Spin off From "IS Jesus God" thread in Doctrinal

[A Muslim]

Actually, it was the only way. That is not an insult to God; on the contrary it demonstates the holiness of God. God's justice against our sin had to be satisfied and the only way it can be satisfied is the death of the offender, namely man. In salvation, God Himself is man's redeemer..........Except that man on his own cannot please God well enough to be saved. The OT sets forth what is required. But in the NT we find that God provides the means of meeting that requirement. He did this through the death, burial and resurrrection of His Son, Jesus.

So let's look at it from the beginning. Your god created man and he knew that he will sin and that he cannot please him even if he repented. So he actually opened the door for man to sin and closed the door to repent as man canot please God well enough to be saved. Then after a very long time between Adam and Jesus constituting most of the history of humanity, he began to put a solution of his own mistake by putting that funny plan to save humanity.

Actually this denotes that your god is either cruel because he created man knowing his nature and putting no solution to fix it, and he made this play just to decieve you showing how merciful and loving he is. Or that your god is insane who doesn't know what he is doing. So he was trying to solve this problem and handle his mistake.

This is really disgusting, and don't object on me insulting your god, as you kept on insulting my God and my Prophet so you are the beginner not me.

Jesus is not a prophet or a wise man. He never claimed to be either one.

Actually he did:

Joh 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I heard from God: this did not Abraham.

Joh 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. (Jesus didn't say to her: you are wrong)

Luk 7:15 And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.

Luk 7:16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people. (Again, Jesus didn't tell them you are wrong I am not a prophet I am God and people never understood that raising a dead means that Jesus is God but only a prophet)

Mat 13:54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Mat 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

No, it is not polytheism. Polythesism is the notion of multiple gods. We maintain that there is only one God, but He reveals in Himself, three persons. It is a mystery, but it is not polytheism.

And to say that God is three persons with different ranks has the same notion of polytheism of having multiple gods. You may consider it a mystery but this can be the case if you really have an evidence through the Bible telling that there is only one God, but He reveals in Himself, three persons.

Again, I have provided the evdience from Scripture. Your refusal to accept that evidence does not mean it has not been provided.

You didn't give the evidence for me to refuse,I adressed what you gave mewith evidence from your bible not out of nothing, you cannot answer my point that's something else.

Actually, dying for man is not a weakness. It is a strenth. Your little fake "god" demands his followers die for him. But it is true love that is willing to lay down its life for those whom it loves. YHVH loved the world enough that He was willing to lay down His life for humanity whom He loves because there was no other way. YHVH is far stronger and far and away more holy than your "allah."

Sorry, I don't worship your lamb weak and insane god who doesn't know what he is doing so he tries to solve his mistake agaisnt humanity. Btw, didn't christianity have martyrs? for whom did these martyrs died? You really lost your mind and began talking with nonesense.

Only a few REAL church fathers questioned it, but most of controversy was quickly settled and none of the controversy surrounded Jesus's claim that He is the beginnning and the end, the first and the last.

So where was the holy spirit to guide them to the right way? Either there is no holy spirit who guides people or that these fathers were heretics.

Your problem is that you try to quote a verse as if it is all the Bible has to say about the issue. The Father IS the only true God. Jesus was speaking as a man. He was not denying His deity, but He was again modeling for us the way in which we are to approach the Father.

So what about the holy spirit? It seems that Jesus totally forgot about him? he even didn't talk about the holy spirit even as a dove. He totally ignore him as if he is not present.

And where was Jesus the God? Why didn't he include him in being the only God? Till now you didn't give any evidence telling that Jesus was fully God and fully man to handle dozens of scripturs telling that Jesus is not God. I see how this verse constitutes a stumbling block against your faith.

In quoting Scripture, Jesus would not have used a different word. That is the nature of quoting. Jesus simply said what the Bible said. He was not including Himself, as that was not the reason He quoted it. He was simply asked what the greatest commandment was and He quoted the verse.

If he wasn't including himself, he would have clarified it but he didn't. May be he wouldn't he used a different word, but he would have clarified after quoting it that he is not meant to be in the word "our" as this would have been against his deity which he never declared. But again he didn't.

