• 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!

Proof Jesus Wasn't God

SB Habakuk

Active Member
Do you Islam think that Christianity is in need of you- To proof the reality of Christ- your assertions are laughable-
Or your books- Every thing written down was first in the mind of Man- so which is greater The Mind of Man or the Word-
For every man is defiled by what proceeds out of his mouth

Finally let me discredit this thread as not only foolish - (Not- anti Christian) for nowhere in Christian thought does it say that Christ is a GOD-

He Is more than A GOd For he is unbegotten, and there is no other who begot him, nor another who created him. For whoever is someone's father or his creator, he, too, has a father and creator. It is certainly possible for him to be father and creator of the one who came into being from him and the one whom he created, for he is not a father in the proper sense, nor a god, because he has someone who begot him and who created him. It is, then, only the Father and God in the proper sense that no one else begot. As for the Totalities, he is the one who begot them and created them. He is without beginning and without end.
 

may

Well-Known Member
ApologeticsCatholic said:
in scripture , god and jesus as one being

"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)
"He who has seen Me has seen the Father." (John 14:9)
"He who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me." (John 12:4

the new testiment Gospels mentions god and Jesus as one throut all of it
Jehovah God and his only-begotten son are in unity of thought and purpose , they are one in unity of purpose............. not one and the same ,it does not mean they are the same thing, they are one because they have the same way of doing things, they are in unity of purpose. and the reason Jesus said .....he who has seen me has seen the father also, is because Jesus was taught by his father Jehovah, and what Jesus did was just how Jehovah would have done it , so listening and copying Jesus is the way to go because he acts like his father Jehovah . but that does not make him Jehovah , but he had a good teacher , looking to Jesus is the way to go .
 
@ may

Obvious twisted words with your own meaning , you belive in the Ot and the Ot prophecy speaks of emmanuel "GOD AMONG US" and you continue to belive that jesus was not god in one sence saying that only part of the OT is true. Jesus is the fufillment of the OT. If you believe in scripture at all you should believe we where promised a messiah.


Qoute from myself from another post

"Let US make man in OUR image": Three plural pronouns, (We, Us, Our) used 6 different times in four different passages: Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8. The unanimous opinion of the apostolic Fathers was that the Father was talking to Jesus.

"Then Yahweh [on earth in human form] rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh [in spirit form in heaven] out of heaven. Genesis 19:24. In this text Abraham is visited by three individuals, one being Yahweh and the other two angels. Here we have God on the earth (Jesus) and God in heaven (father) sending down fire from heaven. This incident when Abraham met with Yahweh God, is what Jesus referred to when he said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." (John 8:56) The unanimous opinion of the apostolic Fathers was that Jesus visited Abraham in Genesis 18 and 19.

Isaiah saw the glory of Yahweh, but John says that Isaiah really saw the glory of Christ. This proves Jesus is Yahweh. Combine this with the fact the Yahweh said, "Who will go for US" is a plural pronoun indicating more than one person in the Godhead.

Jesus echoes the "I AM" statements in Isaiah chapters 40-55. This spectacular link explores over 20 different passages in Isaiah and John.

I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. "They will say of Me, 'Only in the Lord are righteousness and strength.' Men will come to Him, And all who were angry at Him shall be put to shame.

But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity

But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

Shema Israel YHWH elohanu YHWH echad --- Why in deut 6:4 would we hear that Yawwh is "one" unless there was some signifiagance? like Trinity.

I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. (John 17:11)

I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: (John 17:22)

For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple.


"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. … Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?"

A simple reading of the context of John 12 makes it clear that John is saying that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus Christ himself in Isaiah 6. This proves Jesus is Yahweh.

The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God."


For it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall give praise to God."

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all


"Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

And there shall no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His bond-servants shall [latreuo] serve Him."

He doesnt use the word or term Tri-Une or Trinity but god is easily 3 entity's in One god. How many times does he refer himself as One as We , us , our? why would he and why would Jesus claim to be one with God
 
Who do you say I am? [Matt 16:15]

And Jesus said, "if you do not believe that I AM, you will indeed die in your sins." [John 8:24--Greek]. This "I AM" is none other than God Almighty who appeared to Moses in the flames of the burning bush.

seeing as JW love revelation.

Revelation

Revelation 1:8; "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God , "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

"the Lord God"

Who is the Alpha and the Omega?"

Revelation 21:6-7 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End....and I will be his God."

Who is the beginning and the end?

Revelation 22:12-13 "Behold, I am coming soon!...I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

In this verse we already see that this Alpha/Omega; First/Last; Beginning/End is coming soon. Verse 16 says, "I, Jesus..."

who is the First and the Last?

Revelation 1:17-18

"Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last [now who is this First/Last?--Jehovah God?] I am the Living One; I WAS DEAD, AND BEHOLD I AM ALIVE FOR EVER AND EVER!.

"When did Jehovah God die?"

Case Closed! See you next year!
 

may

Well-Known Member
ApologeticsCatholic said:
@ may

Obvious twisted words with your own meaning , you belive in the Ot and the Ot prophecy speaks of emmanuel "GOD AMONG US" and you continue to belive that jesus was not god in one sence saying that only part of the OT is true. Jesus is the fufillment of the OT. If you believe in scripture at all you should believe we where promised a messiah.

l
i believe in the whole of the bible , and it harmonizes throughout.
That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,​
You alone are the Most High over all the earth.PSALM 83;18
"For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. john 3;16 yes Jesus is Gods son , and Jesus had a pre-human life in the heavens with his father Jehovah before Jesus came to the earth ,and when Jehovah said ...let us make man .........he was talking to his only- begotten son . Jesus lived in heaven before he came to earth . yes the whole of the bible harmonizes throughout.
 

Islam

Member
Apologetic Catholic..
We and Us and Our is a plural of respect in the semetic languages, in Hebrew and in Arabic. It does not mean or hint at the trinity. Ask any Jewish person.

As for In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
This was plaigarised by John. It was written by a Greek philosopher long before John whos name was Philo.

As for you quoting the book of Revelation, this only proves your blind faith. The book of revelation was nothing but a dream John had. In the book you read aot creatures with eyes on the inside and eyes on the outside and many unrealistic things. Sometimes you have a little too much to eat and this happens.
 
as for me reffering to May and JW in general the Book of revelation in the Catholic faith is that of a dream as well but as defense to a fundementalists which takes the bible litteral it makes for a great Offense and Defense, especially considering the JW love the book of revelation in its own sence becomes a great target Point, and all faith is Blind if it isnt then it isnt faith , Get a clue!

