Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Monday, 13 November 2017
Karen Armstrong: Early Gospel Authors Did Not Believe Jesus Was God
Video also uploaded here
Paul and the Synoptics had never regarded Jesus as God; the very idea would have horrified Paul who, before his conversion, had been an exceptionally punctilious Pharisee. They all used the term ‘Son of God’ in the conventional Jewish sense: Jesus had been an ordinary human being commissioned by God with a special task. Even in his exalted state, there was, for Paul, always a clear distinction between Jesus kyrios Christos and God, his Father. The author of the Fourth Gospel , however, depicted Jesus as a cosmic being, God’s eternal ‘Word’ (logos) who had existed with God before the beginning of time. This high Christology seems to have separated these congregations from other Jewish Christian communities. [Karen Armstrong, Fields of Blood, Religion and the History of Violence, The Bodley Head, 2014 p129]
Tuesday, 3 October 2017
A Difficulty On the Christian Idea of Salvation and Forgiveness
Asghar Bukhari writes on his FB about his experience with a Nigerian Christian:
I met a Nigerian Christian today. Well somehow [the] conversation turns to Jews backing israel. He starts telling me the Bible says God supports Jews against their enemies.
So i say, hang about. Didnt they kill your God?
He replies yes but that was Prophesy. God ordained it. And if God hadn't died he wouldn't be saved.
So i say, 'So God told them to kill Him? So you think they did God a favour by killing Him?
He actually said "Yes its Good they killed God"
He had no problem with Jews taking and cleansing the Palestinians because 'Jesus gave it to the Jews
African Christians are some of the most brainwashed people on earth. I mean how can you believe in a religion that nuts.
My thoughts
I have actually thought about this before, I don't believe this Nigerian Christian has drifted away from Biblical Christianity in what he said with what he said about Jews killing God.Christians do effectively believe God wanted the Jews and Romans to kill him - it was a prerequisite for salvation. Thus, in some way without these murderers this “gift of salvation” Christians believe in could not happen.
I've always thought why aren't those who are said to kill Jesus not considered saints as they are responsible for the salvation of billions indirectly according to Christianity? How can they be considered to be in Hell when every Christian is indebted to them indirectly for their salvation?
There is the ethical question here, why is God’s forgiveness and gift of salvation in need of Jewish and Roman murderers? If you truly believe a blood sacrifice is really needed and God really needs to die for sins then why believe God provokes people to murder Him as this means salvation and God’s forgiveness is dependent on murderers in some way, shape or form?
In Islam, God can forgive people without having to be killed by murderers. Which concept of God is better, the Christian one or the Islamic one, be honest?
There are some tough questions here, think about them and ask your pastors.
Note: A Christian friend, Denis Giron, did share this from the Catholic tradition: Catholic history has a tradition that the Roman soldier who stabbed Christ with the spear was a man named Longinus, who later converted to Christianity. He was (and in some pockets still is) revered as a saint. Admittedly, he was revered based on the belief that he converted..
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existant Jesus?
Tuesday, 26 September 2017
African Children and the Harm of White Jesus Imagery - Umar Johnson
Umar johnson Associating White Jesus with White People
Also uploaded here
“ The brain is an associating organism...If you force feed an African child that Christ is white, because the brain associates, as that child begins to grow the brain will associate white Christ with white people. And so if white Jesus is [considered] God then white people must also be the gods of humanity. So guess what? The power in that painting [of white Jesus] is transferred to the people who resemble that painting. So it is difficult to pray to a white Jesus and not in some way feel inferior to white people” – Umar Johnson
Geza Vermes on How Jesus Would Have Reacted to Trinitarian Christians
For Christians Who Call Muslims Rag-Heads...
Are Evengalicals Ignoring Sola Scriptura When Talking About Prophecies in the Bible?
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Geza Vermes on How Jesus Would Have Reacted to Trinitarian Christians
Geza Vermes speaks of Jesus as a ‘lover and worshipper of his Father in heaven’ , whose transformation into an object of worship ‘would have filled this Galilean Hasid with stupefaction, anger and deepest grief’ (Vermes 1983:13) [Cambridge Companion to Jesus Edited by Markus Bockmuehl – Cambridge University Press – 2001]
Is Limited Atonement Doctrine Taught Clearer than the Trinity Doctrine in the New Testament?
Does Jesus use Violence and Force According to Trinitarian Christianity?
Analysing Richard Lucas' Heretical Understanding of Trinity
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Wayne Grudem Shoe-horning Partial Trinitarianism into the Old Testament
Edgar G Foster: Trinity Came After the Council of Nicea
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Friday, 8 September 2017
Is Genesis 22 a Messianic Prophecy?
