Comments by "Fu Uf" (@fuuf7092) on "Channel 4 News"
channel.
-
60
-
12
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God?
EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father.
These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make.
So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.
GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time?
EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel.
Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind.
And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king.
GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time?
EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor.
And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel.
And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being who would be the future king, and that's probably what Jesus taught his disciples that he was
7
-
6
-
5
-
A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive.
If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him.
Matthew 21:11
And the crowds were saying, âThis is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.â
Luke 7:16
Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, âA great prophet has arisen among us!â and, âGod has visited His people!â
John 4:19
The woman *said to Him, âSir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
Matthew 21:46
When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.
John 6:14
Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, âThis is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.â
John 7:40
Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, âThis certainly is the Prophet.â
John 9:17
So they *said to the blind man again, âWhat do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?â And he said, âHe is a prophet.â
Luke 24:19
And He said to them, âWhat things?â And they said to Him, âThe things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,
Mark 6:15
But others were saying, âHe is Elijah.â And others were saying, âHe is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.â
Mark 8:28
They told Him, saying, âJohn the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.â
Luke 9:8
and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again.
OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms itđ
Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldnât do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem.
Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply offended and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, âA prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own familyâ.
In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet.
Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his death and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
5
-
5
-
5
-
Xtians keep claiming that Jesus dying for our sins was prophesied in O.t.
The prophesy đ¤Ś
1- Isaiah 53:3 says that "He" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses).
2- In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away one might assume this is the death of Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED not killed. But let us go with killed for your arguments sake. This is not what this verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is exactly what happened. And again, the verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was never killed.
3- Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are two possible interpretations and answers to this:
Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the crucifixion trial. This is obviously wrong because Jesus spoke during his trial with both Pontius Pilot and the Jews. And we all know Jesus' famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when he said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!", which translates: "My GOD my GOD, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So wrong. He did open his mouth.
Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is also wrong, because again, Jesus cried during the crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me?", and he also prayed ENDLESSLY to GOD Almighty on the night of the crucifixion to not get crucified! (Matthew 16:39, Matthew 26:36-44, Luke 6:12) He even bowed down his face to Allah Almighty in worship endless times begging Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did object.
4- Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and the rich. According to http://scripturetext.com/isaiah/53-9.htm:
"in his death" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it should be translated as "in death", making the word a symbolic one as further confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon:
There are also two errors in the fulfillment of this Prophecy:
Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66, Matthew 28)! He was temporarily placed in a tomb and then his body disappeared after that. But he never ONCE was buried under ground as our dead get buried.
Jesus, who was never buried from the first place, was also NEVER BURIED with the wicked and the rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as recorded in the gospels.
Again, verse 9 says that he was to be buried with both the wicked and the rich. Jesus was buried alone.
5- In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life and Jesus will live to even see his offspring (his children)! And Christ will see the Light and be satisfied after the suffering of his soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring to the overwhelming fear that Jesus had and the countless cries and Prayers that he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm 91 further speaks clearly on this. Also, Jesus' life was never made long or extended. He only lived for 33 years, so we're told in the gospels, and he certainly never married any woman nor had any child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will live and he will have and see his children.
6- In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be poured unto death. To me, given the Islamic position about Christ never got crucified, and given the symbolic speech in Isaiah 53 chapter that most of it conflicts with what really took place with Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly that Jesus never got crucified such as in the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient texts, then my interpretation of this verse about Jesus' life being poured unto death means to me that Jesus' life will overpower death! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states that not only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will also hear his cries and will send down the Angels to PROTECT HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91 also says that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will HEAR him and HONOR him. Christ
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
Richard Dawkins calls the Bible âa chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents,
composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors
and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuriesâ.
Letâs take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that
what we read in Johnâs Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did?
Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether Johnâs Gospel was historical. But
with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural
movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins
of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus
and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written
by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John,
they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and
Luke, were). Johnâs idea that Jesus was âGod in the fleshâ, for example, was said to reflect much later
developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament
scholars believed that Johnâs Gospel could not be considered as reliable history....
2
-
Psalm 91 is about Jesus, he is mentioned by name in the original language, so we cant deny its about Jesus. This prophecy that Jesus would be protected, and be lifted with no crucifixion matches what the Qur'an says about Jesus PBUH
GOD Almighty will hear his cries (Psalm 91:15) and will save him (Psalm 91:3).
GOD Almighty will cover him with His Protection (Psalm 91:4).
Christ will then not have any fear in him (Psalm 91:5).
Christ will then observe with his own eyes the punishment of the crucified ones (Psalm 91:8).
No harm (this includes crucifixion!) or disaster will even come near Christ (Psalm 91:10....this even contradicts him getting beaten up before crucifixion).
GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to protect him and lift him (Psalm 91:11-12, 14, Isaiah 52:13). Not even his foot will strike the ground from his enemies pushing, grappling and punishment.
Christ's call will be HEARD, and he will be delivered and honored (Psalm 91:15, Isaiah 52:13). No way would these verses be valid if Christ got crucified.
His life will be prolonged (extended) and he will live to even see his offspring (Isaiah 53:10 and Psalm 91:16, which by the way contradict Jesus never got married and had children. In Islam's Noble Quran's 13:38, however, it is quite possible that Jesus Christ had wives and children).
His life will overpower death (Isaiah 53:12).
"Death" in Isaiah 53:9 is proven to be symbolic using the Hebrew Lexicon and several English translations, and it never meant a literal death.