اننا نحن واحد

We are one! the bble is very clear and if you take your time and research meanings and definitions in general or in a dead language or language similiar you will seem they mean the same thing, stop creating your own meanings.
 

Islam

Member
God tells us in the Holly Quran:

And woe to those who
write the book with their
own hands

And then say:
This is from Allah

To traffic with it for
a miserable price!

So woe to them for
what their hands do write,

And woe to them for
what they earn thereby!

(Holly Quran, 2:79)

This is what has hapened with the Bible for hundreds of years. Proof? Its contradictions, unscientific facts, its erotic stories, etc.

You see, God makes it very simple for all those who say jesus was God in the bible in the following verse:
005.075

Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food.

So? everyone eats food! The QUran is telling you that if you eat you have a call of nature you have to go to the bathroom and if you cant you go behind the bushes and this is not a quality of God, anyone who goes to the bathroom isnt worthy of worship. Dont you see what you are attributing to God?!
The verse continues:

See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!!
 
No offense but there is a notable lack of critical scholarship on the Quran.Major questions still needing answers include:
  1. How did the Quran come to us? [issues of compilation and transmission]
  2. When was it written and who wrote it?
  3. What are the sources of the Quran? [the origin of stories, legends, and principles]
  4. What is the Quran? [How do we determine authenticity?
The traditional account claims that the Koran was revealed to Muhammad, written down in bits, and not collated before Muhammad's death

Abu Bakr was caliph from 632-634. There are several incompatible traditions describing a collation during his reign.
  1. 'Umar was worried that bits of the Koran would be lost after many Muslims were killed at the Battle of Yamama. Therefore he commissioned Zaid ibn Thabit to collect the Koran and write it down?
  2. Or was it Abu Bakr's idea? Or maybe 'Ali's?
  3. There are several other difficulties: Could this have been accomplished in only two years? The Muslims were fighting the Battle of Yamama (in Central Asia), why had these new converts memorised the Koran but the Arab converts had not? Why was this collation not an official codex but rather the private property of Hafsa?
It sounds like these traditions were invented to credit the popular Abu Bakr and (more significantly) to debit the much maligned 'Uthman.

'Uthman was caliph from 644-656. He was asked for an official codex by one of his generals because the troops were fighting over which reading of the Koran was correct. Zaid was once again commissioned, with the help of three others. But…
  1. The Arabic of the Koran was not a dialect.
  2. There are variations between the number and names of the people working with Zaid. (One version lists somebody already dead at that time!)
  3. In these stories there is no mention of Zaid's involvement in an earlier rescension.
Most scholars assume that the 'Uthmanic rescension is correct and the Abu Bakr rescension is fictitious, but they have no valid reasons for preferring it over the latter, as the same reasons for dismissing the Abu Bakr story (biased, unreliable, late sources, attempts to credit the collector etc…) can be applied to the 'Uthman story as well.
One major (and often un-addressed) question is – how much can we rely upon the memories of the early Muslims? Can we assume that they not only remembered everything perfectly, but that they heard and understood Muhammad perfectly in the first place?

Modern Muslims assert that the current Koran is identical to that recited by Muhammad. But earlier Muslims were more flexible. 'Uthman, A'isha, and Ibn Ka'b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost.
Codices were made by different scholars (e.g. Ibn Mas'ud, Ubai ibn Ka'b, 'Ali, Abu Bakr, al-Aswad). 'Uthman's codex supposedly standardised the consonantal text, yet consonantal variations persisted into the 4th century AH. An unpointed and unvowelled script contributed to the problem. Also, although 'Uthman tried to destroy rival codices variant readings survived. Standardisation was not actually achieved until the 10th century under the influence of Ibn Mujahid. Even he admitted 14 versions of the Koran. These are not merely differences in recitation; they are actual written variations.
Also, if some verses were omitted, why couldn't some have been added? For example, the Kharajites considered the Joseph story to be an interpolation, and most scholars suggest the addition of scribal glosses designed to explain the text or smooth out rhyme.

Muhammad died in 632. The earliest written material of his life is the sira of Ibn Ishaq (750), but Ibn Ishaq's work was lost. We only have parts of it available in quotation by Ibn Hisham (834). The hadith are even later. There are six authoritative collections of hadith: Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Maja, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nisai. All are dated between 200 and 300 years after Muhammad.
Scholars have attempted to distinguish which hadith contain real information from those containing legendary, theological or political embellishment. Wellhausen insists that the 8th century version (i.e. Ibn Ishaq) was accurate, and later versions were deliberate fictions designed to alter the 8th century story. Caetani and Cammens suggest that most sira were invented to construct an 'ideal' past and a justification for contemporary exaggerated exegesis of the Koran. Most scholars conclude that the stories about Muhammad prior to becoming a prophet are fictitious. In his important critique of the hadith Goldhizer argues that many hadith accepted even by the most rigorous collectors were 8th and 9th century forgeries with fictitious isnads. These hadith arose out of quarrels between the 'Umayyads and their opponents – both sides freely inventing hadith to support their respective positions. The manufacture of hadith speeded up under the 'Abbasids who were vying with the 'Alids for primacy. Even Muslims acknowledged a vast number of forgeries [~90% of hadith were discarded], but even so the collectors were not as rigorous as could be hoped. Even in the 10th century over 200 forgeries were identified in Bukhari. At one point 12 different versions of his work existed.
 
In his study of the hadith Schacht concludes:
  1. Isnads only began to be widely used after the 'Abbasid revolution, and then they were formulated carelessly.
  2. The better an isnad looks the more likely it was to be spurious
  3. No existing hadith can reliably be ascribed to Muhammad
  4. Most of the classical corpus was widely disseminated after Shafi'i (820) and most of he legal tradition was formulated in the 9th century.
His methodology includes looking at legal decisions – if they didn't refer to a crucial tradition it's because the tradition wasn't there. He argues that traditions were created in response to 9th century conditions and then redacted back several centuries. Islam cannot be traced accurately back before the 8th century.
Wansbrough argues that the Koran and the hadith developed out of sectarian controversies and were projected back to the time of Muhammad. Islamic law developed after contact with Rabbinic Judaism outside the Hijaz. Muhammad is portrayed as a Mosaic-type prophet, but the religion was Arabised – Arabic prophet, Arabic Holy language, Arabic scripture. At the same time as the formation of this Arabic religion we see the beginning of interest in pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, further suggestive of a rise in Arab nationalism. Negative evidence further supports a late date for the creation of the Koran. There is no record of the Koran being used in legal decisions before the 9th century, and the Fiqh Akbar I (a sort of Muslim creed drafted in the mid-8th century to represent orthodox views) contains no reference to the Koran.
Cook, Crone, and Hinds argue that Islam developed as an attempt to find a common identity among peoples united in conquests that began when the Arabs joined Messianic Judaism in an attempt to retake the Promised Land. Looking at non-Muslim all we can say is that Muhammad lived, was a merchant and taught about Abraham. But other than that non-Muslim sources do not confirm the traditional Islamic account. We have no reason to think that he lived in central Arabia (much less Mecca), or that he taught about the Koran. The Koran first appears late in the 7th century, and the first inscriptions with Koranic material (e.g. on coins and the Dome of the Rock) show trivial divergence from the canonical text. The earliest Greek sources say that Muhammad was alive in 634 (Muslim sources say he died in 632). In the 660's the Armenian chronicler describes the community of Jews and Arabs, but Muslims say that the Arabs split with the Jews during Muhammad's lifetime. The Armenian also describes Palestine as the focal point of the Ishmaelite (i.e. Arab) activity, though Muslims say this focus switched to Mecca in AH 2.

