Is God 1 or 3? [Or] Is Jesus God or part of God? [Let the Gospel answer]

thespeez
​

​

They were so helpful, thank you again, I appreciate your time.
​

​

I quote such similar thing and post it here & here
​

​

​

Please read my comments on this besides Campbell you will find it post # 58 and other posts, but I will copy it here again for you
​

​

A- speez: When you read scripture, you must understand the original message as these passages were written thousands of years ago and that language changes meaning over time.
​

​

B- the original text of the OT was written in Hebrew language right, so let us ask any Hebrew (Jewish who can speak Hebrew) if they have the same rule (grammar) as the Arabic language grammar regarding thisè (that there are two kinds of plural, 1. plural for [number]è (number of things, e.g. appleè apples) 2. plural for esteem and respect etc (it is used for personage people and God) *** when a personage or (VIP) is talking about something he did it or he will do it he says, for example: We will discuss this issue later not I will discuss this... so, God is the greatest when he talk about himself he can says we.
​

I think it is better to refer to the Hebrew's grammars. I think it is the same grammar because if not then why Jews didn't understand US/OUR as Christians?
​

​

C- If we will understand US/OUR as you do then it contradicts with many verses which I mentioned some of them! If there are two conflicting verses, then only one can be true; both can never be true or both are wrong.
​

Additions
​

​

D- Jesus the God son was born, right! Then he is the second God and this contradicts with, Isaiah 43.10-11:… ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
​

Isaiah 44.6: … I am the first and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
​

​

E- Myself I don't know and I am not sure if the above verse [let us make man in our image] contradicts with the following verses if God's image is like us, perhaps you have an idea or explanation:
​

Isaiah 40.18: To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?
​

Isaiah 40.5: To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
​

Psalms 89.6: For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD?
​

Jeremiah 10.6-7: Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might .Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? …, there is none like unto thee.
​

​

F- John 4.21-34:
​

(Jesus) saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Fatherè[ Look he say the father and Jesus is the Son, and father and son are metaphors click1 & 2]Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: … and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
​

​

See, Jesus was right!, you aren't worshipping the father of Jerusalem (Jewish), father is a metaphor click for more about this, we cannot find such concept of God in OT, Actually, the Trinity isn't biblical, the word Trinity is not even in the Bible and was never taught by Jesus and was never mentioned by him,
​

​

G- plus Isaiah's prophecy, Matthew 15: 7:Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men
​

​

H- The former prophets and messengers like, Elisha, Abraham, Moses, Aaron, Noah, Lot, Job, Enoch, Isaac, Jacob…etc, none of them gave such concept of God! Acts 17: 18 regarding Paul… He seems to be advocating foreign gods.
​

your God is totally different from the Lord of Israel, the one, *(Isaiah 43: 10-12) Matthew 21.43:Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
​

​

I- John 20, 17:
​

…I am returning to my father and your father, to my God and your God.
​

​

* This is another proof that father is a metaphor,
​

** Does a God have A God?
​

​

J- John 5, 41:
​

I don't accept praise from men (why he is God? Why he doesn't accept praise?). But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I have come in my Father's name and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.è (Isn't Jesus the name of the God?)
​

​

K- If God only should be worshipped as Jesus himself stated that in Matthew 4.10: Jesus said unto him, '' away from me, Satan! For it is written: Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.
​

​

*If Jesus is God, why did he pray to God, why was he praying? Was he praying to himself? Matthew 26: 36: …sit here while I go over there and pray.
​

​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

The reasons the Jews missed their day of visitation is because they did not take the Scriptures seriously. And the reason you are missing it is because you are here to deny what is clearly written. And anytime you see something you don't agree with, you pull the word metaphorically out of your hat. By calling anything you do not agree with a metaphor, you can easily kill the whole meaning of the Scripture. Yet, I'm sure thats what you wanted to do anyway.

When I told you about Ezekiel 36, 37, 38, and 39. Did you consider those verse. No. Your comment was, man corrupted the Bible. Forget the fact that the Jews are Back in Israel, forget the fact that they retook Jerusalem, for get the fact that they are surrounded by enemies, for get the fact that the Bible told the truth. JUST SAY MAN CORRUPTED THE BIBLE. The more I see of the Islamic belief, the more I am beginning to believe it is more about denying and hideing the truth, than exposing it.

In recent years an America named Ron Wyatt discovered the real Red Sea crossing site. It was marked by two large granit pillars, one on the Saudi side, one on the Egyptian side. Now if Saudi Arabia, an Islamic country was really interested in God's truth being revelaed to the world, they would of invited the west to consider the find. Yet, how did they react to this find. They removed the pillar and it has not been seen since. Then there was the discovery of the real Mount Sinia, this to is on the Arabian side. How did they react to this discovery? Did they invite the west to consider the truth of the Bible. Not on your life. They put up a six foot fence around the entire mountain, and placed a no traspassing sign up warning everyone to stay out. Then there is the discovery of Noahs Ark. American photos from space discovered two large man made objects high on the mountain of Ararat. It is believed that it is the Ark, and it appears to be broken in two yet it remains. They have a GPS fix on these objects. How does Turkey, another Islamic country react to perhaps the greatest descovery of all time. No westerners allowed on Ararat. This is the kind of deception I expect to get from Islamic countries. It is the Christians who are at the forefront of discovery, and it is the Islamics who are at the forefront to block these discoveries. What's the problem here? Would these discoveries make the Bible look to right for Islam? Why do Islamic countries who claim to speak the truth, only block it?
When it comes to understanding the Bible, and when faced with obvious truth. You just say man corrupted it, regardless if the prophecy is true. When historical finds are discovered, you hide them. When it comes to the clear Words of Scripture, you call them metaphors.

The reason your countries will invade Israel someday, and the reasons you will be defeated by God, is because you have convinced yourselves, that God's Word, the Bible, is not true. You may continue to hide the proofs of the Bible which lay beyond your borders, but the day will come, when you will be unable to hide from God.

