Did Jesus say he was God???

[Jacksnyte]

The only way I can see this working out is if this hell means "the grave" as it did in the original Hebrew texts. If "going to Hell" means they simply cease to exist, then it makes sense. Hell being a literal place invalidates the omnipresence of a god, which, in turn, invalidates said god's omnipotence.

 

[1robin]

I am getting the expression that you are in love with Shabir hehe joke.

Yes I do. I wish I could meet him. He is the most respectful, knowledgable, and sincere Muslim apolagist there is in my opinion. However he is still wrong of course. Just kidding back at you.

I don't really care about the commentaries of the bible or the numbers of it assuming something is different then knowing something. A hadith has to be authentic and reliable before its accepted by any scholar so the hadith he rejected was probably a unreliable one, even if a Hadiths speaks in favour of Islam we still need to look at its reliability and authenticity.

What is it that you verify that guarantees reliability?

Didn't i say you can interpret the story as you want the verse clearly says he was tempted period. Please read my first post again, i specially used the NIV translation because you use it. I agree with the second translastion of the word being ''tested'' but how does this change anything of what i have said or the verses?

No it doesn't it says or originally said:
Textus Receptus
tote o ihsouV anhcqh eiV thn erhmon upo tou pneumatoV peirasqhnai upo tou diabolou
Matthew 4 - Parallel Greek New Testament - HTML Bible by johnhurt.com
Can you show me what the word for tempted is and what it means? Thats what Islam does with Arabic. Either way it doesn't matter. The meaning of that (Peirazo) word is to "Try to see if a thing could be done". As I said earlier Greek is the most precise language in history and sometimes looses a little something when translated. There is nothing in that verse in any language to suggest that it had any effect on Christ. Even if he did that could easily be explained that his non - devine flesh nature might have been tempted but his devine spirit quicky shut satan down and was never effected. There are three very reasonable explanaitions and none of them prove your point.

The trinity again.. can you please define a person for me?

To shorten this somewhat, since I can not figure out what the importance of the Trinity is exactly I will drop it. I really don't care. It is not the important issue.

I agree but the verse says he doesn't and isn't.

This is what you posted "Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other." Deuteronomy 4:39
If that is the verse it says he is and he is. If we agree it doesn't matter anyway does it. I am trying to shorten this.

I am not sure what the Quran has anything to do with this and no Mohammed(saws) didn't die according to the Quran it would make no sense. When we say someone died it doesn't mean he or she really died, but hes Physical body died however when we are going to say ''Somebody needs to die for our sins'' then that person's soul has to die. A Physical body isn't the person, i am not sure if you understand where i am getting to..

Well he might not should have been buried then. Just kidding, actually you make my case for me "When we say someone died it doesn't mean he or she really died, but hes Physical body died " That is exactly my point. Since Islam has no doctrine concerning the death of one man for the sins of another even if your view was accurate it is meaningless. It is actually only necessary to let the bible define it's own terms. It says death is the physical death and the second death is the spiritual death. Thats it. The quran can't be used to define biblical terms.

When we say someone died it doesn't mean he or she really died, but hes Physical body died however when we are going to say ''Somebody needs to die for our sins'' then that person's soul has to die. A Physical body isn't the person, i am not sure if you understand where i am getting to..

Can you provide some verses to back up this claim in the Quran. I am just curious it doesn't affect the issue. Yes I know what you are trying to say and why but it is incorrect concerning the bible. It might be correct in the quran but even that I am doubtful of.

Where did i make a new definition both Scriptures say that a soul cannot die and we both agree.

Can't remember, moving on.

 

[waitasec]

I don't see a dilemma.

sure you do...

I do not believe that you will know that regardless of Hells nature.

that is how you reconcile the dilemma.

and to further the disclaimer of not seeing a dilemma you say..

There will be a drastic change of our nature when we go to heaven.

right. the loss of the ability to be aware of others is a biggy.

I believe it is biblicly cosistent to suggest that there will be nothing to empathize about.

especially if one is not aware of others and only on their self and the way they feel when in the presence of god, right? that's all that matters...how you feel.

Since in protestant (or biblical) Christianity there are only two choices. One horrible and one great regardless of any minor unclear details, and that is suffecient enough to base a decision on.

this has nothing to do with not being aware of ones loved ones..
and come to think of it, are we not lying to our children when we tell them we will see them again in heaven?

