Which Is Which?

[muhsin]

WHICH IS WHICH?

Why is it that almost all religions (major ones we have on this planet) are based on DOGMA?
I had grown up with this question almost always ringing, knocking and itching within me, but it seems to remain unanswered, so, my hope at the end is that: members of this Forum will be able to fish me out.
I was born in a family of differences, what I here mean is that: my father happens to be a Muslim while my dead mother a Christian.
Nevertheless, I’d neither seen God nor his prophet Muhammad (SAW) or even Jesus himself, but I’m convinced they all exist, and I indubitably do believe.
Eventually, as I, years passed, start feeling warm toward Christianity. One day, an Islamic preacher I was watching in television says: he uses to wonder why Christian do believe in a religion which it’s body-wholly are all built on easy-to-figure-out dogma. I felt unable to make neither head nor tail of his words.
He-Islamic preacher- had absolutely talked tall and quoted mountains verses from the holy bible, but all those I can recall are:
No one can see me and stay alive (exodus 33:20)
No one has ever seen me, and no one can ever see me (1 timothy 6:16)
You have never heard his voice nor seen his face (john 5:37)
Is Jesus god? He concluded.
My question: if he really is God, thus, has his voice not had been heard, or has his face not had been seen at the then his time.
My people, how things are going as outré as that? Any way out? Because the long time it remains unanswered, the deeper I sink into the mire.

[Stanislaw]

the problem lies in the formation of the churches as secular bodies. the more secular the church body becomes, the more dogma is generated.

I would suggest christianity, Islam is interesting, but it is also riddled with dogma...no ben afflek or matt damon though :D .

As for the Imam, he is falling into a very stupid trap of word twisting and selective interpretation. One should note that the bible was written by men, divinely inspired, but still written by men, and that it was compiled many years, more than 100, after Jesus's death, so problems in the different parts, written by different authors contradicting eachother is not surprising.

One should pray to God for dissernment to gain the meaning and the message from the bible, with the grace of God you can find an answer. Just have faith, and keep an open mind.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Because the Bible speaks concerning the Mystery of the TRINITY (THREE PERSONS possessing one DEITY), one has to read every verse in context.
The socalled "Jehovah's Witnesses" use similar removals of phrases from their contexts to give the same impression.
Before addressing this further, let me just say this:
The Torah is the hardest set of Books to cast a doubt against, because it is preserved by the Jews, the Samaritans, and the Greek-tongued Alexandrian community up to and since the Nativity of the LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Those that say that the Jews wrote these Books during or after the Babylonian exile, are forgetfull of the Samaritans in their argument. The Samaritans belong to the community that split off from King David's kingdom long before their own Assyrian exile. If someone wants to make the Samaritan transmission to seem as late as possible, he will have to place its birth a century before the Jewish exile to Babylon - and this makes the whole idea of the Torah being a Babylonian exile work an impossibility (for the Samaritan text differs in but few words, which, however, show that from an earlier time than these few notable differences occurred, they had begun with the exact same text, which they virtually preserved, despite what major conflict of interest is shown in their textual variants). The impetus to make these few variations was already astir before they broke off from the Jews. Whether or not they yet had those few variant readings, the Samaritans' Israeli forebears already had the Torah before the big split.
The first official Greek translation of the Torah (together with many other Hebrew Scriptures) was a few centuries before the birth of the Church. Though in a few places the Septuagint may differ from the Masoretic Jewsih transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures, it largely agrees in a completely different language, and some of its "variants" are literal translations of wordings extant in Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are often dated as between the time of the Septuagint's formation, and the Church's formation - and often enough, these Dead Sea Scroll "variations" make no difference to the consonants in the Masoretic Tradition. Also, in some cases, the Septuagint "variant" accords with both the Jewish Dead Sea Scrolls and with the Samritan Text alike.
In addition to all of this, early Christians had from the beginning early Aramaic, Greek, and Latin Versions of those Writings that wonderfully agreed with both the transmissions of the Jews and of the Samaritans alike. It seems likely, too, that Ethiopians may also have had their own pre-Christian transmission of the Torah. All of these groups were by and large at odds with each other, making the truth of preservation all the more startlingly obvious.
In giving an answer, I had to clear this matter of any cloudiness.
Furthermore, many early Greek and Latin Church Fathers kept finding what were in their ancient day already ancient Hebrew manuscripts.
One more thing:
the Septuagintal version of the Prophet Jeremiah, despite its peculiarity compared to the original Hebrew, is all the more an effective witness to the preservation of the actual words recorded by Jeremiah. Anyone reading the Book will see from the entries that it was not written at one sitting as a single Book, but was a compilation of many separate Prophecies. Thus it needn't have been compiled the same way by different collectors of his Prophecies. But the presence of identical Prophecies shows that a legitimate Collection existed, from the writings of a real Prophet - so that we ought not to presume the individual prophesyings just a literary convention.
I will add more posts but wish not to over-cram any particular post.
Josephus says that the version of Esther behind that we have in the Septuagint is the original form, and the other form (in the Masoretic tradition) the form adapted for political preservation (for official archives subject to censuring).
Daniel as is can be argued for on many grounds, the "additions" in the Septuagint not changing the Book they were made to preface and supplement, out of a larger collection of many other legitimate Daniel Writings. I will give a better presentation of the other Books bound together with the Torah as I get to each of them, then I will adduce evidence out of them each to make the case for the DIVINE TRINITY, and show how the person you mentioned was either genuinely not learned enough about the Bible, or else purposely distorting their sense, in what he said about CHRIST's DEITY.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Having begun with a defense of the Torah, I begin from the Book of Genesis to answer your concerns:
The DIVINE NAME, "YAHWEH", never refers to any but the MOST HIGH. In the Book of Genesis, the first line of seven words (and seven is used in the first passage as a special number) reads in Hebrew, in all versions:
Bre`shiyth bara` `ELOHIM `eth hashamayim w`eth ha`arets.
Notice that the third word is `ELOHIM, which is a plural term . This is the first mention of GOD in the Torah, and, by its placement, it is made to accord with the number three . Remember that here, in the third place in the text, the first NAME for GOD is in the plural .
Then, there are three times that GOD speaks in the first person plural throughout this Book :
Genesis 1:26;
3:22;
and 11:7.
In Chapter 18 YAHWEH is said to have appeared to Abraham . In the next verse (v.2), this Apparition is described as revealing THREE PERSONS, using the word "SHELOSHAH" for "THREE" here.
Going back to the first verse of Genesis, in the original Hebrew letters, skip the first three letters, then, beginning from the letter that sounds like English /S+H/ combined, count right to left the seven letters following, then seven more after that, then seven more, then seven more. This leaves three letters before the starting place, and three letters after it, in the original Hebrew letters, in the opening seven word sentence of Genesis, which introduces the CREATOR in the third word, in the plural. Though there are two forms of the word for "THREE" in Hebrew, these four letters that are seven steps apart from each to the next, spell the very form "SHELOSHAH" used in the plain Text of Chapter 18. No one can deny this.

