Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Rasul

Jesus 100% Man And 100% God?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

See all the prophesies of Jesus in Isaiah according to Christains are rubbish.

So, you agree that Isaiah didn't prophesy about a virgin giving brith. Don't bring passages from NT and try to super impose on Isaiah and say that the prophesy is true in Isaiah a virgin giving brith.

You know that my sister is called, Batool. Do you know what Batool mean?

Jesus compared the Gentiles to dogs, while sitting at a table with his disciples.

Now bring me the Hebrew names of his 12 disciples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now bring me the Hebrew names of his 12 disciples.

Why Hebrew? Aramaic was the common language spoken. Of course Jesus also spoke Greek also. We also know he could read and speak Latin and Hebrew. Of course you knew that.

And I can find your books where?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Hebrew? Aramaic was the common language spoken. Of course Jesus also spoke Greek also. We also know he could read and speak Latin and Hebrew. Of course you knew that.

And I can find your books where?

Because these disciples were Jews, as Jesus came for Jews and compared the Gentiles to dogs. OK, bring their Aramaic names. The Jews around Jesus, hardly spoke anything but Aramaic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My source says in one of his many books that Isaiah does not say "Virgin" but actaully says young women.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Should say young woman.

Now Matthew wrote,

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

So how did Matthew get virgin from "young women"? Matthew was paraphrasing Isaiah. Notice Isaiah said the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Matthew being a Jew was familiar with the writtings of Isaiah and the light came on. There is nothing remarkable about a young woman giving birth to a child but now that the prophesy is fulfilled Matthew realized the remarkable part was this young woman was also a virgin. That doesn't happen everday and truely is a remarkable sign from G_d.

The error of translation in Isaiah comes from the translators believing the word must have meant virgin since Matthew uses the term virgin. They did not know he was paraphrasing Isaiah.

He was not paraphrasing. He was quoting the Septuagint word-for-word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was not paraphrasing. He was quoting the Septuagint word-for-word.

Batool in all Semitic languages mean, "virgin". This is before the before the times of Moses, and till today.

There is not "batool" mentioned in TaNaKh, however in the intentionally mistranslated Septuagint "virgin" is mentioned.

Hopefully, you know what TaNaKh is?

It is the Jewish book in Hebrew, which the Christians call Septuagint and/or Old Testament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a difficult question .. let me give you a typical answer you would probably get

m_y_o_b_mind_your_own_business_hat-p1481769976524450607m38_325.jpg

Why this answer? Because there is no logical answer to it : )

You are right, in fact logic is not overiding when it comes religious and spiritual matters does it? It starts with the illogical act of believing in an unseen being that is beyond conception. Delving into questions such as yours can be an educational discourse and philosophical discussion if started with good intentions. However if it is started with the intention of debasing or ensueing posts are intending to cast discredit on a religion it will lead to nothing that is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In both Judaim and Islam, the Creator is not creation. Where did the Christians got these ideas from that the Creator is a Creation too?

From Hindusim?

BTW, the concept of Trinity is from Hinduism.

Could be, but I think "dualism" and "non-dualism" come into play. A person of the "dualist school" would say something like "God is in heaven and watching us." A non-dualist would say God is everywhere. One of the books Son of Placid was referring to must be "The Gospel of St. Thomas" where it says. I will paraphrase "Look under a rock and you will see the kingdom of God" or "Break a twig and you will find God." It is a little different than the rest of the Gospels and was exclided from the Bible for being too Gnostic, I think.

The Christian triad is similar to the Hindu concept. The Trimurti are aspects of the One Creator as are the hundred of other dieties that many simply won't acknowledge and call Hinduism pagan out of ignorance. However I as a Siavite or devotee of Lord Siva do not accept incarnations of God or Brahman.

The Christian concept is clear to me in that they believe Jesus to be God incarnate although they will not use those words because they are dualists who will not accept God being in three places at once, meaning God cannot be here and in heaven and with everyone at the same time because to them God is always in this idylic place somewhere out in space.

Edited by satyaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^ Thank your for sumarizing in such an excellent way.

The Shias believe that God is everywhere, he is in heaven, in hell, in septic tanks, in gutters and so forth.