The result of their research is described in Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (1977). The major thesis of this work is that Muhammad preached a message of Jewish Messianism and became involved in a joint attempt by Jews and Arabs, citing common Abrahamic decent, to reconquer Palestine. Therefore the earliest non-Muslim sources report strong anti-Christian sentiment. But, eventually the Arabs quarrelled with the Jews in Palestine and needed to establish a separate religious identity. They were inhibited by lack of an indigenous religious structure, so they borrowed heavily from the Samaritans. For example, note the similar emphasis on the unity of God, the fatiha resembles a Samaritan prayer, the Koran only seems to know of the Torah or the Psalms (the Samaritans do not recognise the rest of the Hebrew scriptures), the importance of Moses, and the similarities between the Samaritan view of the Messiah and the Muslim concept of the Mahdi.

Samaritan structure with Muslim parallels

Prophet
Major event
Scripture
Holy Mountain
Sanctuary near Mountain

Samaritan
Moses
Exodus
Pentateuch
Mt. Sinai/ Gerizim
Shechem

Muslim
Muhammad
Hijra
Koran
Mt. Hira
Mecca

Slaves on Horses: The Evolution of the Islamic Polity argues that the traditions about the caliphate are fictitious, and Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam claims that the existence of the Koran required the invention of stories to explain it. These stories became more detailed and elaborate over time and the further from Arabia that they were collected.

The present Koran is identical with the original. Muhammad probably could read and write, but he tended to use a scribe. There is some suggestion that part of the Koran was written down during Muhammad's lifetime, since he had its inserted and deleted in large suras which he probably could not have remembered unless they were written down. The Koran itself admits that Muslims accused Muhammad of changing verses (S. 16:103). Variations are explained by the abrogation of verses and laws.
The Qurai****es preferred the stories by Nadr son of Harith, who told Persian myths – so Muhammad had him executed.
The Koran contains many Biblical characters, but the stories are mixed up. The variations came from either the Jewish Haggada or the New Testament apocrypha or they are simply mistakes made by a listener (e.g. Haman is believed to be the minister of Pharaoh, and Mary is believed to be the sister of Aaron).
The style is semi-poetical. Rhyme is maintained throughout, but rhythm is rarely used. There are many reasons to criticise the style – arbitrary leaps between subjects, annoying word repetitions, and poor grammar. The challenge to 'produce a sura like it' is completely subjective. Muhammad repeatedly emphasised that the Koran is in Arabic, but he borrowed many foreign terms to express ideas that had no Arabic expression. Sometimes he misused these terms (e.g. the Aramaic 'furquan' meaning 'redemption' is used to mean 'revelation').
Differences between the Meccan and Medinan suras are due to a change in circumstances as Muhammad moved from being the preacher of a small, despised sect to becoming an autocratic ruler. However, establishing the chronology of revelation is almost impossible. The traditions that attempt to do so disagree with each other and are not reliable. In fact, there is very little reliable information at all about Muhammad before the Hijra. We are not even sure when to date the beginning of his prophethood (probably ~610). The Meccan suras tend to be short and are reminiscent of the oracles of pagan soothsayers, even beginning with the same oaths involving heavenly objects like stars. The greatest passage in the Koran is S. 1 – al-fatiha. This shows the influence of the Jews, especially in the reference to God as 'Rahman.' The Medinan suras are longer and contain sketches of the histories of previous prophets, laws, and diatribes against Jews and Christians. The beginning of each sura has a cryptic series of letters – for which no meaning is known.
After the death of Muhammad no one knew the entire Koran by heart. Many Arabs revolted against Abu Bakr and had to be forcibly put down. The greatest opposition came from Maslama (a.k.a. Musailima) who claimed to be a prophet but was executed by Abu Bakr. Then 'Umar asked Zaid ibn Thabit to collate the Koran. The suras were arranged from longest to shortest, as even then the chronological order was imperfectly known. That codex was given to Hafsa. Other scholars also compiled their own codices. These became sources of contention because they different from one another. So, 'Uthman asked Zaid to write another codex and all the others were destroyed despite a fair amount of grumbling by their compilers. The variations between the codices could not be variations of dialect, as at this point the Arabic script could not express such variations, being both unvowelled and unpointed. The distinctives of the destroyed codices have survived somewhat in oral tradition. Ibn K'ab's codex contains two extra suras (similar to al-fatiha) and Ibn Masu'd has a different order and omits suras 1, 113, and 114. Ibn Mas'ud seriously opposed the use of Zaid's codex over his own, arguing that he [ibn Mas'ud] had been a disciple of Muhammad for longer and knew the Koran better than Zaid. Even after the production of Zaid's codex a great variety of different readings (extending to meaning and not just pronunciation) were possible through different means of pointing and vowelling. Eventually seven systems of pointing [each with two systems of vowelling] were considered valid.