 

It is true that Jews and Muslims believe in the unity of God. But do remember that there are Christian groups that denounce or at least question the trinity! These include those whose links I've posted earlier as well as some monotheistic Unitarian-Universalists (albeit there are few of these), Jehovah's Witnesses (I believe) and perhaps a few other groups as well. Some of these I'm not aware of, but others may or may not include the Mormon faith. One of the martyrs of the sixteenth century, Michael Servetus was burned at the steak on John Calvin's order for writing the piece "On the Errors of the Trinity". Some of our founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams and possibly Thomas Paine all proclaimed unitarianism.

I see what you're saying, though I do admit that I had to read it a few times to "get it." Nevertheless I still think that you're reading into something that may not be there. I would still need more evidence.

 

I myself am very suspect of most modern bible versions, and the NIV is no exception. I'm also not a fan of the King James version on which alot of these versions were based. ​

​

This is an issue that we may disagree on. Nevertheless, I will put my take on it. When Jesus spoke of lust while giving the Sermon On the Mount, he was stating that it was wrong to desire the taking of that woman from her husband and wishing that that man did not have her. In other words, he was talking about envy. This is, at least my understanding of what this passage meant. I invite you to check out my past entries on this and other topics:
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114388&page=5&pp=10
go to entry #46
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103126
entry #9
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103126&page=2&pp=10
entries #13, 14, 16
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103126&page=3&pp=10
entry #28
​

http://inkaboutit.homestead.com/Lustmt528.htm

​

... and people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others of similar persuasion should take note of the last two sentences of the above passage! For they and others like them are perhaps some of the worst offenders!

 

Right, He is God, not merely a part, but in Him is the fullness of deity…now I suspect that there will be confusion on this later, as there typically is, but I will deal with it as it comes.

God is one in essence, three in person. This is dealing with the branch of philosophy known as ontology, or the nature of being.

First, you never answered if there is a difference in the meaning between the two versions. The NIV says:

Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

The KJV says:

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Now, (A) do you see a difference in the meaning? (B) If you do, what is the meaning behind Matthew 19:17 in the NIV, and what is the meaning behind Matthew 19:17 in the KJV (C) If you do see a difference, is this difference significant enough to cause a doctrine change. Do we, for example, find out that Jesus is really the brother of Satan? (D) Are you aware that the same story is told in Luke 19:18-23 and that Luke 19:19 in the NIV reads, “Why do you call me good?” (E) Do ever think to ask why modern interpreters use a particular choice of words over another before declaring the Bible to be corrupted (F) And while we’re on that, are you familiar with textual criticism and the overwhelming textual evidence supporting the Bible, specifically the New Testament (G)Are you aware that the New Testament is by far the most reliable of any ancient document (H) Now, are you familiar with the textual evidence surrounding the Qu’ran? And lastly (I) Are you aware that the modern translations, to include the NIV, make use of greater textual evidence, from manuscripts that predate the ones used in the KJV(the NIV is in no way a translations of the KJV) so if there really were some sort of corruption chances are it would be in the KJV, not the NIV?

As I’ve already shown, Jesus did not exclude Himself. What He said was a challenge to the rich man: “Since only God is good, and you call me good, then do you thus receive me as God?” And besides that, if this were the only passage of scripture we had of Christ, then perhaps we would have a bit of a problem finding the true nature of Jesus’ response (although I still don’t think it would be all that hard) however, when one considers other passages in which Jesus either claims the prerogatives of God, or claims to be God, it should become apparent that attempting to interpret such “questionable” passages purely under the weight of it’s itself, is very poor hermeneutical practice.

Read the same story in Luke 18:18-23. Luke 18:18 calls him a “certain ruler” …which bring me to my next point: I think you’re a bit confused. When did I call, or say that Jesus calls, the Father a young ruler? “Young ruler,” refers to the young man in the story, “Good Master” refers to Jesus. Unless you intend to imply that the young man was God!

Why is what omitted in the NIV? And does God have a God?! Of course not, what have I said to make you believe such a thing? Also, how is this an argument against what I’ve said about Jesus’ reply being a challenge to the young ruler?

Well if He was God, than he wasn’t excluding Himself, but simply offering a challenge to the young ruler, “Since only God is good, and you call me good, then do you thus receive me as God?” If you interpret that passage with Jesus being God, than that is what get. At any rate you haven’t given any reason why I shouldn’t believe that this interpretation is correct. You’ve only given be some vague statement about something being omitted in the NIV, and God having a God.

I hate to be rude, but you are a male correct? If you are, then the nature of our thoughts should be no mystery to you. It takes serious discipline not to succumb to the flesh the result of which can be orchestration of lustful thoughts, and even then one slips from time to time. But do you intend to tell me that this probably wasn’t the case for this young ruler? That he had not even done this once? Or what about a word spoken out in trivial anger? Had he never been “angry at his brother without cause” (Matthew 5:22)? Had he never said to his brother,( ῥακά )“stupid!”? Do you intend to tell me that this man was perfect? If so than you speak against the very Word of God which says, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8) and “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalms 51:5) However, if he wasn’t perfect, than he had sinned. When one sins he breaks the law (1 John 3:4), and if he brakes the law, than he doesn’t keep the law! So surely you would see the arrogance in this young ruler saying “All these have I kept,” when in reality he should have said “All these I haven’t kept.”

You seem to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you seem to be implying that we can keep the law, but on the other hand you say that we sin--or brake the law--which would mean that we haven’t keep the law. You wouldn’t need forgiveness if you kept the law.

As to the purpose of the law, I’ll quote Paul again in Romans 3:20 “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” I‘ll also quote Paul in Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” And finally Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” The word wages is opsonion in the Greek, and has to do with a soldier’s pay which he receives in exchange for his service. That is, it is the pay that is owed to him, and it is justly paid to him for the work he has done. Well, Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin is death! …So according to the scriptures, everybody sins, the wages of sin is death, and it is through the law that one is made aware of the fact that he is sinning. A man who doesn’t know the law, doesn’t know that he is braking the law! And no sooner then he learns of the law, does he realize that he is braking it--that he is sinning. Therefore, to focus on the law is to realize that you are a sinner and justly deserve the due payment for your lawlessness. That is, unless of course something or Someone saves you from this (and in the process saves you from your sinful nature). In the past they sacrificed lambs for atonement, but this process needed to be repeated annually, and as the Bible say’s “those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goat to take away sin.” (Hebrews 10:4) And “The Law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves.” (Hebrews 10:1) All this was put into place to cause the Jews to look forward to the coming redeemer. And that, my friend, is the purpose of the law: to make one aware of sin (Romans 3:20) and to cause one to look forward to (in the case of the Jews in the Old Testament) or back at (in the case of those of us who live after the death and resurrection of Jesus) the sacrifice of the true Lamb of God for atonement!