Psalm 91 is speaking as a number of Prophecies that WILL take place. Notice how the verses are speak of future events that WILL TAKE PLACE. Never once throughout the entire New Testament were the Angels sent to save Jesus from striking his foot against a rock. This, again, clearly proves that the NT is indeed false and corrupt..,.,
2
-
So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God?
EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father.
These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make.
So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.
GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time?
EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel.
Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind.
And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king.
GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time?
EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor.
And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel.
And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being who would be the future king, and that's probably what Jesus taught his disciples that he was
2
-
2
-
I've never understood how Christians UNASHAMEDLY deny kuruption in the Bible. They're own Bibles and scholars confirm it, yet they deny đĽ¸đŚđśâđŤ
trinity formula in johns kjv, is a known doctoring of the text and removed from modern translation. the owner has made it impossible to write the verse as he knows its a nail in coffin
The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment.
the doctrine of Alpha and Omega is a sad and unfortunate example of mankindâs tampering with the Word of God. It shows how doctrine is contracted by men to justify false beliefs. The phrase âSaying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the lastâ (Revelation 1:11) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. Therefore, the Alpha Omega phrase is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation.,
This phrase does NOT occur in NA28, UBS5, W&H, Souter, Majority Text, THGNT, SBL, R&P Byzantine Text, Orthodox Text, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, & the Clementine Text. The phrase only occurs in the Textus Receptus.
This phrase is not even footnoted in UBS5 and UBS4. The only MSS listed as having this phrase in NA28 is the manuscript of the commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. However, "I [am] the first and the last" occurs in P025.
Therefore, there appears to be very little dispute that "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" is not part of the original text of Revelation at Rev 1:11.
in many places, the trinitaria scribes mistraslate. e.g. they translate words that mean 'revere' or 'homage' into worship. this is truly sad that they mislead many to eternal fiya
Matthew 2:11 â The NRSV correctly reads âand they knelt down and paid him homage.â The NIV has the magi worship Jesus instead of merely paying homage, most likely reflecting the piety of the translators and their audience: âand they bowed down and worshipped him.â The NIV does, however, correctly translate the same word (proskuneĹ) as âpay homageâ in Mark 15:19, where the soldiers pay mock homage to Jesus as king. [See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 44â45.]
John 7:53-8:11, often described as âThe Passage of the Woman Caught in Adulteryâ (passage de adultera), is famous for several reasons. The pleasant reason is that it is one of the most dramatic displays of the grace of God in the Bible. But there is also a more difficult reason that needs to be addressed: this passage was likely not in the original version of the Gospel of John, but was added later at an undeterminable time and for an unknown reason. How should the church treat this passage?
The text-critical evidence is overwhelming: this passage was almost certainly not in the original version of the Gospel of John. This is hardly an answer, however, but an entirely new question. For nearly every contemporary Bible, even if the text is given double-brackets or italicized or given a smaller font, contains this passage, thereby declaring to todayâs reader that it is part of the Gospel of John
2
-
Richard Dawkins calls the Bible âa chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents,
composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors
and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuriesâ.
Letâs take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that
what we read in Johnâs Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did?
Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether Johnâs Gospel was historical. But
with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural
movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins
of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus
and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written
by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John,
they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and
Luke, were). Johnâs idea that Jesus was âGod in the fleshâ, for example, was said to reflect much later
developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament
scholars believed that Johnâs Gospel could not be considered as reliable history.
2
-
1. Neither book names the fruit, but the Bible alone calls it the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Qur'an does not call it such, but teaches that humans are already inspired with the knowledge of good and evil at creation in order to enable them to exercise choice between good and evil. This knowledge did not come as a result of eating from a forbidden tree.
2. The Bible says the deceiver was a serpent, but the Qur'an says it was Satan.
3. The Bible says that Adam was not deceived, but only Eve was deceived; it says that Eve then gave the fruit to Adam and he ate. On the other hand, more than one Qur'anic passages mention that they were both deceived. One passage specifically says that Satan approached Adam and deceived him. The Qur'an does not single out Eve for blame in any passage.
4. The Bible says that when the couple heard the sound of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, they hid from him among the trees. So God called out to Adam asking where he was, and asking if he ate from the forbidden tree. On the other hand the Qur'an does not depict God in limited human form. The Qur'an and the Bible both teach that God knows everything always.
5. According to the Bible, when the couple was confronted with their mistake, they blamed each other, and Adam even blamed God because God gave him the woman who gave him the fruit. According to the Qur'an they did not pass the blame. Instead, both repented.
6. According to the Bible, God cursed them. According to the Qur'an, God forgave them and guided them.
7. According to the Bible, they were driven out of the garden because God was afraid that they may eat from the tree of life and live forever. According to the Qur'an, God's plan was to educate our first parents in paradise, then send them into the world for a limited time to resist Satan, the enemy. They were sent to earth as part of God's plan for them; not as a way of preventing them access to the tree of life, but as a test to distinguish those deserving of everlasting enjoyment in God's paradise.
8. According to the Bible, God had said that when Adam eats from the tree he would surely die, and the serpent said they will not surely die. The serpent was right - they did not die. Contrary to this, in the Qur'an, God said that if Adam and Eve eat from the tree they will become wrongdoers, then they will have to leave the garden and come out to where they will have to labour. Satan, however, promised them that if they eat from the tree they will live forever. Satan was wrong - they did not live forever.
9. According to the Bible, because of God's curse, serpents have to crawl and eat dust, women have to suffer in childbirth, and men have to sweat for a living. According to the Qur'an, no such curse was issued. The difficulties of life on earth are what makes it different from life in paradise.đ
2
-
A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive.
If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him.