 
  1. The Koran today is not the same as that given by Muhammad
    During the lifetime of the prophet and immediately afterwards verses were circulating that were either apocryphal or mistakenly attributed to the prophet. The 'Uthmanic recension was necessary to deal with the uncertainty regarding the canonical text. "It is clear that in the year 30 AH no official redaction existed. Tradition itself admits that there were various 'schools,' one in Iraq, one in Syria, one in al-Basrah, besides others in smaller places, and then, exaggerating in an orthodox sense this scandal, tries to make out that the divergences were wholly immaterial; but such affirmations accord ill with the opposition excited by the caliph's [i.e. 'Uthman's] act in al-Kufah. The official version must have contained somewhat serious modifications." (pg. 69)
  1. The first recension under Abu Bakr and 'Umar is a myth
  2. Why did Abu Bakr practically conceal his copy, especially if the death of so many Muslims at the battle of Yamamah really did endanger the existence of the Koran?
  3. How was it that there was still no consensus regarding the Koran in AH 30 if this official codex had been made?
  1. The 'Uthmanic recension was undertaken for political rather than religious motives
    Muhammad made no provision for continuing political and religious leadership after his death. Without his guidance, the knowledge of men who remembered his teaching (reciters or 'Qurra') became valuable. The Qurra spread with the empire establishing schools and teaching the lay populace and other Qurra. Rival groups developed, and many Qurra also began to voice strong disapproval of the caliph and of the military and political leaders who were profoundly ignorant of the Koran. The Qurra encouraged a general revolt against 'Uthman in AH 25. 'Uthman reacted quickly, ordered an official text to be complied and branded anyone who recited the Koran differently as a heretic. This effectively broke the power of the Qurra by taking the monopoly of knowledge about the Koran out of their hands.
  2. We must revise our opinion of 'Uthman's character and not be mislead by later Muslim bad press.
    Tradition has many evil things to say about 'Uthman, but they dare not criticise his recension, because the Koran resulting from it is the foundation of Islam. Many of the complaints about 'Uthman are anti-'Ummayyad polemics and unjustly blame him for the financial blunders of his predecessor, 'Umar. The invention of the Abu Bakr recension effectively reduces 'Uthman's role to nothing more than copier of a previously compiled text. This accomplished the dual goal of preserving the authority of the existing text, while failing to give any credit to 'Uthman for preserving the Koran
  1. The sources of the Koran - Muhammad was illiterate. He depended on oral information from Christians and especially from Jews. The corruption of oral transmission explains the inaccuracies of the stories. Historical errors include: Mary being the sister of Aaron(S. 3:31ff), Haman being Pharaoh's minister (S.28:38), and the conflation of Gideon and Saul (S. 2:250). There are contradictory attitudes toward non-Muslims. S. 2:189 says to fight against unbelievers and Suratut-Taubah says to make war on those who disagree, but S. 2:579 says there is no compulsion in religion and S. 24:45 says to dispute only kindly with Jews and Christians.
  2. If we strip away the commentary, the Koran is inexplicable. Muslim theologians explain the contradictions by trying to put ayat (verses) in a historical context and by appealing to the doctrine of abrogated and abrogating verses. Without the commentary the Koran is completely garbled and meaningless.
  3. Transmission from 612-632? – Muhammad never ordered the Koran to be written down, and when first asked to do so by Abu Bakr, Zaid ibn Thabit refused, arguing that he had no right to do so if Muhammad hadn't thought it necessary. (The wonderful memory of the Arabs has been overstated. For example, if we compare versions of the elegy 'Itabah' in different tribes we see significant variations.) Some verse were apparently written down, but we're not told which ones and we have no idea how they were preserved. What happened to the scraps after codification? They couldn't have been just chucked away – what sacrilege!
  4. Who is the compiler of our standard text and is it authentic? Zaid ibn Thabit supposedly wrote the whole text of the Koran at least twice (under Abu Bakr and then under 'Uthman). The first copy was given to Hafsa, but 15 years later the believers were still arguing about what the Koran was, so 'Uthman had Zaid write up a second copy and destroyed all the others. Zaid probably tried to reproduce faithfully the words of Muhammad, otherwise surely he would have improved the style and grammar and amended the historical and typographical errors!) Indeed, the Koran today is substantially identical with this second recension, though not necessarily with the words of Muhammad. The claim that the Koran is perfect Arabic is absurd – there are many examples of repetition, weak rhyme, changing letters to force a rhyme, foreign words, bizarre usage or change of names (e.g. Terah to Azar, Saul to Talut (S. 2:248250), Enoch to Idris (S. 19:57)
II. The text of the Koran has traditionally been studied through (1) commentaries, (2) grammarians studying Arabic vowels and diacritical points, and (3) types of script used.
  1. The first commentator was Ibn Abbas. He is the main source of traditional exegesis, though many of his opinions are considered heretical. Other important commentators include Tabari (839-923), az-Zamakhshari (1075-1144), and al-Baidhawi (d. 1286)
  2. Diacritical marks did not exist before the 'Umayyad caliphate. They were borrowed from Hebrew and Aramaic. Important grammarians include Khalil ibn Ahmad (718-791) who invented the 'hamza', and Sibawaihi (Khalil). Vowels were not discovered until the end of the 8th at a study centre in Baghdad century under the influence of Aramaic.
  3. Three major scripts are used – Kufic, Naskhi, and Kufo-Naskhi. The type of script gives the first rough division of age of manuscripts. More precise age determination is arrived at by considering other features, like the use of diacritical points.
Muslim writers have not seemed interested in textual criticism of the Koran since 322 AH when the text was fixed by Wazirs Ibn Muqla and Ibn 'Isa (helped by Ibn Ibn Mujahid). After that point those who used old or variant readings were punished (Ibn Miqsam and Ibn Shanabudh are good examples of what happened to those who made the attempt). Though the actual manuscripts have perished, these variations are somewhat preserved in the commentators of az-Zamakhshari (d. 538), Abu Hayyan of Spain (d. 745) and ash-Shawkani (d. 1250), and in the philology works of al-'Ukbari (d. 616), Ibn Khalawaih (d. 370), and Ibn Jinni (d. 392). None of this information has been used to produce a critical text of the Koran.
Muslim tradition (i.e. that before his death the prophet had the Koran ordered and written out though not in book form) is largely fictitious. After all, this same tradition says that very little had been recorded and that large amounts of the Koran were in danger of being lost when Muslims were killed at Yamama.
Abu Bakr probably did collect something, as did a variety of others (whose names are not agreed on in any two lists preserved in the tradition); but his collection was not an official recension, rather a private matter. Some orthodox Muslims say the word 'jama'a' ("to collect") only means "to memorise" in the traditions referring to the metropolitan codices, but as these collections were carried on camels and eventually burnt it is more likely that they were written codices. Different metropolitan areas followed different codices: Homs and Damascus followed al-Aswad, Kufa – Ibn Mas'ud, Basra – as-Ash'ari, and Syria – ibn Ka'b. Major divergences between these texts mandated 'Uthman's radical recension. The Qurra violently opposed him in this, and ibn Masu'd stubbornly refused to give his codex up until he was forced to do so.
Variants were preserved by commentators and philologists only when they were close enough to orthodoxy to help with tafsir. The ones they do preserve they insist were merely explanatory glosses on 'Uthman's text.
"The amount of material preserved in this way is, of course, relatively small, but it is remarkable that any at all has been preserved. With the general acceptance of a standard text other types of text, even when they escaped the flames, would gradually cease being transmitted from sheer lack of interest in them. Such readings from them as would be remembered and quoted among the learned would be only the relatively few readings that had some theological or philological interest, so that the great mass of variants would early disappear. Moreover, even with regard to such variants as did survive there were definite efforts at suppression in the interests of orthodoxy. On may refer, for instance, to the case of the great Baghdad scholar Ibn Shanabudh (245-328) who was admitted to be an eminent Koranic authority, but who was forced to make public recantation of his use of readings from the old codices." (pg. 119)​
Any of the more striking variants were not recorded because of fear of reprisal.
"For example, Abu Hayyan, Bahr VII 268, referring to a notorious textual variant, expressly says that in his work, though it is perhaps the richest in uncanonical variants that we have, he does not mention those variants where there is too wide a divergence from the standard text of 'Uthman."

