If Jesus is God why doesn't the Bible say so?

[Evie]

Engrained is a good descriptive word. So, deeply engraved ( embedded ) in people's minds to me to the point that it is now very hard to erase such false teachings from people's minds and hearts. Rome stole the ' concepts of Christ ' twisting and changing them until faith became fraud.

Even before Rome, when un-faithful Jews began mixing with the Greeks they adopted their theories and philosophies and began to present them as also being Scripture. That is why we see such a fusion or mixing ( religious syncretism ) of biblical with non-biblical being taught as Scripture when Not really found in Scripture. Not what the Bible really teaches.

correct.

 

[Evie]

correct.

Such as the word Trinty, which is nowhere to be found in God's Written Word.

 

[Evie]

The word TRINITY is nowhere to be found in God's Written Word.

 

[Evie]

This thread has nothing to do with Islam but Arabs were Ishmaelites in the Bible, Ishmael (p) the Patriarch was given his own region and had 12 sons like Jacob.

So Mohammed (s) was an Ishmaelite, a descendant of Abraham, it is not just an invention. All Arabs are descendants of Shem, Semites, through Abraham, and Semitic. Some Muslims are not Semitic, like myself a European born in America.

Arabs have historically been known as Ishmaelites, Biblically as well. Every Arab has a legitimate right to claim descendancy from Abraham equal to a Semitic (non Ashkenazi or convert descended from Japeth and Gomer, other non Israelite religous Jews) Jewish person like the Sephardic Jews. Greater right than Ashkenazi Jews or non Semitic Christians.

I don't know what you were trying to accomplish but I don't think you accomplished anything.But ishmaelites are descendent from Abraham and Hagar. Not from Abraham and Sarah which was to be and was Isaiah the promised son of God.

Jesus as "son of God" was originally, according to the Ebionites and early MSS. of Luke, begotten at Baptism like David was begotten on command and Jesus (p) is no more a son of God than David, another Messiah.

"This day I have begotten you" is in earliest Luke and the surviving quotes from "Gospel of the Hebrews" used by Ebionites and Nazarenes.

It is a quote from the OT of God to David.

"Only begotten" is an outright lie according to the Tanakh.

 

[Evie]

But Mohammed descended from Abrahams union with Hagar and their son Ishmael.. God's promised son is through the union of Abraham and Sarah and their son Isaiah. God gave this promise to Abraham and Sarah.

 

[Evie]

could it be that Jesus was born with a 'virginal mind'? did not have the mind of original man via inheritance like all of humanity down through the generations. the first man succumbed to seductive suggestion causing an action against the command of God. Jesus did not succumb to 'seductive suggestions' such as turning the stones to bread when He was hungry in the wilderness. His mind remained in a 'virginal state'.

the very first mind to succumb to seductive suggestion that was against the Word of God, caused that very first mind to no longer be in the 'virginal' state it was in before succumbing to the seductive suggestion. Thus every mind down through the generations naturally inherited the now non-virginal mind. So Jesus did not come from the seed of the first man, did not inherit the impure non-virginal mind, his mind was pure and he kept it pure. He was tested by seductive suggestions in the wilderness to 'turn the stones into bred' and 'to throw Himself off a high mountain'. But He kept His mind pure by not succumbing to the seductive suggestions. Jesus retained his 'virginal state of mind.'

 

[MJFlores]

the word TRINITY DOES NOT appear anywhere in the Christian Bible. In God's Written Word. where did it come from? the Church.

I believe the death of the last apostle John in 100 AD.

After about 140 years later...

Tertullian (/tərˈtʌliən/), full name Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, c. 155 – c. 240 AD, was a prolific early Christian author from Carthage in the Roman province of Africa. Of Berber origin, he was the first Christian author to produce an extensive corpus of Latin Christian literature. He also was an early Christian apologist and a polemicist against heresy, including contemporary Christian Gnosticism. Tertullian has been called "the father of Latin Christianity" and "the founder of Western theology."

Though conservative in his worldview, Tertullian originated new theological concepts and advanced the development of early Church doctrine. He is perhaps most famous for being the first writer in Latin known to use the term trinity (Latin: trinitas). According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Tertullian's trinity [is] not a triune God, but rather a triad or group of three, with God as the founding member".

After 85 years from Tertullian's death...

A similar word had been used earlier in Greek, though Tertullian gives the oldest extant use of the terminology as later incorporated into the Nicene Creed at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, [Jesus is God doctrine introduced]

56 years later....

the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, or as the Athanasian Creed, or both [HS is God doctrine introduced]

 

[Evie]

the very first mind to succumb to seductive suggestion that was against the Word of God, caused that very first mind to no longer be in the 'virginal' state it was in before succumbing to the seductive suggestion. Thus every mind down through the generations naturally inherited the now non-virginal mind. So Jesus did not come from the seed of the first man, did not inherit the impure non-virginal mind, his mind was pure and he kept it pure. He was tested by seductive suggestions in the wilderness to 'turn the stones into bred' and 'to throw Himself off a high mountain'. But He kept His mind pure by not succumbing to the seductive suggestions. Jesus retained his 'virginal state of mind.'

correct.

