Saint Paul and Islam

[itinerant1]

You wanted to know about John 1:1 and John 8:58. So I explained that John 1:1 is just talking about God’s commands to make light, not a little man-god called God’s Word.

And John 8:58 is Jesus talking about being greater than Abraham as Melchizedek, now we all have to go through Jesus for him to make atonement for us with God, just as the Aaron priests did. Jesus wasn’t saying he was God at all.

Not sure what I haven’t answered.

Your interpretation is in no way related to the obvious sense of the text. “I AM” in John 8:6 in the Greek, as transliterated, is “Ego Emi”. This is specifically the name for Yahweh of the Old Testament, as revealed to Moses. It has nothing to do with Melchizedek or Abraham. If it did then the Jews would not have accused Jesus of blasphemy. You interpretation is not related to the meaning of the text as if it could be one possible meaning. It is rather, a non-sensical interpretation. And it seems you are content with talking nonsense. So be it.

John 1:1 makes no reference whatsoever to a command or to light. No one who understands the English language would make such an absurd statement as you have. Furthermore, in the original Greek, John 1:1 reads (my rough transliteration)“en archai”, In the beginning, “ain ho logos”, was the Word. (This says that (Christ) the Word, existed from the beginning.) The text continues: “kai ho logos ain pros ton Theon”, and the Word was with God, “kai theos ain ho logos”, and the Word was God. The sense of the Greek is that the Logos exists “face to face” with God. “Face to face” means an equality with God, or, in other words, the Logos is God. The concept of the Logos has a history in the Wisdom literature of the Old Testament and in Greek philosophy. One must have a sense of “logos” to properly understand the text. In any case, there is nothing in this text that even remotely resembles what you have said it means. No command, no light. What you have said is nonsensical to boot. If you want to put forth an interpretation of a Biblical text, at least make an effort to read the text and talk sense about it.

Obviously, I am more than a little irritated at what you are doing. You are not engaging in honest, rational debate. Does this please Allah?

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[itinerant1]

Hi

I don’t think it is well documented. There are no secular/neutral/rational historical documents with my friends here. As far as of its being “above dispute” is concerned, this matter has all along been under dispute right from the moment the event of Crucifixion was, if not earlier, being done.

On one hand there are Jews who say they executed Jesus (though I don’t believe them).

On the other there are some Catholics who would put the blame on Romans, just for nothing, though this is against the prophecy of Jesus.

Still there are other some Catholics who say “the Christians” are themselves responsible for it (something like that) so that Jesus could atone their sins, I don’t think that is correct.

Still more who would say Jesus did it voluntarily and willingly, though that makes it a suicidal attempt on part of Jesus, I don’t believe that.

So my friend, the matter has been under dispute at all times since it happening.

Till the man came who resolved it getting a WordofTruth from GodAllahYHWH directly.

I may clear it here that we Muslims believe OTBible, NTBible, Moses, Jesus and Mary only because Quran has mentioned about them.

I love Moses, Jesus and Mary.

Thanks

I think you missed the context of what I was referring to when I said the matter is above dispute. I was referring to what the Church has taught about the nature of Christ from its beginnings prior to the writings of the New Testament up until the time of Mohammed. The documentation is ample as to what the Church has officially taught on the subject. Church writings are sufficient documentation on what was taught. External sources are of no consequence in this particular matter.

In regard to who killed Jesus, the New Testament is the best and most accurate historical record on the matter. The New Testament is the authoritative record on the crucifixion.

Peace, brother,

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Your interpretation is in no way related to the obvious sense of the text. “I AM” in John 8:6 in the Greek, as transliterated, is “Ego Emi”.

I think the blind man also said I AM in John 9:9. But it didn’t make him God. The main thing Jesus does is make atonement for our sins as a Melchizedek priest, that’s what Messiah is, priest-king of Jerusalem who ministers to the House of Abraham with Isaac Jews + Ishmael Gentiles. So John 8:6 is all about that role which is outlined in Hebrews.

Messiah has nothing to do with being the eternal God in Jewish prophecy, this is a Gentile creation filtered through previous understanding of mythological and heroic demigods like Apollo, Dionysus, etc.

John 1:1 makes no reference whatsoever to a command or to light.

