Search Members

[francis]

Hello Marty…

I'm not sure how your post… or the verses you listed… contradicts or negates my belief that Jesus was the perfect and only true sacrifice that was required to reconcile man with God.  Indeed… how does your post… or the verses you listed… even contradict what mikeboll64 said in his most recent response to what you wrote to me or to Asana?

Of course God must have had a solution to the “problem” that would have occured if Isaac had actually been “sacrificed” or killed by Abraham. If there is no Isaac… then God's promise that Abraham's descendants would be as numerous as the sand on the beach, would not have been fulfilled.  So either God had to provide something in place of Isaac… or God would have had to raise Isaac from the dead if Abraham had killed Isaac… to make sure that God's promise to Abraham would be fulfilled.

God's solution of providing a ram in place of Isaac… doesn't contradict nor negate the belief that Jesus was sacrificed so that we can be reconciled to God.  It's just that in Jesus' case, God chose to raise Jesus from the dead through the Resurrection, instead of supplying a ram like he did for Isaac… because only Jesus' perfect and sinless nature and blood… was the perfect sacrifice for humanity.  The sacrifice of a ram… of a cow… of a bird… of sheep… or of any animal at all… would NOT have been sufficient to reconcile man to God for man's sins. Animal sacrifice was only a temporary solution until Jesus' perfect sacrifice could accomplish what the sacrifice of animals could not.

Indeed… nowhere does it say that Isaac was being sacrificed to reconcile Abraham to God… or was being done for Abraham's salvation. So whatever the reasons were for God asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac… it obviously had nothing to do with salvation or reconciliation. So as far as I can see… this story about Isaac has nothing to do with what Jesus did on earth or what he did on the cross. So I don't understand why you bring the story up.

Now whether or not you believe that… the point I'm trying to make here is that Your post… and the verses you listed in your post… does nothing to contradict or negate anything I just said. And that is my entire point. I'm not here to refute what you said… but only to show that you did nothing to refute what I said…. or do anyting to refute the belief that Jesus' sacrifice was necessary if man was to be reconciled to God at all.

So then… where does it say in the Bible that Jesus must not be sacrificed… or could not be a sufficient sacrifice to reconcile man to God?

And how does what I outlined to you above, suggest that by believing in Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is tantamount to trying to buy or earn my reconcilation with God?  Of course we can't buy salvation.  Of course we can not earn it through good works or in any other way.  And of course God does not require a sacrifice from you or me.

My salvation and reconciliation to God is not bought or earned or dependent on anything I did… but solely on what Jesus did on the cross in place of me.  Jesus was the sacrifice… not me.

So I'm just not understanding why you wrote to me and asked me: “What if you are wrong, in lite of these scriptures?”  The scriptures you listed doesn't contradict or refute anything I said.

Can you see my confusion?

God Bless
Francis

[francis]

Hello bodhitharta… I haven't been on here in a long time, but are you writing to me? If you were, and you wish to continue, let me know and i will respond.

I hope all is well and I'm glad to see you are still on here fighting for your beliefs… even though I disagree with them.

Take care
Francis

[francis]

Thanks Asana for your timely reply.

I wasn't able to finish my response… and now it is 1am in the morning and I have to get up at 7am and go to work.   After that… I have to spend the rest of Sunday to prep for my Bible study on Monday night.

So I won't be able to finish my response until after Monday night.  My Bible study goes until 1am.  So realistically, it probably won't be until Tuesday that I can finish my response.

Knowing that, I tried to finish tonight… but it was too much because there is so much real estate to cover.

So i'm sorry for the delay.

Yours in Christ
Francis

[francis]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 29 2012,00:37)

Quote (francis @ April 28 2012,06:50) Where were the disciples of Jesus in the plan and purpose of God if we are to believe the Quran in 4:157 ?  How on earth  could they… and why would they have… just sit down and let the Jewish leaders spread lies about the crucifixion if  Jesus didn't die as you teach? It is absurd IMO that God would delude Jesus himself, and those whom God had given him out of the world – but would reveal the “truth” of the matter 600 years later to Mohammed. Revelation 1:18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! It is stranger still that Jesus, once ascended to the right hand of his God, would continue to perpetuate this “delusion”. Good post, Francis.  I believe I will give you an “Amen!”

Thanks Mike for your nice comments.   They are appreciated.

To be honest, I was trying to elicit an “Amen” from you and others in here for ending my post without adding further information about the devout Muslims who do believe that Jesus actually was crucified.

I know that you and others say that my posts are long… and so in a tongue 'n cheek manner, I thought you would give me an “amen” when I said I would save that information for another post instead of adding to my latest post.  

But thanks again for your comment.  I guess I have to work on my humor a bit more.

Yours in Christ
Francis

[francis]

Hello Asana…

Quote

I don't think it's necessary to question our friendship or love for one another, that to me goes without  saying.

Thanks Asana… I will never question our friendship again. I enjoy our exchanges and I want you to feel completely free  to be yourself in our discussions.  Don't hold back.  Say what is in your heart… you won't offend me.  Friends should  be able to say what they want with each other without reservation.

God Bless.

Quote

I believe I have answered the question of how people could believe that Jesus was Killed/Crucified because  otherwise what Isaiah was quoted as being said would not be true and I believe it is true that Mark 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should  be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they  understand. Acts 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not  perceive: So please tell me possibly what did people see and see not? The Quran answers the Question They saw Jesus Crucified yet they saw not and they heard he was killed and yet they did  not understand.

Just because the Quran says that “they saw Jesus Crucified and yet they saw not and they heard he was killed and yet  they did not understand”, it does not automatically and uncritically mean that the crucifixion didn't happen.

You have to move beyond mere assertion and give us more to work with in the way of evidence.  No where in the Mark,  Matthew and Acts verses you brought up is there any mention whatseover of the cross or crucifixion or of Jesus being  killed or crucified or even of Jews boasting that they killed Jesus.  

There is nothing in those NT verses for anyone to assume or see that they are talking about the things we see the Quran  talking about in chapter #4, Verse #157 of the Quran.  No where in those NT verses does it say that the blindness and  deafness and nonunderstanding of the Jews is related in anyway to the death of Christ or his crucifixion.

I asked for evidence that the Jews… and all the historians and eyewitnesses who claim that Jesus died and was  crucified… that all these people were deluded and that Jesus never really died nor was ever crucified.

Instead of evidence… you give me a verse from the Quran which was written 600 years after the trial of Jesus.  In your  own words, you gave me an explanation of how people could be deluded into believing that Jesus was Killed/Crucified  without giving me any evidence that they were actually deluded.

An explanation attempts to explain what the facts mean in a case.  That is what an explanation is.  You present facts  that have something to do with… and is directly related to the issue of the death/crucifixion of Christ… and then  you explain those facts.

Instead, you present me some NT verses that have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus' death or crucifixion, you present  them as facts as if they are referring to Jesus' death.  

This can be easily demonstrated in this way:

For the moment… let's pretend that the Quran doesn't exist… let's hypothetically go back into time before the Quran  was written.  Now read those NT verses you gave me.  Please tell me Asana, how anyone would think that these verses are  are explaining why people would be deluded into thinking that Jesus died or was crucified?

I can see how these NT verses can explain why people misunderstood or did not see the SIGNIFICANCE of Jesus'  death and crucifixion and His resurrection.  But before the explanation can be put forth, that explanation has to come  from some facts that need explanaing.

Can you see that Asana?

If the Crucifixion and the death of Jesus happened, then those NT verses you gave me can certainly explain why some  people didn't understand that the cross and Jesus'Resurrection afterwards… was a victory for God… and not some  shameful defeat for God or for Christ.

But  Asana… please take careful note that in doing so…  I first gave evidence that Jesus died (presented to you in  2010)… even going so far as to cite the same Quran verse you are using… and then AFTER giving you the  evidence that Jesus died… I then can use the NT verses to EXPLAIN why the Jews did not “see or hear or  understand” what they saw… that they did not “see” the spiritual signficance of what they saw happening on the cross  as Christ died.

Notice how my use of the NT veses as an explanation of the Jews not “seeing and understanding”… COMES ONLY  AFTER I first presented evidence that Jesus died.  First came the facts that jesus died.. and then came the verses  as an explanation for the blindness on the part of some Jews.

We might disagree on my use and interpretation of the NT verses which I used as a way of explaning the “blindness” on  the part of the Jews who boasted that they killed Jesus… but I FIRST gave you evidence that Jesus died before I  offered an explanation for the “blindness”.

And you might disagree that the evidence I gave for the death of Jesus is not good evidence. But I at least made an  attempt to give you some evidence without first just assuming that Jesus died.  You on the other hand have not given me  any evidence that Jesus did not die… but just assumed it.

what you did was backwards.  Instead of FIRST giving us evidence that Jesus didn't die on the cross (which  is what I keep asking you for)… you simply ASSUMED that Jesus didn't die… and then after that  assumption…  you presented some NT verses to try and EXPLAIN why the people were deluded into believing that  Jesus died on the cross.  

But that is logically backwards and would be an example of putting the cart before the horse… an example of begging  the question.

Can you see this Asana?  I asked for evidence that Jesus really didn't die, and instead of giving me evidence, you just  assumed it, and then tried to EXPLAIN why they were deluded into believing that Jesus died.

Anyway… I can see that i'm repeating myself.

The bottom line is that you never gave me evidence that Jesus did not die… you just assumed it.  Trust me… if there  was any evidence at all that Jesus did not die on the cross… you would have immediately… instantly… and in a heart  beat.. presented the evidence… and do so with glee and triumph.

You asked me to tell you what did these people possibly see and not see and not undersand in Mark 4:12… Matthew  13:33… and Acts 28:26… if not the crucifixion?

I think that a simple, straightforward reading of the text… without any preconceived bias and prejudice… shows that  Jesus is refering to spiritual matters… spiritual truth… spiritual blindness.

Think of it in this way… I'm sure that you believe that Christians like myself are spirtiually blind because you say  we can't see or understand the “truth” of the Quran.   Likewise…  Christians like myself say the same exact thing  about you… that you and Mohammed are spiritually blind.  You can't fully see and hear and understand the spiritual  truth f
ound in the Bible.  Traditional Orthodox Christians like myself believe that you are blind to the spiritual  signficance of the death of Jesus on the cross.. and his subsequent resurrection.

Now… I understand that you disagree with my belief that you are spiritually blind… but my point is to simply show  you that this answer about what the NT versers were talking about…the spiritual blindness on the part of  unbelievers… makes far more sense in the context of what Jesus said in Mark, Matthew and Acts… it makes more sense  than your explanation because we say the very same things to each other in this forum… that “you are spiritualy  blind and can't see or hear or understand the truth”!!

If we say that to each other now… why couldn't Jesus have meant the same thing about the Pharisees and Sadducees and  non-believers in the verses you brought up?  Take away the Quran… and there is really no other reasonable explanation  for those NT verses.

The people that Jesus was refering to were non-believers to begin with, and “The god of this world (Satan) has  blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ . . . “ (2  Corinthians 4:4)

And this… “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing…The man without the  Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot  understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 1:18; 2:14)

That is why I believe that you and Mohammed and the Quran think it is foolish to believe that Jesus died on the cross…  because you are spiritually blind.

Anyway… When the Qur'an speaks of those who have eyes but do not see… (The Qur'an, 7:179)… it does not mean that  they are blind, but that they do not perceive the truth of the Quran.  Similarly when the Qur'an speaks of those who do  not hear (in that same verse), it is the perception of what they actually heard that they have denied.  They denied the  truth of the Quran that they had heard. That is my understanding of what 7:179 is saying in the Quran.

Well… when you apply that kind of reasoning and understanding found in 7:179… to me that is what happened with the  Jews in the New Testament.  They did kill Jesus the Christ… that is an historical fact that can't be objectively  denied… but it is their perception that they had finally destroyed Jesus which is denied. They thought that by their  crucifying Him, Jesus would be finished, but He rose from the dead. The crucifixion was not the last word. The  resurrection was.  So they thought they had killed Him on the cross, but they had not, for He rose again.

Interestingly… I think that there is a parallel between the death of Jesus and that of Mohammad's grandson, al-Husein  which is worth thinking about and which might help explain what happened when Jesus died on the cross.

One writer, commenting on the tragic murder of al-Husein, said:

On the tenth of the month of Moharam in the year 61H, al-Husein was killed and all those who were with him of men,  youth and children, except Imam Ali son of al-Husein. And people said that al-Husein wasted his life and the lives of  those with him … But time proved the opposite. For the pure blood of al-Husein did not dry up on the soil of Karbala'a  until the throne of the Amawites was quaked and the seat of Yazid was shaken. They were days when the power of the  Amawite crumbled in shame. And the wonderful victory was on the side of the reformation [of al-Husein]….”  (Mohammad Bahr al-'Uloum, al-Hasan wa al-Hosein Imaman in Qama wa in Qa'ada, Dar az-Zahra'a, Beirout Lebanon, 1983  second edition, p. 62)

To me, the above sentiment about Al-Hussein, is the same one that answers the boasting of the Jews who said: “We  killed the Christ”.  The people said that Al-Husein 'wasted his life… but time proved the opposite… that is, he  did not waste his life. The same with Jesus.

You see… both Jesus and Al-Husein were killed (historical fact) by those who were supposed to accept them and honour  them… but even so, their lives were not wasted.  They both had victory.

And Jesus' victory came when He was resurrected.

But there is also a very good illustration in Sura Anfal which helps to understand Jesus' death on the cross on a  another level.

Traditional, Orthodox Christians believe that even though the Jews wanted Jesus to die because of blasphemy… and even  though it was the Romans who actually carried out the death penalty of Jesus… it was God's plan all along for Jesus to  die on the cross. Without the cross, there would be no victory that came with the Resurrection.

Anyway… in Sura Anfal 8:15 it says:

“It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but  Allah's…”

This passage… as I understand it… is describing the response of the Muslim warriors to their victory at the Battle  of Badr.   They were boasting and taking pride in what they considered was their own achievement.

But this passage is correcting their foolish boasting and is instructing them to recognize that it was God who brought  it to pass, all that happened that day.  The Muslim warriors were only instruments that God used to fulfill His plan.

Well… in this same way, God is telling the Jews that their boasting is totally unfounded  and in error.   They didn't kill the Messiah as they so proudly boasted.

The Jews suffered from two misconceptions that day… the first one is that it was on their own strength and achievement  that they were able to have Jesus be killed.  God could have stepped in and stopped the whole thing at any time… but  it was God's plan all along for Jesus to die so that the victory that came with the Resurrection could happen.

And the 2nd misconception was that in killing Jesus… the Jews thought that they had destroyed Jesus… and that they  had finally put a stop to His influence and works and teachings here on earth. They had erroneously thought that by  having Jesus killed, they had finally got rid of Jesus who was a source of real irritation and threat to them.

Far from Jesus' crucifixion being a humiliating defeat for God or for Jesus… it allowed for a great victory to occur  when Jesus was resurrected.

And finally… to demonstrate that this whole idea from you, Mohammed and the Quran that Jesus never died  on the cross, and that when the Jews believed and boasted that they had killed Jesus… that it was instead, a delusion  sent by God Himself… makes absolutely no sense… I have to ask… what about Jesus' Disciples??

Where were the disciples of Jesus in the plan and purpose of God if we are to believe the Quran in 4:157 ?  How on earth  could they… and why would they have… just sit down and let the Jewish leaders spread lies about the crucifixion if  Jesus didn't die as you teach?

Doesn't it say in the Quran – 3:52, 53:

And when Jesus perceived their unbelief, he said, 'Who will be my helpers unto God?' The apostles said, 'We will be  helpers of God' … inscribe us therefore with those who bear witness.”

Well, if they were the helpers of God and if they were to make the truth of God, victorious and known… then where was  their voice for God and His Truth concerning the crucifixion?  If Jesus was not really crucified or killed, I am sure  that they would
have spoken up fiercely of what they believed to be the truth… and filled the whole world with it…  and even died for it.

Where then is their voice if we are to believe the Quran?  Could it truly be possible and conceivable that these  Discples of Jesus… whose rank had been elevated to those “who bear witness”… could they really hide themselves  and  be silent forever?  If you believe that is possible… then they do not deserve to be called “helpers of God” or  “witnesses”. Instead they should be denounced as frauds as they would have been a huge disappointment to God as helpers  and witnesses.

But guess what… we know that they did not hide.  They did stand up fearlessly and fiercely and spoke bodly about the  crucifixion and the resurrection.  These Disicples of Jesus were so fearless and so zealous and so committed to truth  and to God in spreading what they believed to be the Truth… that even those who are not followers of Jesus… and  those who do not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus…  the world knows what these Disciples reported and claimed…  that Jesus was in fact crucified and that He rose again on the third day.

Are you suggesting that the Diciples of Christ… who were the helpers of God… that they were also deceived along with  the enemies of God into believing that Jesus was not crucified or killed?  Are you saying that Jesus' Disciples and  followers and enemies as well… that they were all duped and deceived and deluded by God?

Or maybe you are saying that the story of these Disciples… about them spreading the “Good News”… about them  fearlessly and boldly going throught the world to proclaim God's truth… about them dying for their beliefs… was that  all a delusion sent by God as well?

No… believing what the Quran said in 4:157… that Jesus didn't die or was not crucified… in spite of the all the  evidence that Jesus was crucified… it leads to all kinds of absurdities that can't rationally be defended by an honest  and open mind who is not spiritually blind.

————————————————–
————————————————–

Quote

The romans were also would allow their wives to make many decisions hence the word “Romantic” The wife of  Pontious pilate said she had a dream and no harm should come to Jesus and Pontious Pilate said at least 3 times that he  would let Jesus go free. Matthew 27:19 When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man:  for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered  up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. Luke 23:22 And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will  therefore chastise him, and let him go. Rmans had no reason to bow to the will of the minority of Jews there is massive amounts of literature that support the  way the Romans operated and they always did whatever they thought was best for them if they believed harm would come to  them for assisting the crucifixion of Christ their History shows they would not have done it look at what Herod had to  say: Acts 4:26-28 King James Version (KJV) 26The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. 27For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the  Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. Luke 23:7-11 King James Version (KJV) 7And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at  Jerusalem at that time. 8And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard  many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him. 9Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing. 10And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him. 11And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him  again to Pilate. Luke 23:11-16 King James Version (KJV) 11And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him  again to Pilate. 12And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves. 13And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, 14Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined  him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: 15No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. 16I will therefore chastise him, and release him. Now I am saying this is exactly what he did and it would make perfect sense if you have ever studied the way Roman  rulers functioned they LET HIM GO and presented a bloodied person who was to be executed anyway

I have to say, that it is sometimes difficult for me to follow your line of reasoning, but I will give my best and try  and deal with your above comments.

First off, it is difficult to rebut or argue against a phantom or a ghost or hot air.  It just is.

Look again at the verse in the Quran you bring up and which we are discussing:

Quote

1)… And their saying: Surely we have killed the messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of Allah; and they  did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so  and most surely those who differ therein are only  in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for  sure.  ( ? ???  , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157)   2)… That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him  not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no  (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-  ( ? ??? , An-Nisa,  Chapter #4, Verse #157)

No where in that verse… nor in the New Testament… does it say that Pilate let Jesus go.  So where does that idea  come from?  How do I argue against or rebut something that is not there to begin with?  That's what I mean about trying  to argue against a phantom.

And by the way…
I think it's very ironic that you will try and discredit or call into question the concepts of the  “Trinity” and “Incarnation” in a prior post of mine… on the basis that they are not explicitly mentioned in the  Bible… and yet you will turn around in this post of yours and say that Pilate let Jesus go… even though no where in  the Quran or the Bible does it say that.

So I guess I have to now assume that this delusion which you speak of (that fell on the people who boasted that they had  killed Jesus)… this same delusion must have started well before any crucifixion had occured.  I could be wrong…. but  it appears to me that you are now claiming that not only were the Jews deluded at the crucifixion… but they were also  deluded at the trial of Jesus.

First they were deluded into believing that Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified… and then they were deluded into  believing that the crucifixion of Jesus actually occured.

Where does this delusion begin and end?  

Maybe Mark 4:12 and Matthew 13:13 can be applied to you and Mohammed?  Maybe it was Mohammed who was deluded into  believing that Allah spoke to him.  Or maybe Jesus was never was arrested or went to a trial in the first place… maybe  all that was also a delusion.  Or maybe the dream that the wife of Pontious pilate had was also a delulsion.  How can  you say one way or the other?

As I said, it's like trying to rebut or fight a phantom.

Anyway… it seems that you are trying to infer that because the Romans and Pilate had no reason to bow to the will of  the minority of Jews who wanted Jesus killed… and because Pilate told the people 3 times that he found Jesus  innocent… and because Pilate's wife told him to have nothing to do with Jesus because of a dream she had…  then all  of this somehow proves or demonstrates that Jesus was let go by Pilate… even though text never says that Pilate let  Jesus go.

By the way… all records indicate that Pilate was brutal towards the Jews and that his pattern was to avoid doing  anything which could be acceptable to the Jews. So, why would he now give in to the Jews who were against Jesus?  Why  not release Jesus, if only to irritate and tweak the noses of the priests who called for his death?

It's a good question asked by non-believers… and it's my belief that Pilate did hand Jesus over to be crucified… as  the Biblical texts record… even though Pilate was known for being brutal and harsh in his dealings with the Jews…  and even though Pilate wouldn't normally have bowed to the will of the Sanhedrin's wishes.

Something happened that day which effected Pilate … but I don't think it was something supernatural or a delusion from  God.

You don't need to add something artificial into the narrative mix… like a delusion from God… to make sense of  Pilate's strange ambivalence toward Jesus and the Jewish leadership… when he normally mistreated the Jews with vicious  disdain.  The explanations can be very human and prosaic.

Here are a couple of factors which can adequately explain Pilate's actions that day.  (I'm assuming that the trial  actually did occur and that it was no delusion sent by God)

1)... It is possible that the dream that Pilate's wife had, did in fact have some kind of influence on Pilate.   That influence could have come from her personal influence over her husband… or that influence could have come from  any superstitions that Pilate and his wife may have had.  At the time, the Romans had hundreds of gods that they  worshipped and believed in.  Any people or society that believes in that many gods, is bound to be superstitious.

But either way… it appears that neither of those possibilities had enough influence to stop Pilate from finally  turning Jesus over for a crucifixion.  At that moment in time, it appears that something had far more influence over  Pilate than his wife's dream.

That is… unless you believe Pilate's final verdict to be a delusion sent from God.  Which is not supported by the  Quran's text nor the New Testament text.

Trying to rebut such a phantom would be impossible.  You would have to go beyond simply asserting that a delusion  occured, and give me some facts to work with before I could respond with any reasonable counter arguments.

Anyway… in my opinion, the above explanation for Pilate's behavior that day is not as likely as the more prosaic  explanation in the following one:

2)… The politcal climate back in Rome changed so much that it put Pilate in danger… both for his career and  for his physical safety.

We know that as the prefect of the Roman province of Judea… Pilate served under Emperor Tiberius… but was appointed  by regent Aelius Sejanus.

In his mid-sixties, Tiberius' entered semi-retirement on the Island of Carpi in 26 AD… handing over daily Imperial  duties of managing Rome, to Sejanus (a former captain of the Praetorian Guard)… and appointing him as the regent in  the Capitol.

But while Tiberius embraced and preoccupied himself with a life of unmentionable depravity and cruelty during his  semi-retirement on the Island… Sejanus… for 5 years… was able to banish, imprison, eliminate and engineer the  suicide of many of his own opponents… as well as Tiberius' potential successors.  This is all recorded by Tacitus.

It was apparant that Sejanus was trying to plot and murder his way to the throne. He very nearly did. For 5 years,  Tiberius was unaware of what was happening because nearly all communciation from Rome to the Island of Capri, filtered  through Sejanus.  But Tiberius had a trusted sister-in-law… Antonia… who one day mangaged to send a secret letter to  him in which she described Sejanus' web of plots in detail.

Tiberius responded by plotting his own surprise. He sent a lengthy letter to be read before the Roman Senate with  Sejanus present. At the end of the letter, Tiberius denounced Sejanus and demanded his arrest.  Sejanus was executed the  same day… and Tacitus records the date for us… October 18, 31 AD.

Remember that date.  It is important for our discussion.

It was Sejanus… during his managing of Rome as Regent… made appointments of many Imperial officials, including  Pontius Pilate.  Pilate was made Prefect of Judea about the time that Tiberius gave up Rome for Capri.

We also know (because Tacitus tells us) that Sejanus was a notorious anti-Semite… he hated the Jews.  And Pilate  (chosen by Sejanus)… embraced Sejanus' anti-Jewish policies as he governed Judea.

But what happened to Pilate?  Why is it that during Jesus' trial, Pilate is strangely ambivalent toward Jesus and the  Jewish leadership when he hated the Jews?  What changed?

The answer was that Sejanus was now dead.  And now Tiberius began to root out all of Sejanus's appointees and allies.   In fact, many were tried, tortured and executed in unspeakable and horrible ways so as to maximize terror and make an  example for others who might think of trying to do what Sejanus did.

Tiberius then rescinded all of Sejanus' orders and policies, including his anti-Semitic policies. The new official line  was to let the Jews alone.

But remember that this was not a casual change of direction. Tiberius's decree was delivered at the same time that many  of the officials that Sejanus had appointed, were horribily tortured and executed. Officials just like Pilate.

As you can well imagine then… after October 18, 31 AD…  Pilate lived in a lethal political atmosphere. This would  adequately explain Pilate's strange behavior during Jesus' trial.   At this moment in time, his anti-semite prejudices  could very well cost him his life.  

When understood in this context… the words in John 19:12 takes on a whole new meaning for u
s:

“From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no  friend of Caesar.”

If I was in Pilate's shoes… I would genuinely be afraid as I heard the Jews shouting and chanting and demanding that  Christ be executed.

Pilate would have loved to set Jesus free because he could see how much the Sanhedrin wanted Jesus dead… and this  would have given him a great opportunity to irritate and thumb his nose at the Jewish leaders.  But when the leaders  said that Pilate was no friend of Caesar if he let Jesus go… it would explain why he finally bowed before the pressure  of the Sanhedrin's demands.

He didn't want to cast any focus on himself and risk a horrible death at the hands of Tiberius.

So to sum up this section:

1)… whatever personal influence Pilate's wife had over her husband… and whatever influence her dream might have had  in an attemt to convince him to let Jesus go… it wasn't going to be near the influence of living in deadly fear that  Tiberious might execute Pilate… like he was doing with most of those officials who were appointed by Sejanus.

So ask yourself this… should Pilate bow to a dream from his wife and let Jesus go?  Or should he bow to the  humiliating pressure from the Jewish leaders so as to not risk the possibility of being executed if Tiberious heard  reports from the Jews that Pilate was not a firend of the Emperor?  

Are you kidding?  The Jews hated the Romans and Pilate for the ill treatment they received at their hands.  If Pilate  didn't bow to their demands… you can bet that the Jews would expose Pilate to Tiberius as revenge.

That is why I believe that Pilate didn't let Jesus go during the trial.  Because my explanation is far more powerful and  makes far more sense than the explanation and/or evidence you brought up in an attempt to show that Jesus was no  crucified and put to death.

——————————————-
——————————————-

Well… I was going to get into the fact that there are many devout Muslims who in fact do believe that it is an historical fact that Jesus really did die and was crucified… and that your understanding of 4:157 in the Quran is not as firm as you wish to believe.

But I have come to the end of my energy.  I am exhausted.  So I will leave that subject for another time.

Do I get an amen from that? (I'm sure I got one from Mike)

Yours in Christ
Francis

P.S… I didn't have the time or energy to proof read everything, so I apologize for any spelling and grammer mistakes.

[francis]

Hello Asana…

Quote

Francis What you are saying just doesn't Gel and here's why: Jesus explains John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? Jesus was sent into the world if he was God incarnated he would not  have made the distinction that God sent him into the world. Incarnation would mean that God came into the world and was not sent into the world. You have no Logical basis to conclude that there was any sort of incarnation of God on earth. The word of God was made manifest meaning made evident by producing a child by command is sameword made light and everything else o unless God is everything His Word created God is not incarnated but indeed is made manifest all through creation

First of all… the post of mine which you say “just doesn't gel”… was meant to be nothing more than a simple, direct, brief overiew  in response to a brief, simple question of yours.

The question you asked was simply:

Quote

And what is this talk about incarnation where in the world in the bible does it say anything about God being “Incarnated”

No where in that question or yours does it ask or suggest that I needed to defend or “prove” that the concept of the Incarnation is true… although I personally believe it is.

Look again at your question very carefully… all you asked was “…where in the world in the bible does it say anything about God being “Incarnated”

Nothing else. That is all you asked.  It was a very brief question, and so I gave you a very brief overiew as an answer… explaining that while the word “Incarnation” is not written in the Bible… it is nonetheless inferred from the Biblical text.

I wasn't asked by you to prove or defend that the inference was a valid one (although I believe it is).  All you asked was where in the Bible does it say anything about God being “Incarnated”.

And I gave you a very brief overview.

I even told you that my response was “simply trying to answer your question as to why Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus was God Incarnate.”

It wasn't meant to be an indepth answer, and I even pointed that out to you as well.

I believe my answer honestly and directly answered your question as you asked it.  And so in that respect… my answer gelled perfectly and was on point.

—————————–

Now please listen carefully Asana… I consider you to be my friend and I pray that one day I will have the privilege of meeting you.  I genuinely admire and respect you… even though we are not in agreement about God and salvation and Jesus.

But you can't say that I have no logical basis to conclude that there was any sort of Incarnation of God when you never asked for it and I never gave one.   Your question did not call for me to defend or prove that there is a logical basis for believing that Jesus was God Incarnate (even though I believe there is an excellent logical and rational basis for the concept).

Now… I don't mind having a spirited and fun discussion about the merits of the case for the Incarnation with you.

BUT… you have yet to answer my question and request about giving me evidence and proof that the people who claimed that they had killed Jesus… were in fact deluded.

You keep asking me questions and challenging me to defend myself and explain myself… and I have made a very honest effort to do the best I can with the Brain that God gave me.

I have honored you and respected you by trying to give you what you have asked of me.  All of my posts show that I have always been willing to respond to people and to be as thorough as I can be.

And yet, even though I have repeatedly asked for the same courtesy in return as I politely ask you to show me evidence that people have been deluded into thinking they killed Jesus…. you have steadfastly and consistently resisted honoring my request.

I don't know why you refuse to answer a simple question of mine… but then have no problem peppering me with questions and requests that I defend myself about any claims I make.   It is not fair to ask me to defend myself with evidence… when you won't do the same.

I love you Asana because I know that God loves you and because Jesus loves you… but I'm not going to get into any discussion with you about the Incarnation until you are willing to answer my question about the death of Jesus.

I think that is a very fair attitude to have on my part because we saw Jesus doing the very same thing when the pharisees and scribes wouldn't answer Jesus' question.

Like Jesus did in the NT… if you won't answer my question, then I won't answer yours.   Having a dialogue means both sides have to be willing to contribute and answer questions when asked of them.

Yours in Christ
Francis.

[francis]

Hello Asana…

Quote

divine (adj.) c.1300, from O.Fr. devin (12c.), from L. divinus “of a god,” from divus “a god,” related to deus “god, deity” (see Zeus). Weakened sense of “excellent” had evolved by late 15c. divine (v.) “to conjure, to guess,” originally “to make out by supernatural insight,” mid-14c., from O.Fr. deviner, from V.L. *devinare, dissimilated from *divinare, from L. divinus (see divine (adj.)), which also meant “soothsayer.” Related: Divined; diviner; divining. Divining rod (or wand) attested from 1650s. divine (n.) c.1300, “soothsayer,” from O.Fr. devin, from L. divinus (adj.); see divine (adj.). Meaning “ecclesiastic, theologian” is from late 14c. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=divine It is improper using this word when talking aout THE ONE TRUE GOD. God does not divine nor is God divine. And to use God and Divine interchangebly shows either a lack of knowledge or a lack of respect towards God. I'm sure in your case it is simply a lack of knowledge. The Bible is Divine but YHWH/YHVH is not Divine for God did not precede out of something else to give him a nature he didn't already have.

You did nothing to rebut what I wrote because in my explanation, I already AGREED with all you wrote above about the many different definitions for the word “Divine”.   You even showed that the meaning of “Divine” differs depending on whether you are using the word “Divine” as a noun, adjective or verb!!  Which is what I was saying all along.  

All I did was add a couple of more sources (I gave them to you) to show that as a noun… when the word “Divine” is being used as a noun… it can also mean: “Godhead, Lord, Creator, Maker, Divine, God Almighty, Almighty, Jehovah terms referring to the Judeo-Christian God.”

So  I don't understand the point of your last post.  I have been saying all along that the word “Divine” can have different meanings… and you supplied some of them for us.

Yours in Christ
Francis

[francis]

Hello Asana…

Quote

And what is this talk about incarnation where in the world in the bible does it say anything about God being “Incarnated”

The Incarnation is a fundamental theological teaching of orthodox (Nicene) Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. In the Bible, the clearest teaching about the Incarnation appears to be in John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.”  (From Wikipedia)

We all know that there had been much debate during the first couple of centuries after Jesus' time here on earth about the idea and concept of the Incarnatino.  And there are some Christians today (although not traditional/orthodox ones) who deny the Incarnation altogether… and others who view the Incarnation a bit differently than the traditional Nicene Christianity does.

The point is that even though the word “Incarnation” is not specifically mentioned in the Bible (neither is the word “Trinity” mentioned)… the concept was inferred from Biblical texts as Christians tried to understand the nature of Jesus and the words/claims He spoke and His actions while He was here on earth.

It would be kinda like this (using a very simple word picture)… if you see an animal on another planet that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and  walks like a duck… it would be a reasonable inference that it is a duck… even though there is no sign around it's neck that says “Duck”.

I don't know if that helps or hinders my explanation… but that is what I mean when I say most tradictional/orthodox Christians have “INFERRED” from the Biblical texts that Jesus was God Incarnate.  The Incarnation of Christ was deduced… or a conclusion was made from the evidence and reasoning rather than from any explicit statements in the Bible.  If the words “Incarnation” or “Trinity” were used in the Bible, those would be explicit statements.  But they are not, so those words/concepts were inferred… or deduced from the text.

Part of the evidence and reasoning used to infer the Incarnation, is to see how Jesus thought of Himself in comparision to what we know about God.  For example, we know that the Sanhedrin judged him guilty of Blasphme during His trial… making Himself out to be God.   Jesus accepted worship and forgave sins which are reserved solely for God… etc.

There are so much more evidence than I am bringing in here because time and space doesn't permit… and because I am simply trying to answer your question as to why Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus was God Incarnate.

Anyway… I hope that gives a better idea of where the idea of Incarnation comes from and why it is central to the traditional faith held by most Christians.

Yours in Christ
Francis

[francis]

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2012,20:00)

Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,19:04) Quote (Ed J @ April 25 2012,18:18) Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,17:07) Hello Asana… 3)… While it is true that the root of the word Divine is literally “godlike”… when we look into the definition of the word as it is used today and in the past… the word “Divine” appears to have many kinds of meanings. But as I was saying to Ed J… when I was using the word “Divine”… I was basically interchanging it with the word “God”… so that for me: Divine=God.  And a look at the different definitions for the word “Divine” shows that the word “Divine” can mean God. Yours in Christ Francis Hi Francis:     These listed here, ARE truly equal!               “Divine” =  “Deity” =  “YHVH”  =  “The Bible” God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) Hi Ed J… If Divine = God… then I don't think the Bible could be equal with “Divine” or “Deity” or “YHVH” because I don't think the Bible is God. Otherwise, I do agree that: “Divine” =  “Deity” =  “YHVH”. Yours in Christ Francis Why do you guys keep calling God divine? do you even know what it means? DIVINE. 1. a: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god How can this definition apply to God? Jesus can be considered divine or angels but Not The Most HIGH And what is this talk about incarnation where in the world in the bible does it say anything about God being “Incarnated”

Hello Asana…

I guess you must not have read my prior post to you, because I explained how Divine can also mean God.

While it is true that the root of the word Divine is literally “godlike”… and thus it would be an adjective… when we look into the definition of the word as it is used today and in the past… the word “Divine” appears to have other kinds of meanings as well.

One of the meanings or definitions for the word “Divine”… when it is used as a noun… is “Godhead, Lord, Creator, Maker, Divine, God Almighty, Almighty, Jehovah terms referring to the Judeo-Christian God.”

I then gave you a couple of sources to back that up.

When I was talking with Ed J and Mike, I was using the word Divine as noun… so that it was interchangeable with the word “God”.

That is what is meant by “God = Divine”. As a noun, the word Divine can mean God.

I think you are confusing adjectives with nouns.

Yours in Christ
Francis

[francis]

Quote (Ed J @ April 25 2012,18:18)

Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,17:07) Hello Asana… 3)… While it is true that the root of the word Divine is literally “godlike”… when we look into the definition of the word as it is used today and in the past… the word “Divine” appears to have many kinds of meanings. But as I was saying to Ed J… when I was using the word “Divine”… I was basically interchanging it with the word “God”… so that for me: Divine=God.  And a look at the different definitions for the word “Divine” shows that the word “Divine” can mean God. Yours in Christ Francis Hi Francis:     These listed here, ARE truly equal!               “Divine” =  “Deity” =  “YHVH”  =  “The Bible” God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34)

Hi Ed J…

If Divine = God… then I don't think the Bible could be equal with “Divine” or “Deity” or “YHVH” because I don't think the Bible is God.

Otherwise, I do agree that: “Divine” =  “Deity” =  “YHVH”.

Yours in Christ
Francis

[francis]

Hello Mike…

Quote

Francis had written: Jesus.. when He left heaven to become lower than angles for our sake… he voluntarily limited to some degree His qualities as God… like His omniscience, omnipotence, etc. Mike responded with this: So was Jesus on earth “fully God”, or “limited God”?  I don't see how you can say that both things apply.

When I say that Jesus voluntarily put limits on His Divinity.. or that he voluntarily limited to some degree His qualities as God… I think the best way to convey to you what I was trying to say is to give the following example:

If I put a blindfold on… and put a cast on my leg so that I am forced to use a cane or crutch… I have limited some of my ability to be as mobile as I was before… and I have limited my ability to see like I was able to see before.  But not once did I ever make myself LESS THAN a human being.  And no one… including yourself, would say that when I put a blinfold on, and thereby limit my ability to see clearly… then I am making myself less human.

That is the idea I was trying to get across.

When Jesus voluntarily limited some of His qualities as God when He came to earth in His Icarnation… He in no way made Himself less than fully God.

I hope that helps.

Quote

Francis had written: The fully human part of Jesus was a servant and as a servant… He voluntarily agreed to submit to the command of God his Father.  So I'm not sure what your point was. Mike responded with this: My point is that, even AFTER Jesus was raised and exalted to the highest position he has ever held (at the right hand OF our ONE God), he is STILL called a servant of God. (Acts 4:30, for one)

I distinctly remember that this was part of our past debate.  And since I don't want to re-invent the wheel… I'm going to go back and find that part of our debate.  So I will respond later since it is already 2:30 in the morning where I live… and I need to get some sleep.

Quote

Francis, the fact that Jesus is now at the right hand of the one and only God Almighty makes it pretty darn clear that Jesus can't be that same God whose right hand he is at.  (Note that Jesus isn't said to be at the right hand of THE FATHER, but at the right hand of GOD.)

Same response as above.  I remember going over this already, a couple of years ago.  So I will find it and then respond.

Quote

Francis had written: Since Jesus… as God Incarnate… is both fully human and fully Divine… then Jesus' God (which would actually be the God of Jesus' fully human part of him) would be the same as God since God is Triune in nature. Mike responded with this: So Jesus' divine nature was the God of Jesus' human nature?  Jesus was truly HIS OWN GOD?  That's just too much, Francis.

Maybe my language is not perfect… so please let me try again.

If it were true that Jesus was God Incarnate… and that Jesus was both fully God and fully man… then we would have to agree that the fully man part of Jesus… His human flesh and His human soul (thinking)… cannot be God.

Because we know that God is NOT A MAN.  Correct? We can agree that God is not a man… and man is not God.  Correct?

So then, if we can agree on that, then how on earth could the “Fully MAN” part of Jesus… His human flesh and His human soul… how can they be God?  They can't of course.

Now then… what about His spirit… the spirit that dwells inside of His human, fleshly body?  Can His spirit be God?

Of course it can be.  Just like God dwelled in the Tabernacle in the OT… and yet still remained Omnipresent in the universe… so can God the Son dwell in a human body of flesh.  Just think of the human body ike the Tabernacle. Neither the human body nor the Tabernacle were God… but it was where God voluntarily dwelled.

In that case… the fully man part of Jesus (his fleshly body)… which is not God, but is only a dwelling place for God the Son… would naturally be a servant of God.   Jesus' fully man part would not be God, but would serve God and Obey God.  

To me, this seems to be perfectly rational and makes sense of the Incarnation.  

Now… in my humble opinion, you appear to try and muddy things up linguistically with your next question which was: “Jesus was truly HIS OWN GOD”?

Jesus' earthly body/soul was not truly His own God because the human body/soul can never be, and never is God in the first place.    But… God was truly the God of Jesus' earthly body/soul.

You see, to me, your question is really implying that I am saying that God is His own God.  But that is not what the Incarnation means.  If Jesus' earthly body/soul was God, then your question makes sense… and you would be correct in exclaiming “THAT'S JUST TOO MUCH FRANCIS”

But since Jesus' earthly body/soul was not God…. then it doesn't follow that I have been saying or implying that Jesus was his own God.

I'm not great with language… and I'm not that bright… but I hope that helps to explain how I understand the Incarnation of Christ.

Quote

Francis, you are correct that we will never agree on this……………UNTIL…………..you regain your memory of what the little word “OF” means.  If Jesus is at the right hand OF God, then he is not God.

I do remember that we discussed this about 2 years ago.. and so I will retrieve that portion of our debate in response later.

Until then, I kind of remember that the phrase “sitting at the right hand of God” is refering to heirachy… and not an actual physical location or essence or lower status.  But I have to get some sleep, so I will pick this stuff up later.

Quote

If Jesus is the Son OF God, then he is not the God he is the Son OF.  The same logic applies for: Priest OF God Word OF God Anointed one OF God Lamb OF God Prophet OF God Holy one OF God Servant OF God Etc.

Same response as above.

Quote

Francis had written: 2)… My defense is to say that Jesus was weaker (or not divine) in his flesh state… but it doesn't then logically follow that I must concede that Jesus wasn't truly God Incarnate. Therefore, I don't need to concede your point at all. Mike responded with this: If Jesus was “not divine” in his flesh state, then Jesus was not “God” in his flesh state.  You've conceded the point with your words here – whether or not you ever ADMIT you conceded it.

 Of course Jesus' fleshly body/soul was not God.  That is what the Incarnation is all about.  

What I didn't concede was that Jesus wasn't truly God Incarnate.  I've always said that Jesus was God Incarnate.  And I've always said that Jesus' fleshly human body/soul was not God.

Jesus had two natures… He was Fully God and Fully man.  The fully man part of Jesus was not God.  The fully God part of Jesus was God. Fully God in essence.

I don't see your point at all.

Yours in Christ
Francis

[francis]

Asana wrote:

Quote

We never disagreed that it was widely believed, thought or written about that Jesus was Crucified or killed so your entire argument is based on a wrong premise.

Hello Asana…

I'm not using a wrong premise as you suggest… but instead, I'm using that very knowledge we agree on, as one of my basic premises. And so that has been my point all along.  

I'm setting up my argument with the first premise being this knowledge you spoke of.

The difference between you and I is that you say these actual real people were all deluded.

Can you see that we are both USING THE SAME INFORMATION… the SAME KNOWLEDGE found in the first part of the Quran verse: An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157… which says they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”?

It is this part that I'm using for my first premise because we can both agree on that.

But the difference between us is that we come to 2 different conclusions from that information.

And why do we come to two different conclusions when in fact we are starting off with the same information and knowledge?

Because you've added something else to your argument… you've added the 2nd part of the above verse from Quran.  

Whereas I have added NOTHING to the fact that actual, real people were boasting  and claiming they killed Jesus… you on the other hand (and Mohammaed and the Quran as well) HAVE ADDED to that information, and said that these people were deluded.

And because you have added this claim of “delusion” to the facts we already agree on… logic demands that the burden of proof is now on you to prove… with evidence… that these actual, real people were deluded.

It's as simple as that. There is nothing complicated about the fact that the ball is in your court now.  

Quote

The Quran is revealing that it did not happen not was it believed to happen and as you stated yourself the Quran is not disputing the idea it is explaining the fact that it did not occur and God knows best.

And you have to prove with evidence… that your claim (made thousands of years after the fact)… and Mohammed's claim (made 600 years after the fact) is true. You've never done that.  And with this latest post of yours, you still have not given any evidence or proven that these people were deluded.

Asana… you asked of me:

Quote

Where is your EVIDENCE that Jesus was killed or Crucified?

Not only did I give pages and pages of evidence in 2010 for you… but a couple of days ago, I also tried a different approach and gave you evidence that we both agreed upon… which is that there were many people who actually admited that they “killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”.

But your only response so far is to say that these people were deluded.  Well Asana, that is fine… but now I'm asking you where is your EVIDENCE that these people were deluded in thinking they killed Jesus?

Asana… you can't ask me for evidence for my beliefs and/or claims… and then turn around and refuse to give me evidence for your beliefs and/or claims.

Isn't that completely unfair and even hypocritical?

Quote

The Bible says that People can see and not perceive and hear and not understand therefore it is certainly possible that what they saw they did not see and what they heard they did not understand. Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. You should actually GO and Learn what that means because you are not really paying attention to what Jesus is saying here, this is the Word of God saying a definite statement “I WILL HAVE mercy and NOT SACRFICE you are believing what he didn't say you are perceiving it backwards like I WILL HAVE sacrifice and NOT MERCY. As I said before about Jonah the people who cast him into the ocean believed him to be dead because of what they saw and heard but they did not perceive or understand how God SAVED Jonah ALIVE and he was not drowned or killed but God saved him. Pay attention to what you know to be true and God knows Best.

Asana… all i'm asking is for you to be fair and honest by supplying the evidence and proof that people were deluded into thinking they killed Jesus.  You kept asking me for evidence for my beliefs/claims… and I did the best I could.

Now I want you to give me evidence for your beliefs/claims.

What else is there to say?

Will you do that much for me,  since I tried my best to give you what you asked for?

Yours in Christ
Francis

[francis]

Asana wrote this:

Quote

(There) is no such thing as a Divine God because the word Divine means godlike and God can never have a Divine nature, I really wish you guys study more and accuse less.

Hello Asana…

With all due respect… and with the utmost sincerity from one friend to another… I would gently encourage you to follow your own advice and study more and accuse less.

1)… First of all, I never used the phrase “Divine God”… so you are completely wrong to ACCUSE me of this.  I did say “Divine nature”… but I never said “Divine God”.

2)… When I did use the phrase “Divine nature”… I was refering to Jesus in the Incarnation as Fully God and Fully man… NOT GOD.

Whereas God or God the Father does not have two natures… Jesus had two natures while here on earth because He was fully God and fully man.

So once again, you are completely wrong to ACCUSE me of saying that God had a Divine nature.

3)… Having said that, I am curious to know if you are correct to say that “God can never have a Divine nature”.  

Well… does He or does He not?  Are you correct on that?  Can God have a nature?  Can we speak intelligently about the “nature of God” or “God's nature”?

For me… the answer to that question appears to depend on what you… or anyone else… means when you use the word “nature”.  

After all… we can all agree that God does have certain characeristics and attributes which are listed in the Bible… such as being compassionate, perfect, love, patient, Incorporeal, Omnipresent, Omniscient , Omnipotent, Eternal, Holy etc.  You even say that God is merciful.

Well now… do these attributes/characteristics qualify as being the nature of God?  If not, then what do you mean when you use the word “nature”?  See?

For me… I'm not at all sure either way.   What I do know… after looking around… is that this question does not seem to be fully settled because there appears to be bright people on both sides of the issue.  

In fact, after reading and listening to some of the debates and discsusions on this subject… the question appears to be incredibly deep and frought with all kinds of serious philosophical implications that I have never considered before… and which makes my head spin as I try and follow the various discussions.

After all, I'm not all that bright.

—>  Anyway… on the website “Judaism 101″… it says:

• “Most areas of Jewish belief are open to significant dispute, but not the nature of the Creator.”

• “There are several well-accepted beliefs about the nature of the Creator.”

• “The nature of G-d is one of the few areas of abstract Jewish belief where there are a number of clear-cut ideas about which there is little dispute or disagreement.”

So it appears that Judaism says that God does have a nature.

—> Wikipedia itself discusses “The nature of God in Western theology”

Therefore, it appears to me that you have no basis to be so confident in your claim that “God can never have a Divine nature”

Afterall… if God does have a “nature”… (and it appears that He does have one)… then what else would His nature be but Divine?

3)… While it is true that the root of the word Divine is literally “godlike”… when we look into the definition of the word as it is used today and in the past… the word “Divine” appears to have many kinds of meanings.

But as I was saying to Ed J… when I was using the word “Divine”… I was basically interchanging it with the word “God”… so that for me: Divine=God.  And a look at the different definitions for the word “Divine” shows that the word “Divine” can mean God.

For example… “Random House Webster's College Dictionary” and “Princeton's WordNet” says that Divine can be a NOUN or an ADJECTIVE, depending on how you are using the word.  Indeed… as a noun, Divine is Godhead, Lord, Creator, Maker, Divine, God Almighty, Almighty, Jehovah terms referring to the Judeo-Christian God.

And it was in that sense I was using the word “Divine” when I wrote to Ed J and Mike.

Asana… you wrote and said to me… “I really wish you guys study more and accuse less”.

Well then… please tell me how the above shows that I need to study more and accuse less?  How are you justified for ACCUSING me for not studying and for ACCUSING?

Anyway… I'm the first to admit that I could be wrong about all of this… because I'm the first to admit that I'm not that bright.

So maybe it would help me if you could tell me why you believe that God can never have a Divine nature. 

Yours in Christ
Francis

[francis]

Quote (Ed J @ April 25 2012,05:37)

Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,02:24) Quote (Ed J @ April 24 2012,17:40) Quote (francis @ April 24 2012,16:13) Hello Mike…  That part of Jesus… the fully Divine part… was in full and total agreement with each other. Yours in Christ Francis Hi Francis, What does this mean? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) Hello Ed… So what I was trying to say is that the fully Divine nature of Jesus is God… just as God the Father is God.  Both are God, and therefore they both are in harmony.l Yours in Christ Francis Hi Francis, Oh, OK; thanks for the clarification! Now will you answer this question as well? When we're partakers of the divine nature, does that then make us God? “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (2 Peter 1:4) God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34)

That's a very good question Ed J… but obviously we can't become God because there is only one God.

Wouldn't you agree?  So, if we can't become God… then it appears that we have only a couple of choices in front of us by which we can understand what 2 Peter is talking about.

First of all… I have to do a little more research to give you a good answer… but it appears that the word “Divine” can have a few different meanings which is borne out by looking up the word on Wikipedia and online Dictionaries.

The entire time I was using the word “Divine”… I am referring to the concept of Deity… or of God.  To me, I understood the word “Divine” to mean God… just as “Deity” means God to me.

Anyway… that is how I was using the word.  Maybe I should have been using a different word to get across the idea that Jesus' Spirit which was dwelling in His human body (Incarnation)… that Spirit is God… Deity.

But after looking at some definitions… it appears that the word “Divine” can mean and refer to God… although it can also refer to “godlike”, etc.

With that in mind… we have to be careful to understand what Peter meant when he said “we're partakers of the divine nature”.

It's not important what we mean by those words… but it is important what Peter mean since he was the one who used those words.

I will do some more research because this is a good question… but I think you would agree with me that whatever Peter meant… he certainly was never saying that we become God when we partake of the divine nature.

Wouldn't you agree?

So my answer to your question is “no”.  When we partake of the Divine nature… it does not mean that it makes us God.

Anyway… I have to leave, but I will come back with a better answer later for you.

Thanks for the question

Yours in Christ
Francis

[francis]

Quote (Ed J @ April 24 2012,17:40)

Quote (francis @ April 24 2012,16:13) Hello Mike…  That part of Jesus… the fully Divine part… was in full and total agreement with each other. Yours in Christ Francis Hi Francis, What does this mean? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34)

Hello Ed…

If you add the sentence right before the one you quoted from my post to Mike, it will explain what I was saying (I hope).

So here are the two sentences together from my prior post:

God the Son's spirit is Divine just as God the Father is Divine.  That part of Jesus… the fully Divine part… was in full and total agreement with each other.

So what I was trying to say is that the fully Divine nature of Jesus is God… just as God the Father is God.  Both are God, and therefore they both are in harmony.l

Yours in Christ
Francis

[francis]

deleted because it was a duplicate

[francis]

Quote (francis @ April 23 2012,11:26)

Now, since the Quran was written 600 years after Jesus' time on earth… then that means that Mohammed must have seen written records or had evidence in front of him which testified to the fact that there were all these people who were boasting that they killed Jesus.  Otherwise, how would Mohammed known about all that boasting since he lived 600 years after the fact? So my evidence for Jesus' death are all those written records that Mohammed was looking at or knew about, for him to claim that they were all deluded. So now that I presented my evidence…. which was to use the same verse from the Quran to show that people were actually and really boasting about Jesus' death… it is now your turn to PROVE with evidence, that these actual people were deluded.

From mikeboll64

Quote

Nice one, Francis.

Thanks Mike.  

[francis]

Hello Mike…

Quote

Francis wrote: By definition, God is perfect and therefore there is no disagreements or arguments between the 3 persons of the Godhead.  God the Father… God the son… and God the Holy Spirit are always in complete harmony in all things.  If there was no complete and total harmony between the 3 persons of God, then God couldn't be perfect. Mike responded with: John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. How can “complete harmony” result in two completely different wills within one being?

Once again… from my perspective… and from traditional Christianity's perspective… God the Father and God the Son… the Godhead… are in complete harmony… because God is perfect and never in disharmony.

But since we believe that Jesus was fully human and fully divine (God Incarnate)… then his human will (soul) would necessarly be different than God the Father's will because one is fully human and the other is fully Divine.  But as I noted above, Jesus had a body/soul which was fully human… and He also had a spirit inside of his human body (as we all have a spirit) which was fully Divine… and since the Divine part of Jesus is God (God the Son)… which is equal with God the Father… then the Divine part of Jesus would in fact be in complete harmony with God the Father since both are God and perfect.

In case that was confusing, let me put it this way: just as we all have a soul and a spirit (which are not equal with each other)… so did Jesus have a soul and a spirit when He was fully human and fully Divine.  But whereas Jesus' spirit was Divine… our spirits are not.

Just to clarify… I believe that the soul part of us is actually part of our human body that allows for thinking, etc.  But inside of our human body resides a Spirit.  Our Spirit interacts with our Soul, but in my understanding… the soul and the Spirit are not the same.   Our soul is not spiritual in nature… but our Spirit is.

I'm not a theologian, so please understand that I could be wrong.  But that is how I understand our makeup as humans… and Jesus' makeup as God Incarnate.

Quote

Francis wrote: So then… God the Father and God the Son totally agreed and wished for exactly the same thing concering Jesus' self sacrifice on the cross… Mike responded with: Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

God the Son's spirit is Divine just as God the Father is Divine.  That part of Jesus… the fully Divine part… was in full and total agreement with each other.

But once again… from my perspective… and from traditional Christianity's perspective… Jesus.. when He left heaven to become lower than angles for our sake… he voluntarily limited to some degree His qualities as God… like His omniscience, omnipotence, etc.

So Jesus… as God Incarnate… fully God and fully human… when He came to earth, He was limited (by choice) in what He knew and could do on His own power… so He could fully participate as a human and go through what we go through.

The human part of Jesus is what we hear when Jesus prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

This how I understand the Incarnation of Christ.

Quote

Francis wrote: First of all, Jesus Himself clearly and unambiguously said in John 10:18 about His life: “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again”. God the Father never forced God the Son (Jesus) to lay down his life.  Both voluntarily and agreed to it because of God's love for humanity. Mike responded with: Francis, why did you cut out the last line of the scripture you posted?  Here are the last words of 10:18……….This command I received from my Father. The bolded word refers to an ORDER given by a superior.  When a master gives a servant an order, the servant can either fulfill that command willingly or with a bad attitude.  Jesus did it willingly, but nevertheless, it was still a command from our God and his God.

I have no problems with that.  The fully human part of Jesus was a servant and as a servant… He voluntarily agreed to submit to the command of God his Father.  So I'm not sure what your point was.

Anyway… once again, this how I understand the Incarnation of Christ

Quote

Mike wrote: (Because after all, John 20:17 makes clear that the God of Jesus is the same God as our God.  So if OUR God consist of the Father, Son, and Spirit, then so does JESUS' God.  And that would mean that not only does God Most High have a God of His own, but that Jesus is a part of HIS OWN God.)

As I understand your statement… my answer is that the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) are one God.

Since Jesus… as God Incarnate… is both fully human and fully Divine… then Jesus' God (which would actually be the God of Jesus' fully human part of him) would be the same as God since God is Triune in nature.

God Most High is one God, who is Triune in nature.

Whereas our God consists of the Father, Son, and the Spirit… it doesn't logically follow that each person of the Trinity is themselves triune in nature.   The Father is a distinct person from the Son and both of them are distinct persons from the Spirit… but the 3 make up God…. one God… the God Most High.

Again, this how I understand the Incarnation of Christ.

Quote

Mike wrote: Francis, you need to remember that Jesus was, and still is, a SERVANT of his God.  His God is greater than him, and knows things he doesn't know.  And if your defense is to say that Jesus was weaker in his flesh state, then you'll also have to concede that he wasn't truly “God Incarnate” as you claimed. peace, mike

1)… Jesus didn't know things because when he came to earth as God Incarnate, and He became fully human… He voluntarily limited his Divine nature in some respects so that his fully human nature didn't know certain things.  God was always greater than Jesus' fully human nature… but God was never greater than Jesus' fully divine nature.

2)… My defense is to say that Jesus was weaker (or not divine) in his flesh state… but it doesn't then logically follow that I must concede that Jesus wasn't truly God Incarnate.

Jesus human nature may be weaker than God… but not his fully divine nature.

My understanding of the Incar
nation of Christ can be summed up nicely by Wikipedia which says: “The Incarnation represents the belief that Jesus, who is the non-created second hypostasis of the triune God, took on a human body and nature and became both man and God.

It has always been part of the Triune doctrine and understanding that Jesus, as God Incarnate here on earth… was both fully man and fully God.

Therefore, I don't need to concede your point at all.

Got to go. I know we will probably never agree… but thanks for your insight and input.

Yours in Christ
Francis

[francis]

Hello Asana…

Quote

Oy, so you are saying Jesus sacrificed himself and not that God sacrificed him or told him in any way to allow such a sacrifice right?

Unfortunately, it looks like we are still not able to communicate enough so that we understand each other.  I will take the blame since I realize that I'm not all that bright.

First of all, Jesus Himself clearly and unambiguously said in John 10:18 about His life: “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again”.  

It doesn't get any more clear than that.

Even Wikipedia says: “Christians have traditionally understood Jesus' death on the cross to be a knowing and willing sacrifice (given that he did not mount a defense in his trials) which was undertaken as an “agent of God” to atone for humanity's sin and make salvation possible.”

Now as far as your question goes:

Quote

… so you are saying Jesus sacrificed himself and not that God sacrificed him or told him in any way to allow such a sacrifice right?

We have to understand that from my perspective… from the traditional Christianity's perspective… we understand that Jesus is God Incarnate… and that Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity.

To help you to understand the Trinitarian perspective, it would be useful to lay down a quick summary of what the Trinity is and the relationship between God the Father, and God the son… since you are asking about both of them in your question.

You're first mistake… from the Trinitarian perspective… is that you use the word “God” without telling us which Person of the Godhead you are referring to.  I understand that you don't believe in the Trinity, and so that is probably the reason why you don't identity which Person of God you mean when you ask your above question.

Anyway… when I look at your question… I understand it in the following manner (the Triniatrian perspective):

Jesus… as the Son of God, and being the 2nd person of the Trinity… is God.  And the person of the Trinity known as the Father… He is God also. He is called God the Father.   And  He is the same God as the Son is.  And the 3rd person of the Trinity known as the Holy Spirit… He is God as well.  He is the same God as the Father is and the Son is.  

One God… 3 persons.  The Trinity.  By definition, God is perfect and therefore there is no disagreements or arguments between the 3 persons of the Godhead.  God the Father… God the son… and God the Holy Spirit are always in complete harmony in all things.  If there was no complete and total harmony between the 3 persons of God, then God couldn't be perfect.

So then… God the Father and God the Son totally agreed and wished for exactly the same thing concering Jesus' self sacrifice on the cross… which is that God the Son sacrificed Himself to God the Father and thereby fulfilled all the requirements of the Law.  God the Son (Jesus) did this out of love for the Father and for all those the Father has given Him (John 6:37-40).

God the Father never forced God the Son (Jesus) to lay down his life.  Both voluntarily and agreed to it because of God's love for humanity.

So when God the Father agreed with God the Son (Jesus) that He would voluntarily lay down his life, God the Father is making a sacrifice.  By completely agreeing with God the Son, the Father is okaying and willingly allowing His Son to be sacrificed.

Anyway… I'm not theologian and never claimed to be.  But that is how I understand your question and my response to it.

I hope that helps somewhat.

Yours in Christ
Francis

[francis]

Asana wrote:

Quote

You cannot provide evidence that Jesus died on the Cross you can only speculate so your entire post was an attempt to appear to be using logic or  reason but tell me then where is your PROOF? Where is your EVIDENCE that Jesus was killed or Crucified?

Hello Asana…

Way back in the latter part of 2010, i went into incredible detail explaining and pointing out to you, all the historical evidence there is to show that  Jesus died on the cross.  I spent a whole lot of hours and effort in gathering all the evidence you had requested… and my posts were long and very  thorough.

Here are some of the comments by others in this forum who understood and appreciated the work I put into my posts as I gathered evidence for you:

—> SimplyForgiven: “Awesome Post =)”

—> Ed J:   “Excellent work; and Good!”

—> shimmer:  “Francis, those are really long post's. Well done. Welcome to Heaven net, God bless you.”

—> TimothyVI:  “Whew!  nobody can accuse Francis of not being thorough.  Good post.”

—> davidbfun:  “Yes Tim I agree that Francis' post was quite thorough and his closing statement is one that I was thinking about too”

But in spite of my best efforts… I saw that no matter how much evidence I brought to the table to support a postive case for my contention that Jesus  died on the cross, it wasn't going to impress you in the least.  And so there is no way that I am going to repeat all the hours and time and energy I  spent away from my wife going over the evidence once again… if it is not going to do anything.

If you are at all interested in looking again at what I had written in 2010, you'll find our exchanges in the following location of this forum:

Forum » Faith » Doctrinal Disagreements » Are you happy that “jesus died for you”?  

I think the starting point of our discussion about evidence for Jesus' death on the cross, is on page 16 of that particular thread.

One of the comments I made to you in 2010, still applies today unfortunately. I had said:

Quote

Here is the problem I'm having with this statement of yours above… your belief is based completely on your theology and is not supported by   historical facts. No mainstream historian uses the Quran as an historical document to shed light on the events surrounding Jesus during the 1st Century because the Quran  was written between 610 CE and 632 CE… about 600 years AFTER Jesus.   As a reliable historical document, the Quran doesn't shed any light about Jesus which the historian can use.  You're belief that Jesus did not die by  crucifixion is a total, complete faith position and it does not rest on any historical facts. The truth is that virtually all critical scholars/historians who have studied the history of Jesus agree that it is a fact that Jesus DIED by  crucifixion.  These critical scholars/historians cover the range from the atheist and the ultra liberals who do not believe that Jesus was resurrected…  all the way to the evangelicals who do believe that Jesus was Resurrected (based on the facts).  It is a near unanimous agreement among critical   scholars/historians who have spent years studying this issue, that Jesus died by crucifixion. This is a remarkable testimony to the strength of the overwhelming evidence for Jesus' death by crucifixion. So right away, we can see that you're disagreement is not with me or with anyone else in here… but you're disagreement is entirely with the  historians!! For your support, it appears that all you can bring up is a book written about 600 years after the events of Jesus… and your Muslim brothers and  believers.  The support I use are virtually all the critical scholars/historians… most of whom are not evangelical at all… but very mainstream… and  thus have no bias. So why should we think that you're belief that Jesus did not die by crucifixion, is more reasonable and more rational than my belief that Jesus did die  by crucifixion?

I then ended with the following comment:

Quote

I have presented a lot of evidence for my positive case… and yet you have not presented any  evidence for your position nor presented a positive  case for your belief that Jesus was not crucified.

That is a real problem Asana.  Whereas you keep asking me for evidence… and then say that I haven't presented any real evidence or proof after I lay it  all out in detail in my posts… you on the other hand, have not presented ANY evidence whatsoever for your belief that Jesus' death was nothing but a delusion sent by God… and that it never actually happened.

And so that is why I finally asked you this question…

Quote

Why should Christians in here invest a huge amount of their time and effort in debating  scriptures and Suras with you when you can't give an  “apologia”… a logical defense for your belief that Muhammad was correct about Jesus' non- crucifixion and Jesus not dying?

That question is as valid today as it was in 2010.

However…  I will try one more time to engage you and challenge you to prove that I am wrong and that you are correct about Jesus' death.  This time, I am going to try a different line of reasoning and approach since all the work I did in 2010 never made an impression on you.

So here it goes:

You have quoted the following verse from the Quran… and twice you gave a slightly different translation… but here is what you wrote:

1)… And their saying: Surely we have killed the messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so  and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.  ( سورة النساء  , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157)  

2)… That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-  ( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157)

Okay… so my evidence that Jesus died on the cross are all the people in Chapter #4, verse #157 who boasted and claimed that they killed Jesus.

Now, since the Quran was written 600 years after Jesus' time on earth… then that means that Mohammed must have seen written records or had evidence in front of him which testified to the fact that there were all these people who were boasting that they killed Jesus.  Otherwise, how would Mohammed known about all that boasting since he lived
600 years after the fact?

So my evidence for Jesus' death are all those written records that Mohammed was looking at or knew about, for him to claim that they were all deluded.

So now that I presented my evidence…. which was to use the same verse from the Quran to show that people were actually and really boasting about Jesus' death… it is now your turn to PROVE with evidence, that these actual people were deluded.

If you can't prove with any evidence whatsoever that these actual people that the Quran talks about… were actually deluded… then I've proven that Jesus' Crucifixion actually happened as these real people boasted about and claimed.

So you see Asana… you, Mohammed and I all agree that there were actual people… real people who boasted and claimed that Jesus was killed… that they actually and really killed Jesus.

We agree on that point.  The difference is that you say all these people were deluded.  So it is your burden of proof to show us… with evidence… the kind of evidence you were asking me for… that these real, actual people, were all deluded.

And you can't use An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157 as proof that these real, actual people were deluded… because that would argue in circles… it would be a classic example of Begging the Question.

Yours in Christ
Francis

[Author]

Posts