???

Why would you think that? What line of reasoning would lead one to such a conclusion? Being conscious of something is the same as being a certain way. Just because a child isn’t conscious of the fact that her parents are buying her Christmas presents, doesn’t mean that her parents aren’t really buying her presents! Likewise, just because one isn’t conscious of the fact that he is braking a law, doesn’t mean that he isn’t braking a law.

On a side not, forgive me if any of my post sounds a little rude. I getting pretty sick right now, and this cold seems to be getting me very annoyed in general. I'll answer you second post when I feel a little better.

God Bless!

 

Dear Campbell34
​

​

Don't blame the Jews all the time! Some Christians too aren't taking the scriptures seriously? They believe in some verses and ignore some! I will give you 2 examples only, which actually I posted them formerly; there are others than these 2,
​

1- The Christmas tree
​

Jeremiah 10:1-8: Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good. Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might. Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee. But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities.
​

​

Did Jesus peace be upon him recommended to do such thing? When did Christians start to do this for the first time if Jesus didn't recommend it and why and what does it mean or what is the point?NIV: Matthew 15.9: … their teachings are but rules taught by men.
​

​

2- Circumcision
​

Genesis 17:9: And God said to Abraham, ' As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10: This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.11: You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12: He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13: both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.''
​

​

At least the Most of the Jews if I don't say all of them do not believe in Gods! But in one God. When did the God say we are the Gods? I want a clear verse?
​

​

Isaiah 45.18-22: For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right. Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
​

Please answer me, who is the speaker in the OT, God the father or the son?
​

​

Deuteronomy 13. 2, 5: whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods…shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
​

​

​

​

Oh, my dear brother, I support that with other verses specially the metaphor of father and the son of God? If you will not take some verses metaphorically then it will contradict with many verses? I gave many examples formerly, I will copy one, KJV Exodus 7.1: And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee agod to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Now, is Moses a god? Or it is a metaphor?
​

​

I forgive you deeply, although the bible is corrupted but I love it, there are still intact verses, which myself memorized some of it. And when I read it specially the Torah I know for sure that Allah is the speaker. there are many verses in bible which are similar to the Quraanic verse.
​

​

My dear brother, God told us that we will retake Jerusalem, and Jesus will return, why you don't believe in the prophecies regarding Muhammad in the Bible? Now you want to take off the topic again, plus I want to know Jews opinion regarding these verses, plus I gave other comments than just saying bible is corrupted regarding these verses. Now what is the most important to know the true God or to discuss the prophecies? Many people Hindus, pagans… etc can give intact prophecies with details? Shall we follow and embrace their religion my dear? Firstly we should know the true God then what is the true religion of the true God and so on. Please let's be in the frame of the topic.
​

​

O Lord! I swear by your name, he doesn't know, forgive us all, and always help us to find the truth, Amen. Quraan: As for those who strive hard in me (my cause) I will surely guide them to my path, and verily, Allah with the good doers.
​

I swear by Allah, the God of Jews and Christians (God the father) and Muslims, that he is the same one God.
​

​

Ok, you are insisting to take of the topic.
​

​

They are doing the same with some of the Islamic positions , they don't allow you to go near.
​

​

Yeah, I read about it and I saw the photos too, actually I wanted to write a thread about it but I didn't get enough time to do so.
​

​

By the way, the Mount Sinia, Noah's ark etc al these things Muslims believe in it too and God mentioned some of the places by their name in Quraan too.
​

Believe me or don't, you mean a lot to me, perhaps the feelings towards each of us, me and you, aren't the same, but I do love you sincerely =), because you love God.
​

Peace
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

thespeez
​

​

Is this writing available?
​

And thanks for the information =)
​

​

Regarding KJV
​

Benjamin Wilson says in his Emphatic Diaglott,
​

The Received Text reads: "For there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth." This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifth century. It is not cited by any of the Greek ecclesiastical writers; nor by any of the early Latin fathers, even when the subjects upon which they treat would naturally have led them to appeal to its authority. It is therefore evidently spurious, and was first cited (though not as it now reads) by Virgilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century; but by whom forged, is of no great moment, as its design must be obvious to all. "
​

​

ClickHere if you want to read this saying of Benjamin Wilson, you will find it below Footnotes and Other References section in the third paragraph, and if you want to know more about Emphatic Diaglott click Here
​

​

Actually my point wasn't that, my essential point was about the repentance and God's forgiveness because man (mankind) become weak sometimes, and I was just commenting on that specific verse commonly, we Muslims have such kind of adultery too by looking (goggling/ gazing at woman lustfully), Jatom (the member) wrote, Now do you honestly think this man never had a lustful thought, he was saying that according to Matthew 5.28: But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heartè so Jesus was talking here about the ''look'' not the thoughts without looking, that' why I said: The lustful thought which is like committing adultery is if he looks at a woman and imagined sex or thought about it while he is still looking at her, I just was commenting on that specific verse, it could be other verses which consider the thoughts with out looking as adultery but I was only commenting on this specific verse.
​

Thank you for the links =)
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

Jatom​

​

Is there a biblical verse which says this?​

​

So is God three in one, or one in three? And could they be separated?​

​

You wrote this as a comment on ​

​

So, Firstly, the differences between the colored sentences with the orange color specially are completely different! First discuss this, leave your theory that the rich man did not believe in Jesus as a God temporarily. Why did they omitèWhy callest thou me good?​

(Matthew: 19.16-17) (NIV)​

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”​

(Matthew: 19.16-17) (KJV)​

One came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do,​

that I may have eternal life? And he (Jesus) said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.​

