42 comments

• Oliver Elphick

  January 23, 2012 8:20 pm

  

  “…AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea. It is the first council which explicitly stated the imperative belief in the divinity of Jesus and the trinity.”

  The implication of this sentence is that the Council invented the doctrine. This is not the case. The doctrine originates from the earliest apostolic times, but was progressively more and more attacked from various points, so that it was necessary to hold a council to set down exactly what the scriptures say about the nature of God and thus be able to recognise the various heretical views.

  What Christians believe:

  The six points are good so far as they go. However we must add:

  The new revelation of the church as a union of Jews and Gentiles, lasting until it is removed bodily from the earth;
  The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in each member of the church to make it possible for us to do works that please God;
  The return of Christ to remove his bride, the church; to judge the earth; to restore the Jewish nation and give them the new covenant; and to rule the earth from Jerusalem.

  The Divinity of Jesus

  The author sets up his own criteria for what he wants to believe, rather than submitting to the scripture. If God does not jump through his hoops, he refuses to believe what God says.

  God had progressively revealed things about his nature from the very beginning of scripture. The doctrine of the trinity is derived from the synthesis of all that the bible says. God has not chosen to declare every truth by explicit statements; neither has he told us why. Nevertheless, the sum total of all that he says leads inevitably to the doctrine of the trinity.

  We can speculate about the reasons for such a veiled revelation (but these are only speculations):

  1. God reveals himself to those who want to follow him and conceals himself from others;
  2. Jesus did not come to glorify himself but to be a servant. To make an explicit assertion of his divinity would make it very difficult to do the work for which he came.

  Jesus claimed inferiority to the Creator

  Jesus IS the creator. He is the Word of God. God spoke and the world was created and formed. Each person of the trinity was fully involved in the creation. Jesus also maintains the creation from moment to moment.

  Jesus deferred to the Father. He is the eternal Son of God and his relationship to the Father is as an ideal human son to his ideal father. The son honours and defers to his father. Thus the Father is greater than the Son, but this does not detract from the divinity of the Son. Similarly the Holy Spirit is sent by both Father and Son and seeks only to honour the Son; yet he is also fully God.

  Claims about Buddha etc are different in one essential factor: Jesus was born in history at a known time, of a known family and we have the witness of people who lived with him and spoke to him face to face and their record was made within 30 years of his death and resurrection, when the eye-witnesses were still alive. Jesus also demonstrated the power of God in a way that no historical character ever has. He is in no way to be compared to mythological characters, the accounts of whom are very different from the bible.

  “…this notion stems from the idea that out of humility and love, the Almighty God decided to take human form to feel and experience what humans go through…
  We ask why would God need to be a human in order to understand us? Does God really require becoming what He created to understand every aspect?”

  That is not the reason at all. Jesus became incarnate as a man, because only a man could be qualified as the kinsman-redeemer for the human race, and only God could be sinless so as to be able to bear the sins of others.

  The writer dislikes the humility of God. He is offended by the idea of God taking on a body with its necessary bodily functions. His attitude derives from Greek ideas of the purity of spirit and the crudeness of matter. It is not a biblical idea. God created the heaven and the earth and everything in them, and it was all very good until it was cursed because of sin. As to Jesus’ being spat on etc, this was prophesied 800 years before, by Isaiah. God’s ideas are not the same as the writer’s, which are based on pride, which God hates.

  The assertion that other mythological figures shared attributes of Jesus:

  I don’t actually believe the majority of these.

  Dionysos: not virgin-born — in the myth, son of the god Zeus and a human woman, Semele, by sexual intercourse. Not called “King of kings”, “god’s only begotten son”, “alpha and omega”. Sort of resurrected: he was mostly eaten by the Titans, except for his heart which Zeus used to recreate him in his thigh.

  Krishna: eighth son of the princess Devaki and her husband Vasudeva. The Baghavata Purana claims he was born without sexual union, but its current form dates back only to 900 AD, so this almost certainly derives from the story of Jesus’ birth. No mention of any star, except possibly for astrological calculations. Not resurrected.

  Attis – no date for his birth; his conception was by bizarre means. Not crucified. Not resurrected; the myth says his body was not allowed to decay.

