Currently I am having a discussion with Dr Peter J. Williams, Principal of Tyndale House, Cambridge on twitter. He is a leading evangelical Biblical scholar. I am waiting for his latest reply. The overwhelming scholarly consensus is that the historical Jesus did not actually utter the famous ‘I am’s in John. The reasons are varied and persuasive. I touch on just one problem..
Categories: Bible, Christianity, Debates, Jesus, New Testament scholarship
so mark thought that having jesus talk coded parables (explain in private in a house) was more important than direct “i am” ?
in mark he goes around detailing stuff alone in rooms or away from public. the other writers like matthew make jesus’ private explanations available in public but not once they have jesus claim to be “before abraham i am”
Indeed!
Paul do you still believe that jesus is protrayed as GOD in Johns gospel due to the multiple nature of the ‘ i am’ sayings or do you think jesus is on his way to becoming GOD in Johns gospel but hasnt reached there yet. ? I know Nazam takes this view due to the verses of high christology in gos of john having sound refutations and different interpretations .
@Paul William why do you believe it’s a stupendous claim?
@ Big
Because he’s not stupid and follows overwhelming evidence but that’s just a guess.
I don’t know why you feel the need to get involved in every conversation. You did not even understand the question. The reason I have “@Paul Willams” is to know his position on this matter. If he is not responding, let it go bro. When I want your opinion, I’ll let you know.
Last time I checked, Big Daddy of Ignorance doesn’t get to decide who can or cannot comment. Get off your high horse.
@ Big
Another easy one. Last I checked its a public forum and nothing prevents me from making a comment. Have any more easy questions you want to fire at me?
Does duplication multiply the truthfulness of a statement?
if a lie is repeated a thousand times it is still a lie.
2 synoptics have:
“the Son of Man came to serve and give His life a ransom for many.” Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28
Yet, you always find a way to try and deny those also as true and historical.
Ken I know it’s difficult, but try and focus on the actual topic of my post.
Deflecting because you have no answer for inconsistency.
Kennywise has to like his own comments to give himself a boost. 😂
@Ken Temple
since the topic of the alleged “I AM” statements has come up again ken would you be so kind as to continue the discussion we had concerning them in September? If you don’t remember which comments i can post my final say on and where the discussion left off here.
I don’t remember details.
Ok, what was your final comment, because I don’t remember the details of our discussion .
@Ken Temple
no problem it was-
“Obviously, the Divine will is stronger than the human will and Jesus’ human will submitted to the Divine will.”
But now you have two problems.
1. you can’t truly say that they are unified when one submits to the other and doesn’t act in unison with every action and experience of the other nature. you’re essentially separating the natures by doing this. Turning them into glorified on/off switches as per you’re theological convenience.
2. you now have zero explicit statements from Jesus(a.s) claiming to be divine. the reason being is that when you boil it down what you just described is no different from any other prophet. A human submitting to the will of the divine and letting it speak through him. we disagree about where the divine is so to to speak (hypostatic union vs not) but Islam agrees with this principle.
In conclusion the “I AM” statements are more trouble than their worth for christian theology and can never be used to prove jesus(a.s) claimed divinity.
Vaqas gets in on the nuking! Boom!
https://trinities.org/blog/podcast-277-was-christ-tempted-in-every-way/
temple,
Like all crosstians, Kennywise responds to the conundrum of the I am statements with deflections Amazing!
Oh the double cringeworthy standard
describes your comments perfectly
Dr. White did a great job recently defending the text of the NT vs. the text of the Qur’an and the historical issues of preservation here vs. a Muslim by the name of Abdullah Hamimi, in Australia.
why dont you write whites reasons here . Instead of linking to a video write the reasons here and i am sure many muslims will wreck white. Yo sound very impressed, bring the reasons out
Ken is always impressed by people who have the same views as himself. Some might call it vanity..
Watch the Video.
“Dr. White did a great job recently defending the text of the NT vs”
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14830
i would recommend for muslims to go through the comment section and see that christians did nit give a damn changing their bibles.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/dtrwdg/has_the_bible_ever_been_altered/?st=k2xqfzbk&sh=7556b4b1
Edbabinski :
Edwardtbabinski 3 points 3 days ago
The Book of Jeremiah is now one-seventh longer than the one that appears in some of the 2,000-year-old manuscripts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some verses, including ones containing a prophecy about the seizure and return of Temple implements by Babylonian soldiers, appear to have been added after the events happened. See the AP article, “In Jerusalem, Scholars Trace Bibleʼs Evolution,” by Matti Friedman, Aug. 12, 2011
The “Gospel of Mark” was most likely altered and added to by the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Furthermore Matthew and Luke’s additions to the beginning and ending of Mark are where those two Gospels diverge the most from each other.
New Testament writers altered earlier writings/ideas (many from the inter-testamental period), putting them to new uses: https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2015/06/inspired-writings-that-cite-non.html
The so-called Western text of the Book of Acts is nearly one-tenth longer than the more familiar Alexandrian text.
One of the intractable problems in Textual Criticism research is the Book of Acts. A recently published 5th century manuscript P.Oxyrhynchus 74.4968 (Gregory-Aland P127), comprises portions of eight leaves preserving portions of Acts 10–12 and 15–17. David C. Parker and Stuart R. Pickering in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Volume LXXIV, ed. D. Leith, et al. (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 2009) discuses the manuscript. In short, the discovery shows that the bifurcation between the Alexandrian and Western text of Acts needs to be re-thought since P.Oxy 74.4968 probably shares a common ancestor with Codex Bezae even though the texts are not particularly close. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2011/04/larry-hurtado-and-rethinking-text-of.html
The first complete English translation of the Book of Acts as found in Codex Bezae was only published in 2012. Codex Bezae is a bilingual 4th century Greek-Latin manuscript. In the past it has been viewed as a marginal manuscript witness. However, the pioneering work of Jenny Read-Heimerdinger and Josep Rius-Camps (The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae 4 vols, published by T&T Clark) has brought the variant readings in this fascinating document to the fore. Their work reveals that, far from being a late revision, Codex Bezae can be seen as one of the oldest versions in existence. http://www.amazon.com/Lukes-Demonstration-Theophilus-Apostles-According/dp/0567438880
The speeches of the words of the Qur’anic Jesus have NO historical basis or pedigree in the previous revelations; and they are 600 years late, in a foreign language with no evidence of historical basis from the Hebrew or Greek previous revelation books, and are just made up out of thin air.
“they are 600 years late”
The Qur’an is the actual speech of God. It preexisted the creation of the universe.
Why do you even pretend taking historical scholarship seriously?
For books produced by mere men in human history, yes.
But the Qur’an is an entirely different phenomenon.
How do you propose we do ‘historical scholarship’ on God?
LOL
Nope.
The Koran came into existence from around 610 to 632 AD.
Or so claimed .
Then, after Muhammad died, there were many discrepancies and changes and differences that the Muslims were worried about and Hadith Sahih Al-Bukari, book 6 number 509 and 510 show us that they were worried that a large portion of the Quran would be lost because the fighters who were Qurra – those that recited and had memorized the Quran are being killed. then, a little later, Uthman ( around 644- 656 AD), the 3rd Sunni Khalif, ordered everything to be collected and he made one standardize text and then burned all the rest of the copies and fragments and pieces.
“the 3rd Sunni Khalif, ordered everything to be collected and he made one standardize text and then burned all the rest of the copies and fragments and pieces.”
temple is assuming that the “rest of the copies” were different quraans. my question to temple, from morroco to saudi arabia, how come quraan does not look like the new testament gospels? if this book had competing beliefs about god, day of judgement, prophets, etc, it should look a lot like new testament gospels.
think about it, we would have cross contamination from different scribes and end product would be like nt gospels.
The Qur’an is the actual speech of God. It preexisted the creation of the universe.
Empty assertion with no proof.
“But the Qur’an is an entirely different phenomenon.” Your opinion.
Fact: There is historical scholarship done on the Quran refuting your opinion.
“How do you propose we do ‘historical scholarship’ on God?”
We do historical scholarship on the various God-Myths, including yours.
Rather we have shown you that Qur’an stands on a firm ground. But on the other hand, we have proven to you that both Jesus and Paul have to be liars according to your definition of what the scriptures are.
You just repeat yourself with no evidences. Again, you are not in a church.
The NT came hundreds of years too late after the Tanakh. And it is a contradictory mess written by different fallible people. So using Kennywise’s own standards, we can reject the NT.
Not the same issue, since the NT is full of thousands of OT quotes and allusions.
Lol, so? The NT also quotes apocryphal works as well. It doesn’t mean anything.
The inter-textuality of both OT and NT is superior and proof of reliability.
There is no inter-textuality. Mindless repetition doesn’t turn a fairytale into fact.
@Ken Temple
“since the NT is full of thousands of OT quotes and allusions.”
I think you mean mis quotes and forced narratives.
“Not the same issue, since the NT is full of thousands of OT quotes and allusions.”
how are you doing your comparison? when you read the text in hebrew and greek and then do a side by side analysis, do you come to the same conclusion? is your “quotes and allusions” based on english rendering ? we have already caught out SCRIBES of the gospels trying to RECONCILE the gospels with each other, what about these “quotes and allusions” ? is your faith based on the english ?
But you guys trashed the OT as completely corrupted by the claims you make about the Jews always lying and changing their Scriptures and what you said about books of Samuel, Chronicles, and the Kings of Israel David and Solomon. (prophets in Islam). Very Anti-semitic – reveals bigotry and racial hatred of the Jewish people in many Muslims hearts. I have heard this a lot; also spawns a lot of conspiracy theories.
You have no basis to use your statement, “the NT came hundred of too late after the Tanakh” since you completely trash the Tanakh.
But the thousands of quotes and allusions demonstrate the intertextuality of the texts between OT and NT.
Hey moron. I’m just showing how retarded your argument is against the Quran. Just because something comes after something else, does not mean the former is wrong because it differs with the latter. Get it, stupid?
Yes, we have trashed the Tanakh because, just like your NT, the Tanakh is also a corrupted book containing some truth but a lot of falsehood. The books are written by anonymous authors (sometimes with multiple authors). They are at times contradictory (e.g., Samuel and Chronicles), and they often times demonstrate clear borrowing from pagan mythologies (e.g., Leviathan, God as an old man, etc.). Based on these reasons, we have no reason to accept these books.
As for your NT’s “thousands” of “quotes and allusions”, this has already been debunked. First of all, just because the NT “quotes” the Tanakh does not mean the NT is automatically safe. The NT also quotes from non-canonical books and myths. Second, as Vaqas pointed out, the NT often times MISQUOTES the Tanakh. In other cases, the authors quote a variant version (i.e., the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic text, and vice versa). All of this shows that the NT is just an unreliable as the Tanakh. The authors were simply copying earlier legends and twisting them for their own theological purposes.
