5/03/2011

The Face of Terror

Osama Bin laden is dead. Since the rest of the internet is buzzing with opinions on that death, I thought I would weigh in.


First, this is not the end of global terrorism. Like the Hydra of old, when one head is chopped off, two more take its place. We still need diligence in our fight against global terror. U. S. and allied Armed Forces still need our prayers. We still need a strong military and intelligence community. We have not yet cut off the Hydra’s immortal head.

Second, the way to get to the ‘heart of the matter’ is with Christian missionary efforts. We must reach the people who make up those societies and population segments that produce terrorists. To tell a story I have told here before:

Early in the twentieth century, Baptist evangelists preached through rural Mississippi and Alabama with such effectiveness that moonshiners could no longer sell their whiskey: All their customers were getting converted! In desperation, the whiskey sellers hired two men to murder one of the leading Baptist preachers.

Pistols in their hands, the assassins waited in the dark outside a country church where their target was preaching. The evangelist spoke with burning intensity about heaven and hell, his voice ringing out into the night. When everyone had gone, he turned out the church lights and stepped outside. The killers approached him, pistols in hand.

But instead of shooting the evangelist, they handed him their guns. “We came here to kill you, but we couldn’t,” they said. “We heard your preaching and we believed it. We’re now on the same side.”

That story was told to me years ago by a pastor in Alabama. The Baptist evangelist was his grandfather. The story stayed with me. It is compelling drama and a parable of our position in an increasingly dangerous and demoralized world. Either we evangelize our generation with new power or its members are going to kill us. The bad guys are waiting for us ‘out there,’ and intend to do us in … We need an evangelism with enough strength to get the bad guys before they get us. – C. John Miller (Powerful Evangelism for the Powerless, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1997, p. 1-2.)


Certain societies produce terrorists. If we want to do away with the terrorists, we must convert those who make up the groups that produce them. Either we reach them, or they will kill us. (I am not saying that only Islam produces terrorists. We ‘grow a few of our own’ here in the U. S. There are other groups to reach.)

Islam has made many in-roads to into the Western countries, and life under Muslim rule can be difficult for non-adherents. We should keep these things in mind.

Two of the best missions agencies reaching out to Muslims right now are Frontiers and Arab World Ministries. Please join them with prayer, financial support, or by going as a missionary with those agencies. You may be part of our only hope.

May Jesus’ message of tolerance and non-violence win out in the hearts of all peoples in our world! "Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew 26:52).



A Side Note to Certain Visitors:

If you are Islamic and are reading this blog, I invite you to read some of my posts on Islam and the Christian doctrines Islam repudiates. Please start with the posts here, here, and here. I have also presented positive evidence for the truths of Christianity in many places in this blog. A good place to start for a Muslim would be the search label “Argument from Scripture.”

72 comments:

Hal said...

“The historic formulation of the Trinity is that God is one in essence and three in person. Though the formula is mysterious and even paradoxical, it is in no way contradictory. The unity of the Godhead is affirmed in terms of essence or being, while the diversity of the Godhead is expressed in terms of person. – Essential Truths of the Christian Faith p. 35”

For a Muslim, this is a really a poignant point, as it illustrates the often time in-comprehensible nature of the trinity.

In addition to this, within Christian history, we see the idea of the trinity, wasn’t written at Mount Sinai and brought to the masses, not at all, it was a process that was developed over a period of centuries by men etc..etc.. (Is this not true)

This is why throughout history we see the emergence of groups Ebionism, Adoptionism, Docetism, Arianism.

I mean aside from these historical debates, just by merely seeing the way Jesus differentiate himself from the Father by way of goodness, knowledge and power, etc.etc.. also leaves one wondering if language or rational thought means anything which underscores “mysterious and even paradoxical” nature of it and I will also say contradictory.

It’s scary to think that the key to salvation is wrapped and draped in a “mysterious and even paradoxical” concept that even the most sincerest of seekers of truth, have to place his intellect and common sense aside in order to be in harmony with it. Also, it is a bit disingenuous, for a Christian to attempt to prove the trinity through the Old Testament, as if there is not a centuries old preceding community still in existence, who teach, study, and quote the book in the language that it was revealed, that would strongly denounce that the book teaches anything of the sort. To further the point in respect to the nature of God, that community would confirm the Muslim’s understanding of the nature of God before the alternatives.

J. K. Jones said...

Hal,

Great to hear from you.

I would like to respond to your comment, but first I need to ask three questions. Please answer them so I can respond without insulting you.

What is your religious background?

What exactly is contradictory about the Trinity?

To what did the groups who opposed Ebionism, Adoptionism, Docetism, and Arianism appeal in order to justify their position?

JK

Hal said...

1) Islam and a student of comparative religion in particular the Abrahamic faiths.

2) The whole point of Monotheism from it outset that it was clear and concise from the very outset, however that clarity is clouded and undermined through the "mysterious and paradoxical" formula mentioned in the tri-unity or trinity concept. The fact the a number other than ONE or along side the ONE in itself is contradictory, whether that one is externalized or internalized into a compartmentalized concept, and each internal compartment has it own task and duties in which one hand does not know what other hand is doing. Does not the father has knowledge and abilities that the son lacks?

3) In the case of Arianism and Adoptionism I would say the Council of Nicea in 325CE. However in the case of Ebionism and Docetism its not clear, except maybe comment by some early church fathers.

J. K. Jones said...

Hal,

Thanks again for commenting.

“…clarity is clouded and undermined through the "mysterious and paradoxical" formula mentioned in the tri-unity or trinity concept. The fact the a number other than ONE or along side the ONE in itself is contradictory, whether that one is externalized or internalized into a compartmentalized concept…”

To be one in essence and three in person is to be one in a particular sense and three in another sense. That is not contradictory. The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot be both “a” and “non-a” at the same time and in the same relationship. The relationship is different with the Trinity.

“… and each internal compartment has it own task and duties in which one hand does not know what other hand is doing. Does not the father has knowledge and abilities that the son lacks?”

The Son, in His human nature, does not know everything the Father knows, but this is a voluntary taking on of a human nature. In His divine essence, He has all of the attributes of the Father.

“…the Council of Nicea in 325CE…

What did the Council of Nicea base its conclusions on? Earlier teaching in the New Testament (circa 95 A. D. and before) and the early traditional interpretations of that teaching. I would argue that the Old Testament hints at the doctrine and the New Testament fully reveals it.

“…except maybe comment by some early church fathers.”

Therefore, the conclusions the church reached were, at the least, based on earlier church traditions. The doctrine of the trinity was present from the beginning. That makes the doctrine more ancient than 325 A. D.


From your earlier comment, “…as if there is not a centuries old preceding community still in existence… that would strongly denounce that the book teaches anything of the sort. To further the point in respect to the nature of God, that community would confirm the Muslim’s understanding of the nature of God before the alternatives.”

We do not determine truth by ‘counting noses.’ Both the community of the Jews and the community of the Muslims could be wrong. I believe they are wrong based on the revelation of God in the Person and teaching of Jesus Christ as established by the Bible’s New Testament.

“…who teach, study, and quote the book in the language that it was revealed…”

Christians study the original languages as well. We just choose to translate that language into the languages of the cultures with which we interact so that the common man or woman can understand the teachings.

JK

Hal said...

Good Morning, I so appreciate the response:

“To be one in essence and three in person is to be one in a particular sense and three in another sense. That is not contradictory. The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot be both “a” and “non-a” at the same time and in the same relationship. The relationship is different with the Trinity.”

I’m sure amongst Christian theologians this concept is clear but “one in particular sense and three in another sense” this in itself lack clarity. I’m sure Jesus (peace be upon him) didn’t use a philosophical concept to explain the faith. Since this is a fundamental teaching and the basis of the faith, I would be interested to know how did Jesus (peace be upon him) explain it ?

In the different Church Councils, you can actually see the developing of the Trinitarian concept. I believe there were later councils that dealt with the holy spirit that was not initially dealt with in the nature of Jesus. This appears puzzling, as one would expect this fundamental teaching to be the starting point from the outset.

“What did the Council of Nicea base its conclusions on? Earlier teaching in the New Testament (circa 95 A. D. and before) and the early traditional interpretations of that teaching. I would argue that the Old Testament hints at the doctrine and the New Testament fully reveals it.”

When was this authoritative version of the New Testament as we know it, compiled? It is clear in the time of Paul, there were alternative gospels being preached, history shows there were tons of other gospels and scriptures in circulation and surely Paul did not have Mark, John, Matthew and Luke in his hand. Following the reported death of Jesus (peace be upon him), who was the leader of the Church?

“We do not determine truth by ‘counting noses.’ Both the community of the Jews and the community of the Muslims could be wrong. I believe they are wrong based on the revelation of God in the Person and teaching of Jesus Christ as established by the Bible’s New Testament.”