I am not trying to convince you. I am not required to convince you. If you reject Jesus, you will go to hell.

No the case is that you cannot give any evidence for your point and at the ende you say that I am not theologically equipped to believe in this.

The text clearly states that when Thomas finally saw Jesus He believed that He was risen and in the context of seeing Jesus resurrected He proclaimed "My Lord and My God."

And the other verse states that the father is the only God excluding Jesus from being God. You need to solve this paradox.

[MorningGlory]

And where was Jesus the God? Why didn't he include him in being the only God? Till now you didn't give any evidence telling that Jesus was fully God and fully man to handle dozens of scripturs telling that Jesus is not God. I see how this verse constitutes a stumbling block against your faith.

Your ramblings are blasphemy, Muslim, but our faith in the one True God allows nonbelievers, such as yourself, to spout all of this stuff here, on a Christian site, without anyone becoming too upset. Your fake 'religion' however can't allow anyone to hear the truth; if anyone challenges the pathetic 'allah' of the Qu'ran....out come the AK-47s and bomb vests. This should tell the world, including other muslims, everything they need to know; i.e., islam is satan's very own 'religion' and he keeps his followers by threat of death if they don't continue to follow him. Muslims need to break free from the satanic cult of islam before it's too late. You seem like a smart guy; maybe you need to ponder YOUR eternity.

[nChrist]

A Muslim,

You are speaking blasphemy, and you don't have an answer or an argument for any of the Scripture given to you. Start at the link below and know who Jesus Christ is, Very God, One with God The Father and God The Holy Spirit. You don't have a theological or an intellectual argument for a single Scripture. You're simply an unbeliever who is lost and on your way to eternal condemnation to the fires of hell. Jesus Christ Himself will be your righteous Judge at the Great White Throne Judgment. Your false god with a little "g" won't be able to help you. In fact, your false god doesn't exist. Your false religion is based on the ravings of a madman.

[nebula]

A Muslim -

Has your Allah ever spoken to you?

Has he ever revealed himself to you in a personal way?

[Guest]

I have provided biblical evidence that Jesus is eternal. The fact that you have resort to ignoring evidence in order to pretend that no evidence has been provided only highlights the lack of honesty and integrity you possess in this debate. It makes me question if you are worthy to continue speaking to me.

Oh! I am sorry I didn't realize that I was so honoured speaking to your majesty . No, you provided nothing proving that Jesus is eternal, all what you gave was addressed by other verses from your Bible. You are trying to give a distinction based on your faith rather than scripture. This your problem not mine.

God's Bible

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Gives Us The Words Of Jesus

Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:10-15

And Some Will Hear

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world. John 11:25-27

Most Won't

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

Sadly

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. Psalms 2

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 18 December 2010 - 05:30 AM, said:

Wrong. To say Jesus is both fully God and fully man is not to say God is a man. It means that God took upon Himself human flesh in order to live among us. Jesus as God took on full humanity, took upon Himself human flesh. That does not diminish His divinity. To say God is a man, is to deny the deity of God. That is not what I am doing. I am saying that Jesus is both God AND man by virtue of His choice to come to earth to redeem man from sin.

You are just trying to go around the plain text to prove your point. Jesus said that he is a man (John 8:40) and the son of man. God says that he is neither a man nor the son of man. Then Jesus is NOT God. And to say that Jesus is fully God and fully man is contradicting statement in itself concerning these scriptures rather than having no evidence for it in the Bible.

Yes, Jesus said He is a man. Yes, God the Father is not a man. The one thing you are failing to take into account, is that Jesus is not God the Father. Jesus is God the Son. The Son of God took humanity upon Himself. It is what we call in theological terms, the hypostatic union. It is what sets Christianity apart from other religions and idealogies. God chose to condescend to our level. He chose to become one of us in order to take our sins upon Himself to give Himself as a sacrifice in order to redeem humanity from the curse of sin and the sentence of death.

To claim I have not provided evidence for these truths is not honest on your part. The only evidence I can offer is Scripture and you reject or pervert what Scripture says and then claim I have not offered not evidence. The truth is that I have provided evidence in the form of Scripture, but you reject the testimony of the Bible.