  Given the level of inaccuracy in the first three, I am not going to bother with the rest. In general, any real similarities between Christianity and pagan myths come by transmission from the scriptural accounts rather than the other way around.

  That will do for now; time for bed.
• Oliver Elphick

  January 24, 2012 3:13 am

  

  Although we certainly cannot understand everything, we can deduce certain things about the manner in which the Son of God became incarnate.

  First, he became fully human, not in any way different from any other man, except that he did not have our inbuilt tendency to sin. The fact that he did not have an earthly father meant that he did not inherit that from Adam. “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22) “He was tempted in all ways as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)

  Second, he received the Holy Spirit at his baptism to remain with him. ‘John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”’ (John 1:32-34)

  Third, when he came into the world, he emptied himself: “though he was in the form of God, [he] did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” (Phil 2:6-7)

  So we see that Jesus is perfect man, he receives permanently the Holy Spirit, whose task is to empower those on whom he comes, and that he did not hang on to his equality with God when he came into the world. Therefore Jesus makes himself less than God while he is in the world, as scripture says, “You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honour, putting everything in subjection under his feet.” (Hebrews 2:7-8)

  We can conclude, then, that Jesus was indeed less than God while he was in the world, by his own willing decision, in order that he could be fully man. As such, he temporarily gave up his own divine power and knowledge, but instead depended entirely on the Holy Spirit to be God in him. Therefore he knew what the Father revealed to him by the Holy Spirit and he did not know things that the Father did not so reveal. He could do things that the Spirit enabled him to do and not things that the Spirit did not enable. In that way he is entirely like us Christians, in whom the Holy Spirit now dwells, except that he never had any sin and so his walk in the Spirit was perfect and unhindered by the sin that we still cling on to.

  So we are now able to answer the first point, “The Judgement Day”. Jesus did not know the date of his second coming, because the Father had not revealed it to him. He did not know it of his own divine power because he had given that power up in order to fulfil his work of salvation.

  The same reasoning deals also with the second point, that Jesus said, “I can of mine own self do nothing”. That is entirely consistent with the manner in which he had emptied himself. Beyond that, however, it is, I believe, eternally true. The unity of God is such that neither Son nor Holy Spirit would do anything out of unity with the Father; to act of their own will contrary to his would be inconceivable; therefore it must eternally be true that the Son does nothing but what he sees the Father doing. Since the relationship is of Son to Father, the reverse would not be the case — the Father would not do what he saw the Son doing.

  “An unreliable God”

  Quoting Jesus, “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid”.

  Jesus is not at all saying he is capable of saying what is untrue or mistaken. He is referring to the principle of the law that “by the testimony of two or three witnesses shall everything be established.” (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15) This law was given for trying cases of capital crimes, but was extended to be a more general principle. Thus, a person’s saying something on his own authority alone would not be regarded as valid testimony.
• Oliver Elphick

  January 24, 2012 3:52 pm

  

  “So how many Gods are there?”

  My previous comment is still relevant here, so this should be read in conjunction with that comment.

  “Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord”

  Absolutely. There is no problem here. This quotes Deuteronomy 6:5. The word for “one” is “echad”, which is also used for “the LORD said, Behold, the people is one” in Genesis 11:6. The Lord is not saying there is only one person; he is saying the people are united so that they are acting as one. In the same way, but more so, God is one even though he is also three persons. There is a different Hebrew word, “yachad” (I think), which means “single”. That is the word that the scripture would have used if your interpretation were correct.

  ‘“Jesus said to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brothers, and say to them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”
  Apparently, according to both these verses, Jesus has a God. How is that so?’

  Because Jesus became a man and he was exemplifying perfect manhood; in becoming a man he emptied himself of his divine power, as shown in the previous comment. Therefore it is entirely appropriate for Jesus to refer to God as his God. Whether he would still refer to God as such now when he is seated at God’s right hand on his throne, the bible does not tell us.

  You quote certain commentators. Matthew Henry’s commentary contains the following:
  “The summary of the new covenant is that God will be to us a God; and therefore Christ being the surety and head of the covenant, who is primarily dealt with, and believers only through him as his spiritual seed, this covenant-relation fastens first upon him, God becomes his God, and so ours; we partaking of a divine nature, Christ’s Father is our Father; and, he partaking of the human nature, our God is his God.”

