So Jesus is not God?

[blü 2]

The Trinity doctrine is well established. Any Trinitarian will tell you that, in its basic form, there are three coeternal consubstantial persons or hypostases but one God. Each person is fully God, so there are no parts, but there is one God, so there is not three but one. So God cannot be fractionalized because there are no parts, and God cannot be added, because there is only one.

Yes, that's what it says. That's not the question. The question is, Is what it say coherent?

The answer, according to the theologians, with whom I agree, is that it is not coherent, or as they put it, can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed.

And I asked you why they say that, and to specify which part of the doctrine can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed. So I hope you've given a clear answer further down.

We go where scriptural evidence leads, and this is what scripture tells us. So in order to change the doctrine you will have to change the scripture.

I've already given you, what, seventeen? quotes attributed to Jesus in direct speech, where he says he is NOT God, and that the Father IS God. So whatever you're doing, you're NOT following scripture, which not only offers no support for the Trinity but is repeatedly refuted by Jesus' words.

No surprise there. The doctrine wasn't invented till the 4th century CE, an extremely well attested fact of history you find it inconvenient to acknowledge.

Skeptics have problems visualizing this

A problem shared with Christian theologians, as I keep pointing out.

The Trinity doctrine describes a Deity we cannot fully comprehend, and this is where the mystery comes in.

No, the theologians are specific: the 'mystery in the strict sense', which is to say the incoherence, is an aspect of the Trinity doctrine. It's a problem that Jews and Muslims and non-Trinitarian Christians don't have.

So if you were able to condescend into the world of amoebas, and even if you were to take on the form of an amoeba, and even if you were able to communicate with all the amoebas using the language of amoebas, there is no way the amoeba will fully understand you or your tax return even though you have revealed yourself and your tax return to the amoeba.

But God, unlike the amoeba, the tax return, the Higgs boson, has never been observed in reality. God neither says nor does. Everything we know about gods has been told to us by other humans. We don't even have a credible definition of a real god. However, that's not our topic.

[blü:] what exactly about the Trinity doctrine can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation,...
​

This simply means mankind did not and could not have developed the Trinity doctrine on its own.

No, my question asks you to specify the part that can't be known by unaided human reason.

[blü:] ...nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed ?[/quote]​

This is relatively simple and straight forward by simply asking ourselves: When was the last time someone measured God and gave His measurements?[/quote]
That can't be the answer. The question arises from the Trinity doctrine. What part of the Trinity doctrine can't be cogently demonstrated by reason after it's revealed? Please state it specifically.

 

[Oeste]

Yes, that's what it says. That's not the question. The question is, Is what it say coherent?

Well then, you've come to the right place. The answer to this is yes.

The answer, according to the theologians, with whom I agree, is that it is not coherent,

Why are you confusing comprehensibility with coherency? Do you understand the difference? For that matter, why do you even see the word "incoherent" whenever a theologian says "incomprehensible" ?

Neither word is interchangeable.

or as they put it, can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation,

Already answered:

This simply means mankind did not and could not have developed the Trinity doctrine on its own. It came from revelation and apart from this revelation, there is no revealing. The revelation came from God in the form of his written word, the bible, from the Incarnation known as Jesus Christ and through guidance of the Holy Spirit.

nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed.

Previously answered:

We cannot and will never clearly demonstrate the power nor majesty of the Spirit in our laboratories. So even though God is revealed He is not and will never be demonstrated through human reason.

But God, unlike the amoeba, the tax return, the Higgs boson, has never been observed in reality.

So? My tax return has never been revealed or observed in the reality of amoebas, yet it exists. Even if my tax return were observed by amoebas, the other amoebas would be unlikely to believe it, and even if they did believe it, they certainly wouldn't comprehend it and would likely label the whole thing incoherent...just like you.

I've already given you, what, seventeen? quotes attributed to Jesus in direct speech, where he says he is NOT God, and that the Father IS God. So whatever you're doing, you're NOT following scripture, which not only offers no support for the Trinity but is repeatedly refuted by Jesus' words.

I've given you 160 quotes showing Jesus is God. When you get anywhere near that, let us know.

No, the theologians are specific: the 'mystery in the strict sense', which is to say the incoherence, is an aspect of the Trinity doctrine.

Here, let me fix this for you:

No, the theologians are specific: the 'mystery in the strict sense', which is to say the incoherence our incomprehensibility of the majesty, glory, and communication within the Godhead is an aspect of the Trinity doctrine.

It's a problem that Jews and Muslims and non-Trinitarian Christians don't have.

Can you kindly explain to us why anyone would be puzzled by a God they've created themselves? I don't seem to recall reading that the incomprehensibility of Zeus, Jupiter, or Odin was ever a hot topic among the Greeks, Romans or Norse.

 

[blü 2]

Well then, you've come to the right place. The answer to this is yes.

So the Trinity notion can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed.

As I've said several times, were it coherent then reason could handle it. The same is true about comprehensibility. So you state that your Triune god is incomprehensible? That's progress.

Of course it necessarily means that to speak of the Triune god is not to know what one's talking about.

Can you kindly explain to us why anyone would be puzzled by a God they've created themselves? I don't seem to recall reading that the incomprehensibility of Zeus, Jupiter, or Odin was ever a hot topic among the Greeks, Romans or Norse.

They're not incomprehensible. They're a combination of things, all easy to grasp: the personifying of human emotions like love (Aphrodite) and aggression (Ares), of aspects of life like wisdom (Athena), death (Hades), marriage (Hymen) and wealth (Ploutos). In the stories they behave not only according to their types, but flick unpredictably between arbitrary and just. In other words, they're modeled as humans with super powers, something also noticeable in the portrayal of Yahweh in the Garden and Babel stories.

But with increasing sophistication of thought, gods began to become more abstract, and more abstract again, until they're nonsense (the Trinity) or worse but now fashionable, wholly apophatic.

The total lack of a definition of a real god, one with objective existence, is yet more evidence that gods only exist in the mentation of individuals. But that's not what we're arguing about.

Indeed, I accept your observation that the Christian triune god is indeed incomprehensible. We can add it to [his] incoherent description.

So I've made my point. Jesus is not God
(a) because he said he wasn't God on some seventeen occasions and
(b) because he never once claimed to be God, and
(c) because the Trinity doctrine didn't exist before the fourth century and
(d) because the Trinity doctrine, being as you say incomprehensible, rules out any coherent understanding of God, and I'd like to think that Jesus, if indeed he existed in history, wouldn't have been that silly.

 

[Oeste]

So the Trinity notion can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed.

As I've said several times, were it coherent then reason could handle it.

Well “reason” was certainly the prevailing gnosis of the Victorian era. It’s underscored by two or three basic and rebuttable assumptions:

First, it presupposes that our reasons are reasonable, and as we all know, not all our reasons are.

Second, it presupposes that all things, seen and unseen are subject to human discovery and understanding. IMO, that would be an arrogant attitude for mankind to take and I see nothing “reasonable” about such a presupposition.

I suppose there is a third, in that it supposes an innate logic and order to a physical universe that somehow created itself, but I see no compelling reason to that either.

In any event, if skeptics have taken the time to reduce God to something completely understandable, who can fault them when they reduce our universe in exactly the same way? After all, in their mind it’s only "reasonable" for them to do so.

The same is true about comprehensibility. So you state that your Triune god is incomprehensible?

Absolutely!

That's progress.

Agreed. More importantly it's backed by scripture.

Of course it necessarily means that to speak of the Triune god is not to know what one's talking about.

Or it could mean that those who claim to comprehend the incomprehensible do not know what they’re talking about, or even that there is nothing incomprehensible to comprehend, which for all intents and purposes amounts to the same thing.

They're not incomprehensible. They're a combination of things, all easy to grasp: the personifying of human emotions like love (Aphrodite) and aggression (Ares), of aspects of life like wisdom (Athena), death (Hades), marriage (Hymen) and wealth (Ploutos). In the stories they behave not only according to their types, but flick unpredictably between arbitrary and just.

I agree that what you just described is certainly not incomprehensible. After all, they’re nothing but pagan gods, made in the image of man.

In other words, they're modeled as humans with super powers,

Agreed.

something also noticeable in the portrayal of Yahweh in the Garden and Babel stories.

Let's not confuse comic books with scripture. Man is made in the image of God, not the other way around.

The fact is pagan gods are mostly, but not always modeled in the image of man.

Some skip the "image" part altogether and make themselves a God, like Caesar. Others prefer to take certain attributes, like reason, and elevate these to God-like status.

In their mind it is man who is God, and thus man rather than God who understands all things through his own reason, for there is nothing incomprehensible to him. Anything incomprehensible, if such a thing exists, can simply be dismissed as "incoherent".

But with increasing sophistication of thought, gods began to become more abstract, and more abstract again, until they're nonsense (the Trinity) or worse but now fashionable, wholly apophatic.

The Christian God is not abstract, neither can He be defined through negation.

The total lack of a definition of a real god, one with objective existence, is yet more evidence that gods only exist in the mentation of individuals. But that's not what we're arguing about.

Definition? You mean one with defined edges or scope? You'll have to go to the pagan gods for that one.

However I would agree that skeptics/atheists have become increasingly sophisticated in their elevation of man to Godhood, but that's not what we're arguing about either.

Indeed, I accept your observation that the Christian triune god is indeed incomprehensible.

Excellent! That's progress.

We can add it to [his] incoherent description.

You’re confusing your description with the biblical narrative again. Earlier you attempted to introduce foreign concepts, like “triad” into the Trinity doctrine, and now its “incoherent” into the Christian God, and even though these concepts appear nowhere in the doctrine or scripture, you pronounce such injections “reasonable”.

I think this simply underscores (with a big, bold black accent) the difficulty critics have when they take Trinity doctrine or scripture on its merits. They must interject what doctrine or scripture doesn't say in order to rail against it. But it's important to stick with what the Doctrine does say rather than what the critic would like it to say.

So I've made my point. Jesus is not God

You have made no such grandiose point. You’ve argued for it, but you’ve failed to make it. Jesus is God and this is established by scripture.

(a) because he said he wasn't God on some seventeen occasions and

17 rabbit holes aptly refuted by @74x12 which I then buried under 160 verses stating otherwise.

(b) because he never once claimed to be God, and

Of course he did. Go back and read 17 of the 160 verses showing Jesus is God, then read another 17, and then read 17 more.

(c) because the Trinity doctrine didn't exist before the fourth century and

Much like the theory of gravity didn’t exist before Isaac Newton.

(d) because the Trinity doctrine, being as you say incomprehensible, rules out any coherent understanding of God,

Of course it does, just like my tax return rules out any coherent understanding by an amoeba. That does not make my tax return incoherent and it is blatantly unreasonable to assume otherwise.

and I'd like to think that Jesus, if indeed he existed in history, wouldn't have been that silly.

That’s tends to be a problem with pagans and skeptics. They demand a God that thinks like they do, and when they can’t find one, arrogantly substitute themselves. Pharaoh was a classic skeptic and in the end he just looked silly.

In any event, we’ve placed a search light down each and every Arian rabbit hole, explored all their nooks and crannies, and have found nothing but dead ends. The questions put to us were answered; most in great and expansive detail, but for some reason we can’t seem to get answers to our own.

For example, the question placed in the OP still remains outstanding.

Secondly, if only God is good and if Jesus is not God, then how on earth (or heaven) did a no good Jesus die for the sins of mankind?

Perhaps there are some out there who believe Jesus only died for a perfect Adam. Since only God is good, how did a no-good Jesus die for a perfect Adam?

Also, why is it expected for all those who believe Jesus is God to answer each and every question put before them, whether or not it has to do with thread theme, whilst those who do not get to ignore any question they wish? In other words, when can we expect an individual, coherent, and reasonable answer to the OP, or how a no-good Jesus dies for us (since only God is good), and a response to the 160 verses showing Jesus is God?

The answer of course is that we can expect no answer. Instead a new rabbit hole (proof text) will emerge to which they demand answers that once flushed will be abandoned in favor of a yet another rabbit hole in an endless game of proof texting.

 

[blü 2]

Second, it presupposes that all things, seen and unseen are subject to human discovery and understanding.

Reasoned enquiry makes no such claim. But there being no authenticated reports of anything real but not within nature, it's reasonable for the enquirer encountering such claims to say 'Show me' (and ever more reasonable for the enquirer not to hold his or her breath).

I suppose there is a third, in that it supposes an innate logic and order to a physical universe that somehow created itself, but I see no compelling reason to that either.

I don't think the universe somehow created itself. I think that mass-energy pre-existed the Big Bang, and that the contents of the Big Bang at Time Zero was mass-energy, and that the entities and processes of the universe are qualities of mass-energy. That would include spacetime itself, and if spacetime is a property or form of mass-energy then time exists because mass-energy exists, and that dissolves the Cosmo argument then and there.

One of the differences between this argument and the God-did-it argument is that mass-energy is real.

In any event, if skeptics have taken the time to reduce God to something completely understandable, who can fault them when they reduce our universe in exactly the same way? After all, in their mind it’s only "reasonable" for them to do so.

Ah, you express a distaste for understanding. That explains a great deal.

it could mean that those who claim to comprehend the incomprehensible do not know what they’re talking about

It's your god that we agree is incomprehensible, and your god is not only incomprehensible but doesn't even have a definition appropriate to a real being, only an imaginary one.

Man is made in the image of God, not the other way around.

So what skin color is God? What eye color? How tall does God stand? What is God's mass in kilograms? Is God male or female?

Others prefer to take certain attributes, like reason, and elevate these to God-like status.

You prefer stories to science, then.

In their mind it is man who is God, and thus man rather than God who understands all things through his own reason, for there is nothing incomprehensible to him. Anything incomprehensible, if such a thing exists, can simply be dismissed as "incoherent".

And as you say, incomprehensible. And having no meaningful definition as a real being. And having no meaningful definition of godness, the quality that distinguishes a real god from a pretend god.

Yes, incoherent surely enough.

 

[Oeste]

Reasoned enquiry makes no such claim. But there being no authenticated reports of anything real but not within nature, it's reasonable for the enquirer encountering such claims to say 'Show me' (and ever more reasonable for the enquirer not to hold his or her breath).

But then we have that underlying assumption again, that we have the capacity, the facility, or even the senses to be shown. It presupposes that all things are demonstrable to our senses but to my knowledge, no such claim has ever been made or proven.

Taking the example of the amoeba again, if you could condescend to his level and live in his world of the petri dish, he might communicate to you that he would like you to show him a so called tax return. But even if you wave it over his entire universe...which consists of a Petri dish, he simply doesn’t have the faculty to observe it.

I don't think the universe somehow created itself. I think that mass-energy pre-existed the Big Bang, and that the contents of the Big Bang at Time Zero was mass-energy, and that the entities and processes of the universe are qualities of mass-energy. That would include spacetime itself, and if spacetime is a property or form of mass-energy then time exists because mass-energy exists, and that dissolves the Cosmo argument then and there.

Pre-existed? Where did this pre-existing mass-energy come from, or do you consider it eternal?

It appears you’ve simply subbed out an eternal God with an eternal universe

One of the differences between this argument and the God-did-it argument is that mass-energy is real.

But that's not the question. We both agree the universe is real. The question is how what's real got here.

It's your god that we agree is incomprehensible, and your god is not only incomprehensible but doesn't even have a definition appropriate to a real being, only an imaginary one.

Physical definition? No, but His Divine attributes are made known to us through his Word and the the bible.

So what skin color is God? What eye color? How tall does God stand? What is God's mass in kilograms? Is God male or female?

God is Spirit unless and we cannot look upon God in His spiritual form.

And as you say, incomprehensible. And having no meaningful definition as a real being.
And having no meaningful definition of godness, the quality that distinguishes a real god from a pretend god.

The qualities that distinguish a real God from a phony one were settled by Elijah at Mount Carmel a long time ago. 1 Kings 18:16-40

 

[blü 2]

It presupposes that all things are demonstrable to our senses but to my knowledge, no such claim has ever been made or proven.

I start with the following assumptions: that a world exists external to the self, that our senses are capable of informing us of that world, and that reason is a valid tool. You show by posting here that you share at least the first two, and I trust the third.

Something is real if it is part of that external world ─ that is, if it exists independently of the concept of it in any brain / has objective existence / is in nature / is in the realm of the physical sciences / is not imaginary. The Higgs boson was not real until its existence was confirmed to the satisfaction of those best qualified to judge. Thus the Higgs boson has been real since 2013; before that it was hypothetical.

In other words, finding what real things exist is always a work in progress. It is a combination of hypothesis, testing and satisfactory demonstration.

I know of no authenticated examples of the supernatural ─ a word whose elements mean 'above nature'. Indeed the only coherent synonym that occurs to me for 'outside of nature' is 'imaginary'. So I see no way in which a testable hypothesis could be meaningfully derived. Do you have something of the kind in mind?

Taking the example of the amoeba again

On the present evidence the most intelligent beings in the universe are humans. So if I understand you aright, you ask me to imagine a being or species not only smarter, but able to know certain things unknowable in principle to humans, yes?

On the basis of what real evidence should I prefer to do that than, say, imagine an English-speaking duck the size of a small human, with arms (instead of wings) that end in three-fingered hands, and accustomed to wearing a cap and a waist-length top intended to suggest a sailor?

Pre-existed? Where did this pre-existing mass-energy come from, or do you consider it eternal?

As I hypothesize it (not without some support from physics but by no means a satisfactory demonstration) it didn't come from anywhere. The answer is the other way round: its existence is why time and space exist, spacetime is a consequence of the properties of mass-energy ─ not vice versa.

It appears you’ve simply subbed out an eternal God with an eternal universe

With the significant distinction that I can show energy is real.

My hypothesis doesn't assume that any of the axes of a real n-space are infinite, and I have no clear concept of what 'eternal' might mean in reality. But regardless, 'eternal' could only be understood as a property of the temporal axis of spacetime, thus something arising from the properties of mass-energy.

Physical definition? No, but His Divine attributes are made known to us through his Word and the the bible.

Why should anyone think that's an accurate statement about reality? And where is 'his Word' found other than in the bible? Can I write you some myself?

God is Spirit unless and we cannot look upon God in His spiritual form.

As I think I've said before, no objective test can distinguish 'spirit' (or 'immaterial' or 'supernatural' &c) from the imaginary.

The qualities that distinguish a real God from a phony one were settled by Elijah at Mount Carmel a long time ago. 1 Kings 18:16-40

No, that sets out a tribal belief of a small group of Semites in the near East maybe 3000 ya. It contains no clear concept of a real god, but we know that this god had Bronze Age morals (ordering invasive war, sackings, massacres, mass rapes, human sacrifices, slavery, the denigration of women, religious intolerance and favoritism, homophobia, and much more) which are repellent in 2019. Or at least, they are where I live.

If God were real, why do you think [he] doesn't order those things any more? I suggest the answer must be that humans make gods in their own image, and as society changes, gods have to change too, or they'll lose their audience. This explains how England and Germany prayed fervently and (let us trust) confidently to the same god through two world wars, for instance.

 

[Muffled]

There is a range of belief about the "Godhead". An adult will allow others to find their own truth.

I believe there is only one truth so that means each person can't have a different truth. We are here to guide people to it though.

 

[Muffled]

Begotten is inaccurate as most bibles removed that to replace with one and only (NIV). In the holy Quran, Chapter 112: Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, Nor is there to Him any equivalent."

Also, Jesus did not say or claim he is the only son, this was narrated by John. Jesus says: My father is greater than I. and then he says, my father is greater than all.

I believe so but it is the best word we have even if it is misleading. The English language doesn't have a word for a virgin having a child since without a miracle from God it just doesn't happen.

I believe that translation is incorrect. This is what it says: 112:3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
So the bottom line is that He was born but not begotten in the sense of procreation. However birth is not the beginning for God anymore than it is for us. God has no beginning and no end.

I believe John was quoting Jesus and there is no evidence that he was not quoting Him.

I believe he also said I and my Father are one. So the greatness does not mean disunity but simply God out of the body is greater than God in the body. God is one, so the fact that He is in a body can't divide Him.

 

[Muffled]

Hello brother . The Quran says: Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah (God) is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was.

Adam was created with no mother nor father but Jesus without a father. Jesus is mentioned in the Quran 36 times and Mary 34 times ( the only woman mentioned by name in the entire Quran). Muhammad is only mentioned 4 times.

Jesus is one of the mightiest messenger of God and you are not a muslim unless you believe in Jesus, Moses and all messenger of God. Tell me if you would like to know more about Islam. One god one message no sons.

I believe Muslims do not believe in Jesus.
John 14:21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”

 

[Ellen Brown]

I believe Muslims do not believe in Jesus.
John 14:21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”

It's a cultural issue that highlights problems with transferring ideas from one culture to another. Perhaps this is part of the Tower of Babel Curse? More correctly, Muslims DO believe in Jesus, whom they call Isa (Peace Be Upon Him). Muslims have the belief that if Allah SWT (Subhanna Wa Allah Ta Allah) ((Great and Glorious is HE)) as a God (The God) he does not procreate, so, therefore can not have a "Son". In the Quran, I believe Surah 3:45 talks about Mary and Isa (Jesus)

It all makes a very interesting study for those who are willing. It's been years for me, but I do remember Allah SWT asking Isa (Jesus) what he did when he came to Earth. Loosely quoting "Jesus said, 'I did only what you told me to do when I came.'

What I said above is supported in John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Most Christians, perhaps being lazy, have relied on one who practices "Priestcraft" for their information about the Bible and spiritual things. So many have become accustomed to hearing slanderous things about Muslims and others. Remember that Jesus himself said, "Whoever says raca about their brother shall be in danger of hell fire". Here is a more correct interpretation. "Matthew 5:22 is the twenty-second verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. It is the first of what have traditionally been known as the 6 Antitheses. In this one, Jesus compares the current interpretation of "You shall not murder" from the Ten Commandments with his interpretation." From Wiki.

Remember "The individual Priesthood of the Believer"? The Mormons started down the road of doing that but along the way, they stopped.

 

[Muffled]

It's a cultural issue that highlights problems with transferring ideas from one culture to another. Perhaps this is part of the Tower of Babel Curse? More correctly, Muslims DO believe in Jesus, whom they call Isa (Peace Be Upon Him). Muslims have the belief that if Allah SWT (Subhanna Wa Allah Ta Allah) ((Great and Glorious is HE)) as a God (The God) he does not procreate, so, therefore can not have a "Son". In the Quran, I believe Surah 3:45 talks about Mary and Isa (Jesus)

It all makes a very interesting study for those who are willing. It's been years for me, but I do remember Allah SWT asking Isa (Jesus) what he did when he came to Earth. Loosely quoting "Jesus said, 'I did only what you told me to do when I came.'

What I said above is supported in John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Most Christians, perhaps being lazy, have relied on one who practices "Priestcraft" for their information about the Bible and spiritual things. So many have become accustomed to hearing slanderous things about Muslims and others. Remember that Jesus himself said, "Whoever says raca about their brother shall be in danger of hell fire". Here is a more correct interpretation. "Matthew 5:22 is the twenty-second verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. It is the first of what have traditionally been known as the 6 Antitheses. In this one, Jesus compares the current interpretation of "You shall not murder" from the Ten Commandments with his interpretation." From Wiki.

Remember "The individual Priesthood of the Believer"? The Mormons started down the road of doing that but along the way, they stopped.

I believe Muslims have beliefs about Jesus, some of them not correct but they do not believe in HIm. Jesus said
John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

 

[sooda]

I believe Muslims have beliefs about Jesus, some of them not correct but they do not believe in HIm. Jesus said
John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

Muslims revere Jesus, but they don't believe in original sin, or blood sacrifice or that God has offspring.

 

[Ellen Brown]

I believe Muslims have beliefs about Jesus, some of them not correct but they do not believe in HIm. Jesus said
John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

In the Quran, there is a whole chapter devoted to him (Isa PBUH). He is generally seen as the best prophet and as having done the will of Allah SWT (God). (Many Christian sects in the Middle East use the word Allah to denote God. They essentially speak Arabic) In one place, Allah SWT asks Isa what he did while he was on Earth and he replies that he did only what He had instructed him to do and nothing more.

Muslims are at issue with the idea that Isa could be the Son of God because they feel that to be fully God, he could not procreate. Not all Muslims feel that way but because of the extremism, they stay quiet. Christians who are willing to do serious research can uncover the discussion. Muslims also believe that he will return at the end time to restore the Earth. Shia Muslims believe he will be accompanied by The Mahdi.

It is an interesting story and I suggest that each of us practice our beliefs in peace and humility.

 

[Muffled]

Muslims revere Jesus, but they don't believe in original sin, or blood sacrifice or that God has offspring.

I believe it is totally illogical to think sin does not have an origin.

I believe that comes under the heading of ignoring the Bible. They do that at their own risk.

I believe Christian don't believe that either. However it isn't impossible but simply something God has no purpose to motivate Him to do it.

 

[Ellen Brown]

I believe it is totally illogical to think sin does not have an origin.

I believe that comes under the heading of ignoring the Bible. They do that at their own risk.

I believe Christian don't believe that either. However it isn't impossible but simply something God has no purpose to motivate Him to do it.

Original Sin: Jesus did not preach that. I'm not doing your homework for you, but I think that the concept of Original Sin came about by Irenaeus, in the 2nd Century. Christianity, most of it, has beliefs like Trinitarianism, and Original sin that I think are nutty.

 

[74x12]

I believe Muslims have beliefs about Jesus, some of them not correct but they do not believe in HIm. Jesus said
John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

Muslims deny that Jesus was actually killed on the cross. They say he only appeared to die. If so, then there is no resurrection from the dead for anyone ...

peace

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Muslims deny that Jesus was actually killed on the cross. They say he only appeared to die. If so, then there is no resurrection from the dead for anyone ...

peace

How do you reach that conclusion from that starting point? It makes no sense.

If God wills it that we resurrect, then we shall resurrect, whether Jesus already resurrected, or whether he will resurrect at the same time as all the rest of us. If he is a regular guy, and not the messiah, it won't impact the resurrection at all -- it will still go off without a hitch.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Original Sin: Jesus did not preach that. I'm not doing your homework for you, but I think that the concept of Original Sin came about by Irenaeus, in the 2nd Century. Christianity, most of it, has beliefs like Trinitarianism, and Original sin that I think are nutty.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by original sin. If you mean that all of us inherit the guilt of Adam's sin, that idea didn't develop until later in the church. But the idea that we have a "sinful nature" as Paul would call it or a "evil inclination" as Jews label it, really goes back all the way. How can you look at the way we humans sabotage the good that we do with little lies and big wars and not conclude that something about our nature is messed up?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

Interesting that you choose to quote a verse that just doesn't fit with the saved by faith theology of most Christians.