I wholeheartedly agree that truth is not a democratic process, but was that not exactly what was done during the council of Nicea in 325, in respect to the nature of Jesus, was it not a vote. Pardon me, it’s my comparative background that makes look at how the other communities dealt with similar issues, however it would be total sacrilege to for Jew or Muslim to vote on the nature of God. The fact that this occurred shows that there was a lack of clarity circulating.

J. K. Jones said...

Hal,

Thanks you for your thoughtful comment. It is obvious that you have researched Christianity.

“I’m sure Jesus (peace be upon him) didn’t use a philosophical concept to explain the faith.”

Jesus assumed the law of non-contradiction in His very use of words. Words mean nothing outside this law. Everyone who communicates uses it. Else, “it is raining outside right now” means the same as “it is sunny outside right now.”

“… I would be interested to know how did Jesus (peace be upon him) explain it ?”

Please see Daniel 7:13-14 for a description of the title “Son of Man.” That was the title Jesus used most often for Himself in the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

Please see John 8:48-59 and John 10:22-39 for Jesus’ direct claims to deity for Himself. John was written about 85 AD or earlier.

Please see Matthew 18:19 where Jesus puts the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit on the same level and tells His disciples to baptize in all three of their names. Matthew was written in the 50s or 60s AD.

“…the developing of the Trinitarian concept… one would expect this fundamental teaching to be the starting point from the outset.”

The concept of the Trinity is present in the New Testament itself, which pre-dates the councils.

I will give some examples of early Christian teaching. Please see Acts 5:1-6 (written 62-64 AD)where lying to the Holy Spirit is the same as lying to God. See Philippians 2:1-10 (written about 61 AD) and Colossians 1:15-23 (written about 60 AD) for Paul’s early teaching on Christ’s deity.

“When was this authoritative version of the New Testament as we know it, compiled? … there were alternative gospels being preached… “

That question deserves a detailed response. Please see the search label “The Four Gospels as Reliable Testimony” where I have dealt with the dates of the New Testament and the alternative gospels in detail with many references. Please scroll to the bottom of the posts and start with the first one as they form a sequence.

In short, everything in the New Testament is of first century origin, too early for legends and myths to have distorted the message. All of the alternative gospels are dated from the second century at the earliest, and many of them read like fanciful material as well.

“…surely Paul did not have Mark, John, Matthew and Luke in his hand…”

He had access to the apostles themselves (see Acts 9:21, 27; written 62-64 AD). Why would he need a gospel at that point? It should be noted that Paul taught the doctrine in question as mentioned above.

“.. Following the reported death of Jesus (peace be upon him), who was the leader of the Church?”

The elders of the church, duly appointed and ordained by the apostles, were the leaders (for example see 1 Tim. 5:19, 1 Tim. 5:17, Titus 1:5, James 5:14, 1 Peter 5:1, 1 Peter 5:1-5, Acts 15). This follows the Presbyterian form of church government if you want to research it further.

“…but was that not exactly what was done during the council of Nicea in 325, in respect to the nature of Jesus, was it not a vote…it would be total sacrilege to for Jew or Muslim to vote on the nature of God. The fact that this occurred shows that there was a lack of clarity circulating.”

Yes, there were competing doctrines that arose. Those competing doctrines had to be decided between. How else would the Holy Spirit guide His church but to move the hearts of the leaders? (Note that I do believe that the proper church government form, Presbyterianism, had been partially obscured during that time.)

How does the Muslim faith decide between competing doctrines? The question is a little off topic, but I would honestly like to know.

JK

Hal said...

Hey J.K.

Well you have given me a lot to look into so I’m will need a little time to do some homework.

The history of Christianity and the events occurring after Jesus (Peace be upon him) first coming (and yes we believe in a second coming) is fascinating to me, in particular the Church that was led by James, and the earliest Christians, in which many historians have termed Jewish-Christians and they were maybe not so accepting of Gentiles. So in the vacuum, that Jesus (pbuh) left, I could see the emergence of divergent doctrines, particularly with a book not being left behind directly by Jesus (pbuh). Therefore, it was left to men, religious leader (not the authentic disciples) to the complicated task of sifting through what was inspired and what was not, what was authentic and was not, which was also a political manner in which the kings of the earth has a vested interest in and I would argue an influence in.

In this regards the history of Muhammad (pbuh) it’s actually similar to the Jewish prophets. The Qur’an was preached, taught from and completed under his guidance. These circumstances allowed him to cement the strongest of foundations, particularly in the Oneness of God, in which no Muslims historically has differed with. Therefore, Muslims unanimously agree on the Oneness of God, that Muhammad (pbuh) was his Messenger and a man, the five pillars that makes you a Muslim, and the six articles of beliefs. We just argue about everything else. Muhammad (pbuh) has also set up a defense mechanism up against theological innovation, saying in respect to that “that every innovation is a straying, and ever straying is to the fire”. Therefore, if any Muslim comes up with a understanding, idea or practice, he has to be find proof for it in the Qur’an or in the practice or words of Muhammad (pbuh), which is not easy to do. Therefore, when deviant doctrine emerged is has been easily repelled.

However, there is an on-going debate, in regards to interpreting verses when God mentions his face and hands whether is should be interpreted in a literal or figurative manner. We are extremely anti- anthropomorphism, so this has a debate in the Sunni community. The Sunni community represent upward of 80 – 90% of the Muslim Community, whereas the Shiites constitute the remaining demographics and the difference is primarily political in nature.

Hal said...

JK

In regards to Daniel 7: 13-14

Very interesting, a direct translation would not be “Son of Man” it “bar enash” actually means Human Being.

Also completely off topic as well, as I have a tendency to look at scripture and the implications from all three Abrahamic faiths, in trying to be consistent with the Torah, how would we reconcile what this means, especially in respect to worshipping a man. As in Jesus’ (pbuh) time (first coming) he was not given authority over Israel let alone other nations as he directly minister to the “lost sheep of Israel”

I know you will categorically disagree but food for thought Muhammad (pbuh) in Arabic means “praised” and this harmonize it with the understanding of Torah, so it would not be actual worship. Muhammad’s (pbuh) mission was not limited to Arabs or Arabia, he sent letters to the kings of the Persian and Roman Empire. Also, interesting to note that the Muslim succeeded Persia, as well as the Byzantian.

Also from the verse, this appears to be talking about the 5th Kingdom. It is utterly amazing to me to hear the commentary in respect to this, as we see that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th kingdoms, were done in successive manners, the latter overtaking the former, but now there is a huge gap in the coming of the 5th Kingdom. I would like to hear your thoughts about this? And I’m still looking through your other references.

J. K. Jones said...

Hal,

I appreciate your willingness to research.

I will respond to your comments, but it may be a few days.

I am enrolled in an MBA progrm at a local university. I have a research paper nd a take-home final exam due next week.

Please be patient with me.

JK

Hal said...

John 8:48-59

Ummm, please clarify me the claiming of being a deity, in the exchange he clearly differentiate himself from the father. Obeying the Law and the Prophets has always been see as following God, its not a claiming of being a deity, as it is a faithfully delivering of the message.

Perhaps your speaking Abraham comments, it an argument relating to pre-destination.

John 10:22-30

Is along the same lines, this is prophetic talk. They have made guarantee that if they are followed that will have paradise. it’s the message not so much as the messenger, the message since Abraham has always been the same.

Matt 18:19

I’m sorry clarify it to me, as I don’t see it.

Nonetheless, out of the references I have not seen anything that constitute the trinity, as the Father, son and the Holy Ghost to the contrary I see the constant humbling of himself and the glorification of his father, the way all prophets have done, I see very little if anything about the holy ghost. Has Jesus made a statement that he is God or command the people to worship or directly teach the trinity. Jesus has acted in accordance with the Law and the prophets.

Trinitarian concepts are not born out of what Jesus has said, but what people have said about Jesus, namely Paul, so yes, his letters are ripe with it. This is what is quoted on Sundays. Biblical historians have noted this for a long time and many have labeled it Pauline Church and how that differed with Jesus’ brother James. In fact, amazingly the bible itself shows a animosity between Paul and disciples, particularly the leaders of the disciples

J. K. Jones said...

Hal,

John 8:48-59

Verses 58-59, ESV: “Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.”

“I am” is a clear reference to the name of God (Yahweh) in the Old Testament. That is why they tried to stone Jesus: His clear claim to deity.

Your comment: “he clearly differentiate himself from the father”

Of course He did. The doctrine of the Trinity says the Father and the Son are distinct with respect to Person.

John 10:22-30

Verse 30: “I and the Father are one.”

How much clearer can you get? There is a sense in which Jesus is one with the Father.

Your comment: “…this is prophetic talk.”

Please give me an example from the Bible where another prophet of God said that he was one with the Father / with God.

