in denial. Fear Allah alone, and don’t let the pride blocks you from admitting the truth. Ask Allah to show you the truth path.

      QT
      ((Who does greater wrong than he who fabricates lies about God? These will be presented before their Lord, and the witnesses will say, “These are they who lied about their Lord.” Indeed, the curse of God is upon the wrongdoers.

      Those who hinder others from the path of God, and seek to make it crooked; and regarding the Hereafter, they are in denial.

      These will not escape on earth, and they have no protectors besides God. The punishment will be doubled for them. They have failed to hear, and they have failed to see.

      Those are the ones who lost their souls, and what they had invented has strayed away from them.

      Without a doubt, in the Hereafter, they will be the biggest losers.

      As for those who believe and do good deeds, and humble themselves before their Lord—these are the inhabitants of Paradise, where they will abide forever.

      The parable of the two groups is that of the blind and the deaf, and the seeing and the hearing. Are they equal in comparison? Will you not reflect?))

      Liked by 1 person

    • So still no answer from Ken to Ijaz’s questions. Hmm, what is Ken afraid of, I wonder?

      Like

    • When the the Magi and the disciples worshiped Him (Matthew 2:1-12; Matthew 14:33), Jesus would have said, “Don’t do that; worship God alone” as the angel said in Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9

      But in all cases, and there are others, Jesus received worship and worship is only right for God.

      He called Himself the Son of God, which meant He had the same nature as God the Father. He did not say His is the Father, but rather, the teaching of the NT is that He shares the same substance/nature/essence ذات، جوهر، اساس ، ماهیت as the Father.

      In the historical event in question; if He is not God by nature – the Son of God, He would have said, “I am not good; I am only a man; only God the Father is inherently good; as you know, we Jews understand that only God is inherently good, as Psalm 14 tells us. “There is no human who does good; not even one”. He would have said I am only a human, a prophet.

      But He accepted the statement that Thomas made about Him, Thomas said to Him: “My Lord and My God” – John 20:28
      In verse 29, Jesus confirms Thomas’ faith in the Deity of Christ in verse 28:
      29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

      John 20:28-29 confirms the beginning of the Gospel of John:

      John 1:1
      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

      So, I am not afraid at all of discussions and questions. Engaging here at Paul Williams’ blogs since 2011 proves this.

      Like

    • “You are not a potato, but maybe you are a nut.”
      Why do you call me a nut? There is no nut but you alone.

      Like

    • There are millions of nuts in the world and history, so your attempt at a joke actually backed fired on you.

      But there is only one God; and Jesus affirms the truth that there is only one God, and that He also, as the eternal Son (John 17:5; John 1:1; John 20:28) shows that the Son is God by nature, so there are 3 persons in the One God. (the Holy Spirit also being God by nature/substance)

      Like

    • ““My Lord and My God” – John 20:28”
      Actually this is in contradiction with the synoptic gospels. This a known error.

      Like

    • No. no contradiction with the Synoptic Gospels.

      Matthew 2:1-12 – Jesus is worshipped as Deity.
      Matthew 14:33 – Jesus is worshipped as Deity and He accepts the worship.

      Mark 2:28 – Jesus says that He is the LORD of the Sabbath Day, making a claim that He is Yahweh God of Genesis chapters 1-2.

      Luke 2:10-11 – Jesus is the Lord (kurios = Yahweh, as in Psalm 110:1)

      Like

    • “There are millions of nuts in the world and history, so your attempt at a joke actually backed fired on you.”

      Aaam but there are millions of good people in the world and history Ken! But the ‘good’ in that verse is understood as the ultimate good. So in the same way the nut should also be understood as the ultimate nut so by definition there must be one ultimate nut.
      So I think it’s your attempt at trying to be clever that failed.

      Your comment on that verse in John not being a contradiction with the synoptic gospels (gospel of Luke)
      Please watch

      from 1:15:19.

      Zakir the potatoslayer says it perfectly.

      Like

    • “you are an old potato”

      Like

    • Read Psalm 14 and understand the background of what Jesus said, that “no one is good except God alone”.

      Like

    • Oh you mean that same Psalm 14 which the false apostle Paul misquoted out of context?

      “Incidentally, Paul was quoting Psalm 14:3, but that verse is also decontextualized, since it refers not to mankind in general but to sinners specifically. In addition, verse 3 states that people became corrupt, which implies that they were not corrupt before:

      “All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

      Moreover, verses 5-6 of the same psalm refer to “righteous” people:

      “…for God is present in the company of the righteous. You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, but the Lord is their refuge.”

      Thus, Psalm 14 cannot be used as evidence for original sin.”

      https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2017/07/27/born-a-sinner-a-critical-investigation-of-the-origin-of-original-sin

      Save your lies for some other trinitarian.

      Like

    • I noticed you skipped Psalm 14:2
      “The LORD looks down from heaven upon the sons of men;
      To see if there is anyone who understand,
      Who seek after God”

      “looking down from heaven”
      and
      “upon the sons of men”
      makes it clear that all humans are sinners; and no one is good.
      Therefore, you lost that argument.

      The righteous of verse 5 are those who realize they are sinners and turn to God in repentance and faith, as Noah, Job, etc. – Job was not sinless, but confessed his sins and therefore, he, and others are called “righteous” because they are true believers, not because they are not sinners.

      Same goes for your 2 Samuel 22:24 reference in your article on original sin.
      David’s “blameless” ness does not mean sinless; as in Job 1:1, etc. It means he is godly believer and that when he does sin, he confesses it and repents from it; so that he is honest and has integrity. The word means “completeness”, “honesty”, integrity”

      And the hyssop in Psalm 51:7 points to the brush that applied the blood of sacrifices – Exodus 12:22 – so David’s repentance is based on blood atonement.

      Psalm 51 is about David’s repentance from his adultery with Bathsheba -true; but he does deeper into the heart where the adultery starts – it starts with lust in the heart – so verse 5 is going deeper into the lusts and thoughts and that we are sinners from our conception in the womb of our mother. You did not refute what Psalm 51:5 actually says.

      Also, Psalm 58:3 points to original sin – “from the womb”

      So, not only does Psalm 14:2 refute you here; but your whole article on original sin is refuted.

      you are a old potato

      Like

    • Lol, Ken the potato-nut gets embarrassed and has to go into damage control!

      Psalm 14 clearly differentiates between the righteous and the sinners. Ergo, you are a trinitarian nut.

      The rest of your rant is just the ravings of a brainwashed potato who inserts his own a priori beliefs into the text. Ergo, you lost the argument like you usually do.

      But don’t worry. I will give a more detailed response larer, inshaAllah.

      Like

    • No; you cannot deal with Psalm 14:2, so you go into ad hominem arguments and continue your name calling.

      You lost the argument big time, as with my others points vs. your article on original sin.

      Like

    • Lol, there goes whiny little Kendra throwing her emotional tantrums. Don’t worry Kendra. You are a broken record, and your lies will be exposed later, inshaAllah.

      Like

    • Does your footnote 53 go back to Raymond Brown’s NT Introduction ? (footnote 52) or to the paper on original sin from Justin Martyr to Augustine? If it goes back to the paper, you need to correct the “ibid”, because “ibid” has to refer to the previous footnote.

      Also, Irenaeus mentions Polycarp as a student / hearer of the apostle John. Against Heresies, book 3:3:4

      and you left out Raymond Brown’s comment that it was Augustine’s “reflection on the verse – Romans 5:12” that led him to the doctrine of original sin.
      It was a proper and deep reflection on Romans 5:12; along with Psalm 51:5 and 58:3.

      So, you are refuted again.

      Like

    • Also, you need to provide page numbers in your footnotes to the article on original sin from Justin Martyr to Augustine. Just “ibid” implies the same page, but your quotes are from different pages.

      You are welcome for my helping you in doing proper footnote rules.

      Like

    • Also, there are some indications from Islamic sources that the sin of Adam and Eve caused the fall to the earth and sinful actions (be enemies of one another). Seems to indicate that Adam’s sin is the cause of other human sinfulness.
      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/does-islam-really-teach-that-there-is-no-original-inherited-sin-that-spread-to-all-mankind/

      Like

    • so David’s forgiveness is based on blood atonement; and his repentance shows he truly believed and repented and was not just doing empty rituals.

      Like

    • see at the 31:37 mark of the Scrooge film – “you are an old potato”

      Like

    • “Just at that time some Pharisees approached, saying to Him, “Go away, leave here, for Herod wants to kill You.’ And He said to them, ‘Go and tell that fox, “Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I reach My goal.” Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day; for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it! Behold, your house is left to you desolate; and I say to you, you will not see Me until the time comes when you say, “BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!”’” Luke 13:31-35

      The context and contrast is that Jesus is showing that Herod, in Galilean territory will not be the one who kills Jesus; rather it will be the decision of the Jewish Sanhedrin (Pharisees, Saducees, Scribes, Chief Priests, etc.) that kill Him. “O Jerusalem, O Jerusalem, who kills the prophets . . . ” etc. – the city does not literally kill the prophets, but the Jewish leaders did; as they did with Jesus, so there is no contradiction whatsoever.

      You guys fail to read the passage in context.

      Like

    • “Dr. White already fried and baked Zakir like a potato.”

      Buahahaha! You mean little jimmy who does nothing but spew emotional mumbo jumbo.
      ‘Well guess what folks, I believe in a god who loved me so much…’ wahahahaha!
      Really? You call that a victory? He got smacked in that debate and completely trampled in the next one by Zakir.

      And btw what does that have to do with my comment? I replied to Thomas allegedly saying ‘My lord and my god’ being in contradiction with gospel of Luke. Just watch that small section from 1:15:19. And see how Zakir drops the mic.

      Like

    • Acts 1:3 says that Jesus appeared to them several times over a period of 40 days between His resurrection and ascension into heaven. Zakir is wrong to say “on the same day, he went to heaven”. So there is no contradiction between Luke and John; as they are recounting 2 different encounters with the risen Jesus.

      Like

    • Also, you are still ignoring verse 29 of John 20, which shows Jesus approves of Thomas calling Him “Lord and God”. (in verse 28)

      Like

    • I’m not “ignoring” the verses before because they lead up to the verse which never happened. Jesus didn’t ascend twice.

      Like

  3. Ken, the problem with your theory is that the man called Jesus something anyone would call a rabbi out of respect. He didn’t call him something that was outlandish or extraordinary, something you would only call God. If that was the case then your theory would make sense. Instead, Jesus shows extreme humility and refuses to even be called good. This is in line with the character of a true prophet.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Same Greek construction as in Mark 2:7 – “Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
      Just as in Mark 2:7 – Jesus is claiming He is God and able to forgive sins; so also in Mark 10:18, Jesus is saying He is good, and therefore God.

      https://dailydoseofgreek.com/scripture-passage/mark-10-18/

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      May 28, 2018 • 11:23 pm
      Same Greek construction as in Mark 2:7 – “Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
      Just as in Mark 2:7 – Jesus is claiming He is God and able to forgive sins; so also in Mark 10:18, Jesus is saying He is good, and therefore God.

      I say;

      1988 ELLC[18]
      Our Father in heaven,
      hallowed be your name,
      your kingdom come,
      your will be done,
      on earth as in heaven.
      Give us today our daily bread.
      Forgive us our sins
      as we forgive those who sin against us.
      Save us from the time of trial
      and deliver us from evil.
      For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours
      now and for ever. Amen.

      We humans forgive sins according to Luke 11:2-4, Matthew 6:9-13 and Jesus who taught us to forgive sins. Are we Gods?

      Yahweh clearly says;
      “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

      We just want a proof where Jesus says ” I am God” or “worship me as the only true God”. Case close, Jesus would have been God. For Christians to be looking at passages to compare it with others to prove Jesus is God is unfortunate. The Quran says Jesus never said he is God but ask the children of Israel to worship one God of Abraham who is not Jesus. That is clearly in the Bible.

      John 17:3
      New International Version
      Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent

      Thanks.

      Like

  4. Mark 2:7:
    τί οὗτος οὕτως λαλεῖ βλασφημεῖ τίς δύναται ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός;

    εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός

    Mark 10:18:
    ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός;

    εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός

    Like

    • This proves that you are just inconsistent with your interpretation. You accept our interpretation for Mark10:18 to be applied on Mark 2:7 while if you are sincere you should apply your absurd interpretation for Mark 10:18 to be applied on Mark 2:7. Right?
      Not to mention that Muslims and NT scholars have refuted the notion that Jesus is divine because he can forgive sins. And don’t forget that in your religion, sins cannot be forgiven without the “divinely blood”, and that why that verse destroys your religion completely.

      Like

  5. The whole gospel of Mark is showing that Jesus is the Son of God (1:1), who is Lord of the Sabbath Day (2:28), A claim that He is Yahweh God of Genesis 1-2, has cosmic power over demons (1:21-28) has the power to forgive sins (2:1-12), etc.

    Mark 15:39 the Roman centurion, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”
    Mark 3:11 The demons would fall down and cry out, “You are the Son of God!”
    Mark 1:11 – and a voice came out of the heavens: “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”

    “this is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

    Like

    • This is just your own interpretation for the text. Muslims have already refuted this interpretive corruption for the text one by one.

