Jesus... a Man Or a GOD?

[Peace]

Anywho, i think Jesus is dead, like hundreds of other Jewish Martyrs.

Allah says in the Quran: "... And for saying: "We killed the Christ, Jesus, son of Mary, who was and apostle of God"; but they neither killed nor crucified him, though it so appeared to them. Those who disagree in the matter are only lost in doubt. They have no knowledge about it other than conjecture, for surely they did not kill him, but God raised him up, and God is all-mighty and all-wise" 4: 158-159

 

[Peace]

If Jesus is a man, Who is with God when he created the Man??
Genesis 1:26
Who is with God when He said "Let 'Us' create man after 'Our' own image"
Who is He?

God created Man alone with no help because He doesn't need help. How can the Creator of everything, the whole universe need a help?
When God says "Let Us" He means Himself alone. In Arabic language when a person of higher rank speaks he/she says (Nahnu) which means "We" in English, it is the same case in French language "Nous", it is the same when addressing somebody out of respect we say "antim"= you in English and "vous" in French.
If you refer to the Quran either in Arabic or the English or French translation you will find the same thing , Allah speaks of Himself as " We, US".
The same thing with the Bible, English language is not the original language of the Bible, so when it is translated you find (Us, and We) when Allah speaks of Himself.

Peace

Peace

 

[jewscout]

Why on earth would a good Jewish boy believe such nonsense? Tell me, which version of the blood libel do you endorse? Do you also believe the transparent anti-Pharisee propaganda? Even a convert should know enough to recognize an anti-Judaic fabrication. What a shame!

Jesus was a messenger and teacher for G-d who became another Jewish martyr. He simply ticked off the wrong people in the seats of power.

Ok what the duece?!:sarcastic
1)by what little accounts that exist in the historical record is jesus not protrayed as a teacher or rabbi?
2) was not the rift between his followers and the Jewish leaders over bring the message of the One G-d to the Gentiles? Paul hello?!
3) Did he not die on the Cross calling out to G-d? Like a good Jewish leader might?
4) Was the rumors that he was "The King of the Jews" probably not upsetting the Roman leadership enough to execute him to prevent a rebellion in the province?

 

[jewscout]

If Jesus is a man, Who is with God when he created the Man??
Genesis 1:26
Who is with God when He said "Let 'Us' create man after 'Our' own image"
Who is He?

Read the commentary by scholars like Rashi. G-d is speaking to the ministering angels.

 

[Scott1]

And you believe that because of the Church.
And you believe the Church because of he Bible.
And you believe the Bible because of 2 Timothy.
And you believe in 2 Timothy because ...

Yes.
Nope.
Nope.
Nope.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1)by what little accounts that exist in the historical record is jesus not protrayed as a teacher or rabbi?

There is no historical record, only an apologetic record. The ''portrayals' are stories written decades after the fact by non-eyewtnesses in the context of a harsh polemic and increasing hostility toward normative Judaism.

2) was not the rift between his followers and the Jewish leaders over bring the message of the One G-d to the Gentiles? Paul hello?!

No. That was the purported rift between Paul and the Jerusalem sect some two decades later. Luke hello? The 'rift' between the likes of nascent Christianity are reflected in the malediction. For example ...

what about Jewish sources? Is it permissible to pray for the death of another, if the other is your enemy? Those familiar with the traditional prayer book already know that appeals for the destruction of others is part of the weekday liturgy. The twelfth benediction in the weekday Amidah contains the following paragraph: "And for slanderers let there be no hope; and may all wickedness perish in an instant; and may all your enemies be cut down speedily. May you uproot, smash, cast down and humble the wanton sinners - speedily in our own days. Blessed are You, God, Who breaks enemies and humbles wanton sinners." Now you know why our Reform prayer book doesn't literally translate prayers and why that paragraph was edited out of our Reform liturgy long ago. Why? Not because it asks God to destroy our enemies, but because of who those enemies supposedly are.

