I believe Jesus was never a god who became man

[paarsurrey]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
Gospel of Matthew
Authorship
The Early Christian tradition attributes the Gospel to Matthew, one of Jesus’ disciples. This tradition of authorship dates from the writings of Papias in the first half of the second century AD. [1][2] Beginning in the 18th century, however, critical scholars have increasingly questioned whether Matthew wrote the Gospel which bears his name.[3].
Most contemporary scholars describe the author as an anonymous Christian writing towards the end of the first century. [4] According to Howard Clark Kee, it appears that Jesus’ teachings and sayings were handed down orally until they were eventually written down. This theory is partly based upon “the fact that other, later Christian writings include sayings attributed to Jesus that resemble those in the gospels, but for which there is no exact equivalent.”

drbo.org/chapter/47028.htm

Matthew 28

16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And seeing them they adored: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Unquote

Kindly name the eleven disciples present on the mount Galilee whom Jesus addressed.

I love Jesus

Thanks

 

[Luke65]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
Gospel of Matthew
Authorship
The Early Christian tradition attributes the Gospel to Matthew, one of Jesus’ disciples. This tradition of authorship dates from the writings of Papias in the first half of the second century AD. [1][2] Beginning in the 18th century, however, critical scholars have increasingly questioned whether Matthew wrote the Gospel which bears his name.[3].
Most contemporary scholars describe the author as an anonymous Christian writing towards the end of the first century. [4] According to Howard Clark Kee, it appears that Jesus’ teachings and sayings were handed down orally until they were eventually written down. This theory is partly based upon “the fact that other, later Christian writings include sayings attributed to Jesus that resemble those in the gospels, but for which there is no exact equivalent.”

Wow. Powerful evidence.

 

[swariffin]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
Gospel of Matthew
Authorship
The Early Christian tradition attributes the Gospel to Matthew, one of Jesus’ disciples. This tradition of authorship dates from the writings of Papias in the first half of the second century AD. [1][2] Beginning in the 18th century, however, critical scholars have increasingly questioned whether Matthew wrote the Gospel which bears his name.[3].
Most contemporary scholars describe the author as an anonymous Christian writing towards the end of the first century. [4] According to Howard Clark Kee, it appears that Jesus’ teachings and sayings were handed down orally until they were eventually written down. This theory is partly based upon “the fact that other, later Christian writings include sayings attributed to Jesus that resemble those in the gospels, but for which there is no exact equivalent.”

drbo.org/chapter/47028.htm

Matthew 28

16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And seeing them they adored: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Unquote

Kindly name the eleven disciples present on the mount Galilee whom Jesus addressed.

I love Jesus

Thanks

All except Judas Iscariot. He was dead already at that time by hanging himself.

 

[swariffin]

Wow. Powerful evidence.

If you read the book “The eyewitness of Jesus”, the papirologyst there proved (by using Electron Microscope) that the gospel of Matthew was written as early as 50AD, even precede the gospel of Mark.

 

[paarsurrey]

All except Judas Iscariot. He was dead already at that time by hanging himself.

Hi

Where was Matthew himself at that time. He does not mention that he was among the eleven.

Thanks

 

[Luke65]

If you read the book “The eyewitness of Jesus”, the papirologyst there proved (by using Electron Microscope) that the gospel of Matthew was written as early as 50AD, even precede the gospel of Mark.

Thanks for that. I know that there are some fragments of Matthew’s gospel from pre 70AD, but I hadn’t heard about this study. I googled that title but nothing comes up - are you sure that’s the right title? Do you know if there’s anything online about this? Anyway, the Church’s tradition is that Matthew wrote the first gospel around 41AD, and I’ve seen no evidence to dispute that. Of course, unbelieving “scholars” have been trying to destroy the credibility of the Word of God for a long time now, but they always end up being proven wrong, and the Church’s tradition is almost always vindicated - as we see here. Thanks again!

 

[swariffin]

Hi

Where was Matthew himself at that time. He does not mention that he was among the eleven.

Thanks

The bible said that eleven of the deciples were present. So, Matthew was there. Since he was the writer, and he wrote the bible in a third person language, no need for him to say “I” or “Me” or “Mine”.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

Why should Matthew the disciple write his testimony in third person on a very important occasion. The gospel was anonymous and only later named “Matthew” , that is why it has been written in third person.

