I believe Jesus was never a god who became man

[swariffin]

Hi

I don’t agree with the above:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john

Gospel of John

Since “the higher criticism” of the 19th century, critical scholars have questioned the gospel of John as a reliable source of information about the historical Jesus.[7][8][9]
Authorship

Most modern experts conclude the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness.[13] Tradition ascribes the book to John the Evangelist, a disciple of Christ.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

Nope, some modern expert may conclude as you said. But, the majority still does not. Otherwise, the gospel will not be named the gospel of John. Still at 90AD, John would may still be alive. My grandma in law is now 85, and still she is capable of sweeping the floor, doing dishes, do some cooking. She has no dangerous disease such as heart problem or diabetes. So, I can still have the humanly logic expect to see her in another 10 years or so. But still, I can’t predict what God would do.

And again, you have the tendency to believe what ever people said against Christianity.

 

[mattkubes]

Wow, the complete lack of logic and flow in -]some/-] all of the OP’s posts is staggering. Reading several of them was one of the most painful exercises of the will that I have ever done.

To those able to respond calmly without jumping at the use of logical fallacy after logical fallacy, I salute you. You’re far more patient than I can ever hope to be.

 

[kellie]

Hi

In abstraction sometimes I also club the followers of Paul’s church with him, please.

I love Jesus, Mary and Second Coming 1835-1908

Thanks

Do you believe that Paul named the 4 “anonymous” Gospels as “Matthew”, “Mark”, “Luke” & “John” ??

 

[planten]

He is contradicting his own Quran. In the Quran he posted for me, he said that God can do anything. I will comeback to his posting for you. I think he mentioned it in the thread “Teaching about Jesus and Mary from Quran”.

**swariffin, Paar did not write anything from himself. He just reproduced the translation of the verse done by some one else. In order to make the meaning of the verse more clear, I give the correct translation here:

“Allah is capable of doing anything (that he likes or wills).”

Ths portion “anything that Allah wills” is a part of the translation of the word “Shaie” as we have it in “In Shaa Allah, Maa Shaa Allah.” The word “Shaie” is a thing which is wished and liked and wanted.

In the old times, some friends were translating the verses in a relaxed (easy) manner. They left some loop holes in their work which needs to ne corrected and explained. So I have explained one such part to you. I hope you like it.**

 

[swariffin]

**

“Allah is capable of doing anything (that he likes or wills).”

**

Fine with me and thank you. Based on your translation, do you believe that “Allah is capable of doing anything that He likes or wills”?

 

[Good_Fella]

Hi

You may express yourself fully and freely.

I love Jesus

Thanks

The truth is Mohammad was heavily influenced by a meeting he had with an Arian monk by the name of Bahira which eventually helped lead to his denial of Christ’s divinity. Moreover, he was taught by the Nestorian monk Sergius and had espoused the heretical Nestorian faith for awhile. His earlier teachings were a hodge podge of Sabellianism, Nestorianism, Manacheanism, and Judaism which flourished on the Arabian peninsula together with Arianism at the time of his life. Thus Mohammad received no revelation from God. He simply formed ideas of his own concocted from all the gnosticism and heresies he was influenced by.

It would appear that his initial encounter with the angel Gabriel was either one with Satan, disguised as an angel of light, who deluded the man in an attempt to ruin the spread of the Christian faith, or just a fabrication on Mohammad’s part to lend force to his claims.

God told Moses that one greater than him would appear from ‘his own lineage’ - and only one who is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Mohammad was a 7th century Arab, not a Jew in ancient Palestine. There are 300 Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord. There is not one prophecy pointing to Mohammad. He just appeared out of nowhere like Jimmy Jones to deceive hundreds of millions.

PAX :harp:

 

[paarsurrey]

The truth is Mohammad was heavily influenced by a meeting he had with an Arian monk by the name of Bahira which eventually helped lead to his denial of Christ’s divinity.

Hi

Well, that is your opinion; you may keep it with you, no compulsion.

I love Jesus , Mary and Second Coming 1835-1908

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

**swariffin, Paar did not write anything from himself. He just reproduced the translation of the verse done by some one else. In order to make the meaning of the verse more clear, I give the correct translation here:

“Allah is capable of doing anything (that he likes or wills).”

Ths portion “anything that Allah wills” is a part of the translation of the word “Shaie” as we have it in “In Shaa Allah, Maa Shaa Allah.” The word “Shaie” is a thing which is wished and liked and wanted.

In the old times, some friends were translating the verses in a relaxed (easy) manner. They left some loop holes in their work which needs to ne corrected and explained. So I have explained one such part to you. I hope you like it.**

Hi

I thought that brother swarffin knows that GodAllahYHWH has attributes; He won’t do anything against His attributes, that would be a blemish and demerit for Him. But that is about the Quranic GodAllahYHWH.

Maybe a Catholic-god could create a stone; which the whole Trinity combined may not lift, in my opinion.

I don’t think that swariffin believes any such thing though; he only writes and engages us. No compulsion

Thanks

 

[swariffin]

Hi

I thought that brother swarffin knows that GodAllahYHWH has attributes; He won’t do anything against His attributes, that would be a blemish and demerit for Him. But that is about the Quranic GodAllahYHWH.