Genesis 22 is the Biblical account of Abraham being tested in sacrificing his son. It begins:
After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 2 He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”
This video is also uploaded here and here
Some Christians think this account is a prophecy or foreshadowing of Jesus being crucified. A few points in refutation from rabbi Michael Skobac and rabbi Tovia Singer as per the video:
1. The Old Testament teaches nobody can die for somebody else’s sins and innocent person cannot die for the sins of the wicked. Ezekiel 18:13 and 18:20-23
2. Human sacrifice is not biblical. “It (human sacrifice) is forbidden and an odious abomination” – rabbi Tovia Singer.
3. If early Christians believed Genesis 22 was a foreshadowing of Jesus’ crucifixion why did Paul not mention this? This notion did not occur to any writer in the Bible. This notion is a fabrication which comes from the author of a forgery called the Epistle of Barnabas (non canonical book). This book almost made it into the canon. It was also advanced by a Catholic church father, Justin, in the 2nd century. The key point is why is this idea not in the NT? Why didn’t one of the authors not put this into the Bible? Aren’t these protestants who believe in sola scriptura? There seems to be an evolution of thought as time progressed.
4. In Genesis 22 it mentions, in the opening, that God tested Abraham. It announces clearly what this chapter is about, testing Abraham’s faith.
5. Michael Skobac mentions the way Christians view these passages is an approach which works backwards. Nobody reading Gen 22 prior to Christianity would have thought this was a prophecy about the Messiah.
6. It can’t be speaking about Jesus, it’s clear from the passage that this offering is meant to be a burnt offering. Obviously Christians don’t believe Jesus was burnt.
7. There’s no indication that this offering in Gen 22 was for sin.
8. When John (in his Gospel) announces Jesus as the Passover lamb it’s peculiar as this lamb was never brought for atonement of sin in Jewish practice. It was brought for commemoration of an event in Jewish history. The most appropriate analogue would have been the Yom Kippur scapegoat as this was the only animal which bore the sins of all the people (the others were limited) but this scapegoat is not said to be killed in the Bible (it’s sent off into the wilderness).
9. In verse 13 of Gen 22, this story is fulfilled. Abraham sacrifices the lamb. 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.
Did Jesus Die For The Sins Of Mankind? - Rabbi Tovia Singer
Is Islam to Blame for Grooming Gangs? Right Wing Refuted!
Can Church Father Quotations Reconstruct the New Testament?
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Is Limited Atonement Doctrine Taught Clearer than the Trinity Doctrine in the New Testament?
Does Jesus use Violence and Force According to Trinitarian Christianity?
Analysing Richard Lucas' Heretical Understanding of Trinity
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Wayne Grudem Shoe-horning Partial Trinitarianism into the Old Testament
Edgar G Foster: Trinity Came After the Council of Nicea
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Saturday, 30 July 2016
Wayne Grudem Shoe-horning Partial Trinitarianism into the Old Testament
Let's forget about ERS and EFS for now. Time for a few comments on Professor Wayne Grudem's "Partial Revelation (of the Trinity belief) in the Old Testament" claim. Grudem's Comment are denoted by WD.
WD: The word trinity is never found in the Bible, though the idea represented by the word is taught in many places.
I'd be interested in seeing these "many places" where the Trinity idea is taught. Remember the 3-self Trinity idea is a 3in1 idea, that's to say an idea of God being tri-personal and all the "Persons" being consubstantial and co-equal.
Which places does Wayne Grudem have in mind? There are no places in the Bible which teach this Trinity concept. None. Zip. Zilch. Sure folk may scratch around and amalgamate a number of Biblical references and read a Trinity theory into those selected texts (i.e eisegesis) but that's not what Grudem appears to be claiming here. He's claiming places in the Bible teach this belief!
Perhaps his chief place is the Great Commission in Matthew 28. However, that does not teach the idea of the Trinity as outlined above.
Read it for yourself and see if it conforms with Wayne Grudem's definition of the Trinity belief:
WD: The word trinity means “tri-unity” or “three-in-oneness.” It is used to summarize the teaching of Scripture that God is three persons yet one God.
Old Testament and old Trinitarian claims
WD: Sometimes people think the doctrine of the Trinity is found only in the New Testament, not in the Old. If God has eternally existed as three persons, it would be surprising to find no indications of that in the Old Testament.
Grudem has external motivations to argue for the Trinity in the Old Testament - for him it would not make sense for there not to be some allusion to it at the very least for purposes of consistency. One of the problems arising for his position is that of confusion; if he believes a hint was given as to the 3-self Trinity belief wouldn't that not also mean he believes God confused people as there was no explicit teaching of the Trinity. Think about it, if hints of plurality within God were provided then that would have left people scratching their heads. Scratching their heads about fundamental ontology of God.
And why would a hint be given, why not just the full explicit teaching from the beginning - after all it is about the fundamental ontology of God? Surely a clear view of God would be expected to be given straight away rather than "hints" which would leave people confused for around 1500 years. Moses p is thought to have lived ~1500 years prior to Jesus p. Further problems arise for the Trinitarian position, Jesus did not teach the Trinity either, it was postulated by later Church Fathers from the fourth century onwards so Grudem would have folk believe God gave hints of the Trinity in the OT and thus left people confused for around 2000 years about a fundamental view of Himself.