“Matt 18:19” was a typing error on my part. It should have been Matt 28:19. My comments should make better sense now. I apologize.

He did other things as well, like forgive sins (Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:-12, Luke 5:17-26). I can forgive those who sin against me, but only God can forgive sins that were not committed against him.

He claimed to be lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8, Mark 2:28, Luke 6:5). He accepted worship and did not correct one of His disciples when that disciple called Him Lord and God (John 20:24-29).

“…I see the constant humbling of himself and the glorification of his father…”

That’s what the Second Person of the Trinity does: glorify God the Father.


You said: “Trinitarian concepts are not born out of what Jesus has said, but what people have said about Jesus, namely Paul, so yes, his letters are ripe with it…Biblical historians have noted this for a long time and many have labeled it Pauline Church and how that differed with Jesus’ brother James.”

How does a first century Jew, who schooled under the feet of Gamaliel, become convinced that Jesus was God? How is it that many other first century Jews became convinced that Jesus was God? This goes against everything they have been taught all of their lives. What would it take to convince them? I say Jesus’ clear claims as documented above and His miracles, including the resurrection. Early Christian witness is powerful evidence of Christ’s claims.

“…amazingly the bible itself shows a animosity between Paul and disciples, particularly the leaders of the disciples…”

Please provide a reference.

As far as I can tell, all controversies were resolved. An example is James and Paul agreeing on the nature of salvation in Acts 15. Also, if there were bitter outstanding controversies between the two over Christ’s deity, would they not have been addressed at that Council?

Also, James, the brother of Jesus, teaches that Jesus is “Lord” (James 1:1 and 2:1). The conversion of James, Christ’s brother is also especially significant in that he was initially resistant to Jesus’ teaching (John 7:5). What could have converted him? I say Jesus’ clear claims to deity and His miracles, including the resurrection.

Thanks again for commenting. I am enjoying our dialogue.

JK

J. K. Jones said...

Hal,

I am not ignoring your earlier two comments. I am researching.

By the way, do you hav eyour own blog?

JK

Hal said...

Good Evening

“Please give me an example from the Bible where another prophet of God said that he was one with the Father / with God.”

John 10:22-30

Deuteronomy 18:17-22 (King James Version)

17And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.

18I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

20But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

21And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

22When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.


The Torah, specifically lays out a the role of a Prophet, as stated above, Jesus as a Torah observers totally fills the definition, please note that God has stated that he would place HIS WORDS IN HIS MOUTH and the prophet shall SPEAK IN HIS NAME. If these prophets are the vehicle in which God speaks then it is rather obvious that the prophets are not speaking of their own will but rather God‘s will, thereby making him one by God, as Jesus himself has brilliantly laid out this principle in John 8:28

As evidence of this Jesus meticulously complies with the Torah, as when he:
1. As he invokes God’s name in this case the father
2.Jesus invokes his miracles and he has done in the father’s name that he had showed them, so Jesus sarcastically responds why do stone him, which is the punishment for false prophets.

Hal said...

John 8:48-59

Verses 58-59, ESV: “Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.”

“I am” is a clear reference to the name of God (Yahweh) in the Old Testament. That is why they tried to stone Jesus: His clear claim to deity.


Once again we see Jesus in classic form. Follow John 8:28 once again as he is UNABLE TO SPEAK OF HIS OWN WILL BUT AS HE HAS BEEN TAUGHT BY THE FATHER. With that said Jesus always speak from the Torah. The key to understanding the verse 58-59, is that the Jews are constantly invoking Abraham and the prophets and in particular and the main point is that they are DEAD. Whereas the Jews invoke their father Abraham and the prophets that are dead, Jesus the constant Torah Observer points back to and quotes the Torah Exodus 3, when God mentions their deceased fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and tells Moses to tell the Jews “I Am”, which of course invokes

Hal said...

Almght God's eternal nature, and his superiority, in complete compliance with the Torah

Hal said...

In John 8,Jesus is being insulted, as consistent with Jesus' pattern in John, he refuses to glorify himself and instead glorifies the Father instead. So it would be inconsistent to see the verse as referring to himself.

J. K. Jones said...

Hal,

I do not see the equivalence between saying you have the words of God and saying that your being is the same as God’s. He said “I am,” not “I say.” He said, “are one,” not “are one in the message we share.” He said he was one in essence or being with the Father.

I would like to refer you to some web resources that you might find helpful.

Please see the debate footage here:

http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589952869

Please read Ben Witherington’s article here:

http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589952873

There are many other resources at the root page here:

http://www.4truth.net/Jesus/

I will respond later with more detail, but these will have to do for now.


JK

Anonymous said...

This is hilarious.

I especially like the the tactic used, when JK realizes hes way out of his depth, and just waives people over to other resources as if has all the answers without explaining why he finds the arguments so compelling.

Anonymous said...

"Second, the way to get to the ‘heart of the matter’ is with Christian missionary efforts"

As if that hasn't failed so spectacularly over this last thousand years or so.

J. K. Jones said...

Anonymous,

SunnyD, is that you my atheist friend?

I have done a pretty good job of answering questions so far. If you will notice, a number of my arguments have gone unaddressed. (Of course, I am sure Hal will get back to me on those. He is a good discussion partner.)

I have no problem referring someone to experts on these matters. I am an amateur theologian who has enough humility to lean on others.

Christian missionary efforts have been quite successful, especially since the 1800s. I would recommend that you read “The History of Christian Missions” by Stephen Neil, assuming you have enough initiative to research before you comment. Another resource would be “The New Faces of Christianity” by Phillip Jenkins. You might also try “Operation World” by Jason Mandryk.

JK

Hal said...

Hey JK sorry for the delay, I have been very busy with my job and I have been pouring through the Old testament and the Law to show that Jesus had a precedence for everything he had done and its very tedious and dry. So I’m still researching your other references. However, I wanted to give you my big picture scenario, as again Jewish and Christian history is so intriguing. In doing so, I hope I am not insulting any of your beliefs, as In Islam Jesus (peace be upon him) is honored, we believe in his miraculous birth, his honorable mother, and by God’s permission healing the sick and giving life to the dead, and that he was the was the messiah, and in a second coming, this is fundamental to Islam and no Muslim will ever speak ill of him. I thank you for this conversation, your time and consideration, as you have been a patient and gracious host, as I am learning a lot.

History has bore witness to the imperialistic nature of the Roman Empire but do u believe it was limited to the material world. The whole Maccabee revolt was due to the attempt of the Romans to suppress the Law. In particular the Torah, the sacrifice and the circumcision. SOUND FAMILAR? J.K. please understand that these issues predated Jesus (peace be upon him) also was the schism of the traditional Jew and the Hellenized Jew.

This is the back story, that not to much longer that Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) emerges in.
In regards to the law and the prophets (peace be upon them) Jesus (pbuh) made exceedingly clear he stood for the law in his historical words and his historical deeds.

Nonetheless, do you think it was a coincidence that the Romans were able to achieve under the guise of religion (a wolf in sheep clothing) what they initially was unable to achieve through war.

How is it that:

1.Many ask "what would Jesus do" but ignore what he actually did in respect to the law?

2.Why is it that Paul rarely if ever quote any words or the events of Jesus' (pbuh) life besides the birth, purported death and resurrection? Its as if he knows nothing about Jesus historic preaching and deeds. This is extremely fascinating to me.

3) Do u think its a coincidence that compilation of the New Testament was done under the authorization of a pagan Roman emperor ? And they cherry picked which books and discarded the rest.

4) Do u think it is a coincidence that although Jesus spoke a Semitic language that the vast majority of Biblical manuscripts are in Greek and some in Latin?

5) How and why despite the fact we know when Jesus celebrated the Sabbath, that the day is changed without authorization of the bible and in fact in rebellion to the Bible? In fact who does the Bible identify, who would change the day and the times?

6) How is the Vatican is holy?

7) Do you think it is a coincidence that Paul and Peter are the most honored of the disciples ( even though Paul was not even of the disciples that met Jesus)?

8) Lastly, Do you think it is a coincidence that not the historical Jesus or any of his historic teaching, but Paul’s gospel, are totally in line with the goals of the pagan Romans before Jesus and subsequently after Jesus? Now these same Romans became the definitive definers of Jesus’ narrative that is now accepted without question by contemporary Christians? Even though, these are the same people that invaded and occupied his land, complicate in his purported death and ultimately the destruction of his temple. This is utterly fascinating.

Hal said...

my next comment will address the Paul and James question

J. K. Jones said...

Hal,
“…sorry for the delay…”

I have been busy working on a take-home final exam for an MBA class. I would not have had the chance to respond until today anyway.

“…I have been pouring through the Old testament and the Law to show that Jesus had a precedence for everything he had done and its very tedious and dry…”

I would like to hear from you on that research.

