• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christianity vs Baha'i

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
There are Bible verses that talk about Jesus not being God.

REASONS WHY JESUS IS NOT GOD

Jesus claimed to reveal God, Whom He called Father, but Jesus differentiated Himself from God:

John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:

John 8:40 But now ye seek to slay me, a man that have spoken to you [the] truth, that I heard of God; Abraham did not this thing.

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God,believe also in me.

John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

Jesus said that God was greater than He was:

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

How could Jesus pray to and go to the Father if Jesus WAS the God the Father?

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

John 16:16 A 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 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Moreover, Jesus said that no man has ever seen God:


John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

Jesus said He was from God and that God sent Him, again differentiating Himself from God:

John 17:3 And eternal life means to know you, the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ, whom you sent.

John 7:28Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. 29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.

Jesus even stated specifically that the Father had knowledge which was not possessed by the Son.


Matthew 24:36 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only.

Mark 13:32But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Jesus referred to Himself as a Prophet, and was so regarded. Jesus never referred to Himself as God.

Matthew 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Luke 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

Matthew 21:11And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

Luke 7:16And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.

MORE REASONS WHY JESUS IS NOT GOD:

2 Corinthians 1:3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

1 Corinthians 8:6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

2 Corinthians 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Ephesians 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Hosea 11:9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Wierd post deleted.
 
Last edited:

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The mediator on earth must be BOTH flesh and Holy Spirit.

If Jesus was not fully man (as well as being fully God [Holy Spirit]) then Jesus could not have been the Lamb, the sacrifice of flesh and blood.

This is why the mediator between God and men must be fully man and fully God.

Consequently, the Comforter cannot refer to flesh, to Muhammad or to Baha'u'llah. The Comforter is the Holy Spirit, for, as Jesus said, 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.'

The Holy Spirit is not God in Essence , but it is all we can know of God in Attributes.

All the Messengers are born of the Holy Spirit and are the embodiment all the Attributes, they are not God and at the same time all we can know of God.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have no problem believing that the NT is pure myth. But Baha'is put themselves into that awkward position of believing in Jesus but not everything said about him. But, the other thing is, even Christians say that the resurrected body was different. They call it a "Glorified" body. So that's there way around a "normal" fleshly body. This Glorified body can appear and disappear and ascend into the clouds... and return.

The other way to look at it is that we beleive in the Bible with a different understanding.

That understanding is valid, or it is not.

For many, they need time to show what will be.

Regards Tony
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Jesus was talking about authority when he said that the Father was greater than He was.

John 14:28, "The Father is greater than I." | CARM.org
The CARM.org website says: "Jesus has two natures. Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was merely acknowledging the fact that He was also a man. Jesus is both God and man. As a man, He was in a lesser position than the Father. He had added to Himself human nature (Col. 2:9). He became a man to die for people."

Yes, I believe that Jesus had two natures, a human nature and a divine nature; but that does not mean Jesus was actually God. Having two natures means that Jesus was kind of like a hybrid, a God-man.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
I know that Jesus was talking about authority, but if God was greater than Jesus that means that Jesus cannot be God since Jesus cannot be greater than Himself. That is logically impossible.

Jesus is God the Son, not God the Father. Jesus as the Son of God

Jesus
as the
Son of God

by

Luther Engelbrecht
Ernest Hahn


Introduction

Muslims believe that God is one, that there are no gods except the God. They may contend that even though Christians claim to be monotheists, they actually believe in more than one God. Since Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, they therefore err like other people of ancient or modern times who have believed in a plurality of gods or the sons and daughters of God.

So often Muslim-Christian religious discussion breaks on the topic of Jesus' Sonship. The Christian affirms that Jesus is the Son of God; the Muslim denies that Jesus is the Son of God. Both simply agree to disagree, each convinced that he is right and the other is wrong, as they go their separate ways.

But is there another alternative? In suggesting that there is, the following questions are proposed: Has the Christian truly understood what Jesus' Sonship means to the Muslim and why the Muslim rejects it? Has the Muslim truly understood what Jesus Sonship means to the Christian and why the Christian affirms it? On this topic, which for centuries has been notorious for generating more heat than light, could both agree to explain their relative positions more fully and to listen to one another more intently and courteously?

The intention of this essay is to help both Muslims and Christians to penetrate a little deeper into the Biblical concept of Jesus as the Son of God and the significance of this idea for Christians. At the same time, it is hoped that this essay, as it unfolds, demonstrates at least some sensitivity towards a truly Muslim position on this vital topic. Where it needs correction or amplification, gladly let Muslim friends provide it.

Biblical Meaning of "Son"

To understand the Biblical meaning of Jesus as "the Son of God", first we must examine the Biblical use of the word "son". In the Bible, "son" is a term expressing an intimate relationship with someone or something; basically, it indicates origin, but it is also used to express close association or identification with persons or things. Even when indicating origin, this term does not limit oneself to one's father and mother. One may be called the "son" of the following: his father and mother, his family, his tribe, his people, his place of birth (city or country), and the time or circumstance of his birth. The if "father-son" terminology is also used in connection with kings and their vassals or subjects, masters and servants, teachers and disciples, and almost any situation in which someone is subordinate to or dependent on someone else. The basic requirement of the "son" is to honour and obey his "father", but he should also love him and emulate him.

The term "son" is used in many other ways in the Bible, some of which are connected with origin but others of which mainly express some sort of association with or resemblance to persons or things. A large, somehow homogeneous group may be called "sons" (occupational and ethnic groups especially). Sometimes characteristics or qualities themselves are personified and regarded as having "sons" - those who possess that same characteristic or quality. Still also other uses of the term "son" in the Bible reflect the versatile and imaginative use of this term especially in the Hebrew language.

A complete list of the various uses of the term "son" in the Bible would be too long for this essay. A few of its more idiomatic uses are listed below, with their literal meanings and the translations of the Holy Bible, New International Version (or The New English Bible or Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version).

Old Testament



Reference: Expression (as literally in the original text)
-- Meaning (as found in the translation)

Genesis 5:32: "son of five hundred years"
-- "five hundred years old"



Genesis 15:3: "a son of my house"
-- "a servant in my household"



Deuteronomy 25:2: "a son of stripes"
-- "deserves to be beaten"



Judges 19:22: "sons of Belial"
-- "wicked men"



I Samuel 20:31: "a son of death"
-- "he must die"



I Kings 20:35: "sons of the prophets"
-- "a company of prophets" (NEB)



II Kings 14:14: "sons of pledging"
-- "hostages"



Job 41:28: "son of a bow"
-- "arrow" (NEB)



Isaiah 60: 10: "sons of a foreign land"
-- "foreigners"



Lamentations 3:13: "sons of a quiver"
-- "arrows from his quivers"



Joel 3:6: "sons of the Grecians"
-- "the Greeks"



Zechariah 4:14: "sons of oil"
-- "anointed"


New Testament



Matthew 9:15: "sons of the bridegroom"
-- "the guests of the bridegroom"

Matthew 12:27: "your sons"
-- "your people"



Luke 10:6: "a son of peace"
-- "a man of peace"



Luke 16:8: "the sons of this age"
-- "the people of this world";
"the sons of lights"
-- "the people of the light"