 
A quick look at Muslim commentaries reveals many difficulties with the vocabulary of the Koran. The commentators tended to assume that Muhammad meant the same things as they would mean by certain words, and they interpreted the Koran in light of the theological and judicial controversies of their time.
Jeffrey has already produced a lexicon of the non-Arab words in the Koran, but the Arabic words cannot properly be investigated until a critical text exists. The closest thing to a textus recepticus is the text tradition of Hafs from 'Asim (the best of the three traditions of the Kufan school). A standard issue of this text tradition was officially produced by the Egyptian government in 1923.
Following the Muslim traditions, the text resulting from the 'Uthmanic recension was unpointed and unvoweled. When diacritical marks were invented different traditions of pointing developed in the major metropolitan centers. Even when the consonants (huruf) were agreed different ways of voweling could be devised. So a large number of ikhtiyar fi'l huruf (i.e. traditions as to the consonants, as variations in pointing resulting in a varying consonantal text) developed. These systems not only differed regarding pointing and voweling, but occasionally used different consonants altogether, as if attempting to improve the 'Uthmanic text. [NB: There are seven systems of pointing (i.e. ikhtiyar f'il huruf), each with two traditions of voweling, providing a total of fourteen canonical variations in reading. When citing a system both the source of the huruf and the source of the voweling are mentioned.)
In AH 322 Ibn Mujahid of Baghdad (a great Koranic authority) pronounced a fixed huruf (supposedly 'Uthmanic) and forbade any other ikhtiyar and limited the variations in voweling to seven different systems. Later, three other systems were considered equally valid by some.
So, the text of the Koran has two major categories of variants, the canonical variants, restricted to patterns of voweling (of which the system of 'Asim of Kufa according to Hafs is most popular for some reason), and the uncanonical consonantal variations.

The Views of the Quran are obviously borrowed from judaism

Tabut – ark
Sakinat- the presence of God
Taurat – law
Taghut – error
Jannatu'Adn – paradise
Ma'un – refuge
Jahannam – hell
Masanil – repetition
Ahbar – teacher
Rabani – teacher
Darasa – studying scripture so as to force a far-fetched meaning from the text
Furquan – deliverance, redemption (used this way in S. 8:42, 2:181, also misused as 'revelation'_
Sabt - Sabbath
Malakut – government

  1. Doctrinal views
  2. Unity of God
  3. Creation - 6 days, 7 heavens (asserted in Chagiga, also the '7 paths' is used in the Talmud), 7 hells – including 7 gates and trees at the gates
  4. Mode of Revelation
  5. Retribution, including the last judgement and Resurrection – e.g. linkage of resurrection and judgement, evil state of the world before the Messiah/Mahdi, the war between Gog and Magog, a person's body will testify against them (e.g. S. 24:24), idols will be cast into hellfire, the wicked will be allowed to prosper so as to increase their iniquity. 1000 years is like a day to the Lord, the resurrected person will appear in the clothes in which he is buried
  6. Doctrine of spirits - similar beliefs regarding angels and demons (djinn). Though Islam has a much more earthy idea of paradise, some similarities remain.
  7. Moral and Legal Rules
  8. Prayer
    • Matches the rabbis' positions for prayer (standing, sitting, reclining) see Sura 10:13
    • shorten prayer in war
    • prayer forbidden to the drunken
    • prayer must be vocalised by not said loudly
    • Daybreak discerned by the ability to distinguish a blue (black) from a white thread
  9. Woman
    • divorced woman waits three months before remarriage
    • suckling time is two years
    • same limits on intermarriage
  10. Views of Life
    Death with the righteous is to be prized – S. 3:191 and Num. 23:10
    Full understanding at 40 years – S. 46:14 and Aboth 5:21
    Interceding effectively leads to reward – S. 4:87 and Baba Kamma 92
    At death family and goods don't follow a person, only works do – Sunna 689 and Pirke Rabbi Eliezer 34
  1. From Adam to Noah
    • Creation – Adam is wiser than the angels are because he could name the animals (S. 2:28-32) c.f. Midrash Rabbah on Numbers para. 19, Midrash Rabbah on Genesis para. 8 and 17, and Sanhedrin 38
    • The story of Satan refusing to worship Adam (S. 7:10-18; 17:63-68, 18:48, 20:115, 38:71-86) was explicitly rejected by the Jews. c.f. Midrash Rabbah on Genesis para. 8
    • Cain and Abel – sacrifice and murder.
      Koran – raven tells Cain how to bury the body (S. 5:31)
      Jews – raven tells parents how to bury body (Pirke Rabbi Eliezer Ch. 21)
      Koran – slaying a soul is like slaying all mankind (S. 5:35) this is taken out of context from Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5
    • Idris (Enoch) – taken to Paradise after death and raised to life again. c.f. S. 19:58 with Gen. 5:24 and Tract Dereen Erez (cited in Midrash Yalku Ch. 42)
  2. From Noah to Abraham
    • Angels living on earth, lusting after women and dividing marriages. S. 2:96 – alludes to Mdr. Abhkhir (quoted in Midr. Yalkut Ch. 44)
    • Noah – role as teacher and seer and the flood of hot water both match rabbinical ideas. [Compare S. 7:57-63, 10:72-75, 11:27-50, 22:43, 23:23-32, 25:39, 26:105-121, 29:13-14, 37:73-81, 54:9-18, 71:1ff with Sanhedrin 108, and S. 11:40 with Midrash Tanchuma, Section Noah, S. 11:42, 23:27 with Rosh Hashanan 162.] Noah's words are indistinguishable from Muhammad's (or Gabriel/Allah).
  3. Abraham to Moses
    • Abraham – Archetypal prophet, friend of God, lived in temple, wrote books. Conflict over idols lead to danger of being burned alive but he was rescued by God. (Compare S. 2:60, 21:69-74, 29:23-27; 37:95-99 with Midrash Rabba on Genesis para. 38). So strong is Muhammad's identification with Abraham that he places words in Abraham's mouth that are not suitable to anyone outside Muhammad's context (e.g. S. 24:88, 29:17-23)
    • Joseph is the subject of almost all of the 12th sura. Additions to the Biblical story are derived from Jewish legends. (e.g. Joseph is warned away from Potiphar's wife in a dream (s. 12:24, Sotah 6:2), Egyptian women cut their hands because of Joseph's beauty (S. 12:31, compare with references in Midrash Yalkut to 'The Great Chronicle'.)
This is very similar to the Biblical account, but with some additions from Jewish fables and some errors.
  • The infant Moses refused the breast of Egyptian women (S. 28:11, Sotah 12,2)
  • Pharaoh claims divinity (S. 26:28, 28:38, Midrash Rabba on Exodus para. 5)
  • Pharaoh eventually repents (S. 10:90ff, Pirke Rabbi Eliezar section 43)
  • God threatens to overturn the mountain onto the Israelites (S. 2:60, 87; 7:170, Abodah Zerah 2:2)
  • There is a confusion as to the exact number of plagues – is it 5 (S. 7:130) or 9 (S. 17:103; 27:12)
  • Haman (S. 28:5,7,38; 29:38; 28:38) and Korah (S. 29:38; 40:25) are thought to be advisors to Pharaoh.
  • Miriam the sister of Aaron is also thought to be the mother of Jesus (S. 3:30ff, 29:29, 46:12)
On the Belief that Much of the Koran is Derived from the Tales of Heretical Christian Sects
Many heretics were expelled from the Roman Empire and migrated to Arabic before the time of Muhammad.
 
