| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Niblo 
Groupie
Male
Islam
Joined: 01 September 2016
Location: Leeds; UK
Status: Offline
Points: 58
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Posted: 31 May 2018 at 4:13am |
 JerryMyers wrote:
Niblo wrote:
As-Salāmu ‘alaykum, brother.
As you know, Matthew 22:24 is taken from Psalm 110.
In the Hebrew Bible this psalm contains two distinct words: יהוה (YHWH) and אֲדֹנִי (adoni). These do not have the same meaning. According to both Biblical and Modern Hebrew, the terms יהוה and אֲדֹנִי are neither connected nor related. The former is used only of God; while the latter is never used of God.
In the Septuagint, these two - quite separate and distinct - Hebrew terms are represented by the same Greek term kύριος, and therefore the distinction is erased.
You will know that Greek is an inflected language; this means that the form of certain words changes depending on how they are used in sentences.
Have a look at the following examples from the Septuagint (I have placed the correct Greek words in their correct places):
‘Now Abraam and Sarra were old, advanced in days, and menstruation had ceased to happen to Sarra. And Sarra laughed within herself, saying, “It has not yet happened to me up to the present, and my lord (kύριος) is rather old.” And the Lord (kύριος) said to Abraam, “Why is it that Sarra laughed within herself, saying, ‘Shall I then indeed give birth? But I have grown old?’ (Gn 18:11-13).
Here kύριος refers to both God and Abraham.
‘And Abigaia saw Dauid, and she hurried and alighted from the donkey and fell before Dauid on her face and did obeisance to him on the ground on his feet and said, “Upon me, my lord (kurie), be the injustice; do let your slave speak in your ears, and hear a word of your slave. Let not now my lord (kύριος) set his heart on this pestiferous person, for as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him, but I, your slave, did not see your lads whom you sent. And now, my lord (kurie), the Lord (kύριος) lives, and your life lives, since the Lord (kurios) restrained you from coming against innocent blood, and to save your hand for yourself, even now may your enemies and those who seek evil for my lord (kuriw) be like Nabal.’ (1 Sam. 25: 23-26).
Here kύριος in its original form – and its forms kurie and kuriw – refer to David; while kύριος, and its form kurios, both refer to God.
In the Tanakh, kύριος, and one or more of its forms, is also applied to others. For example:
‘Then the servant took ten camels from his lord’s (tou kuriou) camels and some of all his lord’s (tou kuriou) goods with himself, and when he had risen, he went to Mesopotamia to the city of Nachor.’ (Gn 24:10).
Here a form of kύριος (kuriou) refers to a servant’s master.
‘But if the master (kύριος) gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and children shall be his master’s (ton kurion), but he shall go out single.’ (Ex.21:4).
Here kύριος and another of its forms (kurion) refer to yet another ‘master’.
‘And Dauid said to him, “Whose are you, and where are you from?” And the Egyptian lad said, “I am a slave of an Amalekite man, and my master (kύριος) left me behind because I fell sick three days ago.’ (1 Sam. 30:13 20
Here kύριος refers to the slave’s master.
Summary:
When Psalm 110:1 was first written it was written in Hebrew - of course - and not in Greek; thus:
מזמור נאם יהוה לאדני שב לימיני עד-אשית איביך הדם לרגליך.
The unambiguous יהוה (YHWH) – used only of God; and equally unambiguous אדני (adoni) – never used of God; have been replaced – in the Septuagint – by kύριος and its related forms; words that are applied to both God and humans.
Put another way: two words that never bear the same meaning – that are not connected or related in any way – have been replaced by one that is ambiguous in its usage.
Christian translators and apologists have seized on this ambiguity in order to promote their theology. |
Mualaikumsalam, brother.
Thanks for the further clarification and you are absolutely right to say "Christian translators and apologists have seized on this ambiguity in order to promote their theology". |
And how!!
|
|
'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib)
|
 |
Peace maker
Senior Member
Joined: 26 November 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 314
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 31 May 2018 at 4:28am |
JerryMyers wrote:
Peace maker wrote:
Hi Jerry.
I see you are a expert in doing fault finding in the bible why?
Simply cause you belief the Quran and Muhammad.
If I say to you Jesus is God what argument will you have to proof me wrong? |
Hi Peace maker,
I see you are an expert in just quoting Biblical verses WITHOUT explaining your understanding of those verses. I don't seek faults in the Bible but just telling what the Bible is actually telling you.
If you said Jesus is God, I will say Jesus is NOT God but just a prophet according to his disciples and Jesus himself. You and the Christians have not proven Jesus is God BUT only have shown the claims of other people, NOT what Jesus himself claimed.
Peace maker wrote:
LUKE 2 And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. So he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when the parents brought in the Child Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the law, he took Him up in his arms and blessed God and said: “Lord, now You are letting Your servant depart in peace, according to Your word; for my eyes have seen Your salvation which You have prepared before the face of all peoples, a light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel.” |
So, how does Luke 2 above proves Jesus is God ??
Peace maker wrote:
Isaiah 9.
For to us a child is born to us a son is given and the goverment shal be on his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor,Mighty God,Everlasting Father,Prince of Peace
Was Isaiah lying in His Prophecy?
What will your argument be? |
No, Isaiah was not lying, BUT, the English Bibles translators, the gospelists, the church, etc, were. How so, you may ask ? Because the Hebrew word ‘el’ from which the phrase ‘God’ in Isaiah 9:6 was translated from, does NOT always refer to God Almighty, but can also refer to a human ruler. The English language translators capitalized the letter ‘G’ to imply Jesus is God when he is not. In fact, the Bible lexicon wrote the Hebrew word for ‘God’ in Isaiah 9:6 as just ‘el’, NOT ‘El’ - http://biblehub.com/lexicon/isaiah/9-6.htm
A clear example that the Hebrew word “el” in Isaiah 9:6 can be used of powerful earthly rulers is Ezekiel 31:11, which was referring to the Babylonian king. If calling the Messiah ‘el’ made him God, then the Babylonian king would also be God.
|
At least we did not need a Tafseer to explain our scriptures to us. The Bible is saturated with verses that Jesus made claims that He is God in THE FLESH AND IN THE SPIRIT. Now, according to the Word of God: 1 Tim 6:15, Rev 17:14 and Rev 19:16, Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Rev 17:14 They will make war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will triumph over them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and He will be accompanied by His called and chosen and faithful ones." The Quran also said Jesus the Messiah and and Messiah means saviour of the world and only God can be the saviour of the world then all muslims must reject their Qurans. Okay lets go just in sense of Prophet like lets compare Jesus to Muhammad just in a senseble way of comparing this two Prophets now, and see which one was the most peaceful man that walked on the face of the earth. Which one will you chose.
|
|
JerryMyers
Groupie
Joined: 21 September 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 65
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 June 2018 at 5:12am |
Peace maker wrote:
At least we did not need a Tafseer to explain our scriptures to us. |
You sure about that ?? Well, if you are, that explains why Christians often read their scriptures out of context and misinterpreted Jesus’ words !