      Why do you block your soul from seeing the truth, Ken?

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      May 28, 2018 • 11:38 pm
      The whole gospel of Mark is showing that Jesus is the Son of God (1:1), who is Lord of the Sabbath Day (2:28), A claim that He is Yahweh God of Genesis 1-2, has cosmic power over demons (1:21-28) has the power to forgive sins (2:1-12), etc.

      I say;
      Many NT scholars like Bart Ehrman says no where in NT does Jesus claims to be Yahweh. Yahweh is not Son/son to anyone. It is blaspheme to say someone who is Son/son is Yahweh. Yahweh can be metaphorical Father to all of us, including Jesus but not Son/son to anyone. Most Pastors, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists etc. can cast demons/jinns out from people like Jesus did. They are called the exorcists/Rukiya(in Arabic). Are they Gods?

      Prophet Solomon has powers over demons/jinns and can command or direct wind to any direction he wants according to Islam. Is prophet Solomon God? No. No sane Muslim ever thinks that qualifies prophet Solomon to be God. God can delegate his powers to His prophets to do what they want, but that does not equate them with God.

      Our prophet went to the extent of telling some of his disciples that they will go to heaven. That does not make him God but any Muslim knows God gave him that authority to say such things that we know it is from God.

      If Mike Pence, the US Vice President says “The North Korean summit will go on”. No one will say he is the president of the US because it is only Trump who has that power to say such. Everyone knows Trump has delegated his power to him to say such. Delegating powers does not make one equal to the one delegating that powers. Find better things to prove Jesus is God but not the above.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • John 20:28-29 shows Jesus accepted Thomas’ statement about Him as Lord and God. True faith.

      Like

    • Ken Temple
      May 30, 2018 • 1:09 am
      John 20:28-29 shows Jesus accepted Thomas’ statement about Him as Lord and God. True faith

      I say;
      Where did Jesus said, “I accept your statement that I am God, Thomas”? Some people say it is exclamation by Thomas.

      Yahweh does not wait to accept a statement that He is God but He keeps repeating He is God throughout the Bible. If Jesus is God and he obviously never said so, then he is a wicked God. Quran came to Jesus rescue and said he never said he is God.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Verse 29 shows that Jesus accepted Thomas’ statement about Him.

      28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

      Zing!

      Like

  6. “When the the Magi and the disciples worshiped Him (Matthew 2:1-12; Matthew 14:33), Jesus would have said, “Don’t do that; worship God alone” as the angel said in Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9”

    LOL!!! Well, since he was a baby, he wasn’t able to talk…or was he?

    Also, the Magi were astrologers who relied on a star to guide them to their savior. Astrology is clearly forbidden in the Bible (Isaiah 47:13). Further, the whole story is fake and probably copied from Roman sources. Pliny the Elder described an incident with the Armenian king Tiridates and some “magi” who came to worship Nero. Cassius Dio also stated that when they left, they went through a different route than the one they came. Matthew’s story is fake. Try again!

    As for Matthew 14:33, the word for “worship” does not imply the worship directed to God. So again, try again!

    “But He accepted the statement that Thomas made about Him, Thomas said to Him: “My Lord and My God” – John 20:28
    In verse 29, Jesus confirms Thomas’ faith in the Deity of Christ in verse 28:
    29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.””

    LOL, another fake story added by the last gospel. Just like the Magi story invented by Matthew, the doubting Thomas story also appears to be fake. John had a theological reason to make Jesus appear like God. That is why he had to invent these stories.

    “So, I am not afraid at all of discussions and questions. Engaging here at Paul Williams’ blogs since 2011 proves this.”

    Bwhahaha, yes we have all seen your resume Ken, and no one is impressed. The fact that you have been here since 2011 only proves one things: that you are a brainwashed Christian zombie…or potator…or nut…whatever…

    Like

    • The Magi were converted out of their paganism/astrology (but they used good science also = astronomy, medicine, etc.) It is the word of God; and established long before Islam came around.

      The same word in Matthew 2:1-2 and Matthew 14:33 is used of worship of God alone in Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9, where the angel rebukes John for giving worship to them. ( from Proskuneo / προσκυνεω )

      καὶ ἔπεσα ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ καὶ λέγει μοι ὅρα μή σύνδουλός σού εἰμι καὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου τῶν ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ τῷ θεῷ προσκύνησον ἡ γὰρ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ ἐστιν τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς προφητείας

      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

      see Revelation 22:8-9 also; unless you are afraid to investigate things fully.

      Like

    • “…there are other places in the Gospels where people are depicted as “worshiping” Jesus, and Jesus apparently accepted this devotion. Yet, in the Gospel of Mark, no such incidents are related. The Gospel of Matthew claims that Jesus was worshiped by his followers (Matthew 14:33, 28:9, 28:17), and so does the Gospel of Luke (Luke 24:52) and the Gospel of John (John 9:38). However, scholars have pointed out that these verses do not prove that Jesus was worshiped as God. According to James Dunn (emphasis in the original):

      “..the use of proskynein in the sense of worship to Jesus seems to be rather limited. And there is a hint of uncertainty or hesitation as to whether this is the appropriate way to speak of the reverence due to Jesus.”[60]

      And as Laurence Brown has observed regarding the use of the Greek word “proskuneo” (emphasis in the original):

      “Taken in total, proskuneo can only imply divinity if Peter, David, and Elisha, among others, are included. Otherwise, selective translation must be assumed, for when the Roman soldiers proskuneo’ed to Jesus, they didn’t worship him, as the Bible translates. Rather, they mocked him with the salute offered to the kings and leaders of their time. Likewise, when the others proskuneo’ed to Peter, David, Elisha, the slave-master, et al. they showed their respect according to custom. So, too, with Jesus.”[61]

      Similarly, Geza Vermes notes:

      “The only example in which the disciples call Jesus ‘Son of God’ and ‘worship him’ comes from a late legendary addition by Matthew to the story of Jesus walking on the water (Matthew 14:33).”[62]

      Given that the divinity of Jesus is so central to Christianity, is it not rather amazing that the Gospels are so ambiguous about the worship of Jesus? ”

      https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/jesus-in-the-bible-and-the-quran/

      Like I said, save your lies for some trinitarian.

      Like

    • You still cannot explain Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 and the clear use of proskuneo / προσκυνεω there.

      And Peter rejected the worship given to him by Cornelius – Acts 10:25-26

      Jesus NEVER did that when He was worshipped.

      Paul and Barnabas also rejected the worship and sacrifice of pagans – Acts 14:11-15

      So, you are refuted; again.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      Jesus might not take it as worship because Jesus said;

      Luke 4:8
      New International Version
      Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'”

      If Jesus is/was God, he would have said;

      New International Version
      Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve ME only.'”

      What kind of God is that, who keep referring to other God other than himself?

      The Quran said Jesus never said he is God. That is why, with all the corruptions in the Bible, no one was able to say Jesus said he is God, except to keep referring to other things that are over the bar. It is over the bar. If someone said “My lord and my God, Ken” and you keep quiet, no one can say you said you are God because you kept quiet. If you say “I am God”, then you have a case. I am just using you as an example.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      If Thomas says “The Son/son of God/Jesus, you alone deserve worship” or “God the Son/son, I worship you”, then Christians will have a strong case. But to exclaim does not mean worship a man as God. Why did the other disciples not say Jesus is God and they keep worshiping him everyday.

      Imagine, if you see God, like how the disciples saw Jesus. Will you leave God one second of your time? Will you not be bowing down and worshiping him and asking for forgiveness and holding him(God)?

      If Jesus was God, all his belongings would have been revered by his disciples. They do not consider him as God. It is now that Christians perceived Jesus as God, that is why the shroud of Turin, the face of Mary, the mother of Jesus is having people paying homage to them.

      Our prophet Mohammed was not God, but his disciples kept all his belongings and some are still available today. All his disciples are always close to him and asking questions. When he past away, his wives were visited and questions is asked about his sayings and prophetic traditions. Imagine if God came to earth at any time and people believed he is God. There will be commotion. Everyone would like to touch him for blessings. Jesus is not God my friend Ken.

      Thanks.

      Like

  7. “Also, you need to provide page numbers in your footnotes to the article on original sin from Justin Martyr to Augustine. Just “ibid” implies the same page, but your quotes are from different pages.

    You are welcome for my helping you in doing proper footnote rules.”

    Kendra, you need to know your place. You’re a little over-excited. Your spamming of the thread with rapid-fire posts will be dealt with in time.

    As for your offer of “help”, since I am using the Chicago Manual of Style for citations, and the article I cited is not in any journal or online periodical, it is not necessary to give page numbers. Yes, they would help, but it is not necessary. It’s basically like linking to a website.

    Also, when citing a journal article, the citation actually includes all the page numbers, instead of just the one cited. You seem to think that there is only one way to cite, but in fact, there are different styles (APA, MLA, Chicago Manual, etc.)

    https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/717/04/

    So your offer of “help” is rejected. But thanks anyway, potato-nut! 🙂

    Like

    • Does your footnote 53 go back to Raymond Brown’s NT Introduction ? (footnote 52) or to the paper on original sin from Justin Martyr to Augustine? If it goes back to the paper, you need to correct the “ibid”, because “ibid” has to refer to the previous footnote.

      Like

  8. “Intellect”:
    You are still avoiding verse 29.

    Verse 29 shows that Jesus accepted Thomas’ statement about Him.

    28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
    29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

    Like

    • Br. Zakir Hussian has answered this. It contradicts Luke narrative!

      Dr Ali Ataie
      “John 20:28, Thomas exclaims after seeing the raised Christ, ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου (“My Lord and my God!). According to Wallace, the definite articles before “Lord” and “God” are most likely intended as vocative particles. He refers to this structure as the “nominative of address.” Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, 56-58. I imagine that if I saw my beloved teacher and friend walking around as a resurrected body I would also exclaim, “Oh my God!” This is obviously exclamatory. Why would Thomas think Jesus is God??? Is being resurrected from the dead a definitive proof that someone is God? I imagine Lazarus’ cousin exclaiming “Oh my God!” when he saw him.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • This is actually in my favor. Do you even know what a “vocative” is? I have Wallace’s book – Vocative is direct address: “O King” when speaking to the king. “O Lord” when speaking to the Lord. “My Lord and my God” in John 20:28 is not “Oh my God!”; rather it is using the nominative form in a vocative manner – of addressing directly the person whom it is communicating = “you are” my Lord and my God.”

      You would see this from the other examples on page 58 of the book, if you have it.

      Do you have the book?
      Your point and Dr. Ataie’s is refuted. I appears he does not know what he is talking about, if he is trying to say that the Greek means he is saying “oh my God!

      The info is correct up until the line “I imagine . . .
      the rest is just wrong”

      I imagine that if I saw my beloved teacher and friend walking around as a resurrected body I would also exclaim, “Oh my God!” This is obviously exclamatory. Why would Thomas think Jesus is God??? Is being resurrected from the dead a definitive proof that someone is God? I imagine Lazarus’ cousin exclaiming “Oh my God!” when he saw him.”

      He just put something true, from Wallace, and then put up the other part which is false, and gives the appearance of using Wallace to make his point, but it actually does not make the point.

      It appears that Dr. Ali Ataie does not understand grammar terms of nominative or vocative. And you don’t seem to understand either.

      Like

    • Dr Ataie studied your bible in Greek.
      He knows what dr Wallace meant, but he explained how can the “vocative” form be used for exclamatory, especially in the semitic culture. Why would John’s gospel want to show that Thomas believed that Jesus is God while it had quoted Jesus- in the same gospel- says the Father is the (only) true God ? Our interpretation stands firmly.

      However, the whole story is likely made up as we see in the refutation of br. Zakir, which can do nothing about it.

      Like

    • But it is not exclamatory, rather it is direct speech to the person “O God” = “You, O God”

      Like

    • No; he does not appear to understand what Wallace meant; and does not even provide the other examples from page 58 where the example of John 20:28 is located.

      Like

    • ” it is not exclamatory”
      It is! It’s vey clear!
      NLT version puts it like this even
      “My Lord and my God!” Thomas exclaimed” .

      And again I affirm, it contradicts Luke’s narrative.

      Liked by 1 person

    • It is “Direct Address” – meaning addressed to the one the person is talking to. “you are” my Lord and my God”

      Amazing that you don’t see that. See the examples on page 58. Dr. Ali Ataie did not include that section. It appears he does not know what he is talking about.

      Like

    • “It is “Direct Address” – meaning addressed to the one the person is talking to. “you are” my Lord and my God”
      But the phrase as it appears doesn’t have (you are), and that Why dr Wallace titled that section as(nominative for vocative), which means dr Wallace tried to make a christian point for something is not really clear or definitive, especially if we know that the original culture for Jesus’ disciples is semitic.

      Like

    • again, look at all the examples on page 58, where the example of John 20:28 is also.
      Amazing that you don’t see this.

      Like

    • page 58 of Wallace’s book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, where he gives examples of Direct Address speech of Nominative form with the definite article used in Vocative way of addressing / speaking directly to the person – “You, O person”, etc.

      Articular = (using the article)

      Mark 5:8
      come out of that man, [you] unclean spirt!

      Luke 8:54
      Child, arise

      John 19:3
      Hail, King of the Jews!