Matthew 21:11
And the crowds were saying, âThis is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.â
Luke 7:16
Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, âA great prophet has arisen among us!â and, âGod has visited His people!â
John 4:19
The woman *said to Him, âSir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
Matthew 21:46
When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.
John 6:14
Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, âThis is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.â
John 7:40
Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, âThis certainly is the Prophet.â
John 9:17
So they *said to the blind man again, âWhat do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?â And he said, âHe is a prophet.â
Luke 24:19
And He said to them, âWhat things?â And they said to Him, âThe things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,
Mark 6:15
But others were saying, âHe is Elijah.â And others were saying, âHe is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.â
Mark 8:28
They told Him, saying, âJohn the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.â
Luke 9:8
and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again.
OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms itđ
Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldnât do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem.
Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply offended and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, âA prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own familyâ.
In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet.
Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his death and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,đ˘
2
-
Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man.
John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent.
John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God.
Acts 2:22
âMen of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of manâŚ
Numbers 23:19 (NRSV)
God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortalâŚ
Hosea 11:9
For I am God, and not manâ the Holy One among you..
2
-
Richard Dawkins calls the Bible âa chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents,
composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors
and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuriesâ.
Letâs take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that
what we read in Johnâs Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did?
Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether Johnâs Gospel was historical. But
with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural
movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins
of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus
and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written
by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John,
they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and
Luke, were). Johnâs idea that Jesus was âGod in the fleshâ, for example, was said to reflect much later
developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament
scholars believed that Johnâs Gospel could not be considered as reliable history.
2
-
The Muslims are right, and they are the only ones who actually follow the message of Jesus.
And that is why its the fastest growing religion by number of conversions, and most reverts come from xtianty.
Jesus also prophesied of Muhammad to come, and lead us to ALL TRUTH.
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
There is no man in History that this verse applies to more than the final messenger Muhammad.
Unfortunately for christians, this cannot be about the holy spirit as Jesus clearly says the comforter will not come until after he departs. And the holy spirit was already on earth at that point, e.g. at the baptism.
Also no holy ghost has guided us to all truth and new teachings that we couldn't bare then. There are many sects of xrianty who claim they have the Spirit, and none of these sects can agree with each other, let alone guide to a new truth.
The final messenger did not speak of his own, but what he heard from Angel Gabriel, he glorfied Jesus, and told us Jesus will return towards the end times to deal wit the anti christ. There is a whole chapter in the Qur'an dedicated to Mary and she is called the greatest woman of ALL time. He has led us to all truth, he received the final revelation from God.
May peace be upon all the prophets of God
2
-
1
-
1
-
A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive.
If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him.
Matthew 21:11
And the crowds were saying, âThis is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.â
Luke 7:16
Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, âA great prophet has arisen among us!â
John 4:19
The woman *said to Him, âSir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
Matthew 21:46
When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.
John 6:14
Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, âThis is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.â
John 7:40
Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, âThis certainly is the Prophet.â
John 9:17
So they *said to the blind man again, âWhat do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?â And he said, âHe is a prophet.â
Luke 24:19
And He said to them, âWhat things?â And they said to Him, âThe things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,
Mark 6:15
But others were saying, âHe is Elijah.â And others were saying, âHe is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.â
Mark 8:28
They told Him, saying, âJohn the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.â
Luke 9:8
and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again.
OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms itđ
Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldnât do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem.
Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, âA prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own familyâ.
In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet.
Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
1
-
Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man.
John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent.
John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God.
Acts 2:22
âMen of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of manâŚ
Numbers 23:19 (NRSV)
God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortalâŚ
Hosea 11:9
For I am God, and not manâ the Holy One among you..
1
-
GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time?
EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor.
And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel.
And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being
So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God?
EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father.
These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make.
So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.
GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time?
EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel.
Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind.
And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king.
1
-
1
-
It's been 2 weeks, hope you ignorant ppl have realised the lie idf told us was born out of humiliation and their evil to flip the capture of hostages and their own murder of their own civilians.
Take a break from the western mainstream and see that all genuine hostage survivors have confirmed WHAT HAMAS LEADER SAID, they didn't target civilians, in fact they were very nice to them considering they were taken as hostages
Babies b headed, women r8 to death etc all lies to demon ise the resistance force of an innocent native population under an evil brutal occupation.
And the islamophobes had a field day, in fact still are despite confirmation those allegations couldn't be verified.
We have seen how they blu up hospitals, took credit, and later flipped the script again and said it was hamas, doctoring a fake audio call ( they couldn't use the techno to find out about the 7th, yet in 3 hours were able to tap into this phone convo đ¤Ś)
Now, as another reminder, this Yr, upto August, 37 babies of 200 innocent civilians were shot down, with no justice served. Where was the outcry? Where was the coverage?
Do we see regular anniversary of the 200 civilians at a peace march in the west bank in 2018 gunned down by idf? Wheres their justice?
Will we see the western media, publishing monthly, or yearly anniversary of these incidents?
But you can bet we will see yearly, probably monthly anniversary of the lies of the 7th. They will continue to shove them down our throats to reaffirm the general feeling that Muslims are the enemy, whilst we were in reality the victims.
And what happens to a powerless and helpless peole? Who live under brutality, kild and wiped out with no justice?
You create hate. Not unfounded. And when they retaliate, what will happen?
We in the west, with our moral high ground will call them tristsđ˘
1
-
A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive.
If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him.
Matthew 21:11
And the crowds were saying, âThis is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.â
Luke 7:16
Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, âA great prophet has arisen among us!â
John 4:19
The woman *said to Him, âSir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
Matthew 21:46
When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.