Peace maker wrote:
The Bible is saturated with verses that Jesus made claims that He is God in THE FLESH AND IN THE SPIR-IT. |
Yes, that’s what Christians claimed, and that only shows how Christians misinterpreted or read Jesus’ words out of context.
Peace maker wrote:
Now, according to the Word of God: 1 Tim 6:15, Rev 17:14 and Rev 19:16, Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. |
In context, 1 Tim 6:15 was referring to God Almighty as “the King of Kings and Lord of Lords”, NOT Jesus Christ. So, if you read from 1 Tim 6:14, “to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen” – 1 Tim 6:14-16 Where do you see Jesus as the King of kings and Lord of the Lords in 1 Tim 6:14-16?? Really, no one has seen or can see Jesus ??? See what I mean when I said Christians like yourself, often misinterpreted or read their scriptures out of context.
Peace maker wrote:
Rev 17:14
They will make war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will triumph over them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and He will be accompanied by His called and chosen and faithful ones." |
The Book of Revelation was also believed to be written by John - you know that John who wrote the Book of John. John was the only man who equated Jesus to God Almighty – Mark, Matthew and Luke never did. If Jesus himself never claimed to be God or equal to God, why are you listening to the likes of John ?? I don’t think even Paul believed Jesus is God, although he may had believed Jesus died and rose again. In fact, the whole Christianity faith rests on this single belief of Paul, that Jesus died and rose again, NOT that Jesus is God.
Peace maker wrote:
The Quran also said Jesus the Messiah and and Messiah means saviour of the world and only God can be the saviour of the world then all muslims must reject their Qurans. |
Who told you ‘messiah’ means ‘saviour of the world’ ?? Can you quote me the verse which said that and I will explain to you how you had, as usual, misinterpreted that verse or had read that out of con-text.
Peace maker wrote:
Okay lets go just in sense of Prophet like lets compare Jesus to Muhammad just in a senseble way of comparing this two Prophets now, and see which one was the most peaceful man that walked on the face of the earth. Which one will you chose. |
How childish - it’s the kind of argument you can expect coming from kids who argue among themselves whose mother is more pretty !! Anyway, just to play along with you on this - if your understanding of ‘most peaceful man’ means one who will not fight or expect anyone to fight for him in any situation, then, you do not understand who Jesus is. Yes, Jesus, like all prophets of God are peaceful in nature, which simply mean fighting or to wage war will only be a last and an unavoidable option, in defense of God’s Name and Honor. This is evidenced as Jesus expected his disciples to fight and prevent the Jews from arresting him – they did not as they would not risk their lives for a man of God, which Jesus said, they would if he was not a man of God. After all, Jesus did say “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” – Matthew 10:34. Now, why would Jesus even uttered and displayed such an aggressive stance IF he is ‘the most peaceful man who had walked on the face of earth’ ??
|
|
Peace maker
Senior Member
Joined: 26 November 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 314
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 June 2018 at 6:42am |
Jerrymyers. How childish - it’s the kind of argument you can expect coming from kids who argue among themselves whose mother is more pretty !!
Anyway, just to play along with you on this - if your understanding of ‘most peaceful man’ means one who will not fight or expect anyone to fight for him in any situation, then, you do not understand who Jesus is. Yes, Jesus, like all prophets of God are peaceful in nature, which simply mean fighting or to wage war will only be a last and an unavoidable option, in defense of God’s Name and Honor. This is evidenced as Jesus expected his disciples to fight and prevent the Jews from arresting him – they did not as they would not risk their lives for a man of God, which Jesus said, they would if he was not a man of God. After all, Jesus did say “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” – Matthew 10:34. Now, why would Jesus even uttered and displayed such an aggressive stance IF he is ‘the most peaceful man who had walked on the face of earth’ ?? The sword is the word of God so don't run away like a child stand your man, who was the most peaceful Jesus or Muhammad? Muhammad phisically use his sword against his peaceful enemies. Muslim were always speedy to find a wee bity fault in Jesus but Muhammad is most perfect man that walk on the face of this earth. Same as the jews, Pilate ask them who do chose? they chose Barabas the murderer to be freed and Jesus to be crucified, now they the muslims chose Muhammad instead of Jesus, lo but we (mulims) love Jesus very much more than the Christians so throw away the Quran. such an aggressive stance How many wars did Jesus led in his live time can you tell I can only count to zero nothing not a single agression from him even when they killed Jesus innocently. Okay then you tell me what is meaning of Messiah and who is the Messiah in context?
|
|
2Acts
Senior Member
Joined: 22 March 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 143
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 June 2018 at 1:39am |
JerryMyers wrote:
My apologies for the very late reply. Had to do some business travels abroad the last few weeks and now it’s the month of Ramadan. So, again, my apologies for the late reply. Anyway, let’s go through what you have written -
2Acts wrote:
Hello Jerry Myers.
I must say for someone who does not believe the Bible to be reliable with a mix of truth and lies you do seem fond of quoting bible verses. |
Hello 2Acts,
you obviously are so forgetful or just do not read my comments. Let me reiterate it again to you - we Muslims only quote the Bible when we WANT TO CORRECT your lack of understanding to your own scripture, NOT because we love to quote your Bible. Comprante ?
2Acts wrote:
You are wrong where you say it was Christians that said Jesus is equal to God. Jesus Himself said in John 10.30 “I and The Father are One”. |
See what I mean about your lack of understanding of your own Bible ?
Jesus was NOT claiming to be God when he said “I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). When we read this in context, Jesus was saying that he and God are one in purpose. Earlier, in John 5:30, Jesus implied that he and God are one in purpose when he said “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”. Anyone who said I seek not my own will but the will of God IS a true servant of God and he and God are one in purpose and mission.
Moreover, if Jesus meant to say he’s God when he said “I and the Father are one” then Jesus must be asking God to make all his followers Gods or equal to God too when he said “I pray that they will all be one, JUST AS YOU AND I ARE ONE …..”- (John 17:21). “JUST AS YOU AND I ARE ONE” is obviously a reference to Jesus’ earlier statement “I and the Father are one”. Can you understand now ??