“…I hope I am not insulting any of your beliefs…”

I appreciate the honor you give to Jesus. I do think that to teach that Jesus is other than God is a serious error, but I am not personally insulted. The only way we can discuss Jesus’ claims and reach a conclusion is to ask questions of His teachings.

“…I thank you for this conversation, your time and consideration, as you have been a patient and gracious host, as I am learning a lot.”

Thank you for your time and careful research. I am learning too.

“…the imperialistic nature of the Roman Empire… do you think it was a coincidence that the Romans were able to achieve under the guise of religion (a wolf in sheep clothing) what they initially was unable to achieve through war.”

Please understand that I am Presbyterian in my approach to Christianity. That means I am a Protestant. I think the ultimate authority for all of my beliefs is the Christian Bible, Old and New Testaments. Church councils have secondary authority. If their teaching is not in line with the Bible, I do not think their teaching is true.

I believe that certain aspects of the Christian faith were corrupted very early on in church history, and many of those errors were not corrected until the Protestant Reformation looked back to the original Christian Bible to refute them.

One of those aspects is the separation of church and state, the idea that political power and religious power should be separate in Christ’s Kingdom. (Of course, this principle was not fully present in the early reformers, but it did begin to be taught by Luther.)

Therefore, I have serious issues with how Constantine used Christianity to further his own ends. I have no problem questioning his motives and actions because I do not ultimately base my belief in the Deity of Christ on the councils but on the Bible as the Word of God.

“…the Torah, the sacrifice and the circumcision…these issues predated Jesus (peace be upon him) also was the schism of the traditional Jew and the Hellenized Jew.”

Why would we expect Christianity to ignore religious questions preeminent in the time of the early church? If you are going to reach Jews, you must reach them where they are. If you are going to reach Romans / Greeks / Gentiles, you have to reach them where they are.

J. K. Jones said...

“…Jesus (pbuh) made exceedingly clear he stood for the law in his historical words and his historical deeds.”

Yes, He did. He came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17-20).

“1.Many ask "what would Jesus do" but ignore what he actually did in respect to the law?”

Yes, that is true. The modern church is corrupted in many places by this teaching.

But what did Christ do with respect to the Law? He fulfilled it (Matthew 5:17-20, the book of Hebrews also argues this based on the Old Testament). He met the requirements of the Law in His perfect life and perfect obedience to it (John 8:46). He sacrificed Himself on the cross in order to take the punishment due to sinners who do not live in perfect obedience to the Law (Matthew 20:28, John 3:14-15).

“2.Why is it that Paul rarely if ever quote any words or the events of Jesus' (pbuh) life besides the birth, purported death and resurrection? Its as if he knows nothing about Jesus historic preaching and deeds. This is extremely fascinating to me.”

Paul affirmed many historical events and teachings of Jesus. I have given references to many of the major teachings of Jesus that Paul affirmed above. For a beginning, please see article at:

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/jesus-and-his-apostles-teaching-harmony/

“3) Do u think its a coincidence that compilation of the New Testament was done under the authorization of a pagan Roman emperor ? And they cherry picked which books and discarded the rest.”

They did no such thing. They picked books based on certain criteria. If I remember right, those were: general use and acceptance by the churches, backing by an apostle, and general impression on reading.

The books to be include in the NT were recognized as belonging in the Bible, not chosen in the sense of cherry-picked. I have argued extensively about this on the search label “The Four Gospels as Reliable Testimony” to the right.
Please see articles on canonicity by Greg Bahnsen and B. B. Warfield here:

http://www.reformed.org/bible/index.html

“4) Do u think it is a coincidence that although Jesus spoke a Semitic language that the vast majority of Biblical manuscripts are in Greek and some in Latin?”

How do you know Jesus did not speak Greek at least some of the time? Many people spoke Greek during that era. It was the empire’s recognized language.

Why would you publish a document to reach both Jews and Gentiles in a Semitic language anyway? Would you not use the official language of the country in which they resided, the language recognized by most of the world Christ had told them to reach?

The Bible should be in the language of the people so they can understand it for themselves. That is the only way the average layman, who may or may not have time to extensively study the original languages, can understand the main message of the Bible: that Jesus Christ died for our sins.

J. K. Jones said...

“5) How and why despite the fact we know when Jesus celebrated the Sabbath, that the day is changed without authorization of the bible and in fact in rebellion to the Bible? In fact who does the Bible identify, who would change the day and the times?”

Interesting question. I will have to think about that more.

That actually forms part of a side-argument for the resurrection of Christ. What would lead a band of Jews to change the Sabbath day? It would have to be a very significant event in their lives.

“6) How is the Vatican is holy?”

I am protestant. I do not believe the Vatican is holy, quite the opposite in fact. I do not believe that anyone is perfectly holy apart from Christ for that matter.

“7) Do you think it is a coincidence that Paul and Peter are the most honored of the disciples ( even though Paul was not even of the disciples that met Jesus)?”

Paul met the resurrected Jesus on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:1-9). He also met extensively with the apostles and was immersed in their teaching (Acts 9:26-31). Besides, when important decisions had to be made, all of the apostles were involved, not just Paul and Peter (Acts 15).

“8) Lastly, Do you think it is a coincidence that not the historical Jesus or any of his historic teaching, but Paul’s gospel, are totally in line with the goals of the pagan Romans before Jesus and subsequently after Jesus? Now these same Romans became the definitive definers of Jesus’ narrative that is now accepted without question by contemporary Christians? Even though, these are the same people that invaded and occupied his land, complicate in his purported death and ultimately the destruction of his temple. This is utterly fascinating. “

How is it that Christ’s teaching and the teaching of the apostles were in line with the goals of the Roman Empire? And if so, why did the Romans persecute them so hard in the beginning?

The confession “Jesus is Lord” simply does not conform to the teaching that “Caesar is Lord.”

Your entire argument here hinges on the notion that the teachings of the church were not in line with the teachings of the apostles and Christ Himself. I have endeavored to show that these teachings were very early (first century, even within the lifetimes of the apostles and eyewitnesses to Christ’s life). They did not arise later as some have argued.

There were also arguments with various Roman Emperors in the early years as well if I remember right. The Romans were not in charge of the early ecumenical councils. The churches were. The Romans were frustrated by the time the church took to reach decisions as well.

Please remember that I am not Roman Catholic. Their views do not necessarily represent me, although there is some overlap. Essentially we agree on the content of the first eight church councils.

Thanks again for your ongoing discussion.

JK

Hal said...

Hey JK

My apologies, I was out of town on vacation.

With most of Jesus' (pbuh) action as portrayed of what we have today of the New Testament I was able to see a basis in the Old Testament but not all of his actions.

"Paul met the resurrected Jesus on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:1-9). He also met extensively with the apostles and was immersed in their teaching (Acts 9:26-31)."

Paul bu his owrds such this not to be the case. His source of information came from no human source.

Also JK, in your reading of Paul in respect to the established church, you don't see his saracasm and resentment?


In reading the New testament, there was division between Paul and the established church and I hat

Hal said...

JK, I heard this interesting argument by a Christian convert to Judaism but Jusdaism, that recognizes Jesus (pbuh) as the Messiah. Tell me what you think of it?

Paul and the Ephesians
Now, look at what was said to the church that we know Paul had been involved in... Ephesus. Among the things that Yahshua commended the Ephesian church for doing right, is this quote:
"I know your works, your labor, and your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars." Rev. 2:2

Yes. I have no doubts Yahshua was referring to Paul and his companions, and that his claim of apostleship, as well as his doctrine, were false! Hang in there and consider all the facts with me for a minute. Here are four of them... with the silver bullet coming shortly after.
1. Paul's doctrine on the foreknowledge of God is not only groundless (because he had to abuse Scripture to support it), it is blasphemous,
because it outright accuses God of unrighteousness. (See previous chapters)
2. We have record of Paul claiming to be an apostle to the Ephesians.
"Paul, an apostle of Yahshua by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus," Ephesians 1:1
3. We have no record of anyone else claiming to be an apostle to anyone anywhere, not even to the Ephesians.
4. Paul and his doctrine had troubles being accepted in Ephesus.
"And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the way before the multitude..." Acts 19:8,9

Hal said...

continued...