John 6:14
Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, âThis is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.â
John 7:40
Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, âThis certainly is the Prophet.â
John 9:17
So they *said to the blind man again, âWhat do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?â And he said, âHe is a prophet.â
Luke 24:19
And He said to them, âWhat things?â And they said to Him, âThe things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,
Mark 6:15
But others were saying, âHe is Elijah.â And others were saying, âHe is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.â
Mark 8:28
They told Him, saying, âJohn the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.â
Luke 9:8
and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again.
OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms itđ
Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldnât do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem.
Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, âA prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own familyâ.
In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet.
Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
1
-
Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man.
John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent.
John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God.
Acts 2:22
âMen of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of manâŚ
Numbers 23:19 (NRSV)
God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortalâŚ
Hosea 11:9
For I am God, and not manâ the Holy One among you..
1
-
I've never understood how Christians UNASHAMEDLY deny kuruption in the Bible. They're own Bibles and scholars confirm it, yet they deny đĽ¸đŚđśâđŤ
trinity formula in johns kjv, is a known doctoring of the text and removed from modern translation. the owner has made it impossible to write the verse as he knows its a nail in coffin
The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment.
the doctrine of Alpha and Omega is a sad and unfortunate example of mankindâs tampering with the Word of God. It shows how doctrine is contracted by men to justify false beliefs. The phrase âSaying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the lastâ (Revelation 1:11) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. Therefore, the Alpha Omega phrase is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation.,
This phrase does NOT occur in NA28, UBS5, W&H, Souter, Majority Text, THGNT, SBL, R&P Byzantine Text, Orthodox Text, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, & the Clementine Text. The phrase only occurs in the Textus Receptus.
This phrase is not even footnoted in UBS5 and UBS4. The only MSS listed as having this phrase in NA28 is the manuscript of the commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. However, "I [am] the first and the last" occurs in P025.
Therefore, there appears to be very little dispute that "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" is not part of the original text of Revelation at Rev 1:11.
in many places, the trinitaria scribes mistraslate. e.g. they translate words that mean 'revere' or 'homage' into worship. this is truly sad that they mislead many to eternal fiya
Matthew 2:11 â The NRSV correctly reads âand they knelt down and paid him homage.â The NIV has the magi worship Jesus instead of merely paying homage, most likely reflecting the piety of the translators and their audience: âand they bowed down and worshipped him.â The NIV does, however, correctly translate the same word (proskuneĹ) as âpay homageâ in Mark 15:19, where the soldiers pay mock homage to Jesus as king. [See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 44â45.]
John 7:53-8:11, often described as âThe Passage of the Woman Caught in Adulteryâ (passage de adultera), is famous for several reasons. The pleasant reason is that it is one of the most dramatic displays of the grace of God in the Bible. But there is also a more difficult reason that needs to be addressed: this passage was likely not in the original version of the Gospel of John, but was added later at an undeterminable time and for an unknown reason. How should the church treat this passage?
The text-critical evidence is overwhelming: this passage was almost certainly not in the original version of the Gospel of John. This is hardly an answer, however, but an entirely new question. For nearly every contemporary Bible, even if the text is given double-brackets or italicized or given a smaller font, contains this passage, thereby declaring to todayâs reader that it is part of the Gospel of John
1
-
So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God?
EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father.
These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make.
So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.
GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time?
EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel.
Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind.
And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king.
GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time?
EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor.
And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel.
And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being who would be the future king, and that's probably what Jesus taught his disciples that he was
1
-
Richard Dawkins calls the Bible âa chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents,
composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors
and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuriesâ.
Letâs take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that
what we read in Johnâs Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did?
Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether Johnâs Gospel was historical. But
with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural
movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins
of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus
and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written
by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John,
they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and
Luke, were). Johnâs idea that Jesus was âGod in the fleshâ, for example, was said to reflect much later
developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament
scholars believed that Johnâs Gospel could not be considered as reliable history.
1
-
When Jesus Christ began his mission to call the Israelites back to God, many of the Israelites and Roman authorities were far astray from the truth. While many Israelites and Roman authorities rejected the Message and teachings of Jesus Christ, a group of humble, sincere people of the Israelites believed and accepted his message and teachings. They accepted that God had sent Jesus Christ to guide them to their Creator. Jesus Christ asked the Israelites to be his helpers in Godâs cause, to call them back to the worship of One God. Some of them responded.
This group of devoted followers submitted to God and pledged their allegiance to the Almighty and His Messenger, Jesus Christ. These companions, helpers, supporters, and friends of Christ were known as the twelve disciples or apostles. The name disciples or apostles is used to differentiate Jesusâ close companions from the remainder of his followers, whose numbers later grew.
When God elevated Jesus Christ to the Heavens, the Jewish people remained purse.icute.d and did not have much power. No uniform authority stood to establish and maintain the actual message and teachings of Jesus Christ. The followers of Jesus Christ dissipated after his departure, and little support remained to carry on his message â except for those who witnessed Jesus Christ and relayed his message and story to those who were not there, presenting it from their perspective. Later, strange new theories spread that were never preached by Jesus Christ, from him being an imp05ter to being the divine Son of God.
