Comments by "Fu Uf" (@fuuf7092) on "Daily Express"
channel.
-
Christianity is sadly one of the greatest tricks the devil pulled on mankind.
God sent tonnes of prophets with the message to worship God alone, and this is exactly what Jesus preached.
This message was twisted by man and now Christians worship Jesus and forget God altogether 𤯠Its shocking!
Jesus never preached he was God and he would die for your sins, rather he taught to pray to the Father alone and seek forgiveness. There is clear unambiguous evidence in the Bible that clearly shows Jesus came to reaffirm the laws and was a man anointed by God. The only Gospel that inclines towards Jesus divinity, was in the later Gospel of John, which scholars say is clearly written by someone other than the other Gospel.
And then you have Paul. A man who never met Jesus. Jesus said hes here to reaffirm the laws, he said the father is greater than all, he said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God ( john 20.17 ). He says that they may know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus who u sent (John 17.3) He said to direct worship only to the Father.
Paul said to do away with the law. He said Jesus is equal to God. He said to pray to Jesus. How mind-boggling that Christians disobey Jesus and obey Paul. Thats why your considered followers of Paul, not Jesus.
The only evidence of a trinity is an interpolation and removed from modern translationsby. John 1.5.7
The only verses xtians use to support their position are ambiguous verses, mostly from the revelations of John. Now this is striking, because the core tenants of your salvation, trinity, dying for our sins and divinty should be crystal clear and all over the bible, but its nowhere. You reach hard to mistranslate verses which shouldn't be the case. That message would be clear if that was indeed what Jesus taught.
Despite the clear evidence, and the absurdity of original sin (bible says each is responsible for their own deeds and son doesn't bare the iniquity of the father) and the joke that God cannot forgive, and needs a blood payment from an innocent soul, so he came to earth, to kill himself to save humanity from himself đĽ´, ppl remain arrogant and ignorant.
Believing Jesus died for your sins, you are saved, as an innocent paid for your sins, is truly unjust. There's no way that is Gods justice as he is most Just. And this belief contradicts the bible.
Jesus said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God. He says referring to God, that he is the ONLY true God.
Muslims are true followers of Jesus PBUH. We can be saved by gods mercy, and we are responsible and accountable for our own deeds. If we sin against God, we ask him to forgive, and he is most forgiving, he doesn't need a payment. if we sin against man, we need to reconcile with man, my good deeds won't negate my sins against fellow man.
So if I murder someone, the victims family can seek revenge, eye for an eye, compensation, or to forgive. This is real justice.
If we read the bible sincerely, and believe Jesus was always God, then he authored and instructed killing babies, revenge rape, taking virgin girls as sex slaves, beating slaves to death as its one's property, incest, etc, you know God would never produce such filth.
Xtians cop out of this saying that Jesus bought new testament, but he was always God. Or they say the old testament was for Jews? So then gods morality changes? There was a time when rape and revenge was allowed and God changed his mind?
The holes in xtianity make it easy to tear this falsehood down with ease, and that's because its falsehood.
Most Christians haven't even read the bible and just belive what the church teaches them, but they are mislead.
People need to go back to Jesus true message, God is 1, not 3 in 1, not Jesus, but the one true God. Jesus's God and our God..,.,
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Critics as usual apply âcut and chooseâ approach with regards to this passage (Quran 2:191). They only quote, âAnd ciw them wherever you find themâŚ(2:191). However, when we read the passage in its context (2:190-195) it says opposite what they portray of the verse.
Quran 2:190 â 195
2:190 Fit3 in the way of God those who Fit3 you but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors.
2:191 And ciw them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah [Persecution] is worse than kiwing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kiw them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful.
2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah [Persecution] and [until] worship is for God. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.
2:194 [Fit3in in] the sacred month is for [4gro kmiitted in] the sacred month, and for [all] violin,4ations is legal retribution. So whoever has 5aulted you, then salt him in the same way that he has salted you. And fear God and know that God is with those who fear Him.