Remember, this is recorded from Luke’s point of view and he believed Paul's doctrine was "the Way". Notice that those who rejected Paul are men of the synagogue and not atheists or pagans. If these men had stood up in front of the synagogue and said, "Paul's doctrine is flawed. He is a false apostle, and a liar", Luke would no doubt have seen this as "speaking evil of the Way".
If these four reasons are not enough to seriously call into question Paul's status as an apostle there is one more. It is a most interesting quote from Paul's own pen that finally seals the fate of his supposed apostleship. It comes from his second letter to Timothy, written during the same Neronian persecution in which John was given the Revelation. This letter is believed by many scholars to contain the last recorded words of Paul. Here he makes a short statement of lament that seems to have gone unnoticed... the implications of which are devastating to Paul if one is able to hear everything that is being said. Paul makes this statement to Timothy.
"This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me." 2Timothy 1:15
Asia! All of them! Rejecting Paul! And when he says, "This you know", it sounds like this must have been relatively common knowledge at that time. Asia! The very place that Yahshua told John to write, where his seven churches were! And they were alive, and obviously had been established for some time. Paul did not say that Asia had rejected Yahshua. Obviously they hadn't rejected Yahshua if there were thriving churches there that Yahshua wanted to address through John. Instead Paul said that all Asia had rejected him personally! This is also corroborated in the book of Acts where men from Asia accuse Paul of teaching against the Law, and bringing an Ephesian friend into the temple.
And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him. crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the Law, and this place: and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place." (For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.) Acts 21:27-29
Try to grasp the profound significance of all this. Here we have in the book of Revelation the words of Yahshua commending the Ephesian church for rejecting someone who claimed to be his apostle, while Paul is the only person other than the twelve original apostles to have claimed to be an apostle... and we know he has made this very claim to this same Ephesian church. At the same time, Paul laments himself of the fact that he has been rejected by them! How could it NOT be Paul and his associates that Yahshua had commended the Ephesian church for rejecting? Could it be much more obvious? Here are the facts, paraphrased, one more time.
Paul to the Ephesians: "I am an apostle of Yahshua"
The Ephesians to Paul: "No you're not."
Yahshua to the Ephesians: "Well done!"
This should at the very least raise serious question about Paul. When we add to this the remaining evidence against his doctrine, as well as the documented fact that he outright lied a number of times (as I will show in the next chapter), we have more than enough reason to do as the Ephesian church and convict Paul of the crime of false impersonation of an apostle!
Yahshua’s description of Paul in Revelation was that he was a false apostle, and a liar. Consider his following words.
"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

J. K. Jones said...

Hal,

Who do you accept as true Apostles of Jesus? Obviously not Paul. What about Peter and the rest?

Do you think all of the books of the New Testament have been corrupted? If there are sections that you think are valid, which books / chapters / verses are they?

JK

Hal said...

I believe God has set forth a pattern for the Children of Israel, after the establishment of the law and each successive Prophet were guided by it and strictly taught and acted in accordance with. To this Jesus (pbuh) was no exception. It warned against mimicking the ignorant Gentiles and their foreign Gods. To this end Jesus (pbuh) compared the gentile to a dog and limited his ministry in speech and deed almost exclusively to the Lost Sheep of Israel. However, Jesus (pbuh) came at a time when Judea was under a Roman Occupation, who ultimately destroyed the temple. Which lead to the basis of his saying he is only sent to the lost sheep of Israel, as elevating men to God Status was very common to the Romans.

There is a reason, why Pharoah sough to kill baby Moses (pbuh).

There is a reason why Herod tried to kill baby Jesus (pbuh)

The old testament legacy speaks very negative of the foreign power structure whether those mentioned above or Nebuchadnezzar or Nimrod etc..etc..

Most importantly, Jesus (pbuh) also had to deal with the Hypocrisy of the corrupt priestly power structure of the temple.

Lastly, I remind you of Jesus’ grave warning of “the wolf in sheep clothing”.

Then like magic, the greatest definers of Jesus become the very foreigners, who occupied his land, and destroyed the temple.

Like magic:

The historic Semitic language of scripture turns Greek.
Of course the Vatican becomes holy.
Of course the Sabbath day is turn to the very same day as the sun-worshipper “Sun-day”. In rebellion to the scripture and the day Jesus (pbuh) kept. Which every denomination of Christianity keeps except the Adventist.
Of course you ignore the second commandment and make graven images even in the houses of worship.
Of course there is a celebration of the Birth and Resurrection of the “Son“, holiday which directly mirrors the sun-worshippers holiday of the death of the “Sun” when the sun and day time is the shortest and the resurrection of the “Sun” when the days began becoming longer.
Of course despite the warning of the sheep/wolf (attacked from within) paradigm is ignored and the Pharisee/Roman citizen Paul, who never met, studied with or learn from Jesus (pbuh), become the greatest disciple.
Of course the Pharisee/Roman citizen would abolish the LAW and be the champion of the Church.

So I more trust the parts of the New Testament that are consistent with the Old Testament.

However, I believe in the parts of that conforms with the Qur’an, However, in my analysis the Qur’an played no role, it was measuring the New Testament by the New Testament and by the Old Testament. The Quran echoes the Old testament paradigm of FAITH/WORKS leads to Salvation

Also interesting, the Qur’an confirms Jesus (pbuh) as the Messiah in the flesh from God, which is within the standard that Jesus stated:

“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, that you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world.”

J. K. Jones said...

Hello Hal,

I had some time this week to review your comments and make a few of my own. Responses are below with your comments in quotes.

“With most of Jesus' (pbuh) action as portrayed of what we have today of the New Testament I was able to see a basis in the Old Testament but not all of his actions.”

So we have to assume that all of the Apostles who left written comments would have believed that Christ did and said more than what an OT prophet would have done or said. Jesus was special as per the eyewitness accounts we have of Him in the Gospels.

“Paul bu his owrds such this not to be the case. His source of information came from no human source.”

Paul did not believe that Jesus was a mere human source. He did meet with the other disciples to confirm his message (Acts 9:19).

“.. you don't see his saracasm and resentment?”

Only with respect to teaching that the early church and the apostles condemned at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

“””…those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars." Rev. 2:2”

Apostles is plural. I believe that this is more likely referring to the many false apostles than Paul and John condemned. Peter as well.

“Paul's doctrine on the foreknowledge of God is not only groundless (because he had to abuse Scripture to support it), it is blasphemous because it outright accuses God of unrighteousness.”


Paul’s doctrine is based upon the total depravity of man. This is taught repeatedly throughout the OT (Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8:21, Psalms 14:1-3, Psalms 53:1-3, Psalms 5:9, Jerimiah 5:16, Psalms 140:3, Psalms 10:7, Isaiah 59:7 and 8, Psalms 36:1, and others).

“…”Paul, an apostle of Yahshua by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus," Ephesians 1:1””

Paul affirms nothing in the book of Ephesians that is not affirmed either directly or indirectly inthe other books of the NT. The OT too for that matter.

“ We have no record of anyone else claiming to be an apostle to anyone anywhere, not even to the Ephesians.”

That’s why we call the epistles by Peter, John and the rest “general epistles.” We do have the example you mentioned of John writing letters specifically to several churches.

Peter repeatedly saw Gentile Converts (Acts 10,11).

“Paul and his doctrine had troubles being accepted in Ephesus.”

People do not want to accept true doctrine. (See earlier references on the Depravity of man.)

“”…some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the way before the multitude..." Acts 19:8,9”

Some is not all.

“Remember, this is recorded from Luke’s point of view…”

Luke was in a position to write an orderly account as he did in his gospel (Luke 1: 1-4). He was in a position to check his facts with the eyewitnesses, including the Apostles, and we have every reason to think he did so (Luke 1:1-4, Acts 1:1-3).

Besides, for your argument to work he would have had to have made up his account of the Jerusalem Council which was written in AD 62 or 64. The living apostles would have easily refuted that account.

“… Notice that those who rejected Paul are men of the synagogue and not atheists or pagans. If these men had stood up in front of the synagogue and said, "Paul's doctrine is flawed. He is a false apostle, and a liar", Luke would no doubt have seen this as "speaking evil of the Way".”

So. The Pharisees and Sadducees rejected Jesus Himself. Christ’s followers should not expect different treatment than Jesus endured (John 15:20).

J. K. Jones said...

“"This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me." 2Timothy 1:15”

Paul was probably using hyperbole here. If all of those in Asia had turned away from Paul, why were Paul’s works ever accepted by the church as Scripture? We have accounts of the Canon being listed in part as early as 130 AD. Peter even confirmed Paul’s works in 2 Peter 3:15-16, written in about 67-68 AD.

“…Obviously they hadn't rejected Yahshua if there were thriving churches there that Yahshua wanted to address through John…”

Of course the Jews did not accept Paul’s teaching. They didn’t accept Christ’s teaching.

I can show that everything that Paul taught was either taught directly or implied by Jesus Himself. If you think you have an exception, just let me know.

“…This is also corroborated in the book of Acts where men from Asia accuse Paul of teaching against the Law, and bringing an Ephesian friend into the temple.”

Again, these are Jews rejecting Christ’s gospel as expressed by Paul.

“How could it NOT be Paul and his associates that Yahshua had commended the Ephesian church for rejecting? Could it be much more obvious?”

What exactly did Paul teach that was not taught by the Apostle John? I can prove that there was nothing that Paul taught that was not taught by John as well as expressed either by John Himself or by Jesus in the gospel written by John. Peter affirms Paul in many places as well.

