• 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!

Clarifications on Christianity

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
As you said, and I would agree with you, that the majority of the people wouldn't believe Mary.

Even Joseph didn't believe it until the angel Gabriel came and set his mind straight, and he was her wife.

However, I like the Berean church when it was said, "and (they) searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
Acts 17:11 KJV

Why would people believe? That probably isn't as hard as one might think. I'm sure Mary shared the history and, combined with the miracles that Jesus did and all of the fulfilled prophecies, it was just a matter of studying, witnessing, and verifying the specifics and then trusting that it was so. He was born in Bethlehem, check; he came out of Egypt,check; he lineage was from David; check; Of course, I could go on.

Apparently they did believe since it was written as historical record.

But other than what is written, we have no other statements.



I'm not sure what you are addressing here I think. (my apologies) -

but to take a stab at it -- there isn't nor, apparently, was it purposed to deal with this issue in a specific chapter or book detailing all the nuances to a very specific event. Not to mention, if it was just that one point, then anyone could claim they had a virgin birth. It did start In Genesis 3:15 specifically calling him of the seed of a woman but then God continues to narrow the "who" again and again with other requirements until it would be impossible for it to be fulfilled unless God was involved.


OK. I didn't mean it is such a broad sense but rather just understanding the issue that we spoke of. But, for us, God wants a personal relationship with us even as He had a personal relationship with Adam and Eve. We will never fully understand God, He is infinite. But every day can be a new revelation of God.

Worshipping God is an important aspect of our lives.

Sounds like you believe in a literal Adam and Eve, in my book that would put you whole chain of reasoning. In doubt...
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
I think you are incorrect!
If you do some research you will see that two different spellings are used for "Father" and "Word". The two different spellings clearly do not mean the same!
The Greek word "Theos (θεός)" is used in once instance and the Greek word "Theon (θεόν)" is used with "τον • (ton) in front of it - which clearly implies a weaker form or just a god or a godly person!
There is this huge online propaganda campaign out there trying to put a spin on the meanings of theses words - so I am surprised you said the same word (Theos) is used for both Father and Word!

Furthermore, "the word was with God" - implies two separate entity. One was with the other!

By the way - in one of my earlier post I already pointed out how and why Jesus could have said he was there earlier with Abraham, Moses etc. I believe we all have a history in our soul form and we all were there with God and rest of the prophets. Not just Jesus alone! God erased our memory of that existence to give us a fresh and fair attempt at redemption but God allowed Jesus to remember that existence IMO. So he spoke in that manner where it seemed like he was there in the "beginning"! A beginning that is prior to our physical form!

[Luke 5:16] & [Matthew 14:23] shows that Jesus prayed to God. It is illogical to believe that a God would go up the mountain routinely to pray to himself. Why would a God pray to himself?
John 1:1 Greek Text Analysis

Actually "pros ton Theon" means "with (the) God". (ton = definite article, ton Theon = Accusative of ho Theos).

θεός - Wiktionary

In the next part we have "Theos en ho Logos". It means "The Word was God." Here Theos is without definite article (only Logos is with "ho") because the sentence tells us something about Logos - that God is it's nature.

https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/does-john-1-1-mean-the-word-was-a-god/

Regarding Jesus praying. Theology would explain it this way: one person is praying to another - Father and Son are not the same but they are both God (both are the same essence - "homoousios").
 
John 1:1 Greek Text Analysis

Actually "pros ton Theon" means "with (the) God". (ton = definite article, ton Theon = Accusative of ho Theos).

θεός - Wiktionary

In the next part we have "Theos en ho Logos". It means "The Word was God." Here Theos is without definite article (only Logos is with "ho") because the sentence tells us something about Logos - that God is it's nature.

https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/does-john-1-1-mean-the-word-was-a-god/

Regarding Jesus praying. Theology would explain it this way: one person is praying to another - Father and Son are not the same but they are both God (both are the same essence - "homoousios").

Jesus never spoke Greek. So when some anonymous writer decided to write about Jesus in ancient Greek language decades after Jesus was gone - it is fair to say that the message already got distorted by that initial translation and then when you retranslate that into English then the verses went through more misrepresentations. There is no way to retain the original message in that way. Other than unintentional misapprehension due to limitations that exists in different language to express something - intentional distortions also took place and even OT warns about that...