      Ephesians 5:22
      wives, be submissive to your husbands

      John 20:28
      Thomas said to Him: My Lord and My God

      Like

    • We know what to dr Wallace wanted to say, man!
      We simply say this nominative can be used for exclamatory.

      Like

  9. Ken, you still have not answered the question of the post.
    You have gone with red herring to avoid the real issues.

    Like

  10. “Does your footnote 53 go back to Raymond Brown’s NT Introduction ? (footnote 52) or to the paper on original sin from Justin Martyr to Augustine? If it goes back to the paper, you need to correct the “ibid”, because “ibid” has to refer to the previous footnote.”

    That was a mistake. I will fix it. It should go back to the article, not Brown. Thanks potato-nut!

    Like

  11. “You still cannot explain Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 and the clear use of proskuneo / προσκυνεω there.

    And Peter rejected the worship given to him by Cornelius – Acts 10:25-26

    Jesus NEVER did that when He was worshipped.

    Paul and Barnabas also rejected the worship and sacrifice of pagans – Acts 14:11-15

    So, you are refuted; again.”

    Get ready to get refuted…again Kenny!

    You ignored Revelation 3:9 which also uses a form of proskuneo, except in this case, it is referring to making the “synagogue of Satan” bow down to the true Christians! And this same word is used in Revelation 4:10, 9:20, 13:8, 12, and 15:4. So the question is…did your god want to force the “synagogue of Satan” to worship his followers? Or does it mean something else?

    “I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan…I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.”

    So you see, your understanding of proskuneo is rather simplified, whereas the word is more complex. Why is the same word used to refer to the worship of God AND for the Christians? Something stinks here, does’t it Kenny?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Revelation 3:9 – GRK: ἥξουσιν καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιον τῶν

      Revelation 4:10 – GRK: θρόνου καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν τῷ ζῶντι

      Revelation 9:20 – GRK: ἵνα μὴ προσκυνήσουσιν τὰ δαιμόνια

      Revelation 13:9 – GRK: καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν αὐτὸν πάντες

      Revelation 13:12 – GRK: κατοικοῦντας ἵνα προσκυνήσουσιν τὸ θηρίον

      Revelation 15:4 – GRK: ἥξουσιν καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιόν σου

      Each of these verses uses the same word, προσκυνήσουσιν. Revelation 15:4 is clearly referring to the worship of God:

      “Who will not fear you, Lord,
      and bring glory to your name?
      For you alone are holy.
      All nations will come
      and worship before you,
      for your righteous acts have been revealed.”

      So, this word must therefore also mean that the true Christians in the church in Philadelphia would be worshiped, per Revelation 3:9. What’s going on here, Ken?

      Like

    • Rev. 3:9 is a different context and cannot mean worship as to God or false worship given to demons or Satanic powers or false gods. In 3:9 the meaning is honor, but not the same as “worship only for God”. Context is the key to proper interpretation.

      Looks like you did not bother to look at the other instances very deeply.
      Revelation 4:10 is about true worship to God – to the one who sits on the throne.
      9:20 is about false / wrong worship given to demons.
      Rev. 13:8 and 12 is about false worship that is given to the beast.

      So the word means “worship” in all those contexts except for Rev. 3:9.

      And Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 still refutes you.

      Like

    • Lol, and let the mental gymnastics begin! This is why no one takes you seriously. You are just a brainwashed zombie!

      The word used in Rev 3:9 is EXACTLY the same in the others verses! Why would it mean something else? It seems you are not consistent. Not surprising! Christians can never be consistent, especially with their interpretations of the Bible.

      This one verse completely demolishes your silly argument about proskuneo in other verses. Wasn’t that easy?

      Like

    • I already knew about Rev. 3:9 for years because Roman Catholics use that to say that they give propkuneo to Mary and the saints (statues of them), without giving them worship that is only for God.

      The problem is many fold. First, context is more important than a dogmatic word study. Context determines meaning.

      And you still don’t have a good answer for Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 and the fact that Jesus did not refuse worship and He did not rebuke people for giving Him worship in Matthew 14:33 and other passages.

      Like

    • You are nothing but a deceitful little missionary. It’s not surprise that you hid Rev. 3:9. It creates all sorts of problems for your appeal to the word “prokuneo”. So tell me, if the “context” is so important, then what context is there in Matthew 14:33 that makes you think that the disciples were worshiping Jesus as “God”? Let’s see where you go with this. This should be good.

      Like

  12. “The Magi were converted out of their paganism/astrology (but they used good science also = astronomy, medicine, etc.) It is the word of God; and established long before Islam came around.”

    Oh brother…

    The Magi looked for a star to signal to them when the savior would be born. That’s called astrology, not “science”. So they were still pagans.

    Regardless, the whole story is fake. I noticed how you ignored the clear parallel between Matthew’s story and the historical meeting between Nero and Tiridates and his “Magi”.

    Like

    • No; the story is not fake. Matthew 2:1-12 is part of God-breathed scripture.

      Just because another historical event may have some facts that are similar, does not mean that the Biblical author took the information from that used it to make up another story.

      non-sequiter

      Like

    • Hahaha, amazing! The two stories are not just “similar”. They are uncannily close in major details, as for example, the magi using a different route to leave aa when they came.

      Matthew clearly made up the story. Sorry Ken. Your special pleading will not change the facts.

      Like

  13. “Also, Irenaeus mentions Polycarp as a student / hearer of the apostle John. Against Heresies, book 3:3:4

    and you left out Raymond Brown’s comment that it was Augustine’s “reflection on the verse – Romans 5:12” that led him to the doctrine of original sin.
    It was a proper and deep reflection on Romans 5:12; along with Psalm 51:5 and 58:3.

    So, you are refuted again.”

    1. Irenaeus/Polycarp –

    Nothing but hearsay. In Polycarp’s own letters, he never once refers to John as his “teacher” or even hints that he knew him.

    2. LOL, yes Augustine “reflected” on Romans 5:12. In other words, the meaning is not as clear cut as potato-nuts like you claim. Also, how does this change the fact that numerous earlier church fathers did not believe in original sin? Your church seemed to be confused. Just like the trinity, original sin developed over time. It was never believed from the start.

    So you refuted nothing, and are in turn, refuted yourself! Poor potato-nut!

    Like

    • According to Michael M. Christensen of Denver Seminary,[45] Justin Martyr did believe that human beings had “evil inclinations” by nature, but that these inclinations were not caused by Adam’s “fall” but rather from following in his example and committing their own sins. In addition, these “evil inclinations” could be “exacerbated by evil demons”.[46]

      Another early church leader, Theophilus of Antioch, believed that humans could attain immortality by striving for “perfection” and that this could be done “by obeying God’s commandments”.[47] He also believed that when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they were punished by being exiled from heaven and forced to dwell on earth, but nowhere did he indicate that all humans were tainted by the sins of the original human pair.[48]

      A third church leader who clearly did not believe in original sin was Irenaeus, best known for his apologetic work “Against Heresies”.[49] In his writings, Irenaeus claimed that Adam and Eve did bring death into the world, thereby causing suffering and pain, but he did not believe that Adam’s sin tainted the rest of humanity. As Christensen explains:

      “…Irenaeus does not attribute any inherited corruption or concupiscence of nature to Adam. Adam and Eve’s nature was not cursed, but what was cursed was the ground and the serpent.”[50]

      One church leader that agreed with Irenaeus was Clement of Alexandria, since like Irenaeus, Clement believed that humanity did not inherit any sinful nature from Adam. He also agreed with Irenaeus and others (like Justin Martyr) that while humanity was “imperfect”, it could still strive for “perfection”. In fact, contrary to the views of Paul, Clement believed that:

      “[i]t is the nature of the human soul to move itself, especially toward virtue. Those who sin choose evil over good; they acquire a sinful nature by sinning.”[51]

      However, Clement strayed from other church leaders in claiming that death did not result from the Fall of Adam and Eve. In summarizing Clement’s views, Christensen states that:

      “Clement has put the spiritual destiny of humanity in their own hands. The Fall has produced no ill-effects and human choice is inherently able to choose either good or evil. His view appears very similar to Pelagius’ one on sin.”[52]

      Unlike the church leaders discussed so far, there were others who seemed to believe that humans did inherit a sinful nature, but not necessarily in the way most contemporary Christians would accept. One such leader was Origen, whose views can be summarized as follows:

      “[h]umans are prone to sin by nature and this is because their souls are guilty of previous sins (in a previous existence), not because of any corporate sinfulness inherited from the first man, Adam.”[53]

      Perhaps the earliest church father to expound on the inherent sinfulness of humanity was Tertullian. In his view, humanity’s nature was inherited from Adam and was “unclean” by nature. Also, the inheritance of this sinful nature was due to a literal transmission of both the body and the soul from parents to their children.[54]

      https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2017/07/27/born-a-sinner-a-critical-investigation-of-the-origin-of-original-sin/

      Liked by 1 person

    • The only extant letter we have of Polycarp is his that he wrote to the Philippians. It is short. Who says you come along 2000 years later and demand that he has to wrie “John was my teacher” in that particular letter that is extant to us.

      Irenaeus’ testimony is solid.

      Like

    • Hahahaha, so you can’t explain why Polycarp didn’t refer to John as his teacher. Not surprising.

      Why should anyone believe Irenaeus’ hearsay?

      And why are you avoiding the fact that, like most other early “church fathers”, Irenaeus did not believe in original sin?

      Like

  14. “Also, there are some indications from Islamic sources that the sin of Adam and Eve caused the fall to the earth and sinful actions (be enemies of one another). Seems to indicate that Adam’s sin is the cause of other human sinfulness.
    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/does-islam-really-teach-that-there-is-no-original-inherited-sin-that-spread-to-all-mankind/

    Pathetic!

    First of all, Adam and Eve were not even on the Earth when they “fell”. Second, as is habit, you desperately try to insert your own crazy ideas and non sequiturs into the text. Being “enemies of one another” does not mean that humans inherited sin from Adam and Eve. Mankind’s destiny was to be on the Earth from the start. as Allah (swt) said to the angels: “I will put a vicegerent on Earth…”

    Like

  15. We said, “Go down from it, all of you. And when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows My guidance – there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.
    Surah 2:38

    “all of you” is جمیعا – a clear understanding of more than 2.

    “Allah informs of His warning to Adam, his wife and Satan, their offspring, when he ordered them to descend from Paradise. He says he will send messengers with Scriptures, signs and proofs… ”

    (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 1, Surah Al-Fatiah Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 1 to 141, Abridged by Sheikh Nasib Ar-Rafa‘i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London: Second Edition 1998], pp. 109-110; bold emphasis mine)

    Ibn Kathir includes the offspring of Adam and Eve, and this indicates the sinful nature was inherited from their parents and mankind became “enemies of one another” – fighting, sin, arguing, name calling, whining ( like Faiz), wars, divorces, etc. – the sin nature is obvious, especially in Faiz, who does nothing but bombast and name calling – Faiz is Shamoun of Islam.

    Like

    • “Faiz is Shamoun of Islam.”
      Yea right! As if anyone here comes even close to being a filth such as shamoun. Only a xtian which has watered down this filth in his mind would suggest such a thing.

      Let me make it perfectly clear how much of a filth that ugly blob is: If i were to choose between a pile of horse excrement or shamoun to go out with and watch a movie, I would choose the excrement (I mean the horse excrement) and I would even consider buying it a drink out of great joy knowing that I escaped that filthy blob’s ugly face and soul.
      You talk about insults but yet you have given one of the worst insults that one can give by comparing one of the people that comment on this blog with the arrogant blob. You would come off nicer if you just called him horsesh**.

      Liked by 1 person

    • He does ad hominem and name calling and bombast, like Shamoun, and when called out on it; he says “you are whiny baby, Kendra, etc. Shamoun-like tactics. Very similar in style.

      Like

    • Look, I’m playing the world’s smallest violin for you Ken!

      We know you become a whiny brat when you get refuted and are unable to refute the points made against you. It’s okay, Ken. I won’t hold it against you as long as you start being honest and consistent.

      Like

    • But you have not refuted anything yet. All you do is say “Kendra” and “whiny baby” and “pathetic”, etc. No substance.

      Like

    • While I am not condoning ad hominem attacks, but ‘LIKE shamoun’???
      You have got to be kidding me! It’s like comparing a mosquito to an elephant.
      Compare the ‘attacks’ between the two and tell me with a straight face that they are alike!
      No they are not! Ever!

      Liked by 1 person

    • You must be living in your own fantasy world, because I have completely demolished your “prokuneo” argument. So all you do is whine as you usually do when you get refuted.

      Like

    • No you did not; because you don’t even understand basic linguistics and language issues and that words can have different meanings in different contexts.

      Like

    • I am actually not whining; because I know the word can be used for just respect / homage to a superior, like a king, (which is what you have found examples of, as in Rev. 3:9 and those Genesis passages, etc. and that is the same argument that Roman Catholics use when they bow down in front of large statues of Mary, etc. – they say that they are not worshiping, just giving “dulia” (Latin equivalent of veneration/ honor / as they claim to “proskuneo” etc. ) to the saints, and “hyper-dulia” (more than regular service/honor/veneration, but they claim, not worship) to Mary.
      Listen to Dr. White’s debate with Patrick Madrid on the Veneration of Images / Statues.