The Quran is not 600 years later. We don’t have any historical evidence the Quran we have a date from Muhammad. Just claims that it was preserved by oral tradition. They have over 24 Arabic Qurans. Their earliest manuscript contradicts each other. And textual criticism shows variance in modern Qurans. The Quran is probably 1924. You’re being generous by saying 600 years later.
🤣🤣🤣 It’s amazing to see so many inaccuracies in one post! “Big Daddy”, huh? Yeah, maybe of ignorance!
@ QB
Seriously… I… don’t even know where to start correcting the man.
We can easily verify it. Show us a complete Quran from the time of Muhammad? Unless you have it in writting. You have zero evidence it’s been preserve perfectly. Preserve by oral tradition is a claim that we can’t verify. It’s actually a blind faith.
good point. Dr. White brought this up in his recent debate with Abdullah Hamimi in Australia.
And textual criticism shows variance in modern Qurans. The Quran is probably 1924. [Standardized printing from Al Azhar University scholars] You’re being generous by saying 600 years later.
This was a good point that Dr. White brought up in his debate recently vs. Abdullah Hamimi.
Big Daddy of Ignorance, if you can easily “verify” it, then show the evidence. You made the claim. Now back it up.
It’s an ignorance parade today! Big Daddy, Kennywise (as usual), and James White…all parroting the same nonsense about the 1924 Al-Azhar copy of the Quran. Hmm, let’s see what the facts are:
“…the reading of ʿĀṣim (d. 744), transmitted by Ḥafṣ (d. 805), predominates in most areas of the Muslim world today. The royal Egyptian edition of 1924, which follows this reading and has itself become a standard text has further contributed to its popularity. Most historians agree with the mainstream Muslim belief that despite differing readings, the integrity of the text survived, given the cognitive nature of memory and language in an orally based culture, and the Qurʿān as Muslims know it today is one text with variant readings pertaining to pronunciation and accents only.”
http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/print/opr/t236/e0661
WOW! What a shocker! …NOT!!
@ QB
Yeah I’m going to go ahead and challenge this as well.
Simple question for the both of them since they know so much:
What is the text that has the biggest variance, is it our oldest and how many?
This is going to be entertaining… As I know the answer
Scholarly views on the differences between Hafs and Warsh readings, from Islamic-Awareness:
“Brockett states:
In cases where there are no variations within each transmission itself, certain differences between the two transmissions, at least in the copies consulted, occur consistently throughout. None of them has any effect in the meaning.[23]
The author demarcates the transmissions of Hafs and Warsh into differences of vocal form and the differences of graphic form. According Brockett:
Such a division is clearly made from a written standpoint, and on its own is unbalanced. It would be a mistake to infer from it, for instance, that because “hamza” was at first mostly outside the graphic form, it was therefore at first also outside oral form. The division is therefore mainly just for ease of classification and reference.[24]
Regarding the graphic form of this transmission, he further states:
On the graphic side, the correspondences between the two transmissions are overwhelmingly more numerous than differences, often even with oddities like ayna ma and aynama being consistently preserved in both transmissions, and la’nat allahi spelt both with ta tawila and ta marbuta in the same places in both transmissions as well, not one of the graphic differences caused the Muslims any doubts about the faultlessly faithful transmission of the Qur’an.[25]
And on the vocal side of the transmission the author’s opinion is:
On the vocal side, correspondences between the two transmissions again far and away outnumber the differences between them, even with the fine points such as long vowels before hamzat at-qat having a madda. Also, not one of the differences substantially affects the meaning beyond its own context… All this point to a remarkably unitary transmission in both its graphic form and its oral form.[26]
He also discusses the Muslims’ and orientalists’ attitude towards the graphic transmission:
Many orientalists who see the Qur’an as only a written document might think that in the graphic differences can be found significant clues about the early history of the Qur’an text – if cUthmân issued a definitive written text, how can such graphic differences be explained, they might ask. For Muslims, who see the Qur’an as an oral as well as a written text, however, these differences are simply readings, certainly important, but no more so than readings involving, for instances, fine differences in assimilation or in vigour of pronouncing the hamza.[27]
Brockett goes so far as to provide examples with which the interested reader can carry out an extended analysis. Thus, he states:
The definitive limit of permissible graphic variation was, firstly, consonantal disturbance that was not too major, then unalterability in meaning, and finally reliable authority.
In the section titled, “The Extent To Which The Differences Affect The Sense”, the author repeats the same point:
The simple fact is that none of the differences, whether vocal or graphic, between the transmission of Hafs and the transmission of Warsh has any great effect on the meaning. Many are the differences which do not change the meaning at all, and the rest are differences with an effect on the meaning in the immediate context of the text itself, but without any significant wider influence on Muslim thought.[28]
The above is supported by the following:
Such then is the limit of the variation between these two transmissions of the Qur’an, a limit well within the boundaries of substantial exegetical effect. This means that the readings found in these transmissions are most likely not of exegetical origin, or at least did not arise out of crucial exegetigal dispute. They are therefore of the utmost value for the textual history of the Qur’an.[29]
And interestingly enough the author went on to say:
The limits of their variation clearly establish that they are a single text.[30]
Furthermore, we read:
Thus, if the Qur’an had been transmitted only orally for the first century, sizeable variations between texts such as are seen in the hadîth and pre-Islamic poetry would be found, and if it had been transmitted only in writing, sizeable variations such as in the different transmissions of the original document of the constitution of Medina would be found. But neither is the case with the Qur’an. There must have been a parallel written transmission limiting variation in the oral transmission to the graphic form, side by side with a parallel oral transmission preserving the written transmission from corruption.[31]
The investigation led to another conviction:
The transmission of the Qur’an after the death of Muhammad was essentially static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and nothing significant, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out nor could anything be put in.[32]
Finally, we would like to establish Adrian Brockett’s conclusion on this matter:
There can be no denying that some of the formal characteristics of the Qur’an point to the oral side and others to the written side, but neither was as a whole, primary. There is therefore no need to make different categories for vocal and graphic differences between transmissions. Muslims have not. The letter is not a dead skeleton to be refleshed, but is a manifestation of the spirit alive from beginning. The transmission of the Qur’an has always been oral, just as it has been written.[33]
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Christian missionaries like Jochen Katz find themselves “refleshing” a dead skeleton in order to comply with their missionary program of outright deception. Of course, regular participants in the newsgroups have time and again witnessed Jochen’s tiring displays of dialectical acrobatics – the misquoting of references and the juggling of facts. Surprisingly enough, missionary Katz cannot even support his point of view using the reference [23], which undermines his missionary agenda of twisting the facts. The reference [23] has firmly established that:
There is only one Qur’an,
The differences in recitation are divinely revealed, not invented by humans
The indisputable conclusion that the Qur’an was not tampered with.”
https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/text/qiraat/hafs#5
@ QB
I love how they all bring up qiraat but know nothing about them
Your Islamic awareness article Last Updated: 15th January 2002.
You have 17 years of catching up to do. More than a decade of research.
I have proof we don’t have a Quran dating from the time of Muhammad. You want me to send you a photo of my empty hands? It does not exist.
Now show me a complete Quran from the time of Muhammad? Don’t try to divert again.
Lol, so the Big Daddy of ignorance has no actual response. It’s amazing how so many rand trolls seem to consider themselves as experts on anything to do with Islam.
Still waiting for your evidence…queue Jeopardy theme.
The Big Daddy of ignorance has to resort to theory protectionism to prove his point. So he asks for a “complete Quran” from the time of Muhammad (pbuh), even though the Quran was not copied down in manuscripts until Abu Bakr and later under Uthman. As it stands, we do have several manuscripts that date to within the first half of the 1st century AH. We also have the Birmingham Quran, which could have been written during the time of Muhammad or shortly thereafter.
Plus, the Quran has been memorized by millions of people from the beginning of Islamic history. The Big Daddy of Ignorance declares on his own authority that such evidence is inadmissable. Well how convenient! But whether some random, ignorant troll accepts it or not, the fact is that memorization serves as indisputable evidence that the Quran has been preserved from the time of Muhammad (pbuh). If you were to destroy every copy of the Quran on earth today, the Quran would still be preserved word for word because millions of people have memorized it.
@ QB
Exactly. What kills me is:
1. They act like we still don’t memorize it.
2. Writing wasn’t (and still isn’t ) our primary means of preservation and its still light years ahead of what they got.
an agnostic-athiest by the name of bro-jangles has this to say :
Those two passages actually use different words in Greek.
The “Good shepherd” verse uses the word kalos, which means “good for use” or good in appearance, not intrinsic moral good. A “good shepherd” is an effective shepherd. He’s good at being a shepherd, like being a “good cook” just means being good at cooking.
“Why do you call me good?” uses the word agathos, which means innately good or moral.
Also, Jesus only calls himself the “good shepherd” in the Gospel of John. John has a much more elevated Christology and puts his own rambling theological discourses into the mouth of Jesus. He dd not draw them from a prior sayings source. Bart Ehrman says that the discourses given to Jesus in GJohn are stylistically identical to how the author himself talks, in other words, the author wrote those speeches himself (which was normal and expected in antiquity anyway).
Of course apologists won’t accept that, or accept that the evangelists did not necessarily have the same views about Jesus, but that’ the real answer. Mark did not think that Jesus was God.
/////
williams , your thoughts on this?
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people! of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet’s Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), “Umar has come to me and said: “Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the! Qur’an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur’an be collected.” I said to ‘Umar, “How can you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?” ‘Umar said, “By Allah, that is a good project. “Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which ‘Umar had realized.” Then Abu Bakr said (to me). ‘You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur’an and collect it in one book).” By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur’an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, “How will you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?” Abu Bakr replied, “By Allah, it is a good project.” Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. So I started looking for the Qur’an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is: ‘Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty..(till the end of Surat-Baraa’ (At-Tauba) (Surah 9.128-129) Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur’an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with ‘Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of ‘Umar.
Narrated Anas bin Malik: Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to ‘Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before.” So ‘Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, “Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.” Hafsa sent it to ‘Uthman. ‘Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, ‘Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and ‘AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. ‘Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.” They did so, and when they had written many copies, ‘Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. ‘Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, “A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): ‘Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.’ (Surah 33.23)
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr sent for me and said, “You used to write the Divine Revelations for Allah’s Apostle : So you should search for (the Qur’an and collect) it.” I started searching for the Qur’an till I found the last two Verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari and I could not find these Verses with anybody other than him. (They were): ‘Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty …’ (Surah 9.128-129)
Hadith, Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, no. 509, 510, 511 (my embolding for emphasis)
” I said to ‘Umar, “How can you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?