I am not sure if Son of Placid believe as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If God is in septic tanks why are you not allowed to pray in bathrooms?

kk, not a fair question.

I believe God gives life, all life. That life is not God but without God no life would exist.

Spectic tanks are bad for you as it contains your refuse. At the same time, the spetic is full of life.

God's Kingdom is everywhere, even Hell is God's Kingdom, therefore God is in Hell too.

Hell is bad for you, just like the spetic tanks.

There are no TWO GODS, God the Father whose Kingdom is Heaven and Lord Lucifer the Greek/Roman whose Kingdom is Hell.

God's Kingdom is everywhere, in Heaven, Hell, Spetic Tanks, Bathrooms and even your house too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spectic tanks are bad for you as it contains your refuse. At the same time, the spetic is full of life.

God's Kingdom is everywhere, even Hell is God's Kingdom, therefore God is in Hell too.

Hell is bad for you, just like the spetic tanks.

There are no TWO GODS, God the Father whose Kingdom is Heaven and Lord Lucifer the Greek/Roman whose Kingdom is Hell.

God's Kingdom is everywhere, in Heaven, Hell, Spetic Tanks, Bathrooms and even your house too.

I don't know anybody hung up on some lord lucifer like you are. Makes no sense to me but whatever. I figure if I remember he's Greek/Roman if I ever hear it from anybody else at least I can add to the conversation although I don't get into the lock ward very often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rasul,

Responding to Post 44:

In asking for further info, I wonder what your own thoughts are?

If you are in contact with a Priest who told you this, then perhaps you have had further discussion. --- If it is a subject of interest to you, then you naturally have an opinion, so, perhaps you could share it.

However, there are some things we can say we know, and some things we believe because God said it, and did it, --- though we don’t really understand how.

If we ‘overanalyze’ something in order to understand it, we are not willing to accept what God tells us without checking it out with our own intelligence.

Let’s say, --- we know that if Jesus was born of Mary, then He would have the DNA of Mary. --- So the human body of Jesus could not have preceded Mary.

We can believe that God is not limited to our understanding of Him

More than once the Quran says, ‘When God decrees a thing He says to it only, -“Be!” – and it is.’

The Scripture says that ‘Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God,’ --- so everybody living in a body of flesh and blood has to go through physical death before being resurrected in a Spiritual body. We know that ‘Divinity’ can’t die, so the physical body of flesh and blood was not Divinity.

--- But Divinity, in the Personage of the Word (Logos), that God sent from Heaven to indwell the Unique, sinless body of Jesus, could go through the death experience with the human Jesus and resurrect the Spiritual body, which again by defying natural laws could be ‘raised to life’ the third day, as prophesied, --- then to appear, as desired, on Earth for 40 days to both individuals and groups of believers --- before ascending in bodily form, in the sight of the Apostles.

I don’t understand it, but I believe it.

Proverbs 3:5 simply says, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.”

--- This means, “Faith begins where understanding leaves off.”

3:6 says, “In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your paths.”

--- This is the realm of Faith: “Trust and Obey.”

So, --- I would like to hear what your thoughts are.

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam don't believe that Jesus was Word, Logos, Gogos, Mogos, Togos or so forth. Islam doesn't believe that Jesus was created before Mary. Islam believes that Jesus was created after Mary and that he is her son.

So once more, please don't twist the Islamic Scripture to augment your Missionary agenda.

Islam believes the first thing God created was Noor (Lght from God). This is the Noor of Mohammad, Fatima, Ali, Hassan and Hussain. This Noor, Allah put in Adam and then Allah asked the angels to bow down to this Noor. This Noor went into succession from Prophet to Prophet. Then it broke into two, one went into Mohammad and the other one in Ali. The one from Mohammad went to his daughter Fatima, the wife of Ali, and again this Noor was combined back into their children Hassan and Hussain, eventually to Imam Mehdi (as).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If God is in septic tanks why are you not allowed to pray in bathrooms?

kk, not a fair question.

I believe God gives life, all life. That life is not God but without God no life would exist.

Right, you have a dualist phil. where do you think God is? Who can't pray in a bathroom, I can and do, I try to live my life as a constant prayer.

