Print Page | Close Window

A question to all my Christian friends

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8045
Printed Date: 01 September 2014 at 9:58pm


Topic: A question to all my Christian friends
Posted By: BMZ
Subject: A question to all my Christian friends
Date Posted: 31 December 2006 at 3:52am

Muslim friends are welcome too.

Everytime, I discuss the Jewish Holy Scriptures or the Christian Old Testament with my Christian friends, I am always told that the past scriptures are full of prophecies about Jesus and that is where we are supposed to look for him as he had been foretold in almost every chapter, Isaiah in particular.

Of course, when we read the Jewish Holy Scriptures, we do not find Jesus at all.

My question: Is there a single prophecy about Paul in the Jewish Holy Scriptures or the Christian Old Testament? If the NT had to have so much material and teaching from Paul who overran Jesus in teaching, there should have been some prophecies about Paul too. I  find nothing.

Eid Mubarak & a Happy New Year

BMZ




Replies:
Posted By: Reepicheep
Date Posted: 31 December 2006 at 7:07am

BMZ wrote:

> Paul who overran Jesus in teaching,

Examples?



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 31 December 2006 at 7:40am

Happy New Year, Reepicheep

No answer to my question?



Posted By: Reepicheep
Date Posted: 31 December 2006 at 7:45am
What is your question?  And what does the phrase "overran Jesus in teaching" mean?


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 31 December 2006 at 7:52am

 

"What is your question?  And what does the phrase "overran Jesus in teaching" mean?"

My question: Is there a single prophecy about Paul in the Jewish Holy Scriptures or the Christian Old Testament?

The phrase "overran Jesus in teaching" means that he taught far more than what Jesus did and what Jesus did not.

Paul overshadows Jesus in the NT interms of letters, speeches and stories.



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 31 December 2006 at 7:58am

The reason I asked that question is:

For Paul to have spoken so much about a person and his teachings, a person whom he never met, there should have been some prophecies about Paul in the past scriptures instead of relying on his own story or testimony given in the NT.

Of course, I am not suggesting that Paul was the spirit of truth or the holy spirit or the Comforter or the advocate.



Posted By: superme
Date Posted: 31 December 2006 at 10:43pm
Originally posted by bmzsp

My question: Is there a single prophecy about Paul in the Jewish Holy Scriptures or the Christian Old Testament? If the NT had to have so much material and teaching from Paul who overran Jesus in teaching, there should have been some prophecies about Paul too. I  find nothing.

It is logical question. The Paul writings and the OT writings are both such large volumes, by right the OT should say something about him.

I am so eager to hear any opinion on this.



Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 01 January 2007 at 1:08am
But Paul did meet Jesus. Or, more accurately, Saul met Jesus.

Why get in a fret about prophecy when there are miracles? The next question will be since the Qu'ran clearly demonstrates that miracles exist and can be performed by prophets, why didn't Muhammad do any?

DavidC



-------------
David C.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 01 January 2007 at 7:04am

David,

"But Paul did meet Jesus. Or, more accurately, Saul met Jesus."

Saul did hear about Jesus but he had never met Jesus.

"Why get in a fret about prophecy when there are miracles? The next question will be since the Qu'ran clearly demonstrates that miracles exist and can be performed by prophets, why didn't Muhammad do any?"

David, the Old Testament is literally treated as mostly a book full of prophecies about the first coming of Jesus. The impression given is that most of the propehcies are arcane, which is not true. A man who would be struck by a bright flash under the bright sun, should have had some kind of prophecy, otherwise he should not have had any authority, if based only on his testimony. Paul showed no miracles.

My Muslim friends may disagree with me here but I will say that Muhammad did not really show signs or perform miracles like Moses and Jesus did. All miracles shown by Moses, Jesus and others were actually performed by God for them, not by those individuals.

Muhammad's greatest miracle is the Qur'aan that was recited to him, giving him the knowledge and power of reasoning, arguing and debating/discussing about God with people. 



Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 01 January 2007 at 8:10am
Saul met Jesus in Acts 9. You might even say there was a prophecy received by Ananias, but I don't see that getting much traction.

I don't know of anyone who treats the OT as only a book pf prophecies about the Messiah. And we can't read into scripture what was left out.




-------------
David C.


Posted By: AnnieTwo
Date Posted: 01 January 2007 at 12:02pm
BMZ,

Originally posted by BMZ


Everytime, I discuss the Jewish Holy Scriptures or the Christian Old Testament with my Christian friends, I am always told that the past scriptures are full of prophecies about Jesus and that is where we are supposed to look for him as he had been foretold in almost every chapter, Isaiah in particular.


Not in every chapter.  The Old Testament has prophecies of the coming Messiah.  Christians believe that Jesus is that Messiah.

Originally posted by BMZ

Of course, when we read the Jewish Holy Scriptures, we do not find Jesus at all.

Yet you find in the Qur'an that Jesus is identified as the Messiah.

Originally posted by BMZ

My question: Is there a single prophecy about Paul in the Jewish Holy Scriptures or the Christian Old Testament?

Why should there be?  Do you see prophecies of Peter, James and John in the Old Testament?

Originally posted by BMZ

 If the NT had to have so much material and teaching from Paul who overran Jesus in teaching, there should have been some prophecies about Paul too. I  find nothing.

Paul proclaimed the Messiah, just as Peter did.  We don't find Peter in the Old Testament either.

Interesting question though.  Seems odd to us that Muhammad's name is not in the Old Testament either.  Strange since he is supposed to be the seal of the prophets.



-------------
14If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 1 Peter 4



Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 01 January 2007 at 4:51pm

Hi bmz,

You said this to David:

"Saul did hear about Jesus but he had never met Jesus."

To which, I offer this evidence:

And on the road to Damascus, Saul met him.

Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. And it came about that as he journeyed, he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" (Act 9.1-5a)

As for the question regarding why St. Paul "out talked Jesus" in the Bible, I respectfully offer the following article, as it may be of some help to you:

"INTRODUCTION

An ongoing problem for Christians who argue or discuss with Muslims at Speaker's Corner is that of the authority for our beliefs. Many of the best references to support the theology which we hold to and support in our conversations are gleaned from the epistles of Paul. Yet we continually find our arguments rejected outright by Muslims because they consider Paul's letters to be untrustworthy and therefore non-authoritative.

Christianity, they go on to say, was founded by Paul and not by Jesus. Much of what we believe, they continue, was added to later on by Paul and his followers, in direct contradiction to Jesus's teachings.

Most of their criticisms on this point, interestingly, do not come from research they have undertaken, but is borrowed from recent polemical writers within the Jewish community, particularly the writings of Dr. Hyam Maccoby, who teaches here in London.


B: Maccoby: Jesus was a Pharisee, Paul was a Sadducee

According to Hyam Maccoby, Paul was not a Pharisee, nor even a Jew, but a gentile proselyte to Judaism. Maccoby's source for his material is the discredited Christian writer Epiphanius, an Ebionite who wrote 3 centuries after the fact. Paul, according to Maccoby, failed in becoming a Pharisee, and so allied himself to the Sadducees and the High Priest, two groups who enjoyed their privileged status under Roman occupation, and so were in conflict with the Pharisees, who wished to be rid of the Roman oppressors.

Maccoby believes that it was due to a near nervous breakdown that Paul split from this group and formed a new religion, taking ideas such as baptism, the eucharist, christology, the Holy Spirit, and eschatology and melded them with Jewish sacred history, Gnosticism, and the pagan mystery religions.

Jesus, on the other hand, according to Maccoby, taught beliefs which are quite common to Jewish Pharisaical teaching. He was a figure within Judaism and so would not have accepted his own divinity. This, Maccoby says, is clear from the first three Synoptic gospels, but not John, which was written much later, after the evolution of this theology by the early Christians led by Paul.

Maccoby continues by asserting that Jesus never regarded himself as a sacrifice for humanity, a belief which Maccoby contends arose after his death, as it was not part of Jewish theology.

Yet, Maccoby does admit that creating a divine character for Jesus has Jewish roots. Elijah and Enoch were both taken up to heaven, which transcended other human experiences. This well- known Biblical event, he feels, could be the stepping stone to the belief of the divinity of a person who then takes on the divine qualities of God.

There is no root in Judaism, however, for the sacrifice of the divine figure. Jews never worshipped the allegorical concept of God's divine wisdom as found in the book of Proverbs. And nowhere, Maccoby maintains, did Jesus ever make a claim of deity, calling himself instead the Messiah, a title which he maintains was political and which was quite common in those days. In fact, Maccoby believes that much of Jesus's teachings were also political in nature, and it was for this reason that he was finally put to death. Those passages which do point to Jesus' spiritual nature were added later, he says, by Paul and his disciples.

Along those same lines, Maccoby states that Jesus did not wish to abrogate Judaism, but was only in conflict with certain Jewish figures, which is normal within Jewish circles. He neither abrogated the Torah nor reformed it, but interpreted it, and in ways not unlike the Pharisees. For instance, curing sick people on the sabbath is not forbidden by the Mishnah nor the Talmud, which are both Pharisaic writings.

Maccoby believes that the ideas attributed to Jesus would have appalled him, had he known about them, therefore they could only have been attributed to him after his death. The gospels were written 40 years and later after the death of Jesus, thus Maccoby contends that there was plenty of time for these theological ideas to evolve within the Christian community.


C: Response to Maccoby

In response to the above claims by Hyam Maccoby, we need not go into great detail except to point out from the outset that much of Maccoby's material is derived from the Ebionite tradition, a tradition which was first of all proposed three hundred years later than the subject in question, and secondly, a tradition which acknowledged its hostility to Paul and his beliefs even at that time. It is inexcusable to rely on material for supposedly truthful information about a person or movement which is not only distant from the source, but also the avowed enemy of that person or movement. Would we go to Serbian generals to ascertain the facts of the Bosnia conflict today? This is what Maccoby has done in his work.

To divorce Jesus from the personal claims which he makes in the gospels puts into question his whole ministry and the amazing impact which he had on those who followed him. It also makes the book of Acts look totally worthless, as the church which evolved from the ministry of Jesus was completely dependant on the person and claims of Jesus as saviour.

Concerning the contention that Paul changed the gospels later on, it is unthinkable that an invention of Paul, who was not one of the Twelve and whose apostolic credentials were so often questioned, could succeed in becoming a part of the narratives of the Synoptic Gospels. "It staggers belief that he could have successfully foisted his innovation... on the church at large" (Hunter).

To say that it was Paul who created the view of Jesus as deity is to reject the christology of the Jerusalem church and the evidence of Jesus's deity found in the book of Acts. Of key importance is Peter's statement that Jesus has been raised to God's right hand, from which he has poured forth the Holy Spirit, and has been made both kyrios and christos (Acts 2:33-36). Numerous titles of deity were attributed to him, such as: Messiah (Acts 3:20f), Servant of God (Acts 3:13,26; 4:27), the promised Prophet like Moses (Acts 3:22; 7:37), the Prince of Life (Acts 3:15; 5:31), the Holy and Righteous One, and the "stone" of prophecy (taken from Psalm 118:22), rejected, but now made the head of the corner (Acts 4:11). These all predate the more developed delineation of Jesus as deity expounded by Paul.

Muslims who use Maccoby's material to substantiate their claim that Paul is not authoritative would do well to first understand the agenda behind Maccoby's criticism. As a Jew Maccoby concludes that "If Paul was the creator of the Christian myth, he was also the creator of the anti-Semitism which has been inseparable from that myth." It is for this reason that he tries to distant Paul from a Jewish background, and thereby instil upon him the guilt for all anti-Semitic undertakings which have been evidenced in the history of the church.

Paul was never anti-Semitic, but he was anti-Judaism (having theological disagreement with Judaism). Rather then creating a heresy out of Judaism, as Maccoby suggests, it is quite evident that Paul would never have regarded himself as having ceased to be a Jew or as having left Judaism for a new religion. He believed that his new faith was the fulfilment of the promises to the patriarchs and he accordingly would have thought of himself as believing in what properly understood was the culmination of Judaism.

This, however, is an argument for Jews to contend with, and not Muslims. They would do better to compare the material found in the Gospels with the writings of Paul, rather then race around trying to borrow polemical data from an arena which has little to concern them, and which they really don't understand. So it is to that area which we will now go.


D: Jesus v. Paul

Muslims believe that the Gospels are diametrically opposed to the material found in the letters of Paul. To support their assertions they point to many supposed "contradictions" between that which Jesus taught and what Paul wrote, maintaining that these prove the message of Jesus, a true Jewish Pharisee, was not the same as that of Paul's.

These are indeed claims which are difficult to take seriously, yet, they demand an answer, nonetheless. For without the authority and authorship of Jesus, Christianity simply would fall apart. If one could show that Jesus brought a different message then Paul, then indeed there would be room for concern.

Upon closer scrutiny of the scriptures, however, we find that Jesus and Paul are not at all in contradiction with one another, and that most of what Paul claims has already been stated before by Jesus and the other disciples, though in a different way. Indeed, what is clear is that Paul was not the founder of Christianity, but its greatest expounder.

D1: Paul was not the first

So where did he get his teaching from? Paul answers that question clearly in Galatians 1:11-12, where he states, "the gospel I preach is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ".

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 he speaks of receiving from the Lord that which he passes on to them, the Gospel (see also 1 Corinthians 11:23). He carefully points out that these are not things which he invented.

Did Paul begin Christianity in a void? If so, his beliefs couldn't have been there beforehand. Yet, in the book of Acts, Peter, one of Jesus's closest disciples for three years, addresses the gospel, speaking and witnessing the fact of Jesus, his death and resurrection in Acts 2. He continues this witness in Acts 3 and 4, long before Paul even comes onto the scene.

In fact, Paul doesn't enter into the picture until Acts 7, where he witnesses the stoning of Stephen, and then becomes the persecutor of those who were establishing the church. He admits to putting many saints in prison, and casting the vote for their death (Acts 26:9-11); and even tried to destroy the church (Galatians 1).

How can someone become the persecutor of a religion which he is the founder of? If he founded a religion, it couldn't have been there beforehand.

D2: Seeming Contradictions Between Jesus and Paul

D2i: God's Word (Logos)

What about Paul's teachings? Is it contradictory to that of Jesus? Muslims think so. Take the case of God's word. Muslims try to show that Paul preached a religion based on faith in Jesus Christ, whereas Jesus contradicted this by preaching a religion based on following the law of Moses. "The word made flesh and dwelt among us," the idea of Jesus being divine, being God's word himself, and becoming flesh, according to Muslims, could not have come from Jesus, but was invented by Paul. Proof of this, they say, is found in John 12 where Jesus was told what to speak by God, so it could not have been God's word.

But it was John, a disciple of Jesus for three years, who heard everything that Jesus said and did, who derived this concept of Logos. The idea is not even mentioned in any of Paul's writings! How could he have invented it?

D2ii: Two Covenants

Let's take another accusation levelled against Paul. In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus says, "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets". Later, Paul says that Jesus had come to abolish the Law and Prophets (Colossians 2:14). Muslims say Paul is contradicting Jesus here. But is he?

According to the Christian scriptures there were two covenants: a) the law of Moses (made up of legal or moral laws as well as ceremonial or ritual laws), and b) the new covenant, which came through Jesus Christ. What Paul is referring to when he says the old law is abolished, are the ceremonial and ritualistic laws which were for the Jews alone (Colossians 2:13- 15). No Syrian or Arab or any other gentile was commanded to keep these laws. Only the Jews were, as it made them distinct from all other people, as the chosen of God. What was abolished were the ceremonial laws which excluded the gentiles from being the people of God. The moral law still holds. Yet, one can be forgiven, if they repent.

Paul and Jesus are not contradicting one another. Jesus was establishing the Moral law in Matthew 5:17. One needs to continue reading from verse 21 and following to see that He then goes on to delineate what those moral laws are.

D2iii: Atonement? The Prodigal Son

The real issue here is whether salvation is attained by keeping the law or by the justification by faith in Jesus Christ alone. As an example, Muslims erroneously point to Jesus's teaching on the Prodigal Son, who was forgiven because of his repentance. They correctly maintain that there is no teaching of atonement here.

Paul, however, says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and are justified by a gift. This view of the atonement, they feel, contradicts the teaching of Jesus. But does it?

Consider: all believers are children, and God is their father. No other religion in the world depicts God as father. Islam has 99 names for God, but the name of Father is not one of them. In Islam, believers can only come to God as servants ("att"), which parallels Old Testament teaching.