      Like

    • You have yet to explain what the “context” is in Matt. 14:33 that somehow proves that Jesus was being worshiped. You harp about “context” but cannot explain anything. All you can do is cling to your mangod like a pagan, despite not being able to prove that he was worshiped or accepted it.

      Like

    • Because Jesus did not rebuke them like the angel does in Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9.

      And Revelation 5:13-14 shows worship being given to the one who sits on the throne (the Father) and the Lamb (Jesus). One God, two of the three persons of the Trinity.

      Like

    • Joseph didn’t reject his brothers, nor did Jacob reject Joseph! You are going in circles and have utterly failed to make a coherent argument.

      Like

  16. What would Jesus have said if He was denying He is God by nature, in the Mark 10:18 context?

    In the historical event in question (Mark 10:18); if He is not God by nature – the Son of God, He would have said, “I am not good; I am only a man; only God the Father is inherently good; as you know, we Jews understand that only God is inherently good, as Psalm 14 tells us. “There is no human who does good; not even one”. He would have said I am only a human, a prophet.

    And In Matthew 14:33, He would have said, “Don’t do that” – as in Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 – “Don’t do that. Worship God (only)”

    But Jesus never rebuked the worship given to Him.

    He accepted the statement that Thomas made about Him, Thomas said to Him: “My Lord and My God” – John 20:28
    In verse 29, Jesus confirms Thomas’ faith in the Deity of Christ in verse 28:
    29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

    Jesus called that “faith”.

    John 20:28-29 confirms the beginning of the Gospel of John:

    John 1:1
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

    So, I am not afraid at all of discussions and questions. Engaging here at Paul Williams’ blogs since 2011 proves this.

    Like

  17. See the examples that Wallace gives with John 20:28 under “articular, on page 58.
    This proves my point.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=XlqoTVsk2wcC&q=articular#v=snippet&q=articular&f=false

    you got refuted again.

    Like

  18. Ken said Jesus should’ve said like this to deny his divinity
    “I am not good; I am only a man; only God the Father is inherently good”

    1) I invite my muslim brothers to see how those unreasonable and dishonest christians try to enforce their nonsense to be applied on a semitic language in the first century. In the same way, we have to read Jesus saying I’m the second person of the triune God who share the same “substance”, and I’m the second one who has to be a flesh in a state called the hypostatic union!

    2) What did the jewish man get from the real Jesus’ answer? Do christians say he must have known that Jesus is good inherently?

    3) If Jesus had answered with Ken’s answer, do christians believe that Jesus with his human nature is good inherently or equal to the Father to begin with?

    4) Can Ken get the same conclusion,that he got from the hypothetical Jesus’ answer he provide, from Jesus’ statement in his bible which is “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” ?

    Like

    • So, why didn’t Jesus rebuke and refuse worship in Matthew 14:33; like the way the angel did in Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9? (same word used in all three verses/passages)

      Like

    • You cannot escape the truth of Psalm 14:2 -3

      No human being is good; “one one does good”

      Jesus knew that Jewish OT background and yet does not rebuke or refuse to be called “good”.

      2 The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
      To see if there are any who understand,
      Who seek after God.

      3 They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;
      There is no one who does good, not even one.

      Like

    • “No human being is good; “one one does good”
      So the human part/nature of Jesus is not good! Right?

      I repeat my points which you couldn’t address.

      2) What did the jewish man get from the real Jesus’ answer? Do christians say he must have known that Jesus is good inherently?

      3) If Jesus had answered with Ken’s answer, do christians believe that Jesus with his human nature is good inherently or equal to the Father to begin with?

      4) Can Ken get the same conclusion,that he got from the hypothetical Jesus’ answer he provide, from Jesus’ statement in his bible which is “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” ?

      Like

  19. page 58 of Wallace’s book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, where he gives examples of Direct Address speech of Nominative form with the definite article used in Vocative way of addressing / speaking directly to the person – “You, O person”, etc.

    Articular = (using the article)

    Mark 5:8
    ἔξελθε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἀκάθαρτον ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου

    come out of that man, [you] unclean spirt!

    Luke 8:54
    ἡ παῖς ἔγειρε
    Child, arise

    John 19:3
    χαῖρε ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων
    Hail, King of the Jews!

    Ephesians 5:22
    αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν
    wives, be submissive to your own husbands

    John 20:28
    Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
    Thomas said to Him: My Lord and My God

    —-

    also, “said to Him” is clear
    εἶπεν αὐτῷ

    He is not just crying out in amazement, “O my God!” rather Thomas is saying to Him, calling to Him that He is his Lord and his God.

    and Jesus accepts this as true faith in verse 29.

    Like

    • There’s no an addressing phase such as (you are).
      There’s no any indication can stop us from interpreting that phrase as an expression of excitement and exclamatory. It seems that the intention of author of John’s gospel. If the author had wanted the meaning in the christians’ head, he would’ve written ” And Jesus replied have you not known that to get the eternal life is to know the Father as the (only True) God, Thomas? ”

      However, *the whole story is likely made up because it contradicts Luke narrative which is earlier*

      Like

  20. You never answer this question:

    So, why didn’t Jesus rebuke and refuse worship in Matthew 14:33; like the way the angel did in Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9? (same word used in all three verses/passages)

    Like

    • You find it in the video I posted although this is not our issue. And don’t tell me that you van’t heard an answer for this shallow argument you use. Christians used this argument many times, yet muslims have rebuked them.

      Like

    • “No human being is good; “one one does good”
      So the human part/nature of Jesus is not good! Right?

      I repeat my points which you couldn’t address.

      2) What did the jewish man get from the real Jesus’ answer? Do christians say he must have known that Jesus is good inherently?

      3) If Jesus had answered with Ken’s answer, do christians believe that Jesus with his human nature is good inherently or equal to the Father to begin with?

      4) Can Ken get the same conclusion,that he got from the hypothetical Jesus’ answer he provide, from Jesus’ statement in his bible which is “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” ?

      Like

    • “So, why didn’t Jesus rebuke and refuse worship in Matthew 14:33; like the way the angel did in Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9? (same word used in all three verses/passages)”

      You have already shown your inconsistency. On the one hand, you say that Matt. 14:33, Rev: 19:10 and 22:8-9 must all mean the same thing because the word is used in all three verses, but on the other hand, you reject Rev. 3:9 DESPITE the fact that the word used there is ALSO used in other verses of Revelation!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Seems you do not understand what context is; and that words can have different meanings in different contexts. I guess you have never learned another language; your ignorance betrays you. If you do know another language; then you have to be lying or deceiving to not understand that basic issue, which does not surprise me given your behavior and character.

      Like

    • LOL, you act like a know-it-all but you’re nothing but a liar and deceiver. Let me refute you further on this matter, since you insist on being a fool.

      The word used in Matt. 14:33 προσεκύνησαν, which you insist means Jesus was “worshiped”. Then you claimed that the “context” and the fact that the same word is used in Revelation seals the deal. Well, let’s see how your ludicrous argument falls apart when we look for the exact same word in the Septuagint. As it turns out, we do find προσεκύνησαν in Genesis 43:26 –

      εἰσῆλθεν δὲ Ιωσηφ εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν καὶ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ τὰ δῶρα ἃ εἶχον ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν οἶκον καὶ προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ ἐπὶ πρόσωπον ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν

      Well look at that! It’s the SAME word! Well, I guess that means Joseph was worshiped and accepted that worship, huh?!

      Not only are you a deceiver, but you in turn have been deceived into idolatry. Repent Ken, before it’s too late.

      Like

    • Again, you don’t seem to understand context and linguistics and languages.

      Like

    • I already did the only true repentance, which the NT (the Injeel – انجیل ) explains, in
      Mark 1:15
      Luke 5:32
      Acts 2:38
      Luke 13:1-5
      Luke 24:46-47
      Acts 17:30
      Luke 15

      It is you who need to repent and turn to Christ and His Lordship and work of redemption on the cross and resurrection power to save you from your sins. (Romans 3:21-26; Romans 5:1-11)

      Like

    • No, what you did was doom yourself to a life of idolatry, for which there is no forgivness in the afterlife. Stop clinging to your false god and worship the true God.

      Like

    • Another example of προσεκύνησαν in Genesis. After having his brother bow down to him in Genesis 43, Joseph proceeds to bow down to his father in Genesis 48:12-

      καὶ ἐξήγαγεν Ιωσηφ αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν γονάτων αὐτοῦ καὶ προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ ἐπὶ πρόσωπον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς

      Then Joseph removed them from Israel’s knees and bowed down with his face to the ground.

      Well, look at that! The SAME word as that used in Matthew 14:33! So, what is it about Matt. 14:33 that somehow turns Jesus into “God” but not Joseph or Jacob?

      Like

    • because of Revelation 19:22 and 22:8-9.

      Like

    • What does Revelation have to do with Matthew? Why are your gospels so ambiguous when it comes to Jesus’ divinity?

      Like

    • “Again, you don’t seem to understand context and linguistics and languages.”

      And you have done a poor job of explaining the context. One would think that since you seem to know everything, you would be able to explain it. But no, all you are doing is going in circles. As it stands, you have failed to prove how using the word “prokuneo” proves that Jesus was worshiped. So, we are back to the original questions brother Ijaz asked.

      Like

    • When the whole 4 Gospels from beginning to end, as each one as a writer has a purpose, you can the context as a whole and understand that each one communicates his purpose as a unified book.

      In Matthew, Jesus is communicated as the Messiah, who fulfills the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants (“Son of Abraham, son of David, development of the term “Messiah” (anointed one, king) – and the virgin birth and receiving worship and doing the miracles He did and saying the things He did all points to Him as the Messiah, Son of God, worthy to be worshipped. (meaning He is God by nature/substance/essence)

      Writers have a thing called a “literary inclusio” which means a theme of their work from the beginning to the end; and we see this in Matthew as he shows Jesus as the virgin born Son of God, Messiah (chapter 1), who is worthy of worthy (Matthew 2:1-12; 14:33; 4:10 (worship is for God only)) and the book ends with theme after Jesus has risen from the dead (Matthew 28:9, 17) The context in Matthew 14:33 adds “You are the Son of God” to “they worshipped Him”.

      There is nothing like that in the Genesis passages you bring up, nor in Rev. 3:9.

      They recognized Him as the Son of God, which means He has the same essence / substance/ nature, as God the Father.

      But since all through the Gospels, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (also in Acts and Epistles) relate to one another, speak to one another, love one another – these Biblical terms and data gave the content to say that they are 3 persons (hupo-stasis – something existing/standing, underneath something else) – personal relationships within the God-head / Trinity / Divine Substance.

      We understand that you cannot grasp that with your human mind. That is all you have. All you have is your human weakness and limitation and weak efforts of trying to reach the one true holy God.
      You cannot find God (Allah). God has to seek you out (Luke 19:10) and open your spiritual eyes (Ephesians 1:18-19) and mind (Luke 24:45) and heart (Acts 16:14) in order to see. You are blind and dead in your sins. (Ephesians 2:1-3)

      Jesus Himself said:
      43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. John 8:43

      You cannot hear or understand or grasp this, unless God opens your heart and mind. (2 Cor. 4:6; John 6:44; Acts 16:14)

      47 He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” John 8:47

      But you need to read the Gospels from the beginning to end, asking God to reveal Himself to you.

      Instead of jumping all around, out of context, using Islamic websites to questions verses out of context. Read it straight through with an open heart until the end and pray for guidance.

      Like

    • When one reads the whole 4 Gospels from beginning to end, as each one as a writer has a purpose, you can the context as a whole and understand that each one communicates his purpose as a unified book.

      Like

    • Revelation is not one of the gospels, and the story of the disciples “worshiping” Jesus is not found in Mark, so Matthew added it, like he added other made-up stories. Even then, however, the word does not necessarily mean “worship” as that rendered to God, so your argument has failed.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Except Mark also teaches the Deity of Christ, that He is the Lord of the Sabbath and Son of God that the Pharisees wanted to kill Him for the charge of blasphemy.
      Mark 14:6-64

      Matthew did not “add” it; rather all 4 are like having one witness of the four corners of a street accident, looking at the historical reality from 4 different angles/ directions.

      Like

    • “Instead of jumping all around, out of context, using Islamic websites to questions verses out of context. Read it straight through with an open heart until the end and pray for guidance.”

      Instead of being a brainwashed Christian, why don’t you actually use rational arguments for once? Who said I used “Islamic websites”? I actually used Christian websites like Biblos.com and Blueletterbible.com. I can see you are struggling to explain why “prokuneo” means what you say it means. You have failed to provide a reasonable explanation, and your bumbling attempts in appealing to “context” have also failed to bear fruit. Maybe you should take your own advice and open your heart and pray to God for guidance. You clearly need it.