“Yahshua’s description of Paul in Revelation was that he was a false apostle, and a liar. Consider his following words.”

The false apostles mentioned by Jesus in Ephesus did not include Paul.

“.. To this Jesus (pbuh) was no exception. It warned against mimicking the ignorant Gentiles and their foreign Gods.”


“…Jesus (pbuh) compared the gentile to a dog and limited his ministry in speech and deed almost exclusively to the Lost Sheep of Israel.”

Yet he did agree with the woman who said that even the dogs eat from their master’s tables. And He healed her daughter (Luke 7:24-30).

“…elevating men to God Status was very common to the Romans.”

Do you have particular examples of this? I have found the myths of the Romans to be different in key points from Jesus’ story.

“…The old testament legacy speaks very negative of the foreign power structure whether those mentioned above or Nebuchadnezzar or Nimrod etc..etc..”

The OT legacy also speaks of the many ways in which a gentile can join the kingdom (see Rahab as an example). The Temple even included a court specifically for them. Gentiles were not left out totally and completely, even in the OT.

“Most importantly, Jesus (pbuh) also had to deal with the Hypocrisy of the corrupt priestly power structure of the temple. “

Who rejected His teaching as they did the Apostle Paul’s .

J. K. Jones said...

“The historic Semitic language of scripture turns Greek.”

So that most people in the Roman world could understand it, the last commandment of Jesus would have required this so that the good news could be taught to the very people Christ told the Apostles to reach (Matthew 28:16-20, Acts 1:8).

“Of course the Vatican becomes holy.”

As previously stated: I am a protestant Christian, of the Reformed faith, and I do not believe that the Vatican is holy.

“Of course the Sabbath day is turn to the very same day as the sun-worshipper “Sun-day”. In rebellion to the scripture and the day Jesus (pbuh) kept. Which every denomination of Christianity keeps except the Adventist.”


What could cause a group of Jews to change the Sabbath day? Could it be an historical event of great significance like the resurrection of Christ?

“Of course you ignore the second commandment and make graven images even in the houses of worship.”

Protestant Christians, particularly Presbyterian Christians like myself, do not profane God’s house with images. Please study other branches of the faith besides the Roman Catholic one. Our perspective is much different.

“..the Birth and Resurrection of the “Son“…”

Interesting that we have so far dogged the issue of Christ’s resurrection.

“…holiday which directly mirrors the sun-worshippers holiday of the death of the “Sun” when the sun and day time is the shortest and the resurrection of the “Sun” when the days began becoming longer.”

The Christian church took over the holiday. They did this to profane the name of the Sun God, not to endorse it.

“Paul, who never met, studied with or learn from Jesus (pbuh), become the greatest disciple.”

Paul met the resurrected Jesus on the Damascus Road. That is the best explanation for why a Jew, a Pharisee, schooled under their best, would endorse the Christian faith.

“Of course the Pharisee/Roman citizen would abolish the LAW and be the champion of the Church.”

How could a person ascend to be the champion of the Church during the lifetimes of the original Apostles if he did not have their endorsement? There is one pointed endorsement of Paul from a leading Apostle, Peter:

“…And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, pas they do the other Scriptures…” (2 Peter 3:14-18)

“So I more trust the parts of the New Testament that are consistent with the Old Testament.”

So do I. I just have the true interpretation of the OT.

“… in my analysis the Qur’an played no role…”

Would you like it to play a role? I can discuss issues with the Qur’an. I cannot do so without some insult, so I have avoided it until now.

“…The Quran echoes the Old testament paradigm of FAITH/WORKS leads to Salvation…”

“Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
Blessed is the man against whom the Lord counts no iniquity,..” (Psalms 32)

“…Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed...
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all…it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief…” (Isaiah 53)

“Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Genesis 15:6)

JK

Anonymous said...

Then the hurling of Quotes from his favorite book of faerie tales as if it some how proves something.

It might go easier if you two agreed on which Jesus, praise his mighty underpants, you were talking about.

http://deusdiapente.blogspot.com/2009/10/will-real-jesus-please-stand-up.html

J. K. Jones said...

Anonymous,

The Bible is a collection of books that, together, provide a great deal of historical evidence for Christianity.

Either declare your position and mount some kind of argument, or stop hurling insults from the cheap seats.

JK

Hal said...

"Would you like it to play a role? I can discuss issues with the Qur’an. I cannot do so without some insult, so I have avoided it until now."

Please do delve into the Qur'an, but I hope you don't mistake my mistrust of Paul, or not believing certains text as insults.

But lets talk about the Qur'an.

Hal said...

Name the area?

J. K. Jones said...

Hal,

I am working on a term paper and some other assigments for an MBA class.

I will respond as soon as I can.

JK

J. K. Jones said...

Hal,

I have some questions before we get started.

When was the Qur'an written?

Who was it written by?

What is the source of its teaching?

JK

Hal said...

The word Qur’an comes from the root Qara’a, which mean to read or recite. The Qur’an was revealed over a period of 23 years beginning roughly 610CE. The best description of the Qur’an ironically enough is its mention in the Bible:
Isaiah 28:11-16
King James Version (KJV)
11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
16Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Please note the passage speaks of a person using the singular HE with a different language speak to this people. The verse implies that its someone from outside of the Jewish people community.
This is the time of “time of refreshing” which is also interesting but I leave for another time. The word of God was upon the people little by little and the Jews were directed to hear the word of God.
This is a fulfillment of Duet 18:18-19
18I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
This is a prophet like onto Moses from amongst the Jews’ brethren. The law of God, the beginning of a community…etc
The revelation came from to the angel Gabriel and relayed to Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him). Muhammad memorized it. Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him). did not write it down, as Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him). was illiterate. The onset of revelation is actually described in Isaiah 29: 11-12
Isaiah 29:11-12
King James Version (KJV)
11And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:
12And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.
Muhammad’s (peace and blessing be upon him) companions wrote down the revelation and compiled it. Please note the Qur’an was written down in his time. However, as it was then it is now, the Qur’an is memorized by the companions, as it by tens of thousands of people today. The Qur’an was officially compiled by the command of his companion Uthman (May God be pleased with him), who was the Khalifah or leader of the Muslim community.
As far as the SOURCE, I would say the true one God (The Exalted), who revealed the Torah (law) to Moses (peace be upon him), the Zabur (Pslams) to David (peace be upon him) and the Injil (Gospel) to Jesus (peace be upon him. As well as revealing these universal truths to a number of prophets (peace be upon them all) in and outside of the Jewish community.

J. K. Jones said...

Hal,

Your Old Testament passages are very vauge. I do not belive they speak of Muhammad or the Qur’an.

So the Qur'an was complied by the companions of Muhammad around the time of his life. What years made up that time frame?

Also, how does the Qur'an teach us to deal with our sin? I assume you sin against God's Holiness. Unless you live a perfect life. How can a hold God forgive you?

JK

J. K. Jones said...

That is, how could a Holy God forgive you?

Hal said...

Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him) began receiving the revelation of the Qur’an approximately 610CE over a period over 27 years, he was given the ability to memorize the revelation directly from Gabriel, who was given it by God (The Exalted). His companions lack that ability so they wrote it down throughout this period and after. Please note that there is a time honored tradition of Muslim that exist to today of memorizing the whole Qur’an, these people are called Hafiz. So there are tens of thousands of people around the world who has memorized and during the holy month of Ramadan, the whole book is recited during the night voluntary congregational prayers.
As far as forgiveness, we believe that God has 99 names and or attributes which describe who he is. One of those names if the FORGIVER, God (The Exalted) is able to and want forgive all sin, with the exception of one. All one must do is ask forgiveness or repent for their deeds and try to rectify them. The only sin that is will not forgiven is what we call “shirk” associating partners with God, also known as polytheism.
We believe Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him )is the seal of the prophets or the last of the prophets. A proof of this is after the emergence of Islam, there have been no noteworthy religious state or global religious movements. Instead satan called an audible and attempted to take religion out of the governance, hence the emergence of man-made ideologies, democracy, communism, socialism, etc..etc.. I might point out most were anti – religion in respect to governance. Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him) is the final installments many were the prophets that preceded him, and this not limited to Children of Israel as most and Jews and Christians would contend. Lets imagine that for minute, the Earth is vast populated by billions, a cornucopia languages, cultures and philosophy, but the All Just and All Knowing God who creation of Man is billions upon billions, not to mention his animals, plants and fish is a number so great that only God (The Exalted) would know. This Same God would confine his blessing of guidance to one single community. For me this is incomprehendable.

Hal said...

John 1

19And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

20And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

21And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

22Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?

23He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

24And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.