And the form of the Bible, as we have it in it's basic(not amplified) form, is as God would have intended it to be. No human could have added to it or kept anything out of it. Even though some people may have been self-deceived into 'believing' they altered it. It is exactly how God intended His Written Word to last through all time.

 

[Aberamentho]

But Mohammed descended from Abrahams union with Hagar and their son Ishmael.. God's promised son is through the union of Abraham and Sarah and their son Isaiah. God gave this promise to Abraham and Sarah.

This is true, and Mohammed is God's Messenger (saws).

And from the Qur'an we know that the premise of the thread is the truth, even in the existing altered Greek form the New Testament says Jesus (pbwh) is divine, but the Word is NOT God.

So if not for Mohammed (saws) no religion would have the truth in Scripture and theology.

Last and greatest of all Prophets (saws&pbwt).

Salaam.

 

[Aberamentho]

the very first mind to succumb to seductive suggestion that was against the Word of God, caused that very first mind to no longer be in the 'virginal' state it was in before succumbing to the seductive suggestion. Thus every mind down through the generations naturally inherited the now non-virginal mind. So Jesus did not come from the seed of the first man, did not inherit the impure non-virginal mind, his mind was pure and he kept it pure. He was tested by seductive suggestions in the wilderness to 'turn the stones into bred' and 'to throw Himself off a high mountain'. But He kept His mind pure by not succumbing to the seductive suggestions. Jesus retained his 'virginal state of mind.'

I will add...

We know Jerome possessed and claimed to have translated the so called "Gospel of the Hebrews."

Why do we only have 2 or 3 quotes? Some are duplicated in G. of Thomas, at least one I know was quoted by Clement of Alexandria as a G. of Hebrews quote.

No way is Thomas the same but in Hebrew the H.S. is called by Jesus (pbwh) "My Mother" and carried him to Mt. Tabor.

We can see how Sophia came to be the focus of the Christian Sons of Seth or "Gnostics."

And Sophia is associated with the Holy Spirit like the Shekhina today.

It was the Apocryphal "Wisdom Literature" genre like Odes of Solomon and ben Sirach that made Wisdom(Sophia) a virtual Goddess.

But "My Mother" probably made it a virtual reality for the Sethites. There are 2 Sophias, Sophia and Achemoth. From Chochma, Wisdom in Hebrew.

 

[Aberamentho]

And the form of the Bible, as we have it in it's basic(not amplified) form, is as God would have intended it to be. No human could have added to it or kept anything out of it. Even though some people may have been self-deceived into 'believing' they altered it. It is exactly how God intended His Written Word to last through all time.

But humans added to it, as MS. comparisons have proven interpolations do exist in the New Testament.

Protestants removed the Apocrypha still in use today by Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

You should rethink that statement. It's factually incorrect. And proven so. Admitted even.

When scholars admit to things like this and they have including Catholic Bibles in footnotes and introductions it isn't self anything but especially not self deception.

What you are saying is a result of that actually.

 

[Evie]

But humans added to it, as MS. comparisons have proven interpolations do exist in the New Testament.

Protestants removed the Apocrypha still in use today by Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

You should rethink that statement. It's factually incorrect. And proven so. Admitted even.

I will stay with what I stated. The Written Word is exactly how God intended it to be.

 

[Evie]

I will stay with what I stated. The Written Word is exactly how God intended it to be.

Not one thing could have been removed by any human hand if God did not want it removed. And nothing could have been added either thaqt God did not wanted added. How could any human being, even think to do anything regarding God's Holy Written Word that God did not want done. That is the puffed up human ego on display when thinking such is a possibiity.

 

[Evie]

Not one thing could have been removed by any human hand if God did not want it removed. And nothing could have been added either that God did not wanted added. How could any human being, even think to do anything regarding God's Holy Written Word that God did not want done. That is the puffed up human ego on display when thinking such is a possibiity.

Have you considered that God may have had a reason for leaving things out that some people think should have been included? A reason that is not the obvious one? And by saying the obvious one, I mean people believing that their inclusion or deletion has any bearing on the matter.

 

[Aberamentho]

I will stay with what I stated. The Written Word is exactly how God intended it to be.

How do you explain the changes and interpolations?

Just dismissing valid facts of scholarship and academia doesn't magically make your words true, and it is not a matter of faith, there are literally so many divergences from MS. to MS., the last chapter of Mark doesn't exist in all oldest Greek MSS. Luke quotes Psalms at the Baptism of Jesus (pbwh) "You are my son, this day I have begotten you."

And they altered what God is originally stated to have said at the Baptism. Tip of the iceberg too.

Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1&2 Clement are in Codex Sainaiticus, the oldest Bible in the world.

Not anymore.

So it is a fact that books have been altered and added to, removed completely for no known reason surviving in Ethiopia only sometimes because they were not under Rome's thumb.

The Protestants removed several books that were in the Bible and still are in Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

You can't just wish it away I am afraid. And it is not exactly honest to not admit to something that is known fact to practically everyone including Christians who don't care that Paul only wrote 4-7 of "his" letters, but I respect them if they admit what all scholars (practically) know and also admit, even at church.

I do not hold blind faith and denial of facts.

At the least it is undeniable that either Protestants or Catholics have the correct Bible, because they use a different amount altogether.

So if one has to be right and they definitely do, one also obviously has to be wrong.

Simple proof, a clear sign ignored as you claim the Bible can't be changed by men and hasn't.

When it is undeniable that someone did, Protestants or Catholics.

Who is right in Dt. 32 the Masoretic text with the (1,000 year old alteration) "sons of Israel" or the older LXX and DSS which both say, "Sons of God" (DSS) or "Angels of God" (same thing, not Israel, God)?

Obviously the Masorah changed it and that is how it came into the KJV which disagrees with the NRSV and all Catholic Bibles and respectable translations period.

The Masoretic is extremely corrupt at times.

 

[Aberamentho]

Have you considered that God may have had a reason for leaving things out that some people think should have been included? A reason that is not the obvious one? And by saying the obvious one, I mean people believing that their inclusion or deletion has any bearing on the matter.

Actually Revelation curses anyone who would do just that.

So no and why would I, considering?

 

[Evie]

A

How do you explain the changes and interpolations?

Just dismissing valid facts of scholarship and academia doesn't magically make your words true, and it is not a matter of faith, there are literally so many divergences from MS. to MS., the last chapter of Mark doesn't exist in all oldest Greek MSS. Luke quotes Psalms at the Baptism of Jesus (pbwh) "You are my son, this day I have begotten you."

And they altered what God is originally stated to have said at the Baptism. Tip of the iceberg too.

Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1&2 Clement are in Codex Sainaiticus, the oldest Bible in the world.

Not anymore.

So it is a fact that books have been altered and added to, removed completely for no known reason surviving in Ethiopia only sometimes because they were not under Rome's thumb.

The Protestants removed several books that were in the Bible and still are in Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

You can't just wish it away I am afraid. And it is not exactly honest to not admit to something that is known fact to practically everyone including Christians who don't care that Paul only wrote 4-7 of "his" letters, but I respect them if they admit what all scholars (practically) know and also admit, even at church.

I do not hold blind faith and denial of facts.

At the least it is undeniable that either Protestants or Catholics have the correct Bible, because they use a different amount altogether.

So if one has to be right and they definitely do, one also obviously has to be wrong.

Simple proof, a clear sign ignored as you claim the Bible can't be changed by men and hasn't.

When it is undeniable that someone did, Protestants or Catholics.

Who is right in Dt. 32 the Masoretic text with the (1,000 year old alteration) "sons of Israe" or the older LXX and DSS which both say, "Sons of God" (DSS) or "Angels of God" (same thing, not Israel, God)?

Obviously the Masorah changed it and that is how it came into the KJV which disagrees with the NRSV and all Catholic Bibles and respectable translations period.

The Masoretic is extremely corrupt at times.

And I firmly believe God would have allowed all of that, and probably a lot more along the same lines, for a reason our limited human minds are unable to comprehend. It is all as it is, because that is how God wants things to be.

 

[Aberamentho]

Have you considered that God may have had a reason for leaving things out that some people think should have been included? A reason that is not the obvious one? And by saying the obvious one, I mean people believing that their inclusion or deletion has any bearing on the matter.

I don't delude myself into thinking God did anything about people adding books, removing books, changing passages, adding a chapter to Mark at the end or mistranslating 'almah' to 'virgin' when it comes to the supposed prophecy that it turns out doesn't exist because 'almah' doesn't mean virgin at all just a young girl who could just as easily be a prostitute, hypothetically.

Because He let it happen for reasons known to Him.

And it happened so why make excuses?

Qur'an is the Word of God free of alterations, the Bible has countless of along with all kinds of corruption, the Qur'an has none.

 

[Evie]

Actually Revelation curses anyone who would do just that.

So no and why would I, considering?

The curse for adding, is adding to the form it is in NOW.

 

[Aberamentho]

A

And I firmly believe God would have allowed all of that, and probably a lot more along the same lines, for a reason our limited human minds are unable to comprehend. It is all as it is, because that is how God wants things to be.

So you no longer think the Bible is free from human error and manipulation, alterations, that is good.

Because you thought before if one thinks this, which is a fact I have proven just with the Protestant vs. Catholic example, that it was because of "self deception."

At least you now know it is not. Just a fact of life, not deception, the Bible has been messed with in reality.

So at least you are not deceived anymore in thinking that admitting the truth is self deception.

That's a good thing.

Not admitting facts are facts is self deception and just plain deception.