Since this appears to be saying that Mohammed never collected the sayings of the Koran under one book then it implies this is wrong since everything has to be an exact imitation of him which is what Sunna means – his words and deeds -and taqlid تقلید – is copying his words and deeds .
quote:
Uthman (ra) told the scribes, in case there is a discrepancy on certain words, to write them according to the Qureishi dialect, Uthman did not say to standardize the mus’haf under the Qureishi dialect.
quote:
“The scholars differed in the survival of the seven letters in the readings that we have on three views:
The first view: the doctrine of Tabari and Al-Tahawi and Ibn Abdul-Barr: that Osman gathered people on one of the seven letters, lest the nation differ, and ordered people to leave what else, and thus disappeared the remaining six letters.
The second view is that the doctrine of Ibn al-Jazari and who agreed: that the seven letters remained of what is likely to draw the Koran, and said that the companions wrote the Koran on the pronunciation of the language of Quraish in the last exposition and stripped the Koran of points and form (shekl) to bear the image of the remaining seven letters,so the Koran was written on one letter, and his line is possible for more than one letter, because it was not dotted and not formed it is the bearing of the remaining six letters, and this statement is close to the first say of their agreement that the Koran was written on one letter, but the second saying increases that this writing bears other characters of the remaining six letters .
The third view is that al-Suyooti and the one who agreed: that the Ottoman masahifs included all seven letters, and that the nation may not neglect the transmission of any of them, which the djumhur (majority) and investigators likely is the second view, and for the expansion of this topic see the book Manahil Sufism for Zarqani , And studies in the science of the Koran of Dr. Rumi.
Allah knows best”
@Ken Temple
no problem it was-
“Obviously, the Divine will is stronger than the human will and Jesus’ human will submitted to the Divine will.”
What does that have to do with the “I am” statement So?
Give me more of the previous comments than just that because I don’t remember what we were talking about as far as the human will submitting to the divine will .
@Ken Temple
my bad all of what i posted was my last comment. here i’ll just post the whole convo-
Vaqas Rehman
September 19, 2019 • 11:54 am
@Ken Temple
When Jesus(a.s) supposedly said these “I AM” statements to proclaim his divinity with his divine will, what was his human will doing?
Ken Temple
September 19, 2019 • 3:30 pm
One unified person with 2 natures, 2 wills.
Obviously, the Divine will is stronger than the human will and Jesus’ human will submitted to the Divine will.
Jesus modeled that attitude for us in the Garden of Gethsemane – “Not My will, But Your will be done” – Luke 22:42 – Jesus’ human will surrendered to the Will of the Father. Jesus voluntarily went to the cross for us and died for our sins. John 10:17-18
Vaqas Rehman
September 19, 2019 • 4:20 pm
@Ken Temple
“Obviously, the Divine will is stronger than the human will and Jesus’ human will submitted to the Divine will.”
But now you have two problems.
1. you can’t truly say that they are unified when one submits to the other and doesn’t act in unison with every action and experience of the other nature. you’re essentially separating the natures by doing this. Turning them into glorified on/off switches as per you’re theological convenience.
2. you now have zero explicit statements from Jesus(a.s) claiming to be divine. the reason being is that when you boil it down what you just described is no different from any other prophet. A human submitting to the will of the divine and letting it speak through him. we disagree about where the divine is so to to speak (hypostatic union vs not) but Islam agrees with this principle.
In conclusion the “I AM” statements are more trouble than their worth for christian theology and can never be used to prove jesus(a.s) claimed divinity.
The doctrine of Jesus’s 2 natures in the hypostatic union is that he is one unified person with two wills.
While Jesus was on earth before his resurrection and glorification the human will was sinless but had to submit to the divine well in order to be the perfect model for us and surrender and submission .
“The doctrine of Jesus’s 2 natures in the hypostatic union is that he is one unified person with two wills.”
you are just restating the contradiction in another way
how does x (fully divine person) exist as one who is not fully divine person?
makes sense?
”
While Jesus was on earth before his resurrection and glorification the human will was sinless ”
thats saying the following
“fully divine person” vs “fully divine person AS human”
and EACH is producing a will of its own.
you are saying “fully divine person” is IN itself producing a will FROM itself which is not the SAME as a will from itself . it is JUST a single PERSON (invisible) yet it has CONTRADICTORY wills.
“but had to submit to the divine well in order ”
fully divine person is fully human person and submits its will to fully divine person . confusing.
” the human will was sinless but had to submit to the divine”
was the human will CREATED or uncreated?
is “god the sons” WILL identical to “god the humans” will ?
@Ken Temple
Ken you seem to be missing my point. How can you claim the two natures/wills are unified when one submits to the other and doesn’t do anything for a period of time?
Thanks for giving more context to our conversation.
@ Ken
It is not “anti-Semitic” to state facts. Arabs are Semetic and so are majority of the prophets so this Zionist propaganda doesn’t work here. However it is FACT that this nation as a whole changed Scripture, worshipped idols and killed prophets.
It has nothing to do with their race it is what they did that’s being criticised. I can give you positives of their nation as well.
1. Sent the most prophets
2. 2nd largest nation going to be in heaven
3. Many scholars produced
But again this does not change that they did a lot of evil as well. And their own prophets testify against them.
It’s ironic how Kennywise’s own Bible condemns the Jews for such things as killing the prophets. Isn’t that “anti-Semitic”? Kennywise’s gospels place the blame for Jesus’ crucifixion on the Jews (“his blood be on our hands”). Isn’t that “anti-Semitic”?
You’re a pathetic clown, Kennywise. It’s no wonder you make such laughable arguments.
Judgement came upon the generation that kills the prophets and rejected the Messiah.
Matthew chapter 23 – upon the Pharisees, Scribes, lawyers, Sanhedrin, high priests, etc. who rejected Jesus as Al Masih.
Matthew 23:36 to 24:3; 24:15, 24:34
judgment came upon that generation – notice the phrase “this generation” in Matthew 23:36-37 and 24:34.
70 AD and the destruction of the temple was God’s judgment upon that generation.
But it never says that they changed the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles or the Torah in order to lie and deceive, etc.
You have no proof of your accusation against the whole of the OT. (Tanakh)
You are just applying a 600 year late book (or even longer because of lack of whole Qur’ans that go back to Muhammad and Uthman’s burning and destroying of most of the earlier stuff.)
You are just anachronistically putting Islam and Qur’an back into the few verses that you agree with as true, which claiming that the others are wrong and lies and were changed, but have no historical evidence for this.
Arabs are Semitic also – I agree.
But you have no proof that they changed the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Deuteronomy, Genesis 22, etc.
You guys quote Matthew 5:17-19 all the time (for your Islamic agenda and anachronistic twist)- this proves that at Jesus time not one jot or tittle was changed. Jesus believed in the Tanakh at that time and it is the same thing today basically. (with some textual variants; but nothing major like you are accusing them of.)
Dummy, the gospels say the Jews took the alleged murder of Jesus on themselves and their children. This was used by Christian anti-Semites to persecute Jews for centuries.
“But it never says that they changed the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles or the Torah in order to lie and deceive, etc.”
Why would it? An argument from silence doesn’t prove anything.
But Jeremiah does accuse the scribes of changing the text, doesn’t he (Jeremiah 8:8)?
And the evidence does show differences between the texts (e.g., Samuel and Chronicles). This is undeniable and only brainwashed fundies such as yourself would deny it.
Anachronisms are placed by crosstian zombies like you. You’re the one who try to hijack the Tanakh to “prophecize” your mangod, when it does no such thing. You’re the ones who try to anachronistically place your pagan trinity into the Tanakh, when it does no such thing.
“But you have no proof that they changed the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Deuteronomy, Genesis 22, etc. ”
Evidence comes from the contradictions, scientific errors, historical errors, absurdities, borrowing from pagan mythology, etc.
“You guys quote Matthew 5:17-19 all the time (for your Islamic agenda and anachronistic twist)- this proves that at Jesus time not one jot or tittle was changed. Jesus believed in the Tanakh at that time and it is the same thing today basically. (with some textual variants; but nothing major like you are accusing them of.)”
Jesus, assuming he said that, was referring to the law of Moses, not to the book you call the Bible, which was still in a fluid state at that time.
. 2. you now have zero explicit statements from Jesus(a.s) claiming to be divine.
That’s not true and Mark Jesus says he is the Lord of the Sabbath which means he is claiming to be the god of Genesis chapters 1 into the creator of the seventh day of rest .
Mark 2:28
In Mark 14 versus 60 to 64 Jesus clearly quotes from the old testament and claims to be the son of God and the Messiah and the high priest and Pharisees got upset and tore their robes and accused of a blasphemy, calling himself the son of God was a blasphemy me so it was a clear claim of being divine.
”
That’s not true and Mark Jesus says he is the Lord of the Sabbath which means he is claiming to be the god of Genesis chapters 1 into the creator of the seventh day of rest .
”
no, mark is saying every human is lord of sabbath.
sabbath was created for man.
in genesis adam is lord over things he can control.
quote:
Finally, it is crucial to highlight that Mark 2:27-28 may suggest that the Sabbath was created as a gift for humankind, rather than the reverse, and that humans are the rightful masters of the Sabbath. Casey views this as equivalent to other Jewish texts that speak about humans as ruling over all created things (4 Ezra 6:54; 2 Baruch 14:18). Of course, whatever Aramaic traditions underlie the text of Mark, Mark 2:28 seems to treat “the Son of Man” as a title distinctly in reference to Jesus. However, the logic could still follow that since the Sabbath was given to humankind, Jesus as the Human One par excellence can rightfully interpret how the Sabbath is best to be observed. By omitting Mark 2:27, Matthew and Luke may cut out some important aspects of the original argument and heighten Jesus’ personal authority over the Sabbath institution.
“Mark 2:28
In Mark 14 versus 60 to 64 Jesus clearly quotes from the old testament and claims to be the son of God and the Messiah and the high priest and Pharisees got upset and tore their robes and accused of a blasphemy, ”
because the priest believes that shaytaan possesses jesus, how could one POSSESSED By shaytaan make such blasphemous claims?
”
calling himself the son of God was a blasphemy me so it was a clear claim of being divine.”
no, you are wrong.
@Ken Temple
Does that mean you concede that the “I AM” statements are not explicit proof of claiming to be divine?
No, they are very clear and explicit proof of Christ’s Deity.
@Ken Temple
A human submitting to the will of the divine and letting it speak through him sounds more like an ordinary prophet than a divine being. So how can the “I AM” statements be used as explicit proof of divinity? How do you know it wasn’t the father speaking through Jesus(a.s)?
“So how can the “I AM” statements be used as explicit proof of divinity? How do you know it wasn’t the father speaking through Jesus(a.s)?”
watch carefully how temple will render human person of jesus as a mere vessel.
Bassam Zawadi Response to James White:
To read that line from Bukhari and argue that Abi Khuzaymah was the only person who had the verse in memory is incorrect. Read what Bukhari says carefully…
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 062.