      Like

    • Also, even if I used “Islamic websites”, your response would be nothing more than an ad hominem, because you failed to respond to the actual argument, and instead tried to discredit the source. You guys do that all the time with so-called “liberal” scholars. Instead of responding to their points, you simply reject them because they are “liberal”. You also don’t seem to realize that your reliance on “conservative” scholars may be misguided since they may have their own biases. On the issue of “proskuneo”, that bias is all too clear.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “June 1, 2018 • 8:06 pm
      Except Mark also teaches the Deity of Christ, that He is the Lord of the Sabbath and Son of God that the Pharisees wanted to kill Him for the charge of blasphemy.
      Mark 14:6-64

      Matthew did not “add” it; rather all 4 are like having one witness of the four corners of a street accident, looking at the historical reality from 4 different angles/ directions.”

      Moving the goalpost again? We have been talking about the meaning of “proskuneo”. You have failed to prove how this word’s “context” means that Jesus was “worshiped”.

      Why would Mark have not mentioned the story, especially if it was such a clear example of Jesus’s divinity? Face it. Your gospels are contradictory and confused.

      Liked by 1 person

    • You don’t another language, do you?

      You demonstrate you don’t understand about context, linguistics and language.

      Like

    • You don’t know another language, do you?

      Like

    • So given the failure of Christians to prove the divinity of Jesus, we are back to the original questions of the thread:

      What statement would Jesus have to make in the New Testament for Christians to believe he’s not God? Furthermore can our Christian brothers and sisters provide a consistent set of criteria that can be used for both determining when Christ is claiming divinity and when he is not?

      Liked by 1 person

    • “You don’t another language, do you?

      You demonstrate you don’t understand about context, linguistics and language. ”

      You are a clueless loser, aren’t you? Your desperation in this regard is quite palpable. Why don’t you explain the context, since you seem to know everything about it? Why are you arguing like a child, making pointless comments with no substance?

      Let’s fact the facts. You are a brainwashed Christian who will never admit when he is wrong because it would damage his faith. That’s why no one takes you seriously.

      Here is what we know: the word “proskuneo” does not necessarily mean “worship” because it is used for both humans and God. Therefore, you have failed to prove that Jesus was worshiped by the disciples.

      Like

    • It seems you are the one who is clueless and dense and a looser. So, you have learned another language; that explains your obtuseness in regard to language, context, meaning. What a joke you are Faiz. You are a brainwashed Muslim to a dead, ritualistic, external religion; enslaved to your sins and selfishness and pride. (Ephesians 2:1-3; John 3:18-21; John 3:36)

      Like

    • since Matthew 14:33 has “Son of God” in the context; along with all the other content in the all the gospels, it obvious means “worship to God”, since Christ is God by nature – eternal (John 17:5 – the glory He had with the Father before the world was) and the Word from all eternity past (John 1:1 – (and the Word was God”)

      Like

    • It seems you are the one who is clueless and dense and a looser. So, you have not learned another language (or you would have said so); that explains your obtuseness in regard to language, context, meaning. What a joke you are Faiz. You are a brainwashed Muslim to a dead, ritualistic, external religion; enslaved to your sins and selfishness and pride. (Ephesians 2:1-3; John 3:18-21; John 3:36)

      Like

    • “It seems you are the one who is clueless and dense and a looser. So, you have learned another language; that explains your obtuseness in regard to language, context, meaning. What a joke you are Faiz. You are a brainwashed Muslim to a dead, ritualistic, external religion; enslaved to your sins and selfishness and pride. (Ephesians 2:1-3; John 3:18-21; John 3:36) ”

      Hahahaha, what’s the matter Kendra? Getting angry? It’s understandable why you are throwing a hissy fit. You have failed magnificently to prove your mangod accepted worship. Being the loser (not looser) you are, you just can’t accept the facts and let go of your pagan religion and its mangod. You remind me of the people of Noah (pbuh). They too couldn’t let go of their false gods. Instead, the clung to them like good brainwashed pagans:

      “And they have said: ‘You shall not leave your gods: nor shall you leave wadd, nor Suwa’, nor Yaghuth, nor Ya’uq nor Nasr’ (these are the names of their idols)” (71:23).

      I am STILL waiting for an explanation of the “context”. Since you seem to know everything, why can’t you provide a substantive rebuttal, instead of throwing hissy fits like a spoiled little girl? 🙂

      Like

    • “since Matthew 14:33 has “Son of God” in the context; along with all the other content in the all the gospels, it obvious means “worship to God”, since Christ is God by nature – eternal (John 17:5 – the glory He had with the Father before the world was) and the Word from all eternity past (John 1:1 – (and the Word was God”)”

      LOL, what a loser! “Son of God” was used for a lot of people in the Tanakh! It does not imply divinity.

      Just for good measure, and to further expose you as the satanic deceiver that you are, let me give you one more example of the use of προσεκύνησαν in the Septuagint. Since you keep harping about “context” (and doing a pathetic job of explaining it), let’s see what you do with this one:

      καὶ εἶπε Δαυὶδ πάσῃ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ· εὐλογήσατε Κύριον τὸν Θεὸν ἡμῶν· καὶ εὐλόγησε πᾶσα ἡ ἐκκλησία Κύριον τὸν Θεὸν τῶν πατέρων αὐτῶν, καὶ κάμψαντες τὰ γόνατα προσεκύνησαν τῷ Κυρίῳ, καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ.

      “Then David said to the whole assembly, “Praise the LORD your God.” So they all praised the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed down, prostrating themselves before the LORD and the king” (1 Chronicles 29:20).

      So notice here that it says that the people προσεκύνησαν to the Lord (Κυρίῳ) AND to the king (βασιλεῖ)! What does the CONTEXT tell us here if BOTH God and David are the recipients of προσεκύνησαν?

      Give up your pagan ways Kenny! It’s for your own good! Being stubborn in the fact of truth will only harm you in the end!

      Like

    • You can run but you can’t hide! I have completely demolished your “proskuneo” argument and the “context” argument. Why did the Israelites προσεκύνησαν to God and David at the same time? What does the “context” tell you?

      Like

    • Yes; I know the 1 Chronicles 29:20 text. I am surprised you did not use that one at the beginning, because that is one of the main texts that Roman Catholics use to try and say that bowing down to statues of Mary is not “worship”.
      You should really listen to the debate between Dr. White and Patrick Madrid.

      Ezekiel 8:15-16
      Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these.
      And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD’S house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.

      8:16 καὶ εἰσήγαγέν με εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν οἴκου κυρίου τὴν ἐσωτέραν καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν προθύρων τοῦ ναοῦ κυρίου ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν αιλαμ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου ὡς εἴκοσι ἄνδρες τὰ ὀπίσθια αὐτῶν πρὸς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν ἀπέναντι καὶ οὗτοι προσκυνοῦσιν τῷ ἡλίῳ

      I guess bowing down and just giving honor to the sun is not that bad.

      Like

    • Lol, Christians are a silly bunch. You completely ignored the clear problem in 1 Chronicles, instead harping about what Catholics say. And then you simply moved on to another verse, which actually refutes your argument further!

      Since you have been harping about context, why would we not assume that David was also worshiped? After all, the Israelites bowed to both God and David at the same time!

      Regarding Ezekiel, it says they bowed to the sun. Ding, ding, ding! Yes, that’s what the word literally means, to bow or prostrate! It doesn’t mean to worship, although it could be an action that would accompany worship. But bowing by itself does not necessarily mean worship. Why can’t you get that through your pagan head?

      Like

    • Since you have been harping about context, why would we not assume that David was also worshiped? After all, the Israelites bowed to both God and David at the same time!

      Because the doctrine of “there is only One God worthy of Worship” and the whole context of all of Judaism in the OT protects the text of 1 Chronicles from saying that worship that was given to the king. The homage / honor given to humans is different than the worship given to God.

      Jesus accepts that worship in the gospels.

      You cannot deal with it.

      Like

    • Regarding Ezekiel – it obviously meant “Worship” in that context because of the context and that God calls that bowing down as an abomination / a detestable action. As a Muslim, you should be able to see this. You are a buffoon for not understanding this issue of context and language and Monotheism, since your own religion should inform you of these things. Instead, you willfully remain in rebellion and being obtuse.

      Like

    • You use Roman Catholic arguments; you agree with them bowing down to statues of Mary and praying to a statue is ok. (an idol ) It is you who are arguing for Shirk.

      Like

    • Hahahaha, honestly Kenny, you are a buffoon. I’m not defending anything about Catholics. I am merely showing that YOUR Bible uses the word “proskuneo” to refer to bowing or prostration, and that it was used for God and for humans. Your pathetic strawman only proves that you are unable to formulate a rational argument and are getting desperate.

      Like

    • You are the baffoon, since you don’t understand language, linguistics and your wooden-headed argumentation speaks volumes and you don’t understand, since you have proven you don’t know another language and that words have different meanings in different contexts.

      “Can you picture it? A man is caught bowing down before a Baal in Moses’ day in his tent. He is brought before Moses, and when asked for a reason for his idolatry, the man replies, “Oh, that wasn’t idolatry. Don’t you know that someday, in a language that will come into broad use in about 3,000 years, you will be able to argue for a less strict use of the term?” I’m sure that would go over about as well as the, “Oh, I wasn’t worshipping the idol by bowing down and lighting candles before it, I was giving it dulia instead” excuse. Both excuses would go with the idolater under a pile of rocks.”

      “There simply is no biblical basis for saying it is acceptable to give service to created beings but only worship to God, for both concepts are part and parcel of the single meaning of “worship” in Scripture. “You shall worship and serve God alone” cannot be changed into “you shall worship God alone; but as long as you call your religious devotion ‘service’ you can ‘serve’ Mary and angels and saints, too.” The Bible not only does not recognize such a distinction, it denies it, both lexicographically (both latria and dulia trace back to biblical usages and both terms refer to divine worship) as well as by direct assertion. Paul refers to the idolatry that marked the pagan past of the Galatians as “service” in Galatians 4:8 (“However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves [“served,” root term being douleuo, leading to dulia in Latin] to those which by nature are no gods”). So if one begins with the Word as your ultimate authority, no amount of quibbling from later sources will change the reality of the definition of worship. And believe me, ask Uzzah if God is serious about the topic of worship (2 Samuel 6:3-7).

      http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/09/latria_v_dulia_in_roman_cathol.php

      Obviously, the bowing down to the king in ! Chronicles 29:20 or or to a human in those Genesis passages, or Rev. 3:9 is not worship; but in other places it does mean worship, because the context demands it (Son of God, as in Matthew 14:33, no objection by Jesus; did not do what the angels rebuked John for in Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9 and context shows this in Revelation 5:13-14, etc.)

      Like

    • Bwhahahaha, oh Kenny is soooo mad!!

      I have been asking you to demonstrate the “context” for like 3 days now, you clown! I think that you have no idea what you are talking about, but you are too proud to admit it. That’s what happens when you get brainwashed into idolatry. You will cling to your mangod instead of listening to reason.

      Let’s look at yet another example to further embarrass you!

      Daniel 2:46 – τότε ὁ βασιλεὺς Ναβουχοδονοσορ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον καὶ τῷ Δανιηλ προσεκύνησεν καὶ μαναα καὶ εὐωδίας εἶπεν σπεῖσαι αὐτῷ

      Well look at that! Nebuchadnezzar bowed down to Daniel and even offered incense and other gifts to him, and yet Daniel didn’t say anything like “don’t worship me”! So was Daniel “God”? I guess you should start worshiping him now, you pagan buffoon! LOL!!

      Like

    • Read the next verse. You are the one who does not seem to look at context nor even understand context and language, etc.

      All you have is your ad hominem attacks and dead ritual religion and bombast and name-calling. You are an empty soul.

      Like

    • I’m playing the world’s smallest violin for you again.

      Nebuchadnezzar prostrated to Daniel and offered him incense. That is the context. It is a pagan making an offering to a man.

      You are nothing more than a liar and deceiver. You don’t like it that other people are not foolish enough to fall for the lies of your religion like you are. Get over it. The rest of us use our reason. You obviously don’t. You think you know everything and look down on others with smugness. Let me tell you something, buddy: you are the empty soul.

      Like

    • When you bow down in the direction of the Qibla, are you worshipping the Qibla (the niche in the Mosque) or the Kaaba (or the black stone ? – some even use Omar’s statement in Hadith that it looks like he is worshiping the stone, etc. ) in Saudi Arabia, or does it just look like that ? (for someone who does not know, it looks like you worship those physical things)

      So, it is possible that Rev. 3:9 just means that they will be worshiping God in their hearts; but in the presence of the Christians, “bowing down”.

      Because of all the other verses, like Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9 and Rev. 5:13-14 (worship, bowing down to the one who sits on the throne (the Father) and the Lamb (Jesus the eternal Son) that are clearer.

      Like

    • Islam does not seem to give you moral power to avoid always having to make a snarky comment and ad hominem and then when pointed out, you always have to turn it around with stuff like “I am playing the world’s smallest violin” and “Kendra” and insults. This is why your character is like Shamoun’s behavior – you cannot just debate about the issues without always having to have some snark or bombast or bellicose or trying to read motives, etc. (liar, etc.)

      If you sincerely believe in Islam, but if is wrong, that is not lying, you are just deceived.

      If I sincerely believe in the Bible and Christianity (Protestant, Evangelical, Calvinistic, Believer’s baptism), that is not being a liar, but it is possible that if I am wrong, it just means I don’t know or possibility that I am deceived, but it is not lying.

