Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam,

I ran across a bible verse, specifically:

Mark 13:32

No One Knows the Day or Hour

32 Now concerning that day or hour no one knows—neither the angels in heaven nor the Son—except the Father. 33 Watch! Be alert![m] For you don’t know when the time is coming. 34 It is like a man on a journey, who left his house, gave authority to his slaves, gave each one his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to be alert. 35 Therefore be alert, since you don’t know when the master of the house is coming—whether in the evening or at midnight or at the crowing of the rooster or early in the morning. 36 Otherwise, he might come suddenly and find you sleeping.37 And what I say to you, I say to everyone: Be alert!”

 

Could I get some correlation and context behind this verse? I know I make the mistake of taking things out of context and I am working on it so I read the entire chapter and I haven't ran into any problems, but maybe I overlooked something? If I read this right, this shows me that Jesus did not have the knowledge of the end of days, and only the Father does. Does this question the divinity of Jesus Christ (pbuh) ? If we see Jesus as Lord would that not mean that He should have knowledge of the end of days or that maybe this is a field where Jesus may be limited too? That also raises the question of Jesus being limited to something... anyways thats another topic. I would appreciate context and clarification , thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jafar moh said:

Mark 13:32

No One Knows the Day or Hour

32 Now concerning that day or hour no one knows—neither the angels in heaven nor the Son—except the Father. 

<snipped>

If I read this right, this shows me that Jesus did not have the knowledge of the end of days, and only the Father does. 

 

Salam. Good point! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christians believe that Jesus is 100% human and 100% God. Therefore, Jesus is the All-Knowing and yet, simultaneously, has limited knowledge. Inconceivable, right? Well, Christians argue that God's nature is inconceivable and hence, the incomprehensibility of their doctrine does not negate itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Jafar moh said:

Does this question the divinity of Jesus Christ (pbuh) ? If we see Jesus as Lord would that not mean that He should have knowledge of the end of days or that maybe this is a field where Jesus may be limited too? That also raises the question of Jesus being limited to something... anyways thats another topic. I would appreciate context and clarification

If we disregard the original Koine Greek passages, before they were put into Latin and other Languages, Jesus never has said he was the "Son of God", or was God in any way shape or form. If you ask me, you've found another key supporting biblical passage attesting to Jesus's humanity.

In fact, there's an even compelling verses in the Bible:

Deuteronomy 18:18 – 

I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

A prophet is someone with no words of his own but with words of a higher authority, and is someone who is commanded. These criteria fit Jesus in light of the John 12:49. The latter only makes sense if Jesus is a prophet that’s conveying God’s message not his own. Again, why would God need himself to convey his own message? This brings us to the following verses. Jesus, in fact, wasn’t sent with words of his own:

John 14:24 

Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.


John 7:16

“Jesus answered them and said, ‘My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me.’”

These biblical verses strictly break/contradict Theistic attributions to Jesus. 

My favorite:

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me"? (cf. Mark 15:34; Matthew 27:46)

God wouldn't need to pray to himself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ali6 said:

Christians believe that Jesus is 100% human and 100% God. Therefore, Jesus is the All-Knowing and yet, simultaneously, has limited knowledge. Inconceivable, right? Well, Christians argue that God's nature is inconceivable and hence, the incomprehensibility of their doctrine does not negate itself. 

 

Well if you ask me that doesn't seem like a very stable base when it comes to the knowledge of God. God should not be hard or complicated to understand because our entire goal in life is to find Him is it not? I don't fully know if that's exactly what Christians believe but I see your point.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

If we disregard the original Koine Greek passages, before they were put into Latin and other Languages, Jesus never has said he was the "Son of God", or was God in any way shape or form.

Then which manuscripts do you refer to if not the original Greek?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does believe in Trinity rooted in bible ?

to analyze this question the following items need to be considered :

1) it is clear that believe in trinity is an accepted principle  among Christianity , it means believe in divinity of father, son an Ruhu Al-quds.

2) believe in trinity existed among previous tribes, but early christians did not believe in this principle.

3)in Gospel you can't find any trace of trinity ,but in new testament it exist in Polus letters who in turn was affected  by the thought of ancient Greeks.

4) Christian theologian and thinkers did not provided any rational reasoning to prove this principle .

5)  even in current version of new testament which is available you can see  some verses that negated this principle or believe in divinity of Jesus Christ    , for example , " everlasting life is that  you know one God and his messenger, Jesus Christ.

Edited by dawudansari2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ali6 said:

Then which manuscripts do you refer to if not the original Greek?

Excuse me, I meant to say " If we Don't disregard the original Koine Greek passages*" My bad bro, been a long day/night.

Edited by wmehar2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

If we don't disregard the original Koine Greek passages, before they were put into Latin and other Languages, Jesus never has said he was the "Son of God", or was God in any way shape or form.

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son (Υἱὸς) of (τοῦ) the living God (Θεοῦ)." And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 16:15-17)

But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God (Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ).” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. (Matthew 26:63-64)

So I provided you two incidences where Jesus claims the title of "son of God" in the original Greek manuscripts. 