Here is an illustration to show what I mean:

imagine the following 22 characters are the Hebrew alephbeth:

) B G D H W Z X t Y K L M N S ( P C Q R $ T

Now this is the consonantal text of Gen. 1:1 (right to left):

CR)H T)W MYM$H T) MYHL) )RB TY$)RB

Now this leaves )RB set alone at the beginning (a threefold hint);
then a CR) at the end (another such hint, so that a triad is first and last).
Starting at the first $ from the right, count seven steps left after it and land on L (the only one in the text). After that, go seven more to the only other $ in the text. After that, go seven more steps to the third H in the text.
The only L (with the numerical value 30) is used in this word; the only two $s (each having the value 300) are likewise used in this word; the only other letter, H, is the last of three in that sentence.

The word is H$L$ (from right to left), meaning "THREE".
Any hint that YAHWEH was seen as THREE PERSONS of one DEITY by father Abraham?
Plus it is revealed in a sevenfold pattern in a seven word sentence, that begins a passage on creation that ends with the seventh-day Sabbath.

[Mililalil XXIV]

In that first line of Genesis, the first word is "Bre`shiyth", represented, from right to left, according to the legend of Hebrew letter equivalents above, as:
TY$)RB.
It consists of a prepositional prefix [-B], meaning "In_", leading into the five letter word "Re`shiyth" [TY$)R], meaning "BEGINNING" or "CHIEF". In the Gospel of John, the opening words are "En ARKHE", the Greek equivalent to "Bre`shiyth". The Church Fathers passed down the Tradition that the opening word of Genesis indicated JESUS HIMSELF as the FOUNDATION of the creation of all things.
The Apostle Paul shows signs of having seen it this way, using the Greek word "ARKHE" more than once for CHRIST, saying all things were created not only by HIM and for HIM, but existing in HIM. There are similar comments made about GOD in general as well, and not of the PERSON of JESUS CHRIST alone.
The Proverbs of Solomon speak of a MYSTERIOUS FIGURE called "WISDOM", or, in Hebrew, "CHAKHMAH", symbolized as a WOMAN. This is not sexual talk, but partly a play on words, since the word form used for women is the one that "Chakhmah" possesses, so that the pronouns that substitute it in Hebrew must be the same as would accord with reference to a woman. Originally, there being two forms of substantives, the one that carried an additional ending was assigned to feminine versions of things otherwise neutral, and the shorter form remained neutral with a duel role of masculinity. Many things remained according with either form, though they were neither male nor female.
This non-sexual "femininity" is the spiritual pattern merely reflected in the distinction of sexes in our humanity. Male and female of our race are equal, both being equally human, but one man (a neutral term that remains the same in doubling as a masculine term when paired with the feminine specification) was the first - and because the humanity of the next was derived out of the first, the special form od language was accorded her, reflecting that only in contrast to her was Adam no longer neutral. The person of Eve, however, came into existence directly from the creating act of GOD as Adam's did, so that an already distinct person recieved a duplication (even an extension) of anothers nature. And so CHAKHMAH is the PERSON of the TRINITY that derived not HIS PERSON from the FATHER, but, as Paul says, having set aside what HE had possessed from Eternity as the FATHER's EQUAL, adopted a Role of bearing the same Divine Nature as a SON carrying a duplication of HIS FATHER's Nature, being in this way, as John's Gospel calls HIM, the LOGOS (WORD/REASON/EXPRESSION) of GOD. In the Proverbs, in which we see mention of CHRIST as "CHAKHMAH", that is, "WISDOM", we are dealing with this PERSON as expressing to other than GOD the Wisdom essential to GOD that was beforehand concealed from all other Witnesses but GOD, within the TRINITY of GOD's PERSONS, eternally before anything was created. As the SON, the SON-Ship JESUS bears is derived from the FATHER, as the humanity of Eve is derived from Adam. The man Adam, called in Hebrew an `Iysh (Person), is named thus in a non-sexual manner. The same word can desribe any person in Hebrew, if the sexual distinction owned by a human person is not being brought out for relevancy's sake; but, in showing that the nature of the second of our race was derived from the first, Eve is called an `Isshah, adding to `Iysh the suffix -ah to express the one proceding from the other.
Therefore, try to understand the ancient use of "feminine" forms for non-sexual topics, and the use of "CHAKHMAH", with like ending to that of `Isshah will make sense to you. In HIS SON-Ship did GOD, as the SON of GOD, express in HIMSELF the WISDOM GOD is by Nature from Eternity, known only to GOD. It is as this WISDOM EXPRESSED (the LOGOS) that GOD is first made known to newly created Witnesses, and bears what is described in derivational ("feminine") terms. In this Role is HE the RE`SHIYTH/ARKHE, the BEGINNING in WHICH all things recieve their existence.
HE, as GOD, can fully express GOD the UNBEGOTTEN, and thus, in hypostatically uniting HIS PRE-EXISTENT PERSON to a virginally concieved Human Nature, represents both GOD and mankind perfectly as the MEDIATOR between GOD and man. JESUS said no one can come to the FATHER but by HIM;
that whoever has seen HIM has seen the FATHER;
and that, before the beginning of the existence of the kosmos, HE and the FATHER shared one Glory equally (reflecting the same reality Paul later writes of about JESUS subsisting in the Very Form of GOD before emptying HIMSELF and taking on the Form of a SERVANT, and being found in the Fashion of a MAN).
These and other related things will be further touched on in their proper Order in the Teaching. The above references will be given their referential coordinates, for being looked up, and the Writings given due treatment to show their reliability.
Before wrapping this post up for the night, let me add this:
the first of the references to GOD speaking in the first person plural in Genesis (1:26) says:
'And_said `ELOHIM, "Let_US_create Adam in_OUR_Image according_to_OUR_Likeness".'
Even the famous Jewish commentator, Rashi, facing the challenge of trying to interpret these words for an non-trinitarian Jewish readership, had to note the first person plurals here and elsewhere for GOD. If the Jews were wont to altar Scripture, they might very well have changed such words as convey the TRINITY of YAHWEH's PERSONS. But that they are so at odds with the picture presented in the Torah of the TRINITY, yet are careful to change not a letter, show that they respect the preservation of Scripture against their private opinions, and that what they so carefully handed down, as independantly handed down by Christians, is reliably preserved.
The interesting thing also is that the MEDIATOR should be named in the first word, then the whole TRINITY revealed in HIM in the third word of Genesis. I have more to show about the first word indicating JESUS in a later post.
Also this:
the word `ELOHIM is used for the PERSONS of the TRINITY (SHELOSHAH) from the first. It is a "masculine" plural, neither singular as to PERSON, nor displaying the derived form of the SON's Expression of the FATHER. However, the singular form, which is only used in the Aramaic Scriptures, has an ending like CHAKHMAH, typifying the derived form from the FATHER that only ONE PERSON (the LORD JESUS CHRIST, as the SON) would assume. The evidence shows "`ELOAH" to derive from "`ELOHIM", and not vice versa. And note the apparent change in gender form from plural to singular.
JESUS, WHO expresses the TRINITY, as the WORD, in establishing language, set the pattern for three-consonant root words.