  ‘According to Gill, Jesus is not a “created” son as par rapport to his Father yet the Bible mentions Jesus as God firstborn—in other words, a created being.’

  No, that is not the significance of ‘firstborn’ here. In relation to God, Jesus has the rights of the firstborn. It is not saying that he had a physical birth (or even a spiritual one); it is saying that he is pre-eminent.

  ‘Finally, Jesus is described and believed to be “Begotten”, a word which literary refers to the sexual mean of reproduction. ‘

  (I think your “literary” should be “literally”.)

  “Only-begotten” is an unfortunate translation of the Greek μονογενης. It would be better translated as “one-of-a-kind” or “unique”. There is absolutely no idea here of any sexual relations involving God, such as is found in pagan religions.
• Oliver Elphick

  January 24, 2012 4:23 pm

  

  4) Mark 15:34

  “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

  The writer’s treatment of this passage is bizarre and really illustrates the blindness of Muslims as they misread the scripture.

  The writer knows that this is a quote of Psalm 22. This psalm is quite evidently a prophecy of the crucifixion; it describes the physical effects of this dreadful means of execution at least 700 years before it was invented, and it prophesies (1000 years in advance) how the soldiers divided Jesus’ garments among them and cast lots for his clothing. The physical difficulty of reciting the entire psalm on the cross would have been too great, but Jesus quoted the first verse and thus applied the whole psalm to himself. To quote the first line of a passage is to invoke all of it.

  There is a great deal here. This was the only time ever that Jesus did not address God as “Father”. That was because he was bearing the sins of the world and was therefore cut off from God; his eternal relationship with the Father had ended as soon as he was made sin. This was demonstrated to the whole world by the sun’s light’s being cut off, to show that its creator, the Light of the world, had been put out.

  The quotation of this psalm also demonstrates Jesus’ continuing faith in God, even while he was cut off from him:

  22 I will tell of your name to my brothers;
  in the midst of the congregation I will praise you:
  23 You who fear the LORD, praise him!
  All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him,
  and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel!
  24 For he has not despised or abhorred
  the affliction of the afflicted,
  and he has not hidden his face from him,
  but has heard, when he cried to him.
  25 From you comes my praise in the great congregation;
  my vows I will perform before those who fear him.
  26 The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied;
  those who seek him shall praise the LORD!
  May your hearts live forever!
  27 All the ends of the earth shall remember
  and turn to the LORD,
  and all the families of the nations
  shall worship before you.
  28 For kingship belongs to the LORD,
  and he rules over the nations.
  29 All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship;
  before him shall bow all who go down to the dust,
  even the one who could not keep himself alive.
  30 Posterity shall serve him;
  it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation;
  31 they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn,
  that he has done it.

  The author of this article ties himself in knots because of the way he misunderstands the Trinity. There is no confusion of persons in God. Jesus addresses the Father, not himself! As a man he presents his trouble to God, just as we should.

  There are some other misrepresentations of the scripture in the article here:

  ‘Jesus was nailed to the cross, where according to the Gospel of Mark; he was silent—unknowing what was happening to him—in a complete state of Shock!’

  The last part of the sentence, after “silent”, is pure invention. In fact, Jesus said some other things, that are recorded in other gospels. Mark simply does not mention them, but goes straight on to the quote of Psalm 22.

  Jesus is not “blaming” God, at least in the sense that this writer means. The whole psalm is one of faith in the midst of great trouble.

  The writer claims that the words of David cannot be applied to Jesus. In fact it is common for the OT prophets to switch between their own words and the direct words of God. Furthermore as the greater son of David, it is singularly appropriate for Jesus to have taken David’s words to himself.

  ‘To sum up: Difficulty arouse not only with the idea of a suicidal God—we have a biblical God that is not aware of what is going on, talking with himself and strikingly blaming himself why he killed himself—Fantastic.’

  Indeed it is fantastic that someone could be so blind and so misunderstand what he is reading.
• Oliver Elphick

  January 24, 2012 4:59 pm

  

  ‘I) Mark, Matthew and Luke flat out contradict what James tells us in his epistle. As a matter of fact, according to James (1:13) “God cannot be tempted and nor does he tempt with evil”. A simple straightforward contradiction.’