Edited by satyaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Scripture says that ‘Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God,’ --- so everybody living in a body of flesh and blood has to go through physical death before being resurrected in a Spiritual body. We know that ‘Divinity’ can’t die, so the physical body of flesh and blood was not Divinity.

--- But Divinity, in the Personage of the Word (Logos), that God sent from Heaven to indwell the Unique, sinless body of Jesus, could go through the death experience with the human Jesus and resurrect the Spiritual body, which again by defying natural laws could be ‘raised to life’ the third day, as prophesied, --- then to appear, as desired, on Earth for 40 days to both individuals and groups of believers --- before ascending in bodily form, in the sight of the Apostles."

There's a bit of a contradiction there isn't it. Your belief in what happened after after Jesus' probable death is belief in a story that was written hundreds of years after the death by men. No where is it reported that God told this story.

I think these stories detract from the greatness of the man. For sure he was an enlightened man whose teaching contains great wisdom. Jesus lived in a time when miracles were important and there were many performing them so it was important for his contemporary followers and later followers to assign miracles to him. In otherwords a legend was created for him that he had nothing to do with. Jesus was a Jew who kept faith to his religion and "the Last Supper" wasn't simply a meal they had together. If Jesus had not been so manipulated after death hs followers then and today would be a Jewish sect.

BTW I believe all of God's creation is divine. It is no revelation that the human body cannot leave the planet for the ether, where would it stand and what would it breath. The spiritual journey does not end somewhere in space but in the heart, it is an inward journey, because that is where The Creator is found.

Edited by satyaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In asking for further info, I wonder what your own thoughts are?

If you are in contact with a Priest who told you this, then perhaps you have had further discussion. --- If it is a subject of interest to you, then you naturally have an opinion, so, perhaps you could share it.

Salam!

my thoughts are same as aladdins...

However, there are some things we can say we know, and some things we believe because God said it, and did it, --- though we don’t really understand how.

If we ‘overanalyze’ something in order to understand it, we are not willing to accept what God tells us without checking it out with our own intelligence.

That's why that is Prophets (as) and Imams (as) are sent to us; They explain everything :) no need in overanalyze etc.

Let’s say, --- we know that if Jesus was born of Mary, then He would have the DNA of Mary. --- So the human body of Jesus could not have preceded Mary.

We can believe that God is not limited to our understanding of Him

More than once the Quran says, ‘When God decrees a thing He says to it only, -“Be!” – and it is.’

The Scripture says that ‘Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God,’ --- so everybody living in a body of flesh and blood has to go through physical death before being resurrected in a Spiritual body. We know that ‘Divinity’ can’t die, so the physical body of flesh and blood was not Divinity.

--- But Divinity, in the Personage of the Word (Logos), that God sent from Heaven to indwell the Unique, sinless body of Jesus, could go through the death experience with the human Jesus and resurrect the Spiritual body, which again by defying natural laws could be ‘raised to life’ the third day, as prophesied, --- then to appear, as desired, on Earth for 40 days to both individuals and groups of believers --- before ascending in bodily form, in the sight of the Apostles.

I don't think so because God is almighty so if Jesus were almighty he didnt needed to go through all that...

I don’t understand it, but I believe it.

Proverbs 3:5 simply says, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.”

--- This means, “Faith begins where understanding leaves off.”

3:6 says, “In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your paths.”

--- This is the realm of Faith: “Trust and Obey.”

So, --- I would like to hear what your thoughts are.

At least it is good that you believe in God :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Judaism and Islam believe that the Creator cannot be a creation. Hinduism and Christianity believe that the Creator can be a Creation.

To clarify a little, we believe that Jesus was “begotten, not made; one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.” (the Nicene Creed). So, not a creation. We believe God is One, in any case.

The concept of Trinity is from Hinduism.

The idea that St Paul and the other members of the Early Church, as first century Jews, were in the slightest way influenced by Hinduism is historically unthinkable.

They started with the framework inherited from Judaism, and felt compelled to modify their understanding of God based on their experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam!

If what you say is true... then how comes that...

"So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people." (Exodus 32:14) NASB

"When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD relented from the calamity and said to the angel who destroyed the people, “It is enough! Now relax your hand!” And the angel of the LORD was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite."

(Samuel 24:16) (NASB)

This is actually a very good question I had not met before.