[muhsin]

Hello Mililali,
I’ve seen and read your well-written reply, but the story is almost as it is before.
My meaning with above sentence is that: Sincerely if you really understand my simple question or I should say my confusion, you would have not wrote that you have so far written.
Well, I think I have to say it again for you and other readers to understand.
Is Jesus really God? If he isn't who do Christians are worshiping? And again, what about the verses I have (though, I should say he has) mentioned in the initial post?
When this is answered, so, I shall have more courage of asking more questions.

[Amra]

muhsin,

I sincerely hope that you will find your way to God, and I pray that He may guide you to the right path. Amen.
It is good that you ask questions and that you search for answers, but I think that it will be hard to find any unbiased views on this forum. If you are sincerely searching for truth, I would recommend to read both the holy Qur'an and any other book that may interest you from other religions, then maybe visit the places where people pray and talk to the imams and priests that lead those places of worship. That way you would get an educated answer about all the questions you may have, and hopefully get them answered to your satisfaction. I would recommend to attend a Friday prayer at the local mosque. You don't have to participate if you feel uncomfortable, but you can simply observe and meet with the local imam afterwards. As a muslim, I cannot answer any of your questions regarding Christianity, because those same questions were never answered for me when I was searching the truth. I also couldn't understand how God could become a human, and how Jesus a.s could be the Son of God, and at the same time, God himself, and all the while walking around people, when he himself taught that no one has ever seen God. I also couldn't understand why God waited so long to send "the savior", when human kind had existed for so long. What happened to those people who lived before Jesus? They simply couldn't be saved? I do not think that Jesus a.s ever thaught any of those things, nor that he believed himself divine in any way. He was the Prophet of God, just like all the other Prophets, and came with the same message as others before him have come with. I also couldn't understand how God, if Jesus is God, could be tempted by Satan, or how God could spend time in hell. Those are just things that are against everything I believe God s.v.t is, and even though they may appear as a nice fairytale (God dying for us, estagfirullah), they simply are not reasonable to me.

Here is an organization you can contact if you have questions about Islam, and hopefully they can help more, and you can also call them up if you would like to talk to them, order books or other material...

whyislam.org

Here is also an online version of the holy Qur'an with a topics index, so that you can look up things that interest you most.

http://web.umr.edu/~msaumr/Quran/

P.S I didn't mean to appear as a missioner, but it just can't be helped. ;)

[Whifflingpin]

Amra: "I also couldn't understand how God, if Jesus is God, could be tempted by Satan"

Perhaps the temptation story is not a stumbling block but a clue. I assume it to be a parable, since no-one else was present and it is unlikely that Jesus ever spoke of his experience. The story only makes any sense from the viewpoint of Jesus as God, and, as best the writer could manage it, describes some of the options open to God.

The first option, symbolised by turning stones into bread, is that God incarnate should use his power for his own benefit, i.e. break his own law, or decline to experience the full physical nature of humanity.
The second option (in Matthew, third in Luke) is that he should avoid death, and so decline to experience the spiritual consequences of humanity.
The other option is that he should impose his divine will everywhere, immediately.

So, Jesus' rejection of the first two temptations is a clue that God had become true man. His rejection of the third, which is still an option He rejects, gives a clue as to why He became true man.

Amra: "What happened to those people who lived before Jesus?"
Amra: "I also couldn't understand ... how God could spend time in hell"
These two answer each other - ignoring the quibble that in the spiritual realm there is no "before," or "time" - the belief that God spent time in hell, whatever that means, is a corollary of His rejection of the second temptation, and it shows that his sacrifice is efficacious for those living, historically, before Jesus, as for those after.

All moonshine, of course, unless you can accept the possibility of the Creator becoming part of His own creation, and if you can accept that, then the other objections are mindless trivia.

.

[Amra]

All moonshine, of course, unless you can accept the possibility of the Creator becoming part of His own creation, and if you can accept that, then the other objections are mindless trivia.

I cannot accept that.

[Stanislaw]

I cannot accept that.

Well God became human to die for us, and offer a grand sacrafice to clense the world of our evil, and offer us a chance for reunification with God after the original divide.
Lit Net Bible: Hebrews (http://www.online-literature.com/bible/Hebrews/)

Hebrews:

9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

So the death of Christ and the reasoning for the manifestion of God on earth as his son Jesus, makes perfect sense and is a clear demonstrations of Gods eternal benevolence.

[Amra]

Well God became human to die for us, and offer a grand sacrafice to clense the world of our evil, and offer us a chance for reunification with God after the original divide.

As fairytale-y as it sounds, this is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. "Became human to die for us"? Really? Why?
If God wanted to forgive us the sins, why didn't He just do it? Why go through this absurd incarnation, so that people can commit even more sin, kill God, and then continue to sin again?

[Stanislaw]

well, only with the shedding of blood can sins be forgiven, so it is a sacrafice of the ultimate sort to show humans how to conquer death and rejoin God in heaven. Without this people would have no way back to heaven.

To me it makes sense in a way, as like a living guide.

[Amra]

well, only with the shedding of blood can sins be forgiven, so it is a sacrafice of the ultimate sort to show humans how to conquer death and rejoin God in heaven. Without this people would have no way back to heaven

Is this Jesus's teaching? That only with shedding of blood sins can be forgiven? Where does this idea come from? What about the verse in the Bible where it says that the father cannot take the sins of the child, nor can the child take the sins of the father?

16: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.


How can you reconcile this verse with the idea of the "original sin", and also Jesus's (God/Father/Son of God) death for the sins of other people (children).

[Whifflingpin]

Amra: "Is this Jesus's teaching? That only with shedding of blood sins can be forgiven? Where does this idea come from?"
Jesus did not originate this idea - in effect, he ended the practice. The Torah is full of the idea of blood sacrifices. Abraham, according to the tale, was quite prepared to sacrifice his son to seal his covenant with God, had God demanded it, which, ultimately He did not.

Amra: "What about the verse in the Bible where it says that the father cannot take the sins of the child, nor can the child take the sins of the father?
16: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. "
How can you reconcile this verse with the idea of the "original sin", and also Jesus's (God/Father/Son of God) death for the sins of other people (children)."

The verse does not state that a father cannot take the sins of the child, etc. only that the father cannot be made to take the sins of the child.
The idea of "original sin" in this context is that everyone is more or less sinful, no-one is perfect, and therefore everyone deserves death. Again, in this context, death is a spiritual death, hell, best described as separation from God.

Jesus, the only perfect being in creation, is alone in not deserving death. In accepting death he makes himself the sacrifice, taking on himself the punishment that is the just reward of every imperfect creature. In so doing, He frees imperfect creatures from the punishment that they are due, i.e. he destroys death.

To put it slightly differently, a species which of its nature is imperfect cannot be united with perfect God. However, if within the species there is one perfect example, then the species is not imperfect by its nature, and there is a possibility of union with God.

Still moonshine - but more or less coherent.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Hello Mililali,
I’ve seen and read your well-written reply, but the story is almost as it is before.
My meaning with above sentence is that: Sincerely if you really understand my simple question or I should say my confusion, you would have not wrote that you have so far written.
Well, I think I have to say it again for you and other readers to understand.
Is Jesus really God? If he isn't who do Christians are worshiping? And again, what about the verses I have (though, I should say he has) mentioned in the initial post?
When this is answered, so, I shall have more courage of asking more questions.
I assure you that I am merely trying to give enough of an overall contextual sampling to show what things cannot be divorced from reading a single passage in the Greek Scriptures of the Church. Without this base, phrases are easily stripped of all their meaning.

[Bright]

Well God became human to die for us, and offer a grand sacrafice to clense the world of our evil, and offer us a chance for reunification with God after the original divide.
.
Salam Aleekom

If God created me and you and all ,
can you tell me what will happen after HIS DEATH ??
and how the universe still working neatly after his death ?!
if we suppose that that had happened !!
Ofcoarse , that didn't happen & our God is the Almighty "who raised far above something mortal " ..

[Stanislaw]

Salam Aleekom

If God created me and you and all ,
can you tell me what will happen after HIS DEATH ??
and how the universe still working neatly after his death ?!
if we suppose that that had happened !!
Ofcoarse , that didn't happen & our God is the Almighty "who raised far above something mortal " ..

Jesus did die, desended to the dead, and on the third day rose from the dead. He died, and came back from the dead. To conqure death.

The apostles creed, a statement of belief of the catholic church (catholic in the meaning of the early catholic church before the split)

I believe in God the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only son and our Lord, who was conceived by the holy spirit, born of the virgin mary, suffered under pontous pilette was crucified died and was burried, he decended to the dead/hell and rose, on the third day he rose again, he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God, from there he will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the holy spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins and the resurection of the body.

So, Jesus (God) died and was burried and came back from the dead by his own power, and is in Heaven as a divine being since he ascended into Heaven of his own power.

[Amra]

Jesus did die, desended to the dead, and on the third day rose from the dead. He died, and came back from the dead. To conqure death.

So for three days, the world was without God, because God was dead? :confused:

[Mililalil XXIV]

Eventually, as I, years passed, start feeling warm toward Christianity. One day, an Islamic preacher I was watching in television says: he uses to wonder why Christian do believe in a religion which it’s body-wholly are all built on easy-to-figure-out dogma. I felt unable to make neither head nor tail of his words.
He-Islamic preacher- had absolutely talked tall and quoted mountains verses from the holy bible, but all those I can recall are:
No one can see me and stay alive (exodus 33:20)
No one has ever seen me, and no one can ever see me (1 timothy 6:16)
You have never heard his voice nor seen his face (john 5:37)
Is Jesus god? He concluded.
My question: if he really is God, thus, has his voice not had been heard, or has his face not had been seen at the then his time.
My people, how things are going as outré as that? Any way out? Because the long time it remains unanswered, the deeper I sink into the mire.
Exodus 33:20 speaks only of GOD's Face, leading into the telling of Moses seeing HIS Form from behind. This is earlier on than a later Passage in which Moses, having grown nearer to GOD, is spoken of as more than a Prophet, when GOD says HE speaks Face to face with Moses as a man speaks with a friend. What HE says in Ex. 33:20 is a general statement about man as he generally is. Other Passages speak evils of man in general, then contrast with this the blessed state of the Righteous.

1Ti. 6:16 speaks of GOD in HIS Infinitude, Which no finite being can see with his own limits. JESUS CHRIST, had HE not become MAN, could not have made GOD known to us in a comprehensible way. In HIS DEITY, in the Glory that was HIS before the existence of the kosmos, JESUS too is incomprehensible to the finite. Having assumed a second Nature, without diminishing HIS Primary Nature, HE can speak from two points of view, as MAN WHO, in acknowledging the DEITY as such, worships the DEITY as MAN, and as GOD WHO looks down from an infinite Nature upon the MAN HE became, speaking of that MAN as GOD, saying not "ME", but, "JESUS CHRIST". [John 17]
John 5:37 says only that JESUS told those HE was then speaking to that they in particular had neither heard the FATHER's Voive, nor seen HIS Form.

Compare carefully John 17 to Phil. 2.
JESUS HIMSELF says,
"And now glorify ME THOU, FATHER, with THYSELF with the Glory Which I had with YOU before the coming into being of the Kosmos." [Jn. 17:5]
Paul likewise wrote:
"...CHRIST JESUS, WHO in GOD's Form subsisting deemed not robbery the being EQUALS with GOD, but emptied HIMSELF taking the Form of a SERVANT, in likeness of men becoming...." [Phil. 2:5-7]

Just as the word translated "Adam" and "man" and "mankind" in the Hebrew ["Adham"], does not always mean the first man, nor always merely a man, nor always all mankind, so also Greek "THEOS" ("GOD") does not always mean just the FATHER, nor always just one PERSON, nor is it unable to be used in a GOD with GOD context, such as saying that JESUS is the one true GOD yet acknowledges another PERSON as GOD, knowing WHO is HIS EQUAL.
If a narrative named one man by name, then had him acknowledge another by calling him by what they both are, that doesn't justify saying only the second person is that thing, and that the first person acknowledged that in calling the second person what he called him.

In the Psalms, it is written,
"YOUR Throne O `ELOHIM is forever and ever, and the Rod of Uprightness is the Rod of YOUR Kingdom.
"YOU have loved Righteousness and have hated lawlessness; therefore, O `ELOHIM, YOUR `ELOHIM anointed YOU with the Oil of Gladness above YOUR Companions." [Ps. 45:7-8]
This refers to JESUS in HIS emptied state, in which the Psalmist still identifies HIM personally as GOD. The Companions referred to are the friends HE made as MAN with humans, whom HE deigned to call "brothers". [Hebr. 2:11]

John 1:1-3 says,
"In [the] Beginning was the LOGOS, and the LOGOS was with the GOD, and GOD was the LOGOS.
"This was in [the] Beginning with the GOD.
"All_things through HIM became, and without HIM became not one_thing that has_become."
In all of the cases that we read "was" above, it is the Greek "en", the tense of which does not commence the state of being at the point to which it refers, but simply opens a door on the already ongoing state of being in mid-flow, so to speak. In other words, in the Beginning, the LOGOS already was (in a continuing existence). In the same Book, JESUS later says to the FATHER of HIMSELF that HE had had the same Glory the FATHER has before the coming into existence of the Kosmos.

We see that it says that, as the LOGOS, JESUS was with "the GOD" - this refers to GOD (the TRINITY) more generally. This harks back to the CHACKMAH Passage in the Proverbs 8:22-36.

Herein is a harking back to the use of "RE`SHIYTH" in Genesis 1:1 to speak of JESUS as the BEGINNING and FOUNDATION of all the creation.
"YAHWEH qananiy RE`SHIYTH DARKO" [first part of Prov. 8:22], literally means, "YAHWEH made_ME the BEGINNING of_HIS_Way". The Passage shows CHAKHMAH to have always been with YAHWEH, from Eternity, before anything was created, and describes CHAKHMAH's function of assuming a Role in the creation of all things, to impart or express HER Essence from YAHWEH, to fill all existence with Wisdom. This Function is exactly the meaning of the term "LOGOS" as applied to JESUS.
Then we are told by John that "GOD was the LOGOS." What the TRINITY is, the PERSON that expressed the DEITY also is in particular.

In the same Gospel of John, those Pharisees that were at odds with JESUS wished to stone HIM for calling HIMSELF the SON of GOD. Why? Because they knew that HE meant that, even as the SON, HE carried the exact same Nature as the FATHER (in HIS DIVINE PERSON, that is). HE did not deny having such a recognition of HIS Equality with the FATHER.

Later, in the same Book, JESUS tells HIS Disciples that HE is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE. This compares well to the description of CHAKHMAH in the Proverbs. Also in the same Book, HE says HE and the FATHER are one, and that whoever has seen HIM has seen the FATHER. This means that as the FATHER's EQUAL, HE reveals HIM in HIS assumed smallness as the MAN JESUS CHRIST.

The same Gospel of John later records how the blessed Apostle Thomas seeing JESUS raised from the dead, exclaims, "My LORD and my GOD!" JESUS says how blessed are all who, having not seen what he saw, yet believe.

The Gospel of John I will address when I have a moment to sufficiently do so. John took care of Mary, the mother of the LORD, so I think her fellowship with him is a good testimony on his behalf.

In the same Gospel, it says that the LOGOS became Flesh. This is reminiscent of Prov. 9:1,
"CHAKHMAH has builded HER House, SHE has hewn out HER Seven Pillars."
CHAKHMAH/LOGOS builds HER House/becomes Flesh.
In John 1:14, it actually says:
"And the LOGOS Flesh became and shekinahed among us, and we beheld HIS Glory, Glory as of an ONLY-BEGOTTEN from a FATHER, full of Grace and of Truth."

Here "BEGOTTEN" has nothing to do with sex. The actual aspect of even a human father begetting has to do with more than the manner in which he involves himself in this. The DIVINE GENERATION involved no such manner of accomplishment. Here we see the SON-Ship of JESUS desribed upon the foregoing basis of the concept of the LOGOS.

Here, the verb I rendered "shekinahed", is also rendered "tabernacled". It is a Greek verb constructed out of the Hebrew word "Shekinah", meaning Manifest Presence. It is what the Presence of YAHWEH was called in the Temple, which was also called "the House of YAHWEH". Because JESUS, being YAHWEH, built HIMSELF Flesh of HIS own as HIS House, HE HIMSELF was the SHEKINAH INCARNATE, and referred to HIS Body as "this Temple". Within the Tabernacle in Moses' day was the Glory of YAHWEH, and he would go in to speak face to Face with GOD. JESUS' Flesh was as the Tabernacle making it possible for mortals to face HIM.
In the Apocalypse, John sees JESUS in a glorious Form, and falls as one dead. JESUS then revived him and fortified him. JESUS said that he who tries to hold onto his life will lose it, but that he who loses his life for HIS sake will find it. While estranged to GOD spiritually, to look on HIM would kill a man. But, in having crucified oneself to selfish waywardness from Love and Knowledge of GOD, the death of the nonspiritual life makes way for Immortality that thrives for ever in looking upon GOD as one's LIFE.

In HIS Infinitude, GOD is beyond finite fathoming. But GOD did appear to men in Epiphanies comprehensible to the beholders - these were finite reflections of the INFINITE, but none the less visible and audible.

Prov. 9 goes on to give hints of CHRIST's Sacrifice, connecting to this Bread and Wine, as in Communion. The Seven Pillars have to do with the purpose of HIS Temple (Body), as the SERVANT anointed the CHRIST with a Sevenfold Anointing, with the SEVENFOLD SPIRIT.

[Mililalil XXIV]

So for three days, the world was without God, because God was dead? :confused:
HIS DEITY never died, only the MAN HE became. While HE suffered as MAN, HE held all things together by the Word of HIS Power as GOD. Anyways, neither the FATHER nor the HOLY SPIRIT were crucified, and what HE emptied HIMSELF of to enter HIS infinitely humble Role as GOD's SERVANT, HE did not drag into HIS Passion. The Passion undoubtedly grieved the TRINITY, and there is much evidence of the early darkening of the heavens that day.

The very reason GOD became a SON to HIS EQUAL is that HE would then enter the Form of a MAN only as obeying ONE no less than HIMSELF. Then, as MAN, as fulfilling a Mission given HIM by no less than the UNBEGOTTEN GOD, HE suffered certain things according to an assumed Humanity HE HIMSELF created, and, in this way, did not let HIS Prime, Unbegotten Properties as YAHWEH get demeaned. Though this was the case, HE did at least once warn the Pharisees that their sins against the SON of man would be forgiven, but that they were in danger of committing an unforgiveable sin if they were to directly assault HIS SPIRIT.

[Logos]

Mililalil XXIV, maybe you could tone it down a bit with the quotes. It is difficult at times to read your posts when you don't use paragraphs, nor do you always define clearly what are quotes and which are your own opinions.

[Stanislaw]

So for three days, the world was without God, because God was dead? :confused:

The world was not without God. God exist in three parts: God the Father, Jesus, The Holy Spirit. So the death of Jesus is and is not the death of God, al three are seperate yet are God, and the balance was maintained with the resurection.

[Mililalil XXIV]

muhsin,
It is good that you ask questions and that you search for answers, but I think that it will be hard to find any unbiased views on this forum. If you are sincerely searching for truth, I would recommend to read both the holy Qur'an and any other book that may interest you from other religions, then maybe visit the places where people pray and talk to the imams and priests that lead those places of worship. That way you would get an educated answer about all the questions you may have, and hopefully get them answered to your satisfaction. I would recommend to attend a Friday prayer at the local mosque. You don't have to participate if you feel uncomfortable, but you can simply observe and meet with the local imam afterwards. As a muslim, I cannot answer any of your questions regarding Christianity, because those same questions were never answered for me when I was searching the truth. I also couldn't understand how God could become a human, and how Jesus a.s could be the Son of God, and at the same time, God himself, and all the while walking around people, when he himself taught that no one has ever seen God. I also couldn't understand why God waited so long to send "the savior", when human kind had existed for so long. What happened to those people who lived before Jesus? They simply couldn't be saved? I do not think that Jesus a.s ever thaught any of those things, nor that he believed himself divine in any way. He was the Prophet of God, just like all the other Prophets, and came with the same message as others before him have come with. I also couldn't understand how God, if Jesus is God, could be tempted by Satan, or how God could spend time in hell. Those are just things that are against everything I believe God s.v.t is, and even though they may appear as a nice fairytale (God dying for us, estagfirullah), they simply are not reasonable to me.

http://web.umr.edu/~msaumr/Quran/

P.S I didn't mean to appear as a missioner, but it just can't be helped. ;)
CHRIST preached to the spirits in prison in the realm of the dead. HE didn't forsake them.

As for GOD, you seem to be thinking of HIM in finite terms. All things in HIS creation reflect something heavenly, though not without limitations and overlap. What happens with a human father and son is a shortened version of the matter of the FATHER and the SON, WHO are both infinite PERSONS. A human can only be one human thing at a time as to time of life - and stages of maturity, for us, are bound up with particular times of life. GOD, being infinite, can answer every Prayer at once, can speak to every one at once with different words to each, can blaze a fire and simultaneously make the thing on fire not burn (think of the Burning Bush Moses saw), etc. HE can take on the Role of a SON to HIS EQUAL (the Vicepresident takes on a role that accords with that of the President, yet retains all the same faculties, and this is on a finite scale), while HIS Prime Nature as the OTHER's EQUAL does not disappear. Paul speaks of CHRIST emptying HIMSELF in terms of an attitude HE bore toward HIS EQUAL WHOM HE treated as superior, saying that Christians, though equals, ought likewise to regard, each, the others as superiors. The Gospel of John does not say that the Unbegotten Properties that JESUS emptied HIMSELF of in attitude toward HIS EQUAL became Flesh, but only HIS Expression of GOD, HIS SON-Ship, did.

What GOD does here does not pin HIM down and disable HIS activity over there. You can only think one thought at a time, pray one prayer at a time, or shift from thing to thing with divided attention. It is not so with GOD. What HE did locally in HIS Humanity did not drain HIS Infinitude of PERSON in HIS DEITY and First Nature. You cannot be your age and a newborn baby, because, for the same reason you cannot think two thoughts at once with perfect undistracted thought, you prove finite. GOD, WHO is in every place at once, is not unable to grant an Epiphany here, and a different one there, and can do more than endless hands could accomplish. Can such a ONE be so bound as to not be able to live out a human life on a local level while retaining HIS DEITY everywhere and beyond? To presume so is to try to sum up the DEITY as something very puny indeed.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Mililalil XXIV, maybe you could tone it down a bit with the quotes. It is difficult at times to read your posts when you don't use paragraphs, nor do you always define clearly what are quotes and which are your own opinions.
I just sent my last post, Logos, then saw the above you posted. I will do as you say.

[Logos]

Thank you :)

[Theshizznigg]

Your question is not an unnatural one, and indeed it says in Genesis that whoever looked upon God would indeed perish, if sin was found in him.

Moses, at the near end of his life, was the only human since Enoch, to actually be able to talk face to face with God, and because of such he had to wear a veil, because he radiated the power of God from him.
The others in the assembly could not look upon him, because the were ashamed of their own sin, thus Moses wore a veil till his dying day.

Now the question. Is Christ really God?

Yes.
God, created Adam, and knew he would rebel against him.
The reason for this is that Adam and his descendants would be given something the Devil, never had.
The freedom of choice.
The reason for the freedom of choice was so that humans could choose, God, or Lucifer, or remain neutral.
In those times, even men who were close to God died, and when they were dead they became Satans, because of Adams fall.
Thus God had planned for a way to save his creations, and that was in the form of Jesus.

When Jesus came, important changes took place.
Jesus laid waste to all old religious values, and laid down a new law with only a single commandment.
"Love thy brother, as thy would love thyself."

He died for everyone in the history of the world, paying for everyone to be free from the bondage of sin, if they'd only believe and ask for forgiveness, thus those that died in the lord, were free as well.

He said, "Seek the face of the lord, and he will find you."
Many Christians don't understand that this is a statement for you to openly seek the lord.
The priests/bishops cannot do it for you, you have to seek him out yourself, and your instrument for this is the bible.

God humbled himself in front of his creations, because he allowed part of his spirit to be made into a mortal man.

This was essential, because it closed the gap between humanity and God, God was willing to show his creations his love for them, by becoming part of them.

So, it was no longer the case of God in heaven, but God in the form of a man.
This in turn made people want to develop a closer relationship with God, through Christ.
God was no longer, "Unapproachable."

Christ suffered the urges of earthly temptations, yet denied them, showing people that they to could deny the temptations of sin, and thus not fall into the pitfalls of their elders.

What you decide in the end is your decision, I only hope this has helped to clarify.

Shizz.

"What might be right for you, might not be right for some."
Different Strokes.

[muhsin]

What a bundle of response? Well, i really appreciated all the people that have done that. keep it up.
But, i'm tought to tell the truth,however,wherever,etc i found myself.so, to tell the truth about (all) your reply is that: I'M STILL THIRSTY OF.......Understand?

[Stanislaw]

What a bundle of response? Well, i really appreciated all the people that have done that. keep it up.
But, i'm tought to tell the truth,however,wherever,etc i found myself.so, to tell the truth about (all) your reply is that: I'M STILL THIRSTY OF.......Understand?

I would suggest taking a world religion course, and make up your own mind.

[Mililalil XXIV]

I still have much more to offer - I apologize for the time I must be away.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Muhsin,
though this is not yet the fuller treatment of your questions promised, let it be pointed out here and now that a comparison of Christological statements in Scripture reveal JESUS on two levels:
as ALMIGHTY GOD WHO emptied HIMSELF to become MAN;
and as the DIVINE MAN (in PERSON) WHO, as such, lives out a perfect GOD-filled Human Life consumated in death, then, in reward to HIS Humanity for perfectly reflecting HIS DEITY in Virtue, recieves in HIS Humanity Divine Honor in addition to HIS recieving back as GOD all HE lade aside in submission to the FATHER.

Consider how this is reflected in the fact that in coming into the world as MAN, HE came to what belonged to HIM in HIS DEITY, as the CREATOR. [John Chapter 1] Then consider all that HE spoke of all things being given to HIM as the MAN JESUS CHRIST, when all should be fulfilled in HIS Human Mission. Then think back on what HE said of HIS taking back HIS Glory HE had together with HIM WHO sent HIM before all things existed that HE was to recieve as MAN when HE returned from the depths to HIS rightful due above every height. [John 17; Phil. 2]

John 1 begins from JESUS' preeminent Glory, then tells of HIS creation of all things, then speaks of HIS assuming HIS tabernacling Nature, calling in this progression of thoughts, all that HE introduced HIMSELF as MAN to HIS own, then enters into the Narrative in which JESUS makes references to HIMSELF both as MAN and as GOD. In saying HE should be given all things, HE means as MAN, in which Nature HE never before asserted HIS DEITY on HIS own behalf; He also says HE will be recieving back all the due HIS DEITY warrants, referreing herein to HIS emptying HIMSELF in HIS DEITY that, as we earlier read, owned all things already by Divine Nature.

[muhsin]

Hey my people! I'm backed from my journey.
WHICH IS ACTUALLY WHICH?

best regards.

[Theshizznigg]

In the end Muhsin, it comes down to a simple question of faith.
Do I believe Jesus is the Son of God? Yes. There are many instances in the bible, both in the old and new testament that he is mentioned as the son of God, the promised messiah.
Can I prove it, other from what is said in the bible? No.
And there is a reason it is such.
Jesus cannot force you to trust him, love him, and obey him. It is freedom of choice.
If he appeared and demanded all peoples obedience, then a person would not be serving him, they would be enslaved by him, and humantiy would be back to square one.
Thus a natural barrier of doubt exists between humans and Christ.
It is those who overcome this that become born again Christians, because they believed when doubt was evident, that Christ is the son of God.

Also there is a difference between Christ and God. Moses, Noah, Abraham, Israel, etc. All knew God. Moses was so close to God that he actually was able to look upon him in all his glory, and it marked him.
The average man who has sin in his heart cannot look upon the face of God, since it would kill him.
Yet, when Christ became a man, allowed himself to become mortal. It was an exciting change, since he bridged the gap between Creation and Creator.
God had humbled himself, so that through his son, he might save his creations instead of having them perish and cease.

Hope this has helped you a little.

Shizz

"Of all the tuna salads in this world, You just had to be in this one!"
- Angry Deli Chef to Cockroach.

[muhsin]

In the end Muhsin, it comes down to a simple question of faith.
Do I believe Jesus is the Son of God? Yes. There are many instances in the bible, both in the old and new testament that he is mentioned as the son of God, the promised messiah.
Can I prove it, other from what is said in the bible? No.
And there is a reason it is such.
Jesus cannot force you to trust him, love him, and obey him. It is freedom of choice.
If he appeared and demanded all peoples obedience, then a person would not be serving him, they would be enslaved by him, and humantiy would be back to square one.
Thus a natural barrier of doubt exists between humans and Christ.
It is those who overcome this that become born again Christians, because they believed when doubt was evident, that Christ is the son of God.

Also there is a difference between Christ and God. Moses, Noah, Abraham, Israel, etc. All knew God. Moses was so close to God that he actually was able to look upon him in all his glory, and it marked him.
The average man who has sin in his heart cannot look upon the face of God, since it would kill him.
Yet, when Christ became a man, allowed himself to become mortal. It was an exciting change, since he bridged the gap between Creation and Creator.
God had humbled himself, so that through his son, he might save his creations instead of having them perish and cease.

Hope this has helped you a little.

Shizz

"Of all the tuna salads in this world, You just had to be in this one!"
- Angry Deli Chef to Cockroach.

Hello,
As you said that Jesus(pbuh) is the son of God, this again invites more confussion, becouse, as i learned from the holy bible, every Tom, Dick,Muhsin, Jabir,etc who follow the Will and Plan of God was a SON OF GOD. I think this was a metaphorical descriptive term, commonly used among the Jews.
Reasons:
".....Adam, which was the SON OF GOD." Luke 3:38
"....Israel is MY SON, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22
"...for I (God) am a FATHER to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" Jeremiah 31:9
"That the SONS OF GOD came in unto the daugters of men, and they bare children to them....." Genesis 6:2&4.
.....and lots more my dear.Can you see that in the language of Jew?
As an APOSTLE and TEACHER, Jesus had followed all that was said by his Father(Almighty God),so if he was called the SON OF GOD i see nothing wrong in it.

Still, Which is really Which?

[rufioag]

Once again Muhsin, you must be careful to not grab claims out of context. Lets look at the phrase Son of God and what it means. The term Son of God was originally used to show that one contained the essence of God. This is easy to understand when we take a look at an example. Take for instance myself, I am the son of my father, lets say Son of George. Now I am the physical son of my father yes that is true, but i also represent the essence of my father in actions. Like father like son as is said becuase the Father teaches the son and so the son is in essence much like the father. Now, over the course of time, the term Son of God had a great meaning and became a portion of the messianic prophesies. So if you said, I am the Son of God, you were claiming Diety.

Is this enough of an explanation? Jesus was not merely a prophet because prophets do not lie, correct? Jesus claimed to be the Son of God! If this is not true, then it is a lie. Check out John 5:18-24 and especially read John 5:18

[muhsin]

Once again Muhsin, you must be careful to not grab claims out of context. Lets look at the phrase Son of God and what it means. The term Son of God was originally used to show that one contained the essence of God. This is easy to understand when we take a look at an example. Take for instance myself, I am the son of my father, lets say Son of George. Now I am the physical son of my father yes that is true, but i also represent the essence of my father in actions. Like father like son as is said becuase the Father teaches the son and so the son is in essence much like the father. Now, over the course of time, the term Son of God had a great meaning and became a portion of the messianic prophesies. So if you said, I am the Son of God, you were claiming Diety.

Is this enough of an explanation? Jesus was not merely a prophet because prophets do not lie, correct? Jesus claimed to be the Son of God! If this is not true, then it is a lie. Check out John 5:18-24 and especially read John 5:18

I still didn't agree. How can i agree that Jesus is not a prophet after there are montain verses that comfirmed his being prophet?
However, i would like you to go back, read my post that is b4 this one, and take your bible raed the following verses: Acts 2:22,1 timithy 2:7 and john 11:41-42.
And again, if you say he really is the SON OF GOD, he, as it was said in Luke 3:38, Adam must be either his elder/younger brother. and also Israel in the Exodus 4:22.
Lets even say he is, but who does he say we should worship? himself? NO! but who? God-ie only one God and serve him only(Allah) Mathew 4:10.
".......I AM THE ONLY GOD THERE IS(Isaiah 45 :22)

[miwok]

Jesus was the first spirit child of the Father (Romans 8:29, Psalms 89:27)

Jesus was the only begotten of the Father. He was the spiritual and physical off spring of his Father,.(John 1:14)

Christ was with the Father from the begining and was the Creator of everything ( Peter 1;20, John 1;1-15, Hebrews 1:2, 1:10, 11:3 Ephesians 3:9

We are the spiritual offsping of the Father,(Acts 17:29, Romans 8:16 Hebrews 12:9) We are all sons and daughters of the Father.