Quote

Again, we are dealing with the claims of Christ Himself. I am referring to how Jesus used the term. "The Son of Man" by the time we get to the days of Jesus, was a Messianic reference out of the book of Daniel. It was a reference that the religious leaders in Israel would have been very familiar with.

And Jews never believed that the Messiah was God either before Jesus or after him.

The Bible, not the Jewish people, is the basis for our belief that Jesus is both Messiah and the eternal God.

Quote

Jesus applied the term "The Son of Man" to Himself and was convicted of blasphemy.

Well, I have already said before that the action of those leaders proves nothing as they were biased from the beginning and made up their mind concerning their action against him so whatever he says they would give the same reaction.

That is not entrely true. Blasphemy is a specific charge that requires a specific action. In Jewish law, for a man to claim to be God is blasphemous and was punishible by death. That was the only charge they could bring against Jesus worthy of the death penalty.

Quote

There is a clear difference in hebraic thought between mere humans being "sons of God" and the Messiah being THE Son of God.

Actually you have admitted before that Jews never believed that the Messiah is God and now you are calling their thought to prove your point. They will do nothing for you. Even if there was a distinction, it will just tell that Jesus is the Messiah. That doesn't make him God.

You are missing the point. I am showing that the same phrase can be understood differently in different contexts. A word or phrase may denote a specific lexical meaning, but a multitude of applications or what we call connotations. Connotations are usages of a phrase that evoke emotional understandings of a particular phrase. The English word love has a specific meaning, but it is understood a variety of ways. I do not love ice cream the same way I would love my wife or children. Love is understood differently depending on the context in which it appears.

In the same way, the Bible is not locked into one and only one way of using the phrases "Son of God" or "Son of Man." You are trying to lock in the Bible into one meaning that must apply universally every time those phrases are used and you simply cannot do that. It is the immediate context and intent of the author that determines how we use those phrases.

I am not trying to lock anything.

Yes you are. Your argument has been up to this point as been that since God says in the book of Numbers that He is not the son of man and Jesus uses the same son of man phrase to Himself, that Jesus is not God. You are failing to recognize that son of man is used differently in different contexts. When God used it is Numbers, he was referring to mere humanity. Gods point in the book of Numbers was that His integrity was not fickle like mere mortal men. However, when Jesus applied that same phrase to Himself, He was using it in a different way, with a different purpose in mind.

Jesus called himself THE Son of Man. When Jesus applied it to Himself, He was using it as a Messianic title. That nuance does not come across in English trnaslations, which is why an understanding of the historical/cultural context is so vitally important when studying the Bible.

You are the one trying to give a distinction, then the burden of proof lies upon you not me. You were the one who said from the beginning that the word son of God denotes equality with God, when I gave verses telling that others were called sons of God, you took a step back and said it depends on context. The context is what we already are discussing and I see that you provided nothing till now tells that Jesus is God.

Yes, I have provided plenty of references to Jesus divinity. You slaq them off and pretend I have offered nothing, which as I said before indicates that you are not willing to be honest in this debate. You dont have the integrity needed to have a true debate. It would be more honest of you to simply admit that you reject the evidence I have submitted than to claim I have not offered anything at all.

Quote

Yeah, but we are talking about the book of John and John makes it clear that Jesus' use "Son of God" for Himself is unique. The fact that the other gospel writers (who had different focus points for their writings) don't bring that out is irrelevant.

You are really lacking reason. How is it irrelevant? They were all using the same language and used the same word for others.

Yes, but they had different reasons for writing. Matthew was not trying to prove Jesus deity. Neither was Mark or Luke. John is distinct from the other Gospel writers. John is not a chronological account of Jesus life. John focuses seven major sign-miracles in Jesus life. Unlike the pithiness of the synoptics, John gives much more lengthy disourses of Jesus and John focuses on the Word made flesh. John focuses on Jesus as the personification of the Word of God.

Even if they had other purposes, that doesn't negate the fact that they used these words which you consider to be denoting equality with God for other people, rather than using these words has nothing to do with the so-called objective.