​

1- I see the disrespecting towards the word of God by deleting his word as you believe that the Gospels are the word of God. ​

2- I can see the difference if I will not accept your theory regarding the rich man's belief in Jesus, but ok let's assume that your theory is correct =).​

​

I already wrote that? ​

if I will not accept your theory regarding the rich man's belief in Jesus, then, Jesus emphatically stated that “there is none good but one, that is, God” Why did he refer to the one God as the “good” one only and Why did he exclude himself from being good, if he were God by saying ''Why callest thou me good?''​

I will try to make it easy, imagine that I am a Father in a Church and I believe that Jesus is God and the creator, a Christian man entered the church and came to me and said: Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? Then I replied: why do you call me good? There is none good but one, that is Jesus the God, if I were God then call me good Master, but I am not.​

However, let's assume that your theory is correct.​

​

Again, If I will not accept your theory regarding the rich man's belief in Jesus, yes it is enough to cause a doctrine change because I believe that Jesus' true doctrine is to believe in one God and that he isn't God. And if we believe in someone as a God while he isn't this is a blasphemy. Again, let's assume that your theory is correct. Hey =) I really appreciate your time, thank you for answering my questions​

​

Are sure in Luke? I couldn't find it, can you check the name of the Gospel or the numbers of the chapter and the verses again please, I can't find it in NIV.​

​

​

When I see that they choose a word which can give a different sense from the verses or the other versions to suit their belief I consider it corruption. ​

​

What do you think? However, this isn't our topic.​

​

Reliable with respect to what? Ignore it, this isn't our topic.​

​

I already posted an example of omitting or corrupting the question of Jesus? Please don't take of the topic.​

(Matthew: 19.16-17) (NIV) Why do you ask me about what is good? ​

(KJV)Why callest thou me good?​

​

Bear with me man! Did you read what I write very well or you are in a hurry like me =)? I will quote for you: ​

​

=) I think this misunderstanding appeared because in Mathew the description of the rich man as a certain ruler or young ruler isn't there…​

​

(Matthew: 19.16-17) (NIV) Why do you ask me about what is good? ​

(KJV)Why callest thou me good?​

​

No dear brother, it isn't you who made me believe such a thing, it is some of the biblical verses which perhaps you will help me to understand them more and correctly, what you said it is right, that God have not a God, because God don't worship any one but others worship him, otherwise we will not call him God, because God it is he who the others (non-Gods) should worship him, I will give 2 examples, I wish you will bear with me and clarify it for me,​

1- Mark 12.29: And Jesus answered him, the first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord:​

Our Godè which means Jesus' God too? Does a God have A God?​

2-If Jesus is a God, why did he pray to the God, why was he praying? Was he praying to himself if God is three in one? Matthew 26: 36: …sit here while I go over there andpray.​

​

My dear, you wroteè however, he probably believed, as you do, that Jesus wasn’t God, only merely a Good teacher. So Christ’s response to him was a challenge, “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.” or “Since only God is good, and you call me good, then do you thus receive me as God?” I replied: I don't think so! Why it has been omitted in NIV then? And if it is as you say, then, does a God have a God? è It is like I accepted your theory regarding the ruler's belief in Jesus and I moved to another question or point, you get it.​

​

I meant that if your theory is true regarding the rich man's belief in Jesus, why the translators in the NIV omitted this question, maybe they understood it as me, so they changed the question,​

(Matthew: 19.16-17) (NIV) Why do you ask me about what is good? ​

(KJV)Why callest thou me good?​

Again, let's assume that your theory is correct. Let's putMatthew: 19.16-17 aside =) ok.​

​

Hey! You can be stronger than your thoughts man! And you can control yourself too as long as you have principles that you believe in and a good relationship with your mind, our mind should be the controller and the bridle of our feelings, emotions, heart and behaviors. If such thoughts pass your mind you can ignore it, But yeah not all men are the same. Most of them cannot control themselves I think. However, this isn't our topic now.​

​

Yup, exactly, plus, Actually my point wasn't that, my essential point was about the repentance and God's forgiveness because man (mankind) become weak sometimes, and I was just commenting on that specific verse commonly, we Muslims have such kind of adultery too by looking (goggling/ gazing at woman lustfully), you wrote,Now do you honestly think this man never had a lustful thought, you was saying that according to Matthew 5.28:But I tell you that anyone who looksat a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heartè so Jesus was talking here about the ''look'' not the thoughts without looking, that's why I said:The lustful thought which is like committing adultery is if he looks at a woman and imagined sex with here or thought about it while he is still looking at her, and it is easier to don't commit this kind of adultery than the lustful thoughts with out looking, so the rich man probably didn't do this, you get what I mean? I just was commenting on that specific verse, it could be other verses which consider the thoughts with out looking as adultery but I was only commenting on this specific verse which you mentioned.​

However, let's putMatthew: 19.16-17 aside.​

YoursSincerely,​

CatStevens​

 

Jatom
​

​

This is too rare but could be literally why not specially for that easy commandments which Jesus mentioned it to the rich man, but it could be in another way and that is what I was talking about, by repenting and asking God for his forgiveness sincerely, and when you do so it is like you didn't committed that sin, because God forgave you and erased it from your life's book.
​

​

​

It doesn't mean if he had kept the commandments which Jesus mentioned it to him, that he is perfect because è Matthew: 19.16-21: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. You get what I mean. If no, read the underlined words only.
​

​

Can you clarify this verse more, please?
​

​

You don't have the right to say so! èWhen in reality he should have said “All these I haven’t kept.”
​

​

You lost me, concentrate, the commandments which Jesus mentioned it to the man, is it difficult? It is easy, you can keep it, some cannot keep all that commandments in their entire life or let's say we may break one of them someday when we become week or angry etc and God know that we cannot be perfect all the time, that's why if you once break a rule but you repent then your sin will be deleted as you didn't committed. You get it! But you can keep it, just work hard on yourself and be away from things which make you break the law and repentance deletes sins, and erased it from your life's book. Before you comment on these please read my 2 next comments on what I quoted.
​