  Again, Jesus is operating as a man, not as God. This is part of his emptying himself in order to fulfil his work on earth. As a man he had desires and physical needs which, in us, because of our sinful nature, are a basis for the suggestion of evil.

  ‘II) As already mentioned, Jesus fasted for 40 days. Quite interestingly, after that period, it is said that he became “Hungry”. Can anyone imagine a hungry God?’

  No, but yet again the writer fails to understand the nature of the incarnation. Jesus came to earth as a man, emptying himself of his divine power and glory. As a man, Jesus became hungry, thirsty and tired. He had a physical body and a physical body has needs. So having not eaten for 40 days, he indeed became hungry.

  ‘III) We read that Jesus was one time taken to top of the mountain and another to the high mountain—I honestly ask: Is Jesus a sack of potato that Satan throws from one place to another? Wake up Christians!!! This is the Almighty we are talking about.’

  Satan, of course, can never do anything that God does not permit him to do. The spiritual has power over the physical, so Satan has the power to move matter about, including people’s bodies, provided that God allows him to, which he normally does not. Yet again, the author of this article fails to understand what Jesus’ emptying himself means. Although he is God, he did not come to earth in the form of God but as a man.

  ‘IV) How could Satan have any effect on God, Almighty? How can he have power over His creator? And telling God to worship him?’

  Of course he has and had no power, but Jesus needed to demonstrate that. As Hebrews says, “He learned obedience by the things he suffered”, not meaning that he was previously disobedient, but that obedience only becomes an issue when there is something difficult to obey.

  As for Satan’s wanting Jesus to worship him, that is what Satan always wants. That is the source of his original rebellion:

  12 “How you are fallen from heaven,
  O Day Star, son of Dawn!
  How you are cut down to the ground,
  you who laid the nations low!
  13 You said in your heart,
  ‘I will ascend to heaven;
  above the stars of God
  I will set my throne on high;
  I will sit on the mount of assembly
  in the far reaches of the north;
  14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
  I will make myself like the Most High.’
  15 But you are brought down to Sheol,
  to the far reaches of the pit.
  (Isaiah 14)

  Most men do serve satan, because they reject God’s salvation which comes only through Jesus. Only by repenting and putting your faith in Jesus can you remove yourself from Satan’s dominion.

  Jesus rejected Satan’s offer and demand. He will indeed receive all the kingdoms of the world, but from the Father, not from Satan, and the way to his glory lay through the cross.

  ‘V) The book of Hebrews tells us that Jesus was tempted “in every way just as we are” (Hebrews 4:15). Now this is one bizarre terrible statement. Every way? Are we to believe that God thought of raping a woman? Throwing an old woman from a cliff? Or maybe dancing naked?’

  The basic meaning of “tempt” is to test. The writer confuses his own experience with that of Jesus. When we are offered these temptations, all too often we grab at them, at least in our minds. The experience of lust is mental. But Jesus never entertained these temptations. When they were offered to him, he never allowed them any hold on him; they remained entirely outside himself. Thus he passed the test and demonstrated his complete purity and holiness.

  The writer again fails to understand that Jesus was operating as a perfect man, not as God.

  ‘…do Christians, each time they face a difficulty, immediately shout: HUMAN PART!’

  Perhaps we should, because in fact we have the Holy Spirit of God living in us and every moment we have the choice of walking with him or of walking in our old nature, which we might indeed call our “human part”; the bible calls it the flesh. Unlike everyone else, we have a real choice not to sin and the means of exercising that choice rightly is to walk entirely with God, as Jesus did.

  ‘…still it means that GOD WAS TEMPTED!According to the basic Christian belief, both the human and divine nature is both God.’

  I don’t think I would put it that way, and doing so is leading you to a false conclusion. Rather, Jesus is fully God and also fully man. He is God, but his human nature regarded separately is not God. Now, seated on his Father’s throne, he is still man as well as God; but on earth he had emptied himself of divine power, so it was not as God that he was being tempted.

  Finally, the only possible source of information for these gospel accounts was Jesus himself. He was alone when he was tempted by the devil; only he could have told the disciples about them.
• Oliver Elphick

  January 24, 2012 5:27 pm

  

  ‘Good or not?