The Bible itself would argue against confusion of that kind by stating God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33)
WD: Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly found in the Old Testament, several passages suggest or even imply that God exists as more than one person.
It's not explicitly taught in the NT either but let's have a look at one of the texts he appeals to as an implication of the Trinity belief.
WD: For instance, according to Genesis 1:26, God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” What do the plural verb (“let us”) and the plural pronoun (“our”) mean?
Plurality doesn't necessarily denote three so to argue for plurality does not mean an argument for the Trinity belief. Plurality can be any number greater than 1. As we know the plurality of 3 did not become agreed upon by the Church until at least 381 CE. For those wondering why not 325 CE? “The Nicene Council only concluded that the Father and Son are ontologically one: it did not include the Holy Spirit in the co-substantial relationship supposedly obtaining between the Father and Son” [Edgar G Foster]
WD: Some have suggested they are plurals of majesty, a form of speech a king would use in saying, for example, “We are pleased to grant your request.” However, in Old Testament Hebrew there are no other examples of a monarch using plural verbs or plural pronouns of himself in such a “plural of majesty,” so this suggestion has no evidence to support it.
Now, this is not a major point of contention but from Jason Dulle, it appears there may be some candidates for the use of the royal plural elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures. Dulle gives possible examples from Ezra and Daniel:
The second theory is that the plural pronouns are used as a “majestic plural.” This type of language was typically used by royalty, but not exclusively. Biblical examples include Daniel’s statement to Nebuchadnezzar, “We will tell the interpretation thereof before the king” (Daniel 2:36). Daniel, however, was the only one who gave the king the interpretation of his dream. King Artaxerxes wrote in a letter, “The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me” (Ezra 4:18). The letter was sent to Artaxerxes alone (Ezra 4:11), yet he said it was sent to “us,” and was read before “me.” Clearly the letter was only sent to, and read to Artaxerxes. When Artaxerxes penned another letter to Ezra he used the first person singular pronoun “I” in one place and the first person plural pronoun “we” in another (Ezra 7:13, 24).
WD: Another suggestion is that God is here speaking to angels. But angels did not participate in the creation of man, nor was man created in the image and likeness of angels, so this suggestion is not convincing.
Firstly, would that be consistent from a 3-self Trinitarian perspective? Why are humans not tri-personal if we were created in the image of a tri-personal God? The 3-self Trinitarian has another dilemma.
Secondly, Dr Michael Heiser and others don't see a problem with viewing Gen 1:26 as an exhortational declaration:
God announced to his council his idea to create mankind (“hey, guys, let’s do this!” – a sort of exhortational declaration), then HE (and he alone, by virtue of the GRAMMAR) created humankind in HIS own image (not theirs).
Yet, the NIV Study Bible also confirms in its commentary on Genesis 1:26:
Us… Our… Our. God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court [See Rabbi Tovia Singer on the Trinity]
Edgar G Foster discusses this in his summary of Alan J. Hauser’s views on Gen 1:26, which militates against the Prof. Wayne Grudem's conjecture and throw into question his abilities in Hebrew:
Hauser expands on this argument. He does not think that the use of the Elohim in Genesis 1:26 proves that Genesis teaches God’s triunity. One reason that Hauser concludes this has to do with the Hebrew word Elohim. Granted, Elohim is morphologically plural as are “us” and “our.” But these words, while they might seem to indicate plurality, definitely do not suggest triunity. It must also be kept in mind that in Hebrew it is common for the plural noun to cause the verb to be plural (Cf. Genesis 20:13, 35:7). E.A Speiser therefore renders Genesis 1:26 as follows: “The God said, ‘I will make man in my image, after my likeness.'”
WD: The best explanation is that already in the first chapter of Genesis we have an indication of a plurality of persons in God himself. We are not told how many persons, and we have nothing approaching a complete doctrine of the Trinity, but it is implied that more than one person is involved.
And what of the thousands of singular pronouns used in the Bible such as in Isaiah 44:24, Gen 1:5 and Gen 9:6 ? In fact the very next verse Genesis 1:27 uses a singular pronoun as to whom mankind were made in the image of
27 So God created human beings in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female.
Does Prof. Wayne Grudem have an answer for this? If he is consistent he'd see the singular pronouns being a problem for his Trinity hypothesis. In fact if this one reference, used as a far-fetched reference to plurality, is being pushed by Grudem as a hint to the Trinity belief then it really is case closed if he uses an objective mindset on all the singular pronouns used of God in the Bible - he has to believe those to be pointers to God's singularity in Personhood and Being if consistent.
Luis Dizon's "Only Conclusion" on Genesis 1:26 Discussed
There is no statement in Scripture that says, “God is three Persons in one being"
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Saturday, 9 July 2016
Was Ignatius Trinitarian: Rudolph Boshoff, James White + Jonathan McLatchie (Muslim Responds)
Dr James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Jonathan McLatchie of the Apologetics Academy and PS Rudolph Boshoff of Ad Lucem all appeared to respond to portions of this video which features a Speakers Corner discussion between Mansur Ahmed, Paul Williams and Jonathan along with some material edited in by yours truly.