Maybe a Catholic-god could create a stone; which the whole Trinity combined may not lift, in my opinion.

I don’t think that swariffin believes any such thing though; he only writes and engages us. No compulsion

Thanks

For sure, Allah will not fall into stupid fallacy such as creating a stone at unlimited weight so much that He can’t lift it. But, you do have a circular reasoning such like that.

“Muhammad is right because Quran said so, and Quran is right because Muhammad said so”.

 

[sambos671]

Hi

Our Catholic friends would have us believe that Word became flesh or that god became flesh. Well there seems to be more than that, I think. I am not a physician but as an ordinary man in the street I think flesh is made of soft tissues in the humans and animals. The body could consist of tissues of different solidity; some may or others may not be a part of the human body. There could be some parts having solidity lesser than the flesh while others could have solidity greater than the soft tissues or flesh. Thanks to Paul to inform us that word became flesh.

If we agree to Paul then his concept of Trinity becomes vulnerable; word became flesh, so of what did the subtle tissues thinner than flesh and or harder than flesh were made or who made them. I think Paul must have to revise his brainchild of word becoming flesh, in my opinion. Catholic-god who became flesh must be without bones; as bones are not supposed to be flesh. Paul’s mythical-god therefore cannot be homo-erectus; flesh without bones cannot stand straight.

Paul shall have now to look to at least another god who made the bones; father-god, holy ghost-god, and son-god he made the Trinity with them, now for bones he should name another god, in my opinion.

Kindly, help Paul to revise his mythical theological philosophy.

I love Jesus and would defend him against strange ideas of Paul.

Thanks

What kind of logic is that?

First of All you place the “Word” (Logos - Greek with some relation to Platonic thought in the thinking of that day) become flesh soley on Paul. But we see it in John’s Gosple. Ie…

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.

and also:

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So this thought doesn’t lie entirely on the lap of Paul. But also John and from it we can assertain that all the Apostles believed it.

Also you speak of hard bones and soft flesh and confuse this thinking with tissues. When in reality in the world at the time of the writings of the apostles we find that Socrates seperates the material world (The Jewish rendering from Paul reads flesh or the world of the flesh or all that is subject to matter) and the Spiritual world. For the consept of the flesh with regards to the spirit take a look at the view of Socrates Caverns. Where the thought was that all matters show the forms of the spirit or spiritual world. That it is the spiritual world that in fact is substantive and the material world is just a reflection of it.

So in John’s mind God being a spirit became man or incarnated into the material world, or by his terms became flesh.

Note in the days of Jesus the world was influenced by the Greeks. Greek was the common language that many peoples and cultures could communicate in thanks in part for Alexander the Great even though he came from Macedonia. Also Egypt and Antioch centers of the declining Greek empire were actually controled by Greeks Antioch by the Selucid and Egypt by the Ptolomeys.

Any more nonsense logic you want to espouse?

 

[paarsurrey]

Originally quoted by sambos671 perhaps from John:
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.

and also:

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Note in the days of Jesus the world was influenced by the Greeks.

Hi

Kindly quote for claims and reasons that Jesus, Matthew, Marks and Luke from their own books separately that they believed what John believed as you have stated in your above quotes; though John provided no reason for this belief, omission or comission, in my opinion.

Please don’t put into their mouths your words and wisdom; let them speak for themselves if they had a free will and a free wisdom.

This is my opinion only; others are under no compulsion to believe it.

I love Jesus, Mary and Second Coming 1835-1908

Thanks

 

[sambos671]

Hi

Kindly quote for claims and reasons that Jesus, Matthew, Marks and Luke from their own books separately that they believed what John believed as you have stated in your above quotes; though John provided no reason for this belief, omission or comission, in my opinion.

Please don’t put into their mouths your words and wisdom; let them speak for themselves if they had a free will and a free wisdom.

This is my opinion only; others are under no compulsion to believe it.

I love Jesus, Mary and Second Coming 1835-1908

Thanks

What are you asking? Jesus stated when speaking of God " I and the Father are one" In otherwords Jesus is God. Matthew, Mark, and Luke record this event therefore passing on this consept of Jesus being divine. Also they inform the reader of the Resurection of Jesus. Also a key point in Jesus claim to be one with the Father.

And what is this 2nd coming Nonsense in 1908? You seem all over the place.

 

[Catholic_JIMMY]

Hi

Thanks for you response. I cannot ,however, agree with you as it logically makes God a non-entity. God is only attributive and if God melts down to a human physical form; it relinquishes all attributes in this process one by one. in my opinion.

It was Paul who invented godhead for Jesus, only for his own ulterior motives. It is Paul’s weird concept and not a concept of Jesus he believed in.

If God becomes a man; who then controls the Universe, in the intermittent period; the Universe kept smoothly working while God was missing and became man.

If the Universe could do without God for a while; then logically it could do without it always.

I love Jesus a perfect man though.