2:195 And spend in the way of God and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, God loves the doers of good.
Itâs important whenever one reads a Quranic verse, to read it in its context. As you have read, critics only quote the part which suites them, they isolate previous verses and the ones after. When the passage is examined in context, it is clear that nowhere does it sanction the kiwing of innocent people. From verse 2:190 to 2:195, when read, Allah makes it evident to fit3 those only who fit3 them, fit1ng in self-defence.
Another thing some love to do with the verse is, change the Arabic wordâs meaning. Example, the Arabic word âFitnaâ used in 2:191 and 2:193, they dee.septively have translated the word as âdisbeliefâ. So, when itâs read in that perspective, the passage is implying to fit3 to those who are disbelievers, just because of their religion. This again when we examine it, it will turn out to be a lie. The Arabic word âFitnahâ means âpurse.cutionâ, âk.ruptionâ, âseditionâ. But when the word âFitnahâ is used in verse 2:191 and 2:193 it means âpurse.kutionâ
3
-
3
-
3
-
in Islam, we r to love our neighbour as ourselves whatever relgion they were.
thats why when Islam expanded, they allowed everyone to practice their own religion, with their own courts etc.
the only conditon was that they paid income tax. this tax was only upon men, of those only who could afford it. no elderly, women, were reruired to pay, and they wer exempt from militry duties.
whilst upon the muslims, zakat which is higher than the tax the non muslims paid, was upon men and women, and they had to do milit duties.
they did not force their relig onto others, and therefore didnt impoze zakat on them.
this is why when ch3wz were bein purse. cute. ted around europe, by the paul followers, they ran to muslm lands for safety....
these r facts. any1 can luk it up.
whilst when paulanity x. p4nd3d, it literally unn. 47ibed everyone who dint blieve.
and thats why you see the huge diff in numbers above.
the oldest churches in the wrld are in muz lands.
there are 10ml christians in egypt.
3
-
3
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Christianity is sadly one of the greatest tricks the devil pulled on mankind.
God sent tonnes of prophets with the message to worship God alone, and this is exactly what Jesus preached.
This message was twisted by man and now Christians worship Jesus and forget God altogether 𤯠Its shocking!
Jesus never preached he was God and he would die for your sins, rather he taught to pray to the Father alone and seek forgiveness. There is clear unambiguous evidence in the Bible that clearly shows Jesus came to reaffirm the laws and was a man anointed by God. The only Gospel that inclines towards Jesus divinity, was in the later Gospel of John, which scholars say is clearly written by someone other than the other Gospel.
And then you have Paul. A man who never met Jesus. Jesus said hes here to reaffirm the laws, he said the father is greater than all, he said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God ( john 20.17 ). He says that they may know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus who u sent (John 17.3) He said to direct worship only to the Father.
Paul said to do away with the law. He said Jesus is equal to God. He said to pray to Jesus. How mind-boggling that Christians disobey Jesus and obey Paul. Thats why your considered followers of Paul, not Jesus.
The only evidence of a trinity is an interpolation and removed from modern translationsby. John 1.5.7
The only verses xtians use to support their position are ambiguous verses, mostly from the revelations of John. Now this is striking, because the core tenants of your salvation, trinity, dying for our sins and divinty should be crystal clear and all over the bible, but its nowhere. You reach hard to mistranslate verses which shouldn't be the case. That message would be clear if that was indeed what Jesus taught.
Despite the clear evidence, and the absurdity of original sin (bible says each is responsible for their own deeds and son doesn't bare the iniquity of the father) and the joke that God cannot forgive, and needs a blood payment from an innocent soul, so he came to earth, to kill himself to save humanity from himself đĽ´, ppl remain arrogant and ignorant.
Believing Jesus died for your sins, you are saved, as an innocent paid for your sins, is truly unjust. There's no way that is Gods justice as he is most Just. And this belief contradicts the bible.