Further, there is no mention of the word “Trinity” in the verses.

Jesus was used to speaking in parables and symbols.

God is GodAllahYHWH and only mentioned as father as he provides the humans.

Son is frequetly used in the OTBible as the loved one of God.

Holy Ghost is the angel who establishes link between God and his loved ones.

God is only attributive and does not have a spirit or a physical body as these are all His creations, and he is above it. The Creator cannot become created a human; a parodixical thing.

Who was Jesus afraid of now that he was departing? What was the need to have a small meeting at such a far-off place at the mount Galilee at a distance of 70 miles , I think. He could make a astraight forward statement right in Jerusalem before Jews for whom he had promised Sign of Jonah.

There was no Plane waiting in Galilee that he had to travel on foot fearing from the Jews lest they capture him again and put him on the Cross again. His disciple also feared.

This is my sincere opinion; others are welcome to differe with me with reasons.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

In my opinion Jesus needed not to go to Galilee.

Now, here one has to consider whether, after acquiring an eternal spiritual body, i.e., after gaining that immortal body which entitled him, having been freed from the necessity of eating and drinking, to sit on the right hand of God and to be free of all wounds, and pain, and infirmities,

it still suffered from one defect, although it had the glory of the Eternal and Ever-Existing God – the defect, namely, that his body had on it fresh wounds of the Cross and the nails, which were bleeding and were very painful and for which an ointment had been prepared, and even after acquiring a glorious and an immortal body, eternally sound, faultless, perfect, and unchangeable, that same body continued to suffer from defects of many kinds:

Jesus himself showed to his disciples the flesh and bones of his body, and again, not only this, but there were also the pangs of hunger and thirst – necessities of the mortal body; otherwise, where was the need for him during the journey to Galilee to do such useless things as eating and drinking water, resting, and sleeping?

Undoubtedly, hunger and thirst, in this world, are painful for the mortal body, which may even prove fatal if they become extreme. So there is no doubt that Jesus did not die on the Cross, nor did he acquire a new spiritual body: rather, he was in a state of death-like swoon.

Through the grace of God, it so happened that the tomb in which he was placed was not like the tombs of this country; it was an airy apartment. In those days the custom of the Jews was to make the tomb airy like a commodious chamber, leaving an opening in it. Such tombs were kept ready; and as the occasion required, dead bodies were interred in them.
alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/ch1.html

There is, therefore, no doubt that Jesus did not die on the Cross, nor did he acquire a new spiritual body, in my opinion.

I love Jesus

Thanks

 

[planten]

Grace & Peace!

Paarsurrey, I think the most basic issue here is that you do not understand Christianity. To understand the claims the Church makes regarding her Lord, you must make an effort to understand the terms and the concepts that she uses to understand those very same claims.

Now, it’s clear that you view Jesus through the lens of Islam. Given that you belong to a Muslim sect, that’s not surprising! But you cannot possibly claim to understand the Jesus of the Church by insisting that the Jesus of the Church is the Jesus of Islam. Furthermore, you will not be able to convince a Christian believer that the Jesus of Islam is the True Christ based on the work of Muslim exegetes, religious syncretists, or New Age conspiracy theorists. What is lacking in the above authors is the mind of the Church. They cannot properly discuss the Church’s Lord and Lover because they are not familiar with the Church.

I understand that you are interested in sharing your faith. I understand you are interested in sharing your love of Jesus. Both things are commendable. But by coming here and making the claims you make, given your sources, and given your lack of understanding of Catholic theology, you are like a passer-by who sees a man talking to a woman and then tells the man’s brother’s wife that her husband is having an affair. It just doesn’t make sense in context.

What you need to understand here are the fundamentals of the theology surrounding the Trinity. You must understand the difference between Hypostasis (Person) and Ousia (Substance/Nature). Nature, Three Persons. Not three gods, but one God. Not one person, but three Persons. The economy of the Trinity is a reflection of what God has revealed himself to be–Love. God Himself is a communion of Love.