[Jeremiah 8:8]

That is why one should use common sense before adopting any particular meaning of a verse IMO.

First of all - two different spelling is used in the original text [John 1:1] for the word "God". So why both have capital G in front of them? One is supposed to be "God" and the other "god" or "godly person". Furthermore - the original Greek text didn't have a definite article in front of god in the last part of that verse. Question is why not? So, this is how the confusion starts! One can say the "word" was "a god" and one can say the "word" was "the god"!

Anyhow - what about the "word" was with "God"? How one was with one and both still same one god and not two gods? At the least it should imply them as two gods.

Homoousios or Homoiousios?
Same substance or similar substance?
All organisms are from carbon-based molecules yet there are not one organism!
A child is born from the same substance from mother and father but it doesn't mean child is mother or father! The child is another entity. An independent existence! So it is a flawed concept. In my opinion it is just a desperate attempt to keep the monotheistic concept alive so that it doesn't conflict with OT's main teachings.

[Isaiah 45:5] I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me.

Since it is impossible to understand the original author's mind frame and know his background and his true intentions and the fact that it seems he is on a slightly different track from the other writers - the intended meaning of [John 1:1] in my opinion could easily be as follows....
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god. In other words - just a godly person! That's is what Jesus really was IMO.
 

Praise Jah

Psalm 83:18
I would agree with most of what you said, except that Jesus is merely a prophet of God. If Jesus was truly a son of God, he would actually be worthy of worship, but Jesus never asked anyone to worship him. (Quran 43:81 Surah Az-Zukhruf - 81)
Many prophets in the bible are called Son of God, but that's never meant in a literal sense.
Jehovah God himself identified Jesus as his Son. Jehovah always tells the truth. Jehovah cannot lie. (Matthew 3:17) (Luke 9:35) (Titus 1:2)

The Bible teaches that Jehovah is Almighty God and the Creator of all things. As such, Jehovah is the only one to be worshipped. (Isaiah 42:8) (Revelation 4:11)

Jesus worshipped his God and Father, Jehovah. Jesus never taught that he himself be worshipped. Instead, Jesus taught that only Jehovah God was to be worshipped. Jesus knew that Jehovah is the only true God, the Almighty, the Creator. (John 20:17) (Luke 4:8) (Isaiah 45:18)
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
My view is that Mary either had an affair with or was raped by Julius Pantera. There are indications of this in non christian documents.

It is actually not "non-christian documents". If you are referring to the Talmud, then its true. But if you are referring to the Greek sources, there are none. It is only assumed so because Origen wrote about it. Which means you are directly putting your faith in Christian sources and Jewish sources.

So in fact, both of these documents are far away from the time of Jesus. Origen is a third party who quoted Celsus who lived in the 2nd century. If we assume or guess that Jesus Ben Panthera is the same Jesus mentioned in the New Testament, it is still to far away from him to make it your primary historical document. Miryam and Jesus were such common names. It could very well be referring to Jesus Barabbas because we are guessing. But it could be referring to Jesus, the brother of James, son of Mary, the Nazarene. No worries. Authenticity, you should question without putting your faith in it so easily.

Peace.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
In the next part we have "Theos en ho Logos". It means "The Word was God." Here Theos is without definite article (only Logos is with "ho") because the sentence tells us something about Logos - that God is it's nature.

How did you assume theos means God? Without Ho or Ton, how does theos mean "God"? It does not mean "God is the nature of Logos". It means "Divine is the nature of Logos".
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
Jesus never spoke Greek. So when some anonymous writer decided to write about Jesus in ancient Greek language decades after Jesus was gone - it is fair to say that the message already got distorted by that initial translation and then when you retranslate that into English then the verses went through more misrepresentations. There is no way to retain the original message in that way. Other than unintentional misapprehension due to limitations that exists in different language to express something - intentional distortions also took place and even OT warns about that...

[Jeremiah 8:8]

That is why one should use common sense before adopting any particular meaning of a verse IMO.

First of all - two different spelling is used in the original text [John 1:1] for the word "God". So why both have capital G in front of them? One is supposed to be "God" and the other "god" or "godly person". Furthermore - the original Greek text didn't have a definite article in front of god in the last part of that verse. Question is why not? So, this is how the confusion starts! One can say the "word" was "a god" and one can say the "word" was "the god"!

Anyhow - what about the "word" was with "God"? How one was with one and both still same one god and not two gods? At the least it should imply them as two gods.

Homoousios or Homoiousios?
Same substance or similar substance?
All organisms are from carbon-based molecules yet there are not one organism!
A child is born from the same substance from mother and father but it doesn't mean child is mother or father! The child is another entity. An independent existence! So it is a flawed concept. In my opinion it is just a desperate attempt to keep the monotheistic concept alive so that it doesn't conflict with OT's main teachings.

[Isaiah 45:5] I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me.

Since it is impossible to understand the original author's mind frame and know his background and his true intentions and the fact that it seems he is on a slightly different track from the other writers - the intended meaning of [John 1:1] in my opinion could easily be as follows....
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god. In other words - just a godly person! That's is what Jesus really was IMO.
Agree. I just wanted to show how Trinitarian theology interprets it. More detailed explanations and arguments are in the links I provided.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
I would disagree, If we can't rely on miracles and signs, then it becomes impossible to distinguish the truth from falsehood. Why would God give prophets signs at all then? Pharoah's magicians were able to falsely imitate Moses's miracles through black magic, but God prevailed the true miracle and dispelled their magic, so all the magicians immediately believed in God, because they saw the true miracle. If Jesus is a prophet, as we Muslims believe, then his birth is part of his miracles and you do not need to reject that idea.
Miracles don’t prove fact. Only the facts do. Liars can do neat stuff too.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I’m honestly not a fan of rehiring someone who doesn’t do the job right the first time.
Every masterpiece takes time... when he comes back to reign, it will still be "the first time" - just the back end of the first time... finishing touches, so to speak.

He always finished the job :)
22 And he cometh toBethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him totouch him.
23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
24 And he looked up, and said*, I see men as* trees, walking.
25 After that he put his hands again uponhis eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
There is considerable circumstantial evidence for my belief, there is NONE that god did it

You are welcome to your belief.

I believe there is no evidence of any sort for your belief and there is that God did it. I care about you so I do not wish for you to be in langour when you have the ability to be rational and come to the truth.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I believe there is no evidence of any sort for your belief and there is that God did it. I care about you so I do not wish for you to be in langour when you have the ability to be rational and come to the truth.

download (17).jpeg

The tombstone of Jesus's dad as mentioned by Celsius and in the Talmud. Evidence enough for me
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
1. But before he grew up and proved himself through miracles, what made convinced she had a miracle child? See my post above clarifying the intention of my question.

Mary knew that Jesus was special because of all the things that had happened to her. Angel Gabriel, virgin birth, what Elizabeth and the holy people at the Temple said about the child Jesus and the wise men from the east who gave them gifts and the wisdom of Jesus at the temple when He spoke to the teachers when He was 12 years old.

2. What gave the Church the right to "clarify" who Jesus was, and how can you know that clarification was the truth?

The true church with the teachings and scriptures that had been passed down had to clarify the teachings because of heresies that were coming into the church more strongly. We have the same scriptures and can see they were correct in saying that Jesus is the Son of God sent from God to die for the salvation the world.

3. Why would you say Islam is confused about Jesus? It is very clear to us who Jesus PBUH was and what his message was, which is consistent with the messages of all the prophets before him and after him.

Islam says Jesus is not God's Son even though God was the Father of Jesus through Mary and the Messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures is the Son of God.
Islam says that Jesus did not die on the cross when history tells us that is what happened.
Islam honours Jesus as man, a prophet but ignores the Hebrew and Christian scriptures which tell of the Messiah being a man but the Son of God who was sent for the purpose of dying for sin and to end the Mosaic Covenant and bring in a new one that will last for ever through His death and subsequent resurrection, as the Hebrew scriptures prophesied.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
This is not true. There is nothing in the Tanakh (OT) indicating the messiah is "the son of God" and certainly not the "only begotten" son of God.

This looks like the Messiah to me and I think Rabbis in the past have agreed.
It certainly goes way past the pay grade for King David or any other King of Israel.

Psalm 2: 6 “As for me, I have set my King

on Zion, my holy hill.”

7 I will tell of the decree:

The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;

today I have begotten you.

8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,

the ends of the earth your possession.

9 You shall break them with a rod of iron

and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise;

be warned, O rulers of the earth.

11 Serve the Lord with fear,

and rejoice with trembling.

12 Kiss the Son,

lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,

for his wrath is quickly kindled.

Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
This looks like the Messiah to me and I think Rabbis in the past have agreed.
It certainly goes way past the pay grade for King David or any other King of Israel.

Psalm 2: 6 “As for me, I have set my King

on Zion, my holy hill.”

7 I will tell of the decree:

The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;

today I have begotten you.

8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,

the ends of the earth your possession.

9 You shall break them with a rod of iron

and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise;

be warned, O rulers of the earth.

11 Serve the Lord with fear,

and rejoice with trembling.

12 Kiss the Son,

lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,

for his wrath is quickly kindled.

Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
This psalm is about David, not the messiah.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
This psalm is about David, not the messiah.

I thought you might say that, but as I say, it is about more than David however and that can be see by what it says, just as Isa 9:6 is about more that Hezekiah and that can be seen from what it says. David and other Kings of Judah and Israel are a type of the Messiah, especially David, and that is why it is said that David will rule over everyone in the age to come and why it is said that David was rejected by the Jews and killed.
Israel also is called the son of God and His firstborn, and it also is a type of the Messiah and is where the Messiah came from, as an Israelite. He is the one who brings Jacob back and is a light for the world and salvation for the gentiles.
But you're a Jew and so I don't expect you to see these things when you have been taught Jesus is a phony and did not rise from the dead.

Ezek 37:23................ Then they will be My people, and I will be their God. 24My servant David will be king over them, and there will be one shepherd for all of them. They will follow My ordinances and keep and observe My statutes. 25They will live in the land that I gave to My servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They will live there forever with their children and grandchildren, and My servant David will be their prince forever.…

Ps 89:.........But you have rejected, you have spurned,
you have been very angry with your anointed one.
39 You have renounced the covenant with your servant
and have defiled his crown in the dust.
40 You have broken through all his walls
and reduced his strongholds to ruins.
41 All who pass by have plundered him;
he has become the scorn of his neighbors.
42 You have exalted the right hand of his foes;
you have made all his enemies rejoice.
43 Indeed, you have turned back the edge of his sword
and have not supported him in battle.
44 You have put an end to his splendor
and cast his throne to the ground.
45 You have cut short the days of his youth;
you have covered him with a mantle of shame.

Isa 49:1Listen to me, you islands;
hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the Lord called me;
from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.
2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,
in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me into a polished arrow
and concealed me in his quiver.
3 He said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”
4 But I said, “I have labored in vain;
I have spent my strength for nothing at all.
Yet what is due me is in the Lord’s hand,
and my reward is with my God.”

5 And now the Lord says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord
and my God has been my strength—
6 he says:
“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”
7 This is what the Lord says—
the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel—
to him who was despised and abhorred by the nation,
to the servant of rulers:
“Kings will see you and stand up,
princes will see and bow down,
because of the Lord, who is faithful,
the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.”
8 This is what the Lord says:
“In the time of my favor I will answer you,
and in the day of salvation I will help you;
I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people,
to restore the land
and to reassign its desolate inheritances,
9 to say to the captives, ‘Come out,’
and to those in darkness, ‘Be free!’
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I thought you might say that, but as I say, it is about more than David however and that can be see by what it says, just as Isa 9:6 is about more that Hezekiah and that can be seen from what it says.
It bugs me when Christians do this, and it bugs me more when they realize they are doing it, but do it anyhow. Seeing "something more" in the text than what is plainly there is a big like seeing bunny rabbits and castles in the clouds.
 
Top