That God's nature is unchanging is a fixed feature of Christian belief. However, what is going on in both of these passages is an anthropomorphic description of God's actions. (That is to say, describing God's actions using language derived from human descriptions, which although inadequate because the two are very different, can help in visualisation).

Repeatedly (and you could have added Nineveh to the two passages you quoted), God threatens to destroy those who have sinned. However, where there is repentance, He shows mercy. A key passage in this regard comes immediately after the Exodus 32 passage you quote, being Exodus 33:13-16

So God doesn't as such change his mind, but he allows for the possibility of forgiveness. The descriptions of 'God changing His mind' are illustrations, not to be read literally.

Bible says clear "God is not a Man" (NIV Bible, Numbers 23:19) and at the same time Christians say Jesus 100 % man

you are comparing God with Diamond?

God is above it!

Really a repeat of the above. The diamond example was a helpful illustration rather than a description. Have I explained clearly what I mean by that difference?

Or look at it another way, why do you suppose it is impossible for part of God to appear in human form?

God is above it!

That explains why you think He doesn't, based presumably on the teachings of Islam, rather than any a priori argument.

It doesn't explain why He couldn't. The disciples concluded that He had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain how a person who is 100% God can not know something, unless being omniscient isn't part of their definition of being God?

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Matthew 24:36, NIV)

Note that this implies that not only the Son doesn't know the Hour, but also the Holy Spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam don't believe that Jesus was Word, Logos, Gogos, Mogos, Togos or so forth. Islam doesn't believe that Jesus was created before Mary. Islam believes that Jesus was created after Mary and that he is her son.

That would be " Islam doesn't believe". Thought you were the grammar king here.

Please take note. Placid is not Muslim so don't expect him to believe what you believe. If you're so upset about what he writes it must be because you're insecure in your own beliefs.

If God breathed His Holy Spirit into Mary then why isn't Jesus the son of Gabriel?

I'd tell you why but you'd only tell me what Islam don't believe.

Can someone explain how a person who is 100% God can not know something, unless being omniscient isn't part of their definition of being God?

If you read the OT can you tell me that the one called God in so many instances was all knowing?

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Matthew 24:36, NIV)

Note that this implies that not only the Son doesn't know the Hour, but also the Holy Spirit.

agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the OT can you tell me that the one called God in so many instances was all knowing?

My views on the Old Testament description of God would take me too far away from the topic. There are some passages that indicate God is all-knowing though:

“This is what the LORD says—Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come—yes, let them foretell what will come. Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” (Isaiah 44:6-8, NIV)

Am I to take it that you don't believe that the Christian God is all-knowing then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify a little, we believe that Jesus was “begotten, not made; one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.” (the Nicene Creed). So, not a creation. We believe God is One, in any case.

The idea that St Paul and the other members of the Early Church, as first century Jews, were in the slightest way influenced by Hinduism is historically unthinkable.

To Christians, the Bible is true word of God. The NT says that, Jesus is ONLY begotten son of God, and the OT says that, David is begotten son of God. An apparent contradiction as ONLY means ONE, not two or three. The NIV had taken the concept of Divinity of Jesus and put it under the footnotes, including the term, "begotten". There was a massive uproar. I am not sure if NIV put it back in the main body of the text, or it is still delegated to the footnotes.

The Hindu religion is earlier than Judaism, as Judaism believe that Abraham was the first Prophet, unlike Islam which believe that Adam was the first Prophet.

The Hindus believe in ONE GOD, and they have concept of TRI-MURTI, which the Christians made it into TRINITY.

The Zoroastrianism is earlier than Hinduism, and they have a concept of "Virgin Birth" too. Nowhere, in the OT, it is mentioned that a "virgin" will give birth ....... When the TaNaKh was translated to OT by the Christians, they intensionally mistranslated and inserted the word, "virgin".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be " Islam doesn't believe". Thought you were the grammar king here.

Is Islam singualar or pluaral. By the way, Islam is not a noun, it is a verb.

Please take note. Placid is not Muslim so don't expect him to believe what you believe. If you're so upset about what he writes it must be because you're insecure in your own beliefs.

His beliefs from Christianity are his. But like a usual missionary, he is intentionally twisting the Holy Quran. He doesn't come across like an honest learned man.