​

! What does he mean exactly? If I commit a sin then my punishment should be death? If so, where is God's forgiveness here? How about the repentance? What if I am a Christian and I committed a sin, what shall I do? Please clarify brother!
​

​

Do you mean I don't have to follow the law, commandments, and rules any more?
​

Is there a verse which says so? Which says the wages of sin is death? Don't quote from Paul, I want it from a prophet or God or Jesus from OT or NT.
​

​

What do you mean by these question marks? You wrote as a comment on
​

Exodus 34.6-7
​

And the LORD … proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.
​

​

​

​

What do you mean exactly?
​

​

I don't think that you were rude in any response =)
​

​

Best wishes brother,
​

Peace
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

Well forgive me if I am off topic, but when you said God said WE would take back Jerusalem. Could you tell me, who WE is? And could you tell me how you are going to take back Jerusalem? God is not the author of confusion, the God of the Bible clearly states that in the later years He will return the Jews back to the land of Israel and Jerusalem. The God of the Bible clealry list Islamic nations as the nations that will try to force the Jews out of their land by force. Islamic nations will grow very strong in the years to come. And Islamic nations will force Americs hand. America in the future will not back Israel because of the fear of the Islamic nations. The Bible clearly states that when these Islamic nations invade Israel, God will destroy five sixths of their army. God is going to do this to reveal to the world, that his Word and His promises are true. God brought the Jews back to their land as a trap, do you understand this. Do you understand what is going to happen to anyone who tries to force the Jews out of their land by force?

Christians do not believe in three Gods, they believe in One God, existing in three persons. That is why the New Testament could say, Jesus made all things, and the Old Testament states that God made all things, and that is why Jesus could say, ''if you have seen me, you have seen the Father.'' And that is why God said let (US) make man in (OUR) image, and in (OUR) likeness.

And could you tell me of the Holy sites where Christians will not allow Islamics to go?

 

Cat Stevens, I like your colorful posts. They're visually stimulating.

The Trinity as I understand it is like this: a tree has many elements. You have the roots, (God,) the trunk (Jesus) and the leaves that fall (the Holy Spirit.) God is the support; the source; the wellspring. Jesus is the earthly manifestation of God's love for us. The Holy Spirit reaches out and touches all those who believe.

Peace

 

Greetings!

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness. (Philippians 2:6-7)

Both. God is three personal distinctions in one being, or one being existing in three personal distinctions. Could they be separated from whom or what? I don’t understand your question here.

Because they used different manuscripts on this passages. The primary one’s used with the NIV’s translation predates those that were available to the scholars at the time of the KJV. Therefore your claim that the NIV has omitted something is wrong-headed. If anything has been omitted in this passage, chances are it was by the KJV not the NIV. But at any rate let’s try this again:

(A)Do you see a difference in the meaning between the two versions

This is why I asked if you know of textual criticism. My friend, you must realize that it is not enough to simply look at two translations and then conclude that one has be corrupted. There is a field of study that deals with the subject of corruption (among other things). It is called textual criticism, and it is used not only with the Bible, but with every other ancient text.

Yes, I believe that the Gospels are the Word of God. In fact the Qu’ran even says, “He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.” (003:003)

No, let’s not simply assume that my theory is correct. I want to know your reasons why it is not correct. Set aside from that, there are two different points to my theory (1) is that the young ruler probably was Unitarian. I don’t think this is hard to believe given the local setting. But at any rate, this first point is not essential to understanding Jesus’ response. That is, you can completely ignore this first point as useless supposition (which it very well may be!) and still come the conclusion that Jesus was saying something like, “Since only God is good, and you call me good, then do you thus receive me as God” That is because, this understanding of Jesus’ response is in no way shape or form depended on this first point. In fact, the first point is, instead, depended upon my understanding of Jesus’ response--so it’s the other way around. And (2) the second point is my understanding of Jesus’ response being “Since only God is good, and you call me good, then do you thus receive me as God?” This comes from the simple fact that I believe Jesus was/is/always was/ always will be, God! Let’s me briefly take a look at just a few evidences of Jesus being God.

1. He claimed the prerogatives of God. Luke 5:18-26 says,

Some men came carrying a paralytic on a mat and tried to take him into the house to lay him before Jesus. When they could not find a way to do this because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus. When Jesus saw their faith, he said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven." The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, "Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, `Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, `Get up and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." He said to the paralyzed man, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God. Everyone was amazed and gave praise to God. They were filled with awe and said, "We have seen remarkable things today

Jesus forgive another’s man’s sin as if it had been committed against Himself. I can forgive you if you wrong me, and likewise, you can forgive me if wrong you. However you cannot forgive me if I wrong my mother, for my offense is not against you, but against my mother. Yet, this is just what Jesus does! He forgives the man his sins as if the offenses this man had committed were committed against Jesus Himself. There is only one Character that we read about in the Bible, in which every sin committed is an offense against Him, and that Character is God! Therefore forgiveness of sin is a prerogative of God and God only (and indeed, the Pharisees and teachers of the law knew this to be true, which is why they said to themselves “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”) And this prerogative was claimed my Jesus. In this case, I would find it very hard and inconsistent to label such a man as a mere prophet. No, either Jesus was a raging liar, and He could not really forgive sin. Or He was a lunatic--out of His mind. Or, He really did have the power that was God’s only, in which case He would be God.

2. He claimed to be God. Let’s look at but one example found in John 8:58:

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

What is the meaning of this I AM passage? In the Book of Exodus, when Moses questions what he is to tell the Israelites, is the name of the one who sent him, God replies “I AM WHO I AM” This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you.” (Exodus 3:14) From the Hebrew “I AM” comes he the name YHWH or YAHWEH which the Jews came know as a name of the Sovereign personal God. Now when Jesus claims this “I AM” name for Himself, he is claiming the name YAHWEH. That is, He is equating Himself with the God of the Old Testament. And once again, the Jews recognized this, for John 8:59 says, “At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds” Again, someone who say’s something like this is either a liar, lunatic, or He really is who He say’s He is.

These are but a few examples (for the sake of space and time), and I translate Matthew 19:17 on the basis of this. For if Christ is God, then He would not deny His own divinity. But, anyway, let’s get back to my question.