Around 35 CE, a man named Saul of Tarsus came; he later changed his name to Paul. Paul was a Roman citizen, a Jew, and the ener.Mee of Jesus Christ. He was a zealous purse.i.cuter and kwi1la of Jesus Christâs faithful followers. En route from Jerusalem to Damascus, Paul claimed that he saw âthe lightâ when he saw Jesus Christ appearing to him, filled with the Holy Spirit. He was chosen and commanded to teach and preach acts that Jesus Christ never did to the masses. Paul taught concepts contradictory to what Jesus Christ and faithful followers of Jesus Christ were teaching. Paul provided no proof as to what he claimed to receive. I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11â12)
While Jesus Christ is the central focus of Christianity, the founder of modern Christianity is not Jesus Christ; instead, it is Paul because the version of Christianity that has survived is not the version that Jesus Christ preached; instead, it was the version that Paul preached when he claimed Jesus Christ came to him in a vision and told him to preach new concepts. He converted to Christianity and wong.fully began calling people to worship Jesus Christ and spread strange teachings. Due to his power, wealth, and relationships, people started to adopt these strange beliefs and teachings, while the true disciples of Jesus Christ disapproved.
The disciples kla5hed and argued with Paul because of his innovative and biz4rr3 teachings, and the New Testament references this fact. Many Christians m15takenly took him as one of the disciples of Jesus Christ due to his claim that he was, but he was not, nor did he ever meet Jesus Christ. While some Christians elevate Paul to sainthood, Paul was responsible for de.strawing the teachings of Jesus Christ. He told people they did not need to follow Godâs laws, even though Jesus Christ 5.uff3r3d and struggled to convey the Message of God, which included teaching people to obey Godâs commandments.
Many people took Paulâs word and believed him, even though Jesus Christ never violin.ated the Laws of Moses that came before him, and even though the Bible clearly states, Till Heaven and earth pass, the one that breaks the Law will be called the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplishedâ âTherefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.â (Matthew 5:18â19). This verse 3xp7icitlee states that anyone that breaks the Law or teaches others to break the Law will be called the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven. On the contrary, the verse states that whoever practices and teaches the Law will be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.
Almost all the concepts of the modern-day teachings of Christianity, including the concept of Jesus Christ being the son of God and Atonement, are from Paul â and not from the teachings of Jesus Christ. As such, the teachings of Paul kontr4dikt the teachings of Jesus.
While Prophets of God performed miracles to prove they were sent from God, such as when Jesus Christ healed leprosy and the blind, Paul did not perform any miracles or show any proof whatsoever that he was carrying the Word of God or even the words of the Prophet Jesus PBUH. Paul changed his name from Saul to distance himself from his former reputation as an 3ner.mee of Jesus Christ and a pr05ekut0r of Jesus Christâs disciples.
Paul met the disciples of Christ occasionally but was not fortunate enough to live in their company. When he later came into the picture after the departure of Jesus Christ, he made some s3v3re changes to the religion to win over the G3n.tiles (non-Jewish people). He introduced what became vital concepts of Christianity, including the idea that Christ is the Son of God, that he s4cr1f1ced himself on the cross to save humanity, and that all one needs to do to earn Paradise is to believe Christ dwyed for his sins. Half of the New Testament is written by this man who never met Jesus Christ in his lifetime. Yet, Christians do not question the authenticity of this ex-3n3rmee of Jesus Christ and thus take his word as Truth.
The Book of Acts in the Bible holds three k0ntr4dikt0ry accounts of Paulâs so-called âconversionâ when he claims he saw Jesus Christ in a vision. The story has many holes. Acts 9:7 states: The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. This verse states that the men traveling with Saul stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could not see, but in Acts 22:9, there exists an apparent k0ntr4dikti0n. The verse states the men travelling with Paul saw the light but did not hear the voice who spoke! And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afr4id; but they heard not the voice of him that sp0ke to me. Did the men that traveled with Paul see the light or hear the voice? Why donât we have records of these witnesses to testify to this significant event? The answer is simple; this event never happened.
The New Testament that is now in existence contains more writings of Paul than any other source. All his reports were written before the four Gospels. They are influenced mainly by the teachings and inn0v4tion5 of Paul, even though his writings consist of hundreds of inconsistences and k0ntr4dikti0ns! Paul ab0li5hed Godâs laws, such as not eating pork, fasting, observing the Sa88ath, and the instruction of sirrkumcisi0n.
The early devoted followers of Jesus Christ 5truggld for years to uphold the teaching that only One God (the Father) should be worshiped, and Jesus Christ was only His human Messenger and ano1ntd Messiah to return. The real followers of Jesus Christ opposed the blatant mi55representations that Paul was wongfu1ly desim4ting. They had a strong understanding of his message and tried to maintain the purity and clarity of his teachings â worshipping God the Father alone and following His commandments.
However, Paul gave Jesus Christâs faithful disciples a bad reputation. Paul gave these faithful disciples, who were with Jesus Christ all along â supporting and helping him, the reputation of being lazy, misguided, and hypp0kritic4l. People m15taken1y believed that Paul understood the message and teachings of Jesus Christ better than the disciples, even though they lived with Jesus Christ and Paul had never met him. How b1z4rre is that?
Since the 1nn.ovative teachings of Paul appealed to the G3n.tile5 (non-Jwish people), Jesusâ faithful followers were unable to stop Paulâs mi5guidance. Although the first Christians were Unitarians who asserted the unity of God and would have rej3cted the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus Christâs message of the absolute Oneness of God lasted in its original purity for only a short time, then d1m1nished over the years. The very first Christians were not Trinitarians and, in fact, never had heard of the Trinity, as many current-day Biblical scholars acknowledge.