      Like

    • “June 6, 2018 • 3:30 pm
      When you bow down in the direction of the Qibla, are you worshipping the Qibla (the niche in the Mosque) or the Kaaba (or the black stone ? – some even use Omar’s statement in Hadith that it looks like he is worshiping the stone, etc. ) in Saudi Arabia, or does it just look like that ? (for someone who does not know, it looks like you worship those physical things)

      So, it is possible that Rev. 3:9 just means that they will be worshiping God in their hearts; but in the presence of the Christians, “bowing down”.

      Because of all the other verses, like Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9 and Rev. 5:13-14 (worship, bowing down to the one who sits on the throne (the Father) and the Lamb (Jesus the eternal Son) that are clearer.”

      We bow to Allah (swt), not to the Kaaba. We simply pray in the direction of the Kaaba. Your problem is that you are haphazardly and inconsistently applying the meaning of “proskuneo” without any proof of why it must mean “worship” when applied to Jesus but not to David or Joseph or Daniel. Your bias on the issue is blinding you.

      Revelation 3:9 says nothing of the sort of what you are suggesting. You are just making things up to avoid admitting the fact that you are inconsistently using “proskuneo” when it suits your purpose. Given that it simply means to bow, Rev. 3:9 is saying that the Jews will be made to bow to the Christians as a sign of their inferiority. The meaning is the same when it is used for other people, or for God. It simply means bowing or prostrating. But while only God is actually worshipped, when applied to others, the word simply means bowing with no suggestion that “worship” is also involved.

      Like

    • However, the text (of Rev. 3:9) doesn’t say that Christ is making these Jews worship the Christians, but rather that they will be made to worship (God) before or by the feet of these persecuted believers. (just like you face Mecca or bow down before the Qibla, or kiss the stone in the Kaaba, etc. ) Worshiping someone and worshiping at someone’s feet is not the same thing.

      Like

    • it is possible that the verse speaks about the ungodly falling down to offer genuine worship to God “before,” that is, in the presence of, the church. The word “before” (enopion) can “pertain to a position in front of an entity, before someone or something” or pertain “to being present or in view, in the sight of, in the presence of, among” someone or something (BDAG). Neither the first, nor especially the second of these common significations (which is found elsewhere in Revelation; cf. 7:11, 15; 13:13; 14:3, 10) for this preposition require that the church itself be the recipient of worship, rather than God in the presence of the assembly. On this view, “I will make them to come and worship before thy feet” (poieso autous hina hexousin kai proskynesousan enopion ton podon sou) does not mean that the church itself received the worship, but that the ungodly will be compelled to come and worship God in the presence of these Christians in the eschatological judgment (Philippians 2:9-11) if they do not repent of their persecuting actions, fall down before them, and worship God in this life (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:24-25; cf. also the historical interaction of the church at Philadelphia with Judaism as recorded in Ignatius’ epistle to the Philadelphians 6:1; also note the different preposition in Revelation 22:8, where what is forbidden is John’s action when he epesa proskynesai emprosthen ton podon tou angelou). Also compare Revelation 3:9 to 2 Kings 18:22 kai hoti eipas pros me epi kyrion theon pepoithamen ouchi autos outos ou apestesen Ezekias ta hypsela autou kai ta thusiasteria autou kai eipe to Iouda kai te Ierousalem enopion tou thusiasteriou toutou proskunesete en Ierousalem… “And whereas thou hast said to me, We trust on the Lord God: is not this he, whose high places and altars Ezekias has removed, and has said to Juda and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem?” Here the altar is not worshipped, but God is “before” the altar. Just as “before” does not of itself necessitate that the church itself receives the worship, so the connection of “worship” and the “feet” in Revelation 3:9 does not require this position. In Psalm 98:5, “worship the footstool of His feet” does not mean that the footstool itself is worshipped, but God is worshipped at the place where His “feet” are (cf. Psalm 131:7, LXX); God, not the footstool for the feet, receives the worship. Similarly (although with a different preposition), when “Jacob … worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff,” the word leaning is properly supplied, for the Greek prosekynesen epi to akron tes rhabdou autou does not by any means signify that Jacob worshipped his staff.

      The conclusion that the worship of Revelation 3:9 is directed to God in the presence of the church is syntactically defensible. Since Revelation 19:10; 22:9, specifically forbid worship (proskyneo) of the created order, and the command is given to only “worship God,” it would seem out of place to conclude that worship is given to humans in Revelation 3:9. Thus, the conclusion that 3:9 refers to the worship of God in the presence of the members of the church, thus vindicating their faith, is to be preferred, and no exception to the rule that worship with proskyneo is properly rendered to God alone is found in the New Testament. from the article, by Thomas Ross, “Does the Son of god Receive Worship?”

      Like

    • “Islam does not seem to give you moral power to avoid always having to make a snarky comment and ad hominem and then when pointed out, you always have to turn it around with stuff like “I am playing the world’s smallest violin” and “Kendra” and insults. This is why your character is like Shamoun’s behavior – you cannot just debate about the issues without always having to have some snark or bombast or bellicose or trying to read motives, etc. (liar, etc.)

      If you sincerely believe in Islam, but if is wrong, that is not lying, you are just deceived.

      If I sincerely believe in the Bible and Christianity (Protestant, Evangelical, Calvinistic, Believer’s baptism), that is not being a liar, but it is possible that if I am wrong, it just means I don’t know or possibility that I am deceived, but it is not lying.”

      You act as it if you are the final authority on these matters, and you look down on people with a certain smugness that makes you come off as just another arrogant Bible-thumper. So don’t whine when you get put in your place.

      Like

    • “However, the text (of Rev. 3:9) doesn’t say that Christ is making these Jews worship the Christians, but rather that they will be made to worship (God) before or by the feet of these persecuted believers. (just like you face Mecca or bow down before the Qibla, or kiss the stone in the Kaaba, etc. ) Worshiping someone and worshiping at someone’s feet is not the same thing.”

      That is exactly the point I am making! The word simply means to bow, which by itself does not imply worship. However, you are insisting that when it is used for Jesus, then it automatically means he is “God”, but the word does not imply that at all.

      Like

    • I wrote about the Psalm 98 / Psalm 99 passage along time ago in relation to Roman Catholics wrongly using Augustine to make their case for worshiping statues and praying to statues of Mary and saints, etc. The same passage (Psalm 98:5) that Thomas Ross used in the article above.

      http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/roman-catholic-wrong-use-of-augustine.html

      Like

    • “The conclusion that the worship of Revelation 3:9 is directed to God in the presence of the church is syntactically defensible. Since Revelation 19:10; 22:9, specifically forbid worship (proskyneo) of the created order, and the command is given to only “worship God,” it would seem out of place to conclude that worship is given to humans in Revelation 3:9. Thus, the conclusion that 3:9 refers to the worship of God in the presence of the members of the church, thus vindicating their faith, is to be preferred, and no exception to the rule that worship with proskyneo is properly rendered to God alone is found in the New Testament. from the article, by Thomas Ross, “Does the Son of god Receive Worship?””

      Or it could simply mean that the Jews would be made low before the Christians, as signified by their bowing. This is much more “defensible” than the far-fetched claim posited by your theologians (Occam’s razor). And given repeated use of the word to refer to bowing to humans, this view has overwhelming support.

      Like

    • “I wrote about the Psalm 98 / Psalm 99 passage along time ago in relation to Roman Catholics wrongly using Augustine to make their case for worshiping statues and praying to statues of Mary and saints, etc. The same passage (Psalm 98:5) that Thomas Ross used in the article above.

      http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/roman-catholic-wrong-use-of-augustine.html

      Irrelevant to the present discussion. I am not defending the Catholic veneration of statues. I am saying that, according to the Bible, proskuneo does not imply worship.

      Like

    • Looking back at the article; it was more in the context of the Roman Catholics worshiping the consecrated hosts in the Eucharist, since they wrongly and ridiculously think the bread and wine actually literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus after the priest says the words (like a magic incantation).

      It is relevant, as per the long study by Thomas Ross, and proves that you are wrong.

      Like

    • Uh, no. It proves that Christians take great leaps of logic to avoid admitting simple facts. After all this, you have STILL yet to prove that proskuneo means worship for God or Jesus but not for anyone else, like David or Daniel. On the other hand, I have proven that the word does not imply worship. When prostrating to God, the prostrating is an action associated with worship, but the same does not apply to humans like Jesus or Daniel.

      Like

  21. My brothers,
    Don’t let Ken escape from his answer. A reminder for Ken and other dishonest christians.

    Ken said Jesus should’ve said like this to deny his divinity
    “I am not good; I am only a man; only God the Father is inherently good”

    1) I invite my muslim brothers to see how those unreasonable and dishonest christians try to enforce their nonsense to be applied on a semitic language in the first century. In the same way, we have to read Jesus saying I’m the second person of the triune God who share the same “substance”, and I’m the second one who has to be a flesh in a state called the hypostatic union!

    2) What did the jewish man get from the real Jesus’ answer? Do christians say he must have known that Jesus is good inherently?

    3) If Jesus had answered with Ken’s answer, do christians believe that Jesus with his human nature is good inherently or equal to the Father to begin with?

    4) Can Ken get the same conclusion,that he got from the hypothetical Jesus’ answer he provide, from Jesus’ statement in his bible which is “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” ?

    Liked by 1 person

    • 3) If Jesus had answered with Ken’s answer, do christians believe that Jesus with his human nature is good inherently or equal to the Father to begin with?

      Of course Jesus is good and sinless; the only sinless human to ever live. The only good one. Both His Divine Nature and Human Nature were good. But since the Jews understood that only God is perfectly good (they did not know of any human who did not sin, before Christ, as Psalm 14 and 1 Kings 8:46 and Ecclesiastes 9:3 and Psalm 58:3 clearly teach. The Tovia Singer stuff that Faiz the ad hominem potato-nut links to – Singer is not being honest with the Jewish Scriptures.

      4) Can Ken get the same conclusion, that he got from the hypothetical Jesus’ answer he provide, from Jesus’ statement in his bible which is “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” ?

      That verse has already been answered a million times.
      Dr. White answered that a long time ago.

      Like

    • “Of course Jesus is good and sinless; the only sinless human to ever live. The only good one. Both His Divine Nature and Human Nature were good.”
      Are you saying the sinless human being is good as God ? Is that good of Jesus’ human nature/part is equal with the good of God?

      Ken said:
      “But since the Jews understood that only God is perfectly good (they did not know of any human who did not sin”

      OK! 🙂 If this is the ((standard /default understanding)) of the jews according to you, what do expect from that jewish man in the first century to understand when Jesus said to him (“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone.) ?!
      As a result, I think Jesus’ hypothetical answer you provided is meaningless!

      Can you see how dishonest you are, Ken? Why would you do that? Fear Allah instead of this gymnastic game you perform.

      “That verse has already been answered a million times.”
      No ! Don’t try to escape!
      I’m asking you in the light of your hypothetical answer which Jesus should have provided to deny his divinity!

      You said Jesus should have said to deny his divinity.
      “I am not good; I am only a man; only God the Father is inherently good”

      Can you & we get the same conclusion form Jesus’ statement here
      ““But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” ?”

      Liked by 1 person

  22. 1 You can say, it seems like “non-sense” to us, from your Islamic viewpoint; but you have no right to say “dishonest and unreasonable” because based on Christian doctrine, it is reasonable and honest as to how Christians have Always understood the passage. (Your accusation of dishonesty is not good Da’wa methods – Surah 29:46)

    2nd person of the Trinity and hypostatic is true; but the last part of your sentence does not make sense.

    2. The Jewish man got a challenge from Jesus to think about real and genuine goodness means. Later he got a lesson about his own heart, idolatry, materialism, covetousness, and self-deception and a lesson about what salvation is. (man cannot be saved apart from the grace of God by the Spirit of God causing the heart to change so that the person then understands, repents, and believes. – verse 27 – “with man it is impossible” (to be saved; you are dead and enslaved to your own sins) “but with God all things are possible” (God can overcome your stubborness and give you a new heart to be born again. (Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 3:1-10; Acts 16:14; Ephesians 2:1-5; 2 Cor. 4:6)

    and when the disciples said, “then who can be saved?” in Mark 10:26 (the story continues, which Paul Williams and other Muslims like Shabir Ally always ignore, as all of you here have never answered this issue.

    Mark 10:26-27
    “ Then who can be saved?”
    27 Looking at them, Jesus said, “With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.”

    The man may not have totally understood that Jesus is good inherently, but he does seem to realize that and says it, so Jesus takes the opportunity to teach him a lesson.

    Continued

    Like

    • “because based on Christian doctrine, it is reasonable and honest as to how Christians have Always understood the passage.”

      No it’s not! And that why it took christians centuries literally to came with a “philosophical” concept to understand their invented religion, yet that philosophical concept still is well known for all people to be just contrived wordplay, and christian couldn’t do anything about it. They keep saying it’s a mystery to deceive their followers.

      And please don’t use the card of crying! Yes, you’re dishonest in this part. I don’t try to be offensive, but I really see dishonesty in from your side. I can’t see it!