It is Jesus who introduces God as our father. If God is our father, someone has to be a child. This is the thrust of the Prodigal Son story. The son was not a servant but the man's son. He had status. The reason why the father accepted him was not out of kindness, but because the man was his father. In Galatians 4:4-6, God sent his son, born under the law so that we might receive the full rights of sons. Since we are sons, we can now call him Abba, Father.

Where, if not in the story of the Prodigal son, did the belief of the atonement originate? Consider the story of the last supper found in Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22, all independent of Paul (Mark's source was Peter). Jesus said the bread was his body, and the wine his blood. How much more plain can you get? That is atonement. Forgiveness comes, thus, through the shedding of his blood. Yet, all Jesus was doing was to confirm something which was there from the beginning, from the story of Cain and Abel, where one sacrifice was accepted and the other rejected. Cain's sacrifice was from his own work, that which he had grown, but Abel offered the blood of the lamb as the hope of his salvation.

"Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin." This principle is found right through the Old Testament. No Jew ever believed that he could attain the forgiveness of sin just by asking for it (see Exodus and Leviticus to see the many sacrifices ordered by God for this very purpose).

Thus, Jesus was now saying that forgiveness could only come through his own blood. Matthew 20:28, John 6:51; and John 10:11 all reveal Jesus speaking of the need for a blood sacrifice, specifically, his blood sacrificed.

This is a point completely lost to Muslims, even though they continue the tradition of sacrificing a goat during the time of Id, though the meaning has been changed to that of remembrance for what Abraham had done earlier. It always puzzles me why Muslims never question the significance for Abraham's sacrifice. Is it no wonder then why they find the idea of atonement so objectionable.

In Ephesians 2:8-10, Paul speaks of salvation by faith, but follows it up with the need to do good works. There is no denial here of good works.

Jesus also speaks of salvation by faith in John 3:14-15. Salvation, thus, comes through faith in Jesus Christ, so that we can receive the spirit of Christ, which then leads us to do good works. Most people want to separate the two ideas, and make them sound contradictory. Yet Paul and Jesus taught both.

D2iv: Inclusive v. Exclusive Gospel

There are other areas of contention between Jesus and Paul which the Muslims like to point to. Jesus, they maintain, says that the gospel must only go to the Jews, while Paul says that the gospel must go to all people. Yet, the last thing Jesus said before he left the earth was, "to go into the whole world and preach the gospel, making disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19). The issue here comes back to the old and new covenant again. Under the old covenant only the Jews were considered. That old covenant came to an end the night Jesus broke the bread and offered the wine.

Ironically, it was Peter and not Paul who took the gospel to the gentiles first, to Cornelius, before Paul (Acts 10).

D3: Why didn't Jesus call Himself a Christian?

Muslims ask that if Jesus was the founder of Christianity, then where does he refer to himself as a Christian? The point is entirely missed here. Jesus is the Lord of the Christians, not a Christian himself. He is the Christ, acknowledged in Islam as "al-Massihu Issa" (Christ of the Messiah, Issa). The word Christian was not even around during the time of Jesus. In fact the early Christians didn't use this term. They called themselves the Followers of the "Way." It was the followers of Jesus who were called Christians for the first time at Antioch, in Acts.

D4: Later changes made by Paul

One of the finest proofs that Jesus founded Christianity comes from these similarities found between the Gospels and Paul's writings which we have just referred to. Christianity basically has two trends or sources from which it derives:

  1. the first are the writings of the disciples, and
  2. the second is Paul's writings.

The disciples are independent of Paul's writings. They use different expressions, yet they all teach the same ideas about Christ. Where, then, did the disciples get their ideas? They couldn't have borrowed it from Paul, as they preceded him. Obviously it came from Jesus himself.

Could, as Muslims claim, Paul have misled all of Jesus's disciples later on? Could he have taken their writings and changed them, so that they coincided with his own? Outside the fact that we have no evidence for earlier writings which may have differed from what is in our possession today, it is incredulous to believe that Paul would want or even dare to conspire against all the other disciples, and change that which they had given their lives to uphold.

Furthermore, John outlived Paul, and Peter lived another 30 years after Jesus. They were there during all of Paul's teaching. If Paul were the founder of Christianity, how did he influence all of Jesus's disciples, without either Peter or John or the other disciples who had been with Jesus knowing about it, or objecting to it?

In Galatians 2, we read that the disciples were suspicious of Paul because he had persecuted them. But when they heard his gospel, they told him to go and preach the same gospel to the gentiles. Why would they welcome him as one of them if he was preaching something contrary to what they were preaching?


E: Conclusion

One can always ask, "Who founded Christianity, Jesus or Paul", or who founded Islam, "Muhammad or Umar", or who founded Judaism, "Moses or Joshua", or who founded Buddhism, "Buddha or Siddharta?" Yet, why is it always Christianity which is labelled with this question?

It seems so grossly unlikely that a religion which is focused so uniquely on Jesus, could or should be founded by someone else. All adherents would contend that their religion was founded by God. Perhaps it would be more correct to assert that it was Moses who introduced Judaism, and Muhammad who introduced Islam, Confucius who introduced Confucianism, and Jesus who introduced Christianity.

What so many Muslims miss is the sheer depth of theology in Paul's writings, much of which couldn't have been made up or simply borrowed. For instance, the scriptures speak of the unity of God. Thus, we are monotheists, and we have a complex view of God's monotheism. We believe that God is a triune God; the very word tri-une implies unity. Perhaps Muslims find the doctrine hard to understand; so do most Christians. One would not expect God's essence to be easily explained. But nonetheless it is true, as we see it written all over the pages of scripture.

We need to consider, however, that if Paul was the founder of Christianity, then certainly he should have diverted from this doctrine. Yet, he doesn't, but continues to say the same thing. "A mediator" he writes in Galatians 3:20 "does not represent just one, but God is one." We find this also in Romans 3, and every Christian believes it.

Indeed, Jesus is the founder of Christianity. If the objectionable material (the personal claims of Jesus) are rejected, the teaching of Jesus that remains in the Gospels, not to mention his deeds, become exceedingly difficult to account for and nearly impossible to understand. All that Jesus founded, Paul and Peter and the others merely expounded. Jesus and Paul both taught about: the atonement, the trinity, the church, salvation by faith, the forgiveness of sins through the shedding of his blood, that Jesus was the bread of life which we had to depend on for salvation, and that Jesus was the good shepherd who laid down his life for us.

Jesus, the founder, laid down his life that you might live. Paul, the expounder, laid down his life that you might hear. Are we willing to lay down our lives that others can hear and live as well? "

http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/jes-paul.htm - http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/jes-paul.htm

I know it's a bit lengthy, but there is a lot of good information and explanations in the article.

God's Peace Always, bmz!

Patty


 



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 01 January 2007 at 6:35pm

Annie,

 

From you: "Not in every chapter.  The Old Testament has prophecies of the coming Messiah.  Christians believe that Jesus is that Messiah."

I know Christians believe that Jesus was that messiah but the Jews do not believe that he was THAT messiah and their messiah. Christians prove that using the OT, while the Jewish Holy Scriptures do not.

 

BMZ wrote:
Of course, when we read the Jewish Holy Scriptures, we do not find Jesus at all.

And you wrote, Annie: "Yet you find in the Qur'an that Jesus is identified as the Messiah."

Both the Muslims and the Christians are telling the Jews that Jesus was the messiah, promised to them but they don't believe that either.

BMZ wrote:
My question: Is there a single prophecy about Paul in the Jewish Holy Scriptures or the Christian Old Testament?

From you, Annie: "Why should there be?  Do you see prophecies of Peter, James and John in the Old Testament?"

Yes, there should be. Paul is the heavyweight of Christianity. Peter, James and John have been dwarfed by him. Do you see anything in details written by James and Peter. We see nothing much from James and Peter. The Road to Damascus story deserves a prophecy, in my opinion as that matter should have other witnesses.

BMZ wrote:
 If the NT had to have so much material and teaching from Paul who overran Jesus in teaching, there should have been some prophecies about Paul too. I  find nothing.

From you, Annie: "Paul proclaimed the Messiah, just as Peter did.  We don't find Peter in the Old Testament either."

Question: Did Jesus proclaim he was THAT messiah in his own words? Qur'aan does talk about that and says that he did proclaim. Peter has no relevance in my question as he does not have the most major contribution.

From you, Annie: "Interesting question though."

Yes, it is an interesting question and so far no one has been able to answer that.  

From you, Annie, "Seems odd to us that Muhammad's name is not in the Old Testament either.  Strange since he is supposed to be the seal of the prophets."

Muhammad's name had been erased from the Bible, Annie. You know well that Bible was continuously edited and re-edited throughout the history upto the 15th or 16th century.  How could he have remained there after the rise and surge of Islam.



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 01 January 2007 at 6:40pm

Welcome back and greetings, Patty.

I knew Annie and you would not be able to resist. Thanks for your contribution. Will read and comment later.

God bless.

BMZ



Posted By: ak_m_f
Date Posted: 01 January 2007 at 7:28pm
Originally posted by bmzsp

Welcome back and greetings, Patty.


I knew Annie and you would not be able to resist.





-------------


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 01 January 2007 at 9:32pm

ak_m_f,

I also knew that you would interject at this point of time.  

By the way, there are now 280 million dalits in India, the largest democracy in the world.  Has any Western leader ever uttered a word about them?  



Posted By: AnnieTwo
Date Posted: 02 January 2007 at 5:34am
<>Annie,


From you: "Not in every chapter.  The Old Testament has prophecies of the coming Messiah.  Christians believe that Jesus is that Messiah."

I know Christians believe that Jesus was that messiah but the Jews do not believe that he was THAT messiah and their messiah. Christians prove that using the OT, while the Jewish Holy Scriptures do not.


<>The Messianic Jews do accept Jesus as their Messiah and they use the same Hebrew Scriptures that their Jewish brothers do.  Jews have tended to change their minds about the prophecies of the Messiah in their scriptures.  I believe they do this as an argument against Jesus being their Messiah.


 

BMZ wrote:
Of course, when we read the Jewish Holy Scriptures, we do not find Jesus at all.

And you wrote, Annie: "Yet you find in the Qur'an that Jesus is identified as the Messiah."

Both the Muslims and the Christians are telling the Jews that Jesus was the messiah, promised to them but they don't believe that either.


No, they don't.  The Qur'an gives no basis for Jesus being the Messiah.


BMZ wrote:
My question: Is there a single prophecy about Paul in the Jewish Holy Scriptures or the Christian Old Testament?


From you, Annie: "Why should there be?  Do you see prophecies of Peter, James and John in the Old Testament?"

Yes, there should be. Paul is the heavyweight of Christianity. Peter, James and John have been dwarfed by him. Do you see anything in details written by James and Peter. We see nothing much from James and Peter. The Road to Damascus story deserves a prophecy, in my opinion as that matter should have other witnesses. 


No, there is no reason why Paul should have been prophecised in the Hebrew Scriptures anymore than any other Apostle should have been.  You may think that Paul "dwarfed" the other Apostles but that is certainly not true.  Peter is considered the first Pope by the Roman Catholic Church and they represent at least half if not more than the total Christian faith.

James, the brother of Jesus, was very prominent in the early church.  Mark is the testimony of Peter; Peter wrote two books and James wrote one.

Paul's writings represent the issues facing the early church.  If we didn't have them we would not know what those issues were.

It is enough that Jesus appointed Paul an apostle.


BMZ wrote:
 If the NT had to have so much material and teaching from Paul who overran Jesus in teaching, there should have been some prophecies about Paul too. I  find nothing.

From you, Annie: "Paul proclaimed the Messiah, just as Peter did.  We don't find Peter in the Old Testament either."

Question: Did Jesus proclaim he was THAT messiah in his own words? Qur'aan does talk about that and says that he did proclaim. Peter has no relevance in my question as he does not have the most major contribution.


Yes, Jesus said he was that Messiah and his disciples believed that he was.  I believe Jesus.

From you, Annie: "Interesting question though."

Yes, it is an interesting question and so far no one has been able to answer that. 


I have answered it.


From you, Annie, "Seems odd to us that Muhammad's name is not in the Old Testament either.  Strange since he is supposed to be the seal of the prophets."

Muhammad's name had been erased from the Bible, Annie. You know well that Bible was continuously edited and re-edited throughout the history upto the 15th or 16th century.  How could he have remained there after the rise and surge of Islam.


Muhammad's name has not been erased from the Bible.  It was never there.  The Bible has not been "edited and re-edited throughout the history up to the 15th or 16th century."  Our translations come from the manuscripts dated in the 2nd to the 4th century.  These manuscripts were in existance before Islam came into being.




-------------
14If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 1 Peter 4



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 02 January 2007 at 6:14am

Annie,

All of us are in agreement that there was not and there is not a single prophecy about Paul in the past scriptures. Good! Let's move on till someone comes and answers my questions as you do not seem to understand where I am coming from.

For Jesus to call him from the heavens by striking him down with a light or flash in the broad day light, should have been an event to have witnesses or someone to testify with his testimony.

When similar happened to Jesus, John the Baptist is said to have been the witness and it was his testimony. Even Jesus did not ever talk about the day the spirit went down into him after he came out of water, like a dove or lightning.

And here we have Paul who comes to Gentiles and impresses them with his own one-man testimony and we don't see him working for years, with the elders of Jerusalem who learnt direct from Jesus and who had first-hand knowledge.

We do not find him teaching and explaining what Jesus taught. Instead, we find him talking of salvation through the suffering, blood and death of Jesus on the cross only by just believing in Jesus, a salvation which Jesus himself never spoke of and a salvation of the kind that even the gospels do not mention. He talks about the particular sin which even Jesus never talked about.

Instead of Christianity being taught by the elders in Jerusalem, the Pauline Christianity came back from Rome and Greece to Jerusalem after all were silenced. Had he not gone West, there would have been no Trinity, no triune God, no Son of God. Only the Lord Almighty God of Jesus would have been prayed to!

What Paul did was to please the Romans and the Greeks.

Believe me.

 



Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 02 January 2007 at 6:41am

BMZ wrote:

"Peter has no relevance in my question as he does not have the most major contribution."

The First Letter (or Epistle) of Peter

Abbreviation: 1 Pet   http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1peter/intro.htm - (full text)     http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Epistles-Peter.htm - [study guide]
Attributed Author: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ" (1:1a)
Named Recipients: "to the exiles of the dispersion." (mainly Gentile converts) in five Roman provinces of Northern and Western Asia Minor (1:1b-2)
Where From: definitely Rome, whether by Peter or not (see 5:13; "Babylon" is used as a code name for Rome after 70 AD)
Date: if by Peter, then early 60's, just before his death in 64/65; if pseudepigraphic, probably from the 70's or 80's
Authenticity: possibly by Peter, but writing through his scribe, Silvanus (5:12); or pseudonymous, by a disciple of Peter (possibly Silvanus, who was associated with Peter and the Jerusalem church; cf. Acts 15:22, 27, 32)
Unity & Integrity: probably a single writing; but some scholars see 4:12-5:11 as a later addition, after some persecution has started
Sources: quotes from the OT (1:16, 24-25a; 2:6-8, 10, 22; 3:10-12; 4:18; 5:5);  alludes to sayings and teachings of Jesus (1:22; 3:8; 4:8, 14);  probably also incorporates older Christian hymns and professions of faith (3:18-22)
Literary Genre: an " http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Genres.htm#NT - encyclical " or circular letter, intended for several different churches at the same time
Language: very good Greek
Purpose: to argue that Christians are not a threat to Roman social order, since they live ethically; to encourage Christians to persevere in faith despite innocent sufferings and persecutions [ http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Epistles-Peter.htm - click here for more details ]

And, we have 2nd Peter:

The Second Epistle (or Letter) of Peter

Abbreviation: 2 Pet   http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2peter/intro.htm - (full text)     http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Epistles-Peter.htm - [study guide]
Attributed Author: "Simeon Peter, a servant/slave and apostle of Jesus Christ" (1:1a)
Named Recipients: "to those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (1:1b); intended for a group of Gentile Christians, possibly in Asia
Date: probably the last NT work written, as early as the 90's or as late as the 120's;  if by Peter, then just before his death in 64/65
Where From: unknown; probably Rome
Authenticity: almost certainly pseudonymous, by someone who admired Peter and appeals to his authority
Unity & Integrity: not seriously disputed; a single letter
Sources: quotes the OT (2:22a) and a non-biblical proverb (2:22b); often alludes to other OT texts (1:20-21; 2:4-10; 3:11-13); presupposes knowledge of the Transfiguration (1:17-18) and of Paul's letters (3:15-16); ch. 2 is closely based on the Letter of Jude
Literary Genre: a " http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Genres.htm#NT - testament " (1:12-15), but in the form of a letter (3:1-2)
Language: fairly good Greek
Purpose: stresses the preservation of apostolic teachings, esp. on ethics (proper Christian living) and eschatology (Christian hope for the final judgment) [ http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Epistles-Peter.htm - click here for more details ]

I'm sure I don't need to remind you that Peter holds a very special place in the hearts and minds of all Catholics, as he was made our first "papa", or pope, by Jesus Christ Himself!