(A)Do you see a difference in the meaning between the two versions?

You have still yet to answer this. So, is there a difference in meaning here? and if so:

(B)What is the meaning behind Matthew 19:17 in the NIV, and what is the meaning behind Matthew 19:17 in the KJV

My friend, this is not an answer to the question I asked. I asked what is the meaning of the passage in the KJV versus the meaning of the same passage in the NIV. You’re claiming corruption, so what I want to know is if there is some sort of corruption, then what is the meaning behind the uncorrupted text, versus the meaning behind the corrupted text. And no, don’t simply assume my theory. If you believe that I am incorrect, than show me why. As I pointed out above, you don’t have to except my theory regarding the man’s beliefs about God. In fact I wouldn’t expect you believe it since it is simply a by-product of my interpretation of Jesus’ response. The man’s beliefs are not important in this discussion. What’s important is Jesus’ response.

(C ) If you do see a difference, is this difference significant enough to cause a doctrine change.

Again, you’re not answering the question. I’m asking: if one text is corrupted, and the other is not, and if you see a difference of meaning between the corrupted text, and the uncorrupted text, is this difference significant enough to cause a contradiction of doctrine. For example, does the passages of the corrupted text make Jesus out to be the Son of God, while the uncorrupted makes Jesus out to be the brother of Satan?

(D) Are you aware that the same story is told in Luke 19:18-23 and that Luke 19:19 in the NIV reads, “Why do you call me good?”

Opps! It’s Luke 18:18-23 not 19:18-23 Sorry about that. Just flip back one chapter.

(E) Do you ever think to ask why modern interpreters use a particular choice of words over another before declaring the Bible to be corrupted

Ok, answer A, B, and C then we’ll work on this one. As it stands now, this is just an empty assertion.

(F) And while we’re on that, are you familiar with textual criticism and the overwhelming textual evidence supporting the Bible, specifically the New Testament

What do I think? I would say that giving the naivety of much of what say about the “corruption” of the Bible, it’s fair to believe that you know very little, if any, about the textual criticism of the Bible or of the Qu’ran for that matter. And yes this is our topic. You’re claiming corruption, so let’s talk about textual criticism.

(G) Are you aware that the New Testament is by far the most reliable of any ancient document

How can you claim, on the one hand, that the Bible has been corrupted, yet on the other hand, claim that the reliability of Bible isn’t our topic?! Reliable with respect to corruption. That is, the Bible is by far the most reliable of any ancient book when it comes to which document has been corrupted, and which has not. In fact, if the one who claims that the New Testament is corrupt is consistent, then he must also claim that all other ancient documents are corrupt as well.

(I) Are you aware that the modern translations, to include the NIV, make use of greater textual evidence, from manuscripts that predate the ones used in the KJV(the NIV is in no way a translations of the KJV) so if there really were some sort of corruption chances are it would be in the KJV, not the NIV?

How is this taking us off topic. I have already shown that the same story is presented in the Luke in which in the NIV reads “Why do you call me good?” Do you believe, then, that the verse was corrupted in Matthew but not in Luke? What would be the point of that? I have also pointed out that NIV uses the primacy of a different set of manuscripts then that of the KJV. And that in fact, the primary manuscripts of the NIV predate that which the scholars of the KJV had available to them at that time. And still there are no doctrine difference between the KJV and the NIV unless you are prepared to prove me wrong by answering A, B, and C.

Right, “certain ruler” is found in Luke 18:18. However I gave reference to the wrong passage in my post, so that is on me!

Refer back to the verses I quoted at the beginning of this post:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness. (Philippians 2:6-7)

From these two verses, we see that Jesus has the nature of God “Who being in very nature God” and also the nature of man “taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” That is to say, Jesus has two natures! He is fully God, and fully man. This is what is called the hypostatic union. That is to say that Christ, who is one person, subsist in two natures--the divine, and the human. We can see on the one hand that He worshiped the Father (John 17), He prayed to the Father (John 17) He wept (John 11:35) He hungered (Matthew 4:2), and the list goes on. But the point is these passages show the humanness of Christ--His human nature. But on the other hand we se that He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8), He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1), He is prayed to (Acts 7:59), He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15), He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33), and so on. Point being that these passages serve to show His divine nature. Christ, although being divine in nature, also possessed a human nature by which He lived out His life on Earth. This is why we see Him praying to the Father. In His human nature He “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” And as the author of Hebrews says, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)

 

I actually think you’ve got this wrong. It is only after we begin to depend on God, that we realize the futility of depending on ourselves. Sure you can ignore thoughts, but doesn't the fact that you’re having thoughts that you don’t want to have, show that you really don’t have control over your thoughts? And besides that ignoring a thought really isn’t the same as not having one is it? I believe that the change in one’s thinking starts with a change of heart (which has to do with one’s will not merely his emotions), something I believe only God can do. Notice how Christ says “Blessed are the pure in heart,” (Matthew 5:8) and not “Blessed are the pure in action,” or “Blessed are the pure in thought.” For it is entirely possible that one can produce good actions but with sinful intent, in which case I believe he has still committed a sin. And it is also entirely possible to be pure in thoughts only, never bothering to carry this out into pure actions. Which depending on the circumstance I believe is sin as well. Let us not forget that God’s commands are not all purely negative in the sense that they tell us what not to do, but they are also positive it that they tell us what we ought to do. Loving your neighbor as yourself will have many positive qualities in any number of situations in which failing to yield is the same as denying the law, which is sin. And I do believe that this is on topic given that we are talking about sin, and if the young ruler did in fact commit sin.

Actually, Jesus is not here simply referring to the action of looking, He is instead referring to the motive which has to do with the will, or the heart (notice how He says, “…has already committed adultery with her in his heart”) This is a heart sin. In fact, the very notion Jesus was combating was the notion of those who taught that this commandment only condemned an action (like looking). And that evil thoughts were ignored by God so long as no action followed. This notion was based upon an erroneous understanding of Psalms 66:18, a passage upon which one of their commentators writes:

“Though I regard iniquity in my heart to do it, even in thought, yea, against God himself, as if I had expressed it with my lips, he does not hear it; that is ‘he does not reckon it to me for sin’; because the holy blessed God does not account an evil thought for an action, to them that are in the faith of God, or of the true religion”

This is the very notion Jesus was speaking against, in his Rabbinical way of speaking (“You have heard…But I say unto you“) to dispel such false notions.