God never said we will know everything about everything and so why expect it or demand it. Many things are and wil be mysterious. I prefer it that way. The loss of wonder as we mature is a tragedy.

funny. yet you are able to know this?
interesting.

 

[1robin]

sure you do...

Prove it and I will acknowledge it.

that is how you reconcile the dilemma.

and to further the disclaimer of not seeing a dilemma you say..

That was no dilemma to me. Of course it could have been one to you.

right. the loss of the ability to be aware of others is a biggy.

Of course but if heaven is real I don't see another option. To have painful memories would lessen Heaven's reputations for sure.

especially if one is not aware of others and only on their self and the way they feel when in the presence of god, right? that's all that matters...how you feel.

I have no idea. If that was it for me it would be enough. I imagine and the bible says there are more wonders in heaven than it is possible for our tiny minds to grasp. Keep in mind I am giving you my opinion based on scripture to some extent not proven accepted clear doctrine.

this has nothing to do with not being aware of ones loved ones..
and come to think of it, are we not lying to our children when we tell them we will see them again in heaven?

You may very well be lying if you tell them that. I hate politically correct unjustified false religion made up because it feels good. People will invent all kinds of things that make them feel good but have to way to justify them at all. Some girl I dated said here Mom could see her from heaven. Of course I was not about to tell her she was wrong. I simply asked her why she believed that. She had no answer. That was a long night.

funny. yet you are able to know this?
interesting.

Since nobody does or has it seems quite obvious to me. Are you suggesting it is reasonable to expect all the answers to every issue? You have to keep in mind that I firmly believe the bible is true revelation and so sometimes I make claims based on my thinking you understand and except that context. I keep forgetting non-believers will use every letter and word out of context to make a claim of inaccuracy.

 

[waitasec]

Prove it and I will acknowledge it.

That was no dilemma to me. Of course it could have been one to you.

that is what i am saying...it isn't a dilemma for you since you claim that you will be in a state of complete unawareness.

Of course but if heaven is real I don't see another option. To have painful memories would lessen Heaven's reputations for sure.

that's why it doesn't work for me.

I have no idea. If that was it for me it would be enough. I imagine and the bible says there are more wonders in heaven than it is possible for our tiny minds to grasp. Keep in mind I am giving you my opinion based on scripture to some extent not proven accepted clear doctrine.

don't you think i already know that...

You may very well be lying if you tell them that. I hate politically correct unjustified false religion made up because it feels good. People will invent all kinds of things that make them feel good but have to way to justify them at all. Some girl I dated said here Mom could see her from heaven. Of course I was not about to tell her she was wrong. I simply asked her why she believed that. She had no answer. That was a long night.

well, i don't say that. i tell my child some believe there is a heaven. i happen to think we all just fall asleep and never wake up.

Since nobody does or has it seems quite obvious to me. Are you suggesting it is reasonable to expect all the answers to every issue?

not at all. i'm suggesting that to pretend to know, for lack of a better word, is to stop oneself from wondering and questioning and that would be tragic.

You have to keep in mind that I firmly believe the bible is true revelation and so sometimes I make claims based on my thinking you understand and except that context. I keep forgetting non-believers will use every letter and word out of context to make a claim of inaccuracy.

of course i believe you believe that...and what you need to remember is that i don't believe because there is absolutely no verifiable evidence that suggests the bible is the word of god.
i think it's a waste of time and i also think that those who do not see this understanding as subjective but as truth are responsible for the reason i feel insecure living in a country that claims it is "one nation under god" as it has proven itself to diversify, separate and discriminate based on religious dogma.

 

[F0uad]

Yes I do. I wish I could meet him. He is the most respectful, knowledgable, and sincere Muslim apolagist there is in my opinion. However he is still wrong of course. Just kidding back at you.

Hehe.. Ok.

What is it that you verify that guarantees reliability?

I am no scholar so i cant verify anything but muslims scholars have there methods its called the science of hadith. Ill give you a brief and short list that are only used on Islamic hadiths:

A hadith consists of two parts: its text called matn, and its chain of narrators called isnad. Comprehensive and strict criteria were separately developed for the evaluation of matn and isnad. The former is regarded as the internal test of ahadith, and the latter is considered the external test. A hadith was accepted as authentic and recorded into text only when it met both of these criteria independently.

Criteria for the Evaluation of Isnad

The unblemished and undisputed character of the narrator, called rawi, was the most important consideration for the acceptance of a hadith. As stated earlier, a new branch of 'ilm al-hadith known as asma' ar-rijal was developed to evaluate the credibility of narrators. The following are a few of the criteria utilized for this purpose:

1. The name, nickname, title, parentage and occupation of the narrator should be known.
2. The original narrator should have stated that he heard the hadith directly from the Prophet.
3. If a narrator referred his hadith to another narrator, the two should have lived in the same period and have had the possibility of meeting each other.
4. At the time of hearing and transmitting the hadith, the narrator should have been physically and mentally capable of understanding and remembering it.
5. The narrator should have been known as a pious and virtuous person.
6. The narrator should not have been accused of having lied, given false evidence or committed a crime.
7. The narrator should not have spoken against other reliable people.
8. The narrator's religious beliefs and practices should have been known to be correct.
9. The narrator should not have carried out and practised peculiar religious beliefs of his own.
​

Criteria for the Evaluation of Matn

1. The text should have been stated in plain and simple language.
2. A text in non-Arabic or couched in indecent language was rejected.
3. A text prescribing heavy punishment for minor sins or exceptionally large reward for small virtues was rejected.
4. A text which referred to actions that should have been commonly known and practiced by others but were not known and practiced was rejected.
5. A text contrary to the basic teachings of the Qur'an was rejected.
6. A text contrary to other ahadith was rejected.
7. A text contrary to basic reason, logic and the known principles of human society was rejected.
8. A text inconsistent with historical facts was rejected.
9. Extreme care was taken to ensure the text was the original narration of the Prophet and not the sense of what the narrator heard. The meaning of the hadith was accepted only when the narrator was well known for his piety and integrity of character.
10. A text derogatory to the Prophet, members of his family or his companions was rejected.
11. A text by an obscure narrator which was not known during the age of sahabah [the Prophet's companions] or the tabi'een [those who inherited the knowledge of the sahabah] was rejected.

More information Here
​

Along with these generally accepted criteria, each scholar then developed and practised his own set of specific criteria to further ensure the authenticity of each hadith. For instance, Imam al-Bukhari would not accept a hadith unless it clearly stated that narrator A had heard it from narrator B. He would not accept the general statement that A narrated through B. On this basis he did not accept a single hadith narrated through 'Uthman, even though Hasan al-Basri always stayed very close to 'Ali. Additionally, it is stated that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal practised each hadith before recording it in his Musnad [book or collection of hadith].

No it doesn't it says or originally said:
Textus Receptus
tote o ihsouV anhcqh eiV thn erhmon upo tou pneumatoV peirasqhnai upo tou diabolou
Matthew 4 - Parallel Greek New Testament - HTML Bible by johnhurt.com
Can you show me what the word for tempted is and what it means? Thats what Islam does with Arabic. Either way it doesn't matter. The meaning of that (Peirazo) word is to "Try to see if a thing could be done". As I said earlier Greek is the most precise language in history and sometimes looses a little something when translated. There is nothing in that verse in any language to suggest that it had any effect on Christ. Even if he did that could easily be explained that his non - devine flesh nature might have been tempted but his devine spirit quicky shut satan down and was never effected. There are three very reasonable explanaitions and none of them prove your point.

Ok so we agree that its a miss-translation the word should be translated as tested, but the problem is still there the tempting still took place according to the scripture call it testing if wanted. Both verses uses the same word ''Peirazo'' and its also used in the verse of Abraham(p) so it does mean ''test'' however the verse clearly says God does not get tested/tempted.

To shorten this somewhat, since I can not figure out what the importance of the Trinity is exactly I will drop it. I really don't care. It is not the important issue.

OK.

This is what you posted "Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other." Deuteronomy 4:39
If that is the verse it says he is and he is. If we agree it doesn't matter anyway does it. I am trying to shorten this.

The point i was making that in Deuteronomy general he is describes as One-God 1Being and never three Beings therefore the One-Being who is in Heaven and on Earth is one and the same it doesn't split into its creations.

Well he might not should have been buried then. Just kidding, actually you make my case for me "When we say someone died it doesn't mean he or she really died, but hes Physical body died " That is exactly my point. Since Islam has no doctrine concerning the death of one man for the sins of another even if your view was accurate it is meaningless. It is actually only necessary to let the bible define it's own terms. It says death is the physical death and the second death is the spiritual death. Thats it. The quran can't be used to define biblical terms.

:thud:You threw the Quran into the discussion not me, however i am using a logic and reason trying to get somewhere. So let me ask you again because i fail to understand you, if a body dies does that mean that the ''PERSON'' died or simply hes body? We call him death because he is no longer among us but when somebody caries a burden on him then the soul caries it.

Can you provide some verses to back up this claim in the Quran. I am just curious it doesn't affect the issue. Yes I know what you are trying to say and why but it is incorrect concerning the bible. It might be correct in the quran but even that I am doubtful of.

Which claim?

Can't remember, moving on.

Ok.


Ps: Sorry for the English its my forth language and i am still learning it.

 

[F0uad]

Can you also address the other verses i mentioned:

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Numbers 23:19

Acts 2:22 makes it quite plain that Jesus(p) was a man, "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know."

The key part in the verse 19 is, "lo ish el bikhazab uben adam beyit nekham". The negation occurs at the beginning of the sentence with the word "ìà" or lo which is similar with the Arabicnegation la. What this literally means is "It is not true that God is a man and will lie and the son of man and He will change His mind". The negation is distributed to each phrase which then yields, "God is not a man and He does not lie, He is not the son of man and He does not repent."

As we know the Gospels describe Jesus(p) is both man and the son of man. Verse 19 of Numbers 23 says that God is neither man nor the son of man. When we bring these two together do we not arrive at the conclusion that Jesus isn't God?

 

[Muffled]

I did not Make Jesus the Image of God, God did. 2 Cor 4:4-6 says Jesus is the Image of God and is Lord. Now i do not have statues or photos of Jesus. However, Jesus in my heart and in my mind is the Image of God in whom i worship day and night. Do not be decieved by Satan as Paul says and see that to look at God we would see before us Jesus who is the Image of God. Thomas stood before Jesus and claimed as i do today, that Jesus is My Lord and My God. Not only is Jesus the Image of God, he is the one who created all things to give us eyes to see his image. Not only is Jesus the offspring of David, He is foundation of David and all creation.

So to clear things up, do i have statues or pictures of jesus around my house that I worship, no. But do I worship the Image of Jesus in my Body, Soul, and Spirit that is see in the bible and know in my Relationship with, YES.

Then you are worshipping a concept of an image. However the problem is the same in that it is not God that is worshipped but an image.

In this you worship God and not an image. It is after all the intangibles that are God and those intagibles are seen in Jesus. If I asked you to produce an image of truth you could not draw me a picture but we see truth in Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

Some logic..

Premise 1: Humans are imperfect.
Premise 2: Jesus was a human.
Premise 3: Jesus was imperfect.

Conclusion: Jesus was not God and no i am not talking about being sinless or a sinner.

Also the logical fallacy that Jesus(p) was both makes no sense and raises more problems then it fixes trust me.

This premise is incorrect. Jesus is not a human. A human has a human spirit. Jesus has the spirit of God.

This is not a fallacy. Every normal person has a physical human body and an indwelling spirit. Jesus has at least the appearance of a human body (It is a created body so it could be different in some way) and the indwelling spirit is God.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus cannot be God,
there is multiple reasons for this:
1. He is CLEARLY referenced as "the son of God"
2. When he is on earth clearly he is still praying to God his father
3 Philipians Chapter 2 verses 5-7 state "Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form(he was a spirit like God), gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form(by coming to earth) and came to be in the likeness of men." (brackets mine)

That is a misinterpretation. It says nothing about being another spirit like God. The form of God is that of a spirit but no other spirit is like the Spirit of God. My spirit is not in the form of God. I will grant that my spirit is a little like God's in some ways but not totally like Him. The text would have had to be "existing in a godlike form" but it is not.

This is a non-sequitur.

 

[1robin]

Hehe.. Ok.

I am no scholar so i cant verify anything but muslims scholars have there methods its called the science of hadith. Ill give you a brief and short list that are only used on Islamic hadiths:

A hadith consists of two parts: its text called matn, and its chain of narrators called isnad. Comprehensive and strict criteria were separately developed for the evaluation of matn and isnad. The former is regarded as the internal test of ahadith, and the latter is considered the external test. A hadith was accepted as authentic and recorded into text only when it met both of these criteria independently.

Criteria for the Evaluation of Isnad

The unblemished and undisputed character of the narrator, called rawi, was the most important consideration for the acceptance of a hadith. As stated earlier, a new branch of 'ilm al-hadith known as asma' ar-rijal was developed to evaluate the credibility of narrators. The following are a few of the criteria utilized for this purpose:

1. The name, nickname, title, parentage and occupation of the narrator should be known.
2. The original narrator should have stated that he heard the hadith directly from the Prophet.
3. If a narrator referred his hadith to another narrator, the two should have lived in the same period and have had the possibility of meeting each other.
4. At the time of hearing and transmitting the hadith, the narrator should have been physically and mentally capable of understanding and remembering it.
5. The narrator should have been known as a pious and virtuous person.
6. The narrator should not have been accused of having lied, given false evidence or committed a crime.
7. The narrator should not have spoken against other reliable people.
8. The narrator's religious beliefs and practices should have been known to be correct.
9. The narrator should not have carried out and practised peculiar religious beliefs of his own.
​

Criteria for the Evaluation of Matn

1. The text should have been stated in plain and simple language.
2. A text in non-Arabic or couched in indecent language was rejected.
3. A text prescribing heavy punishment for minor sins or exceptionally large reward for small virtues was rejected.
4. A text which referred to actions that should have been commonly known and practiced by others but were not known and practiced was rejected.
5. A text contrary to the basic teachings of the Qur'an was rejected.
6. A text contrary to other ahadith was rejected.
7. A text contrary to basic reason, logic and the known principles of human society was rejected.
8. A text inconsistent with historical facts was rejected.
9. Extreme care was taken to ensure the text was the original narration of the Prophet and not the sense of what the narrator heard. The meaning of the hadith was accepted only when the narrator was well known for his piety and integrity of character.
10. A text derogatory to the Prophet, members of his family or his companions was rejected.
11. A text by an obscure narrator which was not known during the age of sahabah [the Prophet's companions] or the tabi'een [those who inherited the knowledge of the sahabah] was rejected.

More information Here
​

Along with these generally accepted criteria, each scholar then developed and practised his own set of specific criteria to further ensure the authenticity of each hadith. For instance, Imam al-Bukhari would not accept a hadith unless it clearly stated that narrator A had heard it from narrator B. He would not accept the general statement that A narrated through B. On this basis he did not accept a single hadith narrated through 'Uthman, even though Hasan al-Basri always stayed very close to 'Ali. Additionally, it is stated that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal practised each hadith before recording it in his Musnad [book or collection of hadith].

Thanks for the info I am going to look into this for a bit.

Ok so we agree that its a miss-translation the word should be translated as tested, but the problem is still there the tempting still took place according to the scripture call it testing if wanted. Both verses uses the same word ''Peirazo'' and its also used in the verse of Abraham(p) so it does mean ''test'' however the verse clearly says God does not get tested/tempted.

What is a verse of Abraham? Actually here is the verse that says God cannot be tempted:

Let no man say when he is tempted , I am tempted of God 2316: for God cannot be tempted551 with evil , neither tempteth he any man:
G551 apeirastos ä-pā'-rä-stos
cannot be tempted
1) not liable to temptation to sin

Mat 4:1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted 3985 of the devil
G3985 peiraō pā-rä'-ō
assay, go about, vr tempted

1) to try whether a thing can be done
a) to attempt, endeavour



As you can see these are two seperate greek words. I told you Greek was descriptive. I think they have 5+ words that can be translated for English tempted.
So hopefully that puts it to bed.

OK.
The point i was making that in Deuteronomy general he is describes as One-God 1Being and never three Beings therefore the One-Being who is in Heaven and on Earth is one and the same it doesn't split into its creations.

F0uad, you are wearing me out. Since I do not know why the Trinity is so important I have not done much research on it and prefer to stay away from it at this time. I am getting burned out. When is it going to be my turn anyway?

You threw the Quran into the discussion not me, however i am using a logic and reason trying to get somewhere. So let me ask you again because i fail to understand you, if a body dies does that mean that the ''PERSON'' died or simply hes body? We call him death because he is no longer among us but when somebody caries a burden on him then the soul caries it.

I think I have stated this about as clearly as I can. The bible defines the bible. The word Death is actually apothnēskō
1Th 4:14For if we believe that Jesus died 599 and rose again , even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
(As is obvious by the word sleep they are not discussing soul death)

599 apothnēskō
1) to die
a) of the natural death of man
b) of the violent death of man or animals
c) to perish by means of something
d) of trees which dry up, of seeds which rot when planted
e) of eternal death, to be subject to eternal misery in hell
This last definition is used the least as you can see and is obviously not what Jesus did. That is what we know as the second death. All the other more common definitions are talking about natural ohysical death.
If you have a different verse that you are using let me know.
All the greek and verses came from this site.
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Ps: Sorry for the English its my forth language and i am still learning it.

That's ok I am learning how to speak F0uad.

 

[F0uad]

This premise is incorrect. Jesus is not a human. A human has a human spirit. Jesus has the spirit of God.

This is not a fallacy. Every normal person has a physical human body and an indwelling spirit. Jesus has at least the appearance of a human body (It is a created body so it could be different in some way) and the indwelling spirit is God.

Acts 2:22 makes it quite plain that Jesus(p) was a man, "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know."

The verse clearly says Man(HUMAN). I can quote more if wanted just a quick reminder Jesus(p) is called son of man 85 times in the Gospels.

If that is the case then God did pray to himself, called out for himself and talked to himself what would make no sense. Also God didn't take the burden but hes human body did if we would use your argument.

Please read my previous messages.

 

[F0uad]

What is a verse of Abraham? Actually here is the verse that says God cannot be tempted:

Let no man say when he is tempted , I am tempted of God 2316: for God cannot be tempted551 with evil , neither tempteth he any man:
G551 apeirastos ä-pā'-rä-stos
cannot be tempted
1) not liable to temptation to sin

Mat 4:1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted 3985 of the devil
G3985 peiraō pā-rä'-ō
assay, go about, vr tempted

1) to try whether a thing can be done
a) to attempt, endeavour

The verse of Abraham(p) isn't really important i was pointing out that the same word was used. I know the verse i quoted it, the story indicates that Jesus(p) was being tempted by the Devil but that he did not gave himself into it. However this still contradicts with the verse of James when God says he cannot be tempted.

As you can see these are two seperate greek words. I told you Greek was descriptive. I think they have 5+ words that can be translated for English tempted.
So hopefully that puts it to bed.

We both agreed it should been translated to Test so why should we shove it away..

F0uad, you are wearing me out. Since I do not know why the Trinity is so important I have not done much research on it and prefer to stay away from it at this time. I am getting burned out. When is it going to be my turn anyway?

Turn on what?
I didn't reply on a Trinitarian doctrine.

I think I have stated this about as clearly as I can. The bible defines the bible. The word Death is actually apothnēskō
1Th 4:14For if we believe that Jesus died 599 and rose again , even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
(As is obvious by the word sleep they are not discussing soul death)

599 apothnēskō
1) to die
a) of the natural death of man
b) of the violent death of man or animals
c) to perish by means of something
d) of trees which dry up, of seeds which rot when planted
e) of eternal death, to be subject to eternal misery in hell
This last definition is used the least as you can see and is obviously not what Jesus did. That is what we know as the second death. All the other more common definitions are talking about natural ohysical death.
If you have a different verse that you are using let me know.
All the greek and verses came from this site.
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

How does this answers my question? If it does then Jesus(p) didn't take away your sins since a soul caries the burden and the soul didn't die.

That's ok I am learning how to speak F0uad.

Thanks for understanding.

Can you also address the other verses i mentioned:

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Numbers 23:19, yet Jesus(p) is refereed as son of man 83 times in the Gospels alone without the old-testament included.

Acts 2:22 makes it quite plain that Jesus(p) was a man, "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know."

The key part in the verse 19 is, "lo ish el bikhazab uben adam beyit nekham". The negation occurs at the beginning of the sentence with the word "ìà" or lo which is similar with the Arabicnegation la. What this literally means is: "It is not true that God is a man and will lie and the son of man and He will change His mind". The negation is distributed to each phrase which then yields, "God is not a man and He does not lie, He is not the son of man and He does not repent."

As we know the Gospels describe Jesus(p) in both man and the son of man. Verse 19 of Numbers 23 says that God is neither man nor the son of man. When we bring these two together do we not arrive at the conclusion that Jesus isn't God?

 

[waitasec]

even if jesus did say he was god...he lied.

god can't die.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yeshua never said he was "God"....This has been established already.

 

[1robin]

even if jesus did say he was god...he lied.

god can't die.

It is sure funny how people who do not believe in God are sure they know all the capabilities of that which they don't acknowledge. God didn't die. His non-devine human body died. His devine soul actually suffered what the bible calls the second death, that is being seperated from a realationship with the father. That is the more meaningfull issue. His death did not remove our suffering physical death it removed our suffering this second and eternal death.

 

[1robin]

Yeshua never said he was "God"....This has been established already.

You never said I am a homo sapien. Then by your standards you are not human. Jesus made many claims and had characteristics that no being but God could have. Ie... He always existed (or at least existed before the foundations of the earth), he claimed to be able to forgive sin, he accepted worship, he was put to death for the reason of claiming to be the devine and unique son of God. His name emmanuel means God with us. Regardless this is not the more effectual issue. The real question is whether faith in his sacrifice is necessary for salvation.

 

[F0uad]

You never said I am a homo sapien. Then by your standards you are not human. Jesus made many claims and had characteristics that no being but God could have. Ie... He always existed (or at least existed before the foundations of the earth), he claimed to be able to forgive sin, he accepted worship, he was put to death for the reason of claiming to be the devine and unique son of God. His name emmanuel means God with us. Regardless this is not the more effectual issue. The real question is whether faith in his sacrifice is necessary for salvation.

When was he ever called Emmanuel in hes live-time without quoting the only one verse of Matthew?

Please address the points above before claiming something this doctrine you keep preaching about makes no sense.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You never said I am a homo sapien.

Actually I have....so try again....

Jesus made many claims and had characteristics that no being but God could have.

Yeshua claimed some things and none of them was that he was "God"....any abilities Yeshua claimed he had he said it was his god who granted them to him....

He always existed (or at least existed before the foundations of the earth)

Yeshua said he existed WITH his god......:sad:

he claimed to be able to forgive sin

Again....any power he had was given to him.....He explicitly says it..

John 6:39-40
And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

he accepted worship

As did a few others in your bible....

he was put to death for the reason of claiming to be the devine and unique son of God.

No he wasn't. At his supposed trial he never claimed to be divine, nor did he claim to be the son of "God"....

Matthew 26:63
But Jesus remained silent. Then the high priest said to him, "I demand in the name of the living God--tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God." Jesus replied, "You have said it. And in the future you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God's right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven."

His name emmanuel means God with us.

That's not his name nor was it a name/title his mother was ordered to give him and no one ever referred to him as such. This supposed prophecy, if you read Isaiah in context, had nothing to do with him.

 

[1robin]

When was he ever called Emmanuel in hes live-time without quoting the only one verse of Matthew?

Why is it necessary that he be called that during his lifetime. Why do you apply arbitrary and irrationally high standards for the bible when you do not do the same for the Quran. I will prove this when ever we get round to discussing the Quran.

Please address the points above before claiming something this doctrine you keep preaching about makes no sense.

It is not necessary for you to understand that doctrine for it to be true. You have not addressed my long posts concerning the reliability of the bible. I do not wish to open a full bore discussion of is Jesus God until we conclude the quran v/s bible discussion. I just don't have the time necessary to get deep into both subjects. There was only one point here and it is an invalid and unjustifiable standard.

As far as the "tempted" issue goes. I don't think I ever agreed they were the same words. If you actually read the scripture in it's original Greek (which I actually posted for you) then it is obvious that there were two separate words that were translated as tempted in English. That issue is over with. My post explained in detail and included the verses, words, and definitions that pointed this out. I was even surprised how completely that issue was resolved. In the other post by my turn I meant you conclude your critique of the bible and I begin mine on the quran. Which way is correct Quran or Koran?