It may not change anything, but the difference in purposes is important. You are trying to appeal to word meanings while ignoring the larger scope of grammar, syntax, context other issues pertaining to literary analysis. Your entire word meaning argument fails to hold water when we plug in all the factors that are necessary in trying to determine the meaning of a given text.

How does Jesus refferring to peace makers as sons of God be irrelevant to Matthew's objective to prove to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah for example?

My point was that Matthews uses of certain words or phrases is irrelevant with respect to interpreting what John wrote. I pointed out that John deliberately chooses to separate Jesus as the Son of God from how the same phrase could apply to human beings. He consistently uses a different Greek word for Son when he applies it to Jesus, because His purpose is to show that while those who trust in THE Son of God can themselves become sons of God. Jesus is the Son of God by virrue of person, position, power and possession. Christians are sons of God by faith in Christ.

[Guest shiloh357]

Quote

I have provided biblical evidence that Jesus is eternal. The fact that you have resort to ignoring evidence in order to pretend that no evidence has been provided only highlights the lack of honesty and integrity you possess in this debate. It makes me question if you are worthy to continue speaking to me.

Oh! I am sorry I didn't realize that I was so honoured speaking to your majesty . No, you provided nothing proving that Jesus is eternal, all what you gave was adressed by other verses from your Bible. You are trying to give a distinction based on your faith rather than scripture. This your problem not mine.

As long as you are dishonest about what I have provided, you are debating from a lower plain.

Quote

What you seem to be overlooking, is that even if you claim it to be His Name, you still have to deal with what it means. Immanuel, means "God with us" and it is being applied to Jesus.

Well, I have already answered this concerning the other Hebrew names including el.

I speak and read Hebrew and am able navigate around your poor skills in this area.

So you have no point in it. You even evaded this by saying it's the title not the name when Jesus never used this term nor did anyone call him so while being on earth either as a title or as a name, but it was once quoted by a gospel writer after Jesus was raised. The same thing applies to Isaiah 9:6 where Jesus was never called that name either on earth or after resurrection.

Isaiah 9:6 is another example of titles, not names. They, like Immanuel, denote characteristics of Jesus

[Guest shiloh357]

Quote

No, it is not polytheism. Polythesism is the notion of multiple gods. We maintain that there is only one God, but He reveals in Himself, three persons. It is a mystery, but it is not polytheism.

And to say that God is three persons with different ranks has the same notion of polytheism of having multiple gods. You may consider it a mystery but this can be the case if you really have an evidence through the Bible telling that there is only one God, but He reveals in Himself, three persons.

One God in three persons is not polytheism. Polythesim is three gods. God is one being, but expressing Himself in three distinct personages. It is not something we have a frame of reference for in our earthly existence. That is why it is a mystery.

Quote

Actually, dying for man is not a weakness. It is a strenth. Your little fake "god" demands his followers die for him. But it is true love that is willing to lay down its life for those whom it loves. YHVH loved the world enough that He was willing to lay down His life for humanity whom He loves because there was no other way. YHVH is far stronger and far and away more holy than your "allah."

Sorry, I don't worship your lamb weak and insane god who doesn't know what he is doing so he tries to solve his mistake agaisnt humanity. Btw, didn't christianity have martyrs? for whom did these martyrs died? You really lost your mind and began talking with nonesense.

The same Lamb you call

[Dog House Bill]

Brothers and Sisters of our Lord and Savior Jesus the one true God,

I think it is time to shake the dust from our feet and let the ignorant be alone with his (or her) evil satanic muslim beliefs. Jesus can no longer be served by continuing to argue with "A muslim". However, the thread should be made available for future seekers who wish to see the true nature of a follower of that satanic murder cult. Nothing can be gained as he/she refuses to accept truth even when it is staring them directly in the face. Christians know that Jesus is God in our hearts, the Bible just confirms this fact, and is also our evidence of His deity. I reject a muslim's arguments as they are without merit and come from somebody who thinks themselves to be "knowledgeable" about something they do not believe in.

Let us wash our hands, and continue to pray that a muslim will eventually see the error and evil of islam, and turn aside from doing it's evil to receive Jesus, Who is God in the flesh, as Savior and Lord.

[Guest shiloh357]

You are right. It is time to let this go. Some will never convinced no matter how much evidence they receive.