God’s Word is just what God says in John 1:1. While all prophets are God’s Word to man and repeat it obediently as Jesus did.

Obviously, I am more than a little irritated at what you are doing. You are not engaging in honest, rational debate. Does this please Allah?

itinerant1 :tiphat:

You are responsible for your own feelings.

 

[itinerant1]

I think the blind man also said I AM in John 9:9. But it didn’t make him God. The main thing Jesus does is make atonement for our sins as a Melchizedek priest, that’s what Messiah is, priest-king of Jerusalem who ministers to the House of Abraham with Isaac Jews + Ishmael Gentiles. So John 8:6 is all about that role which is outlined in Hebrews.

Messiah has nothing to do with being the eternal God in Jewish prophecy, this is a Gentile creation filtered through previous understanding of mythological and heroic demigods like Apollo, Dionysus, etc.

God’s Word is just what God says in John 1:1. While all prophets are God’s Word to man and repeat it obediently as Jesus did.

You are responsible for your own feelings.

No the blind man did not refer to his name as “Ego Emi”.

You are circumscribing the role of the Messiah to the earlier and limited understandings of the Old Testament Messianic prophecies. (This initial and limited understanding suited the purposes of Mohammed). A fuller understanding of these Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah is not revealed until the New Dispensation. Revelation is progressive. God does not reveal everything at once. He reveals more as time progresses. When Christ reveals that He is Ego Emi, and not just another human prophet, some Jews then reject the Messiah. Jesus said these Jews do not know who He is because they have never really known the Father. If they had known the Father, then they would know the Son.

Peace,

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[itinerant1]

God’s Word is just what God says in John 1:1. While all prophets are God’s Word to man and repeat it obediently as Jesus did.

You have completely disregarded the meaning of “logos” in the context of John 1:1. Perhaps you are fatefully mired down by the ordinary meaning of “word”. “Word” is an inadequate English translation of the Greek “logos”.

Prophets speak the words or Word of God, but only Christ is the Logos of God. As the text in John 1:1 makes clear, the Logos is God Himself. No other prophet is ever referred to as the Logos.

As I previously indicated, to properly understand the Logos in the New Testament, one must refer to the development of the notion in the Wisdom literature of the Old Testament, especially the Book of Wisdom, as well as its meanings in Greek philosophy. Without this background, and by ignoring the obvious statement that the *Logos was God, *(John 1:1), one lacks any basis for proffering an interpretation of the text. At some point, if you are to ever understand John 1:1, you have to attend to the meaning of “Logos”. As hard as you may try, there is simply no other way around it: The Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[FaithofAbraham]

You have completely disregarded the meaning of “logos” in the context of John 1:1. Perhaps you are fatefully mired down by the ordinary meaning of “word”. “Word” is an inadequate English translation of the Greek “logos”.

Logos in context to anything is just words and sayings of anyone, see for yourself:

LOGOS

In the context of John 1:1 it’s the words of God. It’s not another little God there that turns into a man. Unless you filter it through the perception of Gentile Greek mythology and comfort in demigods.

 

[paarsurrey]

Logos in context to anything is just words and sayings of anyone, see for yourself:
LOGOS

In the context of John 1:1 it’s the words of God. It’s not another little God there that turns into a man. Unless you filter it through the perception of Gentile Greek mythology and comfort in demigods.

Hi

I think Jesus’ religion was simple and smart for the poor masses at Jerusalem, until Paul weaved it with his religious philosophy around it at Rome and embellished it for the Royal and rich there; only using Jesus name.

I love Jesus, Mary and the Twelve, only because Quran has mentioned them with respect and love.

Thanks

 

[itinerant1]

Logos in context to anything is just words and sayings of anyone, see for yourself:

LOGOS

In the context of John 1:1 it’s the words of God. It’s not another little God there that turns into a man. Unless you filter it through the perception of Gentile Greek mythology and comfort in demigods.

Wrong again!

You just used up your last strike. All you did was reference the common useage of “logos”. The common useage is not relevant to John 1:1.

And neither will you find anything in Greek mythology that even remotely resembles the usage of “logos” as it is used in John 1:1.

One does not believe in the Gospel if he subscribes to a mythical interpretation of John 1:1 as you so clearly do.