  1. The Seven Sleepers, or Companions of the Cave (S. 18:8-26) is a story of Greek origin found in a Latin work of Gregory of Tours ('Story of Martyrs' 1:95) and was recognised by Christians as pious fiction.
  2. The History of Mary (S. 19:16-31, 66:12, 3:31-32&37-42, 25:37). Mary is said to be the sister of Aaron, the daughter of Imran (Hebrew Amran the father of Moses), and the mother of Jesus. The hadith tell us that Mary's mother was an aged, barren woman who promised to give her child to the temple if God gave it to her (from the Protevangelium of James the Less). The hadith also explain that the casting of rods mentioned in the Koran refers to when 6 priests were vying for who would raise Mary. They threw their rods into the river, only Zaccharias' rod floated (from the History of our Holy Father the Aged, the Carpenter (Joseph), and Arabic apocryphal book). Mary was denounced as an adulteress but pleaded her innocence (from Protevangelium a Coptic book on the Virgin Mary), and gave birth under a palm tree that aided her (from History of the Nativity of Mary and the Saviour's Infancy)
  3. The Childhood of Jesus – Jesus spoke from the cradle and created birds of clay which he then turned to life (S. 3:41-43, 5:119), from The Gospel of Thomas the Israelite and The Gospel of the Infancy Ch. 1, 36, 46. Jesus was not really crucified (s. 4:156) in accordance with the heretic Basilides (quoted by Iraneus). The Koran erroneously thinks that the Trinity consists of father, mother, and son (s. 4:169, 5:77).
  4. Some other stories from Christian or heretical writers: In the hadith (Quissas al-Anbial) God sends angels together dust to create Adam and Azrael brings it from every quarter (Ibn Athir via Abdul Feda). This is from the heretic Marconion who argued that it was an angel (the 'God of the law') who created people, not the true God. The balance of good and bad deeds (S. 42:16, 101:5-6) is from the 'Testament of Abraham' and from the Egyptian 'Book of the dead.' Two New Testament verses are alluded to: (a) camel through the eye of a needle (S. 7:38, Mt. 19:24), God has prepared for the righteous things that eyes have not seen nor ears heard (Abu Hureira quoting the prophet in Mishkat of the Prophet, 1 Cor. 2:9).
So i myself to not choose to listen to the Koran as means of the "truth"
Based on prophecy fufilled by Jesus in the Hebrew Text Jesus is the incarnation of God.
 

Islam

Member
You see all this you have copy pasted is nothing but lies you have been fed to cling on something you know is very doubtful (the Bible). The Quran sir was written at the time of Mohammed and was collected later on. Another final copy to make sure that it was perfect was composed by Othman and the rest of the copies were burned just in case they had some errors. The Othman Quran is still within our hands today its in a museum in Turkey so dont worry. As for who was the author of the Quran, it was Allah, God. The Quran was no inspirational revelation like what Christians claim the bible was. The Quran was a verbal revelation from God to Mohammed, a man who knew not how to read or write. As for the common things between the Quran and the OT, this is only common sence since both come from a common source, God. And btw just so you wont say anything stupid or embarace yourself, there was no such thing as an Arabic Bible at the time of Mohammed be it OT o NT. The first Bible produced was 300 years after his death and it was the OT. So please get the idea of Mohammed copying any parts of the Bible out of your head. Even so, for the sake of argument that if there was such a thing as an Arabic bible, why didnt Mohammed peace be upon him copy the hundreds of errors and contradictions in the OT and the NT? The creation of the universe for example? The porno stories?
You see you shouldnt throw people with rocks if your house is made up of glass. As for the Quran saying that Marry is a part of the trinity, no, the Quran says that you shouldnt worship Marry peace be upon her which the Roman Catholics doby there prayers to her etc (even non Catholic christians have told me that yes cathollics are worshiping her but they dont admit it). How many verses have been taken out from the Bible as fabrications? Tons. How many verses have been proven by modern science to be unscientific? Tons. Howmany contradictions? Tons. Absurdities? Oh boy I have to quote this, I cant let it go by.
In Judges 15:4-5: Samsung, In Palestine, gets three hundred foxes and:

4 So he went out and caught three hundred foxes and tied them tail to tail in pairs. He then fastened a torch to every pair of tails, 5 lit the torches and let the foxes loose in the standing grain of the Philistines. He burned up the shocks and standing grain, together with the vineyards and olive groves.

Can you imagine?!?! And they cooperated! Where did he get the foxes from in palestine? Three hundred foxes cooperating and he ties them and burns them and theyre okay with it! This is absurd!

Sir this is in your Bible. Do you believe that? Do you? He says yes, because its in the book. Can you imagine!

There are ten cases of insest in the Bible, TEN CASES! Why? What for? Why is God going to tell us this! God the Holly One is going to tell you how to rape your own sister, what for?