Narated By Kharija bin Zaid : Zaid bin Thabit said, “When the Qur’an was compiled from various written manuscripts, one of the Verses of Surat Al-Ahzab was missing which I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting. I could not find it except with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari, whose witness Allah’s Apostle regarded as equal to the witness of two men. And the Verse was: “Among the believers are men who have been true to what they covenanted with Allah.” (33.23)
Volume 006, Book 060, Hadith Number 307.
Narated By Zaid bin Thabit : When we collected the fragramentary manuscripts of the Qur’an into copies, I missed one of the Verses of Surat al-Ahzab which I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reading. Finally I did not find it with anybody except Khuzaima Al-Ansari, whose witness was considered by Allah’s Apostle equal to the witness of two men. And that Verse was: ‘Among the believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah.’
So clearly, Zayd already knew about a verse. If he didn’t already know about this verse then how did he know that he must go out and search for it? How can he go out searching for something that he didn’t know even existed if we were to assume that only Abi Khuzayma knew about the verse?
What Zayd was referring to was that only Abi Khuzayma had it with him IN TEXT FORM.
Furthermore, Ibn Kathir says…
And Ahmad said: Ali bin Bahr said that Ali bin Muhammad bin Salma on the authority of Muhammad ibn Ishaq on the authority of Yahya bin Ebad on the authority of his father Ebad bin Zubayr may Allah be pleased with him said that Al Harith (Zayd) approached bin Khuzaymah with these two verses from the ending of Surah Al Bara’a (Surah 9) ‘Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves’ to Abdullah ibn Umar Al Khattab so he said ‘Who is with you on this?’ He said ‘I don’t know’ and by Allah I testify that I heard it from the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him and I learned it and memorized it then Umar said: And I testify that I heard it from the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him. (Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Commentary on Surah 9:129)
Abu Bakr instructed Zayd to collect both written evidence and evidence from memory. That is why Zayd was searching for those verses (in text form).
Notice that Zaid admits that he already knew about the verse since he heard the Prophet reciting it before, yet he claims that no one else except Khuzaima had it. How can that be? If Zaid already knew about it then that doesn’t mean that ONLY Khuzaima had it in the sense that you make it out to be.
This clearly shows that he was referring to Khuzaima as being the only one having it in textual form.
The context makes it clear and the same is also applied to Surah 9.
Christians strictly demand that the Bukhari text says what you want it to say and that is ‘TEXT FORM’. However, it doesn’t have to say that, since it is clear by looking at everything together that this is the correct understanding.
I appealed to the hadith in Saheeh Bukhari that showed that Zayd when speaking about Surah 33 also said that Abi Khuzayma was the only one had the verse. However, the same hadith clearly shows that Zayd already knew about the verse in question. Taking this into consideration and the fact that it is well known that Abu Bakr ordered that the Qur’an be collected both orally and textually, Zayd was speaking about Abi Khuzayma being the only one having the verses in textual form.
1) Abu Bakr issues an order that the collection must be made from both textual and oral sources.
2) There was no opposition towards Abi Khuzayma from any of the companions. There is no historical evidence that suggests that people were arguing about the validity of these verses and its difficult to believe that he would have got away with this lie since the Muslims recite the whole Quran in taraweeh prayers every Ramadan.
3) The statement “and I found it with no one else except…” could have three possible interpretations in light of the context Zayd was speaking…
Christians demand that the Bukhari text says what they want it to say and that is ‘TEXT FORM’. However, it doesn’t have to explicitly say that, since it is clear by looking at everything together that this is the correct understanding.
If you (James White) don’t want to be open minded and sincere then that’s your problem.
You and I both know very well that you wouldn’t apply these same standards to your faith. You interpret verses in your Bible to mean something even though they don’t explicitly state it. You sometimes try to understand the context and by looking at other verses, you derive an understanding. Yet, you are not willing to do the same here.
You asked why Abu Bakr would be worried about the huffaz dying if the Quran was already available in text.
Well, preservation from memory was more essential than preservation in text form to them. Because one haafiz could have all the Quran in his head while no person had all the Quran in his possession in textual form.
Secondly, Abu Bakr needed these people to be alive in order to verify the veracity of the Quranic collection in textual form, since I already stated that Abu Bakr demanded collection from textual sources and from the memory of the companions.
Ken you seem to be missing my point. How can you claim the two natures/wills are unified when one submits to the other and doesn’t do anything for a period of time?
A unified person does not mean the wills are totally unified WHILE ON EARTH for 33 years.
After the resurrection and glorification, the wills are in unity with no struggle.
Jesus is one unified person.
While on earth, He modeled submission for us as a perfect human being. He never rebelled or disobeyed God’s will. (the Father, and His own Divine Will)
His struggle in the garden to ask that the cup of suffering of the wrath of God upon Him was not sin or disobedience. It was human struggle as a model for us to surrender, because He fully submitted.
“His struggle in the garden to ask that the cup of suffering of the wrath of God upon Him was not sin or disobedience. It was human struggle as a model for us to surrender,”
makes no sense. you seem to be breaking up jesus. if i look at jesus the man and compare him to other martyrs who sang “shema yisrael elohinu echad” while BEING HACKED to death, then jesus is clearly not a model to follow.
jesus was , according to orthodoxy , in communication with his “divine person” so it makes no sense the begging bit.
@Ken Temple
“A unified person does not mean the wills are totally unified WHILE ON EARTH for 33 years”
I feel like thats what the word “unified” would naturally entail…
also are you saying then that there could be times when he wasn’t 100% human? i’m pretty sure thats heresy.
“After the resurrection and glorification, the wills are in unity with no struggle.”
See this would make sense with abstaining from temptations or human desire because BOTH natures are abstaining. To clarify I don’t have a problem with the human nature submitting to the divine nature in this fashion. I have a problem with the Person of Jesus(a.s) committing an action(the “I AM” statements) with one nature(divine) and the other nature abstaining(human)
Well, that is Christianity. Jesus is one person with 2 natures.
Whoever denies the Father and the Son, the Incarnation, the Deity of Christ, the eternality of the Son, the Trinity, the way of Salvation, the cross, the resurrection is the spirit of the Anti-Christ. (Dajjal) I John 2:18-28; 2 John 7; I Cor. 1:18-25; 1 Corinthians 15, 2 Corinthians 11:4 (a different spirit, a different Jesus, a different gospel)
@Ken Temple
“Well, that is Christianity”
And that’s why i’m a muslim.
“Jesus is one person with 2 natures”
I get this in theory, the problem is the execution. setting aside the contradiction issue of the “godman” the hypostatic union would be fine if Jesus(a.s) acted in ways that accommodated both natures. Rather than turning one off then on again as per your theological convenience. Also you didn’t answer one of my questions so i’ll ask again in a more blunt fashion, was Jesus(a.s) still 100% human when he spoke the alleged “I AM” statements?
“It was human struggle as a model for us to surrender,”
which goes missing in john
“I am COMMANDED what to say”
“I and the father r one”
John COMPLETELY destroys marks begging jesus. how can u believe these gospels share same view? it is john who is UNITING the wills of both father and son.
“It was human struggle as a model for us to surrender,”
so jesus was in regular contact with yhwh and even said ot predicted all of this and went around telling people how willing he is to die for sins , he goes around telling people about their weak faith. when jesus’ time comes close he starts begging like he didnt know what the hell is going on. and the divine person is SUPPOSED to be the same person LOL
we are to believe this as our model which lasted 6 hour on cross? hebrews were getting hacked and crying out shema israel….what model u have!
“A unified person does not mean the wills are totally unified WHILE ON EARTH for 33 years.”
”
the part which is not united have a desire from the same person which is contrary to the will of the same invisible person, how is this making sense?
forget the flesh, just look at the fleshless person/mind, how does this contradiction exist in the same person?
The virgin birth of Jesus Al Masih عیسی المسیح
which you agree with, proves the eternal Word / Son, Divine eternal nature and person, added to Himself a human nature also and lived as a sinless human for 33 years at the same time not ceasing to also be Divine. (Word, logos, John 1:1; کلمه الله
So, yes, He was fully human AND fully Deity when He spoke the “I am” statements.
” Divine eternal nature and person, added to Himself a human nature also and lived as a sinless human for 33 years at the same time not ceasing to also be Divine.”
divine person —– existing as divine person and then existing as created human person.
divine person is and is not.
is and is not.
while as divine person, he is at the same time not as divine person, but created human person .
in other words, yhwh is created and changing person.
you can see this simply by asking the question
A:
divine person ——> becomes ———-> human person
B:
divine person——–> still is divine person ——–>
so b is still existing as ONE who did not become, while A is existing as something which did become. this is a contradiction.
A and B are not IDENTICAL.
@Ken Temple
I could’ve done without the preaching but thanks for answering my question.
“So, yes, He was fully human AND fully Deity when He spoke the “I am” statements.”
Something about that still bothering me but i’ll come back to it later when i can collect my thoughts on the matter.
On a related note, is the “godman” still 100% human when receiving worship?
a key question!
Only the Divine nature of Jesus gets the worship.
@Ken Temple
“Only the Divine nature of Jesus gets the worship.”
But that’s separating the persons isn’t it?!
According to Church council the human nature has to be worshipped, otherwise you no Christian I’m afraid
Correction:i meant to say “But that’s separating the natures isn’t it?!” I apologize for the confusion.
“So, yes, He was fully human AND fully Deity when He spoke the “I am” statements.”
so yes, you just agreed that the human being made himself into god. thanks.
“he was fully human…..when he spoke the “i am ” statements”
adding in “and fully deity” will not RESCUE the “fully human” part from committing shirk . jesus /”god the man” COMMITTED shirk. blasphemy.
so yes, you just agreed that the human being made himself into god. thanks.
NO !
Rather the eternal Son of God / Word of God, God by substance into eternity past, voluntarily took on a human nature by being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary.
God became a man.
NOT “man became a god”
Luke 1:34-35
Matthew 1:18-25
John 1:1-5; 1:14-18
John 17:5
Philippians 2:5-8
Hebrews chapter 1
The human nature is assumed in the divine person actually
I think that is the Mia-physite / Coptic church position, but that the human nature is absorbed into the Divine person at the resurrection and glorification.
@ Ken
Ahh for giggles let’s disprove the modern heresy known as Protestants (Jesus is speaking)
“I am coming soon. Hold fast to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will never again leave it. Upon him I will write the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God (the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven from My God), and My new name.”(Revelations 3:11-12)
So even after the Ressurection he is still saying my God indicating that after the Resurrection the “human nature” did not get “absorbed” because this entire doctrine of two natures is false. (Please see my post on Arius being right)
“Only the Divine nature of Jesus gets the worship.”
But that’s separating the persons isn’t it?!
No, since He is only ONE person.
Beyond that, it is a mystery.
بلا کیف
“Bela Keif”
“without asking or knowing how”
My Bad i meant natures
@ Ken
بلا کیف
“Bela Keif”
“without asking or knowing how”
That’s ALL Christians did hence all the “Council of…” lol. Then they came up with the doctrine if the “Trinity” to justify worshipping a human and ignored clear text that state otherwise. Just using Islamic terminology does not make a contradicting doctrine true.