When the Church says that Jesus is God and Man, she understands that the Person of the Son assumed the Nature of Humanity. Jesus was not a god person and a human person in a human body. Jesus was not a divinized person. Jesus was the Very Son of God in two Natures–God and Man. True God as regards his divinity, True Man as regards his humanity. One Person. The assumption of humanity by the Son of God is part of a great act of love–God assumes into his divinity our humanity. In the person of Jesus, Heaven and Earth are wed. When Jesus suffers on the Cross for us, he suffers the result of human sin. By his death and resurrection, he makes our human death into a birth into new life. By his ascension, he raises our humanity into the very heights of heaven. If he was not fully human, we could not be fully saved. If he was not fully God, he could not fully save us. But in him we see the destiny of humanity–what he is, we shall be. Or as Maximos the Confessor, I believe, writes (and I may b paraphrasing), “What God is by nature, we shall be by grace.” This is the mystery of theosis displayed to us by Jesus. The unfolding of this mystery’s process is moreover demonstarted to us in Mary.

Sharing our nature, the Son of God experienced all of our own weaknesses. But being God, he did not fall prey to them. When Adam was made, he was perfect. His fall introduced into human nature the stain of sin which is alien to his nature. By becoming human, the Son of God restores human nature to its original fullness. His human will, so wayward in us, was perfectly aligned with his Divine will.

Part of the essence of the Christian mystery is that God wishes to be in relationship with us, He wishes us to be one with him. This oneness cannot be accomplished through transforming our human nature into God’s nature. That would destroy us. It cannot be accomplished by the extinguishing of who we are in the fire of God’s love–that is truly death, we could not survive it. What it means is that God graciously comes to us in love by marrying to himself our humanity in the Incarnation of Jesus. Through Jesus, we have access to God’s own Divine Life of Love. Love requires Lover and the Beloved. We are God’s Beloved. And He comes to us as we are so that we may be as He is. If you do not understand this Mystery of Love, you do not understand Jesus or the Incarnation and it is fruitless to speculate on it.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy. Deo Gratias!

Thanks. It is some detailed reply. We would need reading it honestly ten times to uderstand it (You said there is a mystery). and only then we may be able to apprehend or comment on it.

As Muslims, We do not feel any mystery about Jesus or his mother.

 

[planten]

No, He prayed to His Father.

**To his father or his Lord? I feel that Jesus must have prayed to God only. You say he prayed to his father. But that is the same thing because according to you his father is the God.

Your statement is again quite complicated like a Catholic here had said ,“Jesus is God. God is not Jesus.” Can any one explain such things? It also shows that Jesus is something beside God.

My question is “Did Jesus pray to his Lord?” or not**.

 

[pete_29]

**To his father or his Lord? I feel that Jesus must have prayed to God only. You say he prayed to his father. But that is the same thing because according to you his father is the God.

Your statement is again quite complicated like a Catholic here had said ,“Jesus is God. God is not Jesus.” Can any one explain such things? It also shows that Jesus is something beside God.

My question is “Did Jesus pray to his Lord?” or not**.

He prayed to His Father. He is God’s only Begotten Son. You and paarsurrey are never going to understand that, are you? You are wasting your time here, in my opinion.

I find mohammed irrelevant.

 

[planten]

He prayed to His Father. He is God’s only Begotten Son. You and paarsurrey are never going to understand that, are you? You are wasting your time here, in my opinion.

I find mohammed irrelevant.

**My contention was that Jesus prayed and called his Lord. He said, “O my Lord, O my Lord, why have you forsaken me?” In the garden before his arrest, he must have mentioned some words to God (Lord) as his father.

It all goes to show that Jesus had a God to whom he prayed. It is interesting to see a praying god (Jesus). I would have thought that gods do not need to pray at all.

**

 

[sambos671]

**My contention was that Jesus prayed and called his Lord. He said, “O my Lord, O my Lord, why have you forsaken me?” In the garden before his arrest, he must have mentioned some words to God (Lord) as his father.

It all goes to show that Jesus had a God to whom he prayed. It is interesting to see a praying god (Jesus). I would have thought that gods do not need to pray at all.

**

He was quoting a psalm. Specifically psalm 22 which correlates the manner of his death exactly which is rather amazing when you consider when psalms were written. FYI here is the psalm:

1** My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? ** Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.

3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel. [a]

4 In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.

5 They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.

7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

8 **“He trusts in the LORD;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.” **

9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother’s breast.

