|
False prophets |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 34567 22> |
| Author | |||
minuteman 
Senior Member 
Joined: 25 March 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1642 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 11 July 2007 at 6:59pm |
||
|
Jesus also said "Before Abraham, I AM". The translation in " I AM" is Yahweh... Should it not be, "Before Araham, I was"? Also the translation of I AM is Yahweh. Do you mean to say that the translation of the actual words Yahweh is I AM??? Or is it the other way around?? |
|||
 |
|||
|
buddyman
Senior Member 
Joined: 26 June 2007 Status: Offline Points: 295 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 12 July 2007 at 12:22pm |
||
|
Should it not be, "Before Araham, I was"? Also the translation of I AM is Yahweh. Do you mean to say that the translation of the actual words Yahweh is I AM??? Or is it the other way around??
That is not what the scriptures say. Jesus said "Before Abraham, IAM". When Moses was in the wilderness who did the burning bush say he was? He said " I AM THAT IAM". God has always been. He is eternal. |
|||
|
|||
|
Andalus
Moderator Group
Joined: 12 October 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 July 2007 at 12:27pm |
||
|
New American Standard Bible (NASB) 26Then God said, "Let (A)Us make (B)man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them (C)rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." Why do you suppose its says "God said "Let US make man in OUR image". That's plural. Do you not believe that God is almighty, All Knowing, and can do anything? That is a good question, "why do we suppose". And what reply would be the most reasonable? Your approach uses the fallacy of circular reasoning. Simply put, this is the conclusion of an argument that is assumed in the premise. The verses in question is an "implicit" verse, not an "explicit" verse (as I have told you before, the proof verses of the church concerning their primary pillars of beliefs are based upon implicit verses), so one may read interpretations into it, the question is, is the interpretation valid, reasonable, and sound. Nothing in the verse implies the trinty, and one must already have the belief to try and claim this is OT proof for a triune god. So is God referring to His angelic "court", or do we have a triune God speaking out in one voice, Jesus and Father and Ghost harmonizing together in one voice that they are creating everything at the same time? The only proof that it is a triune God is comes from the assumption buried in the premise. We know God has angels, and we know that God speaking in a plural does not "necessarily" mean that it is a triune being. There simply is not enough in the verse to allow for your interpretation.
The names of God reveal attributes of His nature. God has a long-established habit of using various names to describe a person�s character. Jacob earned his name that means �swindler� when he practiced deception to steal his father�s blessing away from his brother Esau (Genesis 27:35, 36). At his conversion, Jacob wrestled with the angel and insisted on the blessing of God. Then his name was changed to � This is a fallacy called a non-sequitur, meaning "does not follow". In other words, If God refers to Himself in a plural form of a noun 5 times more than a singular noun, then it does not follow from this relationship that God is a plural godhead. There simply is not enough information to allow for such a conclusion. You cannot conjecture about the likes and dislikes of God concerning plural nouns based solely upon the amount of time He says one thing or another. Furthermore, it is a non-sequitur because if it is a plurality, then it is not necessarily a "triune" plurality. Plurality does not imply "trinity". I must also point out that in Gen1:1, .."God Created.." the verb created is a singular noun. Also, if Elohim necessarily implies a plurality, then Moses must be confused, .....""See, I have made thee a god (Elohim) to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." (KJV)" Exodus 7:1. So maybe God is a quadrinity!?
Even in the Old Testament book of Daniel, we see a picture of the Father and the Son as two separate persons. �I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him� (Daniel 7:13). The Son of man, Jesus, is seen coming before the Ancient of Days�who is, obviously, God the Father. Your piece failed to give the surrounding verses for �context�. Once more we are being lead by �circular reasoning� and an �implicit verse�. What is a reasonable interpretation? That this is Jesus, one of three of a triune godhead, or, given that the entire vision in the surrounding verses has described 4 beasts, and now the next figure is not a beast, but �a son of man�, literally a �human� �non-beast�. A son of man is in contrast to the definite article your piece has placed before son (your piece uses �the� son of man, not �a� son of man). I will stop here as I have given sufficient reason why I reject your article�s argument. Regards
|
|||
|
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/ |
|||
|
|||
|
buddyman
Senior Member
Joined: 26 June 2007 Status: Offline Points: 295 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 July 2007 at 9:38am |
||
|
Andalus, I believe you've been the one who has been taught out of context. Through out the Bible God tells us who he is. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure it out. You don't have to agree, and that is your choice. I must also point out that you have not read every book of the Bible. All you have been taught is to dispute the Godhead/Trinity, so that's were all your focus has been. You need to read and STUDY the entire Bible. Still waiting on your notes about Daniel. |
|||
|
|||
|
buddyman
Senior Member
Joined: 26 June 2007 Status: Offline Points: 295 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 July 2007 at 9:46am |
||
Jesus did not say before Abraham I was. He said "Before Abraham I AM". I say I am many things, but I would not say I was before my grandmother, would I? Jesus Speaking in the Temple (John 8:57-59 NKJV) "Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" {58} Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." {59} Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." The Jews understood the implications of Jesus' statements as being a claim of deity and therefore on ocassion took up stones against him for blasphemy. If they merely misunderstood Jesus' claim, would not Jesus have corrected them? The failure of Jesus to correct them is either an affirmation that their understanding was correct, or a blatant misleading of the people. Dare any man lay this charge at the feet of God? Consider the context of Matthew 14:33, where after walking on the water, which no man could do without the power of God, (Mat 14:33 KJV) "Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God." This "obeisance" came at the time of yet another proof that Jesus was "the Son of God". How did the Jews understand this phrase "the Son of God"? Consider: (Mat 26:63-65 NKJV) "...Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!" {64} Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. ..." {65} Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, "He has spoken blasphemy! The Jews understood this admission to be a statement of deity, as also when Jesus said that he and his Father were "one": (John 10:30-33 NKJV) ""I and My Father are one." {31} Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. ... {33} The Jews answered Him, saying, "... for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."" In light of the Jews' understanding of the meaning of the usage of "the Son of God", the context demands that "proskuneo" have the meaning beyond that of reverence that a man might show to another man, and therefore the appropriate meaning when applied to Jesus is "worship". |