John 17:12: "the son of destruction"
-- "the one doomed to destruction"



Acts 13:26: "sons of the family of Abraham"
-- "you who come of the stock of Abraham" (NEB)



Galatians 3:7: "those who believe are children of Abraham"



Ephesians 2:2: "the sons of disobedience"
-- "those who are disobedient"


The above are only a few of the many uses of the term "son(s)" in the Holy Bible. The most common uses, which are usually translated literally, have been omitted. However, one such group might be illustrated here: personal, yet non-physical, Father-son" relationships:



Father Son(s)

I Samuel 3:6 Eli Samuel



I Samuel 24:16 Saul David



I Samuel 25:8 Nabal David



Proverbs 1:8, etc. Solomon the reader



II Kings 2: 12 Elijah Elisha



II Kings 8:9 Elisha King Ben-Hadad



II Kings 5:13 Naaman his servants



Judges 18:19 the priest the people



Genesis 4:20f. first musician all musicians, etc



Matthew 9:2 Jesus the paralytic



I Timothy 1:2, etc. Paul Timothy



Titus 1:4 Paul Titus



Philemon 10 Paul Philemon



I Peter 5: 13 Peter Mark


Other languages also use the term "son" in a variety of ways. Thus, in the Arabic language of the Qur'an "son" need not mean only a direct male issue or descendant. A familiar example is ibnu's sabil ("son of the road"), which means "a traveller". Another example with which many are familiar is "the son of Satan" a vivid descriptive for any mischief-maker (cf. also Acts 13:10). Obviously Satan does not have a wife in order to have a son! The name implies that the mischief maker is like Satan, an embodiment of Satan, a "Satan with us". Worthy of remembrance is also the Arabic term ummu'l kitab (literally "the mother of the book") the heavenly Scripture from which all Scripture with us on earth is derived, as if each Scripture were her child.

In the light of the above, let us turn to well known verses of the Qur'an: "He is Allah, the One.... He begetteth not nor was begotten...." (Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, surah 112:1-4). This surah clearly states that God has no son and that no son can be God. Why? "How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort?..." (surah 6:102). As these and other verses suggest, even to imagine that God would have a wife and sexual intercourse with her would be absolute folly. But do these Quranic verses actually address the Biblical meaning of Jesus' Sonship? Does the Bible affirm that God has a wife and through procreation a son, whose name is Jesus? Our response to these questions will become more intelligible after we consider in greater depth the Biblical meaning of "son of God".

Biblical Meaning of "Son of God"

The term "son of God" too is used in a variety of ways in the Holy Bible. As creator, God is the "Father" of Adam and of all mankind (Luke 3:38; Isaiah 64:8; Malachi 2:10; etc.). However, a more specific "Father-son" relationship is achieved by the gracious choice of the Father and the faithful obedience and service of the son, not by creation and certainly not by procreation. In this sense, the following are some of those referred to as "son(s) of God" in the Bible:

1. The people chosen by God (Exodus 4:22f.; Jeremiah 31:9,20; Hosea 11:1; Romans 8:14; II Corinthians 6:18; Galatians 3:26; Hebrews 2:10; Revelation 21:7)

2. Heavenly beings (Job 1:6)

3. Kings and rulers (II Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7; 82:6; 89:26f.)

4. Pious, godly individuals (Matthew 5:9; Luke 6:35)

If the meaning of the term "Son of God" in the case of Jesus would be limited to the same significance that it has in these cases above, even the Muslims might agree with its use. In fact, some Sufis speak of God as "Father" and humanity as "God's children". Other Muslims, of course, might question this terminology, preferring the use of "servant" instead of "son". Still, the fact remains that God being Father and humanity being His children, apart from any sexual connotation, is an idea compatible with the thinking of some Muslims.

To equate the Sonship of Jesus with the sonship of the above mentioned beings, however, would be denying the plain truth of the Holy Bible and the very essence of the Christian faith. Jesus is more than one of God's chosen people, more than one of His heavenly messengers, more than one who rules on God's behalf on earth, more than one who pleases God, although He is all of those also.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
The Holy Spirit is not God in Essence , but it is all we can know of God in Attributes.

All the Messengers are born of the Holy Spirit and are the embodiment all the Attributes, they are not God and at the same time all we can know of God.

Regards Tony

The Bible says Jesus is God. Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man in multiple verses. Jesus wasnt a prophet, but he had the role of Prophet, Priest, and King. Does the Bible ever refer to Jesus as God? | CARM.org

Does the Bible ever refer to Jesus as God?
by Luke Wayne
11/28/16

Critics of biblical Christianity often assert that the Bible never explicitly calls Jesus "God." Even if this were true, that would not refute the deity of Christ. The Bible demonstrates in numerous ways that Jesus is God without always having to use the word "God" to do so. Still, it is worth noting that there are, indeed, several passages that do refer to Jesus as God.

God and Savior
Both Paul and Peter refer to Jesus as our "God and Savior." Peter, for example, writes:

"Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ," (2 Peter 1:1).

While it seems pretty straight forward that Jesus is called both God and Savior here, some who deny Christ's divinity try to dispute this. They claim that the translation should be something like:

"Simon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ," (2 Peter 1:1 NWT).

Thus, they try to divide "God" and "Savior" into two separate people. One doesn't need to be an expert in Greek, however, to see that this is incorrect. The exact same sentence structure occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, and the translation there is uncontroversial. Note the following:

"for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.," (2 Peter 1:11).

"For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first," (2 Peter 2:20).

"but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen," (2 Peter 3:18).

In each of these verses, we see the phrase "Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." Even the Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" renders these as "Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." No one tries to break up the "Lord" and the "Savior" into two different people. Yet, the grammar and sentence structure for "Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" is exactly the same as "God and Savior, Jesus Christ." Since everyone agrees that "Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" is the correct translation throughout the rest of the book, then it is completely inconsistent to separate "God" and "Savior" in 2 Peter 1:1. Jesus is directly called both God and Savior just as He is called both Lord and Savior.

We see the same phrase occur in Paul's letter to Titus:

"looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus," (Titus 2:13).

The context here is also quite revealing. For whose glorious appearing are Christians looking? Jesus, of course. It is not both Jesus and the Father whose triumphant return Christians anticipate. It is specifically Jesus. Further, the very next verse goes on to explain:

"who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds," (Titus 2:14).

The subject is singular, not plural. And who is it that "gave Himself to redeem us?" It is Jesus. Further, it says that Jesus purifies a people "for His own possession." No king or prophet ever claimed God's people as his own possession, nor could they. Yet, here we are told that the redeemed are a people of Christ's own possession. This fits perfectly with the fact that Paul just called Jesus "God." If Paul had mentioned God Himself as someone separate from Jesus, it would be unthinkable that the people would be called the possession of Christ and not of God. This context just further reinforces what the language makes clear: Peter and Paul both called Jesus our "God and Savior."

My Lord and my God
The testimony of Thomas after Jesus' resurrection is also clear and compelling:

"After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, 'Peace be with you.' Then He said to Thomas, 'Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.' Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!' Jesus said to him, 'Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed,'” (John 20:26-29).