2Acts wrote:
You ask why would Muslims need to refer to the Bible as a Book that’s a mixture of truth and lies ? I don’t know. However that’s your problem to work out. You tell me why your Quran tells you to refer to the Bible when at the same time Muslims believe its not trust worthy. Muslims don’t seem sure about what to believe ! |
The Quran never told the Muslims today to refer to the Bible - the Quran was informing Muhammad if the Jews and Christians (in Muhammad’s time) doubt about the Message he brings from God, then they should refer to their own scriptures, which have the same basic Message. As I said, why would Muslims today need to refer to the Bible which contains a mixture of truth and lies ?
2Acts wrote:
Regarding Original Sin you are only partly correct in your definition of sin. “Sin” is actually a state of imperfection that falls short of Gods perfection. It is more than just disobedience as you say.
It is a imperfect state of being. In fact the Bible states the whole creation is in a state of sin and the whole of creation is under a curse –Roman 8.18 -22 and Genesis 3.17. The idea of the curse is further developed where the Bible presents Adam as the first man, and gives the Lord Jesus Christ the curious title of ‘the last Adam’ (1 Corinthians 15:45). All of the verses I provided corroborate this. Psalm 51.5 refer to life being brought forth in an environment iniquity and sin. |
Sin is NOT a state of imperfection, sin is an act of disobeying God. A state can only be corrected or amended, not forgiven – only an act (of disobedience) can be forgiven. How can you forgive a ‘state of imperfection’ ?? Don’t listen to Paul, listen to Jesus.
2Acts wrote:
You state man has a choice to sin or not and it boils down to the strength of our faith to obey God or not. Im sure you will admit that in your life and in all of our lives there is a predisposition to do not what we know to be right. No matter how many Salahs you re-cite will ever change that. |
You said ‘to do not what we know to be right’ ?? Shouldn’t you be doing what you know to be right instead of ‘to do NOT what we know to be right’ ?? No wonder you think Jesus is God !
2Acts wrote:
You need to read Ephesians 2.2 -3 more fully. “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.” |
You need to quote the sayings of Jesus, NOT of someone else like Paul. Moreover, it said ‘dead in your transgressions and sins, which you used to live when you followed…..’, NOT ‘BORN WITH transgressions and sins, which you INHERITED…..'.
2Acts wrote:
Again it talks the ways of the world being sinful and about a power of sin in the world more powerful than us making simple choices. It actually talks about the power of Satan influencing mankind to sin. |
Yes, it talks about the power of Satan INFLUENCING mankind TO SIN, meaning Satan objective is to influence you to sin, BUT you have a choice to resist him or not.
2Acts wrote:
Regarding Proverbs 22.15 foolishness falls short Gods perfection and is “sin”. And the word for “folly” here is 'ivveleth which actually implies impiety or evil. Proverbs 22.15 implies this state of sin is bound up in the heart of children. |
'Impiety of sin’ simply means lack of piety. Lack of piety is caused by lack of faith and lack of faith is caused by the inability to understand or comprehend God’s Message and inability to comprehend is normally found in children. So ??
2Acts wrote:
You are wrong about Genesis 8.21 where you say evil began with youth. It states the “ground” itself was cursed. The ground that supports all life. |
That’s a figurative of speech. An evil man can be said THAT evil that even the ground he walked on is cursed. That does not mean you cannot walk on the same ground he had walked on or that you are cursed too if you walked on the same ground he walked. The problem with Christians today is that they took most of the verses in its literal sense and thus they missed the true message of those verses.
2Acts wrote:
Regarding Psalm 14.2-3 you need to understand it in the context of the Bible as a whole and in the context of my explanations above. People are made in the image of God. People are partly divine. However ALL of mankind have become corrupt because as I said earlier the curse that is over the world. People are born into a cursed world and become further corrupted with life. All verses are to be read in literary context, not out of context as you tend to do. |
People are made in the image of God means man is created perfect, NOT partly divine. What does ‘partly divine’ even mean ?? Are you saying you are ‘partly divine’ too because you think you are in the image of God ?? All verses are to be read in literary context, not out of context as you tend to do.
2Acts wrote:
Isaiah 6:8 is another example of the plurality of God.
Regarding the verses already mentioned, lets discuss them further. Plurality is found in Isaiah 6.8. “And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” (plural!) … Isaiah 6:8. |
Let me give you a tip in understanding the Old Testament – In the OT, God Almighty is also referred to as ‘LORD’ but, as you can see, it’s spelled to as 'LORD' (all CAPITAL letters). So, when you read the OT and come across ‘LORD’, its a reference to God Almighty, and when you come across ‘Lord’ (only the ‘L’ was capitalized and the rest not capitalized), it’s a reference to a human ‘lord’, such as a king or a rabbi, not God Almighty. So, in Isaiah 6:8 which you mentioned, it’s NOT a reference to the Almighty God, BUT a reference to a human ‘Lord’ such as a king, a rabbi, or someone who was highly respected and looked upon as a leader. In Isaiah 6:3, the ‘LORD’ is a reference to God Almighty. Also see Isaiah 42 where God Almighty is referred as ‘LORD’ (all CAPITAL letters).
2Acts wrote:
Regarding the person identified in Isaiah 42.1 it is essentially a Messianic verse that implies an earthly ruler with divine qualities. This becomes apparent when read in the context of the whole chapter and other Messianic verses in Isaiah and elsewhere. For the purposes of our argument however it implies a plurality or ex-tension of God into an earthly ruler with divine attributes. |
No earthly ruler ever has divine qualities or attributes, that is, if your understanding of divine qualities means that earthly ruler is equal to God. As I have said before “There’s no earthly ruler with divine qualities, not even Jesus. Why do think Jesus said “I, by myself can do nothing“ ??”
2Acts wrote:
You are wrong about Mathew 3.17 as referring to a servant. The word used in the Greek is “Huios” which means “Son” not servant as you claim. While “Huios / Son ” is used in other con-texts it means Son in the general context of the offspring of men, and in a wider sense, a descendant, or one of the posterity of someone, and in this sense, of God The Father. |
Matthew 3:17 is a direct reference to Isaiah 42:1, where the term ‘servant’ was used instead of ‘son’. As I have said many times, ‘s/Son’ is synonymous to ‘servant’ in the scripture. S/son of God simply means S/servant of God.
2Acts wrote:
Regarding Matthew 12:18. This verse is prophetic and in reference to the earthly but divine ruler referred to in Isaiah 42.14 which I have discussed above. But anyway read on. After Je-sus heals a demon possessed dumb and blind man … “All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” Mat 12:23. The Jews themselves were expecting a Messianic figure being the “son of David which is part of the basis to the Messianic Jewish / Christian doctrine of “Sonship”.
Have a good read of Mark 14.61 Jerry Myers and read on to verse 64. First Jesus states he is the Son of the Blessed One (in this context an exclusive Title) , then he refers to himself as the figure of God who will return to judge the world in Daniel 7.13 -15, and then the Chief Priests condemn him to death for the blasphemy of making himself equal to God. |
So ?? Jesus was simply stating that he is the servant of God. As I have said many times, ‘s/Son’ is synonymous to ‘servant’ in the scripture. S/son of God simply means S/servant of God.
2Acts wrote:
Regarding Luke 22:66 it needs to be read in the con-text of Mark 14 as discussed above, and the same argument holds First Jesus states he is the Son of the Blessed One (in this context an exclusive Title) , then he refers to himself as the figure of God who will return to judge the world in Daniel 7.13 -15, and then the Chief Priests condemn him to death for the blasphemy of making himself equal to God. Matthew 26:63 says the same thing. |
Well, you got that right - “then the Chief Priests condemn him to death for the blasphemy of making himself equal to God”. In other words, the Jews were looking for ways to kill him and they decided to FALSELY convict him of blasphemy, that is, they accused him of claiming to be THE Son of God when he never ever claimed to be one. In fact, in Luke 22:70, Jesus said it was ONLY them (the Jews) who said he was (THE Son of God) – “You said that I am”.
2Acts wrote:
Jesus himself said: “I have come down from heaven.” John 6:38; 8:23. |
Sure, because he was created by God who is in heaven.
2Acts wrote:
Did Jesus claimed to be “the son of God”? Yes. Why was he was accused of blasphemy ? Read the Gospels … ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.’(John 10:31-38) … |
Jesus NEVER claimed to be THE Son of God. Who was saying ‘‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God’ ?? It was the Jews. The Jews knew Jesus is just a man, but because they wanted to kill him, they FALSELY accused him of blasphemy, a crime which carried the death penalty. In Luke 22:70, Jesus denied he was THE Son of God when he said “You said that I am”. In other words, Jesus was saying he was NOT the one who said that BUT they (the Jews) are the ones who are saying that.
2Acts wrote:
Later, before Pontius Pilate, “The Jews insisted, ‘We have a law, and according to that law He must die, because He claimed to be the Son of God’” (John 19:7). Why would His claiming to be the Son of God be considered blasphemy and be worthy of a death sentence? The Jewish leaders understood exactly what Jesus meant by the phrase “Son of God.” To be the Son of God is to be of the same nature as God. The Son of God is “of God.” The claim to be of the same nature as God—to in fact be God—was blasphemy to the Jewish leaders; therefore, they demanded Jesus’ death, in keeping with Leviticus 24:15.
As well as Jesus admitting he is The Son of God he also referred to Himself as The Son of Man” referencing himself to Daniel 7 where he will return to judge the world. Not a mere man obviously! |
Again, Jesus NEVER claimed he is THE Son of God neither did he came to die for your sins. If, according to Christians’ understanding, Jesus is God and he came to die for the sins of mankind, then the Jews and the Romans who killed him are doing the right and noble thing and should be rewarded in heaven for ‘killing’ Jesus !! Moreover, if Jesus came to die for your sin, he would NOT have said, “As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God”. Instead, Jesus would have said “As it is, you are right to kill me for I came to die for your sins”. Well, he never said that, did he ??
2Acts wrote:
Finally you state that if I want to convince anyone that God is a ‘3-in-1’ God, I need to show the words of God saying He is that or the words of Jesus saying that, not the words of other people. This argument of yours is bordering on what is called a “straw man” logical fallacy ( a common poorly formed argument based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actu-ally refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent in the first place.) |
Well, having said all that, you STILL have not shown me the words of God saying He is a ‘3-in-1’ God, or the words of Jesus saying that ??
2Acts wrote:
If want to follow this line of reasoning, let me ask you. If Mohamad is the “Comforter” then you need to show from your scripture that Mohamad said, and NOT other people said, or implied, that he is the comforter as Jesus promised. Can you?? |
Sure I can, as God Almighty said so in number of places in the Quran –
[Remember] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, "O Children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of God to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me’ – Quran 61:6
[Note: Notice that Jesus first said he's a messenger of God, then spoke of (another) messenger who will come after him. In John 14:16, Jesus also spoke of 'another comforter' - is there another Spirit of God if the Comforter is the Spirit of God ??]
[And thus,] your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed, taught to him by one intense in strength – Quran 53:2-5
[Note: This is a direct reference to John 16:13 – “when he, the Spirit of Truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak of himself; but whatever he will hear, [that] he will speak, and he will show you things to come."]
“The Trustworthy Spirit has brought it down upon your heart, [O Muhammad] - that you may be of the warners in a clear Arabic language. And indeed, it is [mentioned] in the Scriptures of former peoples. And has it not been a sign to them that it is recognized by the scholars of the Children of Israel? – Quran 26:193-197
[Note: ‘The Trustworthy Spirit’ is a direct reference to the ‘The Spirit of Truth’ as mentioned by Jesus in John 16:13]
2Acts wrote:
Your attempt of an exegesis( critical explanation or interpretation of a text) where you said “the criteria truth in my scripture are the truths of those in agreement with what God or His prophets or what Jesus himself had said is correct for basic Christian exegesis, but my point stands - you still have not adequately determined your Muslim criteria for determining which is truth and which is lies and until you do so you have no authority to quote from the Bible at all and pick and choose what simply suits you. |
The criteria for Muslims to determine what is truth and what are lies is simple - the truths are what that did not contradict the Quran, which is the literal words of God Almighty.
2Acts wrote:
Your challenge to show from my scripture that Jesus, and not what other people, said or implied, that he came to die for the sin of all mankind is again also bordering on the straw man logical fallacy . Any way Jesus often talked in parables but John 8:12, 12.24 and 2.19 are all examples of what Jesus said about dying for the world.
Again I challenge you. If want to follow this line of reasoning, let me ask you. If Mohamad is the “Comforter” then you need to show from your scripture that Mohamad said, and NOT other people said, or im-plied, that he is the comforter as Jesus promised. Can you ?? |
I just did above, that is, if you read them. I am still waiting for you to show me where God Almighty said or implied that He’s a ‘3-in-1’’ God or Jesus said that he’s part of a triune God ?? Can you ???
2Acts wrote:
You state the violent directives and verses in the Quran need to be understood in the context of the times. In saying this you are implying the Quran is not a literal, eternal, universal, absolute message for all people for all time ? ! |
Quran, like the Bible, contains stories, God’s Commands and lessons. The stories told should be understood in the context of the times, the lessons and God’s Commands are universal and eternal.
2Acts wrote:
Besides the point to all of this is how can Mohammad have been The Comforter” when he was so inclined to wield the sword, torture his enemies and instruct his men to take women captive sex slaves. You have not yet answered this question? |
Where did you learn that Muhammad torture his enemies ?? From anti-Islam websites which quote 'hadiths'?? If you want to know about the true Islam, learn the Quran, not from anti-Islam websites.
Again, I have answered as to why Muhammad is the Comforter Jesus spoke of. However, I am still waiting for you to show me where God Almighty said or implied that He’s a ‘3-in-1’’ God or Jesus said that he’s part of a triune God ?? Can you, without quoting the words of other people ???
2Acts wrote:
Violence in the Bible ? you will only find violence in the Old Testament not the Christian New Testament . |
You mean OT is not part of the Bible ??!!
2Acts wrote:
The reason violence is found in the Old Testament is that the Old Testament is only a partial revelation of God. Jesus as the final revelation and he preached Jesus preached to “love ones enemies”. |
Jesus is NOT a revelation, Jesus is a prophet of God.
2Acts wrote:
In Luke 22.36 Jesus was not encouraging His disciples to defend themselves through violence, which would have contradicted His previous instruction, in Matthew 5:38-39, against harming others, In Luke 9:56, and In Matthew 5:44 “…Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” |
No one said Jesus was encouraging his disciples to fight for the love of fighting. In John 18:36, Jesus did expect his disciples to fight and stop the Jews from capturing him. Go and read to understand John 18:36.
2Acts wrote:
Why did Jesus instruct his disciples to get swords? To assure the fulfilment of the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12. He was to be considered a lawbreaker or transgressor. |
So now, Jesus did instruct his disciples to get swords ?? What happen to your earlier comment “In Luke 22.36 Jesus was not encouraging His disciples to defend themselves through violence, which would have contradicted His previous instruction, in Matthew 5:38-39, against harming others,In Luke 9:56, and In Matthew 5:44 “…Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” ??? Do you always jump from one ‘understanding’ to the other ‘understanding’ according to your whims and fancies when it suits you ??
2Acts wrote:
You say if one never spoke of fighting it does not mean one doesn’t believe in fighting. Jesus never spoke of UFOs or flying pigs either. |
To borrow your own words - This is actually faulty reasoning and circular logic on your behalf and is also known as a circular logical fallacy (where the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with).
2Acts wrote:
and besides he did talk about fighting. He said to love our enemies (Mathew 5.43) and to put our swords down and those who use the sword will die by the sword. (Mathew 26.52). |
The fact that Jesus did talk about fighting AND at the same time, he said to love your enemies means Jesus believe in a peaceful and loving relationship with mankind BUT, he also believed in fighting when fighting is the only logical option to defend your rights.
2Acts wrote:
Regarding John 18.38 You have totally twisted and misread the verse. He is saying because His kingdom is not of this world he does not expect his followers to fight. You need to read it properly and stop twisting verses to suit your own world view. |
Well, that’s John 18:36, NOT John 18:38.
Let’s see who have totally twisted and misread the verse. John 18:36 reads –
“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
You said because his kingdom is not of this world, he does not expect his servant to fight for him. You either cannot understand what you read or you can, but, you have totally twisted and misread the verse – and I will tell you why -
First, let’s understand that his servants (his disciples) did not fight to prevent his arrest – that’s a fact. Second, because they did nothing, Jesus said his kingdom is NOT of this world, BUT if it were (meaning if it were of this world), his servants would fight to prevent his arrest. In other words, his servants did not fight to prevent his arrest because he’s NOT a man who seek earthly desires (not of this world) BUT he’s a man who only seek to please God Almighty. So, it’s not “because his kingdom is not of this world, he does not expect his servant to fight for him” but rather, Jesus DID EXPECT his servants to fight and prevent his arrest BUT because he’s not of this world, that is,he did not seek earthly desires, his servants did nothing to prevent him from being arrested by the Jews. So, who’s the one who’s twisting and misreading the verse ??
|
You are wrong on the point of Muslims
quoting the Bible to support Muslim arguments. Truthnowcomes original post and
quote of Matthew 6:9, 1John.2: 1 and John 14.16 at the start of this thread being an example. He was not quoting it to correct Christian
understanding but rather he was quoting it to build his own Muslim case of
Mohamad as the “comforter”. When a Muslim argument is based on inferring a Christian scripture to be
truth (as Truthnowcomes) has done in this instance they create an unsound foundation to their argument due to
not adequately determining criteria for “truth and lies.” And until Muslims do so they have no
authority to quote from the Bible at all by simply picking and choosing what
suits. And no the circular argument logical fallacy of “truth being what lines
up with the Quran is not good enough.”
You are not correct with John 10.30
in Jesus saying Jesus and God were one in “purpose”. Cross reference to John
15.5 where Jesus said "I am the vine; you are the branches.
If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you
can do nothing… Obviously this is about being one in substance, not merely
one in purpose.
Once again your quote of John 5.30
has been taken out of context. Read back to John 5.24 through to 5.30 and you
will note Jesus claiming far more than just being “one in purpose”. He actually
claims he will judge the earth as Son of God and raise the dead. He takes this
further in John 11.25 where he said "I am the resurrection and the life.
The one who believes in me will live, even though they die… Obviously far
more here thanjust being “one in purpose”, but rather being one in substance.
And yes you are partly correct in
saying “anyone who said I seek not my own will but the will of God IS a true
servant of God and he and God are one in purpose and mission. Only partly
correct because they will become “sons” (small “s”) of God (in substance,
not just purpose) through adoption though The Son (Capital S ) of God.
Again you are partly correct in
saying “ if Jesus meant to say he’s God when he said “I and the Father are one”
then Jesus must be asking God to make all his followers Gods or equal to God
too when he said “I pray that they will all be one, Just as you and I are one
(John 17.21).” As stated above you are only partly correct because his
followers will become “sons” (small “s”) of God (in substance, not just
purpose) through adoption though The Son (Capital S ) of God. To clarify this further when Jesus
quoted Psalm 82.6 (John 10.34.) … Jesus answered them, "Isn't it written
in your law, I said, you are gods? That’s why it should not be so
difficult for people to understand the divinity of Jesus as The Son of
God. You also Jerry can become a “son of
God”. Suras 5:46. S. 57:27, 10.
94, 5:48, 3:3 make it clear. The Injeel (Gospels are God inspired and
true and its enough of an indirect injunction for any Muslim (not just
validating for Christians and Jews) to regard them seriously. And just
highlighting the Muslim confusion on this point further, is the fact that the
Injeel is not actually the same basic message as the Quran as you claim. Good
luck sorting out the “truth and lies”! Your definition of sin being not a
state of imperfection but rather act of disobeying God is a Muslim definition.
That is not relevant to this discussion as it is the Christian view of sin that
is being discussed.
You remark no wonder I think Jesus
was God. No, God the Son actually !
Regarding Ephesians 2.2 the point
being the ruler of the kingdom of the air (Satan) is at work. It is not a 50
/50 playing field where simple choices determine righteousness. The cards are
stacked. But any way as it’s the words of Jesus
you require in Luke 11.13 he said-
If you then, who are
evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the
Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him? (Lk 11:13)
The Greek expression poneroi
hyparchontes. Poneroi is defined in the Greek lexicon as “bad, of a bad nature
or condition.” And hyparchontes is translated as “from the very beginning” or
“being inherently.” Of coarse we all make choices around
sin. However the Christian view of original sin (which is what you wanted
evidence for and of which I have adequately provide) clarifies there is a power
of sin in the world that influences humanity. Its not a straight 50 / 50 decision.
Also as Jesus also validated the Old
Testament the Old Testament verses are worthy of further discussion.
The words “Ivveleth” in Proverbs
22.15 is clear in its context. A lack of piety is evil. And as Proverbs 22.15
implies, it is bound up in the heart of children. Your interpretation is simply
rambling conjecture departing from the inherent meaning of the verse.
Regarding Genesis 8.21 again your
interpretation is simply rambling conjecture departing from the inherent
meaning of the verse. The verse is clear. A curse resides on the earth. It appears everything is a figure of speech
for you to the point reality can be anything you choose.
In terms of people made in the image
of God it means partly divine. Genesis 1.27,Jesus quoted Psalm 82.6 when he
said in John 10.34. Jesus answered them,
"Isn't it written in your law, I said, you are gods? That’s why
it should not be so difficult for people to understand the divinity of Jesus as
The Son of God. Am I partly divine ?
Yes. All humans are, as opposed to other animals. Humans are distinct from
animals in that we are made in the image of God while animals are not. But the original
point to all of this is Psalm 14.2-3 where people are born into a cursed world
and become further corrupted with life.
Regarding Isaiah 6.8 you have
completely missed or evaded the point. The point the plurality of God. “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”
(plural!) … Isaiah 6:8.
Your points about Lord with small L
or large L would be far clearer if you were to develop the Hebrew where the
different terms of Lord being “Yahweh” and “adonai.” However that is best left
for further discussion as the primary point of discussion here being about the
plurality of God.
Actually you are wrong when you say
no earthly ruler ever has divine qualities or attributes. There is One who
perfectly fits with Isaiah 42.1, that being Christ Jesus, The Messiah. His life
fits perfectly with Isaiah 42. You tell me who Isaiah 42 refers to. Certainly
not Mohamad that’s for sure.
I repeat you are wrong about Mathew
3.17 as referring to a servant. The word used in the Greek is “Huios” which
means “Son” not servant as you claim. While “Huios / Son ” is used in other
con-texts it means Son in the general context of the offspring of men, and in a
wider sense, a descendant, or one of the posterity of someone, and in this
sense, of God The Father.
In terms of Luke 22.66 you claim the
Chief Priests “ falsely “ convict him of blasphemy. You need to prove your
claim. The verses are clear, the Chief Priests genuinely believed what they
were doing was convicting a blasphemer. You need to prove differently from the
scriptures as opposed to vague conjecture on your part.
And in terms of your statement he
never claimed to be The Son of God it is
clear in Luke 22.66 and Mark 14 He said he is the Son of the Blessed One (in
this context an exclusive Title) , and he refers to himself as the figure of
God who will return to judge the world in Daniel 7.13 -15,
With your point on Luke 22.70 it needs
to be understood in the context of the whole story. Jesus knew the Sanhedrin
were mocking and cynical and because of this throughout this whole incident he
refused to answer them directly. If you cross reference to Mathew 27.11 -14 you
will see the same lack of directness. However the point being that both Pilate
and the Sanhedrin all took it as a lack of denial from Jesus that he was making
Himself equal to God. It was enough for them all to have him condemned.
Regarding John 6:38; 8:23 Jesus
himself said: “I have come down from heaven.”. So when you say he was created
by God who is in heaven, it means – He came down from heaven. Non created as
humans are on the earth. Not created like a son of Adam. John 6.38 and 8.23
imply pre-eminence John in his gospel consistently stresses the preeminent
nature of Jesus as the preeminent Word of God throughout his gospel. You need
to stick with the literary context and read the whole Gospel and you will see
this for yourself.
There is some truth in what you say
in that if Jesus came to die for the
sins of mankind, then the Jews and the Romans who killed him were doing the
noble thing and should be rewarded in heaven for him. In a way they were
conforming themselves to Gods will and it wont be held against them. Jesus
himself said on the cross they are forgiven as they do not know what they do.
And if you look at Pilates attitude through out the trial he comes across as
righteous.
Jesus was very clear in Mathew 16.21
that he must die as per Gods purpose. He made it clear to those who were of
understanding. As I have said in terms of the Chief Priests he refused any precise
clarification to them due to their mocking cynicism.
]I asked you to show from your scripture
that Mohamad said, and NOT other people said, or implied, that he is the
comforter as Jesus promised. You have not adequately done so from the Quran
verses you have quoted. There is nothing in where you have quoted from the Quran
where either Allah or Mohamad directly said “ I, Mohamad am the Comforter as
promised by Jesus”. Considering Mohamad came after Jesus it would have been reasonable
for him to directly identify himself as “The Comforter”. So until you provide
direct evidence that Mohamad said this all of your arguments requiring direct
words from Jesus to do with the trinity or original sin are logical fallacy of
special pleading.
Its also interesting to note you have
contradicted yourself in your motive for quoting Bible verses. Up to now your
rationale for quoting the bible is to “ -
only quote the Bible when we want to correct your lack of understanding
to your own scripture.” However just like Truthnowcome you have used John 14:16
and John 16:13 to support an Islamic proposition ! As I said you have
contradicted yourself plus because you have not yet identified how to determine
the difference in “truth and lies” in the Bible you have no authority to quote
from the Bible for your argument. And don’t give me the circular logic fallacy
argument that “what ever lines up with the Quran”. The circular logic failing
of this argument has already been pointed out to you.
You claim I have not shown you the
words of God saying He is a ‘3-in-1’ God, or the words of Jesus saying that. As
I have just said in the light you have not done so with Mohamad saying he was
the comforter, this is special pleading on your behalf. But just to play your
game I repeat the ‘trinity” is not
directly mentioned in the Bible and is a mere doctrine only. However Jesus
consistently validated the Old Testament and it is adequately attested to in
the Old Testament verses I have provided.
You say the criteria for Muslims to
determine what is truth and what are lies are what that does not contradict the
Quran. Once again you fall into the pit of the logical fallacy of circular
reasoning .ie. ( the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with).
You need to do better than this. My point stands - you still have not
adequately determined your Muslim criteria for determining which is “truth and
which is lies”. Until Muslims do so they have no authority to quote from the
Bible and simply pick and choose what suits.
You say the Quran, like the Bible,
contains stories, God’s Commands and lessons that should be understood in the
context of the times. While you claim these are universal and eternal however
you are wrong. Christians do not believe the Bible to be a direct and word for
word literal Word of God. Rather Christians see the Bible as the “inspired” Word
of God written by men in the cultural and historical context in which the
writings were produced. It is the broad principles of revelation that are timeless
and eternal. That is not how Muslims see the Quran. Muslims see the Quran as a word
for word, direct and literal recitation of Gods word in absolute form. Because
you state the violent directives and verses in the Quran need to be understood
in the context of the times you are implying the Quran is not a literal,
eternal, universal, absolute message for all people for all time.
You ask where did I learn that
Muhammad tortured his enemies. As I have said it is attested to in Sahih
al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261. And don’t try to say the Sahih
hadith are not reliable. Hadith and Sahih hadith in particular have been a
primary source of Islamic jurisprudence for centuries. So don’t try to evade
the point by saying hadith is not reliable.
Regarding violence in the Old
Testament, you ask is not the Old Testament part of the Bible? As I explained
the Old Testament is only a partial revelation of Gods nature. Jesus as
revealed in the New Testament is the final revelation and Jesus preached to
“love ones enemies”. This command to love is the final and full revelation of
God.
Christians believe Jesus to be a
“revelation”. But whether you believe him to be or not is besides the point.
The fact remains his message was about “loving ones enemy”. You will not find
anywhere where he ordered his followers to violence.
Regarding Luke 22.36 there is no contradiction
with Mathew 5.38, Luke 9.56 and Mathew 5.54. The reason being as I already
explained to you, but I will explain it to you again. In 22.26 Jesus instructed
his disciples to get swords simply to assure the fulfilment of the prophecy in
Isaiah 53:12 as per the prophecy he was to be considered a lawbreaker or
transgressor.
As a side note you should read Luke
22.36 in the context of Isaiah 53. You will note Jesus claims to be the Messiah
who will … he will bear their iniquities
... bear the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors ... He obviously was more than just a mere
prophet.
You were the one who started the
faulty line of reasoning (fallacy of omission) by stating because Jesus never
spoke of fighting it does not mean one doesn’t believe in fighting. My mention
of UFOs and flying pigs was simply illustrating the futility of
your logic through satire. You need to take responsibility for your faulty
logic or keep a better track of your posts.
Have a good read of what I said Jesus
talked about fighting when he said to love our enemies (Mathew 5.43). you are
either not reading my replies properly or again being evasive.
Lets break your reasoning down
regarding John 18.36 (yes 36, not 38, a mere typo). This will be a helpful
exercise to illustrate your bizarre and disingenuous logic. You get things correct
through to your second point where you state because they did nothing, Jesus
said his kingdom is NOT of this world. Here your logic deviates through a
logical fallacy of a non Sequitur –(meaning literally, "It does not
follow”). Healthy logic dictates they didn’t fight because Jesus never set an
example and gave them instruction to not fight.
Then you partly recover again in
stating BUT if it were (his kingdom), his servants would fight to prevent his
arrest. My advice Jerry is forget the “BUT “ as we all know anything after but
is ‘BS’. Your use of hypotheticals are one of your techniques that lead your arguments
into disingenuous confusion.
Any way. Unfortunately, you then go
on to use a triple negative as a means to confuse your audience (and yourself)
even further, in stating – it’s not “because his kingdom is not
of this world, he does not expect his servant to fight for him ,and then
you finish with a fantastic backward flip of logical gymnastics in saying- but
rather, Jesus DID EXPECT his servants to fight and prevent his arrest.
Excellent Jerry! A beautiful fallacy of ambiguity. Well done ! Really, if you
are to be taken seriously in the area of apologetics you need to be doing a lot
better than this. If indeed Im correct and you purposely employ these smoke
screen tactics to confuse, mislead and twist then you have no place on this
forum. Just read John 36 honestly, and you will plainly see he is saying
because His kingdom is not of this world he does not expect his followers to
fight. Its quite simple really. Just quit the denial, evasion and riddles.
|
|
2Acts
Senior Member
Joined: 22 March 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 143
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 June 2018 at 1:42am |
Niblo wrote:
JerryMyers wrote:
A good understanding of this is Matthew 22:44 – “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?”. |
As-Salāmu ‘alaykum, brother.
As you know, Matthew 22:24 is taken from Psalm 110.
In the Hebrew Bible this psalm contains two distinct words: יהוה (YHWH) and אֲדֹנִי (adoni). These do not have the same meaning. According to both Biblical and Modern Hebrew, the terms יהוה and אֲדֹנִי are neither connected nor related. The former is used only of God; while the latter is never used of God.
In the Septuagint, these two - quite separate and distinct - Hebrew terms are represented by the same Greek term kύριος, and therefore the distinction is erased.
You will know that Greek is an inflected language; this means that the form of certain words changes depending on how they are used in sentences.
Have a look at the following examples from the Septuagint (I have placed the correct Greek words in their correct places):
‘Now Abraam and Sarra were old, advanced in days, and menstruation had ceased to happen to Sarra. And Sarra laughed within herself, saying, “It has not yet happened to me up to the present, and my lord (kύριος) is rather old.” And the Lord (kύριος) said to Abraam, “Why is it that Sarra laughed within herself, saying, ‘Shall I then indeed give birth? But I have grown old?’ (Gn 18:11-13).