      2- Which part not making sense for you?
      I simply say that your demand from Jesus is pointless because this is the default understanding about Jesus is what you said about jews. In contrast, our demand is very valid to see Jesus saying ” I’m the second person of the triune God who share the same “substance”, and I’m the one who has to be a flesh in a form called the hypostatic union!” because this is a wild idea not only for jews, but also for all people. I said that in the first comment of mine in this post if you noticed.

      3- This is just a fanatic view of you about the text nothing more.

      “The man may not have totally understood that Jesus is good inherently, but he does seem to realize that and says it, so Jesus takes the opportunity to teach him a lesson.”
      This is not true even in your dreams. Jesus made it difficult for your “prophet” Paul

      Liked by 1 person

    • If muslims didn’t deal with that passage fairly as you claim which is NOT true, do you say the same thing about NT scholars?
      Do you say the same thing about the author of Matthew who corrupted the dialogue?

      I’m telling you, Ken. You’re just in denial! Sorry for you! All what I can do is to pray for your soul. It swims in the dark of Shirk.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Liberal agnosic/atheist/skeptic scholars are unbelievers; so they don’t count for understanding the truth of Scripture, because they don’t believe in the Scriptures as “God-breathed”. The things such as “Q”, etc. are theories, without any extant evidence.

      Like

    • How could that be relevant? We are talking about a specific passage. All of those people have not dealt with Mark 10:18 fairly? Why would they do that? Why don’t you say that you’re the one who is so blind to see what’s obvious.

      Like

    • Since we believe there is only one God, the doctrine of the Trinity is not shirk, since it is One God in three persons; there is only one God.

      Like

    • You do worship three gods with no doubts, Ken. Trinitarians cannot provide any good argument neither philosophically nor theologically for polytheists to substantiate why this universe got created by one God. Your belief in one god is just a saying. It doesn’t really differ to what you hear from mormons.
      The reality says that you’re a Mushrik. In your mind & in your heart you seek to please three gods, You ask three gods. You repent to three gods. Repent! And Remember that neither Jesus nor Abraham has ever worshiped triune god/s. Follow their step!

      QT
      “And [mention, O Muhammad], the Day We will gather them all together; then We will say to those who associated others with Allah, “Where are your ‘partners’ that you used to claim [with Him]?
      Then there will be no [excuse upon] examination except they will say, “By Allah, our Lord, we were not those who associated.
      See how they will lie about themselves. And lost from them will be what they used to invent”

      Like

    • No because the Bible clearly teaches there is only one God and that foundation is part of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

      see here:
      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/man-made-religion-tries-to-make-god-more-understandable/

      Like

    • I know that your bible teaches that there’s only one God, but you don’t accept that teaching. You believe in three gods.

      Like

    • No; one God in three persons.

      Like

    • Each one of those three is fully god by himself. You worship three gods. I’m sure this is what your heart tells you. You are in denial. Sorry for you. This is the dark of Shirk. How could satan do that in your brains? Can’t you reason?

      Like

    • The doctrine of the Trinity demonstrates respect for the Bible, rather than trying to make God simple and understandable.

      “If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about.”

      C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 145. (MacMillan Publishing Company, Inc. New York, 1943, 1945, 1952. (Originally in Beyond Personality: The Christian Idea of God, 1944, p. 19)

      Like

    • C.S.Lewis was a preacher and a christian apologist. He was not reasoning at all. He was dreaming with his poetic writings. That’s it. Once we apply the historians’ criteria, we can easily how this nonsense got developed.
      Moreover and importantly, what he said proves that trinity doesn’t make sense, so why do christians of today say it’s understandbale by the playing with words?

      Ken said:
      “Man-Made Religion tries to make God more Understandable”
      what a logic!
      QT
      “And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, “This is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah . And they speak untruth about Allah while they know.”

      Did Jesus want to make God less understandable or more understandable when he said to that Jewish guy “Why do you call me good?” “No one is good—except God alone.”?!

      You alter this simple and clear saying of Jesus to justify your polytheism.

      Mormons have more mystery in their christianity in which believing in many gods doesn’t really contradict
      believing in one god! Why? Because “Man-Made Religion tries to make God more Understandable” !

      My brothers in Islam. My advice for you and me to save your time, especially we are entering to the last 10 days of this holy month. Don’t waste your time with those christians who know the truth, but they don’t accept it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated by followers of Jesus Christ to safeguard the good news that in Jesus Christ we encounter God face to face. It was not devised to make God less understandable, or to make God so mysterious that the common people have to depend on clergy and theologians to understand it for them, as the JWs [Jehovah’s Witnesses] charge. Instead, the doctrine of the Trinity was developed out of respect for God’s revelation of Himself. [the Scriptures, OT and NT] The Witnesses’ doctrines about God, Christ, and “holy spirit”, on the other hand, were developed not in order to represent the bible’s teaching more faithfully, but to make God understandable and comprehensible. “

      “The choice is therefore between believing in the true God as he has revealed himself, mystery and all, or believing in a God that is relatively simple to understand but bears little resemblance to the true God. Trinitarians are willing to live with a God they cannot fully comprehend. As C. S. Lewis put it:

      “If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about.”

      Robert M. Bowman, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Baker Books, 1989, p. 138-139. [My explanatory comments in brackets.]

      Like

    • “the doctrine of the Trinity is not shirk, since it is One God in three persons”
      Yes but that’s a self contradiction Ken. You have three separate individuals you worship and to get around the problem you come up with terms like ‘person’ and ‘being’ to try and verbal gymnastic your way out of it.
      Each one is YHWH and they are each different from one another and yet it’s 1 YHWH?
      Just face it Ken, it’s pure shirk. When will you realize that?

      Like

    • When one reads the whole 4 Gospels from beginning to end, as each one as a writer has a purpose, you can the context as a whole and understand that each one communicates his purpose as a unified book.

      Like

    • That would mean that until all 4 gospels were written, early Christians reading the individual gospels had no idea about any trinity.

      But the problem is that even with all 4 gospels, the trinity doctrine is still not explained. what about the holy spirit? When Paul used to greet his followers in his letters, he would usually mention only the father and Jesus, but not the holy spirit. Even the Council of Nicea did not originally specify the holy spirit’s inclusion in the trinity.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “When one reads the whole 4 Gospels from beginning to end, as each one as a writer has a purpose, you can the context as a whole and understand that each one communicates his purpose as a unified book.”

      How does that answer my comment?

      Like

  23. I find it really strange that JW always says ‘you don’t believe Jesus ever spoke those words’ whenever we bring up the verses of Jesus not knowing the Hour.
    As if that’s what we are arguing!
    We bring it up because YOU believe in them, whether we believe in them or not is not even part of the argument. So why bring up this ‘o you don’t believe he ever said that’ nonsense?

    Liked by 1 person

  24. “You have three separate individuals ”

    But they also exist in one single spirit. So they have singleness and unity from this viewpoint.

    Like

  25. When one reads the whole 4 Gospels from beginning to end, as each one as a writer has a purpose, you can see the context as a whole and understand that each one communicates his purpose as a unified book. (if the Spirit of God opens your heart and mind. (Acts 16:14; Luke 24:45)

    In Matthew, Jesus is communicated as the Messiah, who fulfills the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants (“Son of Abraham, son of David, development of the term “Messiah” (anointed one, king) – and the virgin birth (chapter 1) and receiving worship and doing the miracles He did and saying the things He did all points to Him as the Messiah, Son of God, worthy to be worshipped. (meaning He is God by nature/substance/essence)

    Writers have a thing called a “literary inclusio” which means a theme of their work from the beginning to the end; and we see this in Matthew as he shows Jesus as the virgin born Son of God, Messiah (chapter 1), who is worthy of worship (Matthew 2:1-12; 14:33; 4:10 (worship is for God only)) and the book ends with same theme of Jesus as worthy of worship, after Jesus has risen from the dead (Matthew 28:9, 17) The context in Matthew 14:33 adds “You are the Son of God” to “they worshipped Him”.

    There is nothing like that in the Genesis passages you bring up, nor in Rev. 3:9.

    They recognized Him as the Son of God, which means He has the same essence / substance/ nature, as God the Father.

    But since all through the Gospels, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (also in Acts and Epistles) relate to one another, speak to one another, love one another – these Biblical terms and data gave the content to say that they are 3 persons (hupo-stasis – something existing/standing, underneath something else) – personal relationships within the God-head / Trinity / Divine Substance.

    We understand that you cannot grasp that with your human mind. That is all you have. All you have is your human weakness and limitation and weak efforts of trying to reach the one true holy God. All you have is external rituals like Salaat, Rakat, wudu, Haj, Ramadan (but most are feasting in the evenings), Zakat, etc. – there is not much emphasis on the heart or internal things in Islam. It is mostly government force, executions, and dead rituals that have no meaning for the heart of mankind.

    You cannot find God (Allah). God has to seek you out (Luke 19:10) and open your spiritual eyes (Ephesians 1:18-19) and mind (Luke 24:45) and heart (Acts 16:14) in order to see. You are blind and dead in your sins. (Ephesians 2:1-3)

    Jesus Himself said:
    43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. John 8:43

    You cannot hear or understand or grasp this, unless God opens your heart and mind. (2 Cor. 4:6; John 6:44; Acts 16:14)

    47 He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” John 8:47

    But you need to read the Gospels from the beginning to end, asking God to reveal Himself to you.

    Instead of jumping all around, out of context, using Islamic websites to questions verses out of context. Read it straight through with an open heart until the end and pray for guidance.

    Like

  26. Just a question off topic,

    Does Allah have corporeal or non-corporeal form?

    Like

  27. A reminder that for the Qs that Ken couldn’t deal with

    “Of course Jesus is good and sinless; the only sinless human to ever live. The only good one. Both His Divine Nature and Human Nature were good.”
    Are you saying the sinless human being is good as God ? Is that good of Jesus’ human nature/part is equal with the good of God?
    Ken said:
    “But since the Jews understood that only God is perfectly good (they did not know of any human who did not sin”

    OK! 🙂 If this is the ((standard /default understanding)) of the jews according to you, what do expect from that jewish man in the first century to understand when Jesus said to him (“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone.) ?!
    As a result, I think Jesus’ hypothetical answer you provided is meaningless!

    Can you see how dishonest you are, Ken? Why would you do that? Fear Allah instead of this gymnastic game you perform.

    “That verse has already been answered a million times.”
    No ! Don’t try to escape!
    I’m asking you in the light of your hypothetical answer which Jesus should have provided to deny his divinity!

    You said Jesus should have said to deny his divinity.
    “I am not good; I am only a man; only God the Father is inherently good”

    Can you & we get the same conclusion form Jesus’ statement here
    ““But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” ?”

    ========================
    Notice my brothers that in the first point, Ken is implying that the good of Jesus’ human part is equal with God. Accordingly, Jesus’ hypothetical answer must have been like this “I am not good; I am only a man; only God the Father is inherently good” for Ken. Can you see what kind of mindset do christians have?
    In other words, Ken is saying if Jesus had said “I am only a man; only God the Father is inherently good”, that doesn’t mean Jesus is not God!! , which proves the point of this post as whole.

    Liked by 1 person

    • How could Jesus have been sinless if he overturned the tables and whipped people in the temple? True, they shouldn’t have been there in the first place, but the way he beat them out…wasn’t that a sin?

      And how about animal cruelty? Letting demons possess some pigs and then have them jump off a cliff seems pretty cruel. Another sin…

      Like

  28. there is such a thing as righteous anger.

    so, no, it was sin.

    Like

    • No it was NOT sin; neither one.

      Like

    • Just saying it was not sin does not make it so. Isn’t animal cruelty a sin? Couldn’t “righteous anger” coupled with violence be seen as a sin?

      Like

    • Jesus as God can kill the pigs if He wants to. God does this all the time in history through disasters, hunting, etc.
      “The Lord kills and makes alive” – 1 Samuel chapter 1
      God is sovereign over death.

      Death is God’s judgment on sin. Genesis 2:16-17; chapter 3; Romans 3:23; Ezekiel 18; Revelation chapter 20:10-15

      Like

    • First, the question is not about whether Jesus is a sinless man or not. The question is whether the sinless human part of Jesus is equal with God or not.

      Again, it’s very obvious that you’re not honest, Ken. You want Jesus to prove that he’s not God philipahsically for the jews in the first century while Jesus by default is a man(i.e. not God) for the jews the first century.

      Do you know what that means?
      In other words, it means when you meet a man in your church, he has to prove that he’s not a potato philosophically to convince you that he’s not a potato. I hope you got what I mean.

      May Allah guide you in this holy month.

      Like

    • Problem with the way you argue is that you are not seeing all the massive material in the text of the New Testament that testifies to the truths of the Messiahship of Jesus, and that the Messiah is also the Son of God (Psalm 2, Mark 14:60-64), and that demonstrated the Deity of Christ, which leads to the doctrine of the Trinity –
      Both Islam and Christianity believe God spoke through prophets and books; so your parallel takes your argument outside of written revelation (prophetic, inspired books)

      John 1:1 – John 20:28
      Matthew 1:1 to Matthew 28:16-20
      Mark 1:1 – End – Son of God theme.
      Luke 1:1 to 24:53 & Acts – Virgin Birth – Luke 2:10-11 – the baby is Messiah, Lord (kurios) and Savior (from sin)

      It all points to these things in hundreds of verses.