Jesus said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God. He says referring to God, that he is the ONLY true God.
Muslims are true followers of Jesus PBUH. We can be saved by gods mercy, and we are responsible and accountable for our own deeds. If we sin against God, we ask him to forgive, and he is most forgiving, he doesn't need a payment. if we sin against man, we need to reconcile with man, my good deeds won't negate my sins against fellow man.
So if I murder someone, the victims family can seek revenge, eye for an eye, compensation, or to forgive. This is real justice.
If we read the bible sincerely, and believe Jesus was always God, then he authored and instructed killing babies, revenge rape, taking virgin girls as sex slaves, beating slaves to death as its one's property, incest, etc, you know God would never produce such filth.
Xtians cop out of this saying that Jesus bought new testament, but he was always God. Or they say the old testament was for Jews? So then gods morality changes? There was a time when rape and revenge was allowed and God changed his mind?
The holes in xtianity make it easy to tear this falsehood down with ease, and that's because its falsehood.
Most Christians haven't even read the bible and just belive what the church teaches them, but they are mislead.
People need to go back to Jesus true message, God is 1, not 3 in 1, not Jesus, but the one true God. Jesus's God and our God..
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
-
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
-
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
-
Christianity is sadly one of the greatest tricks the devil pulled on mankind.
God sent tonnes of prophets with the message to worship God alone, and this is exactly what Jesus preached.
This message was twisted by man and now Christians worship Jesus and forget God altogether 𤯠Its shocking!
Jesus never preached he was God and he would die for your sins, rather he taught to pray to the Father alone and seek forgiveness. There is clear unambiguous evidence in the Bible that clearly shows Jesus came to reaffirm the laws and was a man anointed by God. The only Gospel that inclines towards Jesus divinity, was in the later Gospel of John, which scholars say is clearly written by someone other than the other Gospel.
And then you have Paul. A man who never met Jesus. Jesus said hes here to reaffirm the laws, he said the father is greater than all, he said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God ( john 20.17 ). He says that they may know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus who u sent (John 17.3) He said to direct worship only to the Father.
Paul said to do away with the law. He said Jesus is equal to God. He said to pray to Jesus. How mind-boggling that Christians disobey Jesus and obey Paul. Thats why your considered followers of Paul, not Jesus.
The only evidence of a trinity is an interpolation and removed from modern translationsby. John 1.5.7
The only verses xtians use to support their position are ambiguous verses, mostly from the revelations of John. Now this is striking, because the core tenants of your salvation, trinity, dying for our sins and divinty should be crystal clear and all over the bible, but its nowhere. You reach hard to mistranslate verses which shouldn't be the case. That message would be clear if that was indeed what Jesus taught.
Despite the clear evidence, and the absurdity of original sin (bible says each is responsible for their own deeds and son doesn't bare the iniquity of the father) and the joke that God cannot forgive, and needs a blood payment from an innocent soul, so he came to earth, to kill himself to save humanity from himself đĽ´, ppl remain arrogant and ignorant.
Believing Jesus died for your sins, you are saved, as an innocent paid for your sins, is truly unjust. There's no way that is Gods justice as he is most Just. And this belief contradicts the bible.
Jesus said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God. He says referring to God, that he is the ONLY true God.
Muslims are true followers of Jesus PBUH. We can be saved by gods mercy, and we are responsible and accountable for our own deeds. If we sin against God, we ask him to forgive, and he is most forgiving, he doesn't need a payment. if we sin against man, we need to reconcile with man, my good deeds won't negate my sins against fellow man.
So if I murder someone, the victims family can seek revenge, eye for an eye, compensation, or to forgive. This is real justice.
If we read the bible sincerely, and believe Jesus was always God, then he authored and instructed killing babies, revenge rape, taking virgin girls as sex slaves, beating slaves to death as its one's property, incest, etc, you know God would never produce such filth.