If God breathed His Holy Spirit into Mary then why isn't Jesus the son of Gabriel?

Get out of the business God being father and/or mother. If God breathed His Spirit into Adam, is God Father and Mother of Adam?

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Matthew 24:36, NIV)

Note that this implies that not only the Son doesn't know the Hour, but also the Holy Spirit.

agreed.

Now make up your mind if God is Holy Spirit or Not?

If God is Holy Spirit, then how come He doesn't know the Hour?

Or, now you believe like Muslims that Gabriel is the Holy Spirit, and thus Gabriel being an angel, Gabriel doesn't know the Hour?

Which one, confusions, confusions, confusions.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify a little, we believe that Jesus was “begotten, not made; one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.” (the Nicene Creed). So, not a creation. We believe God is One, in any case.

The idea that St Paul and the other members of the Early Church, as first century Jews, were in the slightest way influenced by Hinduism is historically unthinkable.

They started with the framework inherited from Judaism, and felt compelled to modify their understanding of God based on their experiences.

You don't know where Jesus was for about twenty years so it is historically thinkable that he could have travelled anywhere to anywhere in his know world and the writters of the gospel as well. St Thomas traveled a long way didn't he? There is a whole lot of speculation on who wrote the books and what is truely gospel. Have you read the Gospel of St. Thomas?. If not you should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Christians, the Bible is true word of God. The NT says that, Jesus is ONLY begotten son of God, and the OT says that, David is begotten son of God. An apparent contradiction as ONLY means ONE, not two or three. The NIV had taken the concept of Divinity of Jesus and put it under the footnotes, including the term, "begotten". There was a massive uproar. I am not sure if NIV put it back in the main body of the text, or it is still delegated to the footnotes.

The Hindu religion is earlier than Judaism, as Judaism believe that Abraham was the first Prophet, unlike Islam which believe that Adam was the first Prophet.

The Hindus believe in ONE GOD, and they have concept of TRI-MURTI, which the Christians made it into TRINITY.

The Zoroastrianism is earlier than Hinduism, and they have a concept of "Virgin Birth" too. Nowhere, in the OT, it is mentioned that a "virgin" will give birth ....... When the TaNaKh was translated to OT by the Christians, they intensionally mistranslated and inserted the word, "virgin".

Sorry brother but Hinduism predates Zoroaster by a couple thousand years. Zoroaster did include a "virgin birth" but the Jews picked it up from him when they copied his teaching practically word for word in the "Dead Sea Scrolls", well they were the Hebrews then. The Hebrews were influenced by Zoroastrianism when they were held captive in Babylonia. Hinduism has been traced back to 6.000 bce, artifacts such as carvings of Siva in meditation have been dated back far before Zoroaster's time.

It is also interesting to know that there have been monads with virgin birth in their mythology far removed from the influences of the East. Surely it is a metaphor for the birth of the universe which was born out of the tiniest speck.

I'm sorry you got me going on my second favorite vocation.

Edited by satyaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't know where Jesus was for about twenty years so it is historically thinkable that he could have travelled anywhere to anywhere in his know world and the writters of the gospel as well. St Thomas traveled a long way didn't he? There is a whole lot of speculation on who wrote the books and what is truely gospel. Have you read the Gospel of St. Thomas?. If not you should.

Salam brother,

Your excellent above post reminds me about the four madhabs of Sunnis. There were quite a few of these madhabs, long, long after the death of the Prophet, but four were chosen out of preconceived notions. Same with the four Gospels, out of many, many Gospels, only four were chosen out of preconceived notions.

Sorry brother but Hinduism predates Zoroaster by a couple thousand years. Zoroaster did include a "virgin birth" but the Jews picked it up from him when they copy his teaching practically word for word in the "Dead Sea Scrolls", well they were the Hebrews then. The Hebrews were influenced by Zoroasterianism when they were held captive in Babalonia. Hiinduism has been traced back to 6.000 bce, artifacts such as carvings of Siva in meditation have been dated back far before Zoroaster's time.

It is also interesting to know that there have been monads with virgin birth in their mythology far removed from the influences of the East. Surely it is a metaphor for the birth of the universe which was born out of the tiniest speck.