And in regards to the latter part of your comment, this video clearly addresses it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jafar moh said:

Could I get some correlation and context behind this verse? 

I dont think you miss any context. Trinity again. I find it obvious that Mark believed that God and Jesus were not the same persons, and I see no indications in the Bible that Christians in the first century did. We know they had different ideas about this (of course). In the 4th century the Church leaders after long discussions decided that everybody should believe in trinity. I dont, but do not ask me to specify in detail the relation between God, Jesus and the Angels o how life is in heaven. I am certain Popes and Imams can't do this either.
 

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ali6 said:

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son (Υἱὸς) of (τοῦ) the living God (Θεοῦ)." And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 16:15-17)

By that token, you should have read (Mathew 16: 26-27):

For what is a man profited,
if he shall gain the whole
world, and lose his own soul?
or what shall a man give in
exchange for his soul?

For the Son of man shall
come in the glory of his Father
with his angels; and then He
shall reward every man
according to his works.

If you've read the latter verses from the chapter you've shown me, you would have seen it is made clear (by regarding the context of the preceding verse, and the one that follows it), that "his Father" is clearly referring to God being the father of man.  No different that Jesus AS, it would seem we, mankind are also the sons of God.  The vernacular, word order and patterns posses no variation in indication of man's father being God, I direct you to the link below, as this site is an Excellent source of the Koine Greek version of the Bible, including each Koine Greek word, it's textual declension and literal English translation

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat16.pdf

But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God (Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ).” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. (Matthew 26:63-64)

(Matthew 26:63-65):

But Jesus held his peace.
And the high priest answered
and said unto him, I adjure
thee by the living God, that
thou tell us whether thou be the
Christ, the Son of God.

Jesus saith unto him, Thou
hast said: nevertheless I say
unto you, Hereafter shall ye see
the Son of man sitting on the
right hand of power, and coming in the cloud of heaven.

Then the high priest rent his
clothes, saying, He hath
spoken blasphemy; what
further need have we of
witnesses? behold, now ye
have heard his blasphemy.

This is the full translation, and I'll also include the link for this one below.  The underlined part, Jesus says "So you say, Thou sayest. etc." as in, these are your words.  Then immediately after Jesus says, "moreover, you will see the Son of man (Jesus is referring to himself here) sitting on God's right hand flowing in on the cloud's of Heaven".  Jesus just contradicted the priest, and said he was the Son of man, and not only is he the Son of man, he will be on God's right hand coming in from the Cloud of heaven.   The blasphemy the priest is referring to in the following verse, is that the "blasphemy" that Jesus AS just told them, was that he was a "son" of God.  

Here comes Jesus AS, trying to tell the Jews they have been misunderstanding their own scriptures, challenging the status quo and those in power.  They're so desperate to get rid of Jesus, that they bring two false witnesses that fail miserably to make a case against Jesus... and finally try to falsely misconstrue Jesus's claim of being "God" (when they could have tried that without having gone through the effort of recruiting two false testifiers) as reason enough to convict him as a blasphemer worthy of death. 

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat26.pdf

John 10:31-39

31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" 33 "We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods" ' [d]? 35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh10.pdf

It's important here to discuss that the Aramaic word for Lord is not 100% synonymous with the actual God.  Leaders among men, patriarchs of families, and other patriarchal/leadership terms for men, commonly used the  Aramaic/Hebrew word, "God" (Elohim) was used,. which is to mean often for Allah SWT, AND Lord (Think of feudal times where serfs had a "Lord" of the land, or "landlords").  There were many "Gods" in early Judaic times.  I beseech you to read the Talmud, Torah, Psalms etc to corroborate what I'm saying if the link below isn't sufficient explanation/evidence of this:

http://www.gotquestions.org/you-are-gods.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from the King James Version. Every version of the English Bible that I have seen uses the words Worship God. Some even say Worship God!

Revelation 19:10

10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ali6 said:

@wmehar2

Can you list your main point(s) behind your previous post? Because I have trouble determining what you're setting out to prove - thanks.

You gave me to references two where Jesus AS is reported to claim being God, or the Son of God? " So I provided you two incidences where Jesus claims the title of "son of God" in the original Greek manuscripts. "

My main point in that whole blurb was to support my prior statement saying that Jesus never did say he was God (as in Allah SWT's, not the alternative meaning of a "leader" meaning), or his physical Son by addressing your verses lol.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

My main point in that whole blurb was to support my prior statement saying that Jesus never did say he was God (as in Allah SWT's, not the alternative meaning of a "leader" meaning), or his physical Son by addressing your verses lol.  

Then we are in complete agreement, my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

You gave me to references two where Jesus AS is reported to claim being God, or the Son of God? " So I provided you two incidences where Jesus claims the title of "son of God" in the original Greek manuscripts. "

My main point in that whole blurb was to support my prior statement saying that Jesus never did say he was God (as in Allah SWT's, not the alternative meaning of a "leader" meaning), or his physical Son by addressing your verses lol.  