Xtians cop out of this saying that Jesus bought new testament, but he was always God. Or they say the old testament was for Jews? So then gods morality changes? There was a time when rape and revenge was allowed and God changed his mind?
The holes in xtianity make it easy to tear this falsehood down with ease, and that's because its falsehood.
Most Christians haven't even read the bible and just belive what the church teaches them, but they are mislead.
People need to go back to Jesus true message, God is 1, not 3 in 1, not Jesus, but the one true God. Jesus's God and our God.
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Christianity is sadly one of the greatest tricks the devil pulled on mankind.
God sent tonnes of prophets with the message to worship God alone, and this is exactly what Jesus preached.
This message was twisted by man and now Christians worship Jesus and forget God altogether 𤯠Its shocking!
Jesus never preached he was God and he would die for your sins, rather he taught to pray to the Father alone and seek forgiveness. There is clear unambiguous evidence in the Bible that clearly shows Jesus came to reaffirm the laws and was a man anointed by God. The only Gospel that inclines towards Jesus divinity, was in the later Gospel of John, which scholars say is clearly written by someone other than the other Gospel.
And then you have Paul. A man who never met Jesus. Jesus said hes here to reaffirm the laws, he said the father is greater than all, he said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God ( john 20.17 ). He says that they may know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus who u sent (John 17.3) He said to direct worship only to the Father.
Paul said to do away with the law. He said Jesus is equal to God. He said to pray to Jesus. How mind-boggling that Christians disobey Jesus and obey Paul. Thats why your considered followers of Paul, not Jesus.
The only evidence of a trinity is an interpolation and removed from modern translationsby. John 1.5.7
The only verses xtians use to support their position are ambiguous verses, mostly from the revelations of John. Now this is striking, because the core tenants of your salvation, trinity, dying for our sins and divinty should be crystal clear and all over the bible, but its nowhere. You reach hard to mistranslate verses which shouldn't be the case. That message would be clear if that was indeed what Jesus taught.
Despite the clear evidence, and the absurdity of original sin (bible says each is responsible for their own deeds and son doesn't bare the iniquity of the father) and the joke that God cannot forgive, and needs a blood payment from an innocent soul, so he came to earth, to kill himself to save humanity from himself đĽ´, ppl remain arrogant and ignorant.
Believing Jesus died for your sins, you are saved, as an innocent paid for your sins, is truly unjust. There's no way that is Gods justice as he is most Just. And this belief contradicts the bible.
Jesus said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God. He says referring to God, that he is the ONLY true God.
Muslims are true followers of Jesus PBUH. We can be saved by gods mercy, and we are responsible and accountable for our own deeds. If we sin against God, we ask him to forgive, and he is most forgiving, he doesn't need a payment. if we sin against man, we need to reconcile with man, my good deeds won't negate my sins against fellow man.
So if I murder someone, the victims family can seek revenge, eye for an eye, compensation, or to forgive. This is real justice.
If we read the bible sincerely, and believe Jesus was always God, then he authored and instructed killing babies, revenge rape, taking virgin girls as sex slaves, beating slaves to death as its one's property, incest, etc, you know God would never produce such filth.
Xtians cop out of this saying that Jesus bought new testament, but he was always God. Or they say the old testament was for Jews? So then gods morality changes? There was a time when rape and revenge was allowed and God changed his mind?
The holes in xtianity make it easy to tear this falsehood down with ease, and that's because its falsehood.
Most Christians haven't even read the bible and just belive what the church teaches them, but they are mislead.
People need to go back to Jesus true message, God is 1, not 3 in 1, not Jesus, but the one true God. Jesus's God and our God..,
1
-
Critics as usual apply âcut and chooseâ approach with regards to this passage (Quran 2:191). They only quote, âAnd ciw them wherever you find themâŚ(2:191). However, when we read the passage in its context (2:190-195) it says opposite what they portray of the verse.
Quran 2:190 â 195
2:190 Fit3 in the way of God those who Fit3 you but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors.