Paul would be the last person to be making weird ideas. He was a Jewish fanatic,he used to kill anyone who said Jesus was the Messiah much less God. Also I one reads Acts of the Aspostles, one would notice that Peter refered to Jesus in one of his speeches as the author of life, thus GOD or in your case Brahma

 

[Catholic_JIMMY]

**R_Not, You are discussing sex life of Muhammad again and again. I am beginning to wonder about the beautiful sex life of your God.

As paarsurrey has interestingly pointed out that Jesus may have had sex parts i.e. sex organs, but did not use them. Did he really not make use of them? Why?

It appears that while he was not a man, your God must have had sex parts in heavens.too but not using them. (Is he still having them there? What for?) You are a funny person who is discussing sex life of Muhammad. For humans, It is not bad to have sex life with the male and female parts. But what your god did with his sex parts and why did he have them or did he have them??**

JUST BECAUSE ANYONE HAS SEX ORGANS DOES NOT MEAN ONE HAS TO USE THEM!!!

 

[Good_Fella]

Hi

I thought that brother swarffin knows that GodAllahYHWH has attributes; He won’t do anything against His attributes, that would be a blemish and demerit for Him. But that is about the Quranic GodAllahYHWH.

Maybe a Catholic-god could create a stone; which the whole Trinity combined may not lift, in my opinion.

I don’t think that swariffin believes any such thing though; he only writes and engages us. No compulsion

Thanks

God created a stone that he willed he could not lift. It’s called human free will, which God doesn’t want to deny us. For without free will we cannot genuinely love God. God became man to show us how we are to truly love him.

 

[Through_Him]

He is contradicting his own Quran. In the Quran he posted for me, he said that God can do anything. I will comeback to his posting for you. I think he mentioned it in the thread “Teaching about Jesus and Mary from Quran”.

I agree but it is interesting, I’m not going to post much here I have a lot of other threads I am posting on. I’m beginning to see how “different”, the Islam concept is. Oh well what can we say ? nothing to change their mind.

 

[WarriorAngel]

"Allah is capable of doing anything (that he likes or wills)."

And He willed to take the very obvious seperation we have from Him and open the gates of Heaven by reparation for our sinfulness by His Passion and Resurrection.

Are you denying He can do that? Or would do that?

Doesn’t ‘your’ God love you that much?

 

[paarsurrey]

JUST BECAUSE ANYONE HAS SEX ORGANS DOES NOT MEAN ONE HAS TO USE THEM!!!

Hi

Then either it is the mistake of Catholic-god-father who gave Jesus the parts, just for nothing; or of the Cathlic-god-Ghost who forgot to tell Jesus to use them or the mistake of Catholic-god-Jesus that he forgot to use them; maybe it is the mistake of all the three combined CatholicTrinity, and that makes them all no-gods, in my opinion.

Jesus could assert himself for his claims and reasons; he needed no Paul/s, in my opinion; **I love Jesus **for his wisdom. Jesus feared nobody except GodAllahYHWH whose humble servant Jesus was, in my opinion.

Thanks

 

[rikkk1958]

Hi

I would have loved Jesus the way you have suggested; but Jesus did not write the Bible; he never dictated it, he even did not authorize anybody to write for him and show him for approval. So the present Bible cannot be ascribed to Jesus, truthfully.

It was Paul- an enemy of Jesus and his followers; when Jesus went to India after the even of crucifixion in which he survived, in his absence Paul took over.

Paul imported or invented the Trinity at Rome; injected his strange ideas, never known to Jesus, into the anonymous books much later and name afterwards to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Paul himself wrote some books; his associates cleverly put the above gospels in the start of the Bible, and rest in the end to give an impression that the things have been put in the chronological order. Paul hid his philosophy behind the four Gospels.

I would like to defend Jesus against strange ideas of Paul.

This is as I understand the things; others could differ with me with reason, no compulsion.

I therefore would on merit love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

Paarsurrey, if you have nothing to do, i think you better write your own ridiculous story. You will be banned with your claims that are not substantiated. Your intention is obvious, mockery and sarcastic accusations. This is not welcome here. You will never be able to compare the quran to the Bible. You know that and it is not appropriate because the evidences point that muhammed and the quran is fake! How many times are you going to hear about muhammed? He doesn’t even have a bit of Paul’s teachings. Can’t you see the difference? If you want to be smart try to go to a forum that has the level of you understanding. Probably in some children’s fantasy story room.

 

[swariffin]

Hi

Then either it is the mistake of Catholic-god-father who gave Jesus the parts, just for nothing; or of the Cathlic-god-Ghost who forgot to tell Jesus to use them or the mistake of Catholic-god-Jesus that he forgot to use them; maybe it is the mistake of all the three combined CatholicTrinity, and that makes them all no-gods, in my opinion.

Jesus could assert himself for his claims and reasons; he needed no Paul/s, in my opinion; **I love Jesus **for his wisdom. Jesus feared nobody except GodAllahYHWH whose humble servant Jesus was, in my opinion.

Thanks

That is the difference between Jesus and Muhammad. Jesus can control the natural sexual desire/libido of men. Muhammad became the slave of sexual libido of men, but declare it the will of Allah.