I am toying with the idea of responding to Dr White via audio but in reality James did not interact with any of the points in the video aside from trying to argue for the Trinity from the text itself more forcefully than Jonathan did in the discussion. After what appeared to be paranoia on his part about a Muslim/s recording or watching his Dividing Line podcast and Muslims "dividing" Christians (ironic considering somebody recommended by his friend accuses Dr White of dividing Christians - not to mention him proceeding to criticise two Christians - one of which was Dr Bruce Ware - after he had finished the Dividing Line segment talking about Ignatius and the Trinity) he got on to the discussion and in all reality did not add anything that Jonathan's article has not added. Dr White, although obviously interacting with this video, did not even interact with the material from Dr Foster and Dr Tuggy.
How can one have a meaningful dialogue when the other party fails to even attempt discussing the concerns raised? Not to mention Dr White's avoidance in naming which Muslims he was referencing - how can his audience even see what the opposition has said if he is so cryptic and guarded in his approach to avoid giving away the identity of those he is responding to?
I may address him in an audio video if I feel I have the time and encourage a more critical evaluation of the sources and a more rounded approach.
For our purposes Jonathan McLatchie's response captures the essence of what Dr White was saying so this here goes.
Now, I've already written on this subject in the past. Here's the basics you should know, basics which will take the fizz out of much of Jonathan McLatchie's argumentation:
I may address him in an audio video if I feel I have the time and encourage a more critical evaluation of the sources and a more rounded approach.
For our purposes Jonathan McLatchie's response captures the essence of what Dr White was saying so this here goes.
Now, I've already written on this subject in the past. Here's the basics you should know, basics which will take the fizz out of much of Jonathan McLatchie's argumentation:
--
Did Ignatius of Antioch believe in the Trinity idea? Some Trinitarian apologists claim Ignatius taught the Trinity idea before the 4th century (in the first or second century). Is this a valid claim? No.
Firstly, the letters of Ignatius are suspected to be highly interpolated thus cannot be used as proof of Ignatius' beliefs as they are unreliable. See
..even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its authors. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form [Source]
Also:
There may be serious question whether these epistles of Ignatius have not been emended or edited by later writers. There are some words and phrases alien to early Christianity which raise suspicion that some of the works have been manipulated or added to by later church [Source]
Secondly, the quote Trinitarians use to contend Ignatius believed in the Trinity is thus:
"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever,"
Notice there's no mention of the Trinity idea here. Remember the Trinitarians teach 3 in 1. This verse mentions three but there's no mention of the three being co-equal and of the same substance.
Thirdly, the Trinitarian is quite selective here in terms of which Triune formula they reference as it seems there's Triune formula including Mary:
A "triune formula" -- often used to prove the Trinity -- is a phrase which includes three things or three persons. The answer to this question is yes. There is one surprising Trinitarian formulation which seems alien to early Christian. In To the Ephesians, section 7, there is a trinity of God, the Son, and Mary. Or, in section 18, the trinity of Jesus, Mary and the Holy Ghost. [Source]
---
OK now you're all up to speed, we are back looking at what Jonathan wrote. What you'll notice is, the third point above does militate against him as he selectively grabs something which he thinks to be pointing at a triune formula (see highlighted parts of Jonathan's text below). Before, looking at it further, notice what's happening here. Jonathan is really just arguing via inference and speculation. He doesn't have anything definitive. Here's Jonathan piece:
Here is an excerpt from Ignatius' letter to the church of Ephesus:
“There is only one Physician --
Very flesh, yet Spirit too;
Uncreated, and yet born;
God-and-Man in One agreed,
Very-Life-in-Death indeed,
Fruit of God and Mary’s seed;
At once impassible and torn
By pain and suffering here below;
Jesus Christ, whom as our Lord we know.”
[…]
Deaf as stones you were: yes, stones for the Father’s Temple, stones trimmed ready for God to build with, hoisted up by the derick of Jesus Christ (the cross) with the Holy Spirit for a cable; your faith being the winch that draws you to God, up the ramp of love.”
In this text, we have allusion to the Father, as well as the Son (who is identified as God) and mention is made of the Holy Spirit. In the very same epistle, he later writes,
“As for me, my spirit is now all humble devotion to the Cross: the Cross which so greatly offends the unbelievers, but is salvation and eternal life to us. Where is your wise man now, or your subtle debater? Where are the fine words of our so-called intellectuals? Under the divine dispensation, Jesus Christ our God was conceived by Mary of the seed of David and of the Spirit of God; He was born, and He submitted to baptism, so that by His passion He might sanctify water.”
Again, this text refers to Jesus Christ as God and speaks of the Holy Spirit as being the "Spirit of God". Since Ignatius affirms monotheism, and affirms the deity of the Father, Son and Spirit while distinguishing them from each other as individuals, how can one assert that Ignatius does not affirm the Trinity?