Thomas calls Jesus both Lord and God. Jesus then affirms this belief and blesses others who believe it. Some have tried to get around this by saying that Thomas was not addressing Jesus as "My Lord and my God," but was crying out to heaven in his joy. The passage, however, plainly says that "Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'" Thomas said this to Him! He didn't pray this to God in Heaven. He said it straight to Jesus. There is no getting around the fact that Thomas called Jesus his God, and Jesus affirmed and blessed that belief.

Mighty God
This is not only a New Testament phenomenon. Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would be God. He proclaimed:

"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace," (Isaiah 9:6).

This passage is covered in more detail HERE. It is worth briefly noting, however, that Jesus is called the "Mighty God." The very next chapter identifies the LORD (Jehovah, Yahweh), the one true God of Israel, as the Mighty God:

"Now in that day the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God," (Isaiah 10:20-21).

Isaiah is not telling Israel to rejoice at the coming of some lesser god. The Messiah who is to come will be their own Mighty God, the one true and living God. Thus, even the prophets referred to Jesus as God.

God over all
There is a little bit more debate about this one, but the clearest reading of Paul in Romans 9 is that He once again refers to Jesus as God here. The verse reads:

"They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen," (Romans 9:4-5 ESV).

Most other reputable modern translations agree with this reading, such as the NIV, NKJV, HCSB, and NET. Popular paraphrases like the NLT also render it this way, and the Messianic Jewish "Tree of Life" version likewise agrees. The highly trustworthy NASB, however, is a bit more ambiguous:

"whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen,"

This could be read as saying that Jesus is "God blessed over all," but one could also read it as praising God distinctly from the description of Jesus. The NRSV and the KJV share in this ambiguity. The KJV, however, is somewhat of an anomaly here among historical translations. English translations before the KJV, like that of John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, Bishop's Bible, Great Bible, and Coverdale Bible all very clearly read that Jesus is God over all. The NKJV returns to this clarity.

Even if one prefers the more ambiguous translation of the KJV or NASB in this passage, it seems to make the most sense to read it as referring to Jesus as "God blessed forever." The interpretation that Paul is simply pausing to praise God rather than continuing his thought would be abrupt and somewhat awkward in the context.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
I do not see Jesus says that.

I see many Christians have defaulted to that understanding.

Regards Tony

Jesus said he was God many times. Did Jesus say He is God? | GotQuestions.org

Did Jesus say He is God?

Answer: It is true that Jesus never said the exact words, “I am God.” He did, however, make the claim to be God in many different ways, and those who heard Him knew exactly what He was saying. For example, in John 10:30, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” The Jews who heard Him make that statement knew well that He was claiming to be God, as witnessed by their reaction: “His Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him” (John 10:31). When He asked them why they were attempting to stone Him, they said, “For blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). Stoning was the penalty for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), and the Jews plainly accused Jesus of claiming to be God.

Jesus made another statement claiming to be God when He said, “Very truly I tell you, . . . before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58). The Jews, upon hearing Him, clearly understood that He was claiming preexistence and, more than that, to be Yahweh, the great “I AM” of Exodus 3:14. On this occasion, too, they tried to stone Him for blasphemy.

The Gospel of John begins with a statement of Jesus’ deity: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1, emphasis added). In verse 14, John identifies the Word: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John is affirming that the Word (Jesus) is God, and He left heaven to come to earth in the form of a man to live with men and display the glory of God the Father.

The disciples of Jesus distinctly heard Him declare His deity. After Jesus’ resurrection, Thomas the doubting disciple finally understood Jesus’ deity, declaring Him to be “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28). If Jesus were not Lord and God, He would have corrected Thomas, but He did not; Thomas spoke the truth. After seeing Jesus walking on the water, His disciples worshipped Him (Matthew 14:33). When He appeared to them after the resurrection, they fell at His feet and worshipped Him (Matthew 28:9). The disciples were well aware of the Mosaic Law’s penalty for blasphemy, yet they worshipped Him as God, and Jesus accepted their worship. Jesus never rebuked people for worshipping Him, accepting their worship as good and proper.

Jesus’ deity is recognized throughout the New Testament. Paul eagerly awaited “the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13) and encouraged us to do the same. Both Paul and John declared that Jesus created the universe (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16–17), yet Genesis 1:1 clearly says that God created the heavens and the earth. This can only mean that Jesus is God. Even God the Father referred to Jesus as God: “About the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever’” (Hebrews 1:8, quoting Psalm 45:6).

Did Jesus say He was God? Yes, in many ways, including applying the names and attributes of God to Himself. He made it clear that He was God incarnate, proving it by His words, by His miracles, and finally by His resurrection from the dead. Although they doubted at first, those who were finally convinced of His deity understood why He had to die on the cross. If He were a mere man, His death would have been only sufficient to pay for His own sins, but because He was God in the flesh, His sacrifice was infinite and holy and able to pay for all the sins of the world.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
The CARM.org website says: "Jesus has two natures. Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was merely acknowledging the fact that He was also a man. Jesus is both God and man. As a man, He was in a lesser position than the Father. He had added to Himself human nature (Col. 2:9). He became a man to die for people."

Yes, I believe that Jesus had two natures, a human nature and a divine nature; but that does not mean Jesus was actually God. Having two natures means that Jesus was kind of like a hybrid, a God-man.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man, which is a reference to Him being the Messiah. What does it mean that Jesus is the Son of Man? | GotQuestions.org

What does it mean that Jesus is the Son of Man?

Question: "What does it mean that Jesus is the Son of Man?"

Answer:
Jesus is referred to as the “Son of Man” 88 times in the New Testament. A first meaning of the phrase “Son of Man” is as a reference to the prophecy of Daniel 7:13-14, “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” The description “Son of Man” was a Messianic title. Jesus is the One who was given dominion and glory and a kingdom. When Jesus used this phrase, He was assigning the Son of Man prophecy to Himself. The Jews of that era would have been intimately familiar with the phrase and to whom it referred. Jesus was proclaiming Himself as the Messiah.

A second meaning of the phrase “Son of Man” is that Jesus was truly a human being. God called the prophet Ezekiel “son of man” 93 times. God was simply calling Ezekiel a human being. A son of a man is a man. Jesus was fully God (John 1:1), but He was also a human being (John 1:14). First John 4:2 tells us, “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” Yes, Jesus was the Son of God—He was in His essence God. Yes, Jesus was also the Son of Man—He was in His essence a human being. In summary, the phrase “Son of Man” indicates that Jesus is the Messiah and that He is truly a human being.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
I know that Jesus was talking about authority, but if God was greater than Jesus that means that Jesus cannot be God since Jesus cannot be greater than Himself. That is logically impossible.

Jesus being the Son of God is a reference to the Trinity. Jesus as the Son of God

Jesus as the Son of God: God's Self-Revelation on Earth

We all know that God is the creator of all creation. We know that he continually points mankind to manifold signs in creation and in history which, in turn, point mankind beyond these signs to God Most High Himself as mankind's creator and judge. We know that periodically He has intervened in creation's history through prophets and apostles and the Scriptures. He has mediated through them, whereby He has offered mankind a pattern for life. Probably we all also agree that he bears witness to Himself through human conscience. In all these ways God reveals to us something about Himself so that we can know something about Him. But does He reveal Himself? Can we know Him?