Jesus said he was God once, and Paul said it several times, and it is supposed Paul writings are revealed scripture too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nataly said:

Jesus said he was God once, and Paul said it several times, and it is supposed Paul writings are revealed scripture too.

We only have got testimonies from what Jesus said, he might have said it more than once. The testimony could of course be false, but there is little doubt in my mind that the first Christians believed Jesus was divine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nataly said:

Jesus said he was God once, and Paul said it several times, and it is supposed Paul writings are revealed scripture too.

From what I read, only 7 of Paul's works are considered authentic, while another 6 or 7 were considered highly disputed.  Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon  are considered to be the authentic writings of Paul. 

In 1st Corinthians, Paul discusses the nature of Jesus and God's relationship:

1 Corinthians 8:5-6

For though there be that are
called gods, whether in heaven
or in earth, (as there be gods
many, and lords many,)

But to us [there is but] one
God, the Father,
of whom [are]
all things, and we in him; and
one Lord Jesus Christ, by
whom [are] all things, and we by him

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1co8.pdf

Another verse attributing Christ inside God, and humans in God as well, on the same comparison.. Now, I'll juxtapose an excerpt of Paul's from Phillippians:

Phillippians 2:5-8

Let this mind be in you,
which was also in Christ Jesus:

Who, being in the form of
God, thought it not robbery to
be equal with God:

But made himself of no  [<-------- This excerpt here is literally Paul asserting his interpretation or idea of what Jesus is after admitting Jesus took no reputation to be himself God. ]
reputation, and took upon him
the form of a servant, and was
made in the likeness of men: I mean do we take Paul's word or Jesus's word? 

And being found in fashion
as a man, he humbled himself,
and became obedient unto
death, even the death of the
cross.

Then immediately switches tones again in the same chapter in later verses of Phillippians:

Phillipians 2:13-15

For it is God which worketh
in you both to will and to do of
[his] good pleasure.

Do all things without
murmurings and disputings:

That ye may be blameless
and harmless, the sons of God,
without rebuke
, in the midst of
a crooked and perverse nation,
among whom ye shine as lights
in the world;

Then Paul above immediately reverts back to the same notion that God has multiple son's in humanity, again no difference in comparison to that how they speak of Christ being a Son of God.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/phi2.pdf

I have a hard time to accepting Paul's account/testimony here.. he seemingly contradicts his own perspective in how he interprets Jesus's (AS) essence to be.  I'm not sure if apostles of Jesus were considered to be infallible, but I can't wrap my head around the logic here.  From what I know about Paul, he was actually a Greek (Hellenized Jew), and not one of the original 12 apostles.  It seem's to me this is a Greek extension of Socratic theory of human's and all of creation being an extension and a part of the One God.  

In either case, it's hard to sort through most of this when considering the Jews/Hebrews/Aramaic folk interchangeably used "God"  to mean humans in positions of leadership and to the Actual God, Creator of the Universe.

Arabic being a Semitic language as well, has similar derivation in Allah and Elohim. 

'Elohim, the plural of the Hebrew word eloha, "god," a lengthened form of the Canaanite word el (Aramaic alaha; Arabic ilah), is most frequently used for the God of Israel in the Old Testament. … The Israelites probably borrowed the Canaanite plural noun elohim and made it singular in meaning in their cultic practices and theological reflections' (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Micropaedia, Vol. III, 15th Edition, p. 863).

'ELOHIM' is the first name for God to be found within the Old Testament, and it is used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures on over 2,000 occasions. The Hebrew root of the word indicates "strength" or "power", and it is masculine plural in form. In Genesis 1:1, we read, 'In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth.'Right from the start, this plural form for the name of God is used to describe the One God, which many Bible expositors (by no means all) see as an indication of the Holy Trinity. Elohim is often combined with other words to describe certain characteristics of God. Some examples: Elohay Kedem - God of the Beginning: (Deuteronomy 33:27), Elohim Kedoshim - Holy God: (Leviticus 19:2, Joshua 24:19). Elohim Chaiyim - Living God: (Jeremiah 10:10). Elohay Elohim - God Of Gods: (Deuteronomy 10:17).

All this being said, I find it interesting that in the Qu'ran, that Allah very often refers to Himself as "We" and "Our", yet posits the position that there is One Entity governing that "We".   Being muslim, I must incline tiwards the Bible, Qu'ran, Tor'ah as messages from God. Perhaps this God conveying that Socratic essence in being a part of every creation.  He did technically breathe life from Himself into us?  But that's just my personal interpretation. Islamic scholars take a strong position that "We" used in the Qu'ran as Allah's self reference, is one of that majestic/royal mention as in the Arabic language, using "we" isn't considered incorrect when it's only one person referring to themselves... which I guess also makes sense.  Typically one with significant renown/mention would refer to themselves in the plural   - Going on a tangent there, sorry. 

Edited by wmehar2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. 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.


×
×
  • Create New...