As the parts of his citation he uses to allude to a triune formula is covering old ground let's add further insight on this whole discussion with special emphasis on what calling Jesus God could have meant and whether the Trinity is viable through the descriptions of Jesus in Ignatius' letter to the Ephesians 7:2 via Dr Edgar G Foster:
Schoedel writes that the distinctions made by Ignatius above cannot apply to the "internal relations of the Godhead" but it only applies to the incarnate Christ. However, I am puzzled over how one can apply Ignatius' words to the immanent Trinity or the economic Trinity. Subsequent believers [at Nicaea] declared that the Son is begotten, not created and that the Father is unbegotten. But how does one consider Christ "unbegotten" in relation to the cosmos (humanity) that he came to save? It is no wonder that Bart Ehrman writes in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture that theologians would later find Ignatius' formulation in Eph 7:2 "vague." It does not seem to assist the Trinitarian case at all. It therefore has no theological force.
Interestingly Cyril C. Richardson plainly writes that Christ is called hO QEOS by Ignatius and he further points out that the bishop "does not explain, he only asserts that Christ is God" (Ignatius of Antioch, page 45). But Richardson goes beyond the surface structure orprima facie meaning of Ignatius' terminology and explores "what type of picture Ignatius has in mind when he employs the signifier QEOS. His conclusion?
"Unlike Theophilus of Antioch, he has nothing to say about God as creator; His eternity and invisibility are mentioned only in Pol. 3.2, and He is never predicated with immortality, the chief attribute of the heathen 'Gods.' For Ignatius QEOS means essentially a superhuman, moral being" (45).
He adds: "There is never a hint in his writing that Christ was in any way absorbed in God or confused with Him. He always stands in a place secondary and inferior to him" (44).
So what are we seeing here?
The citations provided by Jonathan McLatchie and Dr James White are not being dealt with with a critical lens and a desire to understand what the author may have meant. Instead an anachronistic view is foisted upon poor Ignatius of Antioch by later Trinitarians to try and claim him as his own. As seen, the citations:
Show an incompatibility with an understanding of Jesus that fits the 3-self Trinitarian paradigm. So what did we see from this discussion on the texts cited:
Jesus is considered secondary - subordinate - to God. Jesus, when called God, is meant to be superhuman rather than God himself. As Bart Ehrman points out in Foster's reflections later theologians found Ignatius to be vague too
Jonathan asks, how can one assert Ignatius didn't affirm the Trinity. Later theologians did not share Jonathan's confidence.
I'd also like to add, in my reading of Ignatius' epistle to the Ephesians I came across a portion which indicates agency. Agency in a Jewish understanding. So, was Ignatius offering elevated reverence to Jesus due to him being an agent of God? It's one worthy for consideration (see Ignatius's letter to Ephesus chapter 6 to see what I am referencing)
Conclusion
The conclusion is the same as my previous one; to say Ignatius taught the Trinity would be misleading.
Note: I have noticed gentlemen on social media who are straw-manning the Muslim arguments. We aren't saying because Ignatius didn't use the word "Trinity" that means he didn't believe in it. No, our contentions are he did not believe in the 3-self Trinity idea and this is apparent in his lack of Trinitarian thought coming out of his text.
Let me make a simple but extremely effective point. When Christians fraudulently added 1 John 5:7 into the text of the Bible in the 1500s the teaching was simple after outlining the 3 "Persons" of the 3-self Trinity belief it states they are one.
To convey the basic idea of the 3-self Trinity belief without the word Trinity is quite easy. Why don't we see this in the first 3 centuries? Why don't we not see this earlier still; in the writings of Paul, Mark and Matthew? Or earlier still, why not in the mouth of Jesus in any of the Texts? Or even earlier, why not in the Old Testament?
I think it's obvious why. The Trinity belief is a later development.
It is my hope James, Jonathan and Rudolph will reflect on the points outlined. The same applies to other Christians.
May God guide us all. Ameen
Sunday, 5 June 2016
Analysis: Common Evangelical Christian Argument Saying Allah is not the God of the Bible
This is a response I wrote via a comment to an evangelical Christian argument that goes along the lines of:
Islam teaches Allah is not the father of anybody while according to the Bible Jesus calls God the Father therefore Allah is not God.
It's a very simplistic argument that has an obvious fallacy to it (see my first point) and under further scrutiny we see there's an interesting side question of the authenticity of the term "my Father" attributed to Jesus in the Gospel texts (second point).
Here's the response with amendments:
Hi, IIRC you argued the God that sent Jesus cannot be the God Muslims worship as Jesus called God the Father while Islam teaches God (Allah) is not the father of anyone.
Firstly, Jews used the word abba for God in a metaphorical sense denoting closeness and an intimate relationship with God.
Hi, IIRC you argued the God that sent Jesus cannot be the God Muslims worship as Jesus called God the Father while Islam teaches God (Allah) is not the father of anyone.
Firstly, Jews used the word abba for God in a metaphorical sense denoting closeness and an intimate relationship with God.