2:191 And ciw them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah [Persecution] is worse than kiwing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kiw them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful.
2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah [Persecution] and [until] worship is for God. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.
2:194 [Fit3in in] the sacred month is for [4gro kmiitted in] the sacred month, and for [all] violin,4ations is legal retribution. So whoever has 5aulted you, then salt him in the same way that he has salted you. And fear God and know that God is with those who fear Him.
2:195 And spend in the way of God and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, God loves the doers of good.
Itâs important whenever one reads a Quranic verse, to read it in its context. As you have read, critics only quote the part which suites them, they isolate previous verses and the ones after. When the passage is examined in context, it is clear that nowhere does it sanction the kiwing of innocent people. From verse 2:190 to 2:195, when read, Allah makes it evident to fit3 those only who fit3 them, fit1ng in self-defence.
Another thing some love to do with the verse is, change the Arabic wordâs meaning. Example, the Arabic word âFitnaâ used in 2:191 and 2:193, they dee.septively have translated the word as âdisbeliefâ. So, when itâs read in that perspective, the passage is implying to fit3 to those who are disbelievers, just because of their religion. This again when we examine it, it will turn out to be a lie. The Arabic word âFitnahâ means âpurse.cutionâ, âk.ruptionâ, âseditionâ. But when the word âFitnahâ is used in verse 2:191 and 2:193 it means âpurse.kutionâ
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
-
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
-
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
-
Christianity is sadly one of the greatest tricks the devil pulled on mankind.
God sent tonnes of prophets with the message to worship God alone, and this is exactly what Jesus preached.
This message was twisted by man and now Christians worship Jesus and forget God altogether 𤯠Its shocking!
Jesus never preached he was God and he would die for your sins, rather he taught to pray to the Father alone and seek forgiveness. There is clear unambiguous evidence in the Bible that clearly shows Jesus came to reaffirm the laws and was a man anointed by God. The only Gospel that inclines towards Jesus divinity, was in the later Gospel of John, which scholars say is clearly written by someone other than the other Gospel.
And then you have Paul. A man who never met Jesus. Jesus said hes here to reaffirm the laws, he said the father is greater than all, he said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God ( john 20.17 ). He says that they may know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus who u sent (John 17.3) He said to direct worship only to the Father.
Paul said to do away with the law. He said Jesus is equal to God. He said to pray to Jesus. How mind-boggling that Christians disobey Jesus and obey Paul. Thats why your considered followers of Paul, not Jesus.
The only evidence of a trinity is an interpolation and removed from modern translationsby. John 1.5.7
The only verses xtians use to support their position are ambiguous verses, mostly from the revelations of John. Now this is striking, because the core tenants of your salvation, trinity, dying for our sins and divinty should be crystal clear and all over the bible, but its nowhere. You reach hard to mistranslate verses which shouldn't be the case. That message would be clear if that was indeed what Jesus taught.
Despite the clear evidence, and the absurdity of original sin (bible says each is responsible for their own deeds and son doesn't bare the iniquity of the father) and the joke that God cannot forgive, and needs a blood payment from an innocent soul, so he came to earth, to kill himself to save humanity from himself đĽ´, ppl remain arrogant and ignorant.
Believing Jesus died for your sins, you are saved, as an innocent paid for your sins, is truly unjust. There's no way that is Gods justice as he is most Just. And this belief contradicts the bible.
Jesus said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God. He says referring to God, that he is the ONLY true God.
Muslims are true followers of Jesus PBUH. We can be saved by gods mercy, and we are responsible and accountable for our own deeds. If we sin against God, we ask him to forgive, and he is most forgiving, he doesn't need a payment. if we sin against man, we need to reconcile with man, my good deeds won't negate my sins against fellow man.
So if I murder someone, the victims family can seek revenge, eye for an eye, compensation, or to forgive. This is real justice.
If we read the bible sincerely, and believe Jesus was always God, then he authored and instructed killing babies, revenge rape, taking virgin girls as sex slaves, beating slaves to death as its one's property, incest, etc, you know God would never produce such filth.