You are missing the point. If the man needed to repent, then he sinned, if he sinned, then he broke the law, if he broke the law then he didn’t keep the law, if he didn’t keep the law, then surely you should see the arrogance in replying “All these have I kept” when in fact he should have said “All these I haven’t kept.”

Yes. David is stating that the sinful state of his parents has been passed on to him, and is at the root of the actual sin he commits.

Sure I do. The Bible claims that all have sinned (Roman 3:23). So shouldn’t I have the right to say this?

When did I say that? Also, why can’t I quote from Paul, he was an apostle? What right have you in attempting to lay this restriction on me? Why ought I not to quote from Paul?

What I meant is that I didn’t see your purpose in quoting the passage you quoted. That’s all.

You originally said, “through the law we become conscious of sinè and without the law we become what? Sinless! Or better?” to which I replied that not being conscious of something doesn’t mean it isn’t so. In other words, just because someone isn’t conscious of the law, doesn’t mean he’s not braking it. So what you say about us not having the law would make us “sinless” or better, is false.

Cool!

Same to you, God Bless!

 

You are quite welcome! Unfortuantely, only three copies of Servetus' composition survived his death. Nevertheless, I believe most of Servetus' compositions have been retrieved. The details can be found by going to the website below:
http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/michaelservetus.html ​

​

None of this surprises me. ​

Once again, you're welcome.

I have to differ with you with regarding to the passage in Matthew 5:28. Let me say that I take a radically different point of view-and a controversial one-than most christians on this matter. I'll restate my case and elaborate on it, however. When Jesus was preaching The Sermon on the Mount and made the statement in question, I believe that he meant that to envy what was another's was to commit adultery. Let's also understand that the language and terms had different meanings in those days. The culture was radically different as well! Adultery was defined not necessarily as sexual indiscretions but betrayal! If you understand this properly, you'll know which one (actually, you could argue two) of Jesus' disciples committed adultery against him! The links below elaborate on these points much better. Word of warning: they are very controversial!
http://inkaboutit.homestead.com/adultdefine.html
http://inkaboutit.homestead.com/lustmt528.htm
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/lust.html

 

You make an intersting analogy. Do keep in mind that the model of the trinity that was developed by the Roman catholic church in the fourth century and has been adopted by almost all christian faiths. Until this time the christian movement was neither trinitarian nor unitarian.

 

Campbell34​

​

​

​

We= Muslims.​

​

​

​

What I know there will be a war.​

​

​

​

!​

​

​

​

They will be martyrs =)​

​

​

​

Firstly you said that this is a trap, and then you said: Do you understand what is going to happen to anyone who tries to force the Jews out of their land by force? Now, what do you mean exactly, I read contradictions here! Clarify. What kind of trap is this for the Jews? It seems that there are true verses and corrupted too at same time in theses chapters, clarify, Or ignore it, for it isn't our topic. ​

​

​

​

And could they be separated?​

​

​

​

Not Jesus, Jesus didn't say that! We already discussed that!​

​

If Jesus died after he was crucified then God doesn't die if he is god, read (1 Timothy 6.16) whoalone is immortal… whomno one has seenor can see Also, (Deuteronomy 33: 27)the eternalGod is thy refuge​

​

​

​

Eternaladj.1existing always; without an endor (usu.)beginning 2unchanging.3colloq. constant; too frequent (eternal nagging).​

​

​

​

Existing always; without an endor (usu.)beginningè Jesus has a beginning when he was born, the Old Testament didn't mention such God? That's why Jews don't consider him as God because it contradicts with the God who is in the OT which is only one and almighty etc Jesus the God son was born! Then he is the second God and this contradicts with, Isaiah 43.10-11:… ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before methere was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. Isaiah 44.6:… I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.​

​

Q:is the speaker of the OT is Jesus (God the son) or God the Father?​

​

You read in Acts 17: 18 regarding Paul: … He seems to be advocating foreign​

​

gods. If you think that I am wrong so help me to understand the bible, clarify to me these verses, help me brother.​

​

YoursSincerely,​

​

CatStevens​

 

Campbell34
​

​

What do you understand from this verse?
​

We can see God the father?
​

John 5.37: Jesus said: And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
​

1 Timothy 6.16 who alone is immortal… whom no one has seen or can see
​

Exodus 33.20: And he said Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
​

Isaiah 40.18: To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?
​

Isaiah 40.5: To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
​

Jeremiah 10.6-7: Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might. Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? …, there is none like unto thee.
​

​

If the above verses contradict with John 14.9 we can avoid the contradiction in this way,
​

John: 14.8-9: Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
​

​

how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? è Jesus showed Philip how to show the appearance of God which is not possible, you should believe in God by admiring his creation, Mountains, rivers, moon…, i.e. God's creation points to God's existence and to a creator who created these creatures and Jesus himself was created by God, or you should believe in God by the miracles, words, deeds etc that Jesus came with from God the father. Prophets had miracles which God has supported them with it as proofs that they are God's messengers; the prophets didn't claim that they got theses miracles from their own but from God, so if you will believe in their miracles that means you believe in God because God gave Jesus these incredible miracles. John44.12: Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me + John 8.28: Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things, Jesus was doing these miracles by Allah's leave read John 11.37-44 and concentrate on these verses 41-42 from that chapter + Acts 2.22 + Luke 11.20, so the goal of the deeds or the miracles of the prophets is to make the people believe that they are prophets from God / God's creation points to God's existence, Prophet's miracles points to God's existence who supported them with such miracles. so, Jesus showed Philip how to show the appearance of God which is not possible, you should believe in God by admiring his creation, Mountains, rivers, moon…, i.e. God's creation points to God's existence and points to the creator who created these creatures and Jesus himself was created by God, or you should believe in God by the miracles, words, deeds etc that Jesus came with from God the father. è Read what Jesus said after If you have seen me, you have seen the Father,
​