  6) Luke 18:19; Matthew 19:16-17 and Mark 10:17-18’

  ‘this young rich ruler approached Jesus by referring to him by the words: “Oh good teacher”. Jesus then asks him: Why are you calling me good? Only God is good! In other words, Jesus refused to be set on the same level of the Almighty—to be even put in a comparison. So how could God be not good but still good? He is not good but yet only he is good? A World of contradictions.’

  Jesus is not saying he is not God. He was pointing out the contradiction in this man’s address. He called Jesus “good teacher”, but if Jesus was only a teacher, he should not have called him good, and if he was truly calling him good, he should not have described him as only a teacher. Jesus is indeed God, but this man had not recognised it, and his words did not truly reflect who Jesus was and is.

  The text in Matthew is one of the rare passages where the manuscripts are very confused. Not every manuscript has the text as you quoted it; there are at least six variants. The Textus Receptus has a version that agrees with Mark and Luke. The Matthew version you quote might well have been altered by someone with gnostic leanings, because it reflects the kind of pagan philosophical discussions that were in vogue in some gnostic quarters, and that text actually makes little sense, as the writer realises: what Jesus says does not follow at all from what the man said to him. Most likely the variants arise form attempts to reconcile the discrepancy in different ways. So in this case I think that the TR reading is more likely and we should read with the KJV: ‘And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’
• Oliver Elphick

  January 24, 2012 5:40 pm

  

  ‘Jesus, a prophet?’

  The writer, wanting to attack Jesus’ divine nature, wants to call him only a prophet, so he cites certain passages where Jesus is referred to as a prophet, or even refers to himself as a prophet.

  Certainly Jesus was a prophet. However, he was much more than that.

  Jesus spoke of John the Baptist, whom God had sent before Jesus to prepare the way for him,

  “Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written,
  ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
  who will prepare your way before you.’”

  So the one who came to announce Jesus is more than a prophet; what then must the one he came to announce be?

  And John himself said of Jesus, “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” (Matthew 3:11-12)

  So clearly Jesus is much more than an ordinary prophet.

  Then again, Jesus asked his disciples about what people said of him:

  ‘Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.’ (Matthew 16:13-17)

  What is a prophet? A prophet is someone who speaks to people the words of God.

  So when the writer says, “If Jesus was God, how would he be a Prophet? A prophet to whom? To himself?”, he is yet again showing his confusion of thought. Jesus is sent from God and he speaks to men the words of God; that is in no way inconsistent with his being God who has become man for our sake.
• Oliver Elphick

  January 24, 2012 5:53 pm

  

  ‘Circumsized, ate and evidently went to W.C?
  8) Luke 2:21

  “And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.”
  Is anyone not familiar with the meaning of the word “circumcised”? Just in case, circumcision simply means:
  “Male circumcision is the surgical removal of some or the entire foreskin (prepuce) from the penis.”
  Seriously, I am even ashamed of myself by saying this. How could anyone attribute such a thing to the Almighty God? He had the dirty part of his genitals cut? Dirty and this part? Unfortunately, Christians do not realize the extent of blasphemy they are uttering by believing that God was a man, a fully human being.’

  Here the writer is once again showing his contamination by Greek ideas that are quite foreign to the bible. There is nothing dirty or unfitting about the physical world that God has made, nor about any of our bodily parts. We have a sense of shame about some parts of our body, which is the result of Adam’s sin, but they are not dirty or evil in themselves.

  The sign of the covenant of God with Abraham was circumcision, the removal of the foreskin. This was done at eight days old (when, incidentally, the circumstances of the baby’s health and development are the best suited to undergoing this operation). Any boy not circumcised was not part of the people of Israel, therefore it was certainly essential for the Messianic King of Israel to be circumcised and thus be in the covenant.

  In speaking disparagingly of the necessity of eating and subsequent evacuation, again the writer betrays his distorted thinking. Even after his resurrection, Jesus always ate, whenever he appeared, to demonstrate the physical reality of his resurrected body. The future that God has for his redeemed is the new earth under the new heavens. We are indubitably physical beings and we will still be physical when we are with Christ in his kingdom, and he is and will be physical too, because he is fully man as well as fully God.

  In becoming a man, the Son of God necessarily took on all the functions of a physical body, because man is a body.
• Oliver Elphick

  January 24, 2012 6:40 pm

  

  God changed his mind?
  9) Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42

  ‘“Father, if you are willing, please take this cup of suffering away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine.”