The response to these crucial questions is found in the astounding claims of Jesus:

"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (Matthew 11 :27)

"Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?" (John 14:9,10)

Angels, persons and things can reveal to us something about God. But God alone can reveal God! It takes God to reveal Himself to mankind . It takes God to reveal Himself to mankind under created circumstances congenial to human understanding. What better way for the eternal revealer to be revealed to mankind on earth than by clothing His self-expression in human flesh!

In Jesus, His eternal Son, the revealer becomes also the revealed for us. This is why the Holy Bible speaks of Jesus as God manifested in the flesh. In turn, the revealed Son becomes the revealer of the Father among mankind. "Trust in God; trust also in me," says Jesus (John 14:1). In inviting His hearers to trust Him, Jesus is not subtly deflecting trust away from God; rather He is simply affirming that God, forever Most High, is revealing Himself through Jesus by His presence in Jesus.

God, the revealer and the revealed. We would agree that God creates the world, appoints prophets, sends Scriptures and provides laws for human guidance. But can He Himself enter His own creation to be with us? Would this not be unworthy of Him? Would He not demean Himself thereby? Would not His entry into the world conflict with His sovereignty, cloud the brightness of His glory, and make Him less than greater?

God indeed is greater. To Him alone belong the kingdom, the power, and the glory. He alone is sovereign. But, we may ask, what is the nature of God's sovereignty? And how does God Himself manifest the nature of His sovereignty so that humanity too can begin to understand the nature of His sovereignty? Stated otherwise, are we to understand God's sovereignty simply as the sovereignty of any earthly potentate magnified to its ultimate degree? Does God Himself manifest His sovereignty over His creation by remaining aloof from it? Does He safeguard His sovereignty by insulating Himself in celestial serenity, far removed from the suffering and sin of this dying world? Or is it possible that our understanding of God's sovereignty conflicts with His own understanding of His sovereignty; that His thoughts are not our thoughts and our ways are not His ways, even as God has declared through His prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 55:8)? Is it possible that God not only answers but even anticipates the yearning of this prophet: "Oh, that You would rend the heavens and come down...!"? (Isaiah 64:1)

According to the Bible, God is love. In Biblical perspective, by entering into this world, God does not demean Himself; rather He exalts Himself. By His visitation on earth, He does not cloud His glory; rather, He magnifies it among mankind. By His presence among us, He does not become the lesser; rather, He becomes the greater for our greater praise. By being not only above us but with us in Jesus Immanuel, He not only acts in conformity with Himself; even more, He is being Himself and He is being what He will be.

Finally, let us briefly summarize the Biblical meaning of Jesus as the Son of God, bearing in mind that 1. "the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4) and 2. the Holy Injil itself must be read to grasp the fuller meaning of Jesus' Sonship through His servanthood:

1. The unique Son of God is of the Father eternally; by Him God created and sustains the universe. As God's self-expression He is truly God.

2. Because God loved us, the unique Son of God entered time and space, was born of the Virgin Mary and was called Jesus the Messiah. As God's self-expression on earth in the form of man He is also truly human.

3. The Son shares the attributes of the Father; He is like Him in powerful works and loving self-giving.

4. The Son has been sent by/from the Father as His representative to carry out His work of revelation and salvation.

5. The Son is the Father's personal message, God expressing Himself and His love in a way that can be seen and heard and comprehended by humanity.

6. The Son serves the Father perfectly; the Father is also responsive to the will of the Son.

7. The Father and the Son are One in a unique relationship of complete mutuality between Master and Servant, sending One and sent One, revealed One and revealing One.

8. Those who believe in the unique Servant/Son sent by God, God's personal Good News" ("Evangel" or "Injil"), and who follow Him, can become His "brothers and "sisters"; they can become adopted, obedient children of God.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Yes Muhammad is foretold.

Shown in both old and new testaments.

Regards Tony

The prophet like Moses is a reference to Jesus, not Mohammed. Was Muhammad the Prophet like unto Moses?

Was Muhammad the Prophet like unto Moses?
By Cornelius

Dear Muslim Friends,

Muslim apologists claim that Muhammad was the prophet like unto Moses who is mentioned in Deuteronomy. This handout will mention some of the similarities and differences between Muhammad and Moses, and why Christians do not believe Muhammad was the prophet like unto Moses. First, let us look at the passage of interest:

Deuteronomy 18:18-22 (KJV) “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. And 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. But 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. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When 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.”

Typical similarities between Moses and Muhammad claimed by Muslim apologists:

1) Both had normal births. 2) Both had normal deaths. 3) Both led armies. 4) Both were political leaders. 5) Both were rejected by their people but later became their accepted leaders. 6) Both brought new laws to their people. 7) Both emigrated before ultimately obtaining power. 8) Both had successors that conquered Palestine.

Comments on similarities

Points 1-7 are superficial similarities having nothing to do with being a prophet. In fact, these points are true of a vast number of rebels who overthrew their governments. A Biblical example is Jeroboam (1 Kings 11-15). Modern day examples include: Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung, and Fidel Castro. All of these men had natural births and deaths, were married, were parents, emigrated before assuming power, at first were not recognized as the leaders of their people, they all led armies, and ultimately established themselves as political leaders who brought new laws to their people, and were statesmen. Castro and Mao Tse-tung have more in common with Moses, since they had surviving descendants from their male line. Jeroboam1, and Muhammad had male descendants but no descendants from their male line survived. I believe, Pol Pot has a daughter but no sons. The 8th point is irrelevant because it is a similarity between their successors and not between Moses and Muhammad. Even if their successors were identical, that would not make Muhammad like Moses.


Muhammad not like Moses


1) Moses performed miraculous signs, Muhammad didn’t: “Why are not (signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?” (Surah 28:48)

2) Moses spoke directly with God, Muhammad didn’t: a) "And to Moses Allah spoke directly" (Surah 4:164). b) "it is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger" (Surah 42:51). c) The Hadith makes clear that Muhammad never saw his Lord. Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, No. 457: Narrated Aisha: “Whoever claimed that (the Prophet) Muhammad saw his Lord, is committing a great fault, for he only saw Gabriel in his genuine shape in which he was created covering the whole horizon.” Also in Bukhari Vol. 6, Book 60, No. 378: “Narrated Masruq: I said to 'Aisha, "O Mother! Did Prophet Muhammad see his Lord?" Aisha said, "What you have said makes my hair stand on end! Know that if somebody tells you one of the following three things, he is a liar: Whoever tells you that Muhammad saw his Lord, is a liar." Then Aisha recited the Verse: 'No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision. He is the Most Courteous Well-Acquainted with all things.' (6.103) 'It is not fitting for a human being that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration or from behind a veil.' (42.51) 'Aisha further said, "And whoever tells you that the Prophet knows what is going to happen tomorrow, is a liar." She then recited: 'No soul can know what it will earn tomorrow.' (31.34) She added: "And whoever tell you that he concealed (some of Allah's orders), is a liar." Then she recited: 'O Apostle! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord...' (5.67) 'Aisha added. "But the Prophet saw Gabriel in his true form twice."”