God's Peace!



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 02 January 2007 at 6:42am

Annie,

Before I retire for the night, I refer to the following from you:

"James, the brother of Jesus, was very prominent in the early church.  Mark is the testimony of Peter; Peter wrote two books and James wrote one."

In fact, James and Peter should have written the most. Why was Paul's material chosen, when in his own words he is the lowest of all the apostles? By the way, he appointed himself. Jesus never appointed him and there is no proof.

"Paul's writings represent the issues facing the early church.  If we didn't have them we would not know what those issues were."

I don't agree with that. In fact, the early church should not have had any issues as Jesus had just left. The early church had everything crystal clear, except that it had not been built where Jesus exactly wanted it built, i.e., on the rock. Paul built it in Rome. 

"It is enough that Jesus appointed Paul an apostle."

What proof is available there? Just Paul's own testimony? Did the elders James, Peter and others know of that. All they knew was that there was a Paul who was a missionary among Gentiles. It is not enough, Annie.



Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 02 January 2007 at 6:43am
Originally posted by ak_m_f

Originally posted by bmzsp

Welcome back and greetings, Patty.


I knew Annie and you would not be able to resist.



  Right back at ya, ak_m_f! 

Happy New Year!



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 02 January 2007 at 7:06am

Here is how Rome, the Vatican, feels about the dalits and India.  At least the Muslims and Christians are working together there, which I feel is GREAT!!!

INDIA: HINDU CAMPAIGN AGAINST MISSIONARIES' "DIABOLICAL" PROSELYTISM
Accuse Church of Helping Poorest Caste

NEW DELHI, MAR 8 (ZENIT).- The largest Hindu organization in India launched a campaign against the "diabolical proselytism" of Christian missionaries, carried out under the guise of "social service." The Holy See's agency "Fides," reported that more than 15,000 members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) [Volunteers for National Association], engaged in a 15-day door-to-door campaign throughout the city of Delhi, to "enlighten" the population about the Christian missionaries' plan to conquer India. The campaign began on February 22 and ended on March 7.

According to the RSS, which inspires the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) currently in power, the Christian strategy has three phases. The first is to discredit the Hindu image of peaceful tolerance. Then the Christians trigger conflict between Hindu organizations, and manipulate the media to give broad coverage to this conflict. Finally, they distribute thousands of Bibles in the local regional languages.

The RSS began in 1925 as a religious army to protect Hindu communities from the influence of Islam and Christianity. It provides its members with basic military training and holds camps for ideological discussion. It was the RSS that assassinated Mahatma Gandhi for his policy in support of Moslem minorities in India. Although Moslems are the primary target, eight months ago the RSS started an anti-Christian campaign denouncing "forced conversions." Its members were responsible for the numerous violent incidents against Christians in 1998.

Moslems and Christians have joined forces to face Hindu fundamentalism. The "Harmony Center," a Catholic institution for inter-religious dialogue, and the Jamia Islamia Moslem University of New Delhi, have launched a joint campaign to counter the fundamentalism that characterizes the pro-Hindu policies of the federal government. The campaign began with a demonstration on February 24 at Delhi University Students' Center, and moved on to Trikona Square in front of the University Library. Five thousand youths participated.

According to Fr Sebastian Vempany, a Harmony Center expert on Islam, "it is important to inform the student community and the ordinary people about the fundamentalist policies of the federal government." "The poor want to live in peace and harmony," Father Vempany told "Fides." He said the government "has destroyed the confidence of Dalits [Untouchables], Tribals, women and minorities, both Christian and Moslem, in the secular character of the State."

There are 17 million Christians in India. They run numerous schools, hospitals, and charitable institutions. The higher caste Hindus see Christian missionaries' endeavors, in education and aid to the poorer castes as a threat to India's rigid social hierarchy.

http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/9903/ZE990308.html - http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/9903/ZE990308.html

God's Peace,



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 02 January 2007 at 7:20am

From BMZ:

"We do not find him teaching and explaining what Jesus taught. Instead, we find him talking of salvation through the suffering, blood and death of Jesus on the cross only by just believing in Jesus, a salvation which Jesus himself never spoke of and a salvation of the kind that even the gospels do not mention. He talks about the particular sin which even Jesus never talked about."

I think you need to sit down and re-read the four Gospels, BMZ.  Jesus did speak about the same salvation as Paul reinforced in the verses of his many books.  Jesus also spoke very specifically about sins, particular sins.....ALL sins.  Any act which breaks a commandment is a grave sin, and that covers all sins.  Jesus did mention these of course.

Peace to You!



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: AnnieTwo
Date Posted: 02 January 2007 at 7:41am

Annie,

Originally posted by BMZ

All of us are in agreement that there was not and there is not a single prophecy about Paul in the past scriptures. Good! Let's move on till someone comes and answers my questions as you do not seem to understand where I am coming from.

I do understand where you are coming from.

Originally posted by BMZ

For Jesus to call him from the heavens by striking him down with a light or flash in the broad day light, should have been an event to have witnesses or someone to testify with his testimony.

There were witnesses.

Acts 9: 7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. 8 Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one. But they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

<>Acts 9: 10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and to him the Lord said in a vision, “Ananias.”  And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” 11 So the Lord said to him, “Arise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus, for behold, he is praying. 12 And in a vision he has seen a man named Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him, so that he might receive his sight.”

13 Then Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem. 14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.”

15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. 16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

<>17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.

19 So when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus.

Originally posted by BMZ

When similar happened to Jesus, John the Baptist is said to have been the witness and it was his testimony. Even Jesus did not ever talk about the day the spirit went down into him after he came out of water, like a dove or lightning.

You are mixing apples and oranges.

Originally posted by BMZ

And here we have Paul who comes to Gentiles and impresses them with his own one-man testimony and we don't see him working for years, with the elders of Jerusalem who learnt direct from Jesus and who had first-hand knowledge.

Follow the dots.

<>Acts 9: 26 And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 So he was with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out. 29 And he spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus and disputed against the Hellenists, but they attempted to kill him. 30 When the brethren found out, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him out to Tarsus. 

Acts 11: 25 Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to seek Saul. 26 And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

Acts 11: 29 Then the disciples, each according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren dwelling in Judea. 30 This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

Acts 15: 22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.

Originally posted by BMZ

We do not find him teaching and explaining what Jesus taught. Instead, we find him talking of salvation through the suffering, blood and death of Jesus on the cross only by just believing in Jesus, a salvation which Jesus himself never spoke of and a salvation of the kind that even the gospels do not mention. He talks about the particular sin which even Jesus never talked about.

Paul did teach what Jesus taught.

JESUS: He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God". And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven". (Matthew 16:15-17)

PAUL: Paul was occupied with proclaiming the word, testifying to the Jews that the Messiah was Jesus. (Acts 18:5)

JESUS: All of them asked, "Are you, then, the Son of God?" He said to them, "You say that I am". Then they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips!" (Luke 22:70-71)

PAUL: Immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God". (Acts 9:20)

JESUS: Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe". (John 20:28-29)

PAUL: From them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. (Romans 9:5)

And on and on and on and including:

Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

From Peter: Acts 2: 22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

Again from Peter:

<>Acts 4: 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: 9 If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, 10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” 

Originally posted by BMZ

Instead of Christianity being taught by the elders in Jerusalem, the Pauline Christianity came back from Rome and Greece to Jerusalem after all were silenced. Had he not gone West, there would have been no Trinity, no triune God, no Son of God. Only the Lord Almighty God of Jesus would have been prayed to!

Sounds like just your opinion and nothing else.  Your opinions do not reflect the history of the Church or the accounts in the New Testament

Originally posted by BMZ

What Paul did was to please the Romans and the Greeks.

What Paul did was preach the Gospel of Jesus.  If he hadn't the Apostles would never have sent him to the Gentiles.

What Paul did was show the pagans that there is only one God and the gods the pagans believed in had no power.

What Paul did was preach a crucified and risen Messiah.

It seems that you need to study the New Testament, BMZ.



-------------
14If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 1 Peter 4



Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 02 January 2007 at 7:56am

I love these words of St. Paul.  It sums up the need for great faith, especially in times like these when we can't find the exact answer we would love to have:

"Last of all, as to one untimely born, he [Jesus] appeared also to me. / For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. / But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them--though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me." (1 Cor 15:8-10)"

Here is the Pauline Chronology if anyone is interested:

Pauline Chronology: His Life and Missionary Work
by Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.


The Traditional (but Inaccurate) Division of Paul's Travels:

People usually talk about "Paul's Three Missionary Journeys" (each beginning/ending in Antioch), followed by "Paul's Voyage to Rome"

1)  Acts 13—14 2)  Acts 15:39—18:22 3)  Acts 18:23—21:16 R) Acts 22—28

For some online maps of this traditional understanding of the three "journeys", see the http://members.aol.com/ecsl/mapsandgraphs.htm - Good News Christian Ministries , or the http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/maps.stm - Maps Related to the Life of Paul by Nancy Carter; see also the larger list of http://www.ntgateway.com/maps.htm - Ancient World Maps by Dr. Mark Goodacre.

Problems with this schema:

  • Paul is not in charge during the first journey; rather, http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Pauline_Associates.htm - Barnabas is the leader and Paul is his assistant (see Acts 11:31; 13:1-2; 14:12).
  • After he and Barnabas go their separate ways, Paul never works alone, but always has a number of http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Pauline_Associates.htm - assistants (esp. Timothy; see Acts 15:39-40; 16:1-3; and most letter beginnings).
  • The so-called second and third "Journeys" are not really circle-trips departing from and returning to Antioch (see Acts 18:18-23); rather, Paul makes a definite break with Barnabas and the Church at Antioch (see Gal 2:11-14; Acts 15:39-40), and only visits Antioch briefly later.

A Better, More Comprehensive Overview:

"Five Main Phases of Paul's Life" The following chronology is based on a combination of evidence from Paul's own letters and from the Acts of the Apostles, since neither gives us a complete picture, and there are some points of tension between them. (See the maps in the back of any good Study Bible; see also my http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/NT_Geography.htm - New Testament Geography page for more background on the Roman PROVINCES and Capital Cities).

    0) Pre-Christian Phase (ca. 10-35 AD)
    1. Paul was a Jew born in Tarsus, the capital of CILICIA (Acts 9:11, 30; 11:25; 21:39), but possibly also lived and received part of his education in Jerusalem, "at the feet of Gamaliel" (Acts 22:3).
    2. He was a Hebrew, born of Hebrew parents (Phil 3:5; 2 Cor 11:22), but probably also a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25-29; 23:27)
    3. Thus he was bi-lingual (Aramaic/Hebrew and Greek) and bi-cultural (Jewish and Hellenistic Greek), making him an ideal "transition figure" for the spread of early Christianity from its beginnings in Israel to the rest of the Roman empire.
    4. He was raised as a Pharisee, and was very zealous for the Jewish Torah & Traditions (Phil 3:5; Acts 23:6-9; 26:5).
    5. He begins persecuting the followers of Jesus (Gal 1:13-14; Phil 3:5-6; 1 Cor 15:9; Acts 7:58; 8:1; 9:1-2; 22:3-5; 26:4-12).


    1) First Phase of His New Christian Life - in the EAST (ca. 35-49 AD)

    1. Jesus "reveals" himself to Paul (traditionally called Paul's "conversion") while Paul is traveling on the road to Damascus in southern SYRIA (Gal 1:11-12, 15-16; 1 Cor 15:8-10; Acts 9:3-30; 22:6-21; 26:12-18 - for these texts, http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Pauline_Chronology.htm#Revelation - see below ).
    2. Paul begins preaching around Arabia, Damascus, Syria, and Cilicia, despite some opposition (Gal 1:17-24; 2 Cor 11:23-33).
    3. He is the assistant to Barnabas on a first missionary journey; both of them were commissioned by the church of <>Antioch in Northern SYRIA (Acts 13-14).
    4. "Council of Jerusalem" (ca. 49 AD; Gal 2:1-10; Acts 15 - note that many scholars think this council was later, ca. 51).


    2) Early Independent Missionary Phase - in MACEDONIA & ACHAIA (ca. 50-52 AD)

    1. Paul breaks with Barnabas due to the "Incident at Antioch" (contrast Gal 2:11-14 with Acts 15:36-41).
    2. He travels with Silas & Timothy through ASIA and crosses over to MACEDONIA, where they establish small Christian churches, esp. in Philippi & Thessalonica, possibly also in Beroea (Acts 16:1-17:15).
    3. After getting kicked out of one Macedonian city after another, they go down to ACHAIA; Paul briefly visits Athens, but his preaching is not too successful there (Acts 17:16-34).
    4. They move on to <>Corinth, the capital of ACHAIA, and stay there for over 18 months (Acts 18:11, 18); they meet Prisca & Aquila in Corinth soon after Emperor Claudius had expelled Jews from Rome in 49 AD (Acts 18:2).
    5. Paul is brought to trial before the Proconsul Gallio (Acts 18:12-17), who was in Achaia only in 51-52 AD.; this fact gives us the only fixed date in the chronology of Paul's life, from which all other dates are calculated backward or forward.
    6. Paul & his companions write 1 Thess (and probably 2 Thess) from Corinth (see 1 Thess 3:1-6).


    3) Mature Missionary Leadership Phase - in ASIA (Minor) (ca. 53-57 AD)

    1. Paul travels through Asia, then to Syria (including brief visits to Jerusalem and Antioch), and back again to <>Ephesus, the capital of ASIA (Acts 18:18-19:41).
    2. He remains in Ephesus for at least 27 months, probably longer, preaching and strengthening the churches (Acts 19:8, 10, 22); Ephesus becomes his "missionary headquarters" with more and more associates over time.
    3. He travels personally and sends & receives messengers and letters back and forth from Ephesus to Macedonia, Corinth, other parts of Asia, etc. (1 Cor 16:5-12; 2 Cor 8-9; Phil 2:19-30; 4:10-20).
    4. He and his associates found other Christian communities in and around Asia Minor, e.g. Epaphroditus establishes a church in Colossae (Col 1:7).
    5. He encounters opposition from Jews and Gentiles, and is blamed for a riot caused by some silversmiths in Ephesus (since Paul preached against the "idolatry" of worshipping pagan gods; see Acts 19:26); he probably spends some time in prison there.
    6. Paul & his companions write 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Phil, Phlm, and probably Gal from Ephesus (see 1Cor 15:32; 16:8; 16:19).


    4) Final Missionary Travel Phase - to the WEST (ca. 58-62/64 AD)

    1. Paul wants to go West to Rome and Spain, but first to collect & deliver money for poor Christians in Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:1-4; Rom 15:22-32; Acts 19:21); he stays in Corinth three more months (Acts 20:3), and writes Rom from there (Rom 16).
    2. Paul and some associates deliver this collection to Jerusalem; soon he is arrested in the Temple (Acts 20-21).
    3. Paul is held under arrest for about two years in Caesarea; at his trial he appeals to Caesar and is taken to <>Rome, where he remains under house-arrest for another two years (Acts 22-28); possibly writes Col from prison in Caesarea (or later from Rome).
    4. We cannot be sure what happened next, since nothing else is written in Acts: either he was tried, found innocent and released, in which case he might have gone to preach in Spain, as he had planned; or he was tried, found guilty, and executed.
    5. Early Christian tradition agrees Paul was executed during the reign of Emperor Nero; but we cannot be sure whether it was at the end of his first Roman imprisonment (62 AD), or after his return from Spain (64 AD), since his death is not recorded in Acts.

X) After Paul's Death - his legacy continues (60's -90's and beyond)

  1. Paul's associates continue to preach, gain new converts, build up Christian communities, address problems, write letters, etc.
  2. 1 Tim, 2 Tim, Tit, and Eph are probably pseudepigraphic, i.e. letters written by his followers in his name after his death.
  3. Ephesus and Colossae remain strong centers of Pauline-style Christianity, possibly led by Timothy and Onesimus, respectively.
  4. Someone begins collecting (and editing) Paul's letters (cf. 2Pet 3:15-16); by the end of the first century, about 10 letters are circulating together (not yet 1&2 Tim, Tit), with Ephesians possibly functioning as an introduction or "cover letter."
  5. Eventually, thirteen different letters attributed to Paul are recognized as "canonical" (accepted as part of the NT).
  6. Other legends of Paul develop and are recorded in non-canonical works, e.g. the "Acts of Paul" and the "Acts of Paul and Thecla"

Compare this chronology also with that of Pheme Perkins (Reading the NT, 139), and/or with William Baird's article on "Paul" (HCBD, 814-22).



Paul's Conversion/Revelation on the Road to Damascus

Paul's Own Words:

"For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; / for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. / You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. / I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. / But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased / to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, / nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. / Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; / but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's brother." (Gal 1:11-19)

"Last of all, as to one untimely born, he [Jesus] appeared also to me. / For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. / But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them--though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me." (1 Cor 15:8-10)

"This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner for Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles--/ for surely you have already heard of the commission of God's grace that was given me for you, / and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words." (Eph 3:1-3, probably deutero-Pauline)

It is necessary to boast; nothing is to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. / I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows. / And I know that such a person--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows-- / was caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat." (2Cor 12:1-4, probably referring to himself, but maybe to a different later "revelation")

The Three Accounts in Acts:
 

Acts 9:3-30
Luke's Initial Narrative Account
Acts 22:6-21
Paul's Speech to the Jews in Jerusalem
Acts 26:12-18
Paul' Defense before King Agrippa

9:1 Meanwhile Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 9:2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

9:3 Now as he was going along and approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 9:4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" 9:5 He asked, "Who are you, Lord?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 9:6 But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do." 9:7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one. 9:8 Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 

9:9 For three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank. 9:10 Now there was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." He answered, "Here I am, Lord." 9:11 The Lord said to him, "Get up and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul. At this moment he is praying, 9:12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight." 9:13 But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints in Jerusalem; 9:14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who invoke your name." 9:15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel; 9:16 I myself will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name." 9:17 So Ananias went and entered the house. He laid his hands on Saul and said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 9:18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and his sight was restored. Then he got up and was baptized, 9:19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength. 

For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, 9:20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God." 9:21 All who heard him were amazed and said, "Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem among those who invoked this name? And has he not come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?" 9:22 Saul became increasingly more powerful and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Messiah. 9:23 After some time had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, 9:24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night so that they might kill him; 9:25 but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket. 9:26 When he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. 9:27 But Barnabas took him, brought him to the apostles, and described for them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus. 9:28 So he went in and out among them in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. 9:29 He spoke and argued with the Hellenists; but they were attempting to kill him. 9:30 When the believers learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.

22:3 "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated strictly according to our ancestral law, being zealous for God, just as all of you are today. 22:4 I persecuted this Way up to the point of death by binding both men and women and putting them in prison, 22:5 as the high priest and the whole council of elders can testify about me. From them I also received letters to the brothers in Damascus, and I went there in order to bind those who were there and to bring them back to Jerusalem for punishment.

22:6 "While I was on my way and approaching Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me. 22:7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?' 22:8 I answered, 'Who are you, Lord?' Then he said to me, 'I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.' 22:9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me. 22:10 I asked, 'What am I to do, Lord?' The Lord said to me, 'Get up and go to Damascus; there you will be told everything that has been assigned to you to do.' 22:11 Since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, those who were with me took my hand and led me to Damascus. 

22:12 "A certain Ananias, who was a devout man according to the law and well spoken of by all the Jews living there, 22:13 came to me; and standing beside me, he said, 'Brother Saul, regain your sight!' In that very hour I regained my sight and saw him. 22:14 Then he said, 'The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear his own voice; 22:15 for you will be his witness to all the world of what you have seen and heard. 22:16 And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.' 22:17 "After I had returned to Jerusalem and while I was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance 22:18 and saw Jesus saying to me, 'Hurry and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.' 22:19 And I said, 'Lord, they themselves know that in every synagogue I imprisoned and beat those who believed in you. 22:20 And while the blood of your witness Stephen was shed, I myself was standing by, approving and keeping the coats of those who killed him.' 22:21 Then he said to me, 'Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'"

26:4 "All the Jews know my way of life from my youth, a life spent from the beginning among my own people and in Jerusalem. 26:5 They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I have belonged to the strictest sect of our religion and lived as a Pharisee...
26:9 "Indeed, I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things against the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 26:10 And that is what I did in Jerusalem; with authority received from the chief priests, I not only locked up many of the saints in prison, but I also cast my vote against them when they were being condemned to death. 26:11 By punishing them often in all the synagogues I tried to force them to blaspheme; and since I was so furiously enraged at them, I pursued them even to foreign cities.

26:12 "With this in mind, I was traveling to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, 26:13 when at midday along the road, your Excellency, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and my companions. 26:14 When we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.' 26:15 I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?' The Lord answered, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 26:16 But get up and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and testify to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you. 26:17 I will rescue you from your people and from the Gentiles--to whom I am sending you 26:18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.' 

26:19 "After that, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 26:20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout the countryside of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and do deeds consistent with repentance.

 

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Pauline_Chronology.htm - http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Pauline_Chronology.htm

As you can see, BMZ, in Acts 9:7 there WERE witnesses to Paul's conversion.

God's Peace and Understanding.



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 02 January 2007 at 8:06am

Patty,

From you: "I think you need to sit down and re-read the four Gospels, BMZ.  Jesus did speak about the same salvation as Paul reinforced in the verses of his many books.  Jesus also spoke very specifically about sins, particular sins.....ALL sins.  Any act which breaks a commandment is a grave sin, and that covers all sins.  Jesus did mention these of course."

Patty, every prophet spoke about sins. I was referring to the "sin theory" which says Jesus paid with his life for our sins, propagated by Paul and the salvation as Paul saw it based on the death of Jesus on cross.

Paul made it very easy for the Gentiles and all they had to do was to believe in salvation by just believing in Jesus only and bypassing everythingelse and God Almighty.

BMZ 



Posted By: AnnieTwo
Date Posted: 02 January 2007 at 8:39am
Originally posted by bmzsp

Patty,

From you: "I think you need to sit down and re-read the four Gospels, BMZ.  Jesus did speak about the same salvation as Paul reinforced in the verses of his many books.  Jesus also spoke very specifically about sins, particular sins.....ALL sins.  Any act which breaks a commandment is a grave sin, and that covers all sins.  Jesus did mention these of course."

Patty, every prophet spoke about sins. I was referring to the "sin theory" which says Jesus paid with his life for our sins, propagated by Paul and the salvation as Paul saw it based on the death of Jesus on cross.



BMZ,

Compare:

Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

With Isaiah 53.

11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
      By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
      For He shall bear their iniquities.
       12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
      And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
      Because He poured out His soul unto death,
      And He was numbered with the transgressors,
      And He bore the sin of many,
      And made intercession for the transgressors.

This is not about Paul; it is about the prophecy of the Messiah Jesus.

Originally posted by BMZ

Paul made it very easy for the Gentiles and all they had to do was to believe in salvation by just believing in Jesus only and bypassing everythingelse and God Almighty.


Easy?  You don't know much about what the New Testament teaches and what Jesus taught, do you?



-------------
14If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 1 Peter 4



Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 02 January 2007 at 9:24am

Hi BMZ!  You said the following:

"I was referring to the "sin theory" which says Jesus paid with his life for our sins, propagated by Paul and the salvation as Paul saw it based on the death of Jesus on cross."

These are Jesus' own words regarding his upcoming death on the cross, and the reason(s) for it:

The Savior speaks as follows: I lay down my life for the sheep, and I know them (John 10:15, 27) 

My command is this: Love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends (John 15:12-13).

Matthew 26:27-28  Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. [28] This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

God's Peace!



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 02 January 2007 at 12:53pm

Frater BMZ (you are quoted below),

Quote:
Everytime, I discuss the Jewish Holy Scriptures or the Christian Old Testament with my Christian friends, I am always told that the past scriptures are full of prophecies about Jesus and that is where we are supposed to look for him as he had been foretold in almost every chapter, Isaiah in particular.

They are; it is; and he had.  Unless, that is, the New Testament writings are just a sort of rather complex (a-hem) “vaticinium ex eventu,” as many a Rationalist, failed seminarian and occasional Muslim has argued.  Standby, here's a little smiley face:

At any rate, the author of St. John’s Gospel (5:39) has Jesus say, to incredulous Jews: Search the [OT] scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”  He also then explains why some might fail to find him in that process.

Quote:
Of course, when we read the Jewish Holy Scriptures, we do not find Jesus at all.

Of course, neither did the Ethiopian eunuch until the Spirit directed St. Philip to him (Acts 8:27-39) to show otherwise.    

Quote:
My question: Is there a single prophecy about Paul in the Jewish Holy Scriptures or the Christian Old Testament? If the NT had to have so much material and teaching from Paul who overran Jesus in teaching, there should have been some prophecies about Paul too. I find nothing.

I will say that these two verses come immediately to mind as distinct possibilities.  Please be forewarned, though, that I might be unduly influenced by having recently (Christmas Day) listened to the complete version of Handel’s 'Messiah':)

The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. (Isaiah 9:2)”

“I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; (Isaiah 42:6)”

I would suggest that St. Paul, as an admittedly at times to my mind problematic Apostle to the Gentiles, was one of the primary means by which the above two and other prophesies were (at least in one way) realized.  We Gentiles, in considerable part thanks to the evangelizing efforts of St. Paul, have seen a “great light.”

Best regards,

Serv



Posted By: AnnieTwo
Date Posted: 02 January 2007 at 2:59pm
Originally posted by Patty

Hi BMZ!  You said the following:

"I was referring to the "sin theory" which says Jesus paid with his life for our sins, propagated by Paul and the salvation as Paul saw it based on the death of Jesus on cross."

These are Jesus' own words regarding his upcoming death on the cross, and the reason(s) for it:

The Savior speaks as follows: I lay down my life for the sheep, and I know them (John 10:15, 27) 

My command is this: Love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends (John 15:12-13).

Matthew 26:27-28  Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. [28] This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

God's Peace!



I think it is obvious that BMZ has either not read the New Testment or has read it and has not understood it.  The other alternative is that he cannot accept what it says and still remain a Muslim.

In my opinion he is embarrassed that Jesus appointed Paul (may peace be upon his name) one of His apostles and Jesus did not appoint Muhammad an Apostle or any prophet to come after Jesus.

The truth be known no prophet was to come after Jesus.  The Advocate is the Holy Spirit of God.  There was no need for another prophet to come after Jesus.

We, as Christians, can only hope that BMZ and other Muslims will read the New Testament and the Gospel of Jesus with complete understanding and if they do they will know the truth.

We must pray for BMZ and the Muslims.




-------------
14If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 1 Peter 4



Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 02 January 2007 at 4:54pm

Annie (to Patty) wrote:
I think it is obvious that BMZ has either not read the New Testment or has read it and has not understood it.  The other alternative is that he cannot accept what it says and still remain a Muslim.

With all due respect, it seems to me that there are other logical possibilities, Annie, and, though you weren’t talking in this case to me, I think it best if we not pigeon-hole BMZ or anyone else for that matter.  There are, at any rate, different degrees of “understanding” of the New Testament, a fact proved well enough by the mountain of written Commentaries which purport to explain, or at least to explicate it.   


Quote:
In my opinion he is embarrassed that Jesus appointed Paul (may peace be upon his name) one of His apostles and Jesus did not appoint Muhammad an Apostle or any prophet to come after Jesus.

 

In my opinion, this is nonsense and is little more than a side-swipe at BMZ.  You should be embarrassed for having posted it      


Quote:
The truth be known no prophet was to come after Jesus.

 

Please do consider telling that to Brother R. G. Stair, my favorite short-wave radio evangelist.

 

 

Serv



Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 02 January 2007 at 5:08pm

Annie said:

"We must pray for BMZ and the Muslims."

We must pray for everyone, "unceasingly", as Christ commanded us. 

Catholics are a "different" sort.  The following is what we believe regarding non-Christians:

The fate of non-Catholics, as expressed at Vatican II:

bullet The "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium" (1964) is one of many documents to come out of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (often referred to as "Vatican II"). The Council was held in Rome between 1962 and 1965. Lumen Gentium" contains in its Chapter 1 an essay on "The Mystery of the church." Sections 14 to 16 describe the potential for salvation of:
bullet Followers of the Catholic Church,
bullet Members of other Christian denominations, and
bullet Believers of non-Christian religions. 5

The language is difficult to follow for a lay person. However, an "Assessment of this Council" was written "as an AID to study by Catholic Students of the Second Vatican Council. They contain material, some written in a journalistic style, for the American reader." In the section "The Constitution of the Church" the assessment reads:

"The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God's word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize."

5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." 6

This statement would seem to include the possibility that seekers after God may attain salvation, even though they have not concluded that God exists. Presumably, the authors of this document define "God" in Roman Catholic terms as a super-human intelligence and personality with specific attributes, such as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnibeneficient, omnipresent, etc. This statement indicates that even some Agnostics and Atheists could be saved and attain heaven, if they sincerely sought this Christian God.

 

I love your posts, Annie!  Very interesting and accurate.

God's Peace!



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 2:20am

Hello Annie,

Annie,

BMZ wrote:
All of us are in agreement that there was not and there is not a single prophecy about Paul in the past scriptures. Good! Let's move on till someone comes and answers my questions as you do not seem to understand where I am coming from.

You wrote: "I do understand where you are coming from."

Please explain what and how much did you understand.

BMZ wrote:

When similar happened to Jesus, John the Baptist is said to have been the witness and it was his testimony. Even Jesus did not ever talk about the day the spirit went down into him after he came out of water, like a dove or lightning.

Annie, you wrote in response,"You are mixing apples and oranges."

Please explain how so?

BMZ wrote:

And here we have Paul who comes to Gentiles and impresses them with his own one-man testimony and we don't see him working for years, with the elders of Jerusalem who learnt direct from Jesus and who had first-hand knowledge.

Annie, you wrote: "Follow the dots."

Okay, I will try to follow and connect the dots and here are the missing dots, converted and inserted in blue.

<>Acts 9: 26 And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. Acts 11: 25 Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to seek Saul. 26 And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

Question: And how come Jesus forgot to inform his brother James, Peter and other disciples about this lighning strike during the full brightness of the noon? They knew nothing about this and are told by Barnabas, who was not even a witness on the Road to Damascus.

Annie, you wrote: "Paul did teach what Jesus taught."

Did Jesus teach salvation was only possible through faith in himself? Did Jesus teach that Sin entered through that pitiless one man known as Adam?

From you, Annie: "JESUS: He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God". And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven". (Matthew 16:15-17)"

Only one man, Simon Peter answered and nobodyelse out of the twelve did. It means the majority of the apostles or disciples did not know that Jesus was the son of God. Why did not all answer in unision? Why did the Father reveal it to Peter, who was going to "disown" the father's son? Please explain. The moral of this passage is that either the eleven were dumb or Simon was trying to please  Jesus.

From you: "PAUL: Paul was occupied with proclaiming the word, testifying to the Jews that the Messiah was Jesus. (Acts 18:5)"

That is fine if he was testifying that Jesus was a messiah.

From you: "JESUS: All of them asked, "Are you, then, the Son of God?" He said to them, "You say that I am". Then they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips!" (Luke 22:70-71)"

You know well who are "they" in above? "They" are not the disciples or his followers. They are his accusers and mockers who wanted to hang him up.

His saying,"You say that I am" does not mean that they had accepted him as the Son of God! In fact what Jesus meant was: "You brood of vipers and fools! You are accusing me of being that. You are the ones who are suggesting that, not me, for I have never said myself that I am the Son of God and I have never claimed to be."

So you see, Annie, I read and understand the Bible well.  

I am fondly accused of not reading the Bible, but believe me that I do, otherwise, I wouldn't be asking questions on many grave matters, which deserve a careful re-think by my Christian friends. I wouldn't be explaining the scriptures to you, if I had not understood.

Just look at what you wrote. Paul started by proclaiming and telling them Jesus was the messiah in Acts 18:15 

"PAUL: Immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God". (Acts 9:20)"

and in above, which is far ahead of Acts 18:15, he calls Jesus the Son of God. Paul threw two stones to kill one bird.

From you, Annie: "JESUS: Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe". (John 20:28-29)"

Now this is where one has to read the scripture in true context and one has to quote in the correct context. We have to see what happened earlier before Thomas answered and what had transpired between Jesus and Thomas. 

Did Jesus ask Thomas, "Who am I, Thomas, you the persistent doubter?" Is that what Jesus wanted to know? No, not at all. Thomas did not believe that it was Jesus. He refused to believe that here was Jesus, alive. Thought he was a ghost and wanted to see the holes formed by the nails driven. Jesus asked him to touch and feel and see for himself.

And then, behold! Thomas was shocked and amazed and could not believe and blurted out, "My Lord and my God" which is just an exclamation. Note the above quote was not,"My Lord and My God" which is quite obvious from the capital or bold letters commonly used to describe him or Him, me or Me and he or He. And again all those present were in dead silence and did not say with one voice, "Our Lord, Our God OR Our Lord and Our God".  

From you: "Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Annie, "son of man" or "Son Of Man" in Hebrew simply means man, it is no godly or divine term. You are a "Daughter of Man" and I am a "Son of Man". The daughters of man and sons of man are all writing and posting here. 

If you read all of above, you can clearly see that my opinion does matter.  

Best Regards

BMZ

 




Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 2:43am

Annie,

"The truth be known no prophet was to come after Jesus.  The Advocate is the Holy Spirit of God.  There was no need for another prophet to come after Jesus."

Annie, there were two prophets after Jesus, according to the New Testament. Please name them.



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 2:54am

Brother Serv,

That was absolutely brilliant and I enjoyed reading your thoughts, specially this one:

"Of course, neither did the Ethiopian eunuch until the Spirit directed St. Philip to him (Acts 8:27-39) to show otherwise."    

In fact, just last night, the eunuch struck me, while I was reading the chapter.  

When I wrote the opening post, I wanted to mention Israfil and you by name to let me have the inputs but I thought that would not have been nice, as I was expecting Annie, Patty and other friends to respond.

From you, in the next post and thanks for your kind remarks:

"Please do consider telling that to Brother R. G. Stair, my favorite short-wave radio evangelist.", I have to say that one should not forget the "two prophets" immediately after Jesus. Annie will be naming them soon upon my request in another post.

Happy New Year & Best Regards

BMZ

 



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 7:26am

Yes, Annie

Servetus has rightly said,"There are, at any rate, different degrees of “understanding” of the New Testament, a fact proved well enough by the mountain of written Commentaries which purport to explain, or at least to explicate it."

You will have to agree that the mountains of written commentaries by thousands of scholars and evangelists over thousands and thousands of days, show that the thousands of  philosophies and the understanding were never close to what Jesus really taught. Perhaps, they found it so arcane, which really means secrets known to hardly a few, that they talked about it for centuries and all of us continue till today and this will go on till the D-Day.

In order to have positive discussions, I would suggest that only one gospel out of the four should be used and referred to, in order to discuss an issue. But I am afraid it would be too difficult to handle arguments using just one.

I think John spoiled the whole thing by coming up with his own gospel. John appears to have known only a few disciples as he hardly mentions a few. Had it been left at three gospels, it would have been easier. Don't you think so, Annie?

Herein lies the problem, which most evangelists do not comprehend but keep on parroting what they have been taught

Being arcane would also mean that whatever Jesus knew was known only to Jesus but no one could understand him, which is clearly evident from the questions put forward by his disciples. Now if the disciples did not understand him well and he had to explain and explain in private, how could Paul have understood him and his nature so well, when he never sat in the company of Jesus to learn, assuming James and others learnt and knew nothing. 

It appears to me as if Paul relegated and retired the Jerusalem elders to a room. If Paul did not do it then Jesus did it.  



Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 7:59am

Hi BMZ,

Just curious.  Do you now concede that there were, in fact, witnesses to St. Paul's conversion on the Road to Damascus?  I mean, I posted the verse stating such in the Gospel of Matthew.  Do you concede.....just a little even?

God's Love to You Always.



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 7:59am

Patty,

"This statement indicates that even some Agnostics and Atheists could be saved and attain heaven, if they sincerely sought this Christian God."

What about the Jewish God and the Muslim God? I think the Lord Almighty had already established far, far before this Christian God.

In all Integrity, the Lord Almighty, the First and the Last, through his own mouth, had already established being the Only Saviour, to whom every knee shall bow, as echoed in Isaiah. Nothing can change that.

Best Regards

BMZ 



Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 8:34am

Hi BMZ,

I thought I had already stated that Jews AND Muslims can attain Heaven, but apparently I didn't.  Mea culpa!  Here is our belief on that:

The promises of the covenants with Abraham and Moses were fulfilled by Jesus, but not abrogated. The children of the First Covenant remain God's chosen people. They are also our predecessors in faith. As such, Judaism deserves special respect from Christians. If there were no Jews, there could be no Christians.

The stance which we take toward non-Christian religions must, first of all, be informed by genuine Christian Charity. If we are lacking in love and compassion, we cannot honestly call ourselves Christian. For "one who has no love for the brother he has seen cannot love the God he has not seen." (I John 4:20)

While we have respect for all of God's children, for all who seek God with a sincere heart and for all people of good will, we must affirm the saving Grace which comes to us through the revelation of God's love in Christ Jesus. God has revealed that faith in, and baptism into, the Paschal mystery of Jesus' death is the normal means to salvation. At the same time, God alone has the authority to make decisions about God's grace and salvation. No one other than God can save or condemn. Regarding the non-baptized, God is certainly free to grant them salvation as God sees fit. The poet Shaw wrote that God created humans in God's own image, and we try to return the favor at every chance we get. To put human limits on God's actions is more than a little self-righteous. The Catholic Church is unwaveringly committed to proclaiming the Gospel of Christ, and to calling all people to one baptism and one faith in the One Lord. At the same time, we acknowledge that God alone is author and giver of Grace; a power which no human person or society possesses.

So, yes, of course Muslims and Jews can go to Heaven!  Many of them will be there while many Christians will be in the fires of Hell.  It's up to God to determine and sort out who goes where....all based on the individual's choices in life.

Now!  Back to my original question!!  Do you concede that there were indeed witnesses to St. Paul's conversion on the Road to Damascus? I get the impression you are trying to "sidestep" this one, BMZ

God's Love to You!



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 8:39am

Hello Patty,

From you:"Hi BMZ,

Just curious.  Do you now concede that there were, in fact, witnesses to St. Paul's conversion on the Road to Damascus?  I mean, I posted the verse stating such in the Gospel of Matthew.  Do you concede.....just a little even? "

Yes, Patty, the travelling companions are mentioned but after witnessing such an unusual event, they just lead him into the city and vanish without providing any testimony to verify Paul's account of the story. If they had witnessed a thing of this magnitude, they would have stuck to Paul.

Note his companions saw the light too but they were not blinded by it's brilliance , while Paul was blinded. (Acts 22:9-11)

And now let us read Acts 22:18"I fell into a trance 18and saw the Lord speaking. "Quick! he said to me. 'Leave Jerusalem immediately, because they will not accept your testimony about me.'

Question time: Why didn't the lord send him to James, Peter and other elders in Jerusalem. Were they the they who were not going to accept Paul's testimony about Jesus?

21"Then the Lord said to me, 'Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'"

And off he goes away!

The story is just not convincing.

Best Regards & Good Night from Singapore

BMZ

 



Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 8:44am

Well, we're making progress.  At least you concede there were witnesses.

You have a wonderful evening in Singapore, BMZ.....from Patty in Maine!



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 8:54am

It's close to 1.00 am and you have a wonderful day, Patty.Yes, I did concede that.  Did you read and enjoy the qualifications?

Good Night and God bless us all. Ameen

BMZ

 



Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 9:03am

"Did you read and enjoy the qualifications? "

But of course, my friend.  We'll discuss those later, after you've had some rest.

I leave you with a child's simply bedtime prayer.....

"Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep.

If I should die before I wake,

I pray the Lord my soul to take."

Patty



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: AnnieTwo
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 11:07am

From you: "JESUS: All of them asked, "Are you, then, the Son of God?" He said to them, "You say that I am". Then they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips!" (Luke 22:70-71)"

Originally posted by BMZ

You know well who are "they" in above? "They" are not the disciples or his followers. They are his accusers and mockers who wanted to hang him up. 

Yes, they are the Jewish religious leaders.

Originally posted by BMZ

His saying,"You say that I am" does not mean that they had accepted him as the Son of God! In fact what Jesus meant was: "You brood of vipers and fools! You are accusing me of being that. You are the ones who are suggesting that, not me, for I have never said myself that I am the Son of God and I have never claimed to be." 

What is the question the Jews are asking?  Put it into context.  Look at verse 67:

67 “If You are the Christ, tell us.”

They are asking Jesus if he is the Messiah.  Then in verse 70 they ask him if he is the Son of God.  The two titles go together.  The Son of God is a title for the Messiah.  The Jews knew that.

One thing when trying to interpret the Bible is to read the scriptures in context and watch the reactions of the people Jesus is speaking to.  Also it is helpful to read the same account recorded in the other Gospels.  Lastly, it is important to use a good translation.

Luke 22: 66 As soon as it was day, the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, came together and led Him into their council, saying, 67 “If You are the Christ, tell us.”

But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will by no means believe. 68 And if I also ask you, you will by no means answer Me or let Me go. 69 Hereafter the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the power of God.”  70 Then they all said, “Are You then the Son of God?” So He said to them, “You rightly say that I am.”  71 And they said, “What further testimony do we need? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.” (NKJV)

I think you can readily see that Jesus answered in the affirmative.   Jesus is saying that he is the Messiah.

The Jews acknowledge that Jesus has answered in the affirmative.  See verse 71.

<>Verse 70:  The word "then" looks back on the previous verse (69).  "But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God."  Jesus is referred to as God's Son in a way that underscores his one-of-a-kind role as God's stand-in. 

Look at Mark 14: 60 And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, saying, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” 61 But He kept silent and answered nothing.  Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?62 Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?”  And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. (NKJV)

In verse 62 Jesus is referring to Daniel 7:13-14 13 “ I was watching in the night visions,
      And behold, One like the Son of Man,
      Coming with the clouds of heaven!
      He came to the Ancient of Days,
      And they brought Him near before Him.
       14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
      That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
      His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
      Which shall not pass away,
      And His kingdom the one
      Which shall not be destroyed. (NKJV)

In other Old Testament writings, the image of riding on clouds was used exclusively for divine figures (Exod. 14:20; 34:5; Num 10:34; Ps. 104:3; Isa. 19:1).  Daniel employed this image and Jesus embraced it as his own.

"Sitting at the right hand of the Power" is imagery that the Jewish leaders would have been familiar with.

<>"Psalm 110:1,  1 The LORD said to my Lord,
         “Sit at My right hand,
         Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” 

No one in Jewish literature was ever afforded the privilege of sitting at God's right side.  Yet Jesus insisted on his right to do so.

The priests as a rule could not even go into the inner sanctum of the temple.  The Holy of Holies had to be entered on a specific day in a specific way by a special person.

We can only imagine what went through the priests heads when Jesus claimed the right to enter God's heavenly Holy of Holies presence and SIT DOWN.

Jesus claimed to exercise the authority of God and this implied that he sat in judgment over the Jewish council and not the other way around.  Jesus committed blasphemy by threatening the uniqueness of God's presence.  Jesus said that he would go into the Holy of Holies and stay there.  The reaction of the council strongly suggests that they understood Jesus' claim to divinity.

Originally posted by BMZ

So you see, Annie, I read and understand the Bible well

See my answer and you will find out that you do not understand the Bible as well as you think you do.



-------------
14If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 1 Peter 4



Posted By: AnnieTwo
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 11:11am

From you, Annie: "JESUS: Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe". (John 20:28-29)"

Originally posted by BMZ

Now this is where one has to read the scripture in true context and one has to quote in the correct context. We have to see what happened earlier before Thomas answered and what had transpired between Jesus and Thomas. 

Did Jesus ask Thomas, "Who am I, Thomas, you the persistent doubter?" Is that what Jesus wanted to know? No, not at all. Thomas did not believe that it was Jesus. He refused to believe that here was Jesus, alive. Thought he was a ghost and wanted to see the holes formed by the nails driven. Jesus asked him to touch and feel and see for himself.

Yes, the other disciples had already seen Jesus and believed that he had risen from the dead.

<>John 20: 19 Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 

Thomas was the last one and he needed proof.  He wanted to see the wounds on Jesus body.

John 20: 24 Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.”  So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”

This is what happened next:

John 20: 26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”  28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”  29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Originally posted by BMZ

And then, behold! Thomas was shocked and amazed and could not believe and blurted out, "My Lord and my God" which is just an exclamation. Note the above quote was not,"My Lord and My God" which is quite obvious from the capital or bold letters commonly used to describe him or Him, me or Me and he or He. And again all those present were in dead silence and did not say with one voice, "Our Lord, Our God OR Our Lord and Our God".  

We don't know what the other disciples said upon seeing Jesus' wounds, but we know what happened when Thomas saw them.

This is not "just an exclamation" in the sense that you are implying.  Not only does Thomas now believe that Jesus has been raised from the dead but he also identified him with the God of heaven.  And so does John.  The combination of John 1:1 with 20:28 is a one-two punch that levels any doubts about early belief in the divinity of Jesus.

<>Notice the verse I showed you in my last response: 

Look at Mark 14: 60 And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, saying, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” 61 But He kept silent and answered nothing.  Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?”  And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. (NKJV)

Thomas is speaking of Jesus; it is a personal response to Jesus.

What is Jesus' response?  "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe." 

Jesus' response if he were not God should have been the same response as the Jewish leaders as indicated above.  He should have torn his clothes.  He should have reprimanded Thomas, yet he did not.

In first century Judaism a Jew would never speak of a human being like that.

Read Acts 12:20-21 about King Herod Agrippa I. 

 21On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. 22They shouted, "This is the voice of a god, not of a man."

This praise of Herod is not nearly as strong as what Thomas said, but look what happened next:

21On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. 22They shouted, "This is the voice of a god, not of a man." 23Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.

How is it possible that Jesus could accept higher praise from Thomas and yet not be struck down by God?  The contrast makes no sense unless Jesus is indeed God in the flesh.

There is another incident in Acts 14:11-15.  Barnabas and Paul tore their clothes.

Judaism taught that tearing one's clothes was the appropriate reaction upon hearing blasphemy.

Shouldn't Jesus have torn his clothes too?  The contrast between Barnabas and Paul's and Jesus' reactions to being worshiped is startling and inexplicable on any grounds other than that Jesus Christ was, in fact, true deity.



-------------
14If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 1 Peter 4



Posted By: AnnieTwo
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 11:38am

From you: "Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

<>
Originally posted by BMZ

Annie, "son of man" or "Son Of Man" in Hebrew simply means man, it is no godly or divine term. You are a "Daughter of Man" and I am a "Son of Man". The daughters of man and sons of man are all writing and posting here. 
 

Jesus is human and the Son of Man but Jesus is not an ordinary Son of Man.

Jesus as the Son of Man has the following attributes and abilities:

1.  He has power to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6);

2.  He is Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8);

3.  He is the king of a kingdom and the angels are his (Matthew 13:41);

4.  He is the Messiah, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:13-17);

5.  He was to be killed and raised from the dead (resurrected) (Matthew 17:9,22,23;20:18,19;26:2; Mark 8:31;9:31;10:33,34; Luke 9:22;18:31-33);

6.  He was to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28);

7.  He was unique and came from heaven (John 3:13);

8.  All who believe in him are to have eternal life (John 3:14,15);

9.  He accepted worship (John 9:35-38).

David Flusser, professor of comparative religion at Hebrew University in Jerusalem maintains the sayings of Jesus can be understood only if it is assumed that Jesus thought Himself to be the Son of Man." For Flusser, Jesus' concept of "Son of Man" was both messianic and divine.



-------------
14If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 1 Peter 4



Posted By: AnnieTwo
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 11:43am
Originally posted by BMZ

Question time: Why didn't the lord send him to James, Peter and other elders in Jerusalem. Were they the they who were not going to accept Paul's testimony about Jesus?


Jesus did send him to James and Peter and the others and they did accept him.  They sent Paul to the Gentiles.  They never would have sent him if he wasn't preaching the Gospel of Jesus.




-------------
14If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 1 Peter 4



Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 11:44am

Excellent post, Annie!

God's Peace.



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: AnnieTwo
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 11:46am
Originally posted by BMZ

In all Integrity, the Lord Almighty, the First and the Last, through his own mouth, had already established being the Only Saviour, to whom every knee shall bow, as echoed in Isaiah. Nothing can change that.


And God most often chooses humans as His tool to save.  This time God chose His Messiah Jesus.




-------------
14If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 1 Peter 4



Posted By: AnnieTwo
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 3:44pm

Servetus,

Annie (to Patty) wrote:

I think it is obvious that BMZ has either not read the New Testment or has read it and has not understood it.  The other alternative is that he cannot accept what it says and still remain a Muslim.

Originally posted by Serv

]With all due respect, it seems to me that there are other logical possibilities, Annie, and, though you weren’t talking in this case to me, I think it best if we not pigeon-hole BMZ or anyone else for that matter.  There are, at any rate, different degrees of “understanding” of the New Testament, a fact proved well enough by the mountain of written Commentaries which purport to explain, or at least to explicate it.  

I think if you read my posts and Patty's you will see how far off BMZ is.  Commentaries by respected Christian scholars would not agree with BMZ.  They would agree with me and Patty.  We cannot get away with interpreting the New Testament any which way we want to anymore than Muslims can interpret the Qur'an any which way they want to.

Quote:

In my opinion he is embarrassed that Jesus appointed Paul (may peace be upon his name) one of His apostles and Jesus did not appoint Muhammad an Apostle or any prophet to come after Jesus.

  <>
Originally posted by Serv

] In my opinion, this is nonsense and is little more than a side-swipe at BMZ.  You should be embarrassed for having posted it. 

I'm not embarrassed in the least.  It is obvious that BMZ has an agenda.  The fact that Jesus did not appoint Muhammad as an Apostle is very likely behind his attack on St. Paul or at the least one of them.

Quote:

The truth be known no prophet was to come after Jesus.

  <>
Originally posted by Serv

Please do consider telling that to Brother R. G. Stair, my favorite short-wave radio evangelist.

You mean this guy?

In the 1980s, Stair claimed the United States would face an economic collapse; that President Reagan would be removed from office; and that a limited nuclear war would strike the U.S. and wipe out every major city. He claimed that if these prophecies did not come true by May of 1988 then he would declare himself a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_prophet" title="False prophet - false prophet and end his ministry.

Stair also teaches that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television" title="Television - television is evil.

Stair also rejects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_medicine" title="Modern medicine - modern medicine as sinful.

Among the revelations about life with Stair that would later emerge; Stair never applied for building permits for many of the additions constructed on the Walterboro commune. When several members of his commune died, Stair would block or delay notification of the local authorities. The deceased were simply buried on commune property. Despite the secrecy and seclusion, many outside the commune were becoming very suspicious as reports of sordid behavior by Stair were escaping his tightly controlled universe.

Notable incidents included the secret burial of an infant in an unmarked grave at Stair's behest, and the demise of evangelist Wayne Douglas (renamed "Simon" by Stair) who died a slow, lingering death after his return in good health from a missionary trip to Africa. Stair had prophesied that Douglas would die in Africa, and when that prophecy failed he retroactively amended it by claiming that Douglas contracted a fatal disease there. Suspicions remain about what exactly was in the "herb" capsules Stair provided for Douglas during his decline.

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_16" title="May 16 - May 16 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002" title="2002 - 2002 , Stair was placed under arrest and charged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_misconduct" title="Sexual misconduct - sexual misconduct towards several underage members of his commune. Among the allegations that emerged from Stair's arrest and criminal trial:

  • Stair provided herbs that caused http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage" title="Miscarriage - miscarriages and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stillbirth" title="Stillbirth - stillbirths to several women he had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnant" title="Pregnant - impregnated , including some that were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent" title="Age of consent - underage .
  • Stair had obtained a large collection of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography" title="Pornography - pornography over an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet" title="Internet - Internet connection that only he was allowed to use.
  • Married couples were forbidden from having http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercourse" title="Sexual intercourse - sex unless approved by Stair

Stair spent over two months in prison as part of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain" title="Plea bargain - plea bargain to settle the charges. His following and ability to purchase airtime have decreased following the embarrassing allegations, and his troubles with the law have continued.

  • In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004" title="2004 - 2004 , Stair pled guilty to charges of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_and_battery" title="Assault and battery - assault and battery after fondling two female members of his organization.
  • The following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005" title="2005 - year , police responded to a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-1-1" title="9-1-1 - 9-1-1 call placed by Stair's wife Theresa who stated that her husband was locking her in a room and preventing her from using the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet" title="Toilet - toilet . Brother Stair could be heard screaming in the background before forcibly hanging up the phone. No charges were filed as a result of this incident.
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_of_2005" title="As of 2005 - As of 2005 , Stair faced a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_suit" title="Civil suit - civil suit filed by several ex-followers seeking over $177,000 in damages.
<>Acknowledging some of his failings, while denying some of the charges pressed against him, Stair has pleaded for forgiveness on his show, but most of his religious teachings and beliefs remain unchanged.


-------------
14If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 1 Peter 4



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 4:47pm

Annie,

From you: "I'm not embarrassed in the least.  It is obvious that BMZ has an agenda.  The fact that Jesus did not appoint Muhammad as an Apostle is very likely behind his attack on St. Paul or at the least one of them."

    

I have no agenda, Annie. I have heard of "Temptation knows no law" but I had not heard yet, "Frustration knows no law".

In my humble opinion, Jesus was not in any capacity to appoint prophets. If he had, the Jews would have accepted him.

You have a serious problem and the biggest problem is that you have four gospels. If there were only one gospel, I would perhaps have had less to point out and less to work on.  What the three have, John does not have; what John has, the other three do not have and that is the reason for relying heavily on cross-references and the confusion.

That is why you notice "Jesus claimed to be this and Jesus claimed to be that...............".

I just enjoy exchanges and point out the flaws in the scriptures. 



Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 5:05pm

AnnieTwo,

 

You wrote:
I think if you {Servetus} read my posts and Patty's you will see how far off BMZ is.

 

For that matter, I think if you read my posts to BMZ, you will see how well I understand your and Patty’s posts.  Think about it.  Stop.  Pause to consider.  Full stop.

 

You wrote:
Commentaries by respected Christian scholars would not agree with BMZ.

 

Please do notice that no one either said or implied that they would.  I said, I repeat it again, that the fact that there are so many Commentaries is proof that there are different degrees of “understanding.”

You wrote:
In my opinion BMZ is embarrassed that Jesus appointed Paul (may peace be upon his name) one of His apostles and Jesus did not appoint Muhammad an Apostle or any prophet to come after Jesus.

I wrote:
In my opinion, this is nonsense and is little more than a side-swipe at BMZ.  You should be embarrassed for having posted it.
 

You wrote:
I'm not embarrassed in the least.

 

And neither is BMZ. 

 

You wrote:
It is obvious that BMZ has an agenda.

 

Who doesn’t?  I think he rather clearly addressed his opening comments to his Christian "friends."  I, for one, am happy to count myself among them.

 

You wrote:
The fact that Jesus did not appoint Muhammad as an Apostle is very likely [sic] behind his attack [sic] on St. Paul or at the least one of them

 

Objection, your honor.  The Prosecution is attributing motive to BMZ.  In one of her above posts, Patty refers to Hyam Maccoby, author of Paul the Myth-Maker, whose so-called "attack" on St. Paul is not motivated by his love for Islam.  Ergo ...  

 

You wrote:
The truth be known no prophet was to come after Jesus.

I wrote:
Please do consider telling that to Brother R. G. Stair, my favorite short-wave radio evangelist.

You wrote:
You mean this guy?

Yes, that guy.  Have you told him yet?  For all of those reasons (you posted), and more(!), he is my favorite short-wave radio evangelist.  Such a dramatic character, wouldn't you say?

Serv



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 03 January 2007 at 6:49pm

Thanks for taking on my case, Serv.

I am sure Annie will take a note of your solid comment, "Please do notice that no one either said or implied that they would.  I said, I repeat it again, that the fact that there are so many Commentaries is proof that there are different degrees of “understanding.” "

I am glad to have you as my Attorney and wish if Jesus had just one in the times when he needed most. Most of the times, (Annie may not realise or appreciate this), I feel sad that not a single person out of the so many persons, who talked so much about him later, came to his defence and rescue.

I take this opportunity to request that Annie be instructed by the Honorourable Court to reply point by point, in response to my comments, instead of covering up my post with heaps of unwanted off-the-topic materials.

Good Night and have a good rest. You would need lots of energy and Job's patience. I am sure that the Force of the Lord Almighty will be with you! Amen.

Sincerely

BMZ 

 



Posted By: AnnieTwo
Date Posted: 04 January 2007 at 11:18am
BMZ,

Originally posted by BMZ

I take this opportunity to request that Annie be instructed by the Honorourable Court to reply point by point, in response to my comments, instead of covering up my post with heaps of unwanted off-the-topic materials.


I can see that I am not wanted here.

Peace to everyone.


-------------
14If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 1 Peter 4



Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 04 January 2007 at 2:12pm

Quote:
Thanks for taking on my case, Serv.

You are welcome, BMZ, and it’s pro bono, as usual, and for what it is worth.

Initially, you wrote:
Of course, when we read the Jewish Holy Scriptures, we do not find Jesus at all.

I then said:
Of course, neither did the Ethiopian eunuch until the Spirit directed St. Philip to him (Acts 8:27-39) to show otherwise.

You responded:
In fact, just last night, the eunuch struck me, while I was reading the chapter.

It’s an interesting section, or narrative, isn’t it? 

If we could leave St. Paul and the Greeks for the moment aside, it might be interesting to note that, perhaps related to the eunuch’s baptism, Ethiopia (also known as Abyssinia) was converted to Christianity by the early fourth century (although, in the “Christological” dogmatic controversies, it, along with many other nations in the region, were ‘monophysite’ and broke with Rome on key points, ref: Gibbon, in the final chapters of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire).

At any rate, and of particular interest to Muslims, I should think, is the fact that it is with Abyssinian (Ethiopian) Christians that early Muslims, including Muhammad during especially his persecution and exile, are said to have formed an alliance, of sorts, the details of which can be read here (beneath sub-section entitled “The First Migration [of Muslims] to Abyssinia (Ethiopia):”

http://www.al-sunnah.com/nektar/3.htm http://www.al-sunnah.com/nektar/3.htm -

Best regards,

Serv



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 04 January 2007 at 3:15pm

Originally posted by AnnieTwo

BMZ,

I can see that I am not wanted here.

Peace to everyone.

Annie,

Please don't think like that. You are most welcome and you are certainly wanted here.

My original post still remains unanswered and we are drifting away from the subject. As such we will leave it here but please don't mind my talking to Serv as he has brought up something new and very interesting regarding Philip who was told to go to the eunuch, who was reading the Isaiah of the Jewish Holy Scriptures, possibly.

It all went well. However, for some strange reason, as soon as Philip baptised him, Philip was removed from the scene by the Spirit only to drop him at Azotus, forcing him to go back to North.

Would you like to comment on above? It appears to me as if it were the case of a mistaken identity, otherwise why did the Spirit have to lift Philip away and drop him at Azotus?  

Will appreciate your input.

BMZ



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 04 January 2007 at 4:20pm

Serv,

"You are welcome, BMZ, and it’s pro bono, as usual, and for what it is worth."

I liked that.

Regarding the eunuch, you wrote: "It’s an interesting section, or narrative, isn’t it?" 

It is. It is also interesting to note that immediately after the eunuch was baptised, something went wrong and the Spirit lifted off Philip to transport him to Azotus and the eunuch went rejoicing alone.  

"If we could leave St. Paul and the Greeks for the moment aside, it might be interesting to note that, perhaps related to the eunuch’s baptism, Ethiopia (also known as Abyssinia) was converted to Christianity by the early fourth century (although, in the “Christological” dogmatic controversies, it, along with many other nations in the region, were ‘monophysite’ and broke with Rome on key points, ref: Gibbon, in the final chapters of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)."

Yes, we can leave St. Paul for he never went south. I think that the eunuch, whose favourite reading was Isaiah and worship was only the Lord Almighty, possibly might have introduced Jesus as a prophet to the queen and his people, only to be "corrected" by the evangelists later.

Could it have been an unapproved baptism, Serv?

"At any rate, and of particular interest to Muslims, I should think, is the fact that it is with Abyssinian (Ethiopian) Christians that early Muslims, including Muhammad during especially his persecution and exile, are said to have formed an alliance, of sorts, the details of which can be read here (beneath sub-section entitled “The First Migration [of Muslims] to Abyssinia (Ethiopia):” "

It shows that there were diverse views within the entire region, with various priests and preachers preaching their views. It also shows that some were fiercely monotheistic and they took Jesus as a prophet or messenger of God. It is true that after Jesus was gone, the church in the South and the East had different views from those of the church in Europe.

Even after having been "corrected" by the church from North, those in the South found it easier to accept Islam. Could it be that the eunuch maintained his worship of the Lord Almighty? I think it wasn't really an alliance but they found that the difference was no thicker than a very thin line.

Good night to you and time for me to start the day.

Best Regards

BMZ



Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 04 January 2007 at 5:30pm

BMZ,

I wrote:
It’s an interesting section, or narrative, isn’t it?

You wrote:
It is. It is also interesting to note that immediately after the eunuch was baptised, something went wrong and the Spirit lifted off Philip to transport him to Azotus and the eunuch went rejoicing alone.

Why have you concluded that something went wrong?  The eunuch was rejoicing and Philip remained in the Spirit.  I can think of no better fate for either of them.

 

You wrote:
Yes, we can leave St. Paul for he never went south.

I am not meaning to contradict you, and perhaps it is all geographically relative, but in his Epistle to the Galatians (1:17) St. Paul says he went to Arabia.  In fact, I don’t think there was much that the industrious St. Paul didn’t do (at least according to the record of his disciple, St. Luke, author of the Acts of the Apostles and the third Gospel).

You wrote:
I think that the eunuch, whose favourite reading was Isaiah and worship was only the Lord Almighty, possibly might have introduced Jesus as a prophet to the queen and his people, only to be "corrected" by the evangelists later.

I understand.  Jesus, after all, was a prophet.  There are many New Testament references to this fact.  He was also, to my view, and I would hope also to Philip’s, Priest and King (i.e., Messiah).

You wrote:
Could it have been an unapproved baptism, Serv?

I think it unlikely, especially given the reported aftermath.  That particular portion of Acts is rather deep.   

You wrote:
It shows that there were diverse views within the entire region, with various priests and preachers preaching their views. It also shows that some were fiercely monotheistic and they took Jesus as a prophet or messenger of God. It is true that after Jesus was gone, the church in the South and the East had different views from those of the church in Europe.

The divergence of opinions and the Christological, Trinitarian, Marion, etc., controversies are quite well known.  When we Christians haven’t been at each others’ throats with 30-year wars, St. Bartholomew Day Massacres and all the rest, we are rather fond of our doctrinal disputations.  They keep us on our toes (right, AnnieTwo?).   

You wrote:
Even after having been "corrected" by the church from North, those in the South found it easier to accept Islam.

That may be so but the Copts of Egypt and the monophysites of Abyssinia were and are rather notorious for their refusal to accept either Islam or correction from the North, especially the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, and to recognize his jurisdiction.

You wrote:
Could it be that the eunuch maintained his worship of the Lord Almighty?

Yes, quite probably.  As did many a Jewish so to imperfectly speak “convert” to Christianity, especially immediately prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D.  

You wrote:
I think it wasn't really an alliance but they found that the difference was no thicker than a very thin line.

I shall have to revisit the particulars.  It’s been some time since I read about the delegation that Muhammad sent to Ethiopia and the reasons for it.  As I no doubt imperfectly recall, I thought the beleaguered Muslims had sought a type of protection and thus alliance (in a broad, physical way, not theological) with the Christian King.  Again, though, I should revisit the details before I speak further.

I enjoy talking to you, BMZ.  Bonna note, bro ...

 

 

Serv



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 04 January 2007 at 10:50pm

Excellent style and response, Serv.

How I wish if all could dissect a post and respond point by point as you have done. That makes the exchanges interesting and one can remain within the scope of the discourse.

I enjoyed that and I enjoy talking to you too, Serv. Wish all others could follow your style. Thanks indeed and I will exchange more thoughts tonight.

Best Regards

BMZ

 



Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 05 January 2007 at 11:19am

Annie, please don't leave.  I've been here for nearly six years.  You need to remain.  I've left this site many times for a "breather", but I do return.  (Sometimes after months.)  I know you feel that attempts to explain yourself seem like an effort in futility.  But it isn't.  Please reconsider.  We all need to be able to communicate as adults, respectfully, politely, and without hard feelings.  If I have said anything to offend you, please forgive me.  (And remember.....most of these "people" are men....which says a lot!)

God's Peace and Understanding!



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 05 January 2007 at 11:30am

BMZ said,

"I feel sad that not a single person out of the so many persons, who talked so much about him later, came to his defence and rescue."

Oh, but you see, that was not in the Master's (God's) Plan.  As I am certain Servetus knows (former seminarian and all), Jesus HAD to die for the redemption of our souls.  He took our sins on him when he was crucified.  He was the Sacrificial Lamb, our Redeemer, our Savior! Now that is OUR belief, as opposed to YOUR belief that it never happened.  And this is where the disagreement comes in.  We believe Jesus was not meant to be prevented from crucifixion.  No crucifixion, no resurrection, no savior.  But He was crucified, and he DID resurrect!  Thanks be to God.......that is why we have the Christian/Catholic religion.  Had Jesus' crucifixion been stopped we would have known he was a phoney, a fraud.  But God, in all His wisdom, allowed it to happen as Jesus had told it would.  His ascension into Heaven was also witnessed by many, and the prophecy fulfilled.  That's what WE believe, BMZ!  And Islam does NOT believe this.  That is why we are having this never ending conversation.  But I do enjoy batting the topic back and forth, kind of like a tennis match.

I wish you joy, peace, and happiness, but most of all I wish you love (uh, to quote Dolly Parton)!

 



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 05 January 2007 at 1:36pm

Quote:
As I am certain Servetus knows (former seminarian and all) …

Dear Patty,

So that you (and others) might know, I was never a seminarian and I do learn a lot from everyone, without exception.  You might be remembering my having said that I was at boarding (parochial) school for some years but it was when I was just a lad and religion (Christianity) was part of our syllabus (only a part).  I do like to discuss Interfaith issues, sometimes, especially when they don’t degenerate into a row, and do not want it to seem as if I am doing so from a privileged (educational) standpoint.  I am a student and amateur but am usually happy to compare notes with others of like mind, whether of my or other religion.  Thanks, though, in any case for the vote of confidence and, though we might at times differ radically in our opinions, I thank you for your contributions to the discussions.

Your friend,

Serv



Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 06 January 2007 at 6:50am

Hmmmm, er you mean I made a mistake?  I could have sworn you mentioned once that you attended a Jesuit seminary for a short time. Mea culpa!  Sorry, Servetus.  It doesn't matter really.  You are quite informed of nearly everything you discuss.....otherwise you simply (once again) do the intelligent thing and remain silent.  I thought you had said you were now an agnostic....but perhaps that was wrong too.  My brain must be going into a meltdown since my Dad died last July!  Forgive my inaccuracies...they were/are not intentional.

Best Regards Always.



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 06 January 2007 at 7:48am
Originally posted by Patty

Annie, please don't leave.  I've been here for nearly six years.  You need to remain.......    (And remember.....most of these "people" are men....which says a lot!)

Patty,

I can assure you that Annie is quite comfortable with men for discussions.  She is good but she does not read the "fine print" in the scriptures, whereas we men do that!

I will get Annie back here. Just wait and see when I respond to your next post which was addressed to Serv.  

Best Regards

BMZ



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 06 January 2007 at 8:30am

Hello Patty, I said about the sad episode of Jesus:

"I feel sad that not a single person out of the so many persons, who talked so much about him later, came to his defence and rescue."

You wrote: "Oh, but you see, that was not in the Master's (God's) Plan."

It is my personal opinion and I believe that God Almighty has never revealed any Master Plan to anyone. No one knows except God AlMighty.

If we look at the entire biblical history, there is not a single evidence that God described any plan or a Master Plan. People introduced and worked out this so-called God's Plan.

If we look again at the entire biblical history, all the events, from Genesis to Revelation, point to a failed plan, putting God into a very weak position. The events portray God Almighty as one who made many mistakes, regretted, tried to correct, was beaten by Satan many times, became full of vengeance and anger, did not know what to do, allowed people to sacrifise and shed the blood of animals. And finally found a solution by creating a son only to be killed to shed his blood and then ressurect him. I don't think that was a plan.

Creates Adam and Eve, threatens them with death but has mercy upon them and lets them live to die under the punishment of death. Both tasted death, "the punishment of their sin". If the wages of sin is death, then both Papa and Mama paid for it with their lives. 

The Jews wanted Jesus out for theological reasons. The Romans wanted Jesus out for political reasons. To the Jews and the Romans, Jesus was an arrogant man and an adversary.We notice that Jesus never spoke politely or sweetly with the Jews or others. He knew well that he would be led to slaughter but he knew God was behind him and would save him. Many prophets were killed by the Jews and even in his own lifetime, John the Baptist was beheaded.

I agree with you that there is a disagreement between Muslims and Christians on this issue. However, we believe that Jesus was saved by God and he was not killed but his Saviour saved him. There are quite a lot of reasonable doubts which can be found easily in the events described in the NT.

I was discussing about this with my evangelist friends upstairs, this afternoon and one said,"Jesus was the lamb of God and look! He was even born in the barn or the manger".   Can you see the extent to which people can go to make sure Jesus died on the cross?  

"But I do enjoy batting the topic back and forth, kind of like a tennis match. "

Yes! Hence the volley at you!  

Best Regards

BMZ



Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 06 January 2007 at 1:06pm

I love you, BMZ!  How could I not....since  you also like a good tennis match?  Alright, your on, and here's my volley.  I must quote from both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Holy Scriptures.  It's a rather long, looooooong document, so I'll paste some, and then supply the link, which you may feel free to read at your leisure. 

II. CHRIST'S REDEMPTIVE DEATH IN GOD'S PLAN OF SALVATION

"Jesus handed over according to the definite plan of God"

javascript openWindow'cr/599.htm'; - 599 Jesus' violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God's plan, as St. Peter explains to the Jews of Jerusalem in his first sermon on Pentecost: "This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God."393 This Biblical language does not mean that those who handed him over were merely passive players in a scenario written in advance by God.394

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.396

"He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures"

javascript openWindow'cr/601.htm'; - 601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfills Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401

"For our sake God made him to be sin"

javascript openWindow'cr/602.htm'; - 602 Consequently, St. Peter can formulate the apostolic faith in the divine plan of salvation in this way: "You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers. . . with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake."402 Man's sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death.403 By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."404

603 Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned.405 But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"406 Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all", so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son".407

God takes the initiative of universal redeeming love

javascript openWindow'cr/604.htm'; - 604 By giving up his own Son for our sins, God manifests that his plan for us is one of benevolent love, prior to any merit on our part: "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins."408 God "shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."409

605 At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God's love excludes no one: "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."410 He affirms that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many"; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us.411 The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer."412

III. CHRIST OFFERED HIMSELF TO HIS FATHER FOR OUR SINS

Christ's whole life is an offering to the Father

javascript openWindow'cr/606.htm'; - 606 The Son of God, who came down "from heaven, not to do [his] own will, but the will of him who sent [him]",413 said on coming into the world, "Lo, I have come to do your will, O God." "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."414 From the first moment of his Incarnation the Son embraces the Father's plan of divine salvation in his redemptive mission: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work."415 The sacrifice of Jesus "for the sins of the whole world"416 expresses his loving communion with the Father. "The Father loves me, because I lay down my life", said the Lord, "[for] I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father."417

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a4p2.htm - http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a4p2.htm

God's Peace!



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 06 January 2007 at 5:25pm

I love you too, Patty and you are a good sport.  Nice try. Here is another fast smash volley.

Patty, all that material is catechetical. That shows there were lots of questions raised and the church figures and teachers tried to explain using the so-called "God's Plan". They had no other way out to explain the termination of Jesus' ministry or the mission.

If there were truly God's plan for Jesus, then Jesus would have never  uttered in desperation and pain "Elahi, Elahi, lama sabachtani". This shows that Jesus was not aware that God was abandoning him.

We believe he was rescued and saved immediately after that cry and action was taken by God to save him. Patty, that was not a simple cry, it wasn't futile! It sent shockwaves into heavens. God had to act. I look at it from this angle.

BMZ 



Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 06 January 2007 at 7:39pm

The post I gave you, BMZ, were not only from the Catechism.  The reasonings are BASED on Holy Scripture.  Scriptures and the 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are the basis FOR the Catechism.  Of course there was much discussion regarding God and His plan for humanity....I would hope there always will be.  When Jesus cried out, "my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me", it showed his HUMANNESS.  He was God incarnate as this human cry for help shows.  God DID help him.  He was relieved of the suffering of the crucifixion by death almost immediately. 

Back to you BMZ......batter up!  Er, that's another sport, isn't it?



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 06 January 2007 at 9:41pm

Back to you, Patty!

"When Jesus cried out, "my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me", it showed his HUMANNESS.  He was God incarnate as this human cry for help shows."

First it was God's plan and now we have his "Human-ness".  I want to give you a chance here. Would you like to make any corrections in the statement,"he was God incarnate"? For example, you may, if you wish, write "God-the-son incarnate". Would you like to do that?

God, incarnate in a human, cannot call another God. Once incarnated in a person, God loses his own identity and is reduced to a man. So, Jesus cannot be God. That would be a separate issue to discuss.

BMZ

 

 

 



Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 07 January 2007 at 12:47pm
Now we get into the Holy Trinity again.  Do you really want to go there yet another time?  Jesus was sent to earth by God as a human man.  Jesus is 1/3 of the Trinity, the other 2/3's being comprised of God the Father and the Holy Spirit.  Dying on the cross, Jesus was in his human form, and while in that form he cried out (as any human being would) for help, or for comfort.  And God the Father took him out of his pain and sufferering.  We know the Holy Spirit is with us because Jesus told us he would not leave us "comfortless", but that he would send us the paraclete or Holy Spirit to guide us in our faith, and comfort us in our sorrow.  So now back to you, my dear friend and fellow sportsman!

-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 07 January 2007 at 3:52pm

Patty,

From you: "Now we get into the Holy Trinity again.  Do you really want to go there yet another time? "

Oh! No. Not again. I have refuted it many times. I have also denied it and proved that even Jesus was totally unaware of the "trinity" and knew nothing about it.  

From you: "Jesus was sent to earth by God as a human man."

What is a human man, Patty?  I know what you meant. There is a reason for asking that. This is exactly what happened when the people, after Jesus was long gone, tried to explain him and his nature and plied theories upon theories, creating confusion about a man who simply said,"Worship and Love only your God the Lord Almighty with all your hearts, all your minds and all your souls." He never said,"Worship and Love me with all your hearts, all your minds and all your souls."

From you: "Jesus is 1/3 of the Trinity, the other 2/3's being comprised of God the Father and the Holy Spirit."

The above statement confirms that Jesus is not the entire trinity. In other words, the Christians do not believe that he is the God. Shall I take it as a correct Christian belief?

From you: "Dying on the cross, Jesus was in his human form, and while in that form he cried out (as any human being would) for help, or for comfort.  And God the Father took him out of his pain and sufferering."

Doesn't the above statement clearly establish two different and distinct personalities, namely Jesus on the Cross and God the Father in Heavens? There was no way that Jesus could have got out by himself. The only one who could rescue him was God and God could use own Power or the Force, correct? 

The shuttle cock is just falling over the net. Watch it!

Wish, Annie could follow your style and exchange in this manner. Both of us have not quoted any verses or any Arius or Athanasius. 

BMZ



Posted By: Mauri
Date Posted: 07 January 2007 at 7:01pm
bmzsp:  I have refuted it many times. I have also denied it and proved that even Jesus was totally unaware of the "trinity" and knew nothing about it.

Actually, the Quran teaches the trinity.  However, neither the Quran nor the Bible teach it the way you seem to understand it, though.


Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 07 January 2007 at 7:27pm

Howdy, BMZ!  From you:

From you:

"Jesus is 1/3 of the Trinity, the other 2/3's being comprised of God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

The above statement confirms that Jesus is not the entire trinity. In other words, the Christians do not believe that he is the God. Shall I take it as a correct Christian belief?"

Nope.  Don't take that as the correct Christian/Catholic belief.  Far from it.  We have always said that God is "three separate entities in one."  Three distinctly separate entities which combine to form one God.  There's a bible verse I always loved.  I think it's in 2nd John, which states this is the trinity....although the word "trinity" is never used in the Bible; however, it does mean it.  (I'm a baaaad Catholic right now...my Bible is not on my desk here and I'm too lazy to get it at this moment.)  But it says something to the effect that there is God, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit, and "these three are one." I'll get it in the morning.  I'm very tired now, so I'm off to bed.

Be Safe and God Bless!



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: Mauri
Date Posted: 07 January 2007 at 7:36pm
This might be the verse that you have in mind, Patty.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Jo/1Jo005.html#7 -  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 07 January 2007 at 8:05pm

Mauri,

Hope you will be a good sport like Patty.

" http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Jo/1Jo005.html#7 -

The above verse by John is according to the late manuscripts of the vulgate. The original talks only of the spirit, the water and the blood.

So, who is the water and who is the blood, keeping in mind that the three testify? Blood and water are not the same.  Choose correctly!

Anyway, the above is not really the teaching of Jesus, it is from the Dear John letter and it is John's opinion.   



Posted By: Mauri
Date Posted: 07 January 2007 at 8:39pm
bmzsp,
I'm not interested in arguing about whose holy book is holier. 
And, it would be foolish of me to expect you to be corrected by a book which you do not accept as valid.   But, if you are willing to let your understanding be corrected by the Quran, I'm willing to engage in a discussion.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 08 January 2007 at 12:07am

Go ahead, Mauri

I am all ears. While at it, please tell me how did you come up with the theory that Qur'aan "teaches trinity".

 



Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 08 January 2007 at 4:33am
The closest thing I have found to the Trinity in Islam is the concept is the five pillars and the idea of deen.  Deen is supposedly inseparable, but Muslims have no problem deconstructing and analyzing it. Likewise, the five pillars of Islam are really not separate but it helps to understand them if you take them one by one.


-------------
David C.


Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 08 January 2007 at 8:33am

Hi BMZ....I'm baaaaack.  Here's another GOSPEL quote for you straight from the lips of our beloved Jesus:

Matthew 28:19  "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

and we also have this from the Gospel of Mark 1:6-11:

Mark 1:6-11 ESV
(6) Now John was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist and ate locusts and wild honey.
(7) And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.
(8) I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
(9) In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
(10) And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opening and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.
(11) And a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."

Back to you, BMZ!  Let er rip!



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 08 January 2007 at 10:52am

Patty,

 

You wrote:
I thought you {Servetus} had said you were now an agnostic....but perhaps that was wrong too.

 

No, I am not an agnostic.  On the contrary, I believe that one can know, absolutely.  But, while we’re momentarily focusing upon me, I am reminded of a story from my life.  Once, in the midst of what was probably an argument, my brilliant and at times very insightful if nevertheless legalistic and therefore preachy Christian girlfriend looked at me all askance and said, rather endearingly, “But Servie, the only other people I know who think like you are non-believers.”

 

This was my reaction:

 

Best regards,

 

Servie



Posted By: Mauri
Date Posted: 08 January 2007 at 11:05am
Ok, bmzsp.  Let's go slow and keep it short so that we can stay focused.
The Quran teaches that:
1. Allah is a spirit.
Do you agree?


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 08 January 2007 at 4:31pm

No, Mauri.

Qur'aan does not teach that Allah is a spirit. I do not agree. Qur'aan only teaches that Allah is God, the Lord Almighty.



Posted By: Mauri
Date Posted: 08 January 2007 at 5:13pm
"Qur'aan does not teach that Allah is a spirit. I do not agree. Qur'aan only teaches that Allah is God, the Lord Almighty."

Okay, we can break it down into smaller steps.
1. The Quran teaches that God is the creator.
Agree or disagree?



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 08 January 2007 at 6:29pm

Mauri,

From you: "1. The Quran teaches that God is the creator.
Agree or disagree?"

Yes, Qur'aan teaches that God Almighty is the Creator. Agreed.



Posted By: Mauri
Date Posted: 08 January 2007 at 6:52pm
Okay.
If Allah is the Creator, He existed before creation.....Agree?



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 08 January 2007 at 6:55pm
Originally posted by Patty

Hi BMZ....I'm baaaaack.  Here's another GOSPEL quote for you straight from the lips of our beloved Jesus:

Matthew 28:19  "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

and we also have this from the Gospel of Mark 1:6-11:

Mark 1:6-11 ESV
(6) Now John was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist and ate locusts and wild honey.
(7) And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.
(8) I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
(9) In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
(10) And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opening and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.
(11) And a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."

Back to you, BMZ!  Let er rip!

Patty, I have never handled two ladies at one time. Now Mauri is after me too but she is doing in short bites!  

Yes, John was not properly attiired and never ate proper food.  

A few questions arise here, Patty.

1. Why did the voice from heaven keep quiet for thirty years?

2. The "Son" was there for thirty years and the voice from the heaven never called him?

3. Was the voice from heaven waiting for the "Son" to be baptised and purified by John? There is a serious implication here as if Jesus were not pure for the last thirty years.

4. Was the voice not pleased with the son for the past thirty years?

5. As to the voice heard, the statement is neither that of Jesus nor that of John the Baptist. It is just reported. If a voice really called from the heavens, the entire people in the neighbourhood would have heard it. People would have fallen down in awe.

Let us look into this statement: "When he came out of water, immediately he saw the heavens opening and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. The he and him should be applicable to Jesus, for the sake of argument. But who saw that? Who testified? Was it John's testimony? Christian scholars say that it John's testimony, are you aware of this? Certainly not. No where-else Jesus narrated that himself to people. Just a report. Reasonable doubt, Patty.

Back to you, Patty.



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 08 January 2007 at 6:58pm

Mauri: "Okay. If Allah is the Creator, He existed before creation.....Agree?"

BMZ: Agreed



Posted By: Mauri
Date Posted: 08 January 2007 at 7:03pm
Allah is invisible but makes things visible (reveals).   Agree?

(Feel free to share what you believe the Quran says about Allah if you think it might serve to shorten this.)


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 08 January 2007 at 7:07pm

Patty

"Hi BMZ....I'm baaaaack.  Here's another GOSPEL quote for you straight from the lips of our beloved Jesus:

Matthew 28:19  "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"."

I forgot to add this in my earlier response, Patty:

If Matthew 28:19 were really and truly straight from the lips of Jesus, it would have read thus: "Therefore, go and make disicples of all nations, baptising them in the name of God the father, in my name or me and the holy Spirit."

See the problem here, Patty? Matthew 28:19 thus appears to be a narration by somebodyelse.

BR

BMZ

 

 



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 08 January 2007 at 7:09pm

 

"This was my reaction:  "

You are a riot, brother Serv!

Best Regards

BMZ



Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 08 January 2007 at 7:37pm

Helloooooo BMZ,

You asked:

"1. Why did the voice from heaven keep quiet for thirty years?"

I would never presume to know the mind of God.   But here are some scriptures and Gospel verses which may be of interest to you.  Please don't hurry....take your time.  I'll be waiting patiently for your next "serve"! 

ttp://www.scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html#j esus-I



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 08 January 2007 at 10:38pm

Originally posted by Mauri

Allah is invisible but makes things visible (reveals).   Agree?

(Feel free to share what you believe the Quran says about Allah if you think it might serve to shorten this.)

Perhaps this would move quicker if you would stop your game of 20 questions and define trinity and then reveal your proof by arguing that the Quran teaches it.

 

 



-------------
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 09 January 2007 at 12:07am
Originally posted by Andalus

Originally posted by Mauri

Allah is invisible but makes things visible (reveals).   Agree?

(Feel free to share what you believe the Quran says about Allah if you think it might serve to shorten this.)

Perhaps this would move quicker if you would stop your game of 20 questions and define trinity and then reveal your proof by arguing that the Quran teaches it.

Mauri,

I agree with Andalus. Perhaps you can move it quicker by putting 5 or 10 questions in a post.



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 09 January 2007 at 12:22am
Originally posted by Patty

Helloooooo BMZ,

You asked:

"1. Why did the voice from heaven keep quiet for thirty years?"

I would never presume to know the mind of God.   But here are some scriptures and Gospel verses which may be of interest to you.  Please don't hurry....take your time.  I'll be waiting patiently for your next "serve"! 

ttp://www.scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html#j esus-I

Patty, are you sure want you me to serve? Dissecting that link would unleash a smash volley.  It is really a pleasure to discuss with you.

And that "Helloooooo BMZ," was sweet and reveals the sweet person  in you. Thanks.

Cheers

BMZ



Posted By: Mauri
Date Posted: 09 January 2007 at 1:00am
I agree with Andalus. Perhaps you can move it quicker by putting 5 or 10 questions in a post.

The subsequent question hinges upon the answer to the preceding question.  For instance, when you could not see that the Quran teaches that God is a spirit, I could not continue along that line.  If we are to walk together, we must start off from the same point and resolve points of disagreement as they arise, before trying to continue.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 09 January 2007 at 3:18am

I. Old and New Testament Parallels of God the Father and God the Son

Patty, my comments are in blue:

Exodus 3:14 - God says "I AM who I AM" - John 8:58 - Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I AM" in reference to Himself.

God said that to Moses when he wanted to know God's name, so that if people asked him who sent him, Moses could have given the name. But God did not give Moses any name and instead said,"I am who I am" meaning "I am God and that is what matters here, so don't ask me my name." That is what "I am that I am" is all about. It is not a proper noun.

Regarding Jesus' comment,"Before Abraham was, I am", I must say that grammatically it does not convey that Jesus was saying,"Before Abraham, I was the I am that I was." In fact, if we read carefully, Jesus wanted to say something but the Jews did not let him complete his sentence and started stoning and Jesus ran and hid himself. Jesus wanted to say something about God.

Deut. 4:2; 12:32 - the Lord God commands that we not add or take away from His word - Rev. 22:18-19 - Jesus so commands us not to add or take away from His word.

It means people should not change or alter God's words and what Jesus said.

Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6 - the Lord kills and makes alive again and raises up - John 5:21 - the Son raises and gives life.

Have to disagree here. The Lord Almighty does but Jesus cannot. According to Christian scriptures, Jesus himself was "killed" but did not self-resurrect. Father did it. Here we can see that God's words were changed by John.

Deut. 32:39 - neither is there any that can deliver out of God's hand - John 10:28 - nor shall any pluck out of Jesus' hand.

John was famous for copying from the Jewish Holy Scriptures. 

Deut. 32:43 - rejoice, ye heavens, with Him, and let all the angels of God worship Him - Heb. 1:6 - the "Him" is Jesus the Son.

Deut. 32:43 This is about Moses singing about God's mercy to His people: "Sing aloud, O ye nations, of His people; For He doth avenge the blood of His servants, And doth render vengeance to His adversaries, And doth make expiation for the land of His people." Note there is no mention of angels. If I were to say that the Angels of God are supposed to worship Him, the Him would still refer to God.

2 Sam. 22:3 - God is the horn of salvation - Luke 1:68-69 - Jesus is the horn of salvation.

David said more than that. He said,"The God who is my rock, in Him I take refuge;My shield, and my horn of salvation, my high tower, and my refuge; My saviour, Thou savest me from violence." What Luke talks is also about David. 

Psalm 19:7 - the law of the Lord is perfect - Gal. 6:2 - fulfill the law of Christ.

Christ obeyed the Law of the Lord because the Law of the Lord was perfect. One is thus expected to fullfil the Law of the Lord Almighty. There were no Laws given by Jesus, rather they were explained.

Psalm 24:10 - the Lord is the King of glory - 1 Cor. 2:8 - Jesus is the Lord of glory.

Are we then supposed to say that Jesus is the King of the Lord Almighty?  The Lord in Psalm 24:10 refers to the Lord God Almighty.

Psalm 45:7 - Therefore God, your God, has anointed you. God calls someone else God. This someone else is His eternally begotten Son - Heb. 1:9 - Therefore God, your God, has anointed you. cf. Heb. 1:8, 10.

Patty, may I humbly and respectfully say that this is forgery. It should have been, Psalms 45:8"Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

God in above is not calling someone else a God at all. It is something like,"People! God, your God will save you." There is absolutely nothing in there about any son or a begotten son.

Psalm 62:12 - the Lord God renders to each according to his work - Matt. 16:27; Rev. 22:12 - Jesus so renders to each according to his work.

I will leave this as John mostly plagiarised Jewish Scriptures.  

Psalm 71:5 - the Lord God is our hope - 1 Tim. 1:1 - the Lord Jesus Christ who is our hope.

The first part confirms that the Lord God is everybody's hope. The second part sounds incomplete and incorrect. Perhaps Tim wanted to say,"the Lord Jesus Christ who is our hope, will try to help us!"

Psalm 89:27 – I will make him the first-born, the highest (“elyon” which refers to God) of the kings of the earth - John 18:36-27 – Jesus is this first-born king.

89:27 is talking about God's covenant with David.

Psalm 97:9 - the Lord God is above all - John 3:31 - Jesus is above all.

If I write, "the Lord God is above all and Muhammad is also above all." Does that make Muhammad the Lord God? It is all figurative language misinterpreted, Patty.

Psalms 110:1 - the Lord (Yahweh) said to my Lord - Jesus = Yhwh - Acts 2:34-36 - God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

 I can't take this, Patty. There is the interpretation of the meanings done within by claiming Yahweh=Jesus. Someone else is narratiing about the Lord God and his lord David. If you go to the ME, you will find people still address their boss as lord, which can also be written as Lord but that wouldn't make one God, the Lord.

God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ means Jesus was supposed to be the messiah, lording over people. That is to make sure that the people extended courtesy and respect to Jesus.

Psalm 148:1-2 - the angels worship the Lord God - Heb. 1:6 - the angels worship Jesus. Only God is worshiped.

Jesus did not write Hebrews.  Heroes have been worshipped also.

Prov. 3:12 - who the Lord loves He corrects - Rev. 3:19 - who Jesus loves He corrects.

John at work again.

Isaiah 7:14 - a virgin will bear a Son named Emmanuel which means "God is with us" - Matt. 1:23 - this Son is Jesus Christ, God in the flesh.

Jesus was never named Emmanuel. Had he been named Emmanuel, that would have been a different story.

Isaiah 9:6 - the child to be born shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

The child was to be called "Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom", which means "Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace.", not the child. Please see the Masoretic text, Patty and you will be shocked to see the difference between the Jewish Holy Scriptures and the Christian OT.  

Isaiah 25:8 - God swallows up death in victory - 2 Tim. 1:10 - Jesus abolishes death and brings life and immortality.

Jesus, according to Christian scripture could not swallow death, death overtook him. Fortunately the father "resurrected' him. (Not my belief though).

Isaiah 40:8 - the Word of God shall stand forever - Matt. 24:35 - the Words of Jesus shall not pass away.

Think hard, here. Why Matthew did not write "The words of Jesus shall stand forever." The words of good and great people never pass away.  

Isaiah 42:8 - God gives His glory to no other - John 17:5; Heb. 1:3 - yet Jesus has the same glory as the Father.

That remark in Isaiah is a huge testimony from God Himself that in all integrity God does not give His glory to another. Jesus, thus cannot have that glory.

Isaiah 43:14 - the Lord God is redeemer - Titus 2:14 - Jesus is the redeemer.

Moses redeemed his people. Muhammad redeemed his people. But God is the Ultimate redeemer.

Isaiah 44:6 - the Lord God is the first and the last - Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13 - Jesus is the first and the last.

I have to say something else here. In Semitic languages, the term "The First and the Last" simply means "Forever". It does not mean that God would be the last to go or Jesus will be the last to go. John, as usual in his plagiarism used the term and applied to Jesus by saying he was "The Alpha and the Omega". Means his name will remain there forever like the names of all patriarchs and Muhammad.

Isaiah 45:19 - I, the Lord God, did not speak in secret - John 18:20 - Jesus said "I have said nothing secretly."

Patty, I can only . Are you with me on this?

Isaiah 45:23 - to God, every knee shall bow and every tongue swear. Phil. 2:10-11 - at Jesus' name every knee should bow and tongue confess.

It was wrongfully applied to Jesus. God's statement is so well-qualified that it should not have been used for Jesus.

Isaiah 48:17 - God is the Holy One - Acts 3:14 - Jesus is the Holy One.

There were many Holy Ones in Israel.

Isaiah 60:19 - God is everlasting light - Revelation 21:23 - Jesus the Lamb is eternal light.

John at work again.

Jer. 17:10 - the Lord searches the hearts and repays us according to our deeds - Rev. 2:23 - Jesus searches the hearts and repays us according to our deeds.

John again at work. Copycat!

Ezek. 1:26-28; Daniel 7:9 - God's glorious appearance - Rev. 1:13-16 - Jesus' glorious appearance.

Comment, same as in above.

Ezek. 34:11-31 - God the Father is the shepherd of the flock - John 10:7-29 - Jesus is the shepherd of the flock.

Comment, same as in above.

Ezek. 34:16 - God seeks to save that which was lost - Luke 19:10 - Jesus seeks to save that which was lost.

Jesus saved a "son" of Abraham, a corrupt chief tax collector, made him realise that the wealth was collected wrongfully and saved by making him spend the money on the poor.

Ezek. 34:17 - God judges between cattle, rams and goats - Matt. 25:32 - Jesus judges and separates the goats from the sheep.

I am so tired. No comment.

Ezek. 43:2 - God's voice was like a noise of many waters - Rev. 1:15 - Jesus' voice was like the sound of many waters.

The usual from John.

Dan. 2:47 - the Lord is the God of gods and the Lord of Lords - Rev. 17:14 - Jesus the Lamb is the Lord of Lords.

At least here, John did not declare him the God.

So, see Patty, we find too much plagiarism of the ancient Hebrew and Jewish Scriptures and notice that all verses written for Jesus, were taken out of context and their meanings.

When I have more time, I will comment on other headings in the link that you provided. Hope you enjoyed this.  I have put in alot of effort for you.  

Best Regards

BMZ

PS to Serv: Are you reading this, bro? Need your invaluable exegesis on my valuable exegesis!



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 09 January 2007 at 3:27am

Mauri,

"The subsequent question hinges upon the answer to the preceding question.  For instance, when you could not see that the Quran teaches that God is a spirit, I could not continue along that line.  If we are to walk together, we must start off from the same point and resolve points of disagreement as they arise, before trying to continue."

You have God there to begin with, please start from God. Vision comprehends Him not. Thus, we cannot assume whether Good looks like a man or a spirit or light or somethingelse. God is the Creator of spirits and souls and everythingelse.

Please proceed.  



Posted By: Mauri
Date Posted: 09 January 2007 at 5:02am
I had said:  Allah is invisible but makes things visible (reveals).   Agree?

You reply:
You have God there to begin with, please start from God. Vision comprehends Him not. Thus, we cannot assume whether Good looks like a man or a spirit or light or somethingelse. God is the Creator of spirits and souls and everythingelse.

I take that to mean that you agree that God is invisible. 
Yes, God is the Creator of spirits and souls.
1.  What does that mean?
2.  How does He do it?  (Genesis records two steps).



Posted By: peacemaker
Date Posted: 09 January 2007 at 5:44am

Originally posted by DavidC

The closest thing I have found to the Trinity in Islam is the concept is the five pillars and the idea of deen.  Deen is supposedly inseparable, but Muslims have no problem deconstructing and analyzing it. Likewise, the five pillars of Islam are really not separate but it helps to understand them if you take them one by one.

DavidC, it is inappropriate to misrepresent Islam by coining terms such as Trinity in Islam. There is no such thing. Therefore, your comparison is irrelevant.

112.001
YUSUFALI: Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
PICKTHAL: Say: He is Allah, the One!
SHAKIR: Say: He, Allah, is One.

112.002
YUSUFALI: Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
PICKTHAL: Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
SHAKIR: Allah is He on Whom all depend.

112.003
YUSUFALI: He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
PICKTHAL: He begetteth not nor was begotten.
SHAKIR: He begets not, nor is He begotten.

112.004
YUSUFALI: And there is none like unto Him.
PICKTHAL: And there is none comparable unto Him.
SHAKIR: And none is like Him.



-------------
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Qur'an 55:13


Posted By: Mauri
Date Posted: 09 January 2007 at 6:41am
DavidC wrote:
The closest thing I have found to the Trinity in Islam is the concept is the five pillars and the idea of deen.  Deen is supposedly inseparable, but Muslims have no problem deconstructing and analyzing it. Likewise, the five pillars of Islam are really not separate but it helps to understand them if you take them one by one.

DavidC, it is inappropriate to misrepresent Islam by coining terms such as Trinity in Islam. There is no such thing. Therefore, your comparison is irrelevant.

DavidC has exhibited some understanding of the trinity, thus allowing him to see the relativity that is not yet apparent to you and thus compels you to condemn it as inappropriate.  He might well respond that it is inappropriate for you to misrepresent Islam by confining it to the boundaries of your own mind; therefore, your remarks are irrelevant to a discussion beyond the scope of your understanding.

Your quotes do not refute what he said, but rather confirm a portion.  He said the five pillars are inseparable (one), but in order to understand them, it helps to see them part by part.




Print Page | Close Window