Here here look, 2 Samuel 13:6:
6 So Amnon lay down, and made himself sick: and when the king was come to see him, Amnon said unto the king, I pray thee, let Tamar my sister come, and make me a couple of cakes in my sight, that I may eat at her hand.

What for! God in his infinite widsom is going to tell us this, what for? Did you learn anything from that? What does it teach you?!

Again:
Judges 16:1
1 Then went Samson to Gaza, and saw there an harlot, and went in unto her.

Full stop. Thats it! What is the moral behind this? Nothing nothing.

God Almighty, in the Bible, is supposed to be a barber:

20 In the same day the Lord will shave with a hired razor,
With those from beyond the River, with the king of Assyria,
The head and the hair of the legs,
And will also remove the beard.
(Isaiah 7:20)

This is your idea of God? This is your book which is supposed to be of God? This is discusting the very least. God Almighty in his magesty and holliness is going to shave there legs. It didnt say how high though.

God in the Bible ha a dragons attributes:
2 Samuel 22:9:
9 Smoke went up from His nostrils,
And devouring fire from His mouth;
Coals were kindled by it.
..
11 He rode upon a cherub, and flew;
And He was seen upon the wings of the wind.

Do you know what a cherub is my friend?
In the dictionary it says "a child like angel." It's an angel who is naked with breasts and everything and she has wings and buttoks and nipples and everything! This is Gods Holliness to you and your book! This is filth attributed to God far exhalted is he.

Dead Men walking!
After the ressurection of Jesus Matthew says that:
52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

(Matthew 27:52-53)

And than .. FULL STOP! THATS IT! What happened to them? Out of all the Gospels only Matthew saw this and wrote it in his book and thats it they just popped out of there graves and walked around in the city. can you imagine? If someone comes out of the grave today it would be world news! but no, the bible says its normal. They came out of there graves and thats it. Stories are half told and they are stories which would be better off in a cartoon show for kids.

Another absurd story: One man kills SIX HUNDRED PEOPLE WITH A STICK:
Judges 3:31:

31 After him was Shamgar the son of Anath, who killed six hundred men of the Philistines with an ox goad; and he also delivered Israel.

SIX HUNDRED PEOPLE ARE KILLED WITH A STICK! WHERE DID HE STRIKE THEM? AND THE FOOLS THEY DIDNT RUN AWAY THE VERY LEAST? IF THEY SPIT ON HIM HE WOULD HAVE SUFFICATED!

You see, these stories are not fitting into Gods magesty that you say he uttered them and dictated them to you. Yes many of Gods prophets have performed miracles but behind every miracle is wisdome. Not absurdities like what I quoted. People jumping out of the grave, where are they today? Who knows.

And last but most definetly not least:
(a man killing a THOUSAND men with a... gun? No.. with a jaw bone of a donkey!)
(Judges 15:15)

15 He found a fresh jawbone of a donkey, reached out his hand and took it, and killed a thousand men with it.

You believe that? he says yes its in my book! One Jewish boy kills ONE THOUSAND palestinians with a jaw bone of a donkey! They didnt run away? If they breathed unto him he would have died! I hear Israel is having some troubel with Hamas. Maybe instead of paying millions of weapons they should go search for the jaw bone of the donkey.

In the end, you never should have went off topic by speaking about the Quran, you speak about the glorius Quran I speak about the Bible. Dont throw people with rocks if your house is made of glass and dont go off topic.
In end I quote the glorious Quran:

(21.018):

Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Allah).

(Holly Quran, 2:79)

And woe to those who
write the book with their
own hands

And then say:
This is from Allah

To traffic with it for
a miserable price!

So woe to them for
what their hands do write,

And woe to them for
what they earn thereby!
 

may

Well-Known Member
Islam said:
Apologetic Catholic..
We and Us and Our is a plural of respect in the semetic languages, in Hebrew and in Arabic. It does not mean or hint at the trinity. Ask any Jewish person.

As for In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
This was plaigarised by John. It was written by a Greek philosopher long before John whos name was Philo.

As for you quoting the book of Revelation, this only proves your blind faith. The book of revelation was nothing but a dream John had. In the book you read aot creatures with eyes on the inside and eyes on the outside and many unrealistic things. Sometimes you have a little too much to eat and this happens.
the book of revelation is highly symbolic , but in these last days the uncovering and revealing is in abundance Daniel 12;4 prophecies in the book of Daniel are tied up with prophecies in the book of revelation, and its all happening in this the Lords day.
 

Islam

Member
Sure its symbolic but when he quotes Jesus in the book of revelation, thats wrong. Prophecies are made everywhere. Mohammed peace be upon him made hundreds of prophecies uncluding the current Iraq occupation! Heck, even Jesus says in your own Bible that on Judgment day:
Matthew:
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (evil doers)
 
You argue Jesus was not God based on the Koran
Christians argue that Jesus was the fufillment of the OT based on our bible this will get no where so we have to look historically and answer different Questions, Who was Jesus (historically) how far does the hebrew faith go back how far does the muslim faith go back otherwise we can argue for decades whos bible is "right"

I am not saying because the Hebrew faith goes back a very long time that it is authentic, i am saying that it holds more vaiable prrof then that of the muslim religion and seeing as the Muslim faith came way later and has very close similarities to the Hebrew and even Chrisitan faith that it is merly a adapted religion from these faiths. without using bible 9seeing as that will egt us no where) can you sum up other proof? Where as all i got from alder texts and research in general over the course of the years can show reason to doubt the muslim faith as the "one true faith" with little matter i may have been born and rasied Catholic but i chose catholocism , after years and years of heavy research i finally found the one true god in the Christian faith. i may have been looking for an answer i already knew and how i cam to that conclusion may include religious or other means but i believe Jesus is truley the son of god Fully man and Fully God.
 

Islam

Member
Christians argue that Jesus was the fufillment of the OT based on our bible this will get no where so we have to look historically and answer different Questions, Who was Jesus (historically) how far does the hebrew faith go back how far does the muslim faith go back otherwise we can argue for decades whos bible is "right"

No where in the OT does it say that Jesus would be God. This affirms the Islamic belief that he was the Messiah, the Christ, he was born miraculously, he healed the sick and gave life to the dead by Gods' permission.

Where as all i got from alder texts and research in general over the course of the years can show reason to doubt the muslim faith as the "one true faith

I doubt you ever researched Islam according to Muslims. You just read what Christians have to say about Islam etc. Re-search Islam by Muslims. Muslims understand Islam since its there religion, not Christians. Did you even read the Quran since you say you researched Islam? Im guessing no.
 