  ‘According to the Christian teachings, specifically the Original Sin, no matter what a person does, no matter how much he prays, fasts, does good deeds—he is doomed to eternal Hell. What was the solution according to Christianity? God had to take human form—Jesus, to be crucified and ultimately to take all the sins of the world with him by dying. That may seem a bit weird but according to this faith—God did it according to his very own will. That was the only solution after all.’

  The writer has got this mostly right. Heaven is being with God; hell is being separated from God, along with punishment for rejecting him, if being permanently separated from him is not sufficient punishment.

  Men are born separated from God. Everyone can testify to this from his own experience. None of us know God by nature. Furthermore, everyone of us has an inbuilt tendency to do evil, and everyone of us has already begun to do evil even as babies. What child does not, at least sometimes, defy or compain at his parents? That is sin.

  God is holy. Holiness means separation from sin. His holiness is terrifying and unbearable for sinful men. We cannot approach him; in the Old Testament, men knew that they could not see God face to face and live. He will not tolerate any sin at all, and all of us are filled with sin and in fact men without God are quite unable to keep from sinning; the very fact of their being alienated from God IS sin.

  God is perfectly just, and justice demands that sin be punished. If God did not punish sin, he would be unjust, and no longer perfect. Yet God is also love and he is merciful and he has provided a way for his justice to be satisfied as well as his mercy. To reject the way he has provided for us is to pile sin on sin. So claiming any merit in (inadequate) good deeds, fasting, repeated prayers, and so on, is merely to throw God’s mercy back in his face and insist on our own righteousness rather than God’s.

  To provide that way of salvation, Jesus became a man and took our sins on himself on the cross. In doing so, he was made sin for us:

  “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

  The result of that was that Jesus became sin and therefore became someone whom the Father would not look on. The sun itself was put out for three hours while Jesus was bearing our sins, and Jesus was separated from God for the only time in all eternity. This was the horror that he faced in the garden of Gethsemane, something so terrible that his sweat was like great drops of blood, demonstrating the terrible mental pressure he was under.

  ‘Ironically, Luke 22:42 tells us another thing. Here we notice Jesus praying to God, Almighty (himself?) not to die by taking away this “Cup of suffering”. In Luke, he simply asks once while in Mark, he insists three times!!!Now, doesn’t that K.O all the Christian faith apart? If God, Almighty willingly decided to go on a suicide mission—considering that it was the only solution plausible—Why did he suddenly change his mind?’

  Let us again remind ourselves of the manner in which Jesus came to earth. He emptied himself of his divine power and glory and lived as a perfect man, not as God. What he knew of the future was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit; he did not know it of his own power, because he had given that power up for the time he was on earth. Now, it is the nature of men that we cannot hold everything in our minds at once. Jesus knew, in theory as we might put it, that he was going to Jerusalem to be put to death on the cross and thus to bear the sins of the world. The Holy Spirit had revealed this to him as he studied the scriptures from boyhood. But now he had arrived at the night when it was actually going to happen. Now he was contemplating his imminent separation from God and the dreadful pollution of sin, which he had never known. This, not mere death, was the horror that filled his mind and drove him to agonised prayer. If there was any possible way that he should not have to do this, he wanted to take it; but there was indeed no such way and this time of prayer confirmed that to him and made him ready to go on the final road to the cross.

  ‘We again here face a terrible nonsense. We note that:
  -Jesus is talking with himself.
  -Praying to himself.
  -Asking himself to spare him from the mission.’

  Yet again this writer shows his misunderstnding of what the doctrine of the Trinity means.

  ‘God does not change

  “But you remain the same, and your years will never end.”’

  Very true. God has been one God in three persons for eternity past and will be so for ever. The very first verse of the bible witnesses this plurality in unity:

  “In the beginning God [elohim – plural] created [bara – singular] the heavens and the earth…And God said, ‘Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness…So God created man in HIS own image, in the image of God HE created him; male and female HE created them.” (Genesis 1:1,26-27)

  From the Athanasian Creed:

  …
  We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
  Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance,
  For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit.
  But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
  Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit.
  The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
  The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
  The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
  And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
  As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

  So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty;
  And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

  So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
  And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

  So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
  And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord.

  For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say: There are three Gods or three Lords.