According to tradition, the benediction had is origin in ancient times and probably first applied to the Egyptians, but later the petition came to refer to those who would deny the authority of the Oral Law, Jewish traitors and apostates who refused to accept the Talmud as binding. In the Middle Ages, the prayer against slanderers underwent various changes because of the unfounded opinion of a Christian censor who considered the prayer to be a malediction against Christians. In the early to mid 1800s in Germany, as the prayer book went through serious Reform, this paragraph was either omitted entirely or seriously edited and of course, is completely absent from our prayer book today. In Conservative and Orthodox siddurim, the paragraph remains and when the translation is supplied it reads, "Let all your enemies soon be destroyed." Whatever the original intent and however later understood and interpreted, clearly for thousands of years, Jews have been praying for the deaths of their enemies.

-see Praying for the Death of Another

3) Did he not die on the Cross calling out to G-d? Like a good Jewish leader might?

No. Even if we assume that some historical Yeshua was, in fact crucified, the storied "calling out to God" is little more Midrashic technique. The NT author wished to suggest that Yeshua was prophesied. He therefore has his character reference the 22nd Psalm as prooftext. Again, it is a story, and there is absolutely no reason to presume its historicity.

4) Was the rumors that he was "The King of the Jews" probably not upsetting the Roman leadership enough to execute him to prevent a rebellion in the province?

How would I know. Given the absense of contemporary extra-biblical evidence, the "rumours" were clearly insufficient to be known by anyone else in the civilized world. Furthermore, if you believe the silly story, the guy was so obscure that the Jewish leadership required a spy to finger him.

I had previously asked you two questions. You responded with four. I've answered yours. Please return the favor.

 

[jewscout]

**thinks.................thinks..............hangs head**
dang
**scurries off to dark corner to bang head against wall**:banghead3

 

[Dadball]

Furthermore, if you believe the silly story, the guy was so obscure that the Jewish leadership required a spy to finger him.

If you believe the story, they were concerned with the masses and uprising.

 

[Davidium]

I give you the words of William Shakespeare.... which sums up my views of the Galilean mystic quite nicely....

"He was a man, all in all. I shall not look upon his like again."

Reason and Respect in all you say and do,

David Pyle

 

[croak]

3) Did he not die on the Cross calling out to G-d? Like a good Jewish leader might?

Maybe, but he said why have you forsaken me? Allah never forsakes anyone. So, this is something that must have been added.

 

[HelpMe]

Yes HaShem is another name for G-d, it means "The Name" in hebrew and is a less formal way of saying His name. It is one of many names for G-d in Judaism.

well since you as a jew, and i as well as any scholar of the ot, know that 'god'('allah' or 'elohim' in other languages) is a mere title and not a name since they are scripturally applied to individueals other than our heavenly father.why don't you pronounce the whole title?you're already completely avoiding using the name(unscriptural), but now you're avoiding the substitute title, and sorry to say but that is a ridiculous superstition.

 

[jewscout]

well since you as a jew, and i as well as any scholar of the ot, know that 'god'('allah' or 'elohim' in other languages) is a mere title and not a name since they are scripturally applied to individueals other than our heavenly father.why don't you pronounce the whole title?you're already completely avoiding using the name(unscriptural), but now you're avoiding the substitute title, and sorry to say but that is a rediculous suerstition.

you mean a ridiculous superstition?

You may think it is and that's your opinion. The true name of G-d has been lost after the destruction of the Second Temple ( i think it was the second temple i can't remember someone double check for me thanx!). I'm just doing it out of respect and my attempt to be observant.
JS

 

[HelpMe]

thanks, and thanks for acknowledging the title is being given homage not the name.

 

[Ronald]

Hashem/the name was spoken when the Kohen ha Gadol went into the Holy Place one time a year.
The Tetragrammaton--- Y__H __V__H ---- is too sacred to be spoken routinely. The admonition to not take the NAME in vain is at work here. And there has been no Holy Place for about 1,934 years!

 

[linwood]

Dadball,
Your sources are incorrect or blatently decieving.
Most likely the latter.