​

John: 14.8-11: Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
​

Plus, read John 14.7-8: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
​

​

You get it? Jesus said clearly: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. He was talking symbolically or metaphorically that you should believe in God by admiring his creation or by the miracles, deeds etc that Jesus came with from God the father i.e. God's creation points to God's existence, and Philip understood this metaphor or symbol that's why he asked: Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Why did he ask this if Jesus himself has said before his question clearly: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
​

Acts.2.22 (KJV+NIV): men of Israel, listen to this; Jesus of Nazareth, was a man approved by God to you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did through him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
​

​

It is clear to you my point? I hope so.
​

John 14.20: At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. Thus, if Jesus statement" I am in the Father and the Father in me'' means that he is God, then so were his disciples. This symbolic statement means oneness of purpose and not oneness of essence. The symbolic interpretation is further emphasized in John 17.20-21: Jesus said: Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
​

​

Quraan: And will make him (Jesus) a messenger unto the children of Israel, (saying): Lo! I come unto you with a sign from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it becomes a bird, by Allah's leave. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by Allah's leave. And I announce unto you what ye eat and what ye store up in your houses. Lo! herein verily is a portent for you, if ye are believers.
​

If I am wrong help me to understand the correct meaning dear brother.
​

​

​

I don't know.
​

Pray for me =)
​

Peace and love =)
​

​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

MollyBloom
​

​

Thank you very much dear sister =)
​

​

Yup, but let's take for example, the Holy Spirit, why it is a God? They based that on which biblical verse? + Were can I find such concept of God (trinity)! Especially in the OT?
​

Peace =)
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

Jatom
​

​

Hi =)
​

​

I asked you: Is there a biblical verse which says this? I meant a verse from the 4 Gospels or the Torah, the speaker here isn't the God or Jesus or Moses etc, I don't believe Paul. If I will believe that Jesus is God then I will believe Paul.
​

But if you don't mind clarifying theses verses more for me, please, to avoid misunderstandings.
​

Who, being in very nature Godè?
​

Did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, what kind of equality?
​

​

I meant could the Holy Spirit be in a place and Jesus in another place and the father in another place sometimes but they remain one?
​

​

​

Why these manuscripts are different? They all should have the same passages!
​

​

Yup, but not the current one, because the original one has been corrupted as God told us (Muslims) + I think you know when did they were written! People wrote what they heard or saw! Not like the OT! The teachings revealed to Moses were available in a written form in his lifetime. The Gospel was written down after Jesus, how do you consider it as the word of God! You get what I mean? That's why the Gospel like a story book because it isn't the word of God (i.e. the wording of God) but the people like Matthew, John, and Luke etc wrote what happened, events etc.
​

Example, do you believe that God stated this in: Matthew 28.15: … So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day! Or John 21.24-25: This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. People wrote that! There are four Gospels which are similar in the most of the verses and chapters and that points to that there are four men who wrote what they heard but each one with his own wording, style etc. while the OT isn't like this at all! There isn't Torah for Simon or Torah for Kevin! You get it.
​

​

1- I don't have strong evidence that the man's belief in Jesus was as you said, perhaps he wanted to be surer and wanted to know if he still lacks something to get to the eternal life innocently.
​

2- If I will believe now in what you have said, that's mean I apostatized =.(… I still love Allah and Islam strongly and deeply, I shouldn't be hasty, so please bear with me, there are still verses which makes me don't believe that Jesus is God and I wish you will clarify it to me, ok, bear with me, I'm still a Muslim.
​

​

​

What's the wrong with this? God has revealed to Jesus or inspired him that he (God) has forgiven their sins and inspired him too what they were thinking of. There are stories such this regarding the Prophet Muhammad; it doesn't mean that he was God?
​

​

So what did you mean then when you said to me: Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin is death! …So according to the scriptures, everybody sins; the wages of sin is death??? Are there specific sins which its wage is death not forgiveness, I.e. the forgiveness isn't acceptable? Is there a biblical verse which says that sin's wage is death?
​

​

Actually God has revealed to Jesus or inspired him that he (God) has forgiven their sins, so Jesus was telling them what god did (forgave) not what he did, but why they said: Who can forgive sins but God alone? Because they basically don't believe that Jesus is a prophet and the messenger of God, you get what I mean. If he was prophet then God can tell him that he forgave that person's sins etc because he is a prophet and the prophet speaks what he hear from God.
​

John 7.16: Jesus answered them, My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me. if anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.
​

John 5.30: I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
​

John 12.49: For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak
​

John 8.28: Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things
​

Prophets had miracles which God has supported them with it as proofs that they are God's messengers; the prophets didn't claim that they got theses miracles from their own but from God, so if you will believe in their miracles that means you believe in God because God gave Jesus these incredible miracles. John44.12: Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me + John 8.28: Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things, Jesus was doing these miracles by God's leave read John 11.37-44 and concentrate on these verses 41-42 from that chapter + Acts 2.22+ Luke 11.20, so the goal of the deeds or the miracles of the prophets is to make the people believe that they are prophets from God/ God's creation points to God's existence, Prophet's miracles points to God's existence who supported them with such miracles.
​

Quraan: And will make him (Jesus) a messenger unto the children of Israel, (saying): Lo! I come unto you with a sign from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it becomes a bird, by Allah's leave. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by Allah's leave. And I announce unto you what ye eat and what ye store up in your houses. Lo! herein verily is a portent for you, if ye are believers.
​

​

Please don't use such adjectives? Why you don't add- Or he was a prophet from God and God was supporting him with such things! God was revealing and inspiring him to know things like to let Jesus know:
​

A-what the people are thinking of,
​

B- Knowing that God accepted someone's repentance and forgave his sins etc,
​

Acts.2.22 (KJV+NIV): men of Israel, listen to this; Jesus of Nazareth, was a man approved by God to you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did through him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
​

Jesus doesn't lie and he is sage and sane. And yeah he will return someday =)
​

I will try to comment on the rest of your responses tomorrow, gotta go
​

Peace
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

Thespeez
​

I will try to read and comment on your responses tomorrow, Ok dear =)
​

Peace and love
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​