25And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

26John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

27He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

J.K., what do you make of these verses. These are extremely interesting verses, as it gauges the Jews expectations of who was coming. We know who the Messiah is, we know Elias but J.K. Who is “THAT PROPHET”. Please give me your best commentary on this. Also puzzling Jesus (peace be upon him) saying the person coming after him being preferred and whose shoe he is not worthy to unloose, his words not mine. I tell you what it’s connected to the “TIMES OF REFRESHING”. I don’t expect you to believe just hear me out.

Hal said...

The bible mentions the term “times of refreshing” on two occasions. In the verse quotes earlier in Isaiah 28:(12)

7But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.

8For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.

9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

13But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

14Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

Hal said...

The second of times of refreshing is in Acts 3:

19Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

20And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

22For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

23And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Hal said...

Lastly in Jesus talk of this comforter. Many Christians commentators say it’s the Holy Ghost but is that so?. As Jesus says in John 14:16, he will pray for God to send them another comforter and he would not leave them comfortless. Now, it is against the Trinitarian principle to say there is more than one of the Trinity components. One can not say, they will pray to another father or the father will send another son, so how is it possible for Jesus to say to send them another Holy Ghost. Also it appears that he is talking about himself as the original comforter and he would pray to send them another comforter, like himself namely A PROPHET. Which is in line with the Jewish expectation of the Messiah, Elias and THAT PROPHET. and Jesus quotes about, he that comes after him, “He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.” And this is totally in line with Jesus’ explanation of the Comforter, who had truth that Jesus could not tell them.. Please see below. I will make my point after this. I hope..

John 16
7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

11Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

15All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

16A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

Anonymous said...

This whole exchange is a near perfect illustration of the emptiness of religious belief. Both of them whole hardheartedly believe in the truth of their respective holy texts and yet find the similar arguments their counterpart uses unconvincing.

Confirming apologetics is only convincing to someone who already believes.

Anonymous said...

Emptiness was probably too harsh a word.

Still both sides thinks of their arguments as convincing, yet each of them finds themselves unconvinced when their opponent uses the exact same argument.

J. K. Jones said...

Anonymous,

You don't have to talk past us as if we are not here.

I have presented supperior arguments thus far, and I have not yet even begun to discuss his holy book.

Hal,

Please note that my most recent question remains unanswered: how does a holy God accept sinful people in Islam? What does the Qur'an teach on this subject?

J. K. Jones said...

Hal,

Another way: can a truly holy God just forgive? Would not some sacrifice hav eto be paid?

Hal said...

Allah has made us perfect, but not in the sense that we don’t commit sins, but in the sense that after committing sins we repent and ask for forgiveness. We have no mediator, no one is sacrificed for us, Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him) is a man, a creation, albeit we would argue the best of creation.

The equation for being forgiven is BELIEF: God is one, with no partners, no associates, and no triune and the Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him) is his messenger. Whereas the oneness of God is fixed and never changes, Muhammad (pbuh) is a variable that has changed but it the final installment and is now fixed, prior to Muhammad it was God is one and Jesus (pbuh) is his messenger, or Moses (pbuh) or Abraham (pbuh), whichever prophet is delivering the message to the people.

The Quran states,

"When My servants ask thee concerning Me, I am indeed close (to them): I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calleth on Me: Let them also, with a will, Listen to My call, and believe in Me: That they may walk in the right way. (The Noble Quran, 2:186)"

"If any one does evil or wrongs his own soul but afterwards seeks God's forgiveness, he will find God Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 4:110)"

"Say: 'O my Servants who Have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 39:53)"

If any one does evil or wrongs his own soul but afterwards seeks God's forgiveness, he will find God Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 4:110)"

Not quite the HARSH GOD, portrayed by non-Muslims

Hal said...

I don’t know how much you know about is Islam but the following is a Hadith, which is an oral tradition traced back as the words of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). This Oral tradition should cement the point to you of what believe as God’s ability to forgive.

The following is based on a hadith from Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 676.


There was a man who had heartlessly murdered ninety-nine people. Then, he felt remorse.
He went to a learned man and told him about his past, explaining that he wished to repent, reform, and become a better person. "I wonder if Allah will pardon me?" he asked.

For all his learning, the scholar was a man who had not been able to digest what he had learned. "You will not be pardoned;' he said. "Then I may as well kill you, too," said the other. And kill him he did.

He then found another worthy individual and told him that he had killed a hundred people. "I wonder," he said, "whether Allah will pardon me if I repent?" Being a truly wise man, he replied, "Of course you will be pardoned; repent at once. I have just one piece of advice for you: avoid the company of wicked people and mix with good people, for bad company leads one into sin:"

The man expressed repentance and regret, weeping as he sincerely implored his Lord to pardon him. Then, turning his back on bad company, he set off to find a neighborhood where righteous people lived.

On the way, his appointed hour arrived, and he died. The angels of punishment and of mercy both came to take away his soul. The angels of punishment said that as a sinful person he rightfully belonged to them, but the angels of mercy also claimed him, saying, "He repented and had resolved to become a good man. He was on his way to a place where righteous people live, but his appointed hour had come." A great debate ensued, and Gabriel was sent as an arbitrator to settle this affair.

After hearing both sides he gave this verdict: "Measure the ground. If the spot where he died is closer to the good people, then he belongs to the angels of mercy, but if it is nearer to the wicked people, he will be given to the angels of punishment."

They measured the ground. Because the man had just set out, he was still closer to the wicked. But because he was sincere in his repentance, the Lord moved the spot where he lay and brought it to just outside the city of the good people.

That penitent servant was handed over to the angels of mercy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repentance is the most noble and beloved form of obedience in the eyes of Allah. He loves those who repent. Repentance has a status that no other form of worship has. This is why Allah is extremely happy when a servant repents just as a desert traveler may be happy when he finds his lost camel.
"Except those who repent, have faith and do good deeds, for such people Allah will change their sins for good deeds. Certainly Allah is most forgiving and merciful." (Qur'an 25:70)

Hal said...

Anonymous,

I have an open mind, so please jump right in, add clarity to the blur, shed light to our confusion. There is already a degree of anonymity on the Internet, as your name implies a need to be faceless and nameless but your in a safe space, no need to be scared to say what you actually stand for and build, rather than make comments from the sidelines that add nothing to the discourse.


I'm anxious to see if your up to it.

Hal said...

J.K.

Timeframe:

Something extraordinary a “TIME OF REFRESHING” was to occur after Jesus’ (pbuh) first coming and before his second coming. After Jesus’ (pbuh) first coming, Peter announced:

”Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."

Due to this extraordinary event this “TIME OF REFRESHING”, Peter calls the people to “REPENTING & CONVERSION” in order to have our sins blotted out. The next verse shows that was not the first coming, as Peter made this addressed after the first coming and states “WHICH BEFORE WAS PREACHED ONTO YOU” and after this extraordinary event occurs and then “AND HE SHALL SEND JESUS CHRIST”.

J.K. please tell me, plainly what is Peter referring to:

WHAT EVENT IN HISTORY OCCURED TO COORESPOND WITH THIS?

Hal said...

Totally in conjunction with the above timeframe:

Jesus stated John 1:

"He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose."

Again the sequence of events is crystal clear, it referring to someone that will come after him, him being Jesus (pbuh) but even much more significant Jesus talks about his unworthiness in respect to this apparently special someone.

J.K. PLEASE TELL ME WHO JESUS (PBUH) IS REFERRING TO AND DOESN’T THE TIMEFRAME COINCIDE WITH THE TIME OF REFERESHING WHEN PETER ADHERED US TO REPENT AND TO CONVERT. I AM SO LOOKING FORWARD TO YOU RESPONSE.

J. K. Jones said...

Hal,

Is God holy? Does holiness mean that He must hate sin?

Is God just? Does justice mean He must punish people who sin?

If hatred and punishment are required by a holy and just God, then Christ’s death on the cross for our sins is necessary.

Thanks for the quote from Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 676. I am willing to learn about Islam. I have much to learn about your religion. That is one of the reasons I ask questions.

The relevant passage from Acts 3 reads (from the English Standard Version):

“And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’ And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days. You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.”

Moses comments (“…raise up for you a prophet…”) were made before the time of Jesus and clearly refer to Christ. Peter uses the phrase “these days” in reference to the time foretold. He references this servant as having been “sent,” past tense.
The “times of refreshing” are the coming of Christ in His glory that will be accomplished when the full number of the elect has come in.


Jesus did not say “"He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose,” John the Baptist did. That is plain in every English translation of the Bible I have read.

JK

Hal said...

First and foremost, let me say you are absolutely correct and retract my comments revolving around the quote I attributed to Jesus (pbuh) and it was John (pbuh). I mixed up my arguments in respect to the “Another Comforter” that Jesus (pbuh) spoke of.

Yes, God is Holy one of many attributes, as is the “All-Powerful” or “All-Knowing”, etc..etc..