10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.

12 **Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me. **

13 Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me. **
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me. **

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me ** in the dust of death. ****
16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced [c] my hands and my feet**.

17** I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me. **
18** They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing. **
19 But you, O LORD, be not far off;
O my Strength, come quickly to help me.

20 Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.

21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save [d] me from the horns of the wild oxen.

22 I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the congregation I will praise you.

23 You who fear the LORD, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!

24 For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.

25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you [e] will I fulfill my vows.

26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
they who seek the LORD will praise him—
may your hearts live forever!

27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the LORD,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,

28 for dominion belongs to the LORD
and he rules over the nations.

29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.

30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.

31 They will proclaim his righteousness
to a people yet unborn—
for he has done it.

 

[pete_29]

**My contention was that Jesus prayed and called his Lord. He said, “O my Lord, O my Lord, why have you forsaken me?” In the garden before his arrest, he must have mentioned some words to God (Lord) as his father.

It all goes to show that Jesus had a God to whom he prayed. It is interesting to see a praying god (Jesus). I would have thought that gods do not need to pray at all.

**

Only Begotten Son! What, you never asked your father for anything?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Jesus’ ministry was for the guidance of the people. He never mentioned any Trinity himself, in my opinion. If he ever mentioned kindly quote from him.

Hello again, paarsurrey. You say that Jesus’ ministry was for the guidance of the people. In part, yes. Scripture and Tradition are both witness to this.

But that’s not the totality of Jesus’ ministry. His ministry is nothing less than to effect the reconciliation, in his own Person, of God and man. This is not a mere teaching gig. This is not just a prophetic role. It is the DOING, the ACCOMPLISHMENT of the high priestly task given to Adam which Adam was unwilling to fulfill.

Re: never mentioning the Trinity, others have pointed out the end of Matthew. But this does not satisfy you, apparently because 19th century academia agrees more with your preconceived notion of what Christianity is or should be. If that’s your opinion, then fine (I wonder, though, if you are willing to apply the witness of 19th century scholarship to all sacred texts, including your own). But when you ask for evidence from the tradition, and evidence is given, that it is not to your liking is really beside the point. Perhaps in future you could state the ground rules of the discussion better and define what texts are admissible as evidence for one side or another.

I would just add that Catholic Christianity admits two sources of revelation–Scripture and Tradition. You will find that Jesus taught his disciples many things that are not written in the four gospels (see the end of the gospel of John). These oral teachings are part of the Traditions of the church. The Tradition of the Church acknowledges the truth of the teaching on the Trinity. As such, any Catholic may truthfully affirm that the Trinity is part of Christ’s teaching, whether or not it appears in the canonical gospels.

It must have been mentioned by Paul to negate Jesus simple teachings understandable by the common people. Kindly also mention use of the word “mystery” by Jesus himself.

I am amused by your certainty regarding Paul’s villainy. Why is Paul such a bugbear to you? Have you read him? Do you know anything about him? Have you studied his theology, brushed up on the rhetorical devices he uses? On what basis do you judge him as an unfit witness to the truth of the revelation he himself experienced?

Regarding the word mystery, I would refer you to what I wrote above regarding Sacred Tradition. Mystery is not a word which means “difficult to understand,” by the way. At least not in a religious context. A mystery is a kind of living and active symbol (in the classical sense of the Greek SYMBOLON) of revelation. It is a means by which we access grace. We can speak of the mystery of prayer. We can speak of the mystery of love. The chief mysteries of the church are the Seven Sacraments, central amongst which is the Eucharist. If a mystery is difficult to understand, often it is because the mystery does not appeal to understanding at all, but to love and to experience. It is not something that is understood by mentation or mere rational discourse, but something that is understood by living the mystery in love.

Regarding Jesus’ simple teachings, have you read the gospels? You may be astonished to discover how many times Jesus taught in parables and no one, not even his disciples, understood him until he explained himself to them in private. Where are you getting this notion that what Jesus taught was simple folksy life lessons that Paul cruelly corrupted?

Paarsurrey, you are entitled to your opinion. You understand your opinion very well. But I would ask that before you challenge another person’s beliefs and the teaching authority of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that you endeavor to understand more than just your own opinion.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Bill_Pick]

Grace & Peace!

Hello again, paarsurrey. You say that Jesus’ ministry was for the guidance of the people. In part, yes. Scripture and Tradition are both witness to this.

But that’s not the totality of Jesus’ ministry. His ministry is nothing less than to effect the reconciliation, in his own Person, of God and man. This is not a mere teaching gig. This is not just a prophetic role. It is the DOING, the ACCOMPLISHMENT of the high priestly task given to Adam which Adam was unwilling to fulfill.

Re: never mentioning the Trinity, others have pointed out the end of Matthew. But this does not satisfy you, apparently because 19th century academia agrees more with your preconceived notion of what Christianity is or should be. If that’s your opinion, then fine (I wonder, though, if you are willing to apply the witness of 19th century scholarship to all sacred texts, including your own). But when you ask for evidence from the tradition, and evidence is given, that it is not to your liking is really beside the point. Perhaps in future you could state the ground rules of the discussion better and define what texts are admissible as evidence for one side or another.

I would just add that Catholic Christianity admits two sources of revelation–Scripture and Tradition. You will find that Jesus taught his disciples many things that are not written in the four gospels (see the end of the gospel of John). These oral teachings are part of the Traditions of the church. The Tradition of the Church acknowledges the truth of the teaching on the Trinity. As such, any Catholic may truthfully affirm that the Trinity is part of Christ’s teaching, whether or not it appears in the canonical gospels.

I am amused by your certainty regarding Paul’s villainy. Why is Paul such a bugbear to you? Have you read him? Do you know anything about him? Have you studied his theology, brushed up on the rhetorical devices he uses? On what basis do you judge him as an unfit witness to the truth of the revelation he himself experienced?

Regarding the word mystery, I would refer you to what I wrote above regarding Sacred Tradition. Mystery is not a word which means “difficult to understand,” by the way. At least not in a religious context. A mystery is a kind of living and active symbol (in the classical sense of the Greek SYMBOLON) of revelation. It is a means by which we access grace. We can speak of the mystery of prayer. We can speak of the mystery of love. The chief mysteries of the church are the Seven Sacraments, central amongst which is the Eucharist. If a mystery is difficult to understand, often it is because the mystery does not appeal to understanding at all, but to love and to experience. It is not something that is understood by mentation or mere rational discourse, but something that is understood by living the mystery in love.

Regarding Jesus’ simple teachings, have you read the gospels? You may be astonished to discover how many times Jesus taught in parables and no one, not even his disciples, understood him until he explained himself to them in private. Where are you getting this notion that what Jesus taught was simple folksy life lessons that Paul cruelly corrupted?

Paarsurrey, you are entitled to your opinion. You understand your opinion very well. But I would ask that before you challenge another person’s beliefs and the teaching authority of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that you endeavor to understand more than just your own opinion.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!

please remember not all Our Lord said is in the bible

 

[cathopologist]

please remember not all Our Lord said is in the bible

The Bible itself admits this fact. The Qu’ran on the other hand, does not explain the inconsistencies and whether there is more to Islam than what the Qu’ran supposedly reveals. Which may explain why Muslim extremists formulate their own dogmas, theology and doctrines. Albeit closely following the teachings of the Qu’ran. But don’t tell the peaceful Muslims here i told you that.

 

[sambos671]

The Bible itself admits this fact. The Qu’ran on the other hand, does not explain the inconsistencies and whether there is more to Islam than what the Qu’ran supposedly reveals. Which may explain why Muslim extremists formulate their own dogmas, theology and doctrines. Albeit closely following the teachings of the Qu’ran. But don’t tell the peaceful Muslims here i told you that.

This is probably another thread but how do muslims respond to the allegation that Allah is nothing more than a tribal moon god glorified?

 

[paarsurrey]

This is probably another thread but how do muslims respond to the allegation that Allah is nothing more than a tribal moon god glorified?

Hi

It is simply incorrect. Catholic Arabic Bible uses Allah frequetly. You may ask any Arabic speaking Catholic.

I quote from Wikipedia:

Allah (Arabic: الله‎, Allāh, IPA: ʔalˤːɑːh] pronunciation (help·info)) is the standard Arabic word for ‘God.’[1] While the term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God, it is used by Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, in reference to “God”.[2][1][3]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah

Thanks