There is this square circle I saw. بلا کیف
“Bela Keif” “without asking or knowing how”
You mean like an Arabic literary text preexisting the creation of the universe?
So the eternal and uncreated Quran is not in Arabic? Is it in another language? Since you say that Allah wrote it. I assume it’s in some sort of language.
What you have is a sort of translation?
That’s a good point. Is Classical Arabic uncreated and eternal?
@ Unhistorical (aka Agnostic)
How is that contradicting doctrine? Your arguments and trolling are just getting worse.
@ Big
Actually its not. God wrote everything that will happen before creation. This extends to other Scriptures before the Quran.
@ Big
Please show me where I said any of that.
You make a claim that God wrote everything before creation. In what language was it written?
@ Big
God knows best.
@Ken Temple
Ken i’d like to ask again, and this time hopefully without error. You said “Only the Divine nature of Jesus gets the worship.” this seems like a blatant case of separating the natures is it not?
No.
Worship in the heart of the person doing the worship does not “separate” the natures inside of Jesus, as the power of the Divine Nature is what gets the worship.
Nevertheless, Jesus is one unified person, who was in eternity past fully God as the eternal Son and eternal Word.
John 1:1
John 17:5
who added to Himself a human nature through the virgin birth, which you also are obligated to believe in. Luke 1:34-35; Matthew 1:18-25
Beyond that truth, as to “how?”; it is a mystery, as I already told you.
Bela Keif
بلاکیف
“without knowing or asking how”
@ Ken
We are not obliged to worship a human or believe the Lord did a complete 360 one day.
“who added to Himself a human nature through the virgin birth”
Several issues as you are claiming God added something to Himself and has thus changed, using your text:
“I the LORD do not change…” (Malachi 3:6)
This verse also disqualifies Jesus(as) as being God and shows you are simply going to extremism to a righteous servant:
“God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind…” (Numbers 23:19)
Simply saying Bela Keif بلاکیف “without knowing or asking how” (which is not how we use this at ALL btw) Doesn’t fix the illogical nature of this false doctrine.
@Ken Temple
“Worship in the heart of the person doing the worship does not “separate” the natures inside of Jesus, as the power of the Divine Nature is what gets the worship.”
The natures cannot be separated. What that should mean is that you cannot pick and choose which nature you want to experience your actions toward the person of jesus christ(a.s). For example,if you were to say hi to the “godman” you could not pick which nature to say hi too. you just say hi to the person and by extension his nature(s). Similarly, if you want to worship jesus you by extension, worship the natures attached to him. saying you pick the divine nature to worship but not the human sounds like to me separating the natures.
“Rather the eternal Son of God / Word of God, God by substance into eternity past,”
why don’t you render this crap like this
“person of god” ?
”
voluntarily took on a human nature by being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary.”
and that human person SAID kufr al AKBAR ” I AM”
you agreed with me, why did you waste your time writing ?
“Rather the eternal Son of God / Word of God, God by substance into eternity past, voluntarily took on a human nature by being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary.
God became a man.
NOT “man became a god”
you know exactly what i meant. you went and twisted everything i said . if the HUMAN person said “i am” then we have a CONSCIOUS person making a blasphemous claim, thats what i meant when i said ” you made”
now you say “took on human nature” but you STILL have a human person making claim ” i am ” which means the same person did shirk with the same person. i am saying blasphemy is existing in the ONE CONSCIOUSNESS.
“Only the Divine nature of Jesus gets the worship.”
what? divine nature ? what is that ? do you worship a list of attributes? man, what do you believe?
so you made the person of jesus BEINGLESS? what do you believe?
“Unhistorical Fairytales” wrote:
According to Church council the human nature has to be worshipped, otherwise you no Christian I’m afraid
Which church council?
That was Nicea 2 – 787 AD.
It was not one of the first 4 that Protestants agree with:
Nicea 1 – 325 AD
Constantinople – 381 AD
Ephesus – 431 AD
Chalcedon – 451
We don’t agree with the ones after that. (some issues within them we agree with, but this – the 5th Council – 553 Constantinople 2 (with saying that Mary is Perpetual Virgin) is when they started adding unBiblical traditions and making them dogmatic.
my goodness….temple why are you such a scum bag?
the human PERSON is the divine person, so it logically entails u worship the one person which means human PERSON is included in your kufr
your tendency to always put things like “scum bag” in your comments exposes your religion of Islam as unable to help you debate issues in a proper way and with manners ادب = Adab
You violate Surah 29:46 and Islamic Adab.
Jesus is one Person with 2 natures.
The Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are the ones who take it too far and they venerate dead saints through icons and statues.
We Protestants hold to Sola Scriptura as the only infallible rule of faith and practice, and honor the first 4 councils and the early creeds that come from them (Apostles, Nicean-Constantinopolitan, Athanasian) as rightly explaining the Deity of Christ, the 2 natures of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity.
@Ken Temple
“Worship in the heart of the person doing the worship does not “separate” the natures inside of Jesus, as the power of the Divine Nature is what gets the worship.”
The natures cannot be separated. What that should mean is that you cannot pick and choose which nature you want to experience your actions toward the person of jesus christ(a.s). For example,if you were to say hi to the “godman” you could not pick which nature to say hi too. you just say hi to the person and by extension his nature(s). Similarly, if you want to worship jesus you by extension, worship the natures attached to him. saying you pick the divine nature to worship but not the human sounds like to me separating the natures.
Let me ask you Ken, if picking one nature to worship while excluding the other isn’t “separating the natures” what would constitute a mental separating of them to you then?
brother Vaqas,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtSm-InTLoA
have you seen this video ? he talks about mesopotamian gods and how they could merge with other gods, hide in holes, rocks and bodies.
ken temple, a long time ago was refuted like this :
And while we are talking about bad fruits. the worst fruit of them all is associating partners with God, taking as deity a human who needed air to breathe(Isaiah 2:22), taking as deity a man who was not all-knowing(Ezekiel 28:3), taking as deity someone who was tempted by evil(James 1:13) and a creature who needed food for sustenance(Psalms 106:20).
/////
now if we know about the gods shape shifting, hiding in holes, rocks, bodies etc, then doesn’t the torah argument collapse ? the creature who needed food for sustenance was not the spirit god who was in the body.
these messopotamian people had complex beliefs and it was not always about material things. even they could observe that material things perished .
it seems that ken temples bs “its the flesh part” could work as a “good rebuttal” used by the pagans against the torah.
i say that irregardless if it is invisible spirit, invisible consciousness, invisible whatever, your christian god experienced changes in himself which the other two persons did not. this should be enough to trump the other two over the son.
@ Ken
Yeah… That was when they started deviating. No it was ALL unbiblical (i.e. according to your text). Since inception the closest to all the text (even though their contradictory) was Arius (and in the modern day Jehovah Witness) as their is a clear hierarchy established and the argument from proto trinitarians was entirely based off philosophy not proof.
Nope.
Arius and the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today violated John 1:1-5 and John 1:14 / Luke 1:34-35, John 17:5 and Philippians 2, Colossians 1 and Hebrews chapter 1 and the rest of the NT.
Yep, because even Paul was not a trinitarian. The trinity came later. For example, Paul often times didn’t include the holy spirit in his greetings to his followers. Either the holy spirit was on vacation, or there was no such thing as the trinity yet.
@ QB
I know I guess Jesus(as) is anti Semetic as well lol
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it… (Matt 23:37)
He must have been a “self-hating” Jew!
@ QB
Well…
@ QB
They did all that but “definitely” didn’t touch their text though…
How convenient!
@ QB
Indeed!
Jesus was right on “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem” = the Pharisees, scribes, leaders, high priests, Sadducees, Sanhedrin, etc. – the leaders who rejected Jesus as Al Masih.
judgment came upon them in 70 AD.
But the true Jews were the Christians – the disciples, Peter, John, James, etc. and Paul, Barnabas and others and writers of NT, and the other regular men and women who trusted in Christ as Savior and Lord – the believing women were the first to witness the empty tomb, etc.
HAHAHA, talk about anachronisms!
???
empty accusation
“judgment came upon them in 70 AD.”
and jesus was supposed to return in that time lol
https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/bjmpc0/is_matthew_2434_considered_a_failed_prophecy/
christ was a false profit according to the nt .
and lets ask the jews about why “judgement ” came upon them :
You’re right. I should have mentioned that the first Sanctuary was destroyed because of idolatry, immorality & bloodshed, whereas the second Sanctuary was destroyed due to hatred without cause — even in Torah observance & practice of charity, which teaches that groundless hatred is considered as of even gravity with the three sins of idolatry, immorality & bloodshed together.
I always give the same answer to Christians who claim that the second Sanctuary was destroyed in 70 CE because Jews didn’t accept the Christian covenant: the reason could just as well have been that a new religion with a new covenant duped many Jews into believing that a man once was God. An effective counter argument, but I should have mentioned Yoma 9b. Sorry.
the crosstians just have “70” because that was their LIFE line , you see its like a person makes a LIST of false prophecies so then they just have one life line left, but SCHOLARS are debating if that one life line even GOES back to historical jesus.
https://celsus.blog/2016/02/17/radio-debate-tomorrow-on-the-dating-of-the-gospels/
wrong. Jesus Al Masih said it was because they rejected Him as Messiah, Matthew 21:33-46 and 23 and 24.
But the disciples ask a question that mixes the judgement on the temple in 70 AD with His second coming. Matthew 24:3
so the answer comes with a mixture of things that happened in 70 AD, with also prophecies of His 2nd coming.
“???
empty accusation”
True Jews wouldn’t worship a mangod, you idiot!
Mark 14:60-64 proves that you are wrong.
Um no, it proves once again that you are an idiot. First of all, Mark doesn’t refer to a mangod. Second, Luke gives a different version. Luke 22 says Jesus responded by saying “you say that I am”. According to Geza Vermes, this was an answer in the negative. Either way, you have failed to prove that there was a mangod that was worshiped by true Jews.
“But the disciples ask a question that mixes the judgement on the temple in 70 AD with His second coming. Matthew 24:3
so the answer comes with a mixture of things that happened in 70 AD, with also prophecies of His 2nd coming.”
crosstian, did you not READ the link?
“Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
quote:
It makes no sense that when Jesus says “this generation will not pass until all these things have happened”, he means “some sinful generation will not pass until all these things have happened”.
Every generation can be considered sinful. That’s not a prophecy. That doesn’t tell us anything.
Some future generation will not pass until [blank]? That tell us even less. Basically “this will happen during some time when humans are alive”.
You want us to take the culminating statement after all the prophecies, treat it like yet another prophecy of an event instead of a prophecy of a deadline, and accept that it happened as an imminent sign (like seeing tender leaves immediately before summer, or something that is right at the door) that happend ~1900 years ago.