If you are saying the cross is “necessary” of limited to, to precipitate God’s forgiveness for humanity? I would say this is not presented in the Torah or the Old Testament, this is not presented by the first prophet (pbuh). The old testament’s paradigm was the Law and the Prophets, faith and works, the addition of the cross is a religious innovation. Is God not powerful enough to forgive his creation? This principle of the cross is exactly why Jesus advocated to only preach to the children if Israel, as the foundation and context has been laid, rather than teaching the message to a community who has a record of elevating men to God, whether it is Jesus or Ceasar.

What the Quran represents is the restoration of the paradigm of the Torah as opposed to the deviation of the message by the western world. The message is universal and compelling, “Hear ye Israel your Lord is one”. This is the divine and universal message and prophets are nothing more than messengers of this principle., to this Jesus (pbuh) and Muhammad (pbuh) are no exception.

A party of the Jews, had come to Ali (May God Be Pleases with him), who is the cousin of Muhammah (pbuh) and asked about God, how and what is he. Excerpts of his response is as follow, “My Lord was there first and nothing ever existed besides him. He did no commence from what or was intermingled with what! His attributes cannot be fixed or limited, nor is he veiled to be contained…….He is from the from the beginningless beginning and he is eternal without end…..He is the All-Seeing Lord, the Living, and the sole Sustaining power behind the entire existence. Glory be to him, He spoke to Moses with words without the need for limbs or tools nor lips nor through vibration of uvular sound. Exalted is he beyond ascription of mechanical attributes. He who alleges that our Lord is limited is indeed ignorant of the Creator, who is worshipped in the heavens and earth. The one that imagines Him contained within boundaries will live his life confused and mixed up.”

Hal said...

As far as the King James version and your plain English version “appointed” and “WHICH BEFORE WAS PREACHED ONTO YOU” or not synonymous terms and both can’t be direct translations from the Greek. A lexicon is needed in this case, and I would say this is one of several reasons why there is King James only movement amongst Christians.

J. K. Jones said...

Hal,

What about Isaiah 53? Psalms 22? There are others.

J. K. Jones said...

Hal,

I fail to see how the King James helps your case here.

hAL said...

JK

I submitted a post before my last it was up there initially but now it’s. I don’t think it was anything offensive. I took the time to admit that I was wrong and you are 100%, I mistakenly attributed a saying to Jesus (pbuh) but it was John in my haste. For this I apologize, I meant the verse pertaining to the “COMFORTER”

Hal said...

”Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things

It about the timeframe, this address is made undoubtedly after the first coming. There is a period a “time of refreshing” and after that “and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you”. This is clear because Jesus must remain in heaven UNTIL the “time of restitution”.

“Time of Refreshing” and “Time of Restitution” are being used for the same thing. The heavens must receive Jesus until this “Refreshing” or “Restitution” is completed, once that happens “he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you” Refreshing means to make fresh again and Restitution means to restore. SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY WOULD OCCUR IN BETWEEN HIS COMING AND IT WAS NOT HIS SECOND COMING. LISTEN TO JESUS’ WORDS

“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” John 16:7

Please notice, this EVENT could not take place until Jesus left. This “COMFORTER” must come after Jesus depart and before his second coming because Jesus also says.

16A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.” John 16:16

So my point is,the “ time of refreshing” or “time of restitution” is spoken by the disciple and taught be Jesus is referring to something EXTRAORDINARY happening on the Earth while Jesus is away in Heaven. This would be a period of REPENTANCE & CONVERSION.

Hal said...

If you don’t accept the timeframe of something happening, as mentioned by Peter that is fine but you can’t so easily dismissed the words of Jesus because he also gives a time-frame of something extraordinary happening after his departure.

After Jesus’ leave a COMFORTER will come and what a period of REFRESHING occurs. Lets listen to Jesus again:

And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

Of sin, because they believe not on me;

Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. “

Jesus uses so many pronouns when discussing “Comforter”, he, he, he. This can not be the Holy Ghost, as Jesus says “another comforter” so how many Holy Ghost would that make. Jesus also uses it as comparative to himself but he is the Son. This contradicts Christian theology, does it not?
What is this period, when is this period? Has it occurred if so what point in history correspond to this?

its easy for us Muslims

Hal said...

Peter links the time of “time of refreshing” to the coming of the “prophet liken unto Moses” Which comes from Duet 18, which says

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

PLEASE NOTE:

“WILL PUT MY WORDS IN HIS MOUTH; AND HE SHALL SPEAK UNTO THEM ALL THAT I COMMAND:

PLEASE NOTE: WHAT JESUS SAY ABOUT THE COMFORTER:

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for HE SHALL NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF; BUT WHATSOEVER HE SHALL HEAR. THAT SHALL HE SPEAK; AND HE WILL SHEW YOU THING TO COME”

They are talking about the same thing and the same time period, but Peter is talking about the Prophet liken unto Moses and Jesus is talking about the Comforter. Which is the same thing

Hal said...

Isaiah also speaks about the “Time of Refreshing” and again just as Peter linked the time of Refreshing to a “Prophet like unto Moses” and Jesus speaks of the comforter, this spirit of truth who will tell them things that Jesus could not, that would be reproving the word of sin and speaking the word of God, Isaiah links the “Time of Refreshing” to this EXTRAORDINARY event. Which remarkably enough will come to in a different than the Jews.

9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

13But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

14Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.


AGAIN THIS IS LIKE UNTO MOSES

J. K. Jones said...

Hal,

I did not delete your comment. I so not know what happened. I will try to check when I return from the short vacation I am on this weekend.

I will response to your comments by Teusday.

Thanks for your patience

JK

Hal said...

Hey JK,

Sorry for inundating you. But Ramadan has started and I’m still working, so after the fasting the whole day, we pray for a large portion of the night but I’m off from work today and feel free and feel good.

Hal said...

JK, Most definitely God is Holy, one of many attributes, as well as “Forgiving” and “Merciful”. Yes, God has prepared a reward of paradise and a punishment of hell.


If the cross was a universal and most fundamental principle, or the only means of salvation, wouldn’t it had made more sense for that to be the first teaching ever and all other teaching to spring from that. This is not even the case in the Old Testament, if it were the very first followers of Moses would have been talking about the cross, but it is delayed to the last Prophet sent to the tribe of Israel. The Old Testament lays down the principle of the Law and the Prophets, which Jesus himself confirmed.


Think about it from a non-Christian perspective, for my sinfulness another man was wrongly killed and this is somehow Justice. We marvel at the communities from yester-years, who committed human sacrifices of virgins to appease the Gods but we see them as corrupted. Yelling on the cross God why have you forsaken me, does not make a good argument of a willing sacrifice.


In our criminal justice when a
man is unjustly killed it an a crime and an injustice but if God does it is Justice?


The most basic and the most fundamental principle related to belief and salvation was taught from the very outset and it has been given the Great distinction of being called the 1st Commandment:

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God,... Exodus 20:1-6

All the other commandments are of no avail if you get the first wrong.

As Jesus himself has quoted from it:

‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

J. K. Jones said...

Hal,

You sure do comment allot. Please take one thing at a time so I can respond better. It will help the conversation move along more smoothly.

You never did respond to my citation of Isaiah 53. It is quite the passage on substitutionary atonement; really the clearest one in the Bible in either testament.

I think that the Comforter was the Holy Spirit sent to tell the truth about Jesus. John 16:14 is clear. The Spirit of truth comes to glorify Christ. John 14: 26 is clear that the Helper is the Holy Spirit sent to bring to remembrance all of the things that Christ has said to the Apostles.

JK

Anonymous said...

Hal makes a lot of sense with this comment.

"Think about it from a non-Christian perspective, for my sinfulness another man was wrongly killed and this is somehow Justice. We marvel at the communities from yester-years, who committed human sacrifices of virgins to appease the Gods but we see them as corrupted. Yelling on the cross God why have you forsaken me, does not make a good argument of a willing sacrifice.


In our criminal justice when a
man is unjustly killed it an a crime and an injustice but if God does it is Justice?"

J. K. Jones said...

Anonymous,

Are you the same anonymous commenter that has commented above or are you new to the thread?

Three things:

Jesus did volunteer. He said, “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father” (see John 10:17-18). He also said that He could call “more than twelve legions of angels” to stop His arrest (Matthew 26:47-56). His cry from the cross is an example of one who has meditated so often and so well on Scripture that the very words of the Old Testament come naturally to mind when He finds Himself in that situation.

Second, just because something is repugnant to our judicial system does not mean it is ultimately unjust. Why is our judicial system so much better than God’s system?

Third, we have an infallible New Testament that tells us it is just to act in this way. We can argue over whether the book is in fact true in all it says, but if we admit it is true, we have to accept what it says about Christ dying for our sins. History and logic require a New Testament that is true in all it says. I have argued this at length above.

Search This Blog