Here kύριος refers to both God and Abraham.
‘And Abigaia saw Dauid, and she hurried and alighted from the donkey and fell before Dauid on her face and did obeisance to him on the ground on his feet and said, “Upon me, my lord (kurie), be the injustice; do let your slave speak in your ears, and hear a word of your slave. Let not now my lord (kύριος) set his heart on this pestiferous person, for as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him, but I, your slave, did not see your lads whom you sent. And now, my lord (kurie), the Lord (kύριος) lives, and your life lives, since the Lord (kurios) restrained you from coming against innocent blood, and to save your hand for yourself, even now may your enemies and those who seek evil for my lord (kuriw) be like Nabal.’ (1 Sam. 25: 23-26).
Here kύριος in its original form – and its forms kurie and kuriw – refer to David; while kύριος, and its form kurios, both refer to God.
In the Tanakh, kύριος, and one or more of its forms, is also applied to others. For example:
‘Then the servant took ten camels from his lord’s (tou kuriou) camels and some of all his lord’s (tou kuriou) goods with himself, and when he had risen, he went to Mesopotamia to the city of Nachor.’ (Gn 24:10).
Here a form of kύριος (kuriou) refers to a servant’s master.
‘But if the master (kύριος) gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and children shall be his master’s (ton kurion), but he shall go out single.’ (Ex.21:4).
Here kύριος and another of its forms (kurion) refer to yet another ‘master’.
‘And Dauid said to him, “Whose are you, and where are you from?” And the Egyptian lad said, “I am a slave of an Amalekite man, and my master (kύριος) left me behind because I fell sick three days ago.’ (1 Sam. 30:13 20
Here kύριος refers to the slave’s master.
Summary:
When Psalm 110:1 was first written it was written in Hebrew - of course - and not in Greek; thus:
מזמור נאם יהוה לאדני שב לימיני עד-אשית איביך הדם לרגליך.
The unambiguous יהוה (YHWH) – used only of God; and equally unambiguous אדני (adoni) – never used of God; have been replaced – in the Septuagint – by kύριος and its related forms; words that are applied to both God and humans.
Put another way: two words that never bear the same meaning – that are not connected or related in any way – have been replaced by one that is ambiguous in its usage.
Christian translators and apologists have seized on this ambiguity in order to promote their theology.
|
Hello Niblo You are not correct that Adonai is
never used of God. Please see Genesis 18.27, Joshua 3:11, Isaiah 10.16 and
10.33 and Genesis 15:2. Adoni can refer to God as lord or a human as lord
depending on the context. YHWH is actually commonly connected
and related with the title “Adonai” - used with the divine name Yahweh as a
title of reverence for God serving as a substitute pronunciation of the
Tetragrammaton YHWH. When the Hebrew
reader came to these letters they always substituted in pronunciation the word
"‘ adhonay." Its vowels combined with the tetragrammaton form the
word "Yahweh (Yahweh)."
Also Im not sure how your assessment
of the Septuagint title kύριος significantly differ from the Hebrew אֲדֹנִי (adoni) ? As you
yourself said kύριος refers to both God and a human lord eg. Abraham ?
Have Christian translators and
apologists seized on this ambiguity in order to promote their theology? No. You
should note that for centuries Christian leaders have been trained and still
are in Hebrew and any ambiguity has always been clarified and have well
documented their rationale.
|
|
Placid
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 01 November 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 236
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 June 2018 at 8:42am |
|
Hi Truthnowcome.
I have been reading your topic and you have covered a lot of Scripture, however, when it is put together it can sometimes be confusing.
--- I see the conversation has strayed away from the Comforter, so I would like to bring it back to your subject.
Quote: TWO PERSONALITY
(1John.2: 1) “...we have an “advocate (comforter)” with the father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”
(John14: 26) “but the comforter which is the holy ghost...”
ONE IN HEAVEN
(John 14:16) “…I will pray to the father, and “he” shall give you another comforter that he may abide with you for ever.
(John 16:7) “Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is expedient for you that I go for if I go not away, the comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, I will send him unto you!”
In heaven:
(John 3: 13 kjv) “and no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is ‘in’ heaven.”
Jesus pbuh was the Son of man “ON” earth and he spoke about “another” Son of man which is “IN” heaven.
--- I believe we need to start at the beginning to understand what the Scripture says.
So we need to start with the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. (Immanuel means ‘God with us’)”
The fulfillment is in Matthew 1:22 This was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
--- It says in 2 corinthians 5:19 “That is that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.” --- So Immanuel referred to Christ, the Messiah.
Then we have the child that was born, where the angel of the Lord said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is [g]conceived (begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name [h]Jesus (Savior), for He will save His people from their sins.”
--- So there are these two; Jesus the Savior and Christ the Messiah. Jesus was born on earth, and Christ descended from heaven. --- Jesus was physical and Christ is a Spiritual Being, who could indwell the physical Jesus. --- Christ was ‘the Son of Man’ that came down from heaven.
To check Isaiah again we can look at 9:6 “For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder.”
--- The child that was born was Jesus, son of Mary. --- The Son that was given was Christ, the Son of Man.
Enough for now, we will look at the Scriptures that show this next time.
|
|
Placid
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 01 November 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 236
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 June 2018 at 11:02am |
|
Hi Truthnowcome,
To continue: --- Where does it say in the Scripture that Christ was the Son of Man?
There is this scene in the Book of Daniel 9:13 “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.
14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.”
If we look again at the first part of Isaiah 9:6 “For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder.”
--- The child that was born was Jesus, son of Mary. --- The Son that was given was Christ, the Son of Man.
I agree that Jesus was the Messenger of God, born on earth, He was sinless and was qualified to be the savior of sinners, --- but Jesus did not become the one described as the ‘Son of Man’ in Daniel, --- nor as many Christians teach, was Jesus the one who ‘had the government upon his shoulder,’ destined to sit on the throne of David.
--- Another thing to notice in the Scriptures is that up until the crucifixion, Christ occupied the body of Jesus, so they went through the crucifixion together. --- And the name Jesus Christ was regularly used. --- However, after the crucifixion the name changed in most cases to Christ Jesus, giving Christ the preeminence.
--- And it is taught this way in 1 Corinthians 15:3 "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by [a]Cephas (Peter), then by the apostles. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep (died)."
20 "But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have [d]fallen asleep (died in faith). 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all (believers) shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son (of Man Christ) Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.”
|
|
Tweet