[Thus the prohibition of calling Allah "my Father" does not mean Allah is not God. Think about it, there are dietary laws that are taught in the Hebrew Bible but done way with in the New Testament, would the Evangelical now seriously argue the God of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is not the same God that Paul preached about? The argument is not only flawed but it is inconsistently applied]
Secondly, there’s no hard evidence Jesus called God by the term “father”. If you have a look at Mark 3:35 you will see Jesus is said to have used the word God while Mattthew changes the same statement by replacing the word ‘God’ with the word ‘Father’ in Matt 12:50.
However, there are other references in Mark where "Father" is used for God. Thus, the Christian will believe both Father and God can be used interchangeably. Therefore, banning the use of "Father" would not denote an ontological change in God.
Let me know what you think of this. Also, try and visit your local mosque to study scripture together (with Muslims) and have friendship and dialogue.
Peace
Secondly, there’s no hard evidence Jesus called God by the term “father”. If you have a look at Mark 3:35 you will see Jesus is said to have used the word God while Mattthew changes the same statement by replacing the word ‘God’ with the word ‘Father’ in Matt 12:50.
However, there are other references in Mark where "Father" is used for God. Thus, the Christian will believe both Father and God can be used interchangeably. Therefore, banning the use of "Father" would not denote an ontological change in God.
Let me know what you think of this. Also, try and visit your local mosque to study scripture together (with Muslims) and have friendship and dialogue.
Peace
Prophecies of the Messiah - Reza Aslan
British Muslims Protested to Defend Jesus p
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Conversions to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
British Muslims Protested to Defend Jesus p
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Conversions to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Saturday, 9 April 2016
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Patrick Navas sees John 3:16 teaching the subordination of Christ to God. That's to say Christ was sent to the world by God. He doesn't find it teaching Jesus to be consubstantial with God.
Patrick Navas felt texts Trinitarians appeal to were simple to counter.
His three main points against the Trinity belief:
1. Doctrine of the Trinity is not articulated in the Bible. Trinitarian theologians admit this.
There's a distinction between Biblical Christians and Creedal Christians. Those claiming Sola Scriptura and keeping the creeds aren't really being true to the idea of Sola Scriptura.
2. Identity of God and Jesus distinct from each other.
In 1 Cor 8:6 Paul spells out the identity of God and identifies Him as the Father:
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
In Acts 2:36 Peter is purported to have said:
"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah."
The authority Jesus had was not due to his ontology but rather it was given to him by God. A derived lordhsip. The "lord" has a God. Jesus has a God.
3. Holy Spirit
There are some texts (mostly in John) which ascribe personal qualities to the Spirit but those texts can be understood as personification as per Wisdom in Proverbs 8.
[Note: The Jews, as articulated by rabbi Tovia Singer, believe the Holy Spirit is the active force of God]
Through Gregory of Nazianzen, as late as 380, we see there was a running debate as to what to believe about the Holy Spirit. How can there have been a Trinity teaching passed down through apostles concerning the Holy Spirt if Christians were undecided on what to believe about the Holy Spirit?
"Gregory of Nazianzum could still say in 380, Some of our theologians consider the Holy Spirit to be a certain mode of the Divine energy, others a creature of God, others God Himself. Others say they do not know which opinion they ought to accept, out of reverence for the Scriptures which have not clearly explained this point."
If the Trinity is not explicitly taught in the NT how can it be reconciled as an essential teaching of Chrisianity?
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Sunday, 13 March 2016
A Response to Trinitarian Claims on John 17:5, John 17:3 and 1 John 5:20
A really quick response to Vladimir Susic's article on Pastor Boshoff's Ad Lucem website.
Vladmir offers a Trinitarian response. I skimmed through his response. I don't think his Trinitarian response is convincing.
Vladimir writes:
John 17:3:
“And this is eternal life: to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent” —Jesus the Messiah. John 17:3 (ISV)
Now our dear unitarian friends will obviously jump on it and say that we are done, but that is indeed not so. In our Trinitarian Theology The Father is indeed The Only True God, so is The Son, and The Spirit! Jesus can easily say that Father is The Only True God yet not deny his divinity for The Son is THE SAME GOD as the Father! So in saying that The Father is The Only True God, Jesus is in fact, affirming HIS OWN divinity for he is the same God as The Father!
Vladimir is insisting John 17:3 fits into a Trinitarian framework. I think the reasoning he gives here is flawed and it opens Vladimir and other Trinitarians to the charge of making Jesus out to be a bad communicator. If I say David is the only true manager, what does that mean? Does it mean, I'm a manager on par to David too? Nope, I've excluded myself from being a true manager. So why is Vladimir overlooking the word 'only' here?
Just read Vladimir's reasoning and ask yourself, is it convincing?
Vladimir wants to appeal to the context of John 17:3 but we should ask ourselves, is this not a standalone teaching? Not every teaching needs to be contexualised. Theological statements are stand-alone. For example, the Jews would point to the Shema (Deut 6:4) and verses such as 'Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,' [Isaiah 46:9] for their theology concerning God.
The Jews won't be talking about context here. Why is Vladimir appealing to context here? Simple, he has his motivations as a Trinitarian. He's reading catholic tradition into the text. Catholic with a small 'c' as Dr Dale Tuggy would say.
