The Begotten Son of God

By Sami Zaatari

One rather strange and insulting verse we find in the Bible is that of John 3:16, which reads:

¹⁶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 

So as you can see, the verse says that God gave his begotten son, this is indeed strange, since begetting children is not an act done by God, because the word beget/begotten infers that this came about through sexual intercourse.

The word begotten that is used here is called monogenes {mon-og-en-ace'} in the Greek language. The basic definition of this word refers to daughters and sons in relation to their parents through sexual intercourse!

So basically when John 3:16 calls Jesus the only begotten son of God it actually means that God had sex and hence Jesus was begotten!

Lest a Christian claim I am twisting things, let us see the word 'monogenes' used again in the Bible, notice the context this time:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr011.html#17 - Hbr 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son],

So notice the word begotten (monogenes) is used here referring to Abraham's son! So therefore as you can see, in context the word monogenes refers to a son of a father which is created through the sexual act between a man and a women. So there is no escaping the fact that word monogenes which means begotten refers to a son or daughter which is produced through sexual intercourse, as you saw in Hebrews 11:17 it says that Abraham gave his only BEGOTTEN son referring to Ishmael, hence this word begotten refers to children produced through a sexual act. So my question is this, does the God of John 3:16 have sex?!

This verse is an insult to God, and Christians must either get rid of this blasphemous verse, or they should change the wording, and Christians should have no problem in changing the wording since many words and whole chapters in the Bible have been altered, changed, or even deleted! So Christians should have no problem in making a simple word change, this will be something normal for the Bible!

And I end this article with a lovely verse from the Quran which refutes such insults by the Bible:

YUSUFALI: He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;112.003

And indeed Allah Knows Best!

So as you can see, the verse says that God gave his begotten son, this is indeed strange, since begetting children is not an act done by God, because the word beget/begotten infers that this came about through sexual intercourse.

To us it looks like sexual intercorse. What does the word "beget" mean? You have to also use the word in context. Jesus was begotten because he was born INTO this world.

Buddyman...

Being begotten doesn't necessarily mean "born into" it does have reference to sexual intercourse the following will help you

beget

One entry found for beget. < name=entry =/cgi-bin/dictionary method=post>

< = value=beget name=hdwd>< = value=begotten name=listword>< = value=Dictionary name=book>

Main Entry: be�get javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?beget001.wav=beget'">
Pronunciation: bi-'get, bE-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): be�got javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?beget002.wav=begot'"> /-'g�t /; also be�gat javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?beget003.wav=begat'"> /-'gat/; be�got�ten javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?beget004.wav=begotten'"> /-'g�-t^&n /; or -got; -get�ting
Etymology: Middle English begeten, alteration of beyeten, from Old English bigietan -- more at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/get - GET
1 : to procreate as the father : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sire - SIRE
2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth
- be�get�ter noun

procreate

One entry found for procreate. < name=entry =/cgi-bin/dictionary method=post>

< = value=procreate name=hdwd>< = value=procreate name=listword>< = value=Dictionary name=book>

Main Entry: pro�cre�ate javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?procre02.wav=procreate'">
Pronunciation: -"At
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -at�ed; -at�ing
Etymology: Latin procreatus, past participle of procreare, from pro- forth + creare to create -- more at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pro- - PRO- , http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/create - CREATE
transitive verb : to beget or bring forth (offspring) : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/propagate - PROPAGATE
intransitive verb : to beget or bring forth offspring : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reproduce - REPRODUCE
- pro�cre�ation javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?procre03.wav=procreation'"> /"prO-krE-'A-sh&n/ noun
- pro�cre�ative javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?procre04.wav=procreative'"> /'prO-krE-"A-tiv/ adjective
- pro�cre�ator javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?procre05.wav=procreator'"> /-"A-t&r/ noun

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/procreate - http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/procreate

 

Any questions?

khairullah wrote: The Begotten Son of God   By Sami Zaatari   One rather strange and insulting verse we find in the Bible is that of John 3:16, which reads:   16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.    So as you can see, the verse says that God gave his begotten son, this is indeed strange, since begetting children is not an act done by God, because the word beget/begotten infers that this came about through sexual intercourse.   The word begotten that is used here is called monogenes {mon-og-en-ace'} in the Greek language. The basic definition of this word refers to daughters and sons in relation to their parents through sexual intercourse!   So basically when John 3:16 calls Jesus the only begotten son of God it actually means that God had sex and hence Jesus was begotten!   Lest a Christian claim I am twisting things, let us see the word 'monogenes' used again in the Bible, notice the context this time:   http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr011.html#17 - Hbr 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son],   So notice the word begotten (monogenes) is used here referring to Abraham's son! So therefore as you can see, in context the word monogenes refers to a son of a father which is created through the sexual act between a man and a women. So there is no escaping the fact that word monogenes which means begotten refers to a son or daughter which is produced through sexual intercourse, as you saw in Hebrews 11:17 it says that Abraham gave his only BEGOTTEN son referring to Ishmael, hence this word begotten refers to children produced through a sexual act. So my question is this, does the God of John 3:16 have sex?!   This verse is an insult to God, and Christians must either get rid of this blasphemous verse, or they should change the wording, and Christians should have no problem in changing the wording since many words and whole chapters in the Bible have been altered, changed, or even deleted! So Christians should have no problem in making a simple word change, this will be something normal for the Bible!   And I end this article with a lovely verse from the Quran which refutes such insults by the Bible:   YUSUFALI: He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;112.003   And indeed Allah Knows Best!

On a lighter note, I would say that John is confirming that he was not the real son of God. If God really had a son, His own son then John would have said that God gave his own and only son. 

Now who really begot or begat that son miraculously? It was in fact Mary who had actually begotten Jesus by the Command of God, for the miracle was shown by God.

BMZ wrote: khairullah wrote: The Begotten Son of God   By Sami Zaatari   One rather strange and insulting verse we find in the Bible is that of John 3:16, which reads:   16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.    So as you can see, the verse says that God gave his begotten son, this is indeed strange, since begetting children is not an act done by God, because the word beget/begotten infers that this came about through sexual intercourse.   The word begotten that is used here is called monogenes {mon-og-en-ace'} in the Greek language. The basic definition of this word refers to daughters and sons in relation to their parents through sexual intercourse!   So basically when John 3:16 calls Jesus the only begotten son of God it actually means that God had sex and hence Jesus was begotten!   Lest a Christian claim I am twisting things, let us see the word 'monogenes' used again in the Bible, notice the context this time:   http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr011.html#17 - Hbr 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son],   So notice the word begotten (monogenes) is used here referring to Abraham's son! So therefore as you can see, in context the word monogenes refers to a son of a father which is created through the sexual act between a man and a women. So there is no escaping the fact that word monogenes which means begotten refers to a son or daughter which is produced through sexual intercourse, as you saw in Hebrews 11:17 it says that Abraham gave his only BEGOTTEN son referring to Ishmael, hence this word begotten refers to children produced through a sexual act. So my question is this, does the God of John 3:16 have sex?!   This verse is an insult to God, and Christians must either get rid of this blasphemous verse, or they should change the wording, and Christians should have no problem in changing the wording since many words and whole chapters in the Bible have been altered, changed, or even deleted! So Christians should have no problem in making a simple word change, this will be something normal for the Bible!   And I end this article with a lovely verse from the Quran which refutes such insults by the Bible:   YUSUFALI: He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;112.003   And indeed Allah Knows Best! On a lighter note, I would say that John is confirming that he was not the real son of God. If God really had a son, His own son then John would have said that God gave his own and only son.  Now who really begot or begat that son miraculously? It was in fact Mary who had actually begotten Jesus by the Command of God, for the miracle was shown by God.

Hi BMZ,

Actually, that is exactly what he says in John 3:16. "For God so loved the World that He gave is ONLY begotten son, that who so ever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".

   Hello,

       This is my first post on this forum. I am a lover of Christ and a believer in the New Testament.

        I read the Quran off and on because I felt that if I wished that Moslems would read the New Testament it was fitting that I should know what is in the Quran also.

        Concerning Jesus being begotten - the New Testament does not only refer to Jesus as the Onlybegotten Son of God. It also refers to Him as the Firstborn Son of God.

        Only begotten Son would emphasize His uniqueness as the only Son of God. Firstborn Son of God indicates that there are other sons of God to follow the First.

       Both Only begotten Son and Firstborn Son reveal that God desires to join with man so that man and God have the closest possible intermingled union of life and nature.

       When we think of Son of God or sons of God we should grasp God's deep desire to impart His being into man's being so that God indwells man and man indwells God. God and man are united in His eternal purpose according to the New Testament.

      The work that Christ has done in redemption bridges the horrible gulf and deep divide seperating a Holy God from the sinful and fallen man. The joining of God's life with man's life can only take place because of redemption of the Son of God is so extensive and effective solving all our problems which seperate us from God.

      I promise that you will find me a respectful and listening participant though I have strong beliefs. So if there is dialogue to take place I am opened to it.

    John 3:16 speaks of God becomming a man. It has to in light of Isaiah's prophecy in 9:6. And His giving of eternal life is the giving of Himself as the divine uncreated Being as man's life.

    The human language is limited in speaking of the nature and doings of God. When the Bible calls God "Eternal Father" it doesn't mean that He had eternal sex with an eternal female. It means that He is the eternal source of all lives. It means that He is the uncreated life.

     All forms of life in the universe were created. God alone is uncreated. And He is the Source of all lives. So He is called Eternal Father. 

      The rules on this forum suggest that participants steer away from making offensive statements. It seems strange that with this rule a senior participant would try to derive from the very words of the Bible highly provocative concepts as were expressed.

      Furthermore Isaiah's prophecy states that the "child" born will be called "the Mighty God". And it states that the son given" will be called the "Eternal Father".

     When you put these utterances together with John 3:16 you should realize that God giving His onlybegotten Son involves God Himself becomming a man. Remember, the created human "child" is the "Mighty God" according to Isaiah 9:6. And the son given is the eternal Father.

  Rather than speaking of sexual begetting the Bible is talking about the "begetting" of God being born into humanity. It is without question mysterious and "Wonderful". In fact Isaiah says that His name shalled firstly be called "Wonderful". Anything Wonderful is difficult to comprehend and hard to understand.

 Though the Eternal Father incarnating as a man to become the given Son is hard for human language to express and for man's mind to grasp, it is nevertheless for man's enjoyment and experience. For the prophecy is "unto us". That means for our enjoyment and experience.

  "For a child is born to us, A son is given to us, And the government is upon His shoulder; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace ..." (Isa. 9:6)

   If the Son is the Father and the Father is the Eternal Father than the Bible is not speaking of begetting in the typical human sexual sense in John 3:16. It is using limited human language to communicate to us something exceedingly profound about God becomming a man in the Son Jesus Christ.

  The Father and the Son are distinct. But they are not separated. One lives in the Other. Where one is the other lives in and with Him. There is a mutual coinherance of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father. They are distinct. They are not separated.

   The Moslem desires a relationship with God. But the Moslem disbelieves the closeness of the relationship which God intends to have. The Moslem also sees the distance between man and God but does not appreciate the power of God to close the gap in the redemption of Jesus Christ. God can close the distant where we cannot.

 And of course God can cause the Firstborn Son Jesus to be the Elder Brother of more sons of God to come:

 "Because those whom He foreknew He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers." (Romans 8:29)

  Of course this is not the invention of the Apostle Paul. Jesus Himself in His resurrection was eager to inform His "brothers" that His God was now their God and His Father was now their Father:

 "Jesus said to her, Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brothers and say to them, I ascend to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God." (John 20:17)

 Human beings becomes sons of God not through the sex act of God but rather through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead:

 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (1 Peter 1:3)

 We are therefore man sons of God initially by receiving into our hearts the resurrected Christ through faith. We are begotten again in regeneration through the resurrection of Christ from the dead. We are born of God by receiving the resurrected Christ into our spirit.

 "But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name.

 Who were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12,13)

  Many of us who enjoy Christ in the new covenant age call Him these names and more. My calling of Jesus the Mighty God and the Eternal Father qualify because I believe Isaiah's prophecy.

  Perhaps you don't count our calling Christ these names and more as important and you want to see quotations in the pages of the New Testament. Well I don't think it is necessary to show you in the pages of the New Testament explicit references. But I will offer some supporting evidence:

"Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father and it is sufficient for us. Jesus said to him, Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip?" (John 14:9)

  The Father and the Son are so mutually coinherant within one another that they cannot be separated. Philip asks to see the Father. Jesus says " and you have not known Me, Philip?"

 Jesus could have gone on and said "Don't you remember Isaiah 9:6 Philip? Don't you remember that the Son given shall be called the Eternal Father?"

  In Romans 8:9-11 the Apostle Paul speaks of the indwelling of the Triune God within the Christians. There are a few titles which Paul uses interchangeably which amount to Jesus being God indwelling the Christians. And God is refered to as the Father throughout the NT.

 "But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you." (Rom. 8:9-11)

The Spirit of God equals the Spirit of Christ which equals Christ Himself in this passage. This virtually makes God and Christ two enterchangeable titles. Of course God is the Mighty God of which there is only one.

Though I cannot show an explicit reference to Jesus being called the Mighty God I can show Jesus saying that He is the Almighty:

"Behold, He comes with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the land shall will mourn over Him. Yes, amen.

 I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, He who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty." (Rev. 1:7,8)

 I defintely understand that the Speaker of verse 8 Who says He is coming is the One in verse 7 which John sees coming with the clouds and being seen by the tribes in the land of Israel.

 In the Old Testament Jehovah God is called both the Might God and the Almighty. So by strong implication the child born Jesus is Jehovah God come in the flesh.

 Of course if there is any doubt that Jesus calls Himself the Almighty Alpha and Omega in Revelation 1:7,8 it is indisputable that He does so in Revelation 22:13:

 Behold, I come quickly, and My reward is with Me to render to each one as his work is. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End ... I Jesus have sent My angel to teastify to you these things for the churches ..." (See. Rev. 22:12-16)

 IF you do not want to call Jesus the Mighty God then that does not nullify the prophecy. Many of us call Him the Mighty God if you do not. We fulfill the prophecy that He shall be called that.

 And the disciple Thomas refered to Jesus as his Lord and God after he saw the proof of His resurrection:

 "Thomas answered and said to Him. My Lord and my God!

      Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." (John 20:28,29)

  It may not say Mighty God there in that passage. However the Jews had only one Mighty One - Jehovah God - YHWH (Psalm 50:1) (. So I think this passage comes pretty close to the disciples calling the born child the Mighty God.

islamispeace wrote: "Well, you didn't specify he would be verbally called by those literal titles.  You just indicated that he will fill those roles in the future.   But, you did indicate that he will be called (commissioned) to those titles (ranks). I don't understand why you would say that he will never be addressed by the title of his position.  It's like saying that John Doe might accept a military commission of General, but no one is ever going to call him General." I never said that Jesus will fulfill the role of "Eternal Father" or "Almighty God".  I said that Jesus will rule according to the Laws of Islam and will be a Muslim.  He will not rule as God, but God's servant. "Who do you think the child is that Isaiah mentions?" According to the Jewish interpretation, the passage is referring to King Hezekiah, not the Messiah.  Even if it did refer to Jesus, it would not mean that he is God.  As I showed in my post above, there were many names/titles in Hebrew which, if taken literally, would suggest a state of divinity in the person who holds such a name/title, but their meaning is not literal but allegorical.  Hezekiah, according to the Jewish interpretation, was the "Eternal Father" because God increased his life by 15 extra years (see Isaiah 38:5).  He is called the "Prince of Peace" because during his last years as King, there was peace (see 2 Chronicles 32:23).  None of these titles mean that Hezekiah was to be worshiped.  That would have been a great blasphemy in the eyes of the God of Israel.

King Hezekiah is not called Emmanuel. King Hezekiah is not God.

Emmanuel means "God with us".

Emmanuel means "God with us"."

    The general subject here is the begetting of sons by God. I will try to keep my responses related to that matter.

    Someone objected that nowhere in the New Testament could I show explicit callings of Jesus "Mighty God, Wonderful Counseloor, Prince of Peace, and Eternal Father."

    The many verses that I did refer to should not be discarded so easily. How can you say the Son is not called God in the NT in the light of what Hebrews 1:7 says?

 "But of the Son, Your throne, O God is forever and ever ..."

Here is a New Testament reference to both the Son and the Son as "O God"/ Only by rejecting the New Testament as God's oracles can the Moslem possibly say this has no relation to Isaiah 9:6.

 It is a weak excuse to point out that "O God" is not "Mighty God."

 There is another problem. Isaiah's prophecy did not say that specifically "in the document of the New Testament to come, He shall be called ...". He just said that He shall be called such and such. Saying that one could not find the quotation of this calling in the New Testament document does not prove that He was not called such things. Besides, I showed instances where it is virtually true that the man Jesus is believed and called God incarnate.

  The prophecy of Isaiah also does not give a specific time table as to when Christ will be called this or that. His kingdom, Isaiah says will have no end. So if the duration of His kingdom is eternity at best one could only say that they have not yet heard the Son be called this or that. That does not prove that the calling will never take place.

 Actually, since at least some of the passages I showed demonstrate the New Testament designation of Christ the Son as God, we do not have to wait to eternity to hear Him be called Mighty God. God is the only one Mighty God and the Son is addressed as "O God" in Hebrews chapter one and doubting Thomas acknowledged the resurrected Son as his God.  

 Now we come to the complaint about Jesus not being called Emmanual. For those of us who do not reject the New Testament as the oracles of God it is quite enough that the apostle Matthew explains to us that the apostle explains to us under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - "Now all this has happened sp that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel[ which is translated God with us' (Matt. 1:22,23).

 This word from the Apostle Matthew is authoritative enough. We need no more of an explanation that Jesus is indeed "God with us." The Bible says so. And Matthew does not need to sit at the feet of a Moslem to be better educated about the matter.

 In fact Jesus Himself teaches that He is indeed that Old Testament God come to earth in the form of a man in Matthew 23:

 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" (Matthew 23:37)

 The footnote of the Recovery Version says:

 It was always God Himself who cared for Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young (Isa. 31:5; Deut. 32:11-12). Hence, when Jesus said, "I desired to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings." He indicated that He was God Himself.

  So in Matthew 23:37 Jesus is indeed "God with us" lamenting over Jerusalem's coming rejection of her Messiah and incarnate God - the Son Jesus Christ.

  I think it is also significant for the subject of God with us that Matthew closes with this passage:

"And behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age." (Matt. 28:20).

 He is therefore Emmanuel - God with us, in chapter 23 and God with us all the days until the consummation of the age. Matthew, unlike Luke or Mark, does not conclude with the concept of Jesus going anywhere. Like the Gospel of John there is no indication that Jesus left His disciples. On one hand therefore He ascended to the right hand of God in heaven. And on the other hand He is still Emmanuel as God with us even today until the consummation of the age.

 Since God is immortal, for Jesus to teach that He is with us until the consummation of the age indicates that He too is immortal God.

 Now because the Moslem rejects the New Testament they substitute other ideas which they prefer to believe. It was said that Islamic sacred writings say Jesus will reign in for forty years and then die a natural death.

 The number forty in the Bible is usually reserved to indicate a time of trials and hardships. Forty days and nights Noah's ark road on the waters of the flood. Forty years in the wilderness the Hebrews suffered hardship before entering into the good land. Jesus fasted for forty days.

 There is nothing in the Bible about Jesus ruling for only forty years and then dying a natural death. And if there is peace during this time it is unlikely that the number 40 would be associated with something this positive. The teaching is not in the Bible so I don't receive it.

 Furthermore, I can't believe that after His crucifixion and resurrection Jesus would die a natural death. Not in the New Testament. Maybe in the Quran.

 But our New Testament has Jesus proclaiming after His resurrection that He will never die again. This was shown to the Apostle John in his Revelation:

" ... and He placed His right hand on me, saying, Do not fear; I am the First and the Last. And the living One, and I became dead, and behold, I am living forever and ever; and I have the keys of death and of Hades. (Rev. 1:17,18).

  After His resurrection on the third day, behold, He is living forever and ever. He has the keys of death and of Hades. He is eternally victorious over the realm of death. How then can we accept that He will reign for forty years and then die a natural death? There is no such idea in the New Testament.

     Why then do we need to wait to call Him Wonderful Counselor. Who could be more Wonderful than this Son of God Who has come off victorious from death and has the keys to release all of us from its grip. We do not need to legally wait until it is the proper moment to pour out our love for the Wonderful Counselor and the Mighty God. We need not be so legal and dogmatic. Now is the time for me to pour out my love in praises for this Son Who is given to us and is the Eternal Father Jehovah come as a man.

     If you wait to find the verse where Jesus is adoringly called Eternal Father and Wonderful Counselor it may be to late to call Him that when He returns physically to the earth.

    Since He is with us all the days until the consummation of the age and beyond into eternity, we can call Him all that He is worthy to be called.  I don't want to hold back my love for the Son by waiting around until someone shows me the exact quotation of Isaiah's calling in the document of the New Testament. He has proved that He is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father incarnated as the God-man Christ the Lord, victorious over the world and sin and death itself.

I think Christians need to brush up on their Greek some more.

You guys (Christians) cannot tap dance around the fact that Jesus being both a human and God procreated himself through Mary, in accordance to "divine" scripture. Basically, God is a son of himself (which is utterly a contradiction in terminology).

"Well, you didn't specify he would be verbally called by those literal titles.  You just indicated that he will fill those roles in the future.   But, you did indicate that he will be called (commissioned) to those titles (ranks).

I don't understand why you would say that he will never be addressed by the title of his position.  It's like saying that John Doe might accept a military commission of General, but no one is ever going to call him General."

I never said that Jesus will fulfill the role of "Eternal Father" or "Almighty God".  I said that Jesus will rule according to the Laws of Islam and will be a Muslim.  He will not rule as God, but God's servant.

I didn�t mean to imply that you did.  I was referring to this post of yours:

Jocko,

When was Jesus ever referred to as "Eternal Father" in the New Testament?  Besides that, when was he ever called "Wonderful Counselor", "Mighty God" or "Prince of Peace"? 
__________________
You said that Jesus would have a reign of peace.  Isn�t it quite possible that he will be recognized as �Wonderful Counselor� or �Prince of Peace�?   And, many people already call him �Mighty God�.

"Who do you think the child is that Isaiah mentions?"

According to the Jewish interpretation, the passage is referring to King Hezekiah, not the Messiah. 

According to Jewish interpretation, Jesus is not the Messiah.

Even if it did refer to Jesus, it would not mean that he is God.  As I showed in my post above, there were many names/titles in Hebrew which, if taken literally, would suggest a state of divinity in the person who holds such a name/title, but their meaning is not literal but allegorical.  Hezekiah, according to the Jewish interpretation, was the "Eternal Father" because God increased his life by 15 extra years (see Isaiah 38:5).  He is called the "Prince of Peace" because during his last years as King, there was peace (see 2 Chronicles 32:23).  None of these titles mean that Hezekiah was to be worshiped.  That would have been a great blasphemy in the eyes of the God of Israel.

Do you think that an extra 15 years is enough to make someone eternal?

Israfil wrote: I think Christians need to brush up on their Greek some more. You guys (Christians) cannot tap dance around the fact that Jesus being both a human and God procreated himself through Mary, in accordance to "divine" scripture. Basically, God is a son of himself (which is utterly a contradiction in terminology).

   It is adnmitedly vey mysterious.  Even Paul who authored 13 or so of the New Testament books refered to the mystery of godliness.

   Eternal life does not simply mean a life which is in duration everlasting. Eternal life entails much more of a life which goes beyond usual limitations. God's eternal purpose is to dispense Himself into humanity. He does not simply give man some "things" like mercy, peace, and love. He actually gives Himself as the ZOE divine life to man. The result is that man lives God, man lives out from God, and God lives in man.

  To put it another way God's eternal plan is to be mingled with humanity.

 When two or more things are mingled together they are combined in such a way that they remain distinguuishable in the combination. In the Lord Jesus Christ we see the mingling of God and man. God and man are brought together in such a way that in the combination we see the distinct qualities of both man and God.

  Don't complain about my lack of Greek language skills. What I explain can be seen in English translations of the Greek New Testament:

 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me does His works" (John 14:19).

 There is the mutual enter indwelling of the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son. God and man are forevermore mingled together in the Lord Jesus Christ.

"Jesus said to him, Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known Me Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how is it that you say, Show us the Father?" (John 14:9).

 The Father and the Son are mingled together. In the combination we bear witness that both God and man are in an organic union of oneness. And the purpose of God is to bring the saved into this union, not as an object of worship, but as those living in the realm of the mingling of divinity and humanity:

 "Yet a little while and the world beholds Me no longer, but you behold Me; because I live, you also shall live. In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you" (John 14:19,20).

 The "little while" is the time that Jesus went away to the cross on Calvary to accomplish eternal redemption. He went away for three days to prepare a standing in God for man that where He is the believers also might be.

 He says that because He lives the redeemed shall also live. This seems perculiar. Should people live regardless of whether Jesus lives or not?  The living that Jesus speaks of is the living of God, the living in the sphere and realm of God and the living which is God living in man in a mingled way. Because He lives in resurrection it is possible for those who believe into Him to live also.

 The life in mingling with God is what the Apostle Paul called the life which is really life or the life which is life indeed - "that which is really life."

 "Laying away for themselves a good foundation as a treasure for the future, that they may lay hold on that which is really life" (1 Timothy 6:29).

  Have you not read that "In Him [the Word] was life and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4)?

 The Triune God is to be dispensed into man and lived out in man in a blended and mingled way. He is the uncreated eternal life.

  "Jesus said to him, I am the way and the reality and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6).

  No one comes to the Father does not mean no one comes to heaven. It means the destination is the Father Himself. That is Jesus the God-man is the living way into the living "place." The living "place" is the Divine Being of the Father. He is the uncreated eternal life for man to enter into through the one and only unique living way of Jesus the Son.

  For Paul to proclaim "For to me to live is Christ..." (Phil. 1:21) means that Paul, a saved man, now lives a mingled life in union with Jesus Christ.

 For Paul to write " ... and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me ..." (Gal. 2:20) means also that he lives a mingled and blended life with Jesus Christ.

 This is possible because God in the man Jesus Christ became a divine life giving Spirit in order to enter into man's being once man is forgiven and redeemed from his sins:

 "The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45).

 The Triune God, the Father and Son and Holy Spirit has become embodied in Jesus and become a life giving Spirit to impart God Himself into man.

  It is as the life giving Spirit that the Father and the Son can come and make a living abode with those who love Jesus and keep His word:

 "Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him" (John 14:23).

  Therefore, God and man are mingled together in the Savior Jesus Christ. The Father and the Son mutually co-inhere One with the Other. And in God's salvation the divine "We" comes to live in the believers in Christ to make them living abodes in the Father's house.

  If such a reality were not possible - that is for God and man to dwell within one another, then Jesus says that He would have told us so:

 "In My Father's house there are many abodes; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I am coming again and will receive you to Myself, so that where I am you also may be." (John 14:2,3)

  This passage does not mean that Jesus went to heaven to take two thousand years to prepare mansions to live in. The place of the Father's house is the enlargement of the Body of Christ. The Father's house is the realm in which God and man are mingled together in an organic union. The Father's house is the living place where God and man dwell in union and mingling.

 Christ as God incarnate was in this place as the God-man. He then went to the cross of Calvary to prepare a way for we the sinners to be forgiven. Then having been justified and forgiven all of our sins we too can be where He is and be received unto Himself. That is we become the enlargement of the mingling of God and man.

 Do not complain about Greek language. And do not be discouraged that this is very mystical and divine. Christ is today the life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) ready to enter into us. He andthe Father are ready to come to make a living abode with us as the eternal and divine "We" (John 14:23).

 Now Islamispeace, you had a point about Hebrew names. I understand that many men had God indicators in their names.

 All of the positive figures of the Old Testament were shadows, symbols, and forerunners of the Messiah to come. Hezekiah for example was a wise counselor. But you know that he made a bad mistake. Instead of dying when God willed him to he asked for an extension of life.

 God granted him 15 years. Immediately after this blessing he boasted to the Babylonians about his treasures and the prophet warned him that this would cost his kingdom terrible trouble.

Hezekiah said that as long as there was prosperity in his time he didn't care what happened after him. So you see he failed to really be the Wonderful Counselor.

 All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Only Christ Himself is the Amen and the Yes to all the promises of God in the Old Testament. He is the greater Moses. He is the greater Joshua. He is the greater David and the greater Solomon.

 Hezekiah was good. But he was not as good as Jesus Christ the Son of God. He was a wise counselor. But he fell short of being the Wonderful Counselor for in the end it was revealed that he only cared for his own legacy. Only Jesus Christ is absolute for the will of God.

 Only the Son of God - Jesus was well pleasing in every possible aspect to the Father. He lived not only for the Father and unto the Father. He lived the Father Himself in a mingled and blended way. He cared nothing for Himself. He wanted everything for the Father. So He is called Eternal Father and He is the real antitype of the all the types of the Old Testament.

 Something greater than David is here. Something greater than the temple is here. Something greater than Hezekiah is here. Christ alone is totally well pleasing to God though God had many servants.

 Can you see then that all these positively named people in the Old Testament were forerunners, symbols, prefigures, and types of the Son of God?

  They may have been good in many respects. But only the Son Christ was gloriously perfect and qualified to take away the sin of the world through the offering of Himself to God.

Not according to the Islamic viewpoint.  There is nothing in the Hadiths which suggest that he would be known by such titles.  And he certainly would not be known as "Mighty God" because Muslims do not apply titles which belong only to God to a mere man.  Apparently, it was commonplace in the Old Testament.

"According to Jewish interpretation, Jesus is not the Messiah."

Irrelevant because they believe that Isaiah 9:6 was not a reference to the Messiah.  Neither was the passage about "Emmanuel".

"Do you think that an extra 15 years is enough to make someone eternal?"

Hezekiah said that as long as there was prosperity in his time he didn't care what happened after him. So you see he failed to really be the Wonderful Counselor."

"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Only Christ Himself is the Amen and the Yes to all the promises of God in the Old Testament. He is the greater Moses. He is the greater Joshua. He is the greater David and the greater Solomon."

Not if you believe that Isaiah 7 was making a reference to Jesus.  Jesus would have known right from wrong from the moment of his birth (if he was indeed perfect), but Isaiah 7 says that "Emmanuel" would not know right from wrong until a certain time. 

 Islamispeace,

You know, Christianity is the only religion I know of whose followers misquote their own scripture.  Hebrews 1:7 is a direct quote from Psalm 45:6-7, which says:

 You, Islamispeace, failed to understand that if the writer of the book of Hebrews says that the verses refers to Christ that is the end of the matter. We Christians do no regard the New Testament as an error prone and faulty commentary on the Hebrew Bible. We receive it as the oracles of God like Genesis or Exodus.

 You also failed to take note of what the both the Psalm and Hebrews say:

 "Your throne, O God is forever and ever ... Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above your companions" (See Psalm 45:6,7).

 The Person being spoken to is God and has His God. This could only be True of the incarnated Son and His Father.  The God Whose throne is forever and ever has His God - "Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You ...".

Furthermore the Psalm depicts this One addressed as God with companions. As a man the Son has human companions. They also serve and obey God. However, they do not occupy the unique position as the King in His kingdom. Therefore He is anointed with the oil of gladness above His companions.

As a man Jesus had the 12 disciples as His companions. They too were men. Yet He is God become a man. So He is of them yet anointed with a special joy above all of them.

This is the utterance of the very Psalm itself.

Hebrews 1:7 is a direct quote from Psalm 45:6-7, which says:

 Which says "Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above your companions."  And Hebrews 1:9 says "You [the One addressed as O God] have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of exultant joy above your partners."

  This is therefore a Man Who is God and has His God and loves righteousness to the point that His God has anointed Him with joy above His other human companions in life and partners in His kingdom. All this refers to God the Son, the Man, the God-man Jesus Christ.

 Then you say - Paul simply twisted its meaning. 

  No he did not. Under the inspiration and revelation of the Holy Spirit the writer of Hebrews quite faithfully showed us who really are in submission that the passage points to Christ.

 You write concerning Jesus being Emmanuel - God with us:

 Another self-fulfilling prophecy. Just because Matthew says that the "sign of Emmanuel" was fulfilled in Jesus does not mean that it was,

  Here we simply have a fundamental departure in each of our understandings of the nature of the Bible.  The New Testament is the Word of God - period. We do not regard it as a error filled commentary on the Old Testament. We regard it as God's speaking.

 But Christ said that we shall know them by their fruits. Neither Ahaz or Hezekiah or David or Solomon attained to the level of the glory of Jesus. They in their own ways were pointers and types leading up to the coming of the Son.

Take for example Jonah. He was a type of Christ Who was three days in the grace as Jonah was three days in the belly of a great fish. Jonah pointed to the coming Son of God. Therefore Jesus taught:

"For just as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights."

 Jesus is the greater Jonah. He is also the greater Hezekiah and the greater Ahaz. Jesus the Son of God said "The queen of the south will rise up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something more than Solomon is here." (Matt.12:42).

  It is losing case for you to insist that this or that Old Testament person was the sole point of these prophetic utterances. They were progressive pointers leading up to the Son of God - David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Jonah. even the very Temple itself:

"Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. But He spoke of the temple of His body. " (John 2:20,21).

This Man was the dwelling place of God on the earth at that time and God LIVED within Him as in a human temple. So He tells us "But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here." (Matt.12:6).

  Islamispeace, you will repeat again and again your tactic of saying "Oh this is just speaking about Ahaz." Or "Oh, this is just talking about Hezekiah." Or "Oh, this is just talking about Solomon or David or one of the other kings of Judah or Israel."

You do not grasp that it is THEY who point to Christ the Son. - "God, having spoken of old in many portions and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets, has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son, whom also He appointed Heir of all things, through Whom also He made the universe ... " (Hebrews 1:1)

"For as many promises of God as there are, in Him is the Yes, therefore also through Him is the Amen to God ..." (2 Cor. 1:20).

 Then Islamis peace writes :

  Rather how comical that your sadness reminds me of the tears of a crocodile. You needn't feel sorry for us. It is quite wonderful that a footenote could enlighten the student of the New Testament concerning its significance. We learn from one another. This is Christians fellowship. Perhaps no Quran's have any footnotes in them. But if there were I would not consider it a sad affair that a teacher could pass on to others some important point.

 Actually, it is quite obvious that for Jesus to lament over Jesusalem in that way that He is God incarnate. Before He was born, when they were killing the prophets and stoning those sent to Jesuralem God desired to collect His naughty children like a mother bird. Now God comes as a Man and has the same tender care.

  Save your sympathy. We're doing quite Okay to correctly understand Matthew 23:37 this way.

  Concerning insisting that the details of Isaiah 7 or Isaiah 9 have only contemporary significance goes too far with an idea that does have some truth. It is not hard to see that there was some contemporary significance to this prophetic utterances.

 But think again reader. They could not be entirely related to those contemporary people. There is NO reason to call Hezekiah the Eternal Father. That is to call Hezekiah God Himself for there forever is only one Divine Father in the Bible Who is eternal - Jehovah God. So the prophecy must point beyond him. It points to this One of Whom the Apostle John wrote:

 "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." (John 1:18)

 Jesus, fully manifested the Divine Father. Jesus declared Him by expressing Him. To see Jesus was to see the Father. He defined God and explained God. His whole being expressed God's divine attributes within His glorious human virtues.

The Word Who was with God and was God became flesh and tabernacled among us. (John 1:1,14).  It is no wonder that His first title in Isaiah is Wonderful. Whatever is Wonderful is full of wonder. It is not easy to comprehend how God and man could be blended together in a mingled way. But this is Jesus Christ.

 He is the universal union, mingling, and blending of divinity and humanity.

Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above your companions" (See Psalm 45:6,7).

>>>The Person being spoken to is God and has His God. This could only be True of the incarnated Son and His Father.  The God Whose throne is forever and ever has His God<<<<

The above paragraph is an example of how ridiculously contradictory one can be when interpreting a confusing text. Just a basic example using one of God's attributes, let's say infinity. Since God is infinite, there is no such thing as a succession of infinities otherwise there would be a point of cessation (which otherwise would contradict the principle of infinity). Similarly, One God cannot have a god as this is merely a contradictory in terms. To say: The Person being spoken to is God and has His God. This could only be True of the incarnated Son and His Father.

The bold sentence implies that God is subordinate to himself (which was a mistake by early Christians proposing the Trinity as a doctrine). If Jesus was and truly is God he is not subordinate to himself, meaning, God cannot have unequal properties. Not only is this an error by Islamic standards but an error in Christian standards since you have implied that within God are qualities that are unequal and subordinate to other qualities. I would suggest learning the ancient language of Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek before you interpret such faulty language.

 Israfil,

       Even in the Old Testament some rather mysterious things about God are seen. For example, in the book of Zechariah we see the Jehovah of hosts sending the Jehovah of hosts. This amounts mysteriously to God sending God. This passage reveals Jehovah as both the Sender and the Sent One in Zechariah 2:8-11:

 "For thus says Jehovah of hosts, After the glory He sent Me against the nations who plunder you; for he who touches you touches the pupil of His eye. (v.8)

For I am now waving My hand over them, and they will be plunder for those who served them; and you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me. (v.9)

Give a ringing shout and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, for now I am coming, and I will dwell in your midst, declares Jehovah. (v.10)

And many nations will join themselves to Jehovah in that day and will become My people; and I will dwell in your midst; and you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me to you." (v.11)

 The speaker in verse 8 introduces Himself as God - "For thus says Jehovah of hosts ...,".  Yet Jehovah of hosts says that after the glory He has been sent by Jehovah to the nations which plunder Israel - "After the glory He has sent Me against the nations who plunder you ...". Those nations have touched the apple of God's eye.

Then in the next verse, on behalf of the plundered Israel, God says that He will wave His mighty hand over them - "For I am now waving My hand over them, and they will be a plunder..." But the strangest thing happens. The waver of the mighty hand is Jehovah God the speaker. Yet as a result Israel will know that the One waving the divine hand has been sent by Jehovah! " ... and they will be for plunder for those who serve them; and you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me."

 Jehovah is not only the speaker and the waver of the mighty hand. Jehovah of hosts is the one who is sent by Jehovah of hosts.  We see God as the Sent One and God simultaneously as the Sender OF the Sent One.

In verse 10 Jehovah declares that He comes to dwell in the midst of Zion - "for now I am coming, and I will dwell in your midst, declares Jehovah".  But as a result of Jehovah dwelling in the midst of Zion they shall know that Jehovah God has sent Him. "And many nations will join themselves to Jehovah in that day and will become My people, and I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me to you."

  Therefore we see Jehovah as the Sent One and the Sender of the Sent One at the same time. This indicates something beyond normal limitation with the nature of God even in the Old Testament.

 Now we come to the Son on earth being sent by His Father. Though He is sent by the Father the Father comes with Him and in Him:

"And He Who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him," (John 8:29)

 "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me, but if not believe Me because of the works themselves." (John 14:11)

The Lord Jesus would prefer that we simply believe that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. But if this seems too much for us He wants us to believe it because of the works themselves He does which are clearly the works of God. And His words are the working of the Father within Him:

 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me does His works." (John 14:10)

 I am so glad that God has had mercy on me to have the ability to believe that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father.

 We should not scoff at the Triune God. To see and to know Christ is a divine revelation which God must grant to every man and woman:

 "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in those who are perishing, in whom the god of this age (the Devil) has blinded the thoughts of the unbelievers that the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your slave for Jesus' sake. Because the God who said, Out of darkness light shall shine, is the One who shined in our hearts to illuminate the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." ( 2 Cor. 4:3-6). 

  The spiritual battle is to remove the blinding veil over the hearts of the unbelievers in the Son of God that the light of revelation might freely shine into them to see Christ - the expression of the glory of God united with man.

   But not only to see that Christ is God the Son but to be brought into the divine life and share His experience of union with God - not as an object of worship, but as an extension and expansion of God mingled with humanity. This was the prayer of the Son:

"That they all may be one; even as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that You have sent Me. And now the glory whoch You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, even as We are one; I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected into one, that the world may know that You have sent Me and have loved them even as You have loved Me." (John 17:21-23).

 The eternal purpose of God is to have sons who share His life and nature. This is what He cannot fail to obtain through the salvation of the Son of the Father. This prayer above cannot go unanswered. The New Jerusalem in eternity is the fulfillment of this request of the Son to the Father that believers be brought into oneness with the Triune God.

    God created the universe expressly for the purpose of having sons of God. If God could not have sons I don't believe that the universe would even exist.

    Here are my reasons:

  1.) "Even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before HIm in love, predestinating us unto SONSHIP (my emphasis) through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will" (Eph. 1:4-5).

    This passage says that God chose some human beings unto SONSHIP before the foundation of the world. That means before the creation of the world. The word adoption is not the better translation of that word. It means literally "the place of a son".

  Anyway, SONSHIP - "the place of a son" was pre-destinated for some saved human beings "before the foundation of the world". THis strongly implies that first God had a good pleasure to obtain sons for Himself. And then based upon this plan He then laid the foundation of the world. He then created the universe.

 2.) I know Moslems want to ignore the Apostle Paul and do not regard his letters as Scripture. We Christians regard them as Scripture. But not only Ephesians 1:4-5 says this. The very prayer of Jesus in John 17 goes some way to confirm this:

   "Father, concerning that which You have given Me, I desire that they also may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory, which You have goven Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world." (John 17:24).

    The implication is strong here that the Son and the Father desire that many others would be where the Son is to behold His glory. And this glory He had before the creation of the universe, before the foundation of the world.

 We should not be superfiscial to think this merely means that these others may be in heaven with Jesus. To be with Jesus the Son where He is is to be in God Himself. It is to be mingled with God in an "organic union" of  interwoven living. The Son petitions the Father that that glory which He had before the foundation of the world His saved people would likewise enter.

 He is God-man by way of incarnation, death, and resurrection. They are God-men by way of salvation. He is the HEAD of the relationship. They are the Body of it. He is the object of worship as their Lord and Savior the incarnate redeeming God-man. They are His expansion, His encrease, His enlargment as His Body to express Him corporately.

 3.) We have seen God desired some to have SONSHIP before He created the world. We have seen that Christ desired that others be with Him in His divine glory which He had through the Father's love before the foundation of the world.

   Now in Revelation we see that God created all things for this plan:

 "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, for You have created all things, and because of You will they were, and were created." (Revelation 4:11).

  Here the ancient angelic beings, the "elders" of the creation (v.10) say that all things were created by God because of His will. This does not mean that they merely were created because of His will-power. They were all created because God had a will, God had a plan, God had an eternal purpose.

 First God had a good pleasure to have sons. He had this plan. Then based upon this plan He created all things. He laid the foundation of the world that He might obtain many sons of God.

 Finally we see the satisfied Triune God in New Jerusalem happy that He has now obtained His sons:

 "And He said to me, They have come to pass. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give to him who thirsts from the spring of the water of life freely.

He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to Me" (Rev. 21:6,7).

 What more proof do we need that God begets sons? He is a spring of eternal life. He is a fountain of divine life. The thirsty for eternal and divine life can come to Him and drink. That means they can take the Triune God Himself into their being. And in taking God into them they become sons of God. They drink of the divine life of the uncreated Being for His glory and for their satisfaction.

  "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal.3:26)

 The term "son of God"  in spiritual sense is not objectionable. We need not say that God needed sons or all men are sons of God. We can easily say that all are creatures of God. Why to use a confusing term "son"?? The relation of son and father is known to every one. But in the case of Jesus, that relation is absent. Jesus is not the son of God. So it is better not to use the son terminology.

 Because that will be used to make a god out of a mere man. That terminology becomes all the more objectionable. God does not need anything. He does not need a son. A God in need is not a God indeed.

 I forgot to mention the love affair. God loved Jesus. Yes. Very good. That can be as an example of love from the father. But it all boils down to reality whether Jesus is the son or not. If he is not a literal son (as he is not) then that love affair should also be not  used to make Jesus the son of God. God does not beget in physical sense. Begetting in spiritual sense should always carry the word spiritual with it otherwise common people get misled.

When christians say Jesus is the son of God then they should say that Jesus is a spiritual son of God. When they say that Jesus is the begotten or the only begotten son of God then they should also say that Jesus is the spiritually begotten son of God. That will cause less confusion. Thanks.

minuteman wrote:    I forgot to mention the love affair. God loved Jesus. Yes. Very good. That can be as an example of love from the father. But it all boils down to reality whether Jesus is the son or not. If he is not a literal son (as he is not) then that love affair should also be not  used to make Jesus the son of God. God does not beget in physical sense. Begetting in spiritual sense should always carry the word spiritual with it otherwise common people get misled. When christians say Jesus is the son of God then they should say that Jesus is a spiritual son of God. When they say that Jesus is the begotten or the only begotten son of God then they should also say that Jesus is the spiritually begotten son of God. That will cause less confusion. Thanks.

Minuteman this is even more confusing than the Christian interpretation of the concept of Sonship. So you are saying Jesus is the "spiritually begotten Son of God?" How does God beget spiritually?

"God created the universe expressly for the purpose of having sons of God. If God could not have sons I don't believe that the universe would even exist"

Need I remind the Christians that God is incoporeal and therefore is indivisible. Unless we are specifically referring to God's "essence" how is God divisible ina hierarchy? Christians are continuously creating fallacies by saying that Jesus and God are one and that, one is subordinate to the other. Again, let me remind the crowd that, such beliefs are problematic since you would rank-order God's qualities.

I cannot blame Christians however since, the NT contradicts God's attribtues.

Jocko...If God needs something then its not God at all. Desire by necessity is a trait life forms have and if God is supposedly absent of all human traits then how does God need sons?

The concept of Trinity (in relation to the current subject):

The following is perhaps the best description of the Trinity and how God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all equal (thus would not amount to subordinate qualities within God) I suggest the thread posters read it:

"The traditional account of identity, derived from Boethius, holds that things may be either generically, specifically, or numerically the same or different. Abelard accepts this account but finds it not sufficiently fine-grained to deal with the Trinity. The core of his theory of identity, as presented in his Theologia christiana, consists in four additional modes of identity: (1) essential sameness and difference; (2) numerical sameness and difference, which Abelard ties closely to essential sameness and difference, allowing a more fine-grained distinction than Boethius could allow; (3) sameness and difference in definition; (4) sameness and difference in property (in proprietate). Roughly, Abelard's account of essential and numerical sameness is intended to improve upon the identity-conditions for things in the world given by the traditional account; his account of sameness in definition is meant to supply identity-conditions for the features of things; and his account of sameness in property opens up the possibility of there being different identity-conditions for a single thing having several distinct features."

Now for the payoff. Abelard deploys his theory of identity to shed light on the Trinity as follows. The three Persons are essentially the same as one another, since they are all the same concrete thing (namely God). They differ from one another in definition, since what it is to be the Father is not the same as what it is to be the Son or what it is to be the Holy Spirit. The three Persons are numerically different from one another, for otherwise they would not be three, but they are not numerically different from God: if they were there would be three gods, not one. Moreover, each Person has properties that uniquely apply to it � unbegotten to the Father, begotten to the Son, and proceeding to the Holy Spirit � as well as properties that are distinctive of it, such as power for the Father, wisdom for the Son, and goodness for the Holy Spirit. The unique properties are unmixed in Abelard's technical sense, for the Persons differ from one another in their unique properties, and such properties do not apply to God; the distinctive properties are mixed, though, in that God is characterized by each (the powerful God is the wise God is the good God). Further than that, Abelard holds, human reason cannot go; but reason validates the analysis (strictly speaking only a �likeness� or analogy) as far as it can go.

From Stanford Encyclopedia http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abelard/#7 - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abelard/#7

   I will try to respond to the questioners comments by this evening.

   The long quotation about the Trinity pasted in from some other source I don't feel I will discuss.

That is what I mean when I say that the Christian understanding of the verses in question is an example of self-fulfilling prophecies.  The idea is that since the authors of the New Testament say that the verses in the Old Testament are alluding to the Messiah, then they must be true.  Of course, those of us who don't regard the New Testament as authoritative will disagree, and rightfully so as I have already showed.

"The Person being spoken to is God and has His God. This could only be True of the incarnated Son and His Father.  The God Whose throne is forever and ever has His God - "Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You ..."."

Wow!  God has a God!  Besides being extremely blasphemous, your claim fails to consider the next few verses of Psalm 45.  But first, let us also consider that Psalm 45 is described as "a wedding song".  That certainly would not apply to the Messiah, would it?  Here is what different translations state concerning Psalm 45:

"For the director of music. To the tune of "Lilies." Of the Sons of Korah. A maskil. A wedding song." (NIV)

"A Song Celebrating the King's Marriage.
For the choir director; according to the Shoshannim ^{[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2045;&version=49;#fen-NASB-14599a" title="See footnote a - a ]}. A Maskil of the sons of Korah. A Song of Love." (New American Standard Bible)

"A Wedding Song of the Sons of Korah" (The Message)

"(A special psalm for the people of Korah and for the music leader. To the tune "Lilies." A love song.)  For a Royal Wedding" (Contemporary English Version)

"A Song for the King's Wedding

For the director of music. To the tune of "Lilies." A maskil. A love song of the sons of Korah." (New Century Version)

So, it is clear that Psalm 45 is a wedding song, celebrating the "King's wedding".  Who that King is I have not the slightest idea, but it certainly would not be Jesus, unless of course, Christians believe that Jesus was married (a la "The Da Vinci Code"). 

Furthermore, if we take into account the other verses in the Psalm, it should become even more clear that this is a wedding song and not a reference to the Messiah:

"8 All your robes are fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia;
       from palaces adorned with ivory
       the music of the strings makes you glad.

 9 Daughters of kings are among your honored women;
       at your right hand is the royal bride in gold of Ophir.

 10 Listen, O daughter, consider and give ear:
       Forget your people and your father's house.

 11 The king is enthralled by your beauty;
       honor him, for he is your lord.

 12 The Daughter of Tyre will come with a gift, ^{[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2045;&version=31;#fen-NIV-14610b" title="See footnote b - b ]}
       men of wealth will seek your favor.

 13 All glorious is the princess within her chamber ;
       her gown is interwoven with gold.

 14 In embroidered garments she is led to the king;
       her virgin companions follow her
       and are brought to you.

 15 They are led in with joy and gladness;
       they enter the palace of the king." (Psalm 45:8-15)

Who is this "royal bride in gold of Ophir" whose beauty so enthralls the king?  And who is the "king"?  The Messiah?  I think not.

"Furthermore the Psalm depicts this One addressed as God with companions. As a man the Son has human companions. They also serve and obey God. However, they do not occupy the unique position as the King in His kingdom. Therefore He is anointed with the oil of gladness above His companions."

The Psalm also says that "at your right hand is the royal bride in gold of Ophir".  Which companion was this again?  Furthermore, the bride also has her "virgin companions" (v. 14) who go with her into the "palace of the king". 

"No he did not. Under the inspiration and revelation of the Holy Spirit the writer of Hebrews quite faithfully showed us who really are in submission that the passage points to Christ."

When was Christ married to a "daughter of Tyrian"? 

"Here we simply have a fundamental departure in each of our understandings of the nature of the Bible.  The New Testament is the Word of God - period. We do not regard it as a error filled commentary on the Old Testament. We regard it as God's speaking."

I agree that we have differing views.  But, if we read the verses in context, it should become clear to any person that the Christian claims are incorrect.  You are free to hold whatever beliefs you want, but when you try to claim that the verses in Isaiah and the Psalms definitely allude to the Messiah, then you will meet criticism of those claims.

"But Christ said that we shall know them by their fruits. Neither Ahaz or Hezekiah or David or Solomon attained to the level of the glory of Jesus. They in their own ways were pointers and types leading up to the coming of the Son."

No, that particular verse was talking about false prophets.  Do you believe that David and Solomon were false prophets?  Ahaz and Hezekiah were not prophets at all.  They were kings only.  Coincidentally, the prophet who advised those two was none other than Isaiah!

"Take for example Jonah. He was a type of Christ Who was three days in the grace as Jonah was three days in the belly of a great fish. Jonah pointed to the coming Son of God."

How did Jonah point to the "coming Son of God"?  If you are referring to the so-called �Sign of Jonah�, you forget that while Jesus was allegedly dead while he was in the earth for three days and three nights, Jonah was alive while he was in the fish for three days and three nights.  Furthermore, Jonah was in the fish as a punishment for running from his duties, whereas Jesus was supposedly crucified for the sins of humanity.  There is no similarity between the two.  Finally, Jonah never actually says that his experience was a sign of the coming Messiah.

�Islamispeace, you will repeat again and again your tactic of saying "Oh this is just speaking about Ahaz." Or "Oh, this is just talking about Hezekiah." Or "Oh, this is just talking about Solomon or David or one of the other kings of Judah or Israel."

Isn�t it funny that I, a non-Christian who does not even read the Bible as scripture, have to explain to you the meaning of each verse?  You mistakenly concluded that the prophecy about Emmanuel applied to Ahaz.  It does not!  Rather, the sign of Emmanuel was given to Ahaz so that he would know when God would answer his prayer.  Ahaz was not Emmanuel!  It seems to me that a Christian, who is supposed to know the Bible front and back, would know this!  But, it seems that you do not. 

Besides this, I have proven to you that the verses in question refer only to specific events and people, not the Messiah.  You have failed to refute my arguments and can only bring irrelevant quotes from the New Testament to support your claims.  I showed you that when read in context, the verses are talking about some other individual, not Jesus.  You also fail to understand that the prophecy is not just one verse.  For instance, the prophecy about Emmanuel is not only found in Isaiah 7:14!  It is longer than just one verse.  The whole prophecy is actually a few verses and has several conditions in order for it to be fulfilled:

�4 Therefore the Lord himself will give you ^{[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%207&version=31#fen-NIV-17797c" title="See footnote c - c ]} a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and ^{[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%207&version=31#fen-NIV-17797d" title="See footnote d - d ]} will call him Immanuel (first condition).  ^{[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%207&version=31#fen-NIV-17797e" title="See footnote e - e ]} 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right (second condition). 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste (third condition). 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah�he will bring the king of Assyria (fourth condition)."� (Isaiah 7:14-17)

So you see, Emmanuel would be that person in whose time each of those conditions would be fulfilled.  Did Jesus fulfill each and every one of those conditions?  Since when was the king of Assyria brought under Israel�s control during the time of Jesus (he had been dead for 700 years!)?  Since when were �the two kings� which Ahaz dreaded defeated in the time of Jesus (they were already dead!)? 

Similarly, the prophecy about the �Wonderful Counselor� etc. was not just one verse, but two and with several conditions:

�6 For to us a child is born,
       to us a son is given,
       and the government will be on his shoulders (first condition).
       And he will be called
       Wonderful Counselor, ^{[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-17836b" title="See footnote b - b ]} Mighty God,
       Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (second condition).

 7 Of the increase of his government and peace
       there will be no end (third condition).
       He will reign on David's throne
       and over his kingdom (fourth condition),
       establishing and upholding it
       with justice and righteousness
       from that time on and forever (fifth condition).
       The zeal of the LORD Almighty
       will accomplish this (sixth condition).� (Isaiah 9:6-7)

Now, you argue that Jesus will fulfill this prophecy when he returns, but the prophecy makes no mention of this.  In addition, the prophecy states that all those conditions would be met by the individual in question via the �zeal of the Lord Almighty�.  Therefore, the individual in question would not be divine himself, but would serve as the vessel through which God would bring peace to Israel.  This certainly does not fit your description of Jesus, whom you maintain was God Himself.

�You do not grasp that it is THEY who point to Christ the Son. - "God, having spoken of old in many portions and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets, has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son, whom also He appointed Heir of all things, through Whom also He made the universe ... " (Hebrews 1:1)�

You can quote the New Testament all you want.  You will not prove anything.  Bring me something concrete from the Old Testament.  Bring me a direct quote from Hezekiah or David or Solomon in which they say that they are the forerunners to the �son of God�.  Bringing irrelevant verses from the New Testament will not prove anything.  The issue at hand is whether what is written in the New Testament confirms what it written in the Old Testament.  You can�t prove your premise by quoting profusely from the New Testament that the Old Testament confirms it.  You need to bring concrete evidence from the latter, not the former.  So far, the only verses you have quoted are the prophecies from Isaiah, but have failed to refute the arguments that they apply to contemporary figures, not the coming Messiah.

�Concerning insisting that the details of Isaiah 7 or Isaiah 9 have only contemporary significance goes too far with an idea that does have some truth. It is not hard to see that there was some contemporary significance to this prophetic utterances.�

And that is all the significance they had. 

�But think again reader. They could not be entirely related to those contemporary people. There is NO reason to call Hezekiah the Eternal Father. That is to call Hezekiah God Himself for there forever is only one Divine Father in the Bible Who is eternal - Jehovah God.�

Oh for God�s sake man!  I already showed you that it was common practice in the Old Testament to ascribe names and titles to human beings which normally would be ascribed to God alone.  I will repeat for the 3^rd time that the name �Jehu� means �Yahweh is he� and was the name of a Hebrew prophet and a king.  Would you not agree, given your above statement, that this name should only be given to God?  Why then were human beings given such names?  Does holding such a name mean the person is divine?  Of course not!  Let us also consider that in Exodus, God Himself says to Moses that he will be like �God� to Aaron and Pharaoh.  What a thing to say, don�t you think?  The verses in question say:

�14 Then the LORD's anger burned against Moses and he said, "What about your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know he can speak well. He is already on his way to meet you, and his heart will be glad when he sees you. 15 You shall speak to him and put words in his mouth; I will help both of you speak and will teach you what to do. 16 He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him. 17 But take this staff in your hand so you can perform miraculous signs with it."� (Exodus 4:14-17)

�1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. 2 You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country.� (Exodus 7:1-2)

Do these verses mean that Moses was truly God?  After all, it was God Himself who was saying such things!  Of course, the answer is no.  In the same way, just because Hezekiah was known as �Mighty God� did not mean that he actually was. 

�So the prophecy must point beyond him.�

There is nothing in the prophecy which would suggest that it was speaking of Hezekiah and another person. 

  Israfil,

        Let me first respond to you.

Need I remind the Christians that God is incoporeal and therefore is indivisible. Unless we are specifically referring to God's "essence" how is God divisible ina hierarchy?

       I  have before said that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct but not separated. If you ask me "But how can God do this with Himself?" My answer is simple - I do not know.

     But we do know that in the creation account God said "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness" (Gen.1:26).  At this stage of the revelation of God we detect no symbol of  authority for God to submit to. We only have a mysterious "Us" which holds a council to make make in the image of God.

 The next verse does not say that God made man in Their image, but in (singular) "His own image." - "And God created man in His own image; in the inage of God He created him, male and female He created them" (Gen. 1:27).

"Our image" indicates plurality. But "His own image" reveals a singular One. It is mysterious.

 Could God have been speaking with the angels? If so why doesn't it say in verse 27 that He made man in the image of God and the angels? It only mentions "His own image." This same God says "Before Me there was no God formed. Neither will there be any after Me" (Isaiah 43:10).

 So the phrase "Our image" cannot refer to any other God previously formed or afterward formed. And God also says "I am the First and I am the Last, And apart from Me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).

Who then is the "Us" that God speaks with that He should make man in the image of God?  "Surely God is with you, and there is no one else; there is no other God" (See Isa. 45:14).

 In the creation of all the other living things it says that they were after thier kind. But when it come to man it does not say that God created man after his kind. Rather man is made according to the image of God and after God's kind.

   Latter we are told that Christ is the image of the invisible God. "[Christ] Who is the image of the invisible God ..."  (Col. 1:15). And again it is written "... the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God ..." (2 Cor. 4:4).

  In man's creation God created made man according to what the Second of the Trinity is. He made man according to what Christ is as the image of the invisible God. Yet in Genesus 1:26-27 we do not see One in submission in obediance to the Other in the Godhead. We only see a mysterious "Us" Who makes man in "His own image".

    Latter as I pointed out in Zechariah you have Jehovah of hosts sending Jehovah of hosts. You therefore see God as both the Sender and the One Sent. I trust that you did read that post of mine.

 Christians are continuously creating fallacies by saying that Jesus and God are one and that, one is subordinate to the other. Again, let me remind the crowd that, such beliefs are problematic since you would rank-order God's qualities.

  If you consider again the very words of Jesus. He understands the limitedness of our ability to comprehend God. So He says that if we cannot believe that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him we should believe because of  the works which He does which testify if His oneness with the Father:

 "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me, but if not, believe because of the works themselves" (John 14:11).

   If it is too divine and mystical for us to understand the mingling of the Son and the Father, Christ desires that we would believe in the mingling because of the work He does. He forgave sins. He raised the dead. He rose from the dead. He expressed perfect obebediance and perfect authority too.

 If God is perfect should not also perfect obedience be manifested in Him as well as perfect authority?

Jocko...If God needs something then its not God at all. Desire by necessity is a trait life forms have and if God is supposedly absent of all human traits then how does God need sons?

  I don't know that I said God needed this. I did quote the Bible that His "good pleasure" is to have sons. He certainly WANTS to have sons.  God's Need is perhaps another discussion.

  The revelation of the Triune God is not given to man so that man may have a theological doctrine. All the passages showing the three-oneness of God are about the enjoyment of God and the experience of God. I cannot explain the three-oneness of God. No one can adaquately explain in human language such a mystery.

 But I suggest that we deepen our appreciation of the phrase "eternal life". And we should consider that "eternal life" is not only endless but extraordinary in other aspects. And only those who have the Son of God have the eternal life:

 "And this is the testimony, that God gave to us eternal life and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life" (1 John 5:11,12).

 We may not be able to explain the eternal life which is the Father Himself in the Son transmitted to man as the Holy Spirit. But we can receive in faith. We can enjoy and experience and live by this eternal life.

 Islamispeace,

     Your post was very lengthy and I won't respond to all of it right now.

      However, I will read it more than once to grasp your thought.

 Now the Psalm 45 does allude to a marriage too. This is because from one angle God wishes to obtain sons through Jesus Christ the Son. But from another angle, this entity that God isworking to create is a Bride and Wife for the Divine Person.

  The imagery of the queen looks at God's plan from another angle. He desires sons. He desires a Wife and Bride for the Son. That is a humanity which, through God's salvation, has been brought to a point that it corresponds to Christ in every way, except as one to be worshipped.

 This symbolic Queen is pointing to that aspect of God's eternal purpose that the believers are going to corporately and collectively be MARRIED to Christ the King.

 The are sons of God in eternity future. They are also collectively a Wife of the Son matching Him in expression and in love.

 The Bible concludes with a marriage of Christ and the New Jerusalem as His Bride and Wife.

  I will speak more about this latter.

 Islamispeace,

 How did Jonah point to the "coming Son of God"?  If you are referring to the so-called �Sign of Jonah�, you forget that while Jesus was allegedly dead while he was in the earth for three days and three nights, Jonah was alive while he was in the fish for three days and three nights.  Furthermore, Jonah was in the fish as a punishment for running from his duties, whereas Jesus was supposedly crucified for the sins of humanity.  There is no similarity between the two.  Finally, Jonah never actually says that his experience was a sign of the coming Messiah.

  All that you have said just goes to prove that Jesus was saying something GREATER than Jonah was here with Him.

 He did not say that Jonah was as great as He. He said what He is and what He accomplishes in His death and resurrection is GREATER than what Jonah went through in the belly of the fish.

 Islamispeace,  

Oh for God�s sake man!  I already showed you that it was common practice in the Old Testament to ascribe names and titles to human beings which normally would be ascribed to God alone.  I will repeat for the 3^rd time that the name �Jehu� means �Yahweh is he� and was the name of a Hebrew prophet and a king.  Would you not agree, given your above statement, that this name should only be given to God?  Why then were human beings given such names?  Does holding such a name mean the person is divine?  Of course not!  Let us also consider that in Exodus, God Himself says to Moses that he will be like �God� to Aaron and Pharaoh.  What a thing to say, don�t you think?  The verses in question say:

�14 Then the LORD's anger burned against Moses and he said, "What about your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know he can speak well. He is already on his way to meet you, and his heart will be glad when he sees you. 15 You shall speak to him and put words in his mouth; I will help both of you speak and will teach you what to do. 16 He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him. 17 But take this staff in your hand so you can perform miraculous signs with it."� (Exodus 4:14-17)

  It is true that many many people had great names in the Old Testament.

  It is also true that in the whole Bible no one, but no one. LIVED up to His name as Jesus did.

 Therefore, they were pre-cursors. They were forerunners. They were pointers. Many of them were very good. But only the Son was qualified to accomplish eternal redemption.

 You cannot point to the well named people of the Old Testament and use that to water down the testimony of Jesus Christ.

 His testimony is so glorious and so splendid that you cannot believe it. You trade the account of the Bible for fabrication and myths because the sheer glory of Christ seems to be too blinding for your religious mind.

  How can you say Jesus did not die on the cross?  Do you realize that you cannot TAKE the splendour of His giving 1000% obedience to His Father.  He wanted nothing for Himself. He wanted EVERYTHING for the Father.

 For this reason His name is exalted by God above every name not only in this age but also in the age to come. And every knee will bow to Jesus and every tongue confess.

  You should begin by saying "Amen" to everything that is written in the New Testament. You should not trade the truth of this history for some religious ideas which you find more palatable.

Jocko: I  have before said that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct but not separated. If you ask me "But how can God do this with Himself?" My answer is simple - I do not know.

Me: I salute you for your honesty and your willingness to say "I don't know" a true mark of wisdom. However, the fact that qualities of this kind (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are still problematic in nature, since, the definition of one quality is not equal to the other (e.g. The Son is not the Father since one is begotten and one begets).

Jocko: But we do know that in the creation account God said "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness" (Gen.1:26).  At this stage of the revelation of God we detect no symbol of submission to authority or authority for God to submit to. We only have a mysterious "Us" what holds a council to make make in the image of God.

Me: It would be mistaken to take the Biblical verse as if God was referring to some sort of pluralistic nature of himself. If I were to draw an inference to this verse I would say that perhaps God was referring to himself along with the "heavenly host." Remember God created Angels (and other spiritual beings) before man and according to other articles of faith many spiritual beings were present when man was created.

Jocko: Could God have been speaking with the angels? If so why doesn't it say in verse 27 that He made man in the image of God and the angels? It only mentions "His own image." This same God says "Before Me there was no God formed. Neither will there be any after Me" (Isaiah 43:10).

Me: Jocko there are many variations of how this verse has been interpreted. Some early thinkers interpreted the verse "Let us make man in our own image" as a symbolic reference to freewill. However this interpretation may vary but the general consensus of understanding holds the belief that God (according to this verse) is referring to the sovereign and autonomous nature of man. Also when in a group especially if its a close group it is natural to refer to oneself as "we" or "us."

Jocko: man is made according to the image of God and after God's kind.

Me: The above is an ambiguous statement. There is no such thing as "God's kind." Again, the reference of man being made in the image of God is sovereignty and that man is an autonomous creature through his rational faculties unlike the other creatures the Artisan (God) has made.

Jocko: Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me, but if not, believe because of the works themselves" (John 14:11).

Me: Jocko there is a difference in saying one is in something and one is something. For example should we say a closet is a house? We can say that the interior portion of a house contains closets but it does not mean that the closets would be called a house. A house contains various internal and external parts that combine to form a unified structure neither part on its own is considered the whole of a thing rather, it is considered a part. As far as I'm concerned the verse is ambiguous because it still does not explain Jesus and God being the same thing without one being subordinate to the other.

   Islamispeace,

You can quote the New Testament all you want.  You will not prove anything.  Bring me something concrete from the Old Testament. 

   And I would remind you that the Old Testament itself predicts that God would make a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). So why should I not refer to the New Testament which God promised to make?

 Bring me a direct quote from Hezekiah or David or Solomon in which they say that they are the forerunners to the �son of God�. 

   But my dear Islamispeace, they may have not KNOWN that. Perhaps only vaguely did they know the whole counsel of God.

 In their prophecies they spoke from God. But often they spoke beyond their knowledge and addressed the future.

  Here we see Jesus refering to such a Psalm of David ro prove that David was really speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ the Messiah to come:

  "Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus questioned them, Saying, What do you think concerning the Christ? Whose son is He? They said to Him, David's. He said to them, How then does David in spirit call Him Lord, saying,

'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand until I put Your enemies underneath You feet?'

 If then Dabid calls Him Lord, how is He his son? And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone from that day dare to question Him anymore." (Matt. 23:41-46). 

  Here is a prophetic utterance from David revealing that the Messiah to come would be the Son of God. But you must realize that in many instances God spoke through the prophets beyond the prophets own understanding of the far reaching significance of what they prophesied.

 Bringing irrelevant verses from the New Testament will not prove anything. 

   No, they do prove very much. You are just closed minded to the new covenant which God promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 to give to the house of Israel.

   And Jesus taught that He was that promised new covenant:

  "And He took a loaf and gave thanks, and He broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is My body which is being given for you; do this in rememberance of Me. And similarly the cup after they had dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant established in My blood, which is being poured out for you ..." (Luke 22:19,20)

  " ... Take, eat; this is My body. And He took a cup and gave thanks, and He gave it to them, saying,Drink of it, all of you. For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matt.26:26-28).

  So for Christ to establish the new covenant that God promised to make He had to go to the cross to accomplish an eternal redemption for the forgiveness of sins. And then the eating of the bread and the wine signify the taking of the crucified and resurrected Son of God into our being that we may be nourished, sustained, supplied, and fed by Christ Himself. Eating always symbolizes taking into our being:

 "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me shall live because of Me." (John 6:57)

  I must quote with the Old Testament, even more the New Testament. For it is the new covenant. And we must "eat" Christ. We must ask Him to come into our heart. We must receive the Spirit of the incarnated, crucified, resurrected, and excalted Son of God.

The issue at hand is whether what is written in the New Testament confirms what it written in the Old Testament. 

  The issue is that Jesus Christ cwntral figure in both the Old Testament and in the New Testament. He is seen in types, symbols, shadows, and forerunners in the Old Testament. And finally this One comes in the New Testament to establish the promised "new covenant" (Jeremiah 31:31-34) through His incarnation, life, death, resurrecion, exaltation, glorification and indwelling man as the life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45).

Then indeed as the Spirit of life, (the Spirit of reality) as the life giving Spirit He can impart His laws into our hearts and into our minds and inward parts inscribing His divine nature into our beings. 

You can�t prove your premise by quoting profusely from the New Testament that the Old Testament confirms it.

   I will continue to use the New Testament. However, I use the Old Testament also. I use the entire Bible.

  I didn't see that you had that much to correct when I quoted Zechariah's prophecy showing that Jehovah of hosts was the Sent One and the Sender in Zech. 2:8-11.

 I will continue to quote the New Testament. So if you are expecting me not to you will be disappointed. And if you say that it proves nothing, I say that is your own unbelieving daydream. No disrespect intended though.

  You need to bring concrete evidence from the latter, not the former.

  The New Testament IS the latter. And I will use the entire Bible.

  So far, the only verses you have quoted are the prophecies from Isaiah, but have failed to refute the arguments that they apply to contemporary figures, not the coming Messiah.

  If you could go back in time you could ASK Hezekiah himself if he was the Mighty God or the Eternal Father ...  he would probably laugh at you and say that he was not that effective.

 By the way, we ARE talking about Jesus Christ. He used the Old Testament quotations. But then again you reject Him. But if it was good enough for Him it is also for me. I am a follower of Jesus.

 Christ, Paul, John, Peter, I will continue to profusely quote along with the Old Testament writers.

 Sorry.

   Since it is apparent that Islamispeace refuses to consider what the New Testament says, my future replies to Islamispeace, if there are any, will not be for his sake. (Unless he opens up more to consider the words of Jesus and His apostles and the entire Bible.)

  They will be for those reading along the discussion who have not adopted a strict rule that what the New Testament says (including the very words of Jesus) are not important.

  The most we know about Jesus Christ comes from the New Testament. I will continue to teach from it.

  So, Islamispeace, my future replies in response to what you write are mainly for the sake of those willing to consider the entire Bible.

 Speaking of Psalm 45, it is filled with revelations of Jesus Christ.

  Because the center of the Bible is Christ and His redeemed as a corporate Body I will make some comments on the symbolism of Psalm 45.

  The 45th Psalm is a praise of Christ the king. But He is typified by Solomon. The section from verse 1 to verse 8 is a praise to about the King Himself. This is followed by verses 9 through 15 which are a praise of the queen, the King's wife. Lastly, verses 16 and 17, is a praise about the King's sons.

 From one angle the redeemed of the Son of God are collectively His Wife. From another angle they are sons of God with the life and nature of God dispensed into them.

In Psalm 45 verses 1 - 6 there are praises of Christ in four directions:

1.) His fairness (v.2)

2.) His victory (vv.3-5).

3.) His kingdom (vv.6-7)

4.) His virtues (v.8)

This praise consists of two balanced pairs: Christ's fairness is balanced with His victory. And Christ's kingdom is balanced with His virtues.

He is therefore voctorious yet fair and lovely in being so. He is a mighty King of a kingdom yet in beloved virtues He is such.

The power of His victory is balanced by the sweetness of His virtues. These NT verses help to see that Christ's fairness is balanced by His victory and its requirements (Matt. 5:20;25:14-30; John 15:2,6). 

Christ the Lord and King comes to us first in the aspect of His lovely fairness. We fall affectionaly in love with the Son of God. And our tongue becomes like the pen of a ready writer. We overflow with praises of the virtue of this worthy One. We could write so much of our love and praise for Jesus.

In verse 3 both the majesty and the splendour of the King are signs of His victory. Christ has overcome all of His enemies and has gained the victory. In His resurrection He overcame the whole world and its opposition. Ephesians 4:8 and Revelation 5:5 show Christ overcoming victory over all enemies.

While Christ was on earth, He showed His hidden splendour only once, when He was transfigured on the mountain (Matt. 17:1-2). The concealed and hidden glory of His divinity was unseen within the shell of His humanity. On the mountain of transfiguration He temporarily allowed this glory to be manifested from within Him for three of the disciples.

After His resurrection and ascension Christ appeared in His splendorous glory to Paul (Acts 26:13-15) and to John (Rev. 1:9-20). In His second coming Christ will shine over the earth to illumine it with the splendor of His glory (Rev. 18:1).

"And in Your splendor ride on victoriously because truth and meekness and righteousness; And let your right hand teach your awesome deeds" (Psalm 45:4)

Regardless of the situation on earth, Christ is riding triumphantly, prosperously (Acts 5:31). From the day of His ascension He began to ride on, and He will continue to ride until He comes back in victory (Rev. 19:11-16).

The "awesome deeds" of Christ include His crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. And in verse 4 "teach you" should be understood to mean perform for you. Everything Christ does, whether great or small, is awesome.

 "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; And the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom."

 The scepter signifies authority. Uprightness in this verse and righteousness in verse 7 are related to authority. As Psalm 89:14 says of Jehovah  "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne".

 Christ's kingdom is the issue of His victory (See Dan. 2:34-35;7:13-14; Matt.28:18; Rev. 19:11-20:6). And the foundation of His divine throne is righteousness and justice. This includes His righteous living and His righteous act upon the cross of Calvary in obedience to the Father.

 That is all I will write about Christ in Psalm 45 in this post. But in all of these lovely virtues and righteous victories Christ obtains sons of God. And He obtains a Bride to be His "queen". She is composed of all of His redeemed, reenerated, sanctified, transformed, conformed, resurrected, and glorified believers. Who are individually virgin lovers to Him in a symbol and are collectively His Wife and Bride as the New Jerusalem city that CHrist will marry at the end of the Bible.

 Do not be bothered by Islamispeace's attempt to distract FROM Christ in Psalm 45 rather than to teach it properly as pointing absolutey TO Jesus Christ.

  There is much more about Christ to be seen in Psalm 45.

  "You have loved righteousness   and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your companions" (v.7).

  The oil of gladness signifies the compound Spirit of God. That oil made in the book of Exodus was a compound of subsances carefully measured out and combined together in Exodus 30:23-25. There is a great revelation to be seen in the manner in which this oil was made.

  This post well be dedicated to that.

 "Moreover Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying,

You also take the finest spices: of flowing myrrh five hundred shekels, and of fragrant cinnamon half as much, two hundred and fifty shekels, and of fragrant calamus two hundred and fifty shekels, and of cassia five hundred shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, and a hin of olive oil. And you shall it a holy anointing oil, a fragrant ointment compounded according to the work of a compounder; it shall be a holy anointing oil.

And with it you shall anoint the Tent of Meeting and the Ark of the Testimony, and the table and all the utensils, and the lampstand and its utensils, and the altar of incense, and the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils and the laver and the base.

Thus you shall sanctify them that they may be most holy; whatever touches them shall be holy. And you shall anoint Aaron and his sons and sanctify them that they may serve Me as priests ... This shall be a holy anointing oil to Me throughout your generations. Upon the flesh of man it shall not be poured, nor shall you make any like it, according to its composition; it is holy, and it shall be holy to you. Whoever compounds any like it or whoever puts any of it upon a stranger, he shall be cut off from his people" (See Exodus 30:23-33).

   This holy anointing oil was a compound of olive oil and four spices.

    It is a full type of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. In the Spirit of Jesus Christ was compounded the divinity of God with the virtues of the man Jesus of Nazareth.

  There were 500 shekels worth of flowing myrrh, a spice used in the burial of Jesus (John 19:39). These 500 shekels worth of myrrh sybolize the preciousness of the death of Christ (Rom. 8:6).

  Then there were half so much worth of fragrant cinnamon, 250 shekels worth. The fragrant cinnamon signifies the effectiveness of the death of Christ. Because He died for us His death can effectively kill off many evil things in our nature (Rom. 8:13).

Then there was compounded into the compound 250 shekels worth in weight of fragrant calamus. This fragrant calamus was a reed that grew upward in a marsh or muddy place. This calamus reed signifies the  precious resurrection of Christ from the whole muddy and marshy realm of death (Eph .2:6, Col. 3:1; 1 Peter 1:3).

 Then there was added to the compound 500 shekels worth in weight of cassia. This spice was used in ancient times to repel insects and snakes. It signifies the power of Christ's resurrection (Phil. 3:10). The power of His resurrection repels the demons and evil spirits signified by snakes and insects that the spice of cassia kept away.

 We see in this compound so far three units of 500. But the middle unit is broken into two parts of 250 each. Notice:

  500 shekels in weight of myrrh    -    one unit

  250 shekels in weight of cinnimon - one half unit

  250 shekels in weight of calamus - one half unit

  500 shekels in weight of cassia  - one unit.

That is three units of 500 hundred. Yet the middle unit is split into two parts. The revelation here is that the compound signifies the Triune God - the Trinity. But the Second Person of the Trinity is split into two because the Son of God died on the cross and was "split" in death.

   But the three units symbolize the Triune God - the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 Now there is more. The number four represents the creatures of God - the creation of God (as in Ezekiel 1:5). And the number three symbolizes here the three - one Triune God. So the three units arranged into four componants signifies that the Triune God was mingled with His creature man. This represents the incarnation of God into a man in Jesus Christ.

 Now the eternal Spirit of God is represented by the olive oil. The olive oil was the base of the compound. The four spices were compounded into the olive oil as the base. This base is the Spirit of God that was seen in Genesis 1:2 before the Son was incarnated into a man. The eternal Spirit had only the divinity of God. He is the base.

Since the number four signifies the creatures (Exek. 1:5), of which man is the head (Gen. 1:26), and then number one signifes the unique God (Deut. 4:35; 1 Tim. 3:5), the four spices signify the humanity of Christ in God's creation. The Son of God came as a man. And man is an item of the creation of God.

The human virtues of this man were also brought into the eternal Spirit of God so that today the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the God-man Jesus Christ. We are told "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45).

All that Jesus was as a perfect man was compounded into the eternal Spirit of God. God today is a compound God of divinity and humanity. To accomplish this the Second of the Trinity became incarnated and was "split" in crucifixion on His cross for our sins.

   The Father (500) the Son split snd crucified on the cross (250 + 250) and the Holy Spirit (500). The dividing of the middle unit shows that the Second of the Trinity was crucified.

   The one hin of olive oil signifies the unique God in His divinity. Now in Christ He is mingled with the man Who the unique God incarnated into. God and man are blended. God and man are mingled together. And this compounded Spirit of the God man is available to anoint the house of God and everything pertaining to the kingdom of God.

 In Psalm 45 this anointing oil of exultant joy was poured out upon the precious and victorious King above His companions. Since Christ is the source of the four spices He is the chief one to enjoy the holy anointing which is also given to His companions. All this points to the eternal purpose of God dispensing Himself in Christ through the Holy Spirit into man.

  Christ enjoys the Spirit of God and the perfect attributes of the perfect man because He is the only Firstborn Son of God. His companions are His partners who also partake of the all-inclusive compound anointing Spirit.

 In this Holy Spirit is all that God's people need. The precious death of Jesus. The effectiveness of His death. The power and preciousness of His resurrection and the power of His resurrection to repel and defeat Satan in our lives are all here. And the base of this compounded all inclusive life giving Spirit is the eternal Spirit of the uncreated and unique God.

 Isn't this marvelous? What a revelation of Christ and His work is seen in Psalm 45 and in Exodus 30.

Hello Jocko,

I have just one important comment to make:

There is no systemised theology in Psalms. Psalm are not prophecies. Psalms exalt and glorify God. There is no Jesus in there. Thanks

Praise only the Lord Almighty God.

BMZ

Jocko,

Who is this "us" in Genesis 11 of the Jewish Holy Scriptures?

9. Therefore, He named it Babel, for there the Lord confused the language of the entire earth, and from there the Lord scattered them upon the face of the entire earth.

 

(Please note that it is not written in bold or caps)

 

Now, take a look at Genesis 11, according to the Christians' Bible NASB and carefully look that the "us" that has been turned into an  "Us".  

 

Genesis 11

 

1Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words.

2It came about as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.

3They said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly." And they used brick for stone, and they used tar for mortar.

4They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."

5The LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built.

6The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them.

7"Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech."

8So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city.

9Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth.

Note in Genesis 11:6, it is the LORD who said that. After that God took his party, the angels and whoever they were, for the fun.  

Now take a look at Genesis 3:22 of the Christians' Bible:

22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

And take a look at Genesis 3:22 of the Jewish Bible:

22. Now the Lord God said, "Behold man has become like one of us, having the ability of knowing good and evil, and now, lest he stretch forth his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live forever."

 

Can you spot the difference?

If I see a group of children and I tell them, "Come, let us go and play a game." It is me, just one man, who is saying that.  We should not take that word 'us' or 'Us' or 'US' seriously to decide how many Gods were there.  The Christians just are trying their best to show the 'plurality' of God.

BMZ

Israfil wrote: Jocko you have completely dodged my response. I take it you have no response for it which is fine with me, however, I respectfully ask you not to copy and paste the bible (as I simply just scroll past them) rather, with your own mind and opinion confront the issue by responding to me.

 Yes. And I second that.

BMZ

PS. Jocko, I love using emoticons. Please do not mind my doing so.

 It is not only in Capital letters ans small letters that the evangalists are making changes in the scripture but also in many other ways too. But they make  a small change at a time. That becomes useful to them later. I just give one example:

 In Deut 18:20 it was written that any prophet who shall speak in the name of God anything that was not commanded to him then that prophet shall be killed.

 Now you see that in Deut 18:20 they have changed it to "that prophet will die". There is a difference in dying and being killed. Every prophet, true or false dies. But not all claimants are killed. I want to know why these people are slowly drifting away from the truth.

 Jesus was a prophet and he died too according to the evangalists. Not only did he die but we can say that he was killed. So what about him as per Deut 18:20??? If a person can die once, he can die again too.

  Wow, many comments to respond to.

  First yours, BMZ

Hello Jocko,

I have just one important comment to make:

There is no systemised theology in Psalms. Psalm are not prophecies. Psalms exalt and glorify God. There is no Jesus in there. Thanks

Praise only the Lord Almighty God.

BMZ

   BMZ,

        This what you have said goes against the very teaching of Jesus Himself.

         After His resurrection He appeared to the disciples. They examined Him. And He opened their minds to understand all that had been written concerning Him in the Old Testament Scriptures. This He also said:

   "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you; that all the things written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms concerning Me must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44)

  As you can clearly see, Jesus taught that the Psalms ALSO had things written in them concerning Himself.

  But it boils down to whether you accept the word of Jesus, the word of the Apostles and writers of the New Testament or whether you are putting your trust in what someone else said about it like Mohammed.

 I put my trust in what Jesus said about it as faithfully recorded by the Evangelist Luke.

 ( I might agree with you that the truth is not tightly "systematized" in Psalms. But it is there)

  Israfil,

   This is for you.

   1.) I do not copy and paste the Bible into this discussion. I write it in myself. Probably, you could catch me in a typo once or twice.

     But I do NOT copy and paste the Bible into this forum.

   2.) You can draw my attention to anything you feel I evaded purposely. It could be that I had time to address only some of your points and not others.

       Probably each of us participating are also doing many other things.

   If you do choose to ignore what I COPIED BY HAND from the Bible, the loss is yours, not mine.

   Now what was it that you feel I evaded?

 Jocko has proved that the Psalms are very much there, as shown below:

 "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you; that all the things written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms concering Me must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44)

 Very good. We must have a good look at this verse recorded by Luke. "That all the things written in the law of Moses and Pslams concerning me must be fulfilled..." Like 24:44.

 Now let us examine these words, specially about the law of Moses. Was it written in the Law of Moses that his law will be abolished when Jesus will come? The law of Moses has been abolished by the evangelists according to the teachings of Jesus. Please show where it was written in the Law of Moses that his law will be abolished in the time of Jesus a.s. That people will start eating the flesh of swine in the time of (or after) Jesus a.s.

 That prophesy seems to have been fulfilled and all things written must be fulfilled and the law has been abolished but where was it written in the books of Moses that his law will live only upto the time of the Mesiah (Jesus a.s.). Was it promised and it is fulfilled?? How it is fulfilled by abolishing it??

 BMZ,

  If I see a group of children and I tell them, "Come, let us go and play a game." It is me, just one man, who is saying that.  We should not take that word 'us' or 'Us' or 'US' seriously to decide how many Gods were there.  The Christians just are trying their best to show the 'plurality' of G

   1.)  It is true that the capitalization in English is sometimes the preference of the translators. In some English Bibles you would not see "Us" in capitals, for example the 1901 American Standard Bible which I use very much as a Christian. The impact of the passage is the same to me though, with or without capitals.

  2.) We do not have to guess how many Gods there are. The Bible, on no uncertain grounds, informs us that there is only one. So "Let us" used three or four times in the Hebrew Scriptures in Genesis three times and in Isaiah once, do not circumvent the plan teaching that there is one God.

 3.) None of the things in which God said "Let Us / us" were a game. They were all crucial points in the relationship between the one God and His creature man.

     God wanted man to be united in Him and not in anything else. He interfered with the building of the tower of Babel because man was united apart from God and even against God. So the Divine Us came down and interfered that the history of man would take another course until He could unite man at Pentacost in the Holy Spirit. I speak of the book of Acts when the exalted Christ sent down the Holy Spirit to create the New Testament church.

 God saying "Let us / Us" make man in our image must be reckoned with. Who is the image of the "us"?  If He was talking to angels you have to demonstrate at least one of two things:

 1.) The angels are in the image of God. How else could God say "our image?"

 2.) That the Creator needed the angels to help Him create anything.

   Can you point to another example in the Bible where the angels assist God in the creation of something? At least one other example would be helpful to stengthen your interpretation that God was speaking to the angels.

   Another question for you: If the angels were also in the image of God what was the need for Him to make more creatures out of the dust of the ground in His own image? Why could He not simply make more angels?

   All these answers may not be in one place. And they may not all be in Genesis. The truth of God is spread around in the other books of the Bible. You have to continue reading and have help from the Holy Spirit in understanding.

   Jesus said that He and His Father would come as the Divine "We" to make an abode in His saved people.  

  "Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him" (John 14:23).

  The New Testament tells us that for God to come into His people is according to His eternal purpose. So if it was according to His eternal purpose then even in Genesis, in relationship to His creating man, it is understandable that He would refer to a Divine "Us".

 Though the Son had not become a human you still see the concept of God entering into man in Genesis. You it in the tree of life which was central to the garden into which man was placed.

 The eating of the tree of life signified the entering into man of the life of God. Blood was not yet needed because man had not yet sinned and was not yet in need of the redeeming blood sacrifice for atonement.

 But before the problem of sin came in you had God's eternal intention to come into man as the Triune God, the Divine "Us" and the Divine "We". And this tree of life stood there to signify the taking into himself the divine and eternal life of God to mingle into the created human life of man.

 Apparently, eternal life is far beyond our ability to imagine. God is one. Yet He is an extensive, unbounded, unlimited life like no other created life in the universe.

 Though God is not easy to understand He is available to experience and enjoy.

minuteman wrote:    Jocko has proved that the Psalms are very much there, as shown below:  "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you; that all the things written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms concering Me must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44)  Very good. We must have a good look at this verse recorded by Luke. "That all the things written in the law of Moses and Pslams concerning me must be fulfilled..." Like 24:44.  Now let us examine these words, specially about the law of Moses. Was it written in the Law of Moses that his law will be abolished when Jesus will come? The law of Moses has been abolished by the evangelists according to the teachings of Jesus. Please show where it was written in the Law of Moses that his law will be abolished in the time of Jesus a.s. That people will start eating the flesh of swine in the time of (or after) Jesus a.s.  That prophesy seems to have been fulfilled and all things written must be fulfilled and the law has been abolished but where was it written in the books of Moses that his law will live only upto the time of the Mesiah (Jesus a.s.). Was it promised and it is fulfilled?? How it is fulfilled by abolishing it??

 Minuteman,

      I will try to answer your question but in relation to the topic of God's begetting. It is related to that very much. But I need time.

     It is not so simple that the law is abolished in Christ's coming.

    The morality of the law was not abolished. It was strengthened, uplifted, and made more penetrating down to the innermost motive of man rather than simply touching the outward action.

   The ritual part of the law consisting of symbols which pointed to the coming of Christ we abolished and replaced by Christ in His work.

  So the abolishing of the law is not a simple matter. As I am sure you know Jesus said:

  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, Until heaven and earth pass away, one iota or one serif shall by no means pass away from the law until all came to pass." (Matthew 5:17,18)

  Yet at the same time we the Apostle Paul writing:

 "[Christ] Abolishing in His flesh the law of the commandments in ordinances, that He mght create thetwo in Himself (Jews and Gentiles) into one new man, so making peace" (Eph. 2:13).

 And we see Jesus breaking the law of the Sabbath and going against other traditions of the Jews. To deal with this matter takes more than a simple paragraph's discussion. So I will not try to briefly deal with it.

 Exept that the Old Testament said that in the new covenant God would impart something living into man's being. And this living law would cause God to have a people. Here is where we see God promising to replace the old law with a new law of life written into the inner being of His people:

 "Indeed, days are coming, declares Jehovah, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by their hand to bring them out from the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was their Husband, declares Jehovah.

 But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares Jehovah. I will put My law within them and write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.

And they will no longer teach, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for all of them will know Me, from the little one among them even to the great one among them, declares Jehovah, for U will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." (Jer. 31:31-34)

 Those who will not read my quotes from the Bible will miss out.

  In the new covenant to come God will impart His life into man. He will dispense His Spirit into man. He Himself will come to live in man and be a law of life.

 God becomes a man in Jesus the Son of Man / the Son of God. He lives a perfect life on earth and dies a vicarious death for the sins of the people. Those who believe into Christ will have their sins forgiven and forgotten by God. God looks upon them as if they had never sinned. In fact they were punished for thier sins in Jesus Christ on His cross.

 Then He resurrects and becomes the indwelling Spirit of life imparting the law of life on the inside of man's being. "For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death" (Romans 8:2).

  He Himself become the law inscribed "organically" into us by His mingling Himself into our being.

 So, my dear Moslem friends (and dear enemies), when you read "I will put My law within them and write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they will be My people ...  for all of them will know Me..." in Jeremiah you must understand that that is what Jesus is doing when He says:

" ... he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him" (John 14:23).

 The writing of God's law into our hearts is His sending the Spirit of the resurrected Jesus into us with the Father to make an abode within us.

 God writes Himself into the saved ones. God imparts His life and nature into the saved ones. God dispenses His life into the hearts of the saved ones.

 This inward dispensing of the Triune God - the Father and the Son as teh Divine "We" as the Holy Spirit of life, the Spirit of reality, is the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34.

It abolishes the older way of justification by keeping the commandments in ordinances of Moses.

 Now please recall that from the creation of man God desired that man would eat of the tree of life. This signified the taking of God as life into man. So even before sin came in God desired to impart Himself into even a good man.

 God simply wants to mingle Himself with man. God wants to be expressed from within man and have man live out from Him in a harmonious life union.

 When we look carefully at Jesus Christ we see this desired union and mingling of divinity and humanity.

Jocko wrote:     Israfil,    This is for you.    1.) I do not copy and paste the Bible into this discussion. I write it in myself. Probably, you could catch me in a typo once or twice.      But I do NOT copy and paste the Bible into this forum.    2.) You can draw my attention to anything you feel I evaded purposely. It could be that I had time to address only some of your points and not others.        Probably each of us participating are also doing many other things.    If you do choose to ignore what I COPIED BY HAND from the Bible, the loss is yours, not mine.    Now what was it that you feel I evaded?

You have evaded everything.

You have responded to others before me when I offered you my response. It appears you have a better time arguing with other based on the Bible rather than dialetical discussion. Anyway no need to respond it appears that you run from discussion and to think I had hope you would be the one to stand up to a giant and discuss this.

You have responded to others before me when I offered you my response. It appears you have a better time arguing with other based on the Bible rather than dialetical discussion. Anyway no need to respond it appears that you run from discussion and to think I had hope you would be the one to stand up to a giant and discuss this.

   Of course I argue with you about salvation based on the Bible.

   I don't argue about my faith based on the American Constitution or the teachings of Sigmund Freud or the philosophy of Socrates or the science of Albert Einstien or the Quran of Mohammed or the politics of Plato or anything else.

 If the arguement is about the Christian faith then you can expect that I will argue based on the Bible. That is where I derive my faith from.

I don't think I have ignored anyone completely.

  For anyone who thinks I have been unfair to Israfil, I will go back through Israfil's writings (which are as verbose as my own).

  I will find a point of his which I think is really difficult. I will either explain WHY I don't have a response or respond.

  I already told one poster that I could not explain something. It does not bother me to confess that there is something I don't know if that is the case.

 That is why this is a matter of faith. But by faith we enjoy and experience the resurrected Christ.

 Israfil copied and pasted in this discussion after the line

The following is perhaps the best description of the Trinity and how God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all equal (thus would not amount to subordinate qualities within God) I suggest the thread posters read it:

===========================================

"The traditional account of identity, derived from Boethius, holds that things may be either generically, specifically, or numerically the same or different. Abelard accepts this account but finds it not sufficiently fine-grained to deal with the Trinity. The core of his theory of identity, as presented in his Theologia christiana, consists in four additional modes of identity: (1) essential sameness and difference; (2) numerical sameness and difference, which Abelard ties closely to essential sameness and difference, allowing a more fine-

==================================

etc.

 I already explained in a previous post that I would probably not be responding to this paste in from some other source. That person whoever he is is not involved in the discussion. I don't feel to go off and argue with that other person's article.

 Israfil wrote this in response to my saying someting about God's God in Psalm 45:

The above paragraph is an example of how ridiculously contradictory one can be when interpreting a confusing text. Just a basic example using one of God's attributes, let's say infinity. Since God is infinite, there is no such thing as a succession of infinities otherwise there would be a point of cessation (which otherwise would contradict the principle of infinity). Similarly, One God cannot have a god as this is merely a contradictory in terms. To say: The Person being spoken to is God and has His God. This could only be True of the incarnated Son and His Father.

   I did respond to this point. My response was the discussion of the "Us" in Genesus 1:26.

  My point was that at that time nothing of subordination to authority within the Godhead could be seen. At best we see a kind of council within God.

   The idea of a symbol of authority and submission to authority was not revealed to us in the Bible at this time. Yet that God is triune or mysteriously an "Us" Who created man in "His own image" is revealed.

   I also addressed the diffivulty of understaning the Trinity by suggesting that "eternal life" which is what God is, must be a life beyond our concepts of limits. It is, in other words, more than simply a never ending life. It is everlasting in duration. But He is also eternal in quality and capability.

  I did not evade Israfil on this post.

The bold sentence implies that God is subordinate to himself (which was a mistake by early Christians proposing the Trinity as a doctrine). If Jesus was and truly is God he is not subordinate to himself, meaning, God cannot have unequal properties.

  Here Israfil wants to dictate to God what He can and cannot do.

   Not only is this an error by Islamic standards but an error in Christian standards since you have implied that within God are qualities that are unequal and subordinate to other qualities. I would suggest learning the ancient language of Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek before you interpret such faulty language.

   What God is is bound up in what God does. What He is in His nature is intimately related to His purpose.

 God's purpose is to dispense Himself into man. To dispense Himself into man He is triune.

 The Father is the Source. The Son is the Course. And the Holy Spirit is the flow, the transmission.

  God flows out into man. He is triune for this. He apparently is eternally triune. For we are told that each of the Three is God and eternal.

  The Father is eternal - (Isaiah 9:6;) 

  The Spirit is eternal - (Hebrew 9:14)

 The Son is eternal -    (Hebrews 7:2)

   In the case of the Son Hebrews says that He is a High Priest forever according to the order of Melchisedec. This Melchisedec Hebrews says appears in the book of Genesis - "Being without father, without mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened to the Son of God, abides a priest perpetually." (7:3) 

 The meaning here is that the Son of God has neither beginning of days nor end of life. Therefore as the Father always was and is eternal and as the Spirit always was and is eternal so also the Son of God always was and is eternal.

  In eternity the Son had only divinity. On the bridge of time between the past eternity and the future eternity the eternal Son who had no beginning of days and no earthly father or mother in eternity past became incarnated. He became a man.

 This incarnation was for the dispensing of God into man. It was not for the dispensing of God into one man alone. It was for the dispensing of God into man as a many as a collective - sons of God.

 The eternal Son is the Head of this corporate entity and the object of our faith as believers and worship as lovers. The many sons through Him are His expansion and encrease. They have beginning of days but live eternally.

 The Son had no beginning of days (Hebrew 7:3) in that sense until He began the days of His being incarnated and born of the human virgin Mary. In that sense the man Jesus had beginning of days.

John's gospel also declares the eternalness of the Son of God by saying that the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1). Then in verse 14 "And the Word became flesh". God the Word was incarnated and began the days of His becomming flesh in the realm of human history.

  My major point here is that the Three of the Trinity are all taught to be essentially eternal as always was.

 And my point is that this Threeness of the Godhead is related to His eternal plan to dispense Himself into man. Once again, the Father is the Source. The Son is the Course. And the Holy Spirit is the flow, the transmission which finally reaches the inside of man. God through His triune nature dispenses Himself into man to be mingled with man.

   I don't know about eternal past submission of the Second of the Trinity to the First. I have to study that matter more. But the plan of God cannot be divorced from the nature of God in the Bible.

Jocko,

Trinity is something which Jesus never hinted about, never taught and never preached. It was thought of long after Jesus was gone. Trinity is something which even very learned Chrsitians can neither understand themselves nor can they explain. Finall it becaomes a matter of Post-Jesus faith.

What kind of a God Almighty would have swindled Noah, Abraham and all the Jews over a period of 6,000 years? The Jews had the Scriptures for 1,500 years with them and never knew about this triune god and some blokes discovered a triune god over the first 100-325 years after Jesus.

If you just read John 17 and specially the ones that I have emboldened, you will realise that trinity fails and flops. My comments are in blue fonts for an easy perusal:

John 17

The High Priestly Prayer

 1Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,

Why does John put a conditional demand from Jesus?

 2even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.

Again, this is in third person, which is incorrect. It would have been different if Jesus had said,"even as You gave me authority over all the flesh, that to all whom You haven me, I amy give eternal life." Jesus did not say so.

 3"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

(This statement clearly rejects trinity and also clearly tells us that Jesus steered clear of claiming to be God or a god and this was John's idea. Note that if Jesus had said such, he would have said,"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God and me whom You have sent." Why would Jesus refer to himself in third person?

 4"I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.

Notice that here John makes his blunder known by quoting Jesus, talking in first person. I would accept this as words from Jesus' own mouth. 

5"Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Done that above.

 6"I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.

Notice the speech in first person.

 7"Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You;

 8for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.

 9"I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;

 10and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.

 11"I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.

 12"While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

Upto here and till the end, it all goes in the first person and there is no trinity in there.

BMZ 

Jocko,

You are totally mizing this whole situation up. I was not offended or anything so that if my fault for not rearranging my words to sound "less excited" about not having a response. However, judging from the recent posts to other members it seems since my last post you were dodging me in a way. To clarify any future miscommunication if you have no response to any things I have said then truly, all you have to say is you have no response. I'm not sure if you did earlier but I did not catch it so this is merely an FYI.

I did respond to this point. My response was the discussion of the "Us" in Genesus 1:26.

  My point was that at that time nothing of subordination to authority within the Godhead could be seen. At best we see a kind of council within God.

   The idea of a symbol of authority and submission to authority was not revealed to us in the Bible at this time. Yet that God is triune or mysteriously an "Us" Who created man in "His own image" is revealed.

   I also addressed the diffivulty of understaning the Trinity by suggesting that "eternal life" which is what God is, must be a life beyond our concepts of limits. It is, in other words, more than simply a never ending life. It is everlasting in duration. But He is also eternal in quality and capability.

Simply reducing your analysis of the Trinity is not an acceptable answer especially if you are indicating that the Trinity implies truth. In terms of relating this to the subject God begetting Jesus is not an equal relationship. If the quality of God is Fatherness and the quality of the Son is Son-ness" then how can these two aspects be equal? If, as you say the Trinity is mysterious therefore we cannot create an explanation suitable to explain this much less the explanation of God begetting humans then why ascribe anything? Why begin to say Jesus is thus and so or God is thus and so if we cannot fully explain their relationship?

Why define things if our answer to criticism is "its mysterious" it is a total waste of time even defining things. The biggest mistake made by Christians are making definitions upon which we don't understand. This is why I've stopped ascribing to God attributes since, those attributes themselves are limiting-even the word infinite is limiting because infinite is subjective and can be defined differently.

I did not evade Israfil on this post.

You may not have intentionally but it seemed like it earlier-anyway, its water under the bridge as they say.

Here Israfil wants to dictate to God what He can and cannot do.

I'm only going off by what you have stated.

What God is is bound up in what God does. What He is in His nature is intimately related to His purpose.

 God's purpose is to dispense Himself into man. To dispense Himself into man He is triune.

 The Father is the Source. The Son is the Course. And the Holy Spirit is the flow, the transmission.

  God flows out into man. He is triune for this. He apparently is eternally triune. For we are told that each of the Three is God and eternal.

  The Father is eternal - (Isaiah 9:6;) 

  The Spirit is eternal - (Hebrew 9:14)

 The Son is eternal -    (Hebrews 7:2)

Would you agree that God is "not bound by anything?" If so how is it possible God is such and such? When you say God is something you are binding him to a word [in this case an attribute such as eternal]. I know you are basing your answers to doctrine but do you see the problem with words here?

This incarnation was for the dispensing of God into man. It was not for the dispensing of God into one man alone. It was for the dispensing of God into man as a many as a collective - sons of God.

 The eternal Son is the Head of this corporate entity and the object of our faith as believers and worship as lovers. The many sons through Him are His expansion and encrease. They have beginning of days but live eternally.

 The Son had no beginning of days (Hebrew 7:3) in that sense until He began the days of His being incarnated and born of the human virgin Mary. In that sense the man Jesus had beginning of days.

John's gospel also declares the eternalness of the Son of God by saying that the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1). Then in verse 14 "And the Word became flesh". God the Word was incarnated and began the days of His becomming flesh in the realm of human history.

  My major point here is that the Three of the Trinity are all taught to be essentially eternal as always was.

 And my point is that this Threeness of the Godhead is related to His eternal plan to dispense Himself into man. Once again, the Father is the Source. The Son is the Course. And the Holy Spirit is the flow, the transmission which finally reaches the inside of man. God through His triune nature dispenses Himself into man to be mingled with man.

   I don't know about eternal past submission of the Second of the Trinity to the First. I have to study that matter more. But the plan of God cannot be divorced from the nature of God in the Bible.

Regardless of your explanation, according to the Bible there was a time Jesus did not exist at least physically. So I don't know how the authors of the Bible can explain how the Son was eternal. Perhpas they would say the Son was eternal spiritually or somehow. Regardless, in matters of daletics you cannot answer the criticism on how unequal the relationship between Father[God] and Son[Jesus] is. The Father begets and the Son is begotten how is the son eternal when part of the Son's attribute is to be the begotten?

  If you don't mind Israfil I will at this time respond to that last paragraph first.

Regardless of your explanation, according to the Bible there was a time Jesus did not exist at least physically.

     That is right, physically as a created man He is not eternal.   Man is an item of creation (Genesis 1:26). Man had a beginning. So the man Jesus had a beginning. If I did not believe that then I would not believe in the incarnation.

     The question is what else does the Bible say? For example Peter refers to "the Spirit of Christ" even before the birth of the created man Jesus.

     "Concerning this salvation the prophets, who prophesied concerning the grace that was to come unto you, sought and searched diligently, searching into what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ in them was making clear ..." (1 Peter 1:10,11a).

  So before Jesus Christ was born as a man "the Spirit of Christ" is moving in connection with the prophesies of the Old Testament prophets.

 And of course Jesus infuriated His opposers by informing them that before father Abraham came into being He is the "I Am" Whom Moses encountered in the wilderness:

 "The Jews said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being I am. So they picked up stones to throw at Him" (John 8:57-58a).

 Jesus says that before He was born He was an object of His Father's love and dwelt in the divine glory:

"And now, glorify Me along with Yourself, Father, with the glory I had with you before the world was" (John 17:5).

Furthermore, John tells us that before "the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us" (John 1:14) " ... the Word was with God. And the Word was God." (John 1:1).

 So indeed, the man Jesus had a beginning in being concieved and born. But it is not quite that simple because He is the Divine Son, the Word Who is God even from before the foundation of the world. And before the foundation of the world Christ was the sphere and realm within which God chose the future sons of God to be brought into sonship:

 "God ... Even as He chose us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before Him in love, predestinating us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will ..." (Eph. 1:4,5).

So I don't know how the authors of the Bible can explain how the Son was eternal.

  Well, I agree that it is very mysterious. But the gospel is to "whosoever believes" and not "whosoever can explain".

 It is very humbling to the proud fallen man to trust in what he cannot fully comprehend. But the response to our faith is God's faithfulness. We do not have "blind faith" in a vacuum. We have a certain amount of bearing witness within that we are on the right track. I would not advise anyone to wait until they felt they understood the Triune God before they asked Jesus to come into their hearts.

 Perhpas they would say the Son was eternal spiritually or somehow.

  I have found that for sure the greatest way of blessing and peace is to simply take the statements of the Bible with an Amen and thanksgiving. So when it says that the Word was with God and the Word was God - I simply say "Amen!".  It may be humbling to the pride of our intellects. But our minds have been damaged by sin anyway. Even to think clearly, and especially concerning the things of God, we need salvation and TIME for the Holy Spirit to operate in our souls for transformation.

Regardless, in matters of daletics you cannot answer the criticism on how unequal the relationship between Father[God] and Son[Jesus] is.

 To any absolute satisfaction, that is probably very true. Minds keener than my own have delt with the matter for centries.

 However, when I examine most of the verses concerning this mysterious God they are dealing with enjoyment and experience rather than formal systems of theology. For example here the Three of the Triune God are mentioned:

 "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father. Of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named, That He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power though His Spirit into the inner man, that Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith ..." (Eph. 3:14-17)

 Here the Father is at work. The Spirit is also at work. And the Son is making His home in the hearts of men by faith. The Trinity is operating not to deliver man a theology but to dispense divine life into man's being.

 I would not encourage anyone to have to wait until they comprehend the eternal Divine Being before they receive His dispensing of life into their hearts.

Here again the Trinity is working to impart life into man:

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (2 Cor. 13:14).

 Once again the mentioning of the Three of the Godhead is in relationship to enjoyment, fellowship, and the dispensing of God into man.

  When we observe the man Jesus Christ we should focus on this, that God wants to dispense Himself into man. God wants to be one with man. God  wants an organic union and mingling with man.

 You should not think of Jesus as an enigma. You should think of Jesus as normality. Jesus is what God meant by human being.

  I do not think you should wait until you can explain difficult paradoxes in the Bible concerning the Person of Christ. Come to Him for life.

The Father begets and the Son is begotten how is the son eternal when part of the Son's attribute is to be the begotten?

 I think that He is somehow eternally "begotten".

 The eternally begotten Second of the Triune God was sent to be the emblem of perfect submission. The First of the Triune God retained the emblem of authority. And the Third of the Triune God transmits and imparts this reality into man.

 Excuse me Israfil. But BMZ has something that I want to respond to right now.

 BMZ,

  Trinity is something which Jesus never hinted about, never taught and never preached.

  Jesus, of course we never see using the term Trinity. It is nowhere in the New Testament. It was coined in responsed to attacks against the Person of Christ which came hundreds of years latter.

  However Jesus spoke of the fact of the three-one Divine Being. Especially in John's gospel the foundation for this revelation is firmly laid. But also in Matthew's gospel.

 In Matthew 28:19 Jesus says "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ..."

 Notice that the Lord Jesus did not say to baptize them into the NAMES (plural). He said baptize them into the NAME (singular). The name of the Father and to the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

 What then is the NAME of this God? You might say that His name is Father - Son - Holy Spirit.  God wants to plunge people, immerse people, engulf people into the one living NAME of the Father - Son - Holy Spirit Divine Being.

I hope that you will see that this verse is not about a religious formula for putting people into water and what to say when you do. It is a charge that the disciples place people into the reality of God - the one God Who is Father - Son - and Holy Spirit.

 It was thought of long after Jesus was gone. Trinity is something which even very learned Chrsitians can neither understand themselves nor can they explain. Finall it becaomes a matter of Post-Jesus faith.

 That is true that we Christians have a very hard time explaining HOW God could be three-one. However, we can experience God in Christ. We can experience and enjoy the divine "We" coming to make an abode with us:

 "Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him. And We will come to him and make an abode with him" (John 14:23).

 The Son and the Father have come as the Holy Spirit and made an abode with me ... with me and with millions of others.  I know this. I cannot fully explain this but the Word of God is true when it tells me:

 "And in this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He gave to us." (1 John 3:24b)

And again - "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." (Rom. 8:16)

Paul tells the Corinthian Christians to examine themselves and remember that Jesus Christ is within them:

"Test yourslves whether you are in the faith; prove yourselves. Or do you not realize about yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved?" (2 Cor. 13:6)

 I wish you could make this strong association in your mind, that whenever you think about "Trinity" you would think - "God getting into people. God operating to get into me."

 God is triune because He takes these "steps" to accomplish His plan to dispense God into man. The Father is the Source. The Son is the Course. And the Spirit is the flow - the transmission.

We need really to open up and receive this Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ into our hearts.

What kind of a God Almighty would have swindled Noah, Abraham and all the Jews over a period of 6,000 years?

 I don't know what you mean. But God did progressively unveil Himself in His nature and plan to the world. He manifested Himself in stages. He is too profound for us to have taken Him in.

 So the Gospel of John does not immediatly follow Genesis. Much ground work had to be accomplished by God to teach the world. His faithfulness to Abraham, His choosing and elect people to hold up His law, His people  to build Him a house to dwell in, a people from whom a Messiah would come.

 These were not God's swindles. Abraham will rejoice with the sanctified Christians and Jews in the kingdom. And all the saved nations will rejoice. God will build up the New Jerusalem and dwell with man for eternity. There is no swindle.

 There is a gradual and progressive revelation of the most profound God and the eternal life that He desires to impart into the saved.

The Jews had the Scriptures for 1,500 years with them and never knew about this triune god and some blokes discovered a triune god over the first 100-325 years.

 Their reward for belief and obediance is in accordance to the level of revelation that they did have. Why do you feel God is foolish?

 He is very good at being God. And He takes into account the level of revelation that was available to the past generations.

If you just read John 17 and specially the ones after  that I have emboldened, you will realise that trinity fails and flops. My comments are in blue fonts for an easy perusal:

   Thanks for your comments on John 17. I will have to add some of my own latter.

islamispeace wrote: "You said that Jesus would have a reign of peace.  Isn�t it quite possible that he will be recognized as �Wonderful Counselor� or �Prince of Peace�?   And, many people already call him �Mighty God�." Not according to the Islamic viewpoint.  There is nothing in the Hadiths which suggest that he would be known by such titles.  And he certainly would not be known as "Mighty God" because Muslims do not apply titles which belong only to God to a mere man.  Apparently, it was commonplace in the Old Testament. "According to Jewish interpretation, Jesus is not the Messiah." Irrelevant because they believe that Isaiah 9:6 was not a reference to the Messiah.  Neither was the passage about "Emmanuel". "Do you think that an extra 15 years is enough to make someone eternal?" According to the Jewish interpretation, it is.  It certainly makes more sense than to apply this title to Jesus, who lived a mere ~30 years and was then allegedly crucified.  The only way to apply this passage to Jesus is through a self-fulfilling prophecy by claiming that "well, we call him 'Mighty God' so he fulfilled the prophecy."  The problem is that he did not fulfill any of the conditions, nor did he ever refer to himself with such titles.  But as I said, even if he was, is or will be referred by such titles, it does not make him God because many Biblical figures had similar names, which if taken literally, would suggest a state of divinity.

Sorry.  I did not see your response earlier.

"You said that Jesus would have a reign of peace.  Isn�t it quite possible that he will be recognized as �Wonderful Counselor� or �Prince of Peace�?   And, many people already call him �Mighty God�." Not according to the Islamic viewpoint.  There is nothing in the Hadiths which suggest that he would be known by such titles.  And he certainly would not be known as "Mighty God" because Muslims do not apply titles which belong only to God to a mere man.  Apparently, it was commonplace in the Old Testament.

On page 2 of this thread, I asked:  "Who do you think the child is that Isaiah mentions?"

You responded: According to the Jewish interpretation, the passage is referring to King Hezekiah, not the Messiah. 

There is nothing in the Haddiths which suggests that Hezekiah would be known by such titles, either.

According to Jewish interpretation, Jesus is not the Messiah." Irrelevant because they believe that Isaiah 9:6 was not a reference to the Messiah.  Neither was the passage about "Emmanuel".

Yes, it is relevant. If Jewish interpretation can be used to disprove that child was Jesus, then Jewish interpretation can be used to disprove that Jesus was the Messiah.

"Do you think that an extra 15 years is enough to make someone eternal?" According to the Jewish interpretation, it is.  It certainly makes more sense than to apply this title to Jesus, who lived a mere ~30 years and was then allegedly crucified.

Yes, if that is all you consider.  Doesn�t it make even more sense, though, to apply the title to the one which dies but whom you expect to return thousands of years later? 

The only way to apply this passage to Jesus is through a self-fulfilling prophecy by claiming that "well, we call him 'Mighty God' so he fulfilled the prophecy."  The problem is that he did not fulfill any of the conditions, nor did he ever refer to himself with such titles.

Okay.  So, how can you apply it to Hezekiah?  What conditions did he fulfill?  When did he refer to himself with such titles? 

But as I said, even if he was, is or will be referred by such titles, it does not make him God because many Biblical figures had similar names, which if taken literally, would suggest a state of divinity.

You responded: According to the Jewish interpretation, the passage is referring to King Hezekiah, not the Messiah. 

   The compliant that Jesus Christ does not seem to be the Prince of Peace of Israel or their ruler is not reliable. God is still outworking His plan and their ability to recognize One who a present they reject.

 Israel also did not recognize Moses right away as their anointed and God sent savrior and leader. In fact they wanted to stone him.

   Moses was anointed and sent by God to deliver the people of Israel from Egypt and lead them to the good land. At one point the people associated with Korah, Abiram, and Dathan and about 200 men of renown accused Moses of failure. They actually insisted that Moses had brought them up out of the land of milk and honey (Egypt the place of their enslavement), to kill them in the wilderness.

  This rebellion and rejection of Moses did not render the fact that Moses was the sent deliverer from God null and void. They wanted to stone Moses and secure for themselves another leader. This did not make Moses not the anointed leader sent by God.

   A generation died in the wilderness and never saw the promise fulfilled of inheriting the good land. It was left to their children to enter in. This delay did not make Moses not the anointed deliverer sent by God for Israel.

  We may see that some aspects of Isaiah 9:6 are not practically worked out yet. And over those whom it is to apply may be in rebellion still. This does not make Christ not the Wonderful COunselor, the Mighty God, and the Eternal Father. Nor does this temprary rebellion render it not true that the government is on His shoulders.

  The Eternal Father has a long time to outwork in history His fully accomplished will. In the mean time the Son says:

 " All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age." (Matt.28:18-20)

   As we are moving towards the consummation of the age, we who have trusted in Christ preach His gospel, He is with us as Emmanuel - "God with us" all the days throughout the rolling centries. We preach the gospel to all the world.

  Israel may presently be in rebellion against her Messiah. That does not matter. In the consummation of the age the whole globe will be headed up in Christ including Israel His kinsmen according to the flesh.

  I think it is Islamispeace who complains of our praises of Christ amounting to "self-fulfilling prophecy."  He should realize that neither does his rejection of the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, and the Eternal Father amount to self fulfilling failure of the prophecy.

  Joseph also was lifted from a Hebrew slave to a ruler in Egypt. His father Jacob and his plotting and envious brothers were forced to come down from the famine and receive food from Joseph in Egypt. Joseph ruled over them in love and patience yet they did not even recognize him at the first. He disciplined them. He taught them some good lessons for betraying him to slavery in Egypt.

 In this period when Joseph's brothers did not recognize him as their brother God had Joseph sovereignly rule over them nevertheless. Their unrecognition did not make Joseph not their savior.

 I would advise readers not to listen to disbelief concerning Isaiah 9:6.  Rather than wait for the other person to do so, each of us should bring ourselves under the Wonderful Counselor Christ. Each of us should trust that God has come in a child and that the Father has come in the Son. We should believe and not count the rebellion and unbelief of others to make the prophecy not true.

It could only be true of Jesus Christ. What other child are we expecting who is the Mighty God Himself?  That is mighty to overcome the world, sin, and the grave. What other Son could we expect Who is the embodiment and expression of the Divine Eternal Father? 

Jocko,

Could you write a note and explain how did God beget Jesus? What does that word 'begotten' really mean to you.

I am sure you will agree with me that Jesus was not begotten the way David begat/begot Solomon.

While you are at it, please explain how did God beget Israel and David as his sons. Was the act of begetting the same and please keep in mind that David was begotten when he was a young man.

BMZ

�Now the Psalm 45 does allude to a marriage too. This is because from one angle God wishes to obtain sons through Jesus Christ the Son. But from another angle, this entity that God is working to create is a Bride and Wife for the Divine Person.�

What on earth are you talking about?  So now, Psalm 45 is referring to Christ�s wedding?  Before, you only emphasized verses 6 and 7, and completely ignored the rest of the Psalm!  Only after your argument was refuted did you consider the whole Psalm, and of course, you still maintain that it refers to Jesus!  You are just pulling stuff out of nowhere now, offering fanciful interpretations which have no basis. 

�The imagery of the queen looks at God's plan from another angle. He desires sons. He desires a Wife and Bride for the Son. That is a humanity which, through God's salvation, has been brought to a point that it corresponds to Christ in every way, except as one to be worshipped.�

How do you come to this conclusion?  What is written in the Psalm which talks about �another angle�?  What is written there that says that God �desires sons� or a bride for �the son�?  Nothing!  You simply choose to link the Psalm to something totally unrelated.  Isn�t it strange that Paul decided to quote two verses from the Psalm and left the rest in the air?  He wanted to emphasize those two verses only, just like the Gospel writers only emphasized certain verses from Isaiah while ignoring others.  It was all about desperately trying to �confirm� their beliefs, when really there was no confirmation.

�The Bible concludes with a marriage of Christ and the New Jerusalem as His Bride and Wife.�

Where does it do this? 

�All that you have said just goes to prove that Jesus was saying something GREATER than Jonah was here with Him.

 He did not say that Jonah was as great as He. He said what He is and what He accomplishes in His death and resurrection is GREATER than what Jonah went through in the belly of the fish.�

No, Jesus makes no reference that he was a �greater Jonah�.  The story of Jonah has no similarities or parallels with the story of Jesus.  How then can Jesus be a greater Jonah? 

�It is true that many many people had great names in the Old Testament.

  It is also true that in the whole Bible no one, but no one. LIVED up to His name as Jesus did.

 Therefore, they were pre-cursors. They were forerunners. They were pointers. Many of them were very good. But only the Son was qualified to accomplish eternal redemption.�

Nothing of what you said is confirmed in the Old Testament.  The names and titles that were given to those people were purely allegorical in nature, not literal.  So of course Hezekiah was not going to be perfect, even though he was called �Mighty God�.  That title was given to him because, according to the Old Testament, it was during Hezekiah�s reign that Sennacherib�s army was decimated and all 185,000 soldiers of the Assyrian army were killed:

�36 Then the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning�there were all the dead bodies! 37 So Sennacherib king of Assyria broke camp and withdrew. He returned to Nineveh and stayed there.� (Isaiah 37:36-37)

Having the title �Mighty God� did not make it incumbent upon Hezekiah to be perfect like God and all-powerful like God.  The title was allegorical, nothing more.  If such a title was ever applied to Jesus (which you have failed to demonstrate), it would have been allegorical as well.

�You cannot point to the well named people of the Old Testament and use that to water down the testimony of Jesus Christ.�

Sure I can.  I already did and then some!  Christ was no more than a man, a great man for sure, but a man nonetheless.  He did not consider himself God.

�His testimony is so glorious and so splendid that you cannot believe it. You trade the account of the Bible for fabrication and myths because the sheer glory of Christ seems to be too blinding for your religious mind.�

The Bible is a mix of fabrication and myths (with some truth here and there), written by those who blasphemed against the One God.  I don�t believe in the fabrications of men and I don�t follow them blindly (unlike you).

�How can you say Jesus did not die on the cross?  Do you realize that you cannot TAKE the splendour of His giving 1000% obedience to His Father.  He wanted nothing for Himself. He wanted EVERYTHING for the Father.�

We are not talking about his alleged death.  We are talking about the so-called validity of the Gospel claims that several specific Old Testament verses point to a divine Messiah.  I have shown you that those claims are not valid.

�For this reason His name is exalted by God above every name not only in this age but also in the age to come. And every knee will bow to Jesus and every tongue confess.�

You sound like you are just trying to keep yourself convinced of your blind faith.  Jesus will not avail you aught on the Day of Judgment, for he will bow to his Lord and testify against all who worshipped him.  Read the Holy Quran my man.

�You should begin by saying "Amen" to everything that is written in the New Testament. You should not trade the truth of this history for some religious ideas which you find more palatable.�

Let me make it crystal clear: There is a better chance of George Bush becoming a nun and retiring to a convent than me saying �Amen to everything that is written in the New Testament�!  And Bush will never be a nun!!  Lol!  I live in Islam and I will die in Islam, inshaAllah.

�And I would remind you that the Old Testament itself predicts that God would make a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). So why should I not refer to the New Testament which God promised to make?�

And where does it say in those passages that God will come down and die for everyone�s sins?  You continue to offer vague passages which offer nothing concrete.  Jeremiah speaks of a covenant in which God declares �I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.  I will be their God, and they will be my people.�  Since when do Christians (the so-called holders of the �New Covenant�) follow the law, which is the Law of Moses?  Since when is this �law in their minds and [written] on their hearts�? 

�But my dear Islamispeace, they may have not KNOWN that. Perhaps only vaguely did they know the whole counsel of God.�

And you do?  Please.  The fact that you can only offer a vague interpretation using words like �perhaps� shows that you cannot make a definitive link between what is written in the New Testament with what is written in the Old Testament, and neither could the authors of the New Testament.

�Here we see Jesus refering to such a Psalm of David ro prove that David was really speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ the Messiah to come:

  "Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus questioned them, Saying, What do you think concerning the Christ? Whose son is He? They said to Him, David's. He said to them, How then does David in spirit call Him Lord, saying,

'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand until I put Your enemies underneath You feet?'

 If then Dabid calls Him Lord, how is He his son? And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone from that day dare to question Him anymore." (Matt. 23:41-46).�

I think you mean Matthew 22, not 23.  Also, these are not the words of Jesus, but the words of the person who wrote the Gospel.  Referring to Psalm 110 is the same as referring to Psalm 45 or Isaiah 9.  It proves nothing once you consider the apparent link in context.  Does David calling the figure referred to in Psalm 110 �lord� mean that this figure was God?  Doesn�t the Psalm say �The LORD (meaning God) said to my Lord��?  Isn�t it obvious that if he was referring to the Messiah, he was clearly not saying that the Messiah was God?  Doesn�t David refer to Saul as �my lord the king� over and over again?  What does this mean?  Let us look at the relationship between David and Saul:

�8 Then David went out of the cave and called out to Saul, "My lord the king!" When Saul looked behind him, David bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.� (1 Samuel 24:8)

�17 Saul recognized David's voice and said, "Is that your voice, David my son?"
      David replied, "Yes it is, my lord the king." 18 And he added, "Why is my lord pursuing his servant? What have I done, and what wrong am I guilty of?� (1 Samuel 26:17-18)

Even David was called �my lord the king�:

�8 They brought the head of Ish-Bosheth to David at Hebron and said to the king, "Here is the head of Ish-Bosheth son of Saul, your enemy, who tried to take your life. This day the LORD has avenged my lord the king against Saul and his offspring."� (2 Samuel 4:7-9)

Does calling someone �lord� denote divinity to that person, as far as the Old Testament is concerned?  The answer is a resounding no.

 �No, they do prove very much. You are just closed minded to the new covenant which God promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 to give to the house of Israel.�

They prove very much if you are na�ve and blindly follow the misguided words of men.  There is nothing mentioned in the passages from Jeremiah which fit into the Christian understanding of the new Covenant. 

�And Jesus taught that He was that promised new covenant:

  "And He took a loaf and gave thanks, and He broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is My body which is being given for you; do this in rememberance of Me. And similarly the cup after they had dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant established in My blood, which is being poured out for you ..." (Luke 22:19,20)

  " ... Take, eat; this is My body. And He took a cup and gave thanks, and He gave it to them, saying,Drink of it, all of you. For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matt.26:26-28).�

It does not go unnoticed that once more, you attempt to link what is written in the New Testament with the Old Testament, by using circular reasoning.  You quote the Old Testament about some new Covenant, and then say that it was referring to Jesus because that is what the New Testament says, and therefore, Jesus must be the bringer of the new Covenant.  Furthermore, nothing is said in the passage from Jeremiah which would suggest God coming in the flesh.  That is just a Christian assumption, based on circular reasoning.

�I must quote with the Old Testament, even more the New Testament. For it is the new covenant. And we must "eat" Christ. We must ask Him to come into our heart. We must receive the Spirit of the incarnated, crucified, resurrected, and excalted Son of God.�

Ugh.  First, we are to be Christ�s �bride�, now we have to �eat� him?  What is with you and these metaphors? 

�The issue is that Jesus Christ cwntral figure in both the Old Testament and in the New Testament. He is seen in types, symbols, shadows, and forerunners in the Old Testament. And finally this One comes in the New Testament to establish the promised "new covenant" (Jeremiah 31:31-34) through His incarnation, life, death, resurrecion, exaltation, glorification and indwelling man as the life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45).�

You have failed to establish that your understanding of the Messiah�s status (that he was divine) is confirmed in the Old Testament.  See, while I do not consider the modern Old Testament to be the unaltered word of God, I still believe that it has some truth.  The same can be said of the Gospels.  One of these truths is the fact that the Old Testament points to a Messiah that is human, not divine.  Despite all the alterations made to it, the status of the Messiah is confirmed to be human.  Despite your greatest attempts, you have failed to provide concrete evidence that the Old Testament pointed to a divine Messiah, one who is God in flesh.  You have used prophecies quoted out of context and made fanciful interpretations with no basis to try and establish a link between the two texts and have failed. 

�I didn't see that you had that much to correct when I quoted Zechariah's prophecy showing that Jehovah of hosts was the Sent One and the Sender in Zech. 2:8-11.�

I must have missed this one.  It seems that you don�t do actual research concerning verses which you clearly do not understand.  I did not completely understand this verse until I did some research on it.  Zechariah 2 makes a reference to the � http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=588&letter=S - Shekhinah �, which is defined as �[t]he majestic presence or manifestation of God which has descended to "dwell" among men.� It plays an important role in the �Da Vinci Code�.  If you have ever read the book, you will know that it claims that the Holy of Holies in the Temple housed God and His female counterpart (Shekhinah).  Of course, from the Jewish perspective, this is nonsense.  In � http://jewsforjudaism.org/web/j4jlibrary/DaVinciCodeBook.pdf - The Da Vinci Code: The Jewish Perspective �, Rabbi Michael Skobac writes:

�[t]he foundational idea of Judaism�s Bible is the absolute Unity of God (Deuteronomy 6:4). The Shekhinah is not a goddess; it is a term for the Divine presence � the immanence of God in our world. Although the word as a noun never appears in the Hebrew Scriptures, its variant �v�shachanti� (and I will dwell) occurs numerous times describing the indwelling of God in the world.� 

So, you see, Zechariah 2 does not refer to God coming in the flesh, it refers to His presence among men.  Surely you don�t believe that Jesus was the Shekhinah?  In the Old Testament, the Shekhinah is mentioned in other verses as well, besides Zechariah 2:

�8 "Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. 9 Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.� (Exodus 25:8-9)

�9 Now let them put away from me their prostitution and the lifeless idols of their kings, and I will live among them forever.� (Ezekiel 43:9)

�3 This is what the LORD says: "I will return to Zion and dwell in Jerusalem. Then Jerusalem will be called the City of Truth, and the mountain of the LORD Almighty will be called the Holy Mountain."� (Zechariah 8:3)

�I will continue to quote the New Testament. So if you are expecting me not to you will be disappointed. And if you say that it proves nothing, I say that is your own unbelieving daydream. No disrespect intended though.�

The claim that it proves anything is the daydream.  You need not worry about insulting me.  I am sure we both have a mutual respect for each other.  It was already implied that there is no disrespect intended as we converse.

�If you could go back in time you could ASK Hezekiah himself if he was the Mighty God or the Eternal Father ...  he would probably laugh at you and say that he was not that effective.�

No, he would have understood, if we assume that what the Old Testament says is true, that to hold such a title was nothing more than an allegorical honor.  If you had asked him �well is it possible that Isaiah was referring to the divine Messiah� he probably would have thrown you in jail or had you executed for uttering blasphemies against the God of Israel.

�By the way, we ARE talking about Jesus Christ. He used the Old Testament quotations. But then again you reject Him. But if it was good enough for Him it is also for me. I am a follower of Jesus.�

See, that�s where you are wrong!  I don�t reject the blessed Jesus (pbuh)!  I believe he was a prophet of God!  But, as far as the myths go concerning him being God, I wholeheartedly reject them as blasphemy.  The New Testament does not contain his words, but the words of misguided men, who uttered blasphemies against God and His prophet.  So, you see, I am a follower of Jesus, because he was a follower of God. 

�Since it is apparent that Islamispeace refuses to consider what the New Testament says, my future replies to Islamispeace, if there are any, will not be for his sake. (Unless he opens up more to consider the words of Jesus and His apostles and the entire Bible.)�

Oh, don�t worry.  Your comments are not for anyone�s sake in this forum!!  In case you have not realized, this is an Islamic forum, not a Christian one!  Here, 95% of the members will disagree with you!  If you want to find someone who will agree with you, perhaps you should go to a Christian forum and post your articles there.  I am sure you will get a pat on the back from many like-minded individuals.  But, here, you will face criticism and questions, in a kind way of course.

�They will be for those reading along the discussion who have not adopted a strict rule that what the New Testament says (including the very words of Jesus) are not important.�

Well, that pretty much excludes everyone on this forum!  Hardly anyone here will agree with you that the New Testament is the unaltered, definitive word of God and that what it says about Jesus is the truth!  We follow the Holy Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), not the Gospel writers.

�So, Islamispeace, my future replies in response to what you write are mainly for the sake of those willing to consider the entire Bible.�

Then you should probably go to a Christian forum, lol.  You will not find anyone here who shares your passion for the Bible.

�The 45th Psalm is a praise of Christ the king. But He is typified by Solomon.�

No, it is simply a poetic reference to the king of Israel�s wedding.  The fact that it mentions �Ophir� means that the king was probably Solomon.  Ophir is mentioned in 1 Kings 9:28, when Solomon�s fleet brought back �420 talents of gold� to him.  Furthermore, the Jewish Encyclopedia states that Ophir was most probably a land in South Arabia, although some have claimed that it was in India.  Of course, we know that Jesus never went to Arabia or India.  These facts prove that Psalm 45 has nothing to do with Jesus (pbuh).

Also, how is Jesus, who is supposed to be �God�, typified in Solomon, a man whom the Old Testament claims worshipped idol gods at the behest of his wives?  This is what the Old Testament claims of his idolatry:

�3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.  5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech ^{[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=11&chapter=11&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-9114a" title="See footnote a - a ]} the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.

 7 On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. 8 He did the same for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods.� (1 Kings 11:3-6)

How can you claim that Jesus is typified in a man who worshipped idols?  Of course, I do not believe that Solomon, the prophet of God, worshipped idols.  He was an upright, pious man who never would have dreamt of doing something so abhorrent in the eyes of the Lord. 

� That is all I will write about Christ in Psalm 45 in this post. But in all of these lovely virtues and righteous victories Christ obtains sons of God. And He obtains a Bride to be His "queen". She is composed of all of His redeemed, reenerated, sanctified, transformed, conformed, resurrected, and glorified believers. Who are individually virgin lovers to Him in a symbol and are collectively His Wife and Bride as the New Jerusalem city that CHrist will marry at the end of the Bible.�

 This is such nonsense.  Your interpretations are sillier than ever before.  The �queen� mentioned in Psalm 45 is Solomon�s wife, most probably Pharaoh�s daughter.  The �sons� are Solomon�s progeny. 

�Do not be bothered by Islamispeace's attempt to distract FROM Christ in Psalm 45 rather than to teach it properly as pointing absolutey TO Jesus Christ.�

Rather, do not be bothered by Jocko�s fanciful interpretations.  He tries to link anything which sounds like a reference to a �divine� Messiah, while ignoring the context and when he is refuted, he makes even more fanciful interpretations, with no basis.

�The oil of gladness signifies the compound Spirit of God. That oil made in the book of Exodus was a compound of subsances carefully measured out and combined together in Exodus 30:23-25. There is a great revelation to be seen in the manner in which this oil was made.�

Yes, and many people were �anointed� with this oil.  David was anointed by Samuel in 1 Samuel 16:13.  Solomon was anointed by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet in 1 Kings 1:39.  So, the reference to this oil in Psalm 45 does not prove that it was a direct reference to Jesus (pbuh).  It was a reference to Solomon (phuh), who had been anointed as king.

 �There were 500 shekels worth of flowing myrrh, a spice used in the burial of Jesus (John 19:39). These 500 shekels worth of myrrh sybolize the preciousness of the death of Christ (Rom. 8:6).�

On what do you base this?  Where does it say that the 500 shekels of myrrh symbolize the alleged death of Jesus?  Romans 8:6 mentions that the �mind of sinful man is death� and �the mind of controlled by the spirit is life and peace�.  There is nothing in the Bible which even remotely supports your premise.

�Then there were half so much worth of fragrant cinnamon, 250 shekels worth. The fragrant cinnamon signifies the effectiveness of the death of Christ. Because He died for us His death can effectively kill off many evil things in our nature (Rom. 8:13).

 Then there was compounded into the compound 250 shekels worth in weight of fragrant calamus. This fragrant calamus was a reed that grew upward in a marsh or muddy place. This calamus reed signifies the  precious resurrection of Christ from the whole muddy and marshy realm of death (Eph .2:6, Col. 3:1; 1 Peter 1:3).�

Again, nothing concrete, only vague statements.  How do you conclude that cinnamon signifies anything related to Jesus or that calamus signifies his alleged resurrection?  This is just incoherent rambling.  

�Then there was added to the compound 500 shekels worth in weight of cassia. This spice was used in ancient times to repel insects and snakes. It signifies the power of Christ's resurrection (Phil. 3:10). The power of His resurrection repels the demons and evil spirits signified by snakes and insects that the spice of cassia kept away.�

Can you provide evidence that cassia was used to repel insects and snakes? Many historians, like Herodotus and Pliny, mention cassia in their writings, and none of them mention that it was used to repel insects and snakes.  Can you also provide evidence that insects and snakes were used as symbols of demons and evil spirits.  I can understand a snake representing the devil, but I have never heard insects representing demons.

 �We see in this compound so far three units of 500. But the middle unit is broken into two parts of 250 each. Notice:

  500 shekels in weight of myrrh    -    one unit

  250 shekels in weight of cinnimon - one half unit

  250 shekels in weight of calamus - one half unit

  500 shekels in weight of cassia  - one unit.

That is three units of 500 hundred. Yet the middle unit is split into two parts. The revelation here is that the compound signifies the Triune God - the Trinity. But the Second Person of the Trinity is split into two because the Son of God died on the cross and was "split" in death.�

This is hilarious!  All this is based on baseless claims, nothing concrete!  You also forget the �hin of olive oil�!  What does that represent and why is not included in the
�trinity�?  Why is this not part of your �analysis� of the significance of the anointing oil?

�Now there is more. The number four represents the creatures of God - the creation of God (as in Ezekiel 1:5).�

What are you talking about!?  Ezekiel 1:5 does not say that the number four represents God�s creation.  It is talking about a vision Ezekiel had, similar to Revelation.  Here is what it says:

�2 On the fifth of the month�it was the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin- 3 the word of the LORD came to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, ^{[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%201;&version=31;#fen-NIV-20468b" title="See footnote b - b ]} by the Kebar River in the land of the Babylonians. ^{[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%201;&version=31;#fen-NIV-20468c" title="See footnote c - c ]} There the hand of the LORD was upon him.

 4 I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north�an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal, 5 and in the fire was what looked like four living creatures. In appearance their form was that of a man, 6 but each of them had four faces and four wings. 7 Their legs were straight; their feet were like those of a calf and gleamed like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides they had the hands of a man. All four of them had faces and wings, 9 and their wings touched one another. Each one went straight ahead; they did not turn as they moved.� (Ezekiel 1:2-9)

All it says was that Ezekiel saw �four living creatures�, not that the number �4� represents God�s creation.  Why do you even bother to quote the Old Testament?  You can�t even quote it correctly.

�Now the eternal Spirit of God is represented by the olive oil. The olive oil was the base of the compound. The four spices were compounded into the olive oil as the base. This base is the Spirit of God that was seen in Genesis 1:2 before the Son was incarnated into a man. The eternal Spirit had only the divinity of God. He is the base.�

Genesis 1:2 says no such thing.  Here is what it really says:

� 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 2 Now the earth was ^{[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%201;&version=31;#fen-NIV-2a" title="See footnote a - a ]} formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning�the first day.�

�Since the number four signifies the creatures (Exek. 1:5), of which man is the head (Gen. 1:26), and then number one signifes the unique God (Deut. 4:35; 1 Tim. 3:5), the four spices signify the humanity of Christ in God's creation. The Son of God came as a man. And man is an item of the creation of God.�

The number �4� does not represent �the creatures�.  1 Timothy 3:5 does not talk about God.  Here is what it says:

�5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)�

�In Psalm 45 this anointing oil of exultant joy was poured out upon the precious and victorious King above His companions. Since Christ is the source of the four spices He is the chief one to enjoy the holy anointing which is also given to His companions. All this points to the eternal purpose of God dispensing Himself in Christ through the Holy Spirit into man.�

Christ was not the source of the four spices.  That was just your baseless claim.   

�Isn't this marvelous? What a revelation of Christ and His work is seen in Psalm 45 and in Exodus 30.�

Marvelous?  This is nonsense!  Please don�t be offended, but you are blowing hot air.  I don�t know what person would buy your argument.  I am extremely interested to know what the other Christians on this forum think of all this.  Mauri, Tom?  Any comments? 

The number �4� does not represent �the creatures�.  1 Timothy 3:5 does not talk about God.  Here is what it says:

  Correction: The Timothy reference should be 1 Timothy 2:5:

  "For there is one God and one Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus ..."

  Further response will have to wait until latter.

Islamispeace,

You may not care sir but I care with respect to your long post with all those Bible verses. Others may not think its a bother but I find it bothersome that since we are commencing in discussion, to post a long post such as the one you did previously. How can I in reviewing your post comment on something so lengthy? Posts that long I simply scroll past them without reading them. Seriously consider shortening your post to just opinions rather than post a 3 page diatribe of nothing but Bible verses mixed with personal opinions.

   I have to respond to Israelispeace's lengthy post in sections and as time permits.

What on earth are you talking about?  So now, Psalm 45 is referring to Christ�s wedding?  Before, you only emphasized verses 6 and 7, and completely ignored the rest of the Psalm! 

  No I have not ignored the rest of the Psalm. I simply have not yet commented on it. 

  Now because some of us have a bird's eye view of the whole divine revelation of the Bible we can detect Psalm 45's relevancy to the major theme of Scripture.  The Triune God gaining fro Himself a Bride and Wife.

  In both the Old Testament and the New Testament, God likens His chosen people to a spouse - (Isa. 54:6; Jer. 3:1; Ezek. 16:8; Hosea 2:19; 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:31-32). Collectively and as an aggregate whole God sees His redeemed people as His Spouse.

  The Bible ends with a grand marriage between the Redeeming God - the Lamb marrying His Bride the corporate New Jerusalem:

"And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband" (Rev. 21:2). 

 The millions of saved people of God are for His satisfaction in love as well as worship. God moves in history to dispense His life into some redeemed and forgiven people in order to sanctify and transform them. In this salvation they eventually come to match Him that they could collectively marry Him and shall a kind of divine loving union for eternity. You never heard this in the Quran - that the saved are together going to marry God.

 So this symbolism is taken up also in Psalm 45 which is Psalm about Christ as the incarnate Bridegroom - King Who we saved will become His "wife" and "Queen" in a sense.

  Many things need to be said about this. And I cannot do it in one or even three or four posts. So I can only share a little of this revelation here. 

  Verse 9 says "The daughters of kings are among YOur most prized; The queen stands at Your right hand in the gold of Ophir." The queen being covered in gold signifies that God in Christ present His people covered in Himself firstly as their filled divine righteousness. 

Christ granted the believers also to be subjective partakers of His divine nature:

 " ... He has granted to us precious and exceedingly great promises that through these you might become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4).

He cloths us in Himself as righteousness first positionally. Then He imparts that divine life into us that we may live out that righteousness. 

 Christ came not only to die for our sins on the cross. He came to impart the divine life and nature of His Father into His saved people. It is all with a view to obtaining from the human race a corporate Bride that matches the God-man Jesus Christ to be His counterpart.

  Paul reminds us that every Christian marriage is a reminder of the greater union of Christ and His church. He washes her with His divine word in order to sanctify her holy to be His Wife:

"Husbands, love your wives even as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her that He might sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of the water in the word, that He might present the church to Himself glorious, not having spot or wrinkle or any such things, but that she would be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:25-27).

 The queen standing at the right hand of Christ in the gold of Ophir speaks of God totally filling and covering His redeemed people with the divine nature of Himself that we may match Him to be one with Him. The "gold" that covers the church is Christ, the divine One. He is the believers' righteousness for their justification ( Luke 15:22; 1 Cor. 11:2). I cannot now speak of the layers of clothing that the queen has which are significant of the different aspects of God's full salvation. 

  Verse 8 says "All your garments smell of myrrh and aloes, of cassia; From palaces of ivory, harpareings have made you glad."  Too much needs to be written about these things. I can only be brief now.

 God's collective counterpart is also associated with a dwelling place. In this case a dwelling place of ivory. First let me say that God's people are not only symbolized by a spouse in Scripture. They are also likened a dwelling place for God (Exo. 29:45-46; Num. 5:3; Ezek. 43:7,9; Psa. 68:18; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Tim. 3:15).

 God desires a collective people as a counterpart. God desires a collective people as His own dwelling place. These are two angles of the same reality. God would live in us in order that we might match Him and that He could have a union with us for eternity.

 Ivory speaks of the unbroken life of the Son of God. Though He died on the cross in His humanity there is something so pure and unbreakable within Him because He is God mingled with man. The ivory palaces - mean that here and there in the New Testament time there are churches - New Testament communities which are not compose of the natural nature of Adam but the clean and divine unbroken inner nature of the man Jesus. They have been born again with the Spirit of Jesus to be palaces of ivory here and there.

 All together and collectively they constitute the Queen and the Wife of The King Christ.

In the entire Scriptures these two figures - the building and the bride- are used to signify God's people who are eventually the New Jerusalem at the end of the Bible - the holy city as the tabernacle of God and the Bride of Christ. Both the Jews and the Gentiles eventually are built up in love into this one corporate "Queen" to match the King Christ.

How do you come to this conclusion?  What is written in the Psalm which talks about �another angle�?  What is written there that says that God �desires sons� or a bride for �the son�?  Nothing!  You simply choose to link the Psalm to something totally unrelated.  Isn�t it strange that Paul decided to quote two verses from the Psalm and left the rest in the air? 

 What I have shared with you comes from the wisdom and insight of the apostles who walk with God. Now the writer of Hebrews indicated that there were many things left unsaid the writing. He scratched teh surface of greater truths which he did not go into.

 "And above it [the ark] cherubim of glory overshadowing the expiation cover, concerning which it is not now the time to speak in detail" (Heb. 9:5).

 So you see the writer of Hebrews economically selected some things to talk about. It does not mean that there were no more wonderful details that he could elaborate on.

 Israfil,

    There are more matters posted up wanting a reply than I have the time to speak to. I am kind of selecting here and there ones I want to address.

Regardless of your explanation, according to the Bible there was a time Jesus did not exist at least physically. So I don't know how the authors of the Bible can explain how the Son was eternal. Perhpas they would say the Son was eternal spiritually or somehow. Regardless, in matters of daletics you cannot answer the criticism on how unequal the relationship between Father[God] and Son[Jesus] is. The Father begets and the Son is begotten how is the son eternal when part of the Son's attribute is to be the begotten?

   I cannot explain how the Son of God could be eternally begotten.

  That matter at this time is too difficult for me. But you must notice that when the wise men came to Jerusalem seeking a "born king" the scholars of the Hebrew Bible knew exactly what passage of prophecy would indicate His place of birth. In doing so they also quoted the prophet Micah that this child was from everlasting:

 ' And when Herod the king heard this, he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him. And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.

And they said to him, In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written through the prophet: "And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah ... out of you shall come forth a Ruler, One who will shepherd My people Israel." '

 The next portion of Micah's prophecy which Matthew did not quote says:

 "He who is Ruler in Israel; And His goings forth are from ancient times, From the days of eternity" (Micah 5:2c)

  The one born in Bethlehem has His goings forth from days of eternity. So the Son of God before incarnation was eternal.

 This of course agrees with Isaiah's prophecy on a two line approach:

 1.) The child born is the Mighty God.

 2.) The Son given is the Eternal Father.

 Both are miracles.  I am limited indeed to explain a miracle. The One whose goings forth are from days of eternity was born the King of Israel in Bethlehem.

  Now the Subject is God's begetting of sons.

  I have been asked to explain how God begat Jesus. This involves three truths.

 1. ) Christ is called the only begotten Son of God.

 2.) Christ is called the Firstborn of all creation

 3.) Christ is called the Firstborn from the dead.

 So with Jesus Christ there are, I think, really three "begettings".

 Number three is the less difficult for me to explain. Number two I think I can explain. Number one is hard for me. Especially how the Son could be eternally begotten of the Father. But I believe it.

And I would like to start with either #2 or #3.   But after some time to consider I will see.

 Please remember that we have in the New Testament these three concepts about Christ - the Only Begotten, the Firstborn of all creation, and the Firstborn from the dead.

 Mauri,

    I thought it was an excellent point you made that Hezekiah having God add another 15 years to his life does not make him the Eternal Father.

    On the other hand if one should be killed and rise from the dead He is more of a condidate to be called the Father of Eternity or Eternal Father. His life has been proved to be indistructible.

  Now Islameispeace,

   You challenge me on here saying:

Can you provide evidence that cassia was used to repel insects and snakes? Many historians, like Herodotus and Pliny, mention cassia in their writings, and none of them mention that it was used to repel insects and snakes.  Can you also provide evidence that insects and snakes were used as symbols of demons and evil spirits.  I can understand a snake representing the devil, but I have never heard insects representing demons.

     There is only so much reference work I will do for you Islamispeace.  If you want to reject out of hand Christian scholarship about the cassia go ahead. In my spare time I'll look up the backround information. I will not do that research now.

   However, that the snakes and insects represent Satanic and demonic forces in the Bible is not too hard to find:

  In Luke 10:19 Jesus says concerning the authority He has given the disciples to cast out demons "Behold, I have given you the authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by no means hurt you. However do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to, but rejoice that your names are recorded in the heavens"

  The scorpions and snakes are associated with the evil spirits.

  Satan is typified as the serpent in Genesis 3:1,14.     He is called the ancient serpent in Revelation 12:9. Satan has his fallen angels who followed him in rebellion against God (Matthew 25:41; Rev. 12:4a, 7b)

  "Lord of the flies" was an ancient name applied to one of the demon gods of the Gentiles. In the time of Jesus they contemptuosly altered the name to mean "Lord of the dunghill" and applied it to the Devil. The particular passage in the NT I don't have at the moment. But trust me that it is there.

  The demonic spirits in Revelation coming out of the abyss are signified by evil insects - locusts (Rev. 9:1-11).

  While I would not say that demonic activity is always portrayed by snakes and insects in Scripture, there are ample examples where that association is intended. In one passage Jesus taught his disciples to be as wise as serpents. I would not include that passage as a support to this snakes - evil spirits association.

Islamispeace: My response was for Jocko mostly, since him and I are discussing the validity of Christian interpretations of the Old Testament. 

Fine. Make sure its relevant to the topic. It would be nice if both of you can have this long diatribe in another thread rather here where we are specfically discuss "God having kids."

Jocko: Now the Subject is God's begetting of sons.

 In this post I will speak mostly to the begetting of forgiven sinners as sons of God. Latter I'll talk about the only begotten Son and the Firstborn Son.

Jocko apparently in your case "if the Bible says so it must be true" attitude is not helping you win me over with dialogue.

     I may not be able to "win [you] over with dialogue."  So I don't promise you that this will happen.

     As Christians our faith rests not on the wisdom of man but on the power of God. Neither can I adaquately explain how a man could be raised from the dead. All we know is that death is the end of a human being. Yet we believe that Christ was raised from the dead.

     You may say, "Because no Christian has been able to explain to me how once dead, a man can be brought back to life, I am not persuaded of the Gospel of God, the New Testament".

    I accept that. But apart from the divine, even in the natural world there are a number of wonderful things which I also cannot explain like the joining of a sperm with an egg and how it develops into a full human being.

  So failure to be able to fully explain is a limitation I acknowledge.

Again, you fail to answer those "truths" from the questions I've posted. Again, how does God beget himself? If such is possible how does it not in the hierarchy of things create an inequality of substance in God?

  That is a good question. Here is another one:

 How does God create something out of absolutely nothing?

  Here's another: 

 How is it that God could have always been ?

  I don't promise that my ability to explain these truths will win anyone over by dialogue. Well, smarter people than you and I nonetheless have turned to the Christian faith for about 2,000 years. The Gospel doesn't seem to be dying out. Meeting God in Jesus is so real that I don't think all the seekers are going to be stumbled by man's inability to fully explain some of the statements of the Scripture.

   God begets us as sons by regeneration. We were born with a natural life. Regeneration is to receive another life in addition to the life we were born with.

 Regeneration makes us God, but not in the Godhead. In these important aspects God begetting us has limitations:

 1.) For us to be begotten of God makes us God - but not God as an object of worship.

 2.) For us to be begotten of God makes us God - but not ominscient.

 3.) For us to be begotten of God makes us God mingled with humanity - but not omnipresent.

 4.) For us to be begotten of God makes us God united with humanity - but not omnipotent.

 5.) For us to be begotten of God makes us God blended with man - but not Creators of universes.

  Now the son of a horse is of the horse kind. He is a horse. The son of a cat is a cat. The son of a elephant is also an elephant. The daughter of a shark is a shark. The offspring of a creature is the continuation of that kind of creature.

  Now what is the son of God?

 In the case of sinners saved through Jesus Chrust a son of God is God mingled with man. It is not too much to say that a child of God is made of the same "species" as God. And I borrow the word "species" because of the limitation of human language to explain this truth.

 To be born of God today is to be made a God-man the way Jesus is a God-man.

 So for the sinner to be begotten of God after being redeemed is to be continuation of what God is in a human being. But we do not become the Head of the relationship. We are the offspring of the relationship.

  http://www.regenerated.net - www.regenerated.net   is a good site to discuss regeneration.

 We do not receive the Fatherhood of the relationship. We are the receivers of the life of God. We are not the Source of that life. God is able to dispense His life and what He is into man and retain those non-communicable attributes which are His alone.

My children have my life. They do not have my fatherhood. But they do have my life. In a sense by having children I expanded myself into them. The analogy is not a perfect one. I hope it helps.

  Jesus told this parable about His upcoming death:

  "Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies it abides alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit." (John 12:24)

   "Much fruit" here means the encrease of what Jesus is. Within the shell of the humanity of Jesus was the divine life. That life was concealed inside the shell of His created humanity.

  God did not desire that that one unique grain would abide alone. Christ death broke the shell of His humanity and the divine life was released to produce much fruit. That is other sons of God. He fell into the ground and died in crucifixion. In resurrection He begot  many other sons of God by dispensing His life into them as the Holy Spirit.

 "the last Adam [Christ] became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45).

   The Apostle is emphatic that the one who has the Son of God has the eternal life of God:

 "And this is the testimony, that God gave to us eternal life and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

 I have written these things to you that you may know that you have eternal life, to you who believe into the name of the Son of God" (1 John 5:11-13).

 "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him and he in God" (1 John 4:14)

  Being begotten of God, to us, means to receive the Son of God. To receive the Son is to receive the life of God. That which is communicable of God's Being is dispensed into man to develop and grow within man unto maturity. God begets sons by dispensing His Spirit into them. He imparts His life and nature into them causing them to receive a life in addition to the life they have by natural birth.

  http://www.regenerated.net - www.regenerated.net

 To be begotten of the Triune God is to be joined to the Lord Jesus "organically" deep in the human spirit:

 "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17).

 This is a deep union and blending of God with man. Our being joined to God makes us the encrease and expansion of God into humanity. He is the Source and Head of the relationship. We the begotten of God are His offspring and divine family of the relationship.

 God knows exactly what and how to dispense Himself into man. He regulates with perfect divine self control what of Himself is communicated into man.

 Jocko, we are already in great difficulty due to the use of too many metaphors, the son of God, not the real son of god, the word begotten, the Trinity having Unity, all these things are symbolic only.

 We wished that the church used the real language every where except when very necessary. Using too much the words which are not in common circulation, causes confusion. Now here you have made a strange type of god. Every one of you is a god but a differnt type of god. A god who is not omni potent, who is not omnipresent etc. That makes it more complicated. Then we will have to be careful about the usage of the word "god". We will have to keep a different type pf god in our mind.

 Could we please not keep such things away from our discussions and minds??/

  Jocko, we are already in great difficulty due to the use of too many metaphors, the son of God, not the real son of god, the word begotten, the Trinity having Unity, all these things are symbolic only.

   The Bible has many metaphors. Jesus and the Apostles used many metaphors. It did not stop the Holy Spirit from giving people the ability to believe the word of God.

     I think prayer is a good thing to do in addition to our "prophesying" in part.

 We wished that the church used the real language every where except when very necessary.

  Would you say that Jesus did not use real language when He spoke about a house built on a rock, or keys to the kingdom of the heavens, or His Father's house, or the one grain that fell and produced many grains?

     "All Scripture is God breathed and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ..." (1 Tim. 3:16).

   While I do recognize the need to discern what the hearer is able to receive, I also recogonize the "all Scripture" is profitable for teaching.

    If I have stated something which you think is contrary to Scripture, I await for you to point it out to me.

 Using too much the words which are not in common circulation, causes confusion.

   Not in common circulation among us? These words are in common circulation among thousands of us who are seekers of God's eternal purpose.

Now here you have made a strange type of god. Every one of you is a god but a differnt type of god.

   This fear of yours may be due to the fact that you under appreciate that what God wants  to give us is His life. It is not that He simply wants us to have information about Him in an objective way. He is not satisfied to be the objective God far away as an object of our objective worship.

  God desires to impart His life into man. He desires sons of God. And He desires to be one with  His redeemed. These are basic matters. Rather than water down the truth to accomodate natural thoughts we should teach and allow men to elevate their concepts to what the Bible teaches.

   There are plenty of people preaching a superficial gospel of dying and going to Heaven. That's easy for everyone to understand. But how biblical is it? Is God only the God of death? Do we always have to go into the realm of death in order to meet God?

   Be patient and pray for our testimony. And I will certainly pray for your "style" of testifying, as long as you don't oppose any of the truth that I am sharing here.

A god who is not omni potent, who is not omnipresent etc.

   Is it more complicated then a God who became a thirsty man, a tired man, a hungry man, a sinless and obedient man, a man who wept, and who felt pain, and who was crucified and cried out "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken Me?"

That makes it more complicated. Then we will have to be careful about the usage of the word "god". We will have to keep a different type pf god in our mind.

 I will spend all the energy I have to communicate that God desires to impart Himself into man. God desires to beget sons. God desires to dispense His Spirit into man.

 What will you do when they ask what is "born again?" Will you say that this is just a ticket to go to Heaven?

 Think of the implications of being born of God. The Bible doesn't shy away from the implications of being born of God. Why should we?

  I will take your fellowship to the Lord in prayer. But don't expect me to dumb down the teaching of God's economy. Don't say "People will not understand." That is not true. People WILL understand what the Holy Spirit enlightens to their minds and hearts.

 Thanks anyway for your fellowship though I must take it with caution.

  Dear Moslem friends and Christian brothers. God's eternal plan is to dispense Himself into man. God wants to impart what He is into us that man and God would be mingled together.

 The word "mingle" as used to discribe the close union of God and man is biblical. It may not be as popular a phrase as "going to heaven". But it is used in Leviticus to discribe the meal offering of fine flour "mingled" with oil. See Leviticus 2:4.

 This meal offering is a type Christ as all the offerings in the Old Testament were. The fine flour represents the sinless and fine humanity of the man Jesus. The oil is widely recognized as a symbol of the Spirit of God. God and man were mingled in Christ - the fine flour of His sinless humanity and the eternal Spirit of the uncreated Father interwoven and intermingled with His being.

 To mingle is to combine one or more things together so that the components remain distibuishable in the combination. In Jesus Christ we discern God and we discern man combined so that each remains regcognizable in the combination - without confusion and without producing a third kind of thing.

 Christ is the union and mingling of God and man. And the eternal plan of God is to mass produce God-men from this "Standard Model" of the Firstborn Son of God.

 We now need a Scripture to confirm that what I just said was biblical:

 "Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, THAT ... HE ... MIGHT ... BE ... THE ...FIRSTBORN ... AMONG ... MANY ...BROTHERS" (Emphasis is mine). (Romans 8:29)

  Christ the Standard Model. The church as the mass production of the standard model - the many sons, brothers of the Firstborn Son of God.

 There is the need, once having received His life, to be conformed into His image. That is to have Christ in us. He is dispensed into us as the life giving Spirit and must develop and grow within us transforming us into His image.

 Accordingly, the Apostle Paul told the Galatians:

 "My children, with whom I travail again in birth until Christ is formed in you" (Gal. 4:19).

 First the Apostle helped them to receive Jesus into their spirits. Then he labored like a loving mom, and exhausted himself until this seed of Jesus Christ would grow and be formed in them unto maturity. He wanted to do the work of having the saved conformed to the image of the Firstborn Son of God.

  We who are saved have a destiny to be like Jesus Christ. Corporately, we are the encrease of God as the Bride of Christ and the Body of Christ. Individually, we are sons of God.

 Collectively, God is building a dwelling place were God and man are mingled together for our enjoyment and His expression in eternity.

Ok I'm officially done.

Jocko you shouldn't say something is true if you can't explain it. Simply just referring me to the Bible doesn't help me understand what you are saying it basically dumps me into another set of problems to figure out. It wouldn't be fair to you if I said Islam is true and, when you ask me, I say well it is true because the Qur'an says so. These answers are not adequate because they are subjective which is ok but you need to elaborate more. Obviously you have shown you don't know what you are talking about.

 Israfil,

 My conscience is clear.

 Goodbye.

 The case of Israfil mighr be considered similar to a blind man asking someone to explain the color of red to him. He shouldn't insist that things he has not experienced cannot be true.

 Jesus told us "Unless a man is born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3).

  To really see the kingdom of God a person must receive the life of that kingdom. He must receive God being "born" into him through accepting Jesus the Savior and Lord.

 I am not in the least impressed with someone blaming me for not being able to explain to their satisfaction some of the profound things that we have told us in the Bible and which to some degree believers have experienced.

 He did not ask me "How can I experience Jesus Christ the Son of God?"  Then I might have had fewer explanations and told him to confess that he needs a Savior and receive Jesus into his heart.

 Besides, there were things which I honestly told him were too hard for me to explain. Were there not? Did I not admit that some things were too difficult for me now to explain?

 And of course writing takes time and you cannot discuss everything in one post. Was he willing to wait for further words. No. Fine. His mind is made up that it is not profitable for him to talk with me. That's Okay.

Then he says that I should not say that it is true. Not necessarily. Can you explain to me what Time is?  Do we know that there is truly something called Time?

 Anyway, my prayers and best wishes go to Israfil's search for truth, assuming that he really is seeking or has just closed his mind that nothing could change his present beliefs.

 He can ask Christ face to face when he meets Him on the day of judgment if he can never accept that Jesus is the Divine  only begotten Son of God (John 3:16; 1:18).

 Jocko, Israfil was reasonable in his last post. Israfil tried to tell the problem very well that one should be able to explain something then should support it.

 You have posted:

 Jesus told us "Unless a man is born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3).

 WE don't know what meaning you take of it but we Muslims believe all such good things and we understand them very well. You need not worry. Perhaps you understand them differently. But we understand such verses very well. Jesus said, "I am the light", "I am the alpha and Omega".  "Nobody can go to the father except through me".

 We understand all such things and believe them. Now to discuss the verse John 3:3, and John 3:15 onward. Jesus is right in saying that any one who believed in him will be saved. That is the truth.

 The verse John 3:3 is telling the same thing. Unless a man be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. That is true. Now how is a man born again?? Jesus is telling that a man is born again by believing in Jesus, the man of God.

If we forget about the son and begotten son etc then the rest of the biblical phrases are same as we Muslims believe. But please remember that the belief of the Muslims is universal and much more broad.

1. The Muslims do not believe that every one is a sinner except Jesus.

2. The Muslims believe that God is the creator of ALL. He is the God of  ALL. Not the God of the children of Israel only (i.e. jews and the christians).

3. Muslims believe that God spoke to all nations and sent warners (prophets) in all nations.

 And there are so many other universal beliefs.

 Minuteman,

  WE don't know what meaning you take of it but we Muslims believe all such good things and we understand them very well.  You need not worry. Perhaps you understand them differently. But we understand such verses very well. Jesus said, "I am the light", "I am the alpha and Omega".  "Nobody can go to the father except through me".

   Do you mean "No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6)?

 We understand all such things and believe them.

   How do you expect me to believe you on this? I don't think the typical Moslem believes that Jesus even died on the cross.

  His saying that He the way, the truth, and the life and that no once comes to the Father except through Him is totally dependent upon Him going away to the cross to die a redemptive death for the the forgiveness of our sins.

  How do you understand the verses before verse 6, that He goes away to prepare a place for His disciples?

Now to discuss the verse John 3:3, and John 3:15 onward. Jesus is right in saying that any one who believed in him will be saved. That is the truth.

 The verse John 3:3 is telling the same thing. Unless a man be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. That is true. Now how is a man born again?? Jesus is telling that a man is born again by believing in Jesus, the man of God.

    I agree that it is believing in Jesus. But believing in Jesus means receiving the living and resurrected Jesus into ones being. This is why John wrote:

  "But as many as RECEIVED Him [my emphasis], to them He gave authority to become children of God. to those who believe into His name,

  Who were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12,13). 

  To believe in Jesus then is really to RECEIVE a Living Person into you who comes into you as the Holy Spirit. Refering to that day of His resurrection and our receiving of Him in His resurrection state, Jesus said:

  "In that day you you will know tha I am in My Father, and you in Me and I in you" (John 14:20).

  Are you a typical Moslem who does not believe that Jesus Christ died and rose again? If you do not then your talk of believing in Jesus is patronizing and not real. It is actually rebellion against the teaching of Christ.

 You are in revolt against His teaching. Since you do not believe that He established the new covenant in His shed blood enabling us to enter into God and God to enter into us.

 If we forget about the son and begotten son

 etc then the rest of the biblical phrases are same as we Muslims believe. But please remember that the belief of the Muslims is universal and much more broad.

   Though Moslem rarely come right out and say so, you actually do NOT believe the New Testament. YOu select some quotations of Jesus which are not too contrary to your Islam faith and you boast that you beleive them.

    Christ sent the apostles. They both wrote the four gospels and letters and preached the first gospel messages which are recorded in the books of Acts. You do not take these words. You regard the Apostle John's surrounding explanations in his gospel as so many faulty mistakes.

 You do not receive that the Word was God and that the Word became flesh (John 1:1; 1:14). How can you expect to insult my intelligence by telling me that you believe the teachings of Jesus? If you did receive it then you would understand that the Bible teaches that God became flesh in incarnation.

 You may believe "the golden rule".  Many people do. But you are here to fight against the death and resurrection of Christ. You are here to fight against God becomming a man. And you do not receive most of the words of Jesus when you are really examined concerning them closely. Or you have your twist on them which twists away the real significance.

  For example God said that He was the beginning and the end. For Jesus Christ to say that He is the Alpha and the Omega amounts to Him saying that He is God come as a man. Can there be a beginning before the beginning? Can there be a First before the First?

  I will have to continue latter. I am sorry that I have to be frank in tone about your last post.

.

Jocko your long post are amusing and the fact that your last response of "my conscious is clear, goodbye" shows your inability to defend what you are saying. you are a typical Christian rambler who goes on and on about Jesus but who clearly has an inadequate knowledge of what he is actually saying. I'm sure you sit with Bible in hand quoting from various passages that YOU think are legitimate to your claim, regardles sof the method you choose, it is inadequate in explaining how God morphs himself into a human yet is not subject to OUR logic and reasoning.

It also brings another thought I have to mind. So we can subject God's word to our reason but in questioning the nature of God [within doctrinal interpretation] that is a boundary we cannot cross? Allow me to refute your position and be done with this pitiful thread.

1) God occupying the concepts of both Father and Son is conceived to be unequal not simply on the basis of substance [meaning the thing that makes something what it is, although God is made of nothing per se] but on the basis of context. Regardless whether this is a mystical explanation or not, in the context [and our understanding thereof] God being Father and Son we must also take into consideration the inequality of this so-called union. The Father is eternal and the Son is eternal however both ar eunequal in context since one is begotten and one is the begets.

2) Even if we presuppose that the Son was begotten eternally then this in itself would imply a non-existence. something which is formed or created implies that it had a beginning and if such a quality exist in God then this would render God partially finite which is opposite to all Abrahamic faiths.

3) Regarding the pre-entry of the world Jesus could not exist in God and be apart from God as this is an utter contradiction. If Christians are going to argue the existence of Jesus AND God on the same plane then its best that they should admit to being polytheist rather thn monotheist. You cannot argue that an entity by way of substance exist within another entity [existing in an entity meaning like an idea exist in a mind] and exist outside the entity and then claiming there is only one entity. If the words follow that one exist outside and another exist inside then we would be talking about two separate things, but if the argumenet contains to follow that this is the same entity then it would imply two separate things.

An example of erroneous language the following I imperfectly quote: "In the beginning was the word. And the word was with God and the word was God."

Unless we are referring to some for of knowledge and not a person in the allegorical sense. For something to exist apart from something it would have to precede something. For example, if my intent was to make a jump shot my idea my come before the actual attempt. I therefore, cannot have made the jump shot and intend on making a jump shot. You see where it can sound bogus? Of course it sounds repetitive but I have to beat it in your head so you may understand.

   Minitueman, 

1. The Muslims do not believe that every one is a sinner except Jesus.

    Well you know that the Scripture said that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Christ was not only without sin. He was glorious.

    His expression was glory and glorious. He expressed the splendor of God.

     You seem not to realize how directly your beliefs contradict what the Bible teaches.  

2. The Muslims believe that God is the creator of ALL.    IN this regard we are the same, in the belief that God is the Creator of ALL.

    This is true. To the extent that this is truth millions are attracted to that portion of Islam that is indeed the truth.

    He is the God of  ALL. Not the God of the children of Israel only (i.e. jews and the christians).

     Is that something like this verse in Revelation?

    " After these things I saw and behold, there was a great multitude which no one could number, out of every nation and all tribes and people and tongues, standing before the throneand before the Lamb, clothed in white robes ... And they cry wih a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb" (Rev.7:9,10)"

  This scene shows the saved coming from "every nation and all tribes and people and tongues".

 Is this the universality of God's love which you find absent in my Bible or in my belief? There it is. How did you miss this?

 Oh we don't have to go that far. Even in the Old Testament we find this interesting passage:

   And Jehovah will make Himself known to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians will know Jehovah in that day; they will worship Him with sacrifices and offerings and will vow a vow to Jehovah and accomplish it.... In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrians will come to Egypt, and the Egyptians to Assyria; and the Egyptians shall worship with the Assyrians.

    In that day Israel will be the third party with the Egyptians and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the land, With which Jehovah of hosts will bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt My people and Assyria the work of My hands and Israel My inheritance." (See Isaiah 19:21-25).

  This is strange that the Jewish prophet Isaiah would record that God told him to write in a prophecy - "Blessed be Egypt My people and Assyria the work of My hands ...".

   The praises of the redeeming Lamb of God, Christ, in Revelation 5:9 say:

 " ... You were slain and have purchased for God by Your blood men out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made them a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign on the earth" (Rev. 5:9,10).

  Did it say that Christ has purchased only Jews and Christians? How do you understand "men out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation?"

 Perhaps your concept of "Christians" are people in the West. You have perhaps a cultural view of the supposed favor of God upon Western cultures as being Christian civilizations upon whom God is Father.

 The Bible came out of the Middle East. And I think that there is something which transcends nation boundaries in the message of Christ. Granted, God for the sake of His friendship with the man Abraham did have a special commission to the Jews. But it surely cost them much trouble. And their own Messiah they failed as a whole to recognize.

 Man, man himself is simply not for God. We are not for God. We are for our own skin. We are not for God but for our own nation, our own family, our own social group. This is our problem.

 There is one who is absolute for the Father's will. That is the Son of God. His absoluteness for the will of the Father is our only salvation - Jew or Gentile.

  I wish you could come to see that only Christ was ABSOLUTE for the will of God. We all must be clothed in Him as our righteousness.

3. Muslims believe that God spoke to all nations and sent warners (prophets) in all nations.

   We know that Balaam was a non-Jewish Gentile prophet mentioned in the Old Testament.

   Job does not seem to be Hebrew. And I think a few others are mentioned. So I do see some indication of prophets sent by God who were not of the Hebrews.

  The priest of Midian who assisted Moses in Exodus may qualify to be a man of God not of the Hebrews. He became the father-in-law to Moses.

   But the experience of being born of God as our heavenly begetting Father is to whosoever believes. There is no national restriction.

 And there are so many other universal beliefs.

 Jocko, I had said a few simple things. But you made them lengthy. The answer to them could have been easy Yes or No, as you did it in the beginning. But it became a lengthy reply from you for some of my simple sentences. For instance:

 He is the God of  ALL. Not the God of the children of Israel only (i.e. jews and the christians).

 In reply you have quoted verylong verses and commented in such a way to confuse the issue. Your answer could have been, "Yes, the god is God of all.." or it could have been, "No, our God is not the God of all creation."

 It appears that you are not sure what to do. I have just read the post of Israfil and I find it very illuminating, not because he is a Muslim. But because it is to the point with truth. You are here on a Muslim forum. WE do not want to hurt or disheart you. If anything has been said in a harsh way to you then please forgive us. Thanks.

   There is no personal offense towards me that I am aware of.

    Two matters of explanation:

   1.)  My responses take into account that perhaps a little extra needs to be developed for the sake of others who are reading along. So you may get the feeling of "You didn't need to say all of that".

       I will try not to be too verbose.  Islamispeace is also very verbose. And as a result I do not have the time to answer everything he says. That appears to him to be his triumph in debate. So it works both ways I think.

    2.)  I was not always a believer in Jesus. I did quite a lot of arguing myself. I do not remember hardly ANY of the arguments made against mine. What I DO remember is something someone pointed out to me was in the Bible.

  For this reason, I aways use the Bible. If some day you do meet the Lord Jesus it probably will not be because you remembered some eloquent argument of a Christian. It will probably be because the Holy Spirit will bring to your memory something said in the Bible.

 I want to go back and see if I can catch up to some statements made by Islamispeace which really deserve a reply.

  Don't be lazy.  If you are going to make a claim, you better back it up with references.  What "Christian scholarship" are you referring to?  All you said was that cassia was used to repel insects and snakes.  That was it.  I asked a legitimate question.   

   For Cassia used to repel insects go to

   http://www.zhealthinfo.com/cassia.html - www.zhealthinfo.com/cassia.html .

   From which I quote this paragraph without permission:  

Cassia - Cinnamonium cassia - China - For your aromatherapy needs. - Some historical uses: May improve circulation, reduce cellulite, mood uplifting, lessen pain, increase mobility in joints, disinfectant, repel insects, stimulant (may increase contractions during childbirth)  Also Used  to treat tumors of the abdomen, glands, liver, stomach and throat, and other cancers. ... ...

 Good effort on the part of JasperStone. We need to understand the nature of "begotten". Is it real or is it symbolic? The dictionary people will try to accommodate all the meanings (in usage) of the word. Because a certain meaning is being used by the church, so they will give that meaning too.

 Let us be simple. The christians can explain the meaning of the word "begotten". It is sure that the word in use now is for the real birth of sons and daughters. The general public do not think of any spiritual begetting in daily use of the word. The matter may please be clarified. Thanks.

 Minuteman,

   The situation is not that simple. It is a little complicated. Here is why:

  1.) The Son in eternity is the Only Begotten (John 1:18)

  2.) The Only Begotten became the Firstborn or First begotten:

        a.) Firstborn of all creation  (Colossians 1:15)

        b.) Firstborn in resurrection from the dead (Colossians 1:18) 

   3.) The saved, the redeemed follow the Son in being begotten

        in step 2.b. They are begotten as children and eventually 

        sons through the resurrection of the Firstborn Son of God

        (John 1:12,13; 14:19; 1 Peter 1:3; Romans 8:29) 

    I appreciate your desire to simplify the subject matter. But we who care deeply about the proper presentation of the full truth of the New Testament don't want to sacrifice important aspects the teaching in simplifying things.

   Let the truly interested, both Christian and Moslem, be prepared examine the Scriptures a little deeper.  The question "Does God Beget?" involves a discriminating and indepth look at all the related issues to this matter.

 Jocko, the term begotten may be as complicated as the Trinity. I do not mind. But there must be an end result of all the complicated writings. We are interested in that. What is the final meaning which should be applied to the word "begotten". Is it real as we generally understand in the material sense i.e. born son? Or is it not in the real sense?? It may be only symbolic term, i.e. born spiritually??. There should be a final decision about it. So let us know about that please.

 If the evangelists are themselves not clear/ unanimous as to what "begotten" means then that should be told to us. As far as the Muslims are concerned, "Allah neither begets nor is He begotten." (Al-Quran 112:3)

 If the word begotten is used only as a metaphor then please tell us. Thanks. We will not argue with you about the matter. At least I will not do that. But if any learned Muslim here tries to investigate the matter then that is possible / permissible using your books.

   I want to hear a little more from JasperStone on this.

   Both the Trinity and the begetting of God for God getting into you and I.

  Both God being three-one and God begetting are for the dispensing of His Spirit into man.

   He does not want to remain the God objective and far away. He has gone through steps to put Himself into man. It cost Him a lot. We were condemned sinners not fit to even approach God.

   As far back as were peer into eternity past we cannot seem to separate what God IS from God's operation. And that operation is to dispense Himself into man that God and man could live in a mingled union. He is able to do this.

   God begets means God dispenses His life into your life that the two may be interwoven, mingled, incorporated, coinherent and in a living "organic union".

 This is the oneness that He planned between Himself and man before He created the universe.

   This IS the real begetting. The begetting of the mother and father of a child is the shadow of a grander and greater reality. Christ is the reality of all the positive things in creation.

   He is the real chair. If I do not have Christ I do not have real rest. He is the real light. If I do not have Christ I do not have the true light even though I have the sunlight.

  The begetting of created lives is a shadow which reminds us of the greater reality of God imparting His life into man in His eternal purpose.

 So, my Moslem friends, the truest worship of God is to live God. The truest worship is to live a mingled life with God so that God lives out of us and we express Him. These are the worshippers that the Father desires. And this is the worship that He desires - the worship of being one with Him in living in union with Him as He dwells within us.