Islam

Member
Conserning Jesus saying the vahe general statment of "I am" and it sopposing to mean that he was trying to indicate that he was God, I found this article written by a Jehova witness, where he proves that it isnt. He says:

"These words, spoken by our Savior in Jn.8:58, have led to much controversy and confusion. Some use this verse to prove the Messiah's pre-existence. Others use it to prove the trinity doctrine. And then there are those who use it to prove Yahshua is the great "I AM" of Ex.3:14. So, is Yahshua is also Yahweh the Father??.
The phrase "I am" is "ego eimi" in Greek. Since the Greek New Testament records Yahshua using "ego eimi" many times, Christian theologians term these sayings, "The I Am's of Jesus". It is believed that each of these occurrences implies Yahshua's identity as the "I AM" of Ex.3:14. Can this be true? Can our Savior, the Son of Yahweh, actually be the "I AM," can he also be Yahweh?
Ex.3:14-15 reads, "And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Yahweh, Elohim of your fathers, Elohim of Abraham, Elohim of Isaac, and Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." Therefore, the "I AM" in this passage, is identified as "Yahweh," or rather, is representing Yahweh. Through this representative authority, this messenger to Moses is able to use the Name of the Divine Creator of all, Yahweh.
One thing which must be clearly understood at this point of our discussion, is that The Father Creator Elohom called Yahweh, is "Spirit," as Yahshua clearly taught us in Jn. 4:24. And, He is the only one "who only has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or is able to see, to whom be respect and everlasting might." 1 Tim. 6:16. "No one has ever seen Elohim," (Yahweh) Jn. 1:18. All Scripture then being correctly understood, would have to lead us to the conclusion, that all apparent communications between "Yahweh" and man, is through a Messenger (angel) Representative speaking with the full authority and power of Yahweh, and is thereby able to use the Divine Name in the "first" person.
And what does Yahweh say in Ps.2:7? "I will declare the decree: Yahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Yahweh is the Father of Yahshua. Yahshua is the Son of Yahweh. Yahshua is not Yahweh (the Son is not the Father). Therefore, it stands, that Yahshua (the Son of Yahweh) cannot be the "I AM" who is (Yahweh). That alone should be sufficient to discredit the belief that Yahshua was claiming to be the "I AM." But let's look into the matter a little farther.
It is believed that Jn.8:59 further supports the position that Yahshua is the "I AM." Why else would the Yahudain try to stone him? He obviously blasphemed in the eyes of the Yahudain, a stone-able offense. Or did he? Is the mere utterance of "ego eimi" a blasphemy? Does the use of "ego eimi" automatically identify the speaker as Yahweh, the I AM, and thereby trigger a stone-able offense?
Several individuals aside from Yahshua used "ego eimi" as well. In Lu.1:19, the angel Gabriel said, "Ego eimi Gabriel." In Jn.9: 9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Yahshua said, "Ego eimi." In Acts 10:21, Peter said, "Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek." Obviously, the mere use of "ego eimi" does not equate one to the "I Am" of Ex.3:14. But perhaps the Savior's use of it was somehow different.
If, in fact, Yahshua spoke Greek to the Yahudain (which is doubtful), he used the phrase "ego eimi" at least twenty times and yet, in only one instance did the Yahudain seek to stone him (Jn.8: 58). Yahshua said, "I am the bread of life" to a large crowd in Jn.6: 35 & 48, yet no one opposed him. In verse 41, the Yahudain murmured because he said, "I am (ego eimi) the bread which came down from heaven." But in verse 42, the Yahudain questioned only the phrase, "I came down from heaven" and ignored "ego eimi." The same is true of verses 51; 52.
In Jn.8: 12, 18, 24, & 28, Yahshua used "ego eimi" with Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, no stoning. He, again, used it four times in Jn.10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning. Yahshua said to his disciples, "...that...ye may believe that I am (ego eimi)" in Jn.13:19 without them batting an eye.
An interesting account occurs in Jn.18 when the Yahudain came to arrest Yahshua in the Garden of Gethsemane. When the chief priests and Pharisees said they were seeking Yahshua of Nazareth, Yahshua said to them, "Ego eimi." At that they fell backward to the ground, surprised and startled, that the one they were seeking, had the fortitude to confront them face to face. What followed will make it clear that Yahshua was not claiming to be the "I AM."
After Yahshua's arrest, the Yahudain took him to Annas first (vs.13). Then they took him to Caiaphas (vs.24) and eventually to Pilate (vss.28, 29). A parallel account is found in Mt.26: 57-68. Notice, in particular, verse 59. The same men that had fallen backward to the ground were in attendance when the council sought false witnesses against Yahshua to put him to death. Verse 60 says they couldn't find any. Eventually two came forward. Interestingly, they didn't bear false witness about what Yahshua said in Jn.8:58, but about his reference to destroying the temple and building it again in three days. Where were all those witnesses from Jn.8: 58?
The point about Mt.26 is, why would false witnesses be sought if they had true witnesses in attendance? The arresting officers heard Yahshua say "Ego eimi." They could have stoned him right there in the garden for blasphemy, but they didn't. They could have reported the supposed blasphemy to the council, but they didn't. Why not? Because it wasn't blasphemy, nor was it a stone-able offense. He was merely identifying himself as Yahshua of Nazareth. The fact of the matter is, the Greek phrase "Ego eimi", simply means "I am the one", or "I am He."
This brings us back to Jn.8: 58. Why did the Yahudeans seek to stone him on that occasion? The context of Jn.8 shows that Yahshua;
1) accused the Yahudain of "judging after the flesh" (vs.15).
2) said they would die in their sins (vss.21,24).
3) implied they were in bondage (vss.32,33).
4) said they were servants of sin (vs.34).
5) said they were out to kill him (vss. 37,40).
6) implied they were spiritually deaf (vs.43,47).
7) said their father was the devil (vs.44).
8) said they were not of Elohim (vs.47).
9) accused them of dishonoring him (vs.49).
10) accused them of not knowing Yahweh (vs.55).
11) accused them of lying (vs.55).
Aside from that, the Yahudain misunderstood Yahshua's words leading them to believe;
1) that he accused them of being born of fornication (vs.41).
2) Yahshua had a devil (vs.52).
3) that he was exalting himself above Abraham (vs.53).
4) that he saw Abraham (vs.56)."

 

may

Well-Known Member
Islam said:
Sure its symbolic but when he quotes Jesus in the book of revelation, thats wrong. Prophecies are made everywhere. Mohammed peace be upon him made hundreds of prophecies uncluding the current Iraq occupation! Heck, even Jesus says in your own Bible that on Judgment day:
Matthew:
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (evil doers)
yes , i agree many will claim to be doing the lords work , but Jesus does not know them . because they are not doing his will.
 
Top