Vladimir's appeal to context hinges on John 17:5 where Jesus is asking the Father to glorify him. For Vladimir and other Trinitarians this is a big deal. They use this text to claim Jesus is equal to the Father - that's to say he is God. It's a big leap of faith. Vladimir and other Trinitarians stop short here but what about others who are given glory according to writing attributed to John? In John 17:22 the glory is given to others so it's problematic for Trinitarians to use this type of argumentation to support the idea Jesus is the same substance as God.
There are other verses in John which cause further problems with the Trinitarian stance
John 14:28 teaches Jesus is lesser than the Father
"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
In John 20:17 Jesus affirms he has a God
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
What about Paul here?
Going back to John 17:3, the Trinitarians have another problem here in the form of Paul. Paul seems to repeat the same belief of the Father being the only God in 1 Cor 8:6. This is further supported in 11:3 in the same book.
1 Corinthians 11:3 teaches that Jesus is subordinate to God
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
1 Corinthians 8:6 teaches only the Father is God
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
I'd ask Vladimir and Trinitarian Christians to reflect on this information. Also pray about this to God Almighty. How can one love God with all their heart and mind if that love is being shared 3-ways when in reality it should be solely focussed on the One who created us all. The God of Jesus, Muhammad, Moses and Abraham (pbut). God Almighty.
Trinitarians and 1 John 5:20
Vladimir Susic then moves to 1 John 5:20 and argues this is calling Jesus the 'true God'. I don't find this convincing either. I would like to state, this does not seem to be a common Trinitarian argument. Perhaps I'm wrong. Vladimir, genuine question; do you have any audio or video of a Trinitarian scholar making this claim concerning 1 John 5:20? I have Dr James R White in mind here, has he made this argument before, do you know? If he has please link me to it. If not, why not? Thanks.
1 John 5:20:
“We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know the true God. We are in union with the one who is true, his Son Jesus the Messiah, who is the true God and eternal life”. 1 John 5:20(ISV)
Vladimir contends Jesus, and not the Father, is being called the true God here. This type of argument does not work in English either. It's not convincing. Come on Vladimir, it says at the beginning Jesus came so people can know the true God; it's suggesting Jesus and the true God are distinct beings. Here's a video arguing responding to the Trinitarian efforts and arguing it's the Father who is described as the true God.
Watch the video folks, he does a good job in breaking it down
Do you ever wonder why the Trinity is not explictly taught in the New Testament? If Jesus wanted us to believe in the Trinity, don't you not think he would have just taught directly? Ponder upon it.
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Did Ignatius Teach the Trinity?
Conversions to Islam
[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally
People having dreams and visions showing Jesus is not divine
Tuesday, 23 February 2016
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Video can also be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afFB_6w-Jmc&feature=youtu.be
Study Notes
Protestants really believe they are free of Christian tradition. Catholics are more honest in that they recognise so much of what they believe has to do with Christian tradition rather than Christian Scripture. Protests claim to be sola sciptura but in reality their faith is full of tradition (such as the Trinity - they read it into the text)
Not one place in the New Testament did Jesus claim to be God. We find examples of Jesus rejecting the idea he was God in the NT.
In Mark 10, Jesus teaches only God is good after a rich man calls him good. This rich man learns and did not call Jesus good afterwards.
17As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 18And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 19“You know the commandments, ‘DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.’” 20And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.”
Not All-Knowing
In Mark 13 Jesus states he does not know that day or hour. How is it if Jesus was the same substance and co-equal to the Father that he did not have information the Father had?
32“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father
Also, what about the Holy Spirit? If the Holy Spirit is person in the trinity, why does the Holy Spirit not know either? The Holy Spirit according to Judaism is the active force of God. It's not someone but something according to Judaism.
In Mark 20 we see the Father has the authority to do something that Jesus cannot
"What is it you want?" he asked. She said, "Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom."22But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to Him, “We are able.” 23He said to them, “My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.”
Jesus prays to God in Matthew 26:39 so clearly it's ridiculous to believe Jesus is God. Also, why is he only praying to the Father and not to the Holy Spirit and himself?
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
If Jesus was God why does he have to call on the Father for support from angels? Why does he even need support?
Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? [Matt 26:53]
John 14:28 teaches Jesus is lesser than the Father
"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
Jesus denies he is God explicitly in John 17:3. The word only in Greek is monos. It clearly teaches there's no other.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
In John 20:17 Jesus affirms he has a God
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
1 Corinthians 11:3 teaches that Jesus is subordinate to God
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
1 Corinthians 8:6 teaches only the Father is God
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
John 10:30 is about being one in purpose not substance. In fact the idea of this verse teaching Jesus is one substance with the Father is refuted in John 17:11 where the disciples are taught they can be one in the same way as Jesus and the Father are one (clearly not teaching the Trinity!!)
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.
[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally
Sunday, 17 January 2016
Dr Laurence Brown - Arguments Against the Idea of Jesus Being God
Some notes from Laurence Brown's presentation
1. Jesus denies he is God
Jesus denied divinity, here he is said to denied being the greatest, thus he cannot be God.
You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said,[a] ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I. [John 14:28]
Jesus can do nothing of himself, thus clearly he does not have authority and sovereignty over all things.
Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. [John 5:19]
Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. [John 8:28]
2. Jesus affirms his humanity and his Prophethood. Think about it, a Prophet is a messenger, a messenger cannot be God. The One who sends the messenger is God.
But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.” [Mark 6:4]
So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.” [Matthew 13:57]
Nevertheless I must journey today, tomorrow, and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem. [Luke 13:33]
3. Forgery: Incarnation
This verse seems to be clearly teaches the incarnation idea. At first glance it does, right?
However, there's some shenanigans going on here by the scribes. The word 'God' has been added in, in the stead of the word 'who'. The word 'God' is not in the earlier manuscripts.
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God[a] was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. [1 Timothy 3:16]
[a] NU-Text reads Who.
4. God is All-Powerful and free of need.
Jesus was born, suckled, he ate, drank and slept. He prayed too. He was dependent on his mother as a child. This is common sense, clearly a dependent being is not God.
5. Other points
Jesus forgave sins?
Jesus was called 'lord', so was Moses and Abraham. Moses, judges and angels were called 'elohim'.
The resurrection claim, there's no consistency n the stories concerning the resurrection. It cannot be trusted.
[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally
Saturday, 16 January 2016
Does Jesus 'Forgiving' Sins Mean he is God in the New Testament? No. Zakir Hussain Answers a Trinitarian Argument
I put these two clips together to help Trinitarian Christians see through the superficial argumentation out there in Trinitarian circles. This argument stating Jesus is divine because he forgave sins is a baseless argument.
If the video does not play, please see here
Zakir Hussain mentions Matthew 9:8
When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.
Clearly people recognised Jesus was given authority by God to do works thus they did not believe he was God.
Zakir also mentions the Gospel of John purporting the disciples of Jesus were given authority to forgive sins
22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23"If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." [John 20]
Jesus, according to the 'Gospel' of John is purported to have said:
By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. [John 5:30]
Thus, reading such a claim with the lens of John 5:30 we see it's not actually Jesus forgiving sins - this is mentioned by Dr Laurence Brown here
[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally
Friday, 30 October 2015
Jesus and a Fulfilled Prophecy in the Quran
And (remember) when 'Īsā (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), said: "O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allâh unto you confirming the Taurât [(Torah) which came] before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmed. But when he (Ahmed i.e. Muhammad SAW) came to them with clear proofs, they said: "This is plain magic." [Dr Mohsin translation Surah 61:6, from Quran explorer]
Jesus p gave people the good news that there will be a Prophet to come after him. Jesus p said this Prophet's name would be 'Ahmad'. Did Jesus p make a failed prophecy? No.
Prophet Muhammad p is Ahmad. 'Ahmad' is one of Prophet Muhammad's names.
Narrated Jubair bin Mut`im: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "I have five names: I am Muhammad and Ahmad; I am Al-Mahi through whom Allah will eliminate infidelity; I am Al-Hashir who will be the first to be resurrected, the people being resurrected there after; and I am also Al-`Aqib (i.e. There will be no prophet after me). [Sahih Al Bukhari]
Is Ahmad Muhammad? [Surah 61:6 of Quran]
End Times: Will Jesus Kill Muslims? NO but he will end Christianity!
Muslims give the most charity and have least sex outside of marriage!
Numerical miracle in Quran
British Muslims Protested to Defend Jesus p
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Conversions to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Monday, 31 August 2015
Koine Greek Analysis: Did the Disciples Worship Jesus p? Ali Ataie.
Trinitarian Christians claim the disciples worshipped Jesus p yet we see a linguistic analysis of the Greek shows us something different. The word in question proskuneo does no refer to worship. Proskuneo is a reference to kissing the hand (i.e. showing reverence and respect, not worship). In the Bible the same verb, proskuneo, is used to show respect to Jewish priests and Angels.
The Greek word for worship which is only due to God is latreuo.
If the video does not play, please see:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye4NBtX5Yb4
Latreuo
Definition
to serve for hire
to serve, minister to, either to the gods or men and used alike of slaves and freemen
in the NT, to render religious service or homage, to worship
to perform sacred services, to offer gifts, to worship God in the observance of the rites instituted for his worship
of priests, to officiate, to discharge the sacred office
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/latreuo.html
Proskuneo
Definition
to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
to the Jewish high priests
to God
to Christ
to heavenly beings
to demons
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/proskuneo.html
Mary In The Qur'an
Does the Quran include Mary in the Christian Trinity? Ali Ataie Answers
Responding to Christians who boast they call God 'Father'. Ali Ataie.
What Non Muslim Women Really Think About Muslim Men
Prophecies of the Messiah - Reza Aslan
Numerical miracle in Quran
British Muslims Protested to Defend Jesus p
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Conversions to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)