Some Christians developed different beliefs about the Prophet Jesus PBUH over the next few centuries. They claimed that he was divine, calling him the Son of God, which eventually became the d0min4nt Christian belief. Sadly, Christian leaders took Paulâs beliefs as their religion even though his teachings k0ntr4dikt the Bible, and Christian leaders ab4nd0ned the actual teachings of Jesus Christ. Many Biblical scholars recognize and admit that the formulation of modern Christianity did not begin with Jesus Christ; instead, the faith started with Paul, as 5h0kking as that sounds. Sadly, Paul, not Jesus Christ, is the true founder of modern Christianity. Today, only Muslims follow the actual teachings of Jesus Christ
1
-
Xtians claim that Jesus dng for our sins was prophesied in O.t. even though Jesus never ever made such a claim
The prophesy đ¤Ś
1- Isaiah 53:3 says that "He" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses).
2- In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away one might assume this is the deff of Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED not kiwd. But let us go with kiwd for your arguments sake. This is not what this verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is exactly what happened. And again, the verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was never kiwd.
3- Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are two possible interpretations and answers to this:
Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the crucifixion trial. This is obviously wrong because Jesus spoke during his trial with both Pontius Pilot and the Jews. And we all know Jesus' famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when he said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!", which translates: "My GOD my GOD, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So wrong. He did open his mouth.
Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is also wrong, because again, Jesus cried during the crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me?", and he also prayed ENDLESSLY to GOD Almighty on the night of the crucifixion to not get crucified! (Matthew 16:39, Matthew 26:36-44, Luke 6:12) He even bowed down his face to Allah Almighty in worship endless times begging Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did object.
4- Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and the rich.
"in his deff" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it should be translated as "in deff", making the word a symbolic one as further confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon:
There are also two errors in the fulfillment of this Prophecy:
Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66, Matthew 28)! He was temporarily placed in a tomb and then his body disappeared after that. But he never ONCE was buried under ground as our dead get buried.
Jesus, who was never buried from the first place, was also NEVER BURIED with the wicked and the rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as recorded in the gospels.
Again, verse 9 says that he was to be buried with both the wicked and the rich. Jesus was alone.
5- In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life and Jesus will live to even see his offspring (his children)! And Christ will see the Light and be satisfied after the suffering of his soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring to the overwhelming fear that Jesus had and the countless cries and Prayers that he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm 91 further speaks clearly on this. Also, Jesus' life was never made long or extended. He only lived for 33 years, so we're told in the gospels, and he certainly never married any woman nor had any child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will live and he will have and see his children.
6- In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be poured unto deff. To me, given the Islamic position about Christ never got crucified, and given the symbolic speech in Isaiah 53 chapter that most of it conflicts with what really took place with Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly that Jesus never got crucified such as in the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient texts, then my interpretation of this verse about Jesus' life being poured unto defff means to me that Jesus' life will overpower def! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states that not only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will also hear his cries and will send down the Angels to PROTECT HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91 also says that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will HEAR him and HONOR him. Christđ˘,
1
-
Look at what the bible says regarding salvation. Even the wickedest of the wicked can save themselves by repentance. Not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin. And he says the son will not bare the inequities of the father ( original sin) and vice versa because God is just.
Please explain why salvation was possible thru repentance, but after Paul's work, there is no salvation except by blood?
He will not dye for his fatherâs sin; he will surely live. 18But his father will dye for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
19âYet you ask, âWhy does the son not share the guilt of his father?â Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20The one who sins is the one who will dye. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
21âBut if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not dye. 22None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23Do I take any pleasure in the deff of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24âBut if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will dye.
25âYet you say, âThe way of the Lord is not just.â Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will dye for it; because of the sin they have committed they will dye. 27But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life,,,.
1
-
Islam didn't invent the fact Jesus wasn't crucified.
In his Trallians, Ignatius, the bishop ofAntioch (who died around 110
CE, and who wrote during the first decade of the second century CE), was
quite eloquent in his attack against the early Christians who denied that
the crucifixion of Jesus was anything more than an illusion. The following quotation from Ignatius (italics added for emphasis by the present
author) is directly to the point:
But if, as some say.. .his suffering was only an appearance, then
why am I a prisoner, and why do I long to fight with the wild beasts?
In that case, I am dying in vain."
80 The Cross & The Crescent
One cannot attack as heresy a belief or doctrine that does not yet
exist. The theology of Ignatius not withstanding, his attack against those
early Christians who believed that Jesus' crucifixion was only illusory,
demonstrates the existence of that belief among the early Christians.
Further, the fact that Ignatius even bothered to attack this doctrine suggests that the belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was quite
widespread by 110 CEo Clearly, the doctrine of or belief in the illusory
nature of the crucifixion was perceived by Ignatius to be a threat to what
would much later become the orthodox position of the Christian church
regarding the crucifixion. As it would take some years for such a belief
to become widespread across the vastness of the Roman Empire, it can
be deduced that the origin of the doctrine of the illusory nature of the
crucifixion must be dated well back into the first century CE, and quite
possibly right back to the time of the crucifixion itself.
When considering the above, it must be remembered that Ignatius
was attacking Christians, not non-Christians, although the particular
Christians being attacked shared a specific belief system at odds with
that of Ignatius when it came to the particulars of the doctrine of the
crucifixion. To millions of Christians raised with a Sunday School interpretation of Christianity, the above may come as something of a shock.
However, for those Christians, the shocks are only just the beginning.
Indeed, the shocks dramatically increase in voltage when one considers
the early Christian scriptures, both apocryphal and canonical. ,,
1
-
Psalm 91 is about Jesus, he is mentioned by name in the original language, so we cant deny its about Jesus. This prophecy that Jesus would be protected, and be lifted with no crucifixion matches what the Qur'an says about Jesus PBUH
GOD Almighty will hear his cries (Psalm 91:15) and will save him (Psalm 91:3).
GOD Almighty will cover him with His Protection (Psalm 91:4).
Christ will then not have any fear in him (Psalm 91:5).