So, that is strike three for you. You can keep playing, but you have offically struck yourself out. Have a good one. I will be joining another discussion.

Peace and good will,

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[abucs]

Hi Paasurrey.

I think you are muddying the waters a bit with talking about controversy of who killed Jesus.

All of the claims you say are true. It obviously doesn’t have to be only one group that killed Jesus. In fact if you look at just about anybodies death, there are multiple reasons for death. It is obviously quite simple.

The Sanhedrin Jews killed Jesus because he claimed to be the great ‘I AM’, the Son of God.

The Romans killed Jesus because they crucified Him under Roman law and execution from pressure from the Sanhedrin.

I killed Jesus because it was for my sins that He came into the world in order to go through that death.

Jesus killed Jesus because he accepted the role of coming into the world to save people from their sins and go through that death.

There is no contoversy in that and it is the general Christian position across the Church and denominations.

FOA, saying God killed Jesus on the cross - couldn’t you make that claim about anybodies death ? For example - the people killed in an explosion weren’t killed by the bomb, God took them just before the bomb reached them. It sounds very weak what you are suggesting and again i think it is trying to stretch words to make the Koran compatible with what happened.

You say above that no-one has answered you about Jesus praying to himself, but i did answer you earlier on.

As far as God being born and dying that doesn’t mean God begins and ends at Jesus’ birth and death, quite obviously His birth and death are journeys hopefully like my death will be. This world is a creation for us for God’s purpose. The real reality is outside of that creation. The entering into this creation and the leaving of it does not necessarily impose an absolute beginning or end. Jesus is the alpha and the omega, after all.

As far as the BBC is concerned, when something religious comes on i smile and turn over these days unless i am in the mood for comedy. They are blatantly anti Catholic and as times go on, anti Christian. To say secular is neutral is something i don’t agree with either.

The BBC are first on the scene it appears with any program made to suggest -

1. Jesus did not exist
2. Jesus might be homosexual
3. Jesus married Mary Magdeline and had children
4. Jesus’s tomb is here, no it’s there, wait it’s over here now.
5. Any number of conflicting stories about the rise of Christianity.

After a while it’s pretty clear there is an continuing agenda there.
We have to remember that putting something on TV is a business. Apart from having your own personal agendas, you have to have something that will get peoples attention = ratings = profits = worth doing in the first place. When you take out all the rubbish in those documentaries and ask - what is new ? What is credible and why ? There is precious little left.

As far as the crusades go, it’s pretty obvious the muslims spent 463 years conquering Christians in (todays names) Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Jordon, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, Ethiopia, Algeria, Lybia and Spain as well as continuuing to attack and hold territory in France, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Romania, Cyprus, Malta, Romania etc. To complain that the Christians finally put together an army and put a halt to it and that this is somehow on par with the Muslim expansion by the sword is not accurate IMHO.

 

[paarsurrey]

You say above that no-one has answered you about Jesus praying to himself.

Hi

Sorry I don’t remember having said that. Kindly quote the post # and the thread title.

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi Paasurrey.
I think you are muddying the waters a bit with talking about controversy of who killed Jesus.
All of the claims you say are true. It obviously doesn’t have to be only one group that killed Jesus. In fact if you look at just about anybodies death, there are multiple reasons for death. It is obviously quite simple.
The Sanhedrin Jews killed Jesus because he claimed to be the great ‘I AM’, the Son of God.
The Romans killed Jesus because they crucified Him under Roman law and execution from pressure from the Sanhedrin.
I killed Jesus because it was for my sins that He came into the world in order to go through that death.
Jesus killed Jesus because he accepted the role of coming into the world to save people from their sins and go through that death.
There is no contoversy in that and it is the general Christian position across the Church and denominations.

Hi

My friend, peace be with you; we are living in this ordinary world. We have to be rational and reasonable. Please, there is no need to go into abstractions, as that is not going to solve the problem we are just discussiong. Remain focused here, please.

If you go to a sheriff and tell him “I have killed Jesus” as you say; he would just laugh it away.

I** may like to mention here that we Muslims do believe in OTBible, NTBible, Moses, Jesus , Mary only because Quran/Islam/Muhammad have mentioned about them with love and affection .**

Thanks

 

[abucs]

Paarsurry,

my friend, peace be with you.

I also ask you to remain focussed and be rational.

I think the simple explanation for multiple responsibilities for death is quite obvious and well made and of course your only response is to go into abstractions yourself about confessing to a sherrif that i or someone else killed Jesus.

The inference you give by using the word ‘sherrif’ implies he would be obliged to do something about it, if my claim were valid. It is a pretty weak anology given that a sherrif acts under a certain juristiction bound by territory, administration and claimed authority. Neither i nor the sherrif would understand why you would want us to be involved in your abstracted scenerio. Apart from that mis-placed abstraction, which i think everybody can agree doesn’t make sense, including yourself, you have not made a point.

My point about multiple responsibilities for death still stands and is so obvious i am surprised you want to continue.

I will give you another abstraction - If an American soldier in Afghanistan shoots a member of Al Quaida - who is responsible ? The soldier, the american Army, George Bush, the Al Quaida man, the teacher he had on the philosophy that made him join Al Quaida, The bombers on 9/11 ?

I am not in favour of western armies being in the middle east but it is not a hard concept to grasp that people may well be of the opinion that each one mentioned (and more) are possibly responsible.

The comment regarding Jesus praying to himself was directed to FOA who has commented such on many of his posts. I think post 119 was the latest. He also mentioned the crusades in that post my friend, peace be with you.

 

[planten]

The topic has drifted to “Who killed Jesus”. I am least interested in this topic. Whoever did it, did it well and every one is happy to do it. The Jews are happy that they killed the man called Jesus son of Mary. The christians are also happy that jesus died for them, for their sins.

I remember reading bible NT where Pilate did not intend to kill Jesus and he washed his hands to show that he was not responsible for the blood of innocent man Jesus. At that time the Jews shouted that the blood of Jesus be on them and their children. So the Jews of that time accepted the killing.

So why are we looking for the killer now when the Jews accepted the responsibility.

 

[abucs]

Planten,

I am happy to stop posting about it if you wish, but i am simply replying to posts made such as from my friend paarsurry, and now your good self.

To comment on your post above -

Christians also accept the responsibility.
Pilate accepted responsibility when he signed the execution notice.
I guess Judas also took responsibility for it by hanging himself.
Christ also accepts the responsibility as mentioned in John 10:15-18.

" just as the Father knows me and i know the Father, and i will lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also i must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd. This is why the Father loves me because i lay down my life in order to take it up again. NO ONE TAKES IT FROM ME, BUT I LAY IT DOWN ON MY OWN. I have power to lay it down, and I HAVE POWER to take it up again. This command i have received from MY Father".

I guess the sherrif would be very confused. )

God Bless.

 

[paarsurrey]

I remember reading bible NT where Pilate did not intend to kill Jesus and he washed his hands to show that he was not responsible for the blood of innocent man Jesus. At that time the Jews shouted that the blood of Jesus be on them and their children. So the Jews of that time accepted the killing.
So why are we looking for the killer now when the Jews accepted the responsibility.

Hi

I would like to remind my friends here that Jesus has prophesized as to who would be responsible for his attempted murder; and the penalty they would suffer. If one just think over it, then one would have not or would not like to shift the responsibility.

Matthew 23;35 DR
35 That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.

Accordingly, amongst many other things that his life was saved being a truthful ProphetMessenger of GodAllahYHWH, the Jews have to suffer for that attempted murder at Jesus; and Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans.

So the suffering penalty fixes the responsibility on Jews; that is witnessing of Jesus before hand, and working of GodAllahYHWH.

I think there is no room for anyother opinion.

We Muslim belive in Bible and Jesus only because Quran/Islam/Muhammad has mentioned about them with love and respect.

Thanks

 

[cascherman]

This post is more directed at the original topic and not so much at where this thread has gone.

Not only does Islam have to deal with Paul and his epistles and explaining why he talks about Jesus the way he does (as God), but they have to explain away all the the 12 apostles as well. Each went out and established churches in various places around Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East (speaking in geographical terms of now). It just so happens that all of these areas had the same religion of Christianity with the same ideas on Jesus as Paul had.

Sometimes people tend to think that apostles time ‘in the spotlight’ was done by the time Jesus died and the only message that was left is what Jesus and his disciples said and did in the Bible. But Jesus’ message has spread around the entire world by his apostles, and they just so happen to agree with Paul. (This is the idea of tradition)

And all of this has rock-solid recorded history (see Eusebius for a good Christian history)

 

[abucs]

I don’t know why it is such a big thing for you to blame exclusively the Jews Paarsurrey ?

The quote you sight does not negate the absolutely simple concept of speaking about different responsibilities for the same event.

Isaiah speaks of the Messiah coming because of our sins.
Jesus says, with regards to Judas’ fete that it was better that Judas would never have been born.

Are you saying there was no responsibilities for the Roman soldiers punching, whipping and hammering nails through the wrists of Jesus ?

Could i do those things to your family and claim it is not my responsibility ? That is a very scary way to think, is it not ?

I ask you to be broadminded and read all of the passages and all of the responsibilities instead of focussing on only one passage and resaponsibility and pretending that there can be no other responsibilities.

BTW i don’t think you do believe in the bible Paarsurrey. Only those parts that do not disagree with the Koran.

The Messiah spoken of in the old testament speaks of a ruler who will rule for the whole world. Since the Koran says that Jesus is the Messiah, do you confess that Jesus is your ruler ?

 

[paarsurrey]

And all of this has rock-solid recorded history (see Eusebius for a good Christian history)

Hi

Sorry ,the World comprises on many countries,races and nations. It is wrong to assume that the whole world consisted on Roman Empire only.Eusebius might have little knowledge of all this world. Moreover he was not a secular or neutral Historian, he wrote only the Church history, that is not so solid for others.

Eusebius of Caesarea (c 263 – 339?[1]) (often called Eusebius Pamphili, “Eusebius [the friend] of Pamphilus”) became the bishop of Caesarea in Palaestina c 314.[1] He is often referred to as the father of **Church history **because of his work in recording the history of the early Christian church.
Eusebius is often regarded as the first court appointed Christian theologian in the service of the Constantine Roman Empire, seeing the Empire and the Imperial Church as closely bonded.[3] Notwithstanding the great influence of his works on others, Eusebius was not himself a great historian.

The above is from an Encyclopedia.

Thanks

 

[abucs]

If Muhammad said the bible is the word of God, and Paul’s teachings are a significant part of the bible, and Pauls writings have always been so, certainly at the time of Muhammad by historical record, then isn’t Muhammad argueing (or revealing) that the letters attributed to Paul in the bible are words from God ?

The church was founded on Jewish apostles as cascherman said and persecuted by the Romans for hundreds of years.

Yet after this persecution the Christians get together from Rome to the middle east to north Africa and there is no major arguements that Jesus was man. There were to be sure some who did theorise that as many do today, but not to any great extent. It is clear from all of the letters written at the time that the overwhelming teaching was that God was made incarnate in the form of Jesus Christ.

So you have a church persecuted from the start for hundreds of years and spread in a huge geographic location and when the Romans finally legalise Christianity there are no large disputes about Jesus being man. Doesn’t that sound strange. You have to argue that a persecuted Church travelling out from all directions being founded by Jews had its doctrines changed EVERYWHERE. And there is no historical record of that from any of the writings we have from the early church fathers.

In effect, the only reason you postulate is because the Koran can’t be wrong. This is against common sense.

Even if we were to allow for it you still have the problem of the Koran saying that the bible is the word of God while the new testament is full, and always has been by the historical record, with claims of Christs divinity.

In short, the Koran says the bible is holy, we know it always teaches that Christ is divine, the Koran seems to suggest Christ is not divine, therefore the Koran, by any reasonable standard is shown to be inconsistant.

The Christian bible did not come into existance until the 4th century. The bible was amalgamated from a set of diverse earlier writings. We know historically what they said then at the bibles creation. We have copies. They say the same thing as they say now. It doesn’t make sense to refer to any other ‘bible’. There wasn’t any. The bible says Jesus was divine.

Obviously the Koran is not infallible. Can there be any more simpler exercise in logic ?

God Bless.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Wrong again!

You just used up your last strike. All you did was reference the common useage of “logos”. The common useage is not relevant to John 1:1.

Sure it is, any other usage is invention.