I'm sorry you got me going on my second favorite vocation.

You are right that Hinduism predates Zoroaster, even the Greek/Latin/English languages are from Sanskrit. I am not very well versed in "Dead Sea Scrolls", but the TaNaKh doesn't meantion "virgin giving birth ........"

Are you interested in some more Arabic Grammar and the connection of Brahma to Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Islam singualar or pluaral. By the way, Islam is not a noun, it is a verb.

His beliefs from Christianity are his. But like a usual missionary, he is intentionally twisting the Holy Quran. He doesn't come across like an honest learned man.

Get out of the business God being father and/or mother. If God breathed His Spirit into Adam, is God Father and Mother of Adam?

Now make up your mind if God is Holy Spirit or Not?

If God is Holy Spirit, then how come He doesn't know the Hour?

Or, now you believe like Muslims that Gabriel is the Holy Spirit, and thus Gabriel being an angel, Gabriel doesn't know the Hour?

Which one, confusions, confusions, confusions.....

Sorry you're so easily confused.

Even when I tell you what I believe you still don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam brother,

Your excellent above post reminds me about the four madhabs of Sunnis. There were quite a few of these madhabs, long, long after the death of the Prophet, but four were chosen out of preconceived notions. Same with the four Gospels, out of many, many Gospels, only four were chosen out of preconceived notions.

You are right that Hinduism predates Zoroaster, even the Greek/Latin/English languages are from Sanskrit. I am not very well versed in "Dead Sea Scrolls", but the TaNaKh doesn't meantion "virgin giving birth ........"

Are you interested in some more Arabic Grammar and the connection of Brahma to Allah.

No I think we should leave it alone, except that Brahman is the is The Supreme Being and some say the Hebrews adopted it but got it twisted into Abraham but I don't care. I am not really interested in it. All I know is that Sanskrit pre dates any language in use today and am not interested in speculation that this language influenced that when it is speculation, no more controversy for me.

Edited by satyaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I think we should leave it alone, except that Brahman is the is The Supreme Being and some say the Hebrews adopted it but got it twisted into Abraham but I don't care. I am not really interested in it. All I know is that Sanskrit pre dates any language in use today and am not interested in speculation that this language influenced that when it is speculation, no more controversy for me.

OK. I didn't say Abraham, I said "Brahma to Allah."

Thus, I am equating the two supreme beings, Brahma and Allah.

Where as, Abraham is a human being.

Edited by aladdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually a very good question I had not met before.

That God's nature is unchanging is a fixed feature of Christian belief. However, what is going on in both of these passages is an anthropomorphic description of God's actions. (That is to say, describing God's actions using language derived from human descriptions, which although inadequate because the two are very different, can help in visualisation).

Repeatedly (and you could have added Nineveh to the two passages you quoted), God threatens to destroy those who have sinned. However, where there is repentance, He shows mercy. A key passage in this regard comes immediately after the Exodus 32 passage you quote, being Exodus 33:13-16

So God doesn't as such change his mind, but he allows for the possibility of forgiveness. The descriptions of 'God changing His mind' are illustrations, not to be read literally.

Were good explanation; but were in the Bible it says that; one should not take some "words" or "verses"( passages) literally? if it is true so it must be written somewhere in Bible. So where????

according to Christians; word of God is Bible

What Christian priest told me;

"The Bible is a Divine Revelation; In the Bible we find out what God wants mankind to know about Himself and His plan."

--- ---- ---

"I repent that I have made Saul King..." (Samuel 15:10 to 11)

Then Samuel left for Ramah, but Saul went up to his home in Gibeah of Saul. 35 Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel. (Samuel 15:34 to 35)

The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.(Genesis 6:6)

“I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” (Genesis 6:8)

Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened. (Exodus 32:14)

Really a repeat of the above. The diamond example was a helpful illustration rather than a description. Have I explained clearly what I mean by that difference?

yes

That explains why you think He doesn't, based presumably on the teachings of Islam, rather than any a priori argument.

It doesn't explain why He couldn't. The disciples concluded that He had.

Based presumably on the teachings of Islam?; "Jews believe that God is one and indivisible" as muslims :)

This is Monotheism!