The Josephus quote you posted is recognised by most if not all theologians as a Christian forgery.
It appears no where in Josephus early copies.
It did not exist in the first and second centuries.
It does not appear until AD 320 in The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius.
A notoriously deceptive Christian historian who said in his his Praeparatio Evangelica...
"I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to disgrace, of our religion."
His own writing states he is a liar.

In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it states that there is no mention of Jesus in all of Josephus volumes of writing.

In all of Josephus` writing he has the point of view of an orthadox Jew.
An orthadox Jew would not write of Jesus as the Messiah nor mention miracles of his nor his resurrection.

The quote is a lie, and your "good research" is flawed and biased apologetics.

In Rome, in the year 93, Josephus published his lengthy history of the Jews. While discussing the period in which the Jews of Judaea were governed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, Josephus included the following account:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. - Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)
Though it is commonly believe that this text add to after it was written, there is some good research as to credit or discredit this passage.
http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm and http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Josephus quote you posted is recognised by most if not all theologians as a Christian forgery.

This is correct.

It appears no where in Josephus early copies.

This, however, is not. I know of no "early copies" missing the TF.

 

[linwood]

This, however, is not. I know of no "early copies" missing the TF.

My apologies.
I should have said does not appear "In This Form" in earlier copies.

I have an Arabic translation here somewhere with much different content.
I`ll have a look for it tomorrow, you can tell me what you think of it.

Considering those who have used this form were Christian apologetics of a most notorious sort publishing in the 3rd century it isn`t objectable to hold doubts about their intentions.
(Jerome & Eusebius)

http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/3094_3379.pdf

 

[Peace]

well since you as a jew, and i as well as any scholar of the ot, know that 'god'('allah' or 'elohim' in other languages) is a mere title and not a name since they are scripturally applied to individueals other than our heavenly father.

HelpMe, as I already said Allah is the name of God and not a title. It is one of the names that God has. By the way, there is no heavenly father or whatever... God is One and only one, there is no Associate with Him. God is so Mighty that doens't need an associate. He is God the one the most unique, He has begotten no one, and is begotten of none.

God says: "We have not created the heavens and the earth, and all that lies between them, out of fun. If We had pleased to make a plaything We could have made it Ourself, if We had cared to do so. If fact We strike the truth against the false, which shatters it, and it diappears. Woe to you for what you attribute (to Him)! Whosoever is in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him; and those who are near Him do not disdain to worship Him or weary (of His service), Nor cease to endeavour praising Him night and day. Or have they taken gods from the earth who can raise the dead? Had there been gods apart from God, both (the heavens and the earth) would have been despoiled. Much too glorious is God, the Lord of the mighty throne, for things they assert! He cannot be questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned. Have they taken gods besides God? Say: "Then bring your proof. Here is the Book of those who are with me, and the Book of those who have gone before me." But most men do not know the truth and turn away. We have not sent an apostle before you without instructing him that there is no god but I, so worship Me. And yet they say: "God has begotten a son." Too exalted is He! In fact, those (they call His sons) were His honoured votaries. They did not preceed Him in their speech, and acted on His command" The Quran 21:17-28

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My apologies.
I should have said does not appear "In This Form" in earlier copies.

I have an Arabic translation here somewhere with much different content.
I`ll have a look for it tomorrow, you can tell me what you think of it.

The Arabic translation is, as far as anyone can tell, a late translation. What precisely is the form of your 'earlier copies'?

 

[linwood]

The Arabic translation is, as far as anyone can tell, a late translation. What precisely is the form of your 'earlier copies'?

We both know there are no surviving copies earlier than Eusebius.

The fact that Origen never mentioned the passage 8-10 decades earlier and in fact stated that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the messiah even after he cited Josephus`s account of Jesus`s brother.

The fact that other Christian historians/bishops/theologens never mention the passage even though they were well versed in the writings of Josephus makes the passage extremly questionable.

Is the lack of evidence evidence?
No..it is not but when the lack of evidence is this heavy, it`s enough for me.

Unless you have some other info?

However the later arabic translation should not be discarded merely because of it`s age.
The source of the translation would be a factor before doing so.
I`m looking for the source now, if you have one I`d be interested.