      Very different from the dumb parallel of trying to prove a man is or is not a potato.
      What a dumb illustration or analogy.

      Like

    • OMG!
      I almost swear by God that you’re in denial. You know what you wrote is irrelevant. We have nothing to do with your misinterpretation for the texts in your bible. Why do you do that , Ken?
      Moreover, all my points, which you have not dealt with any, are based on (your answer).

      It’s a very old christian tactic, btw. When christians got cornered, they always avoid the main points to scatter the opponents. However, the reality is that they avoid the truth which eats their falsehood. You can’t stand the truth when it comes.

      Explain how my example is a different parallel?
      Jesus is a man for the jews by default, so when you say Jesus should have said “I am not good; I am only a man; only God the Father is inherently good” to deny his alleged divinity, that means you assume Jesus for the jews is God by default, which is very dumb idea to have.
      Also, I challenge you to give us one reason why we cannot have the same conclusion when Jesus said “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” ?

      If you think asking your fellow in the church to provide an evidence to prove that he is not a potato is very stupid, then try to be in our shoes when christians say Jesus said to a jewish man in the first century
      ” Why do you call me good?” , “No one is good—except God alone”? is an evidence for Jesus’ deity!

      Like

    • “Jesus as God can kill the pigs if He wants to. God does this all the time in history through disasters, hunting, etc.
      “The Lord kills and makes alive” – 1 Samuel chapter 1
      God is sovereign over death.

      Death is God’s judgment on sin. Genesis 2:16-17; chapter 3; Romans 3:23; Ezekiel 18; Revelation chapter 20:10-15”

      LOL!! I knew eventually you would go this route, and you didn’t disappoint! I was waiting for a Christian to say this. But it amounts to nothing more than a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT. Your argument is that Jesus was “sinless”, so whenever someone points out a sinful behavior, you can just excuse it by saying “well, he can do whatever he wants because he is God”.

      Thus, the “Jesus is sinless” argument is complete nonsense because it nothing more than a logical fallacy.

      Like

    • Problem for you is that killing the pigs was not sinful behavior.
      God kills people in tornadoes, hurricanes, wars, etc. – by allowing evil people to do evil things, etc.

      God is just and holy and never sins. God cannot sin nor lie (Titus 1:2; James 1:13-14; I John 1:5; Isaiah 6; Habakkuk 1:13) but He allows people to kill people for His own secret purposes and is sovereign over nature and the weather.

      Like

    • LOL, so killing animals by making them jump off a cliff is not sinful? OK, thanks for proving that your Bible is not against animal cruelty!

      Again, your argument is pathetic. It is nothing but a circular argument.

      Like

  29. Faiz: “True, they shouldn’t have been there in the first place, but the way he beat them out…wasn’t that a sin?

    And how about animal cruelty? Letting demons possess some pigs and then have them jump off a cliff seems pretty cruel. Another sin…”

    It was a soft whip so they felt no pain. The whip was primarily used so he didn’t have to lay fingers on them.

    Your concern for pigs is heart-rending.

    What about halal slaughter? No qualms about that?

    Like

    • LOL, Ignoramus keeps jumping from thread to thread to make a fool of himself!

      So a whip made out of cords would be painless? There goes Ignoramus again, lying for Jesus! Even if it was painless, he made a mess in the temple by turning the tables over in a violent fit of rage and drove those people out of there. Ergo, it was a sinful act.

      Your deflection about the pigs is heart-rending. There is a difference between killing animals for food (by the way, halal and kosher slaughtering are very similar) and forcing them to jump off a cliff. It was animal cruelty to drive them off a cliff. Ergo, it was a sinful act.

      Nice job defending your “sinless” savior!

      Like

  30. No it wasn’t sinful. Which law did Jesus break by sending the pigs over the cliff? Sharia law for animals 🙂

    Muslims prolong the pain and suffering of animals in death so you sticking up for animals is a joke.

    If Jesus is God he can kill and make alive as he pleases.

    Like

    • Bwhahaha, so now we have 2 Christians saying it is okay to send animals to their deaths by throwing them off a cliff! So there you have it!

      Hey Ignoramus, was it cruel to kill animals for the temple sacrifices? How were they killed? (Hint – It probably involved a sharp knife 😉 ).

      So in the end, the two Christian jokers cannot explain how Jesus was sinless besides resorting to personal opinions and logical fallacies. Ergo, their savior was not sinless and thus they are still in their sins and will go to hell. That sucks!

      Like

    • Oh and by the way, since those pigs did not belong to Jesus or any of his followers, he deliberately killed someone else’s pigs. Willful destruction of someone else’s property…ooh, that’s sin. Tsk, tsk, tsk…

      Like

    • You just have to stand back and be in awe, in awe of the absolute deceitfulness of these people.
      They’ll say hey Jesus did this or he didn’t do this or he said this or he didn’t say this while Muhammad did/didn’t. So now they want to compare him to Muhammad (saw). But when you point out a major inconsistency of their biblical Jesus then all of a sudden it’s shirk cus you can’t compare Muhammad to God (= allegedly Jesus). What an absolute bullshit!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Another example of the sinful savior. The Biblical Jesus lied on occasion:

      “You go to the festival. I am not[b] going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee. 10 However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret” (John 7:8-10).

      Jesus told his brothers to go to the festival but that he would not go. But after his brothers left, he went to the festival anyway. Ergo, he lied. Whether it was a harmless lie or not, it was a still a lie. The likes of Calvin and Augustine considered lying to be ungodly, no matter what the situation. And of course, the gospel of John says that Satan is the “father of all lies” (John 8:44).

      This is not looking good for our Christian friends. How can you expect to be saved when your savior was a sinner?

      Like

  31. “June 3, 2018 • 7:36 am
    Bwhahaha, so now we have 2 Christians saying it is okay to send animals to their deaths by throwing them off a cliff! So there you have it!”

    I’m sure Allah would have done it differently but unfortunately he didn’t intervene by all accounts.

    “Hey Ignoramus, was it cruel to kill animals for the temple sacrifices? How were they killed? (Hint – It probably involved a sharp knife 😉 ).

    FYI the temple was destroyed in AD 70 so we are told.

    Like

    • Hahahaha, running away again? It doesn’t matter if the temple was destroyed or not. The question is how were the animals killed when the temple sacrifices were being offered?

      And FYI, Ezekiel says that the temple will be rebuilt and the sacrifices reinstated, so we are told.

      Regardless, your savior killed someone’s animals. That’s a willful destruction of property, which is a sin last time I checked. Ergo, your savior was not a “perfect” or “sinless” sacrifice and you are still in your sins and thus going to hell. Sorry…

      Like

  32. “Because the doctrine of “there is only One God worthy of Worship” and the whole context of all of Judaism in the OT protects the text of 1 Chronicles from saying that worship that was given to the king. The homage / honor given to humans is different than the worship given to God.

    Jesus accepts that worship in the gospels.

    You cannot deal with it.”

    ROFTL!! What a brainwashed pagan you are! You have yet to prove that Jesus accepted worship, because the word used does NOT imply worship! If that was the case, then David also accepted worship!

    You are such a pathetic trinitarian that you can’t even see the irony of your statement. Yes, the Tanakh speaks of ‘One God worthy of worship”. It doesn’t speak of some weird, self-contradictory trinitarian deity.

    Like

  33. “Regarding Ezekiel – it obviously meant “Worship” in that context because of the context and that God calls that bowing down as an abomination / a detestable action. As a Muslim, you should be able to see this. You are a buffoon for not understanding this issue of context and language and Monotheism, since your own religion should inform you of these things. Instead, you willfully remain in rebellion and being obtuse.”

    Then Nebuchadnezzar also “worshiped” Daniel, and Daniel accepted it. You can keep playing this game, like a brainwashed zombie, but your own Bible speaks against you and your demented manworshiping cult.

    If bowing down was an “abomination” according to your Bible, then Joseph, David, Daniel etc. all would have spoken against it. But they didn’t. Hence, you are refuted.

    Of course it is forbidden in Islam to bow down to a human or anyone else other than God (with the exception of when Allah told the angels to bow down to Adam as a sign of his superiority to them). That is why I don’t follow your contradictory and confused Bible.

    Like

  34. Because if you keep reading the next verse, Daniel 2:47, tells us that Nebuchadnezzar spoke of “Daniel’s God” – “surely your God is the God of gods and Lord of kings and able to reveal mysteries . . . ” etc.

    So, the context tells us that Nebuchadnezzar recognized the God of Daniel, not Daniel as a god. That is why Daniel did no object.

    So, you have been refuted; again. Because you fail to read the context of passages and don’t understand that words can have meanings in different contexts.

    Like

    • You obviously don’t know how to read, or you are just being deceitful again. Nebuchadnezzar refers to Daniel’s God as “God of gods”. He is still not denying his gods. He is merely saying that Daniel’s God is superior. Why was he offering incense to Daniel?

      So, you have been refuted…again. Because you fail to use your reason and instead choose to blindly worship your mangod.

      Like

  35. And 1 Chr 29 v 20 means that the king also bowed down to worship God, in unison with the congregation.

    “Hahahaha, running away again? It doesn’t matter if the temple was destroyed or not. The question is how were the animals killed when the temple sacrifices were being offered?”

    We can seek for more humane methods of killing animals to reduce the pain that they go through if we are not beholden to a pagan world view emanating from the 7th century.

    Like

    • LOL, nice try with the wordplay. Even your precious KJV refutes you:

      “And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord, and the king.”

      Now, the use of the word “proskuneo” can either mean that they simply bowed down to the king, or if we follow your fellow bonehead Ken’s lie, that the word means worship, then it means that David was worshiped too.

      “We can seek for more humane methods of killing animals to reduce the pain that they go through if we are not beholden to a pagan world view emanating from the 7th century.”

      HAHAHAHA, but that means that your god allowed animals to die painfully for thousands of years! Man, can’t you guys ever be consistent? You are an embarrassment to your religion!

      As it stands, your savior was obviously a sinner. He cruelly had some animals killed which were someone’s property and he used violence to remove a bunch of people from the temple. Hence, you are still in your sins and will go to hell.

      Like

  36. “(14) Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah: While we were returning from a Ghazwa (Holy Battle) with the Prophet, I started driving my camel fast, as it was a lazy camel A rider came behind me and pricked my camel with a spear he had with him, and then my camel started running as fast as the best camel you may see. Behold! The rider was the Prophet himself. He said, ‘What makes you in such a hurry?” I replied, I am newly married ” He said, “Did you marry a virgin or a matron? I replied, “A matron.” He said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you may play with her and she with you?” When we were about to enter (Medina), the Prophet said, “Wait so that you may enter (Medina) at night so that the lady of unkempt hair may comb her hair and the one whose husband has been absent may shave her pubic region. (Book #62, Hadith #16)”

    Prodding a camel with a spear is also nice way of treating animals?

    Like

    • Hahahaha, still trying to deflect from your savior’s sins? Why did you god allow animals to be killed for thousands of years from what you call a “painful” slaughtering method? Why did you savior kill someone’s animals? Deflecting to a hadith only shows your desperation and inability to explain why your allegedly “sinless” savior was actually sinful. You’re doomed Iggy. Because your savior was sinful, he could not suffice as a sacrifice for you. Thus, you are still in your sins and going straight to hell when you die. I would worry, if I were you.

      Like

    • Come on dude! Pricking? Really?
      Pricking a camel, horse or whatever is what every rider does. There is nothing abusive about it. If you are on the road (especially in 7th century desert) and if the animal doesn’t want to move forward then what else can you do? A prick is then INHUMANE??

      Omg what a desperate attempt to deflect from the topic.

      Liked by 1 person

  37. We’ll see.

    Was your prophet nice to black dogs you hypocrite?

    Like

    • LOL, STILL trying to deflect?

      “We’ll see”? You’re going to hell, you dingbat! I would think you would be a little more concerned! But I know, you’re trying to play it cool. However, your continued attempts to deflect only shows that you have no response to your savior’s sinfulness.

      My prophet said that being kind to all living things is appreciated by Allah (swt). The temporary injunction to kill stray dogs in Medina was for public safety. Those dogs were a nuisance and danger to people.

      I am still waiting for you to explain why your savior was a sinner. Deflections and tu quo ques will not save you.

      Like

  38. (2) Abu Zubair heard Jabir b. ‘Abdullah (Allah be pleased with him) saying: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered us to kill dogs, and we carried out this order so much so that we also kill the dog coming with a woman from the desert. Then Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) forbade their killing. He (the Holy Prophet further) said: It is your duty the jet-black (dog) having two spots (on the eyes), for it is a devil. (Book #010, Hadith #3813)

    Like

  39. “If you see a black dog with two spots on its eyes roaming around, let me know.”

    More pagan nonsense I guess from those who claim to be monotheists.

    Like

    • Bwhahaha, and this is coming from a trinitarian pagan man-worshiper! Oh madman, come to your senses!

      Why don’t you go and worship your Canaanite god with white hair? While you are at it, better start praying for salvation, because your sinful savior cannot do it. Your savior lied, and destroyed other people’s property. You are still in your sins and will go to hell. Bummer…

      Like

    • Hey madman, if you see a talking snake offering you a piece of fruit, let me know. 😉

      Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: