Word became flesh?!!!

[paarsurrey]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4817976&postcount=211

I believe Jesus was never a god who became man

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

 

[swariffin]

[5:18] لَـقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِيْنَ قَالُوْۤا اِنَّ اللّٰهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيْحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ‌ؕ قُلْ فَمَنْ يَّمْلِكُ مِنَ اللّٰهِ شَيْـًٔـا اِنْ اَرَادَ اَنْ يُّهْلِكَ الْمَسِيْحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَاُمَّهٗ وَمَنْ فِىْ الْاَرْضِ جَمِيْعًا‌ؕ وَلِلّٰهِ مُلْكُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالْاَرْضِ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا‌ؕ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَآءُ‌ؕ وَاللّٰهُ عَلٰى كُلِّ شَىْءٍ قَدِيْرٌ‏
[5:18] They have indeed disbelieved who say, ‘Surely, Allah is none but the Messiah, son of Mary.’ Say, ‘Who then has any power against Allah, if He desire to bring to naught the Messiah, son of Mary, and his mother and all those that are in the earth?’ And to Allah belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them. **He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power to do all things. **

[5:21] وَاِذْ قَالَ مُوْسٰى لِقَوْمِهٖ يٰقَوْمِ اذْكُرُوْا نِعْمَةَ اللّٰهِ عَلَيْكُمْ اِذْ جَعَلَ فِيْكُمْ اَنْۢبِيَآءَ وَجَعَلَـكُمْ مُّلُوْكًا‌ۖ وَّاٰتٰٮكُمْ مَّا لَمْ يُؤْتِ اَحَدًا مِّنَ الْعٰلَمِيْنَ‏
[5:21] And remember when Moses said to his people, ‘O my people, call to mind Allah’s favour upon you when He appointed Prophets among you and made you kings, and gave you what He gave not to any other among the peoples.

Do you believe your own Quran? Or you gave a wrong Quran translation for me in another thread?

Do you see that Allah has given us that what has not been given before? Allah gave His Own Word to become flesh (i.e human) as the prophet called Jesus. Every other prophet gave something to God, but never gave themselves to die, except Jesus.

 

[johnshark]

we love jesus too and have to defend him against strange idea’s of you…

you say you are ahmadi Muslim. how do you defend your self against this?

The Ahmadiyya views on certain beliefs in Islam have been controversial to some mainstream Muslims since the Movement’s birth. The majority of Muslims have not accepted Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claims and do not consider Ahmadis to be Muslims, citing in particular the Ahmadiyya viewpoint on the death and Return of Jesus (see also “Jesus in Islam”) and the Ahmadiyya concept of Jihad and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community view on the Finality of Muhammad with particular reference to interpretation of verse [33:40] of the Qur’an.

 

[adrift]

The quote you give comes from John’s gospel. Show where Paul said this.

Jesus is God. How silly of you to make such statements when the meaning is that He became a human being. I think you knew that Jesus said the Spirit is willing but the flesh is week. He was not speaking of bones but of being week humans. Again I say you are silly trying to make an argument that is built on sand.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

His threads are getting quite insulting. I can understand if hes actually trying to have a discussion, but it dosen`t seem like it. Hes posting random posts that not even other Moslems would agree with him, its pretty upsetting.

 

[Randy_Carson]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4817976&postcount=211

I believe Jesus was never a god who became man

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

Is English your first language? If not, it can be tricky.

“Flesh” in this context simply means “human”.

We also use the phrase, “the way of all flesh” when we mean “the way of all men”.

Just out of curiosity…you spend a lot of time posting in this forum, but do you spend much time actually reading the Bible so that you have a good understanding of what you disagree with?

I mean, if I were going to argue against the Qu’ran, wouldn’t it be reasonable for me to actually be very familiar with the text?

If you do read the Bible to prepare for your arguments against Christianity, what version(s) do you own?

 

[ralphinal]

As pointed out, John wrote this. He was one of Jesus’s 12 Apostles, and the only one at the Crucifixion. He was also known as the Beloved one or the One that Jesus Loved.

Also mentioned, flesh means human.

Word needs to be understood. It means more than just utterance in this context. This is influenced by Greek thought of the time. “Word” also means “Essence” In other words, a PART OF GOD became MAN!

Either accept it or don’t, but stop saying it was Paul that wrote it and stop calling John a lier.

 

[Kaninchen]

Our Catholic friends would have us believe that Word became flesh or that god became flesh.

Well, as you appreciate, as a Jew, I don’t believe in the story, paarsurrey, but Randy Carson is right.

We’re all online but, suppose we were in a big room and you walked in, a very common English expression would be: “here’s paarsurrey, in the flesh,” it wouldn’t mean that you were clothed in skeletal muscle and fat, just that you were present.

 

[brigantine]

His threads are getting quite insulting. I can understand if hes actually trying to have a discussion, but it dosen`t seem like it. Hes posting random posts that not even other Moslems would agree with him, its pretty upsetting.

When he insults the Lord or the Theotokos as most of his posts do I report him! Its a disgrace what he is allowed to do!

 

[paarsurrey]

As pointed out, John wrote this. He was one of Jesus’s 12 Apostles, and the only one at the Crucifixion.

Hi

I think our Catholics friends give a lot of respect to Mary; it is another thing that they add something which Mary never asked for, like they add many things to Jesus, he never requested them to add, in my opinion.

If Matthew was a Catholic; could he or anyone else ignore the incident of Jesus giving Mary in care of John. No my friends. If Matthew was a first class witness, he could not have ignored presence of John. John must not have been there, in my opinion.

I think perhaps our friend **Ben Masada **is right; John’s presence seems has been later added, courtesy our clever friend Paul, in my opinion.

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

Thanks

 

[Thing]

Hi

I think our Catholics friends give a lot of respect to Mary; it is another thing that they add something which Mary never asked for, like they add many things to Jesus, he never requested them to add, in my opinion.

If Matthew was a Catholic; could he or anyone else ignore the incident of Jesus giving Mary in care of John. No my friends. If Matthew was a first class witness, he could not have ignored presence of John. John must not have been there, in my opinion.

I think perhaps our friend **Ben Masada **is right; John’s presence seems has been later added, courtesy our clever friend Paul, in my opinion.

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

Thanks

Perhaps St. Paul was beheaded before St. John wrote his Gospel.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

When he insults the Lord or the Theotokos as most of his posts do I report him! Its a disgrace what he is allowed to do!

could you please tell me how to report him? I was okay with his posts for a while, but he even started a thread saying Mary tomb can be found, and now this. Hes not even trying to make an argument hes just talking randomy.

 

[ralphinal]

Hi

I think our Catholics friends give a lot of respect to Mary; it is another thing that they add something which Mary never asked for, like they add many things to Jesus, he never requested them to add, in my opinion.

If Matthew was a Catholic; could he or anyone else ignore the incident of Jesus giving Mary in care of John. No my friends. If Matthew was a first class witness, he could not have ignored presence of John. John must not have been there, in my opinion.

I think perhaps our friend **Ben Masada **is right; John’s presence seems has been later added, courtesy our clever friend Paul, in my opinion.

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

Thanks

Yet again, you call the Fathers of our faith LIERS! Why do you do this? John said he was there. Mary said he was there.

Does Islam teach that Christains are liers and cannot be trusted? Does your faith say that JOhn was a hypocrit who is now in hell?

You do not love Jesus, you call him a lier.

You do not love Mary, you call her a lier

You do not love any Christain. You call them idiots and liers

 

[nebula]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4817976&postcount=211

I believe Jesus was never a god who became man

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

I know you are sincere but you are a VERY confused individual. Word- Logos becoming flesh is from John, first of all. Secondly, the Logos of God means God’s very Reason. Now Christians believe that the Reason, the Logos of God is represented by a person of God called the Son, as He was begot by the Father- the source. THat makes sense if you think of the REason as a product of a Person, the Father begets the Logos, the Son. Okay, that is all fairly mysterious, I agree, but as long as you sort of see how it could work that’s good enough.

Now onto the Incarnation. Christians believe that the ultimate Miracle, the ultimate expression of God’s care and concern for humanity was that He himself entered the world as a man of flesh and bones. This is how it works: Christ has two natures, that of a perfect man with flesh and that of the Son (the Logos) in perfect unity. In that way God entered into the world to bridge the chasm between Creator and creation (us) so that we mere creatures might join our Creator.

whether or not you agree paar, I hope you see how nonsensical, given what I just said, your original post seems to Christians. It completely misses the point.

 

[planten]

** The question arises: Why did not word become flesh and bones?

It seems that John forgot to invent the correct god for christians by leaving out the bones, by forgetting about the bones.

Flesh needs bones.**

 

[nebula]

** The question arises: Why did not word become flesh and bones?

It seems that John forgot to invent the correct god for christians by leaving out the bones, by forgetting about the bones.

Flesh needs bones.**

Are you joking?

Please say yes.

 

[FCEGM]

** The question arises: Why did not word become flesh and bones?

It seems that John forgot to invent the correct god for christians by leaving out the bones, by forgetting about the bones.

Flesh needs bones.**

Oy vey! Did you not read and understand the earlier posts explaining that “flesh” as used by St. John simply means a human person?

 

[nebula]

Oy vey! Did you not read and understand the earlier posts explaining that “flesh” as used by St. John simply means a human person?

Shouldn’t that just be GLARINGLY OBVIOUS??? this is ridiculous. I cna’t get over how terrible the whole original argument is l ol, I didn’t realize it was THAT bad until now. People really wouldn’t think that ‘flesh’ means mortal human?

 

[FCEGM]

Shouldn’t that just be GLARINGLY OBVIOUS??? this is ridiculous. I cna’t get over how terrible the whole original argument is l ol, I didn’t realize it was THAT bad until now. People really wouldn’t think that ‘flesh’ means mortal human?

It may be a problem of unfamiliarity with the English language, but you’d think two previous clarifications would have helped them over that hurdle. But even with the explanations received, willful ignorance might choose to remain so.

 

[adrift]

could you please tell me how to report him? I was okay with his posts for a while, but he even started a thread saying Mary tomb can be found, and now this. Hes not even trying to make an argument hes just talking randomy.

There is a triangle on the upper right of a post. Click that and you can report a bad post.