Christ will then observe with his own eyes the punishment of the crucified ones (Psalm 91:8).
No harm (this includes crucifixion!) or disaster will even come near Christ (Psalm 91:10....this even contradicts him getting beaten up before crucifixion).
GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to protect him and lift him (Psalm 91:11-12, 14, Isaiah 52:13). Not even his foot will strike the ground from his enemies pushing, grappling and punishment.
Christ's call will be HEARD, and he will be delivered and honored (Psalm 91:15, Isaiah 52:13). No way would these verses be valid if Christ got crucified.
His life will be prolonged (extended) and he will live to even see his offspring (Isaiah 53:10 and Psalm 91:16, which by the way contradict Jesus never got married and had children. In Islam's Noble Quran's 13:38, however, it is quite possible that Jesus Christ had wives and children).
His life will overpower death (Isaiah 53:12).
"Death" in Isaiah 53:9 is proven to be symbolic using the Hebrew Lexicon and several English translations, and it never meant a literal death.
Psalm 91 is speaking as a number of Prophecies that WILL take place. Notice how the verses are speak of future events that WILL TAKE PLACE. Never once throughout the entire New Testament were the Angels sent to save Jesus from striking his foot against a rock. This, again, clearly proves that the NT is indeed false and corrupt..,.,
1
-
For me, the biggest evidence is that Paul followers ALWAYS QUOTE PAUL, OR THE LAST GOSPEL JOHN, as their evidences
And their own scholars say John is the LEAST AUTHENTIC, written by multiple authors, hundreds of miles and years away from Jesus.
And this is the book that elevates Jesus, at least tries.
They never ever quote Mark or luke, the earlier Gospels, where Jesus is a prophet and messiah, sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, by his own admission.
This is the biggest red flag that Paul followers are misguided.
ALL THEIR favourite quotes come from the froindulent Gospel of John.
Even Mark isn't safe. 16.8 is where Mark ends,as the earliest manuscripts end there..
But the 'long ending' of Mark, 16.9 to 20, has the resurrection, Jesus sitting on right side of God etc
Their own academia acknowledge this, that 9 to 20 are later interpolation and its common knowledge except for the blind followers who have not studied what they are basing their salvation on đ¤Ś
1
-
That Isaiah 9:6 has been misinterpreted can be seen from the fact that Jesus is never called the âEternal Fatherâ anywhere else in Bible. Since the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that Christians should âneither confound the Persons nor divide the Substanceâ (Athanasian Creed), how can the Trinitarians accept that Jesus is the âEternal Fatherâ? Let us consider additional facts impartially.
First, all the Hebrew verb forms in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense. For example, the word which the Christian Bibles render as âhis name will be calledâ is the two words âvayikra shemo,â which properly translated, should read âhis name was called.â The word âvayikraâ is the first word to appear in the book of Leviticus (1:1), and it is translated properly over there â in the past tense. In addition, the King James Version translates the same verbs elsewhere in the past tense in Genesis 4:26 and Isaiah 5:25. Only in Isaiah 9:6-7 are these verbs translated in the future tense!
Notice that it says âa child HAS been born to us.â This is an event that has just occurred, not a future event. Isaiah is not making a prophecy, but recounting history. A future event would say a child will be born to us, but this is NOT what the verse says. The Christian translations capitalize the word âsonâ assuming that this is a messianic prophecy and the names of a divine son.
Second, the two letter word âisâ, is usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather, âisâ is understood. For example, the words âhakelevâ (the dog) and âgadolâ (big), when joined into a sentence - hakelev gadol - means âthe dog IS big,â even though no Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word âis.â A more accurate translation of the name of that child, then, would be âA wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting father ...â. This name describes God, not the person who carries the name. The name Isaiah itself means âGod is salvation,â but no one believes the prophet himself is God in a human body!
Third, the phrase âMighty Godâ is a poor translation according to some biblical scholars. Although English makes a clear distinction between âGodâ and âgod,â the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot. The Hebrew word âGodâ had a much wider range of application than it does in English. Some suggest a better translation for the English reader would be âmighty hero,â or âdivine hero.â Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as âdivine heroâ in their Bibles.
Fourth, according to the New Testament, Jesus was never called any of these names in his lifetime.
Fifth, if Isaiah 9:6 is taken to refer to Jesus, then Jesus is the Father! And this is against the Trinitarian doctrine.
Sixth, the fact that the New Testament does not quote this passage shows that even the New Testament authors didnât take this verse to be in reference to Jesus.
Seventh, the passage is talking about the wonders performed by the Lord for Hezekiah, king of Judah. Preceding verses in Isaiah 9 talk of a great military triumph by Israel over its enemies. At the time Isaiah is said to have written this passage, God had just delivered King Hezekiah and Jerusalem from a siege laid by the Assyrians under General Sennacherib. The deliverance is said to have been accomplished in spectacular fashion: an angel went into the Assyrian camp and cild 185,000 soldiers while they slept. When Sennacherib awoke to find his army decimated, he and the remaining soldiers fled, where he was cild by his own sons (Isaiah 37:36-38). Chapters 36 and 37 of Isaiah recount how Hezekiah stood firm in the face of Sennacheribâs vast army and his blasphemous words against the God. When all seemed lost, Hezekiah continued to trust in the Lord, and for this he was rewarded with a miraculous victory. It is interesting to note that the statement, âthe zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this,â found at the end of Isaiah 9:7, is found in only two other places in the Bible: Isaiah 37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31. Both these passages discuss the miraculous deliverance of Hezekiah by God. Therefore, in light of the above, Isaiah is recounting Godâs defense of Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege. Furthermore, Soncinoâs commentary says the chapter is about the fall of Assyria and the announcement of the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz.