|||
|
|||
|
minuteman
Senior Member
Joined: 25 March 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1642 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 July 2007 at 12:13pm |
||
|
We understand that he (Jesus) and Father are one. That is no harm. You see that the christains use too many metaphors. Jesus is not the real son of God. he is only spiritual son of God. Jesus is the begotten son of God. that is also not real. begotten in the sense that he was spiritually begotten. We see that the christians will keep on using such words without telling any one that they are not in the real general sense of the words. If they tell in the beginning that Jesus was the spiritual son of god then we may not have too much difference and we may not deny or argue in that matter. Butthe christians will keep on pressing that Jesus was the son of God. He was the begotten son of god. But when forcd and questioned and cornered seriously, they will say,Ph, he is not the real biological son of God... What a joke. If they say that in the beginning then there would notbe so much argument. It is same about Trinity. They will press for three gods. When they are bombarded from various angles then they realize that it is a difficult thing to pass off easily. So they will say that God is one. Then they will say that god is one and three at the same time. How could that be?? Then about Jesus. They need him as a man and as a son of a man, and as a god and as a son of god and as a teacher and saviour and as prophet too. Now when he is a god himself thn why he should be a prophet of god. Is he a prophet of himself??? I am sure that the christians cannot explain any of tehse things but let them do it if they can. We are ready to listen to their lecture. The topic here is false prophets. We believe John the baptist was a true prophet of God. So was Zakariyyah. So was Jesus. And also we believe in all the Mosaic prophets of God before Jesus as true prophets. I see that it is only Muhammad who is tellingus that Jesus was a true prophet of God and so was John the baptist. No one else believes thatJesus was a prophet at all. If any nation other than Muslims believes that Jesus was a prophet of God then I would like to know about those people. The christians do not realise the importance of the good work of Muhammad. No one believes other than christians believe in Jesus as a good man even. Leave alone that any one will admit that he was a prophet of god. |
|||
|
|||
|
buddyman
Senior Member
Joined: 26 June 2007 Status: Offline Points: 295 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 July 2007 at 2:00pm |
||
|
|||
|
|||
|
islamispeace
Senior Member
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 July 2007 at 2:16pm |
||
|
"If they merely misunderstood Jesus' claim, would not Jesus have
corrected them? The failure of Jesus to correct them is either an
affirmation that their understanding was correct, or a blatant
misleading of the people. Dare any man lay this charge at the feet of
God?"
Maybe he didn't get a chance to explain because they were stoning him? How could he explain when a barrage of stones was coming his way? "Consider the context of Matthew 14:33, where after walking on the water, which no man could do without the power of God, (Mat 14:33 KJV) "Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God." This "obeisance" came at the time of yet another proof that Jesus was "the Son of God"." Consider also that Matthew 14 also claims that Jesus prayed alone (verse 23). This act of praying contradicts his alleged divinity, does it not? Also, consider that upon comparing the account in Matthew 14 with the account in Mark 6, we see that Mark does not mention the disciples worshipping Jesus or testifying that he was the "Son of God." Mark 6 says the following: "45Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. 46After leaving them, he went up on a mountainside to pray. 47When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. 48He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, 49but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, 50because they all saw him and were terrified. Immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid." 51Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, 52for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened." Compare that to the account in Matthew and we see an obvious discrepancy. Consider also that the Gospel of Mark was written before the Gospel of Matthew. Could the account in Matthew 14 simply have been the author's interpolation and not necessarily based on fact? "(Mat 26:63-65 NKJV) "...Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!" {64} Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. ..." {65} Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, "He has spoken blasphemy!" Compare this account to John 18 and we see a completely different scenario. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is asked by the high priest about his teachings and about his disciples, and does not directly ask him whether he is "the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus' answer also makes no mention that he is the Son of God. Here is how the conversation went, according to the author of the Gospel of John: "9Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. 20"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. 21Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said." 22When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded. 23"If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?" 24Then Annas sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest.[b]" There is no consensus in the Gospels about Jesus' character. One says he was worshiped after he walked on water, whereas the other does not. Would it not have been worthwhile to mention in all the Gospels that Jesus was worshiped? Would that not have solidified the claim and bring consensus to the matter at hand? |
|||
|
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 34567 22> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
buddyman wrote: