Who Do Christians Follow Paul or Jesus(pbuh)???

[Pegg]

If only the genuine followers of Jesus, who truly love him, read the Bible in context, and study the Qur’an, they will definitely reach the conclusion that GOD IS ONE, without any partners; and Jesus (pbuh) the son of Mary (pbuh) is a messenger of GOD!

there have been genuine christians who have taught that God is One. Not all the sects of christianity believe or teach the trinity.

Qur’an, revealed to the Prophet Muhammed (an illiterate person, who didn't know how to read or write) some 600 years after Jesus, (pbut) corrects the errors that crept (knowingly or unknowingly) into the message that Jesus brought. This book should prove to be a very valuable asset to both Muslims and Christians

the only error i've heard the Quran to correct is the trinity doctrine...which isnt actually 'written' in the NT btw

but can you tell me what other errors are corrected?

 

[dance-above]

Jesus is the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD is God. And this is the WORD which we preach. That if you confess Jesus as Lord you shall be saved.This is the WORD of the FAITH. Things are not always as they seem in the bible but with patience and faith one can come to maturity. I confess the Lord as my savior and I will show you my faith by my works.one act of rightousness can save lives.amen.

 

[dance-above]

Fisrt , where is you historic Proof that 'meeting on the road to Damascus.' and the other things you stated

Second , I proved it to you that Paul was clearly contradicting the teachings of Jesus(pbuh) and even what Moses(pbuh) taught---How can you put your faith on a person who's lying

Where is our proof? Its in our heart. It is a gift of God. Now faith is the "evidence "of things to come. Why should we believe Paul ,because he believed God concerning christ. jesus preached the word of faith and so did Paul.

 

[Pegg]

Fisrt , where is you historic Proof that 'meeting on the road to Damascus.' and the other things you stated

the proof is in Pauls conversion...he was initially a persecutor of christians, then he becomes a christian. He was a well respected Pharisee...then he becomes a despised christian by choice.

The account about Pauls conversion comes from Luke....a doctor who wrote the Gospel "Luke" through the mouth of the Apostle Peter. He then went on to write the account of 'Acts' where he is instructed to write about Paul (originally named Saul)

That account of Acts was a record of the early happenings of the Christian church. It could easily have been refuted by opponents if it was nonfactual...but it wasnt refuted. Paul was known by the Pharisees because he was a student of a the famous Gamaliel. The history written in Acts about Paul was confirmed and accepted by many first century christians...the fact that the congregations were initially frightened of Paul testifies to the fact that he was initially opposed to Christianity.

 

[allright]

To a thousand suns

Where is your proof the Koran was written by Mohammed. There are no orignal copies
and a group of Scholars who have been studying it for years are concluding that it was written latter by others and they attached Mohammed's name to it. Several are even questioning whether Mohammed ever existed

Where is your proof?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Where is your proof the Koran was written by Mohammed.

There is none because Muslims don't hold to the notion the "Muhhammed" wrote the Quran. They believe it was revealed (given, shown) to him and he was ordered to read it. It is said that he was illiterate but the angel told him to read anyway. I'm only telling you what has been told to me and what I've learned by studying Islam.

There are no orignal copies

But you'd also have to admit that the same holds true to the Bible. The current scrolls are no more than copies of copies. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls are no more than copies. It doesn't mean that, that's a problem. In fact the oldest Quran is dated 651 A.D. which is a mere 19 year after the death of Muhammed (Uthman Qur'an - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The book of Mark is supposed to be the oldest of the 4 gospels and scholars date it to 70 A.D. This means it's 40 years after the biblical Yeshua. To my knowledge all Qurans, unlike the Bible, are exactly the same where as the Bible has had, over time, certain scribes adding verses that weren't in the oldest of the copies of the Bible. Again, for me that isn't a problem because scholars and certain Christian denominations have recognized these interpolations and have revised the Bible and removed them (may be not all interpolations) but certainly they are working on it when newer and older scriptures are found. Again...I'm just pointing out the facts and not taking sides.

and a group of Scholars who have been studying it for years are concluding that it was written latter by others and they attached Mohammed's name to it.

Do you have a link to these scholars and their findings? The Quran, from my study of Islam, was preached by Muhammad and some of his followers committed it to memory. Later the Quran was written. Again, they're all the same with no deviation in the Qurans.....(none that I've found). What is interesting is we find what you've charged to be the case with Paul. Not all of the epistles attributed to him being the writer of he actually wrote. Again, it's not a problem..

Several are even questioning whether Mohammed ever existed

Again, this holds true for most of the characters in the Bible. Aside from scripture there is little or nothing to say that certain people mentioned in the Bible actually existed. How do we know Adam or Eve existed? We don't. All we have is the Genesis scroll and the mere mention of them in other biblical scrolls.

 

[allright]

I was pointing out the same arguments a thouansd suns is using to question the Bible could be applied to the Koran and Mohammed

 

[smokydot]

I agree.
not according to my greek interlinear NT verse.

Which interlinear do you have?
I have two different Greek texts, and both use en in two ways, with one diacritical mark and with two, giving them two different meanings.
Look closely for them because those marks are very small and hard to see.

JOhn 17:26 is literally read as follows:
"That all may be one as you father in me and I in you that also they in us may be that that world may believe that you sent me "
all 3 occurences of in are from the greek word e'n
So is Jesus saying that the disciples can become like God and Jesus....one in substance?

I think you mean Jn 17:21.

This was answered in my post #114.

yep i agree that Jesus has Gods nature... but so do all other spirit creatures who live with God and have spiritual bodies... they exist in Gods nature too.

Not in Christianity, they don't.
That's what those of the Quran think.

 

[smokydot]

He was working on the Sabbath and the Jews sought to kill him because of that. While the biblical Yeshua said he was the (son of "God") it is not the same as saying (I am "God"). If it was to the Jews of the day it's a baseless claim that so far, from what I can tell, has no law forbidding one from calling themselves (son of "God"). If calling yourself (son of "God") is considered "equal" to "God" (by your understanding and by the understanding of the Jews of the day)..then when we look upon the title (sons of God) in the OT then we must also conclude they were considered, by the Jews of the day, to be equal to "God"...This is why I maintain divine does not mean by default one is "God". They didn't take Yeshua's statement to mean he was claiming to be "God" by claiming "God" was his father rather they charged him with being "equal with" (in conjunction)....Equal but separate basically. Additionally, their teachings do not insist the (sons of "God") are equal with "God". Equal to something does not mean you are that which you are equal to.
In doing comparative studies we find the views of the Jews and Muslims to be of the same thought on this subject. Please note once more that I'm not a Muslim and I'm not judging my understanding of the bible by using the Quran. These two ways of life are very similar as to how they view "God" so pointing out their similarities is not me endorsing the teachings of either. They all believe "God" has no physical son that he begat in the sense that he is a biological father of. And neither of them believe or believed anything or anyone is "equal with" "God". In this view it is understandable why Jews considered it blasphemy even though with the biblical Yeshua that was not his motivation for saying he was the (son of "God")...
I highlighted why they grumbled and in all of chapter six there is no charge or even a mention that they thought he was trying to make himself equal with his god. He spoke a cryptic message they didn't understand. They took it literally. Moreover, they were grumbling because they knew he was from their own town, they knew him, they knew his father and his mother...so they had no idea why he said he came down from heaven.
After some more research you are correct that the Jews believed only "God" could forgive sins. The biblical Yeshua says he would prove to them he had power to forgive sins. What he didn't tell them was all the authority he had was "given" to him.
But we know, by Yeshua's own words, the authority that he had was given to him by his god. He says this explicitly. Even those that knew him, said that if he asked "God".."God" would ("give") it to him. Just because certain people believed he was trying to be equal "with" his god doesn't mean that the biblical Yeshua ever claimed to be "God"...
Because the 4 gospels do not reveal him as such...
I explained this above. For Jews it's blasphemy to associate any partners with "God" or to pass ones' self off as if he is a god. Additionally Jews do not believe their god had a son or children in the biological sense.
Actually it isn't solely Muslims who take this stance. Many christian denominations take this very stance as well. And it's without a doubt that Jews take this stance

I have addressed these points.

 

[Pegg]

Which interlinear do you have?

i have the New Greek English Interlinear translated by Robert K Brown and Philip W Comfort and edited by J.D.Douglas. of Tyndale House publishers.

yes im sorry, it is 17:21.... no 26

The diacritical mark is definitely the same in all 3 occurrences. Here it is online

ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν, καθὼς σύ, πάτερ, ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν σοί, ἵνα καὶ
that all may-be-one as you, father in me and-I in you, that also

αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσιν,
they in us may be,

[/quote]

This was answered in my post #114.
Not in Christianity, they don't.
That's what those of the Quran think.

then i would have to agree that the Quran is correct in some things. Almost all religions have some elements of truth in them.

 

[smokydot]

Pegg said (regarding post #128)

i have the New Greek English Interlinear translated by Robert K Brown and Philip W Comfort and edited by J.D.Douglas. of Tyndale House publishers.
yes im sorry, it is 17:21.... no 26
The diacritical mark is definitely the same in all 3 occurrences. Here it is online

ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν, καθὼς σύ, πάτερ, ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν σοί, ἵνα καὶ
that all may-be-one as you, father in me and-I in you, that also

αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσιν,
they in us may be,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Okay, look at the one in blue . . .it has two marks.
That's the one I am talking about. . .for the word "one."

Edit:
In your post #108, I understood you to say that in Jn 17:21, the disciples were "in each other."
I understood you to be saying that the word for "one" (in blue) meant "in" each other, just as the words in red meant "in" each other.
So I was showing by the diacritical marks that the words did not have the same meaning, that the disciples were not one "in each other."

Were we talking past each other here? What did you mean in post #108?

then i would have to agree that the Quran is correct in some things. Almost all religions have some elements of truth in them.

Probably. . .

 

[Pegg]

Pegg said (regarding post #128)

i have the New Greek English Interlinear translated by Robert K Brown and Philip W Comfort and edited by J.D.Douglas. of Tyndale House publishers.
yes im sorry, it is 17:21.... no 26
The diacritical mark is definitely the same in all 3 occurrences. Here it is online

ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν, καθὼς σύ, πάτερ, ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν σοί, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσιν,
that all may-be-one as you, father in me and-I in you, that also they in us may be,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Okay, look at the one in blue . . .it has two marks.
That's the one I am talking about. . .for the word "one."
Probably. . .

yes the first occurrence has the two marks, but the occurrences in red are the ones we are talking about

'as you father IN me and I IN you that they may be IN us'

the disciples are not one in substance with God and Christ... .just as God and Christ are not one in substance.

 

[smokydot]

yes the first occurrence has the two marks, but the occurrences in red are the ones we are talking about
'as you father IN me and I IN you that they may be IN us'

Pegg, please see my edit to post #131 as response here.

I've been basing my responses on your post #108.​

the disciples are not one in substance with God and Christ... .just as God and Christ are not one in substance.

I'll let you decide where we are now in our discussion. . .my brain is dead.

 

[Pegg]

Edit:
In your post #108, I understood you to say that in Jn 17:21, the disciples were "in each other."
I understood you to be saying that the word for "one" (in blue) meant "in" each other, just as the words in red meant "in" each other.
So I was showing by the diacritical marks that the words did not have the same meaning, that the disciples were not one "in each other."

Were we talking past each other here? What did you mean in post #108?

the issue is whether Jesus and God are of the same substance...ie, if Jesus is God then he is of the same substance. This particular verse is used by trinitarians to claim that Jesus IS IN God because they are of the 'same substance' and where the verse says
I am IN YOU and you father are IN ME is their 'evidence' apparently.

However, that verse tells christians that they too can be 'IN' both father and son. The same greek word is being used in the verse where the en' is translated into IN

So this verse is being taken out of context because Jesus is not actually saying that he is 'IN' the father at all. He is speaking about the 'UNITY' that he has with the father. And he is praying that the disciples may have the same 'UNITY' with each other so that they can have unity with 'God and Christ'

This is why the NWT uses the word 'UNITY' instead of 'IN'... because the 'context' is really speaking about 'unity' and not 'indwelling' as many claim.

 

[smokydot]

the issue is whether Jesus and God are of the same substance...ie, if Jesus is God then he is of the same substance. This particular verse is used by trinitarians to claim that Jesus IS IN God because they are of the 'same substance' and where the verse says
I am IN YOU and you father are IN ME is their 'evidence' apparently.
However, that verse tells christians that they too can be 'IN' both father and son. The same greek word is being used in the verse where the en' is translated into IN
So this verse is being taken out of context because Jesus is not actually saying that he is 'IN' the father at all. He is speaking about the 'UNITY' that he has with the father. And he is praying that the disciples may have the same 'UNITY' with each other so that they can have unity with 'God and Christ'
This is why the NWT uses the word 'UNITY' instead of 'IN'... because the 'context' is really speaking about 'unity' and not 'indwelling' as many claim.

Please quote the text of which you are speaking, so I can track the words.

 

[Pegg]

Please quote the text of which you are speaking, so I can track the words.

John 17:3
ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν, καθὼς σύ, πάτερ, ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν σοί, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσιν,
that all may-be-one as you, father in me and-I in you, that also they in us may be,



NWT that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us

NIV that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us

KJV That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us

NASB that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us


As you can see in the above translations, all 3 occurrences of the e' represents the in
This proves the context is not about being of the same substance but rather being in 'unity' because the disciples are individuals and will never become God.... this is what trinitarians imply by saying that this verse means Jesus is IN God and God is IN Jesus.

Does that make sense?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

John 17:3
ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν, καθὼς σύ, πάτερ, ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν σοί, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσιν,
that all may-be-one as you, father in me and-I in you, that also they in us may be,



NWT that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us

NIV that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us

KJV That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us

NASB that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us


As you can see in the above translations, all 3 occurrences of the e' represents the in
This proves the context is not about being of the same substance but rather being in 'unity' because the disciples are individuals and will never become God.... this is what trinitarians imply by saying that this verse means Jesus is IN God and God is IN Jesus.

Does that make sense?

I've been arguing this throughout this thread...(context). Once one understands the context...reading between the lines isn't necessary. While there are multiple instances or quotes we can look to to find out if Yeshua thought he was "God", whether his family or followers thought he was or he he taught he was...one only has to look at John chapter 17. It is a prayer to his god..a confirmation of the task he explicitly said his god gave him before his god sent him to earth...it also serves as a plea from Yeshua to his god. Chapter 17 serves as one of the best pieces of theological evidence against the notion that the biblical Yeshua thought or taught he was "God"

 

[smokydot]

John 17:3
ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν, καθὼς σύ, πάτερ, ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν σοί, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσιν,
that all may-be-one as you, father in me and-I in you, that also they in us may be,
NWT that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us
NIV that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us
KJV That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us
NASB that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us
As you can see in the above translations, all 3 occurrences of the e' represents the in
This proves the context is not about being of the same substance but rather being in 'unity' because the disciples are individuals and will never become God.... this is what trinitarians imply by saying that this verse means Jesus is IN God and God is IN Jesus.

Does that make sense?

Yes, it does. Thanks.
You mean Jn 17:21, right?

So let's look at union, first of Christ and those who are born again.

Those who are baptized into Christ (Ro 6:3; Gal 3:27) are in Christ (Ro 6:11, 8:1) by Christ's Spirit who lives in them (Ro 8:9,11).
Being in Christ, they died with Christ, were buried with Christ, and have been raised to new life in Christ (Ro 6:3-8).
So close is their union with Christ that all their bodies are members of Christ himself (1 Co 6:15), they all are the body of Christ (1 Co 12:27).
Christ is in all of them (Col 1:27), and they are all in Christ (1 Co 1:30).
This is how all the born again are one, they are all the one body of Christ, they are all in Christ.

And since Christ is in God (Jn 17:21), the born again are all in God, via Christ.
That is how they all are "one in us" (in the Father and Son) as Christ and the Father are one (Jn 17:22).

Now let's look at the union of the Father and the Son.

As I put it before, the Father and the Son are one in nature and essence,
equal in power and glory, one in love for one another. They are the same being (same essence and nature).
They are two persons in the same being, God the one and only.

It is this pattern of oneness among the born again for which Jesus prayed.
And the born again are all one to some degree of this pattern between the Father and the Son.
Their union is a closer union than any possible union between unbelievers.
They are all united by a divine nature, the one Holy Spirit who indwells them all.
They are all united by the power of divine grace, according to what God has ordained.

It is a holy union, in the Holy Spirit, for holy purposes (not a group for secular purposes).
It is a complete union, and will be even more so when they are all made perfect and exactly consistent with each other,
which occurs when they are all changed into the same image at the appearing of their salvation.
As the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have the same attributes, properties and perfections, so do all the born again now, to the degree they are sanctified,
but when grace is perfected in glory, they will all have the same attributes, properties and perfections.

This is the orthodox Christian understanding of "that all may be one as you, Father in me and I in you, that also they in us may be."
That understanding is: one being, two divine persons,
all the born again in Christ, all their bodies the one body of Christ himself, all having one Spirit living in them,
Christ in God, and all the born again in God, via Christ.

Now go from here with your responses.

 

[smokydot]

I've been arguing this throughout this thread...(context). Once one understands the context...reading between the lines isn't necessary. While there are multiple instances or quotes we can look to to find out if Yeshua thought he was "God", whether his family or followers thought he was or he he taught he was...one only has to look at John chapter 17. It is a prayer to his god..a confirmation of the task he explicitly said his god gave him before his god sent him to earth...it also serves as a plea from Yeshua to his god. Chapter 17 serves as one of the best pieces of theological evidence against the notion that the biblical Yeshua thought or taught he was "God"

Jesus was both human as son of Mary, and divine as Son of God.
In his human nature, the Father is his God.
In his divine nature, God is his Father.

YHWH is both the God of Jesus and the Father of the Son.

References by Jesus to the Father as God does not mean that the Father and the Son in their divine nature are not the same being.

Only in his human nature is Jesus not the same being as the Father, his God.

That is the orthodox Christian understanding of the Trinity.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Jesus was both human as son of Mary, and divine as Son of God.
In his human nature, the Father is his God.
In his divine nature, God is his Father.

YHWH is both the God of Jesus and the Father of the Son.

References by Jesus to the Father as God does not mean that the Father and the Son in their divine nature are not the same being.

Only in his human nature is Jesus not the same being as the Father, his God.

That is the orthodox Christian understanding of the Trinity.

And I understand it being the trinitarian view but scripturally this interpretation is deficient. The biblical Yeshua was separate before being sent by his god, while here on assignment from his god and after he returned to "heaven". This is not just my understanding..This is exactly what your scriptures say/describe of the biblical Yeshua. We know that he existed in heaven (with) his god with his own seperate will because that is what is written. We know that his god taught him and commanded him what he should say because this is what is written. We know he has a god that he prayed to because that is what is written,

We know that once he returned to "heaven" he was not god and explicitly said, while he was in heaven, he has a god because that is what is written. We know that there is a separation between "God" and Yeshua because chapters 4, 5 and 6 of Revelation reveal they are not the same. It's what is written. Everything else from trinitarians about the percentage of man or deity, that divine means deity is all speculation. These things are not written in the OT or the 4 gospels nor in Revelation.