Xtians cop out of this saying that Jesus bought new testament, but he was always God. Or they say the old testament was for Jews? So then gods morality changes? There was a time when rape and revenge was allowed and God changed his mind?
The holes in xtianity make it easy to tear this falsehood down with ease, and that's because its falsehood.
Most Christians haven't even read the bible and just belive what the church teaches them, but they are mislead.
People need to go back to Jesus true message, God is 1, not 3 in 1, not Jesus, but the one true God. Jesus's God and our God..,.,
1
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Ttthe 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
-
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
-
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
-
Christianity is sadly one of the greatest tricks the devil pulled on mankind.
God sent tonnes of prophets with the message to worship God alone, and this is exactly what Jesus preached.
This message was twisted by man and now Christians worship Jesus and forget God altogether 𤯠Its shocking!
Jesus never preached he was God and he would die for your sins, rather he taught to pray to the Father alone and seek forgiveness. There is clear unambiguous evidence in the Bible that clearly shows Jesus came to reaffirm the laws and was a man anointed by God. The only Gospel that inclines towards Jesus divinity, was in the later Gospel of John, which scholars say is clearly written by someone other than the other Gospel.
And then you have Paul. A man who never met Jesus. Jesus said hes here to reaffirm the laws, he said the father is greater than all, he said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God ( john 20.17 ). He says that they may know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus who u sent (John 17.3) He said to direct worship only to the Father.
Paul said to do away with the law. He said Jesus is equal to God. He said to pray to Jesus. How mind-boggling that Christians disobey Jesus and obey Paul. Thats why your considered followers of Paul, not Jesus.
The only evidence of a trinity is an interpolation and removed from modern translationsby. John 1.5.7
The only verses xtians use to support their position are ambiguous verses, mostly from the revelations of John. Now this is striking, because the core tenants of your salvation, trinity, dying for our sins and divinty should be crystal clear and all over the bible, but its nowhere. You reach hard to mistranslate verses which shouldn't be the case. That message would be clear if that was indeed what Jesus taught.
Despite the clear evidence, and the absurdity of original sin (bible says each is responsible for their own deeds and son doesn't bare the iniquity of the father) and the joke that God cannot forgive, and needs a blood payment from an innocent soul, so he came to earth, to kill himself to save humanity from himself đĽ´, ppl remain arrogant and ignorant.
Believing Jesus died for your sins, you are saved, as an innocent paid for your sins, is truly unjust. There's no way that is Gods justice as he is most Just. And this belief contradicts the bible.
Jesus said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God. He says referring to God, that he is the ONLY true God.
Muslims are true followers of Jesus PBUH. We can be saved by gods mercy, and we are responsible and accountable for our own deeds. If we sin against God, we ask him to forgive, and he is most forgiving, he doesn't need a payment. if we sin against man, we need to reconcile with man, my good deeds won't negate my sins against fellow man.
So if I murder someone, the victims family can seek revenge, eye for an eye, compensation, or to forgive. This is real justice.
If we read the bible sincerely, and believe Jesus was always God, then he authored and instructed killing babies, revenge rape, taking virgin girls as sex slaves, beating slaves to death as its one's property, incest, etc, you know God would never produce such filth.
Xtians cop out of this saying that Jesus bought new testament, but he was always God. Or they say the old testament was for Jews? So then gods morality changes? There was a time when rape and revenge was allowed and God changed his mind?
The holes in xtianity make it easy to tear this falsehood down with ease, and that's because its falsehood.
Most Christians haven't even read the bible and just belive what the church teaches them, but they are mislead.
People need to go back to Jesus true message, God is 1, not 3 in 1, not Jesus, but the one true God. Jesus's God and our God..,.,
1
-
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¤Śđ˘
1
-
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.đ˘đ˘đ˘
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
-
Ttthe 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
-
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.đ
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.đŽ
1
-
1