3) Moses never thought he was demon-possessed, Muhammad did. Ibn Ishaq’s “Sirat Rasul Allah,” The Life of Muhammad translated by A. Guillaume, p. 106: (Muhammad Speaking) “Now none of God’s creatures was more hateful to me than an (ecstatic) poet or a man possessed: I could not even look at them. I thought, Woe is me poet or possessed — Never shall the Quraysh say this of me! I will go to the top of the mountain and throw myself down that I may kill myself and gain rest.”

4) Moses never tried to commit suicide, Muhammad did. See point 3 and the History of Tabari [1155], vol. 6, p. 76

5) Moses was clear-minded to the end, but Muhammad became delirious and mentally confused: Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 471: “Narrated 'Aisha: During his sickness, Allah's Apostle was asking repeatedly, "Where am I today? Where will I be tomorrow?" And I was waiting for the day of my turn (impatiently). Then, when my turn came, Allah took his soul away (in my lap) between my chest and arms and he was buried in my house.”

6) Moses never uttered verses from Satan but Muhammad had the Satanic Verses. (History of Tabari [1192-1193], vol. 6, p. 111) “Al-Qasim b. al-Hasan—al-Husayn b. Daud—Hajja—Abu Mashar—Muhammad b. Ka’b al-Qurazi and Muhammad b. Qays: The Messenger of God was sitting in a large gathering of Quraysh, wishing that day that no revelation would come to him from God which would cause them to turn away from him. Then God revealed:

By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived …

and the Messenger of God recited it until he came to:

Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-‘Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?

when Satan cast on his tongue two phrases:

These are the high flying cranes; verily their intercession is to be desired.

He uttered them and went on to complete the surah. When he prostrated himself at the end of the surah, the whole company prostrated themselves with him. Al-Walid b. al-Mughirah raised some dust to his forehead and bowed over that, since he was a very old man and could not prostrate himself. They were satisfied with what Muhammad had uttered and said, “We recognize that it is God who gives life and death, who creates and who provides sustenance, but if these gods of ours intercede for us with him, and if you give them a share, we are with you.”

That evening Gabriel came to him and reviewed the surah with him, and when he reached the two phrases which Satan had cast upon his tongue he said, “I did not bring you these two.” Then the Messenger of God said, “I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken.” Then God revealed to him:

‘And they indeed strove hard to beguile you away from what we have revealed to you, that you should invent other than it against us…’” (Surah 17:73)

7) Muhammad admitted speaking presumptuously in the name of Allah, Al-at, Al-Uzza, and Manat, failing to meet the criteria given in Deut. 18:20: “But 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.”

8) Moses was never bewitched, but Muhammad was (Al-Bukhari, vol. VII, no. 658). "Narrated Aisha: A man called Labid bin al-A’sam from the tribe of Bani Zaraiq worked magic on Allah’s Apostle until Allah’s Apostle started imagining that the had done a thing that he had not really done. One day or one night he was with us, he invoked Allah and invoked for a long period, and then said, ‘O Aisha! Do you know that Allah has instructed me concerning the matter I have asked him about? Two men came to me and one of them sat near my head and the other replied, ‘He is under the effect of magic.’ The first one asked, ‘Who has worked the magic on him?’ The other replied, ‘Labid bin Al-Asam’ …" (see also no. 660)

9) Moses believed he was a prophet before his wife did, Muhammad’s wife was the first to believe he was a prophet. The History of Tabari [1151], translated by W. Montgomery Watt, vol. 6, p. 72: “When I came to Khadijah, I sat down with my thigh next to hers, and she said to me, “Abu al-Qasim, where have you been? I sent messengers to look for you all the way to Mecca and back.” I said to her, “I am either a poet or a madman,” but she answered, “May God save you from that, Abu al-Qasim! God would not do that to you, considering what I know of your thruthfulness, your great trustworthiness, your good character, and your good treatment of your kinfolk. It is not that, cousin. Perhaps you did see something.” “Yes,” I said, and then told her what I had seen. “Rejoice, cousin, and stand firm,” she said. “By Him is whose hand is Khadijah’s soul, I hope that you may be the prophet of this community.”

10) God persuaded Moses that he was a prophet by miraculous signs of a burning bush that was not consumed (Exodus 3:2) and other miraculous signs (Exodus 4), Muhammad was persuaded by his wife Khadija taking off her clothes. Ibn Ishaq’s "Sirat Rasul Allah", The Life of Muhammad, translated by A. Guillaume, p. 107: “Isma'il b. Abu Hakim, a freedman of the family of al-Zubayr, told me on Khadija's authority that she said to the apostle of God, 'O son of my uncle, are you able to tell me about your visitant, when he comes to you ?' He replied that he could, and she asked him to tell her when he came. So when Gabriel came to him, as he was wont, the apostle said to Khadija, 'This is Gabriel who has just come to me.' 'Get up, O son of my uncle,' she said, 'and sit by my left thigh'. The apostle did so, and she said, 'Can you see him?' 'Yes,' he said. She said, 'Then turn round and sit on my right thigh.' He did so, and she said, 'Can you see him?' When he said that he could she asked him to move and sit in her lap. When he had done this she again asked if he could see him, and when he said yes, she disclosed her form and cast aside her veil while the apostle was sitting in her lap. Then she said, 'Can you see him?' And he replied, 'No.' She said, 'O son of my uncle, rejoice and be of good heart, by God he is an angel and not a satan.'”
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
I do not see Jesus says that.

I see many Christians have defaulted to that understanding.

Regards Tony

The expression Son of Man is a reference to Jesus being the Messiah. Why is Jesus Called the "Son of Man"? — Knowing Scripture

In what seems a rather cumbersome self-reference, Jesus often calls himself “the son of man.” In my experience of popular preaching and teaching, a vague impression is often conveyed, if not explicitly stated, that “son of man” is a way of emphasizing Jesus’ humanity, highlighting the fact that Jesus is a real flesh and blood human. Jesus is a son of “man” in addition to the son of “God,” in a kind of proto two-nature Christology.

Well, I don’t think that’s the point. After all, first, “son of man” is what Jesus called himself during his earthly ministry, during which time no one had trouble believing that he was human. Second, it doesn’t make much biblical sense to construe the contrast between “son of man” and “son of God” as equivalent to that between “human” and “divine.” This is because plenty of regular old humans (not to mention angels) are called “sons of God”: Adam, kings of Judah, Christians, the Sethites or fallen angels (take your pick) of Genesis 6, etc.

Making Biblical Sense: Generic Uses

Consider that as a mere title, “Son of God” doesn’t necessarily imply a divine nature. To be God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, is more than to be simply a son of God. In the same way, we shouldn’t think that “son of man” is simply or primarily a way of speaking about Jesus’ humanity. So if we want to understand what Jesus really meant by it, we should look at how the title “son of man” was used in Jesus’ Scripture, the Old Testament. So here are some basic observations about how the title is used:

(1) The title “son of man” appears several times in the Old Testament as a way of highlighting weakness. In Job 16:21; 25:6; and 35:8 it appears to have that connotation, and also in Isaiah 51:12. Similarly, in Numbers 23:19, the God who does not lie or repent is contrasted with the “son of man” who does both.

(2) There is one occasion in Isaiah (56:2) and two in Jeremiah (50:40; 51:43) where the term doesn’t really appear to imply weakness particularly, but to simply be a euphemism for human. A handful of uses in the Psalms fall into these two categories.

Now, if these passages are the background for Jesus’ use of “son of man” for himself, perhaps a case could be made that he means it as a title of humility, or a way of highlighting his weak incarnational condition. More humble than any man who ever walked the face of the earth Jesus certainly was, but I doubt this was his meaning. As I pointed out above, during his earthly ministry, Jesus was not having to combat unduly lofty perceptions of himself by others.

(3) Moving on then, thirdly, there is one occasion in the Psalms where the title is used in a context that implies not weakness but strength: Psalm 80:16-18 says this:

They have burned it with fire; they have cut it down;
may they perish at the rebuke of your face!
But let your hand be on the man of your right hand,
the son of man whom you have made strong for yourself!
Then we shall not turn back from you;
give us life, and we will call upon your name!

The reference here is most likely to the king of Judah. He is the man at God’s right hand. In Psalm 8:4-8 as well, even though the psalmist marvels that the God who made the heavens has regard for the “son of man,” he recognizes that God has crowned the son of man with glory and honor, and set him over all God’s works. So “son of man” can refer to a powerful or at least an honored person. It’s worth noting as well, with Psalm 8 brought into the picture, that the Hebrew term is ben-adam, son of “Adam”—which is the generic word for “mankind” or “human,” but points to the original man Adam of whom every human is a son or daughter. Of course, Psalm 8 itself clearly alludes to the original Adam when it sings of how the “son of man” is entrusted with dominion over creation.

These three categories of use leave us with the understanding that “son of man” as a generic title can highlight the frailty of mankind in contrast with God, but it can also be used to conjure up the recollection of humanity’s high status as the image of God and ruler of creation. It’s a title that is capable of both humbling and exalting, as the case may require. Like Aslan told Prince Caspian before crowning him king of Narnia: to be a son of Adam is “both honor enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth.”[1]

But There’s More!

There are two other more specific uses of “son of man” in the Old Testament. First, in Ezekiel it is used tons. In fact, Ezekiel is called “son of man” more frequently than Jesus is in all four gospels combined (93x for Ezekiel vs. 82x for Jesus). Second, Daniel has an apocalyptic vision in which he sees “one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven” and receiving a kingdom which will never pass away. Daniel is then himself called “son of man” soon after (8:17). Jesus’ own use of the term is often connected with statements about his “coming with the clouds of heaven,” so Daniel serves as the most promising immediate background. But the shear volume of usage in Ezekiel suggests that we shouldn’t ignore that either, especially considering that Ezekiel and Daniel were near contemporaries, with Daniel being a bit younger and in all likelihood perfectly familiar with the fact that Ezekiel had been known as “son of man.” When Daniel saw “one like a son of man,” perhaps he meant “one like Ezekiel.” Worth considering.

One other point before looking at the gospels. “Son of Man” is a title used almost entirely by Jesus himself to refer to himself. After the gospels, it disappears completely. It did not pass into normal Christian usage or worship. Stephen did see “the son of man” standing at the right hand of God. In the Revelation also it appears twice: the son of man is standing in the midst of the lampstands, and is seated on a cloud with a sickle in his hand. But that’s it. This fact has to be significant. Is there something about the specific context of Jesus’ ministry that makes the title uniquely appropriate for that time period?

Son of Man in the Gospels

There is no particular gospel in which the title dominates. It appears 29x in Matthew, 14x in Mark, 26x in Luke, and 13x in John. This reflects the Gospels’ respective lengths more than anything else. By the way, this is important evidence that the Gospels (including the supposedly late and mythologized John) record Jesus as he actually spoke. Liberal scholars have often thought that Jesus’ words in the gospels are simply early church theology put into Jesus’ mouth. But if that were the case, why would they have Jesus continually call himself something that he is never called in other Christian writing? The only reason why the Gospels would record Jesus calling himself something that the church did not go on to call him is that he really called himself that.

If you take the time to skim the lists of references in each of the gospels above, something that will strike you is that there doesn’t seem to be any particular association between the title “son of man” and any one aspect of Jesus’ ministry or teaching. It’s just what he calls himself. It’s his way of saying “I” or “me”—whether he is talking about his miracles, preaching, his impending death, kingdom-bringing power, authority to forgive sin, or his lordship of the Sabbath. So, why would he call himself that? I would suggest, in light of all this background, that Jesus’ self-reference as “son of man” is owing primarily to two considerations:

  1. The similarity of his ministry to Ezekiel’s.
  2. Jesus as the fulfillment of Daniel’s vision, as the one who receives and rules over the kingdom of God.
Ezekiel & the Son of Man

Ezekiel, the son of man, was appointed as a prophet to Israel, at thirty years old, by a river, like Jesus. Here is his commission:

Son of man, I send you to the people of Israel, to nations of rebels, who have rebelled against me. They and their fathers have transgressed against me to this very day . . . And whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house) they will know that a prophet has been among them (Ezekiel 2:3-5).

Jesus, the Son of Man and the greater Ezekiel, was like Ezekiel and the other prophets sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He spoke to them only what he heard from the Father. In Ezekiel 8:6, the prophet saw abominations in the temple:

Son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel are committing here, to drive me far from my sanctuary?

Jesus also saw abominations in the temple, and drove them out with a whip of cords. Jesus spoke in parables so that Israel in their rebellionwouldn’t understand him. Ezekiel, too, was a speaker of parables (17:2). Ezekiel announced the destruction of Jerusalem (9:1-11), as did Jesus in the Olivet Discourse. Ezekiel even symbolically bore Israel’s punishment (4:4-8), which Jesus would do in reality. There are more similarities than these. Of course, one can find plenty of similar parallels between Jesus and Jeremiah, etc. So this point probably shouldn’t be pressed too much. And in any case, the more commonly accepted background for the name “son of man” is in fact Daniel 7, to which we now turn . . .

Daniel & The Son of Man

Soon after Ezekiel, Daniel has a vision of “one like a son of man” receiving a kingdom, “that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.” He comes with the clouds of heaven, as Jesus repeatedly said he himself would do (and this is a “coming” into heavenly glory and authority, not a coming down to earth as is so often assumed by end-times enthusiasts). As noted above, it’s possible that Daniel alludes here to Ezekiel. If so, it would be to Ezekiel as representative of a faithful remnant, because in Daniel’s vision the “son of man” is later equated with “the saints of the most high” (7:27).

It’s also noteworthy that the “son of man” receives dominion specifically over the kingdoms which were shown to Daniel as beasts: a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a dragon. The scene recalls Adam’s original mandate to rule over the beasts of the earth. Daniel’s son of man is one who is fulfilling the commission to Adam to “rule” as the image of God. This is precisely Jesus’ role: The last Adam, the faithful Israelite, the chief representative of the saints, the perfect image of God, the one who inherits the kingdoms of the world and subdues the creation. That’s what it means for Jesus to be the son of man. He is the son of Adam in the fullest sense. The second son who receives the inheritance in preference to the first son – like Isaac, like Jacob.

But now this post waxeth long. Hopefully this is a pointer and prod to further reflection. As a final word of application, it’s worth considering that those who are in Christ share in his inheritance and will share in Adam’s rule of creation with Jesus. If that thought and that faith don’t spur us to the kind of maturity and righteousness befitting kings, I don’t know what will.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Yes Muhammad is foretold.

Shown in both old and new testaments.

Regards Tony
The other way to look at it is that we beleive in the Bible with a different understanding.

That understanding is valid, or it is not.

For many, they need time to show what will be.

Regards Tony

The Bible has not been corrupted. The apostles saw Jesus after He ressurected. Multiple people dont hallucinate the same thing. Jesus is God. He had the role of Prophet, Priest, and King, but He is not just a prophet-He is the Savior. Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with? | GotQuestions.org

Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with?

Question: "Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with?"

Answer:
The books of the Old Testament were written from approximately 1400 BC to 400 BC. The books of the New Testament were written from approximately AD 40 to AD 90. So, anywhere between 3,400 and 1,900 years have passed since a book of the Bible was written. In this time, the original manuscripts have been lost. They very likely no longer exist. Since the time the books of the Bible were originally written, they have been copied again and again by scribes. Copies of copies of copies have been made. In view of this, can we still trust the Bible?

The Holy Scriptures are God-breathed and therefore inerrant (2 Timothy 3:16–17; John 17:17). Of course, inerrancy can only be applied to the original manuscripts, not to the copies of the manuscripts. As meticulous as the scribes were with the replication of the Scriptures, no one is perfect. Through the centuries, minor differences arose in the various copies of the Scriptures. The vast majority of these differences are simple spelling variants (akin to American neighbor versus British neighbour), inverted words (one manuscript says “Christ Jesus” while another says “Jesus Christ”), or an easily identified missing word. In short, over 99 percent of the biblical text is not questioned. Of the less than 1 percent of the text that is in question, no doctrinal teaching or command is jeopardized. In other words, the copies of the Bible we have today are pure. The Bible has not been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with.

Any unbiased document scholar will agree that the Bible has been remarkably well-preserved over the centuries. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century AD are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century AD. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, scholars were shocked to see how similar they were to other ancient copies of the Old Testament, even though the Dead Sea Scrolls were hundreds of years older than anything previously discovered. Even many hardened skeptics and critics of the Bible admit that the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries far more accurately than any other ancient document.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempt to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the Bible that is put in doubt as a result of the inconsequential differences among the manuscripts.

Again, the question, can we trust the Bible? Absolutely! God has preserved His Word despite the unintentional failings and intentional attacks of human beings. We can have utmost confidence that the Bible we have today is the same Bible that was originally written. The Bible is God’s Word, and we can trust it (2 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 5:18).
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man, which is a reference to Him being the Messiah. What does it mean that Jesus is the Son of Man? | GotQuestions.org
Jesus was the Son of Man, and Baha'u'llah referred to Jesus as then Son of Man in this passage:

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.

We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified

Leprosy may be interpreted as any veil that interveneth between man and the recognition of the Lord, his God. Whoso alloweth himself to be shut out from Him is indeed a leper, who shall not be remembered in the Kingdom of God, the Mighty, the All-Praised. We bear witness that through the power of the Word of God every leper was cleansed, every sickness was healed, every human infirmity was banished. He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86

But Jesus was not the Son of man referred to in Daniel 7:13-14. Dan 7:13-14 says one like the Son of man so we know it is not referring to Jesus, it is referring to Baha’u’llah.

Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Jesus ascended into heaven in the clouds. Baha’u’llah, one like a son of man, descended from the clouds of heaven of the Will of God, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. These verses are about an earthly Kingdom, not a heavenly Kingdom. Jesus’ Kingdom was in heaven, Baha’u’llah’s Kingdom was on earth.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Baha'is do not believe that the Bible has been corrupted, because Baha'u'llah wrote that the Bible has not been corrupted. Addressing the Muslims, Baha’u’llah wrote:

“We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also?” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 89

“Our purpose in relating these things is to warn you that were they to maintain that those verses wherein the signs referred to in the Gospel are mentioned have been perverted, were they to reject them, and cling instead to other verses and traditions, you should know that their words were utter falsehood and sheer calumny. Yea “corruption” of the text, in the sense We have referred to, hath been actually effected in particular instances. A few of these We have mentioned, that it may become manifest to every discerning observer that unto a few untutored holy Men hath been given the mastery of human learning, so that the malevolent opposer may cease to contend that a certain verse doth indicate “corruption” of the text, and insinuate that We, through lack of knowledge, have made mention of such things. Moreover, most of the verses that indicate “corruption” of the text have been revealed with reference to the Jewish people, were ye to explore the isles of Qur’ánic Revelation.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 88-89
The apostles saw Jesus after He resurrected. Multiple people dont hallucinate the same thing.
There is no proof that Jesus was ever resurrected from the dead. Anyone can write a story about multiple witnesses but since there was nobody outside of the story itself to confirm it, it may as well be fiction.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death:

Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible. The story of having been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh seems to have been copied from the story of the death of Osiris -- the Egyptian God of the earth, vegetation and grain. The legend that he visited the underworld between his death and resurrection was simply copied from common Pagan themes of surrounding cultures. One example again was Osiris. "With his original association to agriculture, his death and resurrection were seen as symbolic of the annual death and re-growth of the crops and the yearly flooding of the Nile." 1

They also believe that Paul regarded the resurrection to be an act of God in which Jesus was a passive recipient of God's power. Paul did not mention the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. It was only later, from about 70 to 110 CE when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave in his original body, and by his own power.

Later, perhaps after Paul's death, there was great disappointment within the Christian communities because Jesus had not returned as expected. They diverted their focus of attention away from Jesus' second coming. They studied his life and death more intensely. Legends without a historical basis were created by the early church; these included the empty tomb and described Jesus returning in his original body to eat and talk with his followers.

In previous centuries, almost all Christians believed in miracles as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). These included creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the great flood of Noah, the drying up of the Red/Reed sea, a prophet riding on a talking ***, the sun stopping in the sky, etc. From the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), they believed in the virgin birth, the Christmas star, angels appearing to the shepherds, Jesus healing the sick, etc. Many, perhaps most, liberal Christians now believe that these stories are not to be interpreted literally as real events. Their faith has not been damaged by losing faith in the reality of these events. A growing number of liberals are now taking the final step by interpreting the stories of Jesus' resurrection and his appearances to his followers and to Paul as other than real events. Retired bishop John Shelby Spong commented:

"I do admit that for Christians to enter this subject honestly is to invite great anxiety. It is to walk the razor's edge, to run the risk of cutting the final cord still binding many to the faith of their mothers and fathers. But the price for refusing to enter this consideration is for me even higher. The inability to question reveals that one has no confidence that one's belief system will survive such an inquiry. That is a tacit recognition that on unconscious levels, one's faith has already died. If one seeks to protect God from truth or new insights, then God has surely already died." 3
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Baha'is do not believe that the Bible has been corrupted, because Baha'u'llah wrote that the Bible has not been corrupted. Addressing the Muslims, Baha’u’llah wrote:

“We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also?” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 89

“Our purpose in relating these things is to warn you that were they to maintain that those verses wherein the signs referred to in the Gospel are mentioned have been perverted, were they to reject them, and cling instead to other verses and traditions, you should know that their words were utter falsehood and sheer calumny. Yea “corruption” of the text, in the sense We have referred to, hath been actually effected in particular instances. A few of these We have mentioned, that it may become manifest to every discerning observer that unto a few untutored holy Men hath been given the mastery of human learning, so that the malevolent opposer may cease to contend that a certain verse doth indicate “corruption” of the text, and insinuate that We, through lack of knowledge, have made mention of such things. Moreover, most of the verses that indicate “corruption” of the text have been revealed with reference to the Jewish people, were ye to explore the isles of Qur’ánic Revelation.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 88-89

There is no proof that Jesus was ever resurrected from the dead. Anyone can write a story about multiple witnesses but since there was nobody outside of the story itself to confirm it, it may as well be fiction.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death:

Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible. The story of having been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh seems to have been copied from the story of the death of Osiris -- the Egyptian God of the earth, vegetation and grain. The legend that he visited the underworld between his death and resurrection was simply copied from common Pagan themes of surrounding cultures. One example again was Osiris. "With his original association to agriculture, his death and resurrection were seen as symbolic of the annual death and re-growth of the crops and the yearly flooding of the Nile." 1

They also believe that Paul regarded the resurrection to be an act of God in which Jesus was a passive recipient of God's power. Paul did not mention the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. It was only later, from about 70 to 110 CE when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave in his original body, and by his own power.

Later, perhaps after Paul's death, there was great disappointment within the Christian communities because Jesus had not returned as expected. They diverted their focus of attention away from Jesus' second coming. They studied his life and death more intensely. Legends without a historical basis were created by the early church; these included the empty tomb and described Jesus returning in his original body to eat and talk with his followers.

In previous centuries, almost all Christians believed in miracles as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). These included creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the great flood of Noah, the drying up of the Red/Reed sea, a prophet riding on a talking ***, the sun stopping in the sky, etc. From the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), they believed in the virgin birth, the Christmas star, angels appearing to the shepherds, Jesus healing the sick, etc. Many, perhaps most, liberal Christians now believe that these stories are not to be interpreted literally as real events. Their faith has not been damaged by losing faith in the reality of these events. A growing number of liberals are now taking the final step by interpreting the stories of Jesus' resurrection and his appearances to his followers and to Paul as other than real events. Retired bishop John Shelby Spong commented:

"I do admit that for Christians to enter this subject honestly is to invite great anxiety. It is to walk the razor's edge, to run the risk of cutting the final cord still binding many to the faith of their mothers and fathers. But the price for refusing to enter this consideration is for me even higher. The inability to question reveals that one has no confidence that one's belief system will survive such an inquiry. That is a tacit recognition that on unconscious levels, one's faith has already died. If one seeks to protect God from truth or new insights, then God has surely already died." 3

Quoted from the site ex Muslim. Is the Bible Corrupted?

Is the Bible Corrupted?

September 12, 2013

scripturescroll.jpg



A Muslim may say:

Christians believe in a corrupted scripture. The Quran is the only preserved scripture and the Bible is corrupted.

Do you believe that the Torah, Zabur, Injil (all part of the Bible) and the Quran are all the word of God?

If so, it is a confusing statement to say that God’s previous words (the Bible) were corrupted, while God’s last word (the Quran)-according to Islamic beliefs-were preserved.

In a way, you are saying that some of God’s words could be preserved, while others could be corrupted? (read my article “Is the Quran Preserved?“)

In other words we accuse God of being powerless (unable to protect His previous words) and/or unfair (for not caring to preserve His previous words and letting people be misled while preserving the last word He sent).

We need to choose, is God mighty and just or is He powerless and unfair?

We believe God is mighty and just, and whatever message He sends He is able to protect and preserve. Any tampering with this message is an insult to Him.

We also have to ask ourselves. When did this alleged corruption happen?

Was it before the time of Muhammad?

Well, that is impossible since the Quran refers to Bible as a true scripture in a lot of verses. For example, God says to Muhammad in the Quran regarding the Jews:

But how do they come to you for decision while they have the Torah, in which is the Decision of God? (Quran 5:43)

If the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) were corrupted, then why does the Quran refers to it as an authentic carrier of God’s decision?!

Therefore, we cannot say the Bible was corrupted before the time of Muhammad.

Was it corrupted after Muhammad claimed to be a prophet?

If the Quran accused the people of the book of corrupting their scripture (e.g. Quran 4:46; 5:13; 5:41), it might have been an accusation to a local group but not to the entire Jewish and Christian world. The Jewish and Christian world was thousands of times bigger than the village of Medina in the desert of Arabia where this accusation occurred.

In order for the Jews and the Christians to corrupt their scripture, they would have had to call a universal conference (bring all the leaders of their religion from all the known world at that time, Asia, Europe, and Africa) to meet in one place and decide what to remove. Then they would have had to burn thousands or even hundreds of thousands of books of scripture from all around the world; and then produce thousands of modified books of scripture to be re-distributed back to the entire known world.

This is logistically impossible, even in our current time. It is also morally difficult, because thousands of religious leaders would have had to choose to tamper with their God’s word knowingly. Is it not conceivable that at least a few of the leaders would have rejected such tampering? Furthermore, would not some of these scriptures have escaped these modifications and we would have found them by now?

We are also talking about two adversaries, Jews and Christians. They were not good friends of each other at the time.

If the Jews corrupted the Jewish scripture, then the Christians who believed in it would not be silent. On the other hand, the Jews would not keep quiet if the Christians tampered with the Jewish scripture, as it is their scripture; and they (the Jews) would defiantly find something against the Christians if they (Christians) tampered with the Christian scripture.

Again you would have to get these two adversarial groups together and then get them to agree on changing their own scripture. Do you think there were no believers who considered God’s command?

You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2)

God is good, honest, mighty and just. He would not let His word be tampered with and allow people to be led astray, while He did nothing for 600 years until He sent a new prophet with a new scripture.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
@ CG Didymus

Skywalker said:
The Bible has not been corrupted. Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with? | GotQuestions.org

Question: "Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with?"

Answer:
The books of the Old Testament were written from approximately 1400 BC to 400 BC. The books of the New Testament were written from approximately AD 40 to AD 90. So, anywhere between 3,400 and 1,900 years have passed since a book of the Bible was written. In this time, the original manuscripts have been lost. They very likely no longer exist. Since the time the books of the Bible were originally written, they have been copied again and again by scribes. Copies of copies of copies have been made. In view of this, can we still trust the Bible?

Given what that Christian website above says, there is no reason to think that the Bible/Torah was accurate regarding Isaac being the one who was sacrificed.

"The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet. A striking example is given in the account of the sacrifice which Abraham was called upon to make. The Guardian of the Faith confirms that the record in the Qur'an and the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, namely that it was Ishmael, and not Isaac as stated in the Old Testament, whom Abraham was to sacrifice, is to be upheld. In one of His Tablets 'Abdu'l-Bahá refers to this discrepancy, and explains that, from a spiritual point of view, it is irrelevant which son was involved. The essential part of the story is that Abraham was willing to obey God's command to sacrifice His son. Thus, although the account in the Torah is inaccurate in detail, it is true in substance...."

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments
From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice
 
Top