It’s desperate apologetics. And not very good eisegesis.
“your tendency to always put things like “scum bag”
because you are and have demonstrated that for 5 years on this blog.
“Jesus is one Person with 2 natures.”
no idea what the hell you are talking about
WHAT does “one PERSON ” mean?
is this one PERSON fully human PERSON and fully divine person?
you say “two natures”
who asked you about NATURES when you haven’t even defined “one person” ?
“So, yes, He was fully human AND fully Deity when He spoke the “I am” statements.”
so this is a FULLY human person and fully divine person (ONE CONSCIOUSNESS) uttering a statement and this means that you are BOUND to worship that FULLY human person because it is calling ITSELF “i am”
A person with a will and which you IDENTIFY as ONE person is speaking . you are FORCED to worship the human person which is in some mind masterbatory way divine person.
@ Ken
No doubt they’re disbelievers as well but key phrase “kill the prophets” meaning they killed prophets knowingly. The Pharisee,Sanhedrin etc did not do this he is speaking of their forefathers like I was. You then accused Muslims of “anti-Semitism” for simply saying that. They as a nation did a LOT of evil and your text (and theirs) agrees with me. Nothing to do with racism just facts. If I confirmed that Native Americans etc did same I would criticize them just as equally.
P.s. Jesus(as) and the Disciples are free of you as they did not worship others alongside God.
Matthew 14:33
the disciples worshipped Jesus as Son of God.
So you are wrong. period. full stop.
boom!
“the disciples worshipped Jesus as Son of God.”
now hold on a second. did they see a human being and worshiped it?
a:
0 But when he noticed the strong wind,[b] he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!” 31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?”
b:
Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” 29 He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus.
c:
“Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them.
why is c hyperbole but b and a real?
“Matthew 14:33
the disciples worshipped Jesus as Son of God.
So you are wrong. period. full stop.
boom!”
But what about the passages from the New Testament which state that Jesus was “worshiped”, such as after the resurrection? We already discussed the story of the Magi, which was nothing more than fiction. However, 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/
So you are wrong. And an idiot. And a hell-bound pagan. Period. Full stop.
BOOM! Kennywise the radioactive clown gets nuked again!
Nope, because Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 where proskunew / προσκυνεω is used for worship of God, proves you wrong.
Matthew 14:33 is not a “late legendary addition” – it is fully historical and God-breathed Scripture.
So you are wrong.
But I wish you the peace of Christ (Al Masih المسیح ) and that He would open your heart to the truth.
@ Ken
No point in praying to one who couldn’t even save himself and had no knowledge of the Hour.
He could have saved Himself, but He demonstrated His love for sinners for people in all nations and cultures and ethnicities.
Romans 5:8
Revelation 5:9
Revelation 7:9
@ Ken
I pray that God the creator of the heavens and Earth, the source of peace and the Lord and God of Jesus opens your heart to the truth and guides to submitting to Him.
I already know God the creator.
Jeremiah 9:23-24
John 1:1-5
John 14:9
John 10:27-30
But your rejection of the only way to get to the true God, means you don’t have God the Father, the Creator either.
The “Allah” of Islam is a false god of an imagination of a Al Jabbar dictator who can also deceive and trick – Surah 3:54
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/12/03/how-did-allahs-makr-scheme-plotting-trickery-deception-doom-the-enemies-of-christ-the-jews-when-the-disciples-who-believed-in-him-and-his-death-and-deity-became-the-victorious-ones-in-con/
@ Ken
If God dies, therefore, He can’t be the Ever-Living. I try to be polite but your idol is VERY weak and can be killed by the creation and fears it. Your threat means no more to me then a Hindu saying Shiva will punish me or a Greek telling me to fear Zeus. You worship things alongside God and then claim “I can’t get to Him” well then who was Abraham(as), David(as) and ALL the prophets before your heretical sect came along talking to? Hint: Not Jesus(as).
The Father and the Holy Spirit did not die; the Son’s Deity did not die, did not cease to exist; Deity is invisible, so the Godhead / Trinity cannot die; only the human body of Jesus the eternal Son died. The Deity of Christ is not affected by physical death.
@ Ken
Also, YOU think God can deceive and trick retard. And the real dictatorship is throwing children into Hell because they weren’t dumped into magical water or never giving warning to other nations besides Israel and then punishing them or thinking He needs blood in order to forgive like a bloodthirsty idol.
No, in Christian theology God allows evil spirits and evil men to do the trickery/deception, but God never does the deception Himself.
@Ken Temple
“The “Allah” of Islam is a false god of an imagination of a Al Jabbar dictator who can also deceive and trick – Surah 3:54”
Ken, using these arguments when we have answered you time and again is the height of insincerity.
Why should we engage with you when its clear our dialogue goes in one ear and out the other?
But I have also explained our verses and that theology but you guys also refuse.
disagreement is not insincerity.
My arguments go inside your ears and other other also.
@ Vaqas
“…using these arguments when we have answered you time and again is the height of insincerity.”
Well, he’s thee definition of a kafir so what do you expect?
Disagreement is not insincerity. I have also explained our point of view and answered all your arguments over the years and you guys continue to accuse of insincerity, and Faiz and mr.heathcliff accuse of worse and hypocrisy and use dirty language, insults, etc.
showing you don’t know how to obey your own religion in Surah 29:46 and Islamic Adab ادب (Manners)
@ Ken
Okay then God didn’t die for the sins of the world then and thus the claim of Christianity is false
No.
But how the 2 natures are unified into one person is indeed a sublime mystery.
We know that it is true; but we don’t know how.
“O God, your nature and greatness is unsearchable!” “your greatness is beyond our comprehension!” (Psalm 145:3-5; Romans 11:33-36; Isaiah chapter 40; Job chapters 38-42)
Ken Temple
November 16, 2019 • 5:27 pm
No, in Christian theology God allows evil spirits and evil men to do the trickery/deception, but God never does the deception Himself.
—
Oh dear.
He gets others to do the dirty work for him.
The Biblical God As a Deceiver By Bassam Zawadi
You won’t hear enough of Christian missionaries arguing that the Qur’an describes Allah as plotting and deceiving (refer here).
So I think it is only fair if we return them the favor and show how the God of the Bible is a deceiver, thus by the Christian missionary criteria the Biblical God is an immoral God and should not be worshipped.
We read in…
Jeremiah 4:10
Then I said, “Ah, Sovereign LORD, how completely you have deceived (nasha) this people and Jerusalem by saying, ‘You will have peace,’ when the sword is at our throats.”
The word for deceived here is nasha, which means…
1) to beguile, deceive
a) (Niphal) to be beguiled
b) (Hiphil) to beguile, deceive
c) (Qal) utterly (infinitive)
Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/5/1144094423-2544.html
John Gill states in his commentary…
surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem:
what the false prophets did, that God is said to do, because he suffered them to deceive the people; (John Gill, The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible, Commentary on Jeremiah 4:10, Source)
The New Bible commentary states…
Jeremiah is not indifferent to the message, which he is called to preach. In v 10 a note is struck to which he will return in relation to himself (15:18). In his distress he accuses the Lord of having deceived the people, presumably by having allowed false prophets to convince them with a message of peace (cf. 6:13-14). The only reply is the Lord’s own confirmation that judgment is sure. (New Bible Commentary)
Even though it was really the false prophets who did the act of deception, the Bible is actually shifting the blame to God for actually allowing the false prophets to do the deception. This is what the “inspired” author Jeremiah said and this is what we got to accept. God deceived innocent people.
It seemed that people were so bothered with Jeremiah’s ascription of deception to God that they had to reword the sentence so that deception is ascribed to the false prophets instead.
Ah, Lord God! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people
The Targum paraphrases this verse thus: “And I said, Receive my supplication, O Lord God; for, behold, the false prophets deceive this people and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace.” The prophet could not reconcile this devastation of the country with the promises already made; and he appears to ask the question, Hast thou not then deceived this people in saying there shall be peace, i.e., prosperity? (Adam Clarke, The Adam Clarke Commentary, Commentary on Jeremiah 4:10, Source)
We have it in…
1 Kings 22:20-22
20 And the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’
“One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, ‘I will entice him.’
22 ” ‘By what means?’ the LORD asked.
” ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.
” ‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the LORD. ‘Go and do it.’
Here we see that the man said that he would resort to lying in order to entice Ahab and God supported the idea and told him to go ahead and do it!
I personally have no moral objections to this since I believe God could at times use means of deception in order to ensure the greater good and to use deception against evil. However, Christians don’t allow this when we talk about Allah deceiving evildoers in the Qur’an. These are double standards.
We even have it in…
Ezekiel 14:9-11
9 ” ‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the LORD have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel. 10 They will bear their guilt-the prophet will be as guilty as the one who consults him. 11 Then the people of Israel will no longer stray from me, nor will they defile themselves anymore with all their sins. They will be my people, and I will be their God, declares the Sovereign LORD.’ ”
God is punishing him for a crime that He enticed him to do in the first place? Isn’t that entrapment?
Another passage…
Isaiah 37:6-7
Isaiah said to them, “Tell your master, ‘This is what the LORD says: Do not be afraid of what you have heard-those words with which the underlings of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. Listen! I am going to put a spirit in him so that when he hears a certain report, he will return to his own country, and there I will have him cut down with the sword.’ ”
God had that spirit spread a rumor so that the King of Assyria can to return to his homeland. In short, that spirit’s purpose was for deception.
Another example from the Bible…
Isaiah 19:14
The LORD has poured into them a spirit of dizziness; they make Egypt stagger in all that she does, as a drunkard staggers around in his vomit.
Here we see God deceiving people to the extent that they become absolutely foolish.
Even though I don’t believe the Gospels teach that Jesus taught he was God, however this example is for those who believe that Jesus is God. Jesus admits that he was speaking figuratively all this time…
John 16:25
25″Though I have been speaking figuratively (paroimia), a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father.
The word paroimia could mean…
1) a saying out of the usual course or deviating from the usual manner of speaking
a) a current or trite saying, a proverb
2) any dark saying which shadows forth some didactic truth
a) esp. a symbolic or figurative saying
b) speech or discourse in which a thing is illustrated by the use of similes and comparisons
c) an allegory
1) extended and elaborate metaphor
Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1146511128-5176.html
Why wasn’t Jesus speaking in a normal and clear way all the time? Why did Jesus then go and say that he won’t ‘use this kind of language’?
Well, here we find out why…
Mark 4:10-12
10When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,” ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’
So here we see that Jesus was deceiving certain people by speaking in parables so that they won’t (and God forbid!) REPENT AND BE FORGIVEN!
Also in…
2 Thessalonians 2:11
11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
So God will delude people so that they can believe lies?
Now Christians would argue back and ask us Muslims to understand the context and reasons why God did such a thing. However, when we tell Christians to do the same thing when it comes to analyzing certain Qur’anic verses they don’t want to do it. So why should us Muslims?
https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_biblical_god_as_a_deceiver
Except it is clear that God allowed under His sovereignty for the evil spirits and evil people to do the deception. God does not actually do the deception Himself. The comment by Jeremiah is the prophets feelings, not an actual teaching that God did the deception.
But the Islamic texts actually say that Allah did the deception. (Makr, مکر ) and there are Hadith that speak of the fears of Muslims that Allah would deceive them – Omar, and maybe Abu Bakr, if I recall those Hadiths rightly. I would have to look them up for exactness; but I know they exist.
@ Ken
Cant go both ways Ken either God did or didn’t die which one?
Ken stop lying about your Bible.
2 Thessalonians 2:11
New International Version
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
New Living Translation
So God will cause them to be greatly deceived, and they will believe these lies.
English Standard Version
Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
New American Standard Bible
For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,
New King James Version
And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
King James Bible
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:or this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.
@ Ken
“Except it is clear that God allowed under His sovereignty for the evil spirits and evil people to do the deception.”
Oh, you mean something like this Ken?
19:83. Didn’t you notice that I am the One who allowed the demons to be unleashed against them to slowly incite them more and more?
5…4…3…2…1…
@Ken Temple
this is a clear double standard. When it comes to bible you allow other verses on the matter and even reinterpret others to avoid negative meanings such as where the God of the bible describes himself as deceiving or otherwise. But not for the Qur’an.
for goodness sake Ken even james white agrees that this is an inconsistent argument!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7Xys__pyy0
One of the definitions that Paul Williams provided was “permit to go”
Paul Williams wrote:
// Strong’s Greek 3992: To send, transmit, permit to go, put forth.
So it is not just allowing something to happen, passively.
It is to act deliberately, intentionally.//
Paul Williams
I agree that it is God’s sovereign intentional decision to allow evil to do deception; God sends them, but they do the actual sin.
This is consistent with the Westminster Confession of Faith and 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith.
Chapter 3 – of God’s Decree:
Chapter 3: Of God’s Decree
1. God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree. ( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )
Dr. White is right in that we both (Christians and Muslims) agree that God is sovereignly doing / decreeing / deciding beforehand, but I personally don’t think he analyzed the deeper issue of God actually doing the deception or sovereignly deciding / (sending) to allow the deception to be done by others.
Dummy, I already schooled you on this a while back. Proskuneo is also used for the Israelites bowing to David in the Septuagint. It does not automatically mean to worship.
The anonymous author of “Matt” added this verse. Mark didn’t say anything about anyone proskuneoing to Jesus. But even if he did, it wouldn’t have meant worship. Guys like Peter were Jews. They would have known about miracles. Why would they worship Jesus just because he performed a miracle? Jesus even said that he could nothing without God’s permission.
Let go of your false mangod, you shameless idolater. Idolaters will go to hell for eternity.
@ Ken
Also just to answer your other points:
1. “But I have also explained our verses and that theology but you guys also refuse.
Yes, we refuse it because we understand it and it’s false and contradictory (like how you can’t answer the simple question of did or didn’t God die). You simply make things up about our religion then try to tell us what we believe. You will continue doing this even after shown being wrong.
2. “answered all your arguments over the years and you guys continue to accuse of insincerity”
Hahahahahahahaha!!! Ahhh…No Ken, you haven’t. Just “throwing something out there” too not look stupid is not answering. Also, you are accussed of being insincere because you are. People take time out of their day to pull up both Muslim sources and historical opinion and you just keep going. (Examples include “al Jabbar” (which is when I started calling you a liar) and “Jizyah”). Saying the same thing over and over when your opponent has given a huge counter of references is not going to sway opinion. Notice we NEVER act like this to someone who is engaging in respectful dialogue.
well said
The problem is that he got refuted very well about these lies. I’m not sure why Ken is repeating his lies again and again?
“The “Allah” of Islam is a false god of an imagination of a Al Jabbar dictator”
So Ken simply shows his ignorance, and he’s obviously proud of it!
Pathetic!
Abu Bakr knew his god too well and was aware that such a promise was pretty much meaningless since Allah cannot be trusted seeing that he boasts of being the greatest deceiver of them all:
But they (the Jews) schemed/connived/used deceit (Wa-makaroo), and Allah schemed/connived/used deceit, for Allah is the best of deceivers (wa-makara Allahu wa-Allahu khayru al-makireena)! S. 3:54; cf. 8:30
As such, Allah could say one thing but do another since Allah has no problem changing his mind or breaking his word:
Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things? S. 2:106 Hilali-Khan
Allah basically does whatever he wants to whomever he wants when he wants to since he doesn’t answer to anyone:
He cannot be questioned as to what He does, while they will be questioned. S. 21:23
This is why Abu Bakr wept over not knowing whether he was truly saved or not:
“Although he had such a faith, which was too great to suffice all the inhabitants of the earth, he was afraid that his heart might go astray. So, he used to utter, while weeping: ‘Would that I have been a bitten tree!’ Whenever he was reminded of his position in Allah’s sight, he would say: ‘By Allah! I would not rest assured and feel safe from the deception of Allah (la amanu limakr Allah), even if I had one foot in paradise.’” (Khalid Muhammad Khalid, Successors of the Messenger, translated by Muhammad Mahdi al-Sharif [Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut Lebanon, 2005], Book One: Abu Bakr Has Come, p. 99; bold and italic emphasis ours)
What a sad state of affairs! Abu Bakr was so fearful of Allah’s schemes that he still felt that he couldn’t be safe from Allah’s deceit even if he already had one foot in paradise!(1)
Abu Bakr had every reason to be fearful that his heart might turn away from the faith since this close companion of Muhammad knew what the Quran says about Allah misleading and turning people away from the guidance:
Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two parties about the hypocrites? Allah has cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they have earned. Do you want to guide him whom Allah has made to go astray? And he whom Allah has made to go astray, you will never find for him any way (of guidance). S. 4:88
And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them. Then Allah misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. Surah 14:4
Ken stop lying about your Bible.
2 Thessalonians 2:11
New International Version
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
New Living Translation
So God will cause them to be greatly deceived, and they will believe these lies.
English Standard Version
Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
New American Standard Bible
For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,
New King James Version
And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
King James Bible
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:or this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.
sends = allows the evil spirits to do the actual deception.
as in Job chapters 1-2 – Satan could not attack Job unless God allowed him to.
2 Cor. 1-10 – a messenger of Satan – could not attack Paul unless God allowed him to.
Luke 22:31 – Satan asked God to be able to attack Peter. God allows this, but does it in order to make Peter stronger spiritually.
It is not lying because God has to give permission for evil to do anything. Job 1-2, Luke 22:31; 2 Cor. 12:1-10 – God also has the right to judge. The 2 Thessalonians 2 passage is a judgement passage.
But Allah in Islam actually the does the act of deception and Abu Bakr was afraid of Allah’s Makr مکر
This is why Abu Bakr wept over not knowing whether he was truly saved or not:
“Although he had such a faith, which was too great to suffice all the inhabitants of the earth, he was afraid that his heart might go astray. So, he used to utter, while weeping: ‘Would that I have been a bitten tree!’ Whenever he was reminded of his position in Allah’s sight, he would say: ‘By Allah! I would not rest assured and feel safe from the deception of Allah (la amanu limakr Allah), even if I had one foot in paradise.’” (Khalid Muhammad Khalid, Successors of the Messenger, translated by Muhammad Mahdi al-Sharif [Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut Lebanon, 2005], Book One: Abu Bakr Has Come, p. 99
In Islam, Allah does the Makr / deception, whereas those passages in the Bible are about God’s sovereignty in allowing the demons, Satan, and evil humans to do the actual deception.
Ken wrote: “sends = allows the evil spirits to do the actual deception.”
will send
πέμπει (pempei)
Verb – Present Indicative Active – 3rd Person Singular
Strong’s Greek 3992: To send, transmit, permit to go, put forth.
So it is not just allowing something to happen, passively.
It is to act deliberately, intentionally.
Stop deceiving Ken. We can all see through your deception.
@ Ken
Notice the lack of respect in your last post then you whine and cry when we merc you.
Intellectual argument vs. your false religion is not lack of respect.
Defense of the Christian faith is not lack of respect.
I never cry or whine, just point out your lack of ability to control your fingers on the keyboard from cursing and dirty language and name calling. (mostly Faiz and mr.heathcliff, but sometimes you are doing this also. You don’t know who to engage properly. Adab, Surah 29:46
You are constantly interpreting my religion also, but I don’t call that “lying”. You are just ignorant and using others materials that is biased.
@ Ken
Kafir your religion is such a laughing stock it only appeals to dumb@$$es like you who can’t simply read a text. This is not a respectful sentence or intellectual but again you’re too much of a dumbf*ck to know the difference:
Abu Bakr knew his god too well and was aware that such a promise was pretty much meaningless since Allah cannot be trusted seeing that he boasts of being the greatest deceiver of them all:
Then you cry and b*tch after we dog your stupid @$$ again and again. You can’t even answer BASIC questions about who God is but I’m the one whose false lol? You are the one who starts the insults (like you just did today twice) then talk about character. Man stfu.
@ Ken
Also b*tch saying “false religion” is not respectful either. You are a lying hypocritical kafir so God allows you to keep following this path until He commands the angel of death to rip out your soul and send you to Hell with the rest of the heretical pagans you blindly follow. Is that easier for you to understand?
@Ken Temple
The only deception is what you brought. Jack Chick also used this in his comic The Skylighter. QB responded to it here:
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/04/islam-jack-chick-and-the-battle-for-souls-the-sky-lighter/
From QB
Chick appealed to the Islamic scholar Khalid Muhammad Khalid’s book “Successors of the Messenger” as his source for this saying. Unfortunately for Chick, this book is actually freely available on the Internet, and any person who is actually interested in truth can check if Chick was providing an honest quote. Upon checking Khalid’s book, we find that Chick flat-out lied. Here is how Khalid’s book actually quotes Abu Bakr:
“By Allah! I would not rest assured and feel safe from Allah’s punishment, even if one of my feet was in Paradise.”[12]
In other words, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) was saying that he was afraid of Allah’s punishment for his sins even if he had set one foot in Paradise. As Khalid stated, this was actually due to Abu Bakr’s humbleness:
“[a]lthough he had such a faith…he was afraid that his heart might go astray. […] From this point of view too, he strongly kept himself far from any aspect of vanity and loftiness.”
As another example of his humbleness, Khalid said of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him):
“[o]n the day he had a great wealth in his possession, he asked himself why he should be blessed with such wealth, while the Muslims were suffering from a great poverty: ‘Am I better than them? He answered himself: ‘No doubt, I’m not better than they. Then, let’s live equally in such a bliss.”
Thus, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) was a man of great faith and humbleness, and when anyone tried to praise him or remind him of his great “position in Allah’s sight”, he would worry about his sins instead. That was the mark of a man who refused to be proud and vainglorious, even though he was already promised a place in Paradise![13]
CRASH AND BURN KEN!
@ Vaqas
What this was another case of this moron lying again? Who would have ever thought?🤥🤥🤥
@Ken Temple
I also couldn’t help but notice you completely ignored the video of James white refuting the argument you kept using…i wonder why?…
Kennywise the clown exposes his shoddy cut and paste research skills yet again. What happened Kennywise? Did your god send a lying spirit on you? Is that what caused you to lie?
Notice that Khalid Muhammad Khalid’s book says “Allah’s punishment”, not Allah’s “deception”. The crosstians lie through their teeth to deceive people into joining their pagan, idolatrous cult. Hell is where you lying spirits belong!
Here is Khalid’s book in PDF format: http://www.islamicbulletin.org/free_downloads/companions/the_successors_of_the_messenger.pdf
I will concede that you are right on the Abu Bakr quote; when it is shown the Arabic original does not have “LiMakr”لمکر
if not, then the person who quoted and referenced that was doing the deception.
“Although he had such a faith, which was too great to suffice all the inhabitants of the earth, he was afraid that his heart might go astray. So, he used to utter, while weeping: ‘Would that I have been a bitten tree!’ Whenever he was reminded of his position in Allah’s sight, he would say: ‘By Allah! I would not rest assured and feel safe from the deception of Allah (la amanu limakr Allah), even if I had one foot in paradise.’” (Khalid Muhammad Khalid, Successors of the Messenger, translated by Muhammad Mahdi al-Sharif [Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut Lebanon, 2005], Book One: Abu Bakr Has Come, p. 99;
“Worship in the heart of the person doing the worship does not “separate” the natures inside of Jesus, as the power of the Divine Nature is what gets the worship.”
you don’t separate the natures but you think one nature trumps the other YET you still believe that it is the SAME person “fully human person and fully divine person”
your pagan mind is telling you that the SAME person is TRUMPING the same person, yet THEY are IDENTIFIED as ONE person and you worship this one person.
ken temple is REALLY EMBARRASSED by his filthy spiritual adultery.
“you guys continue to accuse of insincerity, and Faiz and mr.heathcliff accuse of worse and hypocrisy and use dirty language, insults, etc.”
stop accusing me of hypocrisy self righteous scum bag piece of shit.
i am unlike the PIMPS in the bible . i will guarantee you that i will not ask any pimp to find me beautiful 12 year old to keep me warm in night. blankets and fire will do for me.
Kennywise the clown is indeed a lying, hypocritical scumbag. So let me play the world’s smallest violin for his whining.
“The Father and the Holy Spirit did not die;”
” the Son’s Deity did not die, ”
the properties that “make up” the father, the son does not have. the properties that “make up ” the son, the father does not have. it is the ESSENCE/nature which is to have the “relationship”, the properties of DEATH trump the son, like it would TRUMP our persons. since trinity is relationship , then trinity DID experience death. yes, yhwh (triune being) did die.
I will concede that you are right on the Abu Bakr quote; when it is shown the Arabic original does not have “LiMakr”لمکر
if not, then the person (Sam Shamoun) who quoted and referenced that was doing the deception.
( I got it from one of his articles.) If he deliberately changed the translation, then shame on him and if so, you guys have found an example of him deceiving.
“Although he had such a faith, which was too great to suffice all the inhabitants of the earth, he was afraid that his heart might go astray. So, he used to utter, while weeping: ‘Would that I have been a bitten tree!’ Whenever he was reminded of his position in Allah’s sight, he would say: ‘By Allah! I would not rest assured and feel safe from the deception of Allah (la amanu limakr Allah), even if I had one foot in paradise.’” (Khalid Muhammad Khalid, Successors of the Messenger, translated by Muhammad Mahdi al-Sharif [Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut Lebanon, 2005], Book One: Abu Bakr Has Come, p. 99;
Stewjo004 wrote:
//@ Ken
Also b*tch saying “false religion” is not respectful either. You are a lying hypocritical kafir so God allows you to keep following this path until He commands the angel of death to rip out your soul and send you to Hell with the rest of the heretical pagans you blindly follow. Is that easier for you to understand?//
saying “false religion” is not respectful either.
how so? you guys also say that all the time about Christianity and Judaism too.
It is just logic, if Christianity is true, then Islam is false.
@ Ken
Allow me too help you with your poor memory. You were whining about how you get made fun of with the most creative of insults but always seem to forget you’re the one who insults first. Let’s read:
“Stewjo004:
I pray that God the creator of the heavens and Earth, the source of peace and the Lord and God of Jesus opens your heart to the truth and guides to submitting to Him.
Ken:
But your rejection of the only way to get to the true God, means you don’t have God the Father, the Creator either.
The “Allah” of Islam is a false god of an imagination of a Al Jabbar dictator who can also deceive and trick – Surah 3:54”
So yes dumb b*tch you’re the one who started the insulting because you were mad when your false doctrines were being picked apart by Vaqas and I. Then you posted what started with:
“Abu Bakr knew his god too well and was aware that such a promise was pretty much meaningless since Allah cannot be trusted seeing that he boasts of being the greatest deceiver of them all:”
ALL of this is disrespectful so you can stfu with the victim mentality.
“I agree that it is God’s sovereign intentional decision to allow evil to do deception; God sends them, but they do the actual ‘
it is god who does not CONSIDER the acts of these spirits as sins just like he does not consider polygamy or divorce sin
Quote:
we’ve already been talking about one passage. will more really change your mind? but sure. here’s some more.
And in that day
—declares the Lord—
The mind of the king
And the mind of the nobles shall fail,
The priests shall be appalled,
And the prophets shall stand aghast.
And I said: Ah, Lord God! Surely You have deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying:
It shall be well with you—
Yet the sword threatens the very life!
(Jeremiah 4:9-10)
this “deceive” is the same word that the woman accuses the serpent of, btw.
You enticed me, O Lord, and I was enticed;
You overpowered me and You prevailed.
I have become a constant laughingstock,
Everyone jeers at me.
(Jeremiah 20:7)
this “entice” is what evil spirits do, as in:
The Lord asked, ‘Who will entice Ahab so that he will march and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ Then one said thus and another said thus, until a certain spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’ ‘How?’ the Lord asked him. And he replied, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You will entice and you will prevail. Go out and do it.’ So the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours; for the Lord has decreed disaster upon you.” (1 Kings 22:20-23)
this “lying” is the same word you use for bearing false witness. here, yahweh entices ahab into disaster by directing a spirit to go and lie to him. note that ahab is king of israel, so he is misleading israel here.
For if any man of the House of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell in Israel, breaks away from Me and turns his thoughts upon his fetishes and sets his mind upon the sins through which he stumbled, and then goes to the prophet to inquire of Me through him, I the Lord will respond to him directly. I will set My face against that man and make him a sign and a byword, and I will cut him off from the midst of My people. Then you shall know that I am the Lord. And if a prophet is seduced and does speak a word [to such a man], it was I the Lord who seduced that prophet; I will stretch out My hand against him and destroy him from among My people Israel. (Ezekiel 14:7-9)
here, yahweh promises that he will mislead prophets so that their instruction results in the destruction of idolators.
But the children rebelled against Me: they did not follow My laws and did not faithfully observe My rules, by the pursuit of which man shall live; they profaned My sabbaths. Then I resolved to pour out My fury upon them, to vent all My anger upon them, in the wilderness. But I held back My hand and acted for the sake of My name, that it might not be profaned in the sight of the nations before whose eyes I had led them out. However, I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them through the lands, because they did not obey My rules, but rejected My laws, profaned My sabbaths, and looked with longing to the fetishes of their fathers. Moreover, I gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live: When they set aside every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts—that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the Lord. (Ezekiel 20:21-26)
here, yahweh gives bad commandments to the people, apparently commanding child sacrifice, as punishment for idolatry.
The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)
here, god is confirming the deceptions satan uses, to keep is followers deluded.
so, are passages like this lying? or does god mislead, deceive, give bad commandments, and delude people?
“for when Eve’s lips utter this about the serpent, it is merely her dubious claim, but when distressed Jeremiah’s lips utter this about Yahweh, suddenly it is to be taken directly.”
okay, so, the bible lies about god, through god’s chosen prophet that speaks for him, jeremiah. got it.
The key point is that the writer does not think that yhwh considers their acts as evil or sin and the writer is clearly imagining yhwh sharing in these acts. its not only that yhwh “allows” this he wants this.he does not see it as sin
I agree that it is God’s sovereign intentional decision to allow evil to do deception; God sends them, but they do the actual sin.
This is consistent with the Westminster Confession of Faith and 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith.
Chapter 3: Of God’s Decree
1. God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree. ( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18;
God dose not sin, is not the author of sin, nor has fellowship with sin
James 1:13; 1 John 1:5;
God cannot lie:
Titus 1:2
Hebrews 6:18
God’s sovereignty-
Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )
The Lord asked, ‘Who will entice Ahab so that he will march and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ Then one said thus and another said thus, until a certain spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’ ‘How?’ the Lord asked him. And he replied, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You will entice and you will prevail. Go out and do it.’ So the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours; for the Lord has decreed disaster upon you.” (1 Kings 22:20-23)
This passage illustrates my position- the evil spirit did the actual deception by the permission of God.
“Go out and do it.’ So the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets”
He even tells the spirit to do it. And it is Him who puts a lying spirit in the mouth of the prophets. Just read what is says.
@ Atlas
But…but… He didn’t do it Himself Atlas. He just did it like it says in the Surah Maryam:
19:83. Didn’t you notice that I am the One who allowed the demons to be unleashed against them to slowly incite them more and more?
How are you not getting this diffrence?
But the point is: the evil spirit did the sin and deception; God did not.
“God is not able to lie” – Titus 1:2
But God sends them as a judgment on evil people.
So God is still the sender.
If I send someone to kill a person but don’t approve it, does that mean I am carry no responsability? No.
“So the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours; for the Lord has decreed disaster upon you.” (1 Kings 22:20-23)”
when the jews heard thunder, they thought it was yhwhs voice.
yhwh the storm god
https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/doifgj/why_yahweh_associated_with_fire/?st=k2dbtccm&sh=1f643ba8
the reason why the lying spirit and yhwh are identical is because the text is clearly interchanging the spirit for yhwh.
the spirits job is to put the lying spirit
“the lord HAS put a lying spirit in the mouth”
so both are interchangeable.
you should have no problem with this because you believe yhwh came down as a man and walked on water. you don’t believe that yhwh was a SEPARATE being from the body, you believe he ACTUALLY existed as a man….so the same is with the evil spirit.
the DEEd IS GIVEN to yhwh “has PUT a lying spirit”