Hear, O Israel: The Eternal is our God, the Eternal is one. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Satyaban,

I had said: "The Scripture says that ‘Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God,’ --- so everybody living in a body of flesh and blood has to go through physical death before being resurrected in a Spiritual body. We know that ‘Divinity’ can’t die, so the physical body of flesh and blood was not Divinity.

--- But Divinity, in the Personage of the Word (Logos), that God sent from Heaven to indwell the Unique, sinless body of Jesus, could go through the death experience with the human Jesus and resurrect the Spiritual body, which again by defying natural laws could be ‘raised to life’ the third day, as prophesied, --- then to appear, as desired, on Earth for 40 days to both individuals and groups of believers --- before ascending in bodily form, in the sight of the Apostles."

Then you said in Post 51: There's a bit of a contradiction there isn't it. Your belief in what happened after Jesus' probable death is belief in a story that was written hundreds of years after the death by men. No where is it reported that God told this story.

Response: --- Let’s check what might be controversial.

--- “After Jesus’ probable death.” ---

The Christian faith is based on the resurrection of Jesus because the victory was not in the death, but conquering of death and rising in a new spiritual body.

--- In childbirth, a mother places her life in God’s hands in the pain and danger of dying, to bring a new life into the world.

After the birth, --- which do you rejoice over? --- The suffering of the near death experience, or the joy of the new life it produced?

--- If you doubt that Jesus died as the Scripture says, --- and as Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived at that time, reported, --- then you will not likely believe the result either.

--- “A story that was written hundreds of years after the death.”

Only the critics wrote the story “hundreds of years later.”

Let’s apply your quote on ‘reason’ to your above statement.

"Reason needs to be applied to all things, and human decency must be applied to reason."

--- Do you know of any ‘Headline News’ story that is not written down for hundreds of years?

‘Reason’ should tell you that events would be written down the day they happened, the same as they are today. --- They would be written in Aramaic, as were the first Scripture portions, and then some THIRTY YEARS LATER they were written in Greek.

--- Did you not notice that the calendar was restarted at the birth of Jesus?

--- “Nowhere is it reported that God told this story.”

This is ‘the story’ of the New Covenant.

Jesus predicted His death and resurrection, in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Peter following this transfiguration recorded in Matthew 17:

1 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves;

2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light.

3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.

5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!”

Luke is more specific and records it this way in 9:

29 As He prayed, the appearance of His face was altered, and His robe became white and glistening.

30 And behold, two men talked with Him, who were Moses and Elijah,

31 who appeared in glory and spoke of His decease which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.

--- Again in Matthew 17:

22 Now while they were staying in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men,

23 and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up.” And they were exceedingly sorrowful.

If you believe that ‘all God’s creation is divine’ --- and ‘the spiritual journey ends in our heart’

Then you don’t believe there is a heaven for the ‘saved from earth’ to go to, is that right?

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you said in Post 51: There's a bit of a contradiction there isn't it. Your belief in what happened after Jesus' probable death is belief in a story that was written hundreds of years after the death by men. No where is it reported that God told this story.

Response: --- Let’s check what might be controversial.

--- “After Jesus’ probable death.” ---

The Christian faith is based on the resurrection of Jesus because the victory was not in the death, but conquering of death and rising in a new spiritual body.

Placid

Islam doesn't believe in death of Jesus, so there is no quesiton of conquering of death and rising in a new spiritual body, meaning resurrection of Jesus. This I have quoted you from the Holy Quran.

No dead of Jesus, therefore no resurrection of Jesus.

The question is why one want's to conquer death?

How could you not believe in God, you were dead (lifeless), he gave you life, he will give you death and then resurrect you, and then you will return back to him (2:28), it is he, who created for you all on the earth. He then made seven (complete) Skies, he is all Knowing (2:29).

Without resurrection there is no heaven or hell.

Is conquering of death, has someting to do with pagaism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I didn't say Abraham, I said "Brahma to Allah."

Thus, I am equating the two supreme beings, Brahma and Allah.

Where as, Abraham is a human being.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear.

As an aside I mentioned the similarity in the names not the personalities.

Brahman is "The Absolute Reality", it is the name of the Supreme.

Brahma is the name of Brahman in his aspect of Creator.

Brahman and Allah are names of the same Absolute.

Now we can move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...