1
-
Before Abraham was, I am .
Christians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the âI amâ (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct. Saying âI amâ does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said âI am the man,â and the Greek reads exactly like Jesusâ statement, i.e., âI am.â The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as âI amâ and the other as âI am the man,â is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as âI am.â (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying âI amâ did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes:
Ego eimi [âI amâ] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. âI am the oneâthe one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.âÂ
The phrase âI amâ occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as âI am heâ or some equivalent (âI am heââMark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. âIt is IââMatt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. âI am the one I claim to beâ âJohn 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as âI amâ only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated âI am heâ or âI am the one,â like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ [âEesa alayhissalaam] was speaking of himself as the Messiah (Maseeh) of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament.
The argument is made that because Jesus was âbeforeâ Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively âexistedâ in Abrahamâs time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he âexistedâ in the plan of God. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of âexistingâ in Godâs foreknowledge.
Here is another example where a Prophet existed in the knowledge even before he was born, yet he was not at all Divine, Jeremiah 1:5 â Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.â
Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:Â âI was a Prophet when Adam was between water and clayâ
Yet, no Muslim claims that the Prophet was divine, the meaning has it in it that even when Nabi Adam or Abraham (alayhimussalaam) were present, Jesus (âEesa alayhissalaam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were Decreed to be the Messiah and the Last Prophet in Allahâs plan respectively. Attaching âDivinityâ to such statements shall be absurd and meaningless.
Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version.
The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment
1
-
I and my father are one. John 10.30....that they may all be one, just as you, father are in me, and I in you, that they may also be in us....The glory that you have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one. John 17:20
So are the disciples also God? Because they are one with Jesus and God just as Jesus and God are one? Obviously not. So John 10.30 is not a literal one, but a metaphorical one. When cherry picking goes wrong. Thats why you should read the bible, and not believe whatever church or people have taught you.
Whoever has seen me has seen the father. John 14.9. You take it literally and use this as evidence Jesus is God. So that would literally mean Jesus is the Father! In the Christian Creed, is Jesus ever the father? NO. They are 2 separate entities. Jesus is not the father, and the father is not Jesus. So again, you cherry pick a metaphorical statement and claim its literal, but if you think it through you would realise the blunder. If it wasn't cherry picked and it was understood with context, and other verses in the Bible were read, you would see many verses along these lines, that are not literal but metaphorical. Besides, the Bible says no man can see God and live.
Every prophet that came was the only way to God during their respective prophet hood. When Abraham had his time, the way to God was only through his teaching, when Moses was here, it was through him, likewise Jesus, likewise Muhammad. He is the last prophet bringing the final revelation from God, and our only way to God is now through his teachings.
Before Abraham was, I am. First of all, its a mistranslation. But before we get to that, how is this saying he is God? Being before Abraham makes him God? If you had read and understood the context, you would have realised it was talking about God's foreknowledge. It is saying that the mission of Jesus was predestined before Abraham was on earth. Likewise Muhammad says that he was a prophet when Adam was between water and clay. We don't take that as evidence Muhammad was God! He was a man and prophet of God.
The statement 'I am' is in many places in the Bible, the exact words as the above, but its translated as 'I am he', Paul says it, blind man says it, but only in John 8:48 its translated as "I am" copying the translation of the "I am" that was used from OT about the Almighty God.
Instead of depending on mistranslation, ambiguous statements, interpolation and fraud, look at the clear cut unambiguous statements from Jesus, like John 17.3, where Jesus says the ONLY TRUE GOD IS THE FATHER, or John 20:17 where he tells us we have the same father as him, the same God as him.
Please reflect and study the bible properly. Better yet, read a red letter bible, where the statements of Jesus are in red. See what Jesus says, and not what others have said, and if you are sincere, it will rock your world. Sincerely as the God of Jesus to guide you đ
1
-
The Muslims are right, and they are the only ones who actually follow the message of Jesus.
And that is why its the fastest growing religion by number of conversions, and most reverts come from xtianty.
Jesus also prophesied of Muhammad to come, and lead us to ALL TRUTH.
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
There is no man in History that this verse applies to more than the final messenger Muhammad.
Unfortunately for christians, this cannot be about the holy spirit as Jesus clearly says the comforter will not come until after he departs. And the holy spirit was already on earth at that point, e.g. at the baptism.
Also no holy ghost has guided us to all truth and new teachings that we couldn't bare then. There are many sects of xrianty who claim they have the Spirit, and none of these sects can agree with each other, let alone guide to a new truth.
The final messenger did not speak of his own, but what he heard from Angel Gabriel, he glorfied Jesus, and told us Jesus will return towards the end times to deal wit the anti christ. There is a whole chapter in the Qur'an dedicated to Mary and she is called the greatest woman of ALL time. He has led us to all truth, he received the final revelation from God.
May peace be upon all the prophets of God
1
-
1
-
How many sons does the Bible tell us that God Almighty has?
Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22.
Solomon is God's son "He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14.
Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?).
Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God" Luke 3:38.
Common people (you and me) are the sons of God:
"Ye are the children of the LORD your God"Â Deuteronomy 14:1.
"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14.
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name" John 1:12.
"That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15.
"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2.
"When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7.
"Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1.
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6.
"when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,"Â Genesis 6:4.
"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair" Genesis 6:2
As we can see, the use of the term "son of God" when describing normal human beings was not at all an uncommon practice among Jesus' people.
Well then, was Jesus the only begotten son of God ?
Read Psalms 2:7 :Â "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (King David, King), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee"
1