  The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
  The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
  The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

  So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

  And in this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater, or less than another.
  But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal.
  So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
  …
  the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
  God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world.
  Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
  Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
  Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
  One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.
  One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
  For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
  …
• Alex Haddad

  January 29, 2012 5:41 pm

  

  Oliver Elphick,

  //The implication of this sentence is that the Council invented the doctrine. This is not the case. The doctrine originates from the earliest apostolic times, but was progressively more and more attacked from various points, so that it was necessary to hold a council to set down exactly what the scriptures say about the nature of God and thus be able to recognise the various heretical views.//

  -I did not say that the council invented the doctrine neither did I imply it.
  -The message conveyed out of my sentence is clear: The imperative belief of Jesus was not stated until that council.
  -Actually, the first occurrence of the word “Trinity” was introduced by Tertullian:

  “It was Tertullian (c.160-230) who first coined the term trinitas from which the English word ‘trinity’ is derived. Tertullian did not consider the Father and Son co-eternal: “There was a time when there was neither sin to make God a judge, nor a son to make God a Father” (qtd. in Lonergan 48).”

  -In fact, Tertullian did not consider them equal:

  “For the Father is the whole substance, whereas the Son is something derived from it” (qtd. in Lonergan 48).

  -It is quite fascinating to note that in Tertullian we find a groundwork upon which a trinity concept can be founded, but it has not yet evolved into that trinity of the Nicene Creed.

  -Did the doctrine originates from the earliest apostolic times—of course not.

  “There is no evidence the Apostles of Jesus ever heard of a trinity”
  [H. G. Wells, Outline of History, 1920 Edition, p 499].

  “At first the Christian Faith was not trinitarian. It was not so in the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic ages, as reflected in the New Testament and of the early Christian writings.”
  [Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics]

  “The word trinity is not found in the Bible” [The Illustrated Bible Dictionary].

  -Not only the trinity is not found in the New Testament—it is missing from the Old Testament as well:
  ‎
  “The doctrine of the holy trinity is not taught in the Old Testament [New Catholic Encyclopedia].”
  “It is a good thing to examine the revelation that God made to the Jewish people in the Old Testament. We shall not find in it a lesson on the trinity–there is none
  [Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism, Vol. 20, What Is The Trinity, Bernard Piault].

  “Neither the word trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament”
  [The New Encyclopedia Britannica].”

  -Oliver Elphick said: “So that it was necessary to hold a council to set down exactly what the scriptures say about the nature of God and thus be able to recognise the various heretical views.”—so it took them more than 300 years to know what the scriptures says about the nature of God and ironically at a time when the canon was not yet set in its final form—the one that we have today that encompasses all the 27 books that we have today. In fact, it was not until the year 367, during the reign of the powerful bishop of Alexandria Athanasius that the present canon of scriptures was set (even after that still disputes occurred—this is why many councils occurred such as the synod of Carthage).

  // What Christians believe:
  The six points are good so far as they go. However we must add:The new revelation of the church as a union of Jews and Gentiles, lasting until it is removed bodily from the earth;
  The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in each member of the church to make it possible for us to do works that please God;
  The return of Christ to remove his bride, the church; to judge the earth; to restore the Jewish nation and give them the new covenant; and to rule the earth from Jerusalem.//

  -These are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

  // God had progressively revealed things about his nature from the very beginning of scripture. The doctrine of the trinity is derived from the synthesis of all that the bible says. God has not chosen to declare every truth by explicit statements; neither has he told us why. Nevertheless, the sum total of all that he says leads inevitably to the doctrine of the trinity.//

  -This is absolutely flawed.
  -In fact, the doctrine of the trinity is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament:

  “The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a triune God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a trinity within the Godhead. Even to see in the Old Testament, suggestions or fore-shadowings or veiled signs of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers. The New Testament writers give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead [The Triune God, by Edmund Fortman, Jesuit].

  “It is a good thing to examine the revelation that God made to the Jewish people in the Old Testament. We shall not find in it a lesson on the trinity–there is none
  [Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism, Vol. 20, What Is The Trinity, Bernard Piault].”

  “The doctrine of the holy trinity is not taught in the Old Testament [New Catholic Encyclopedia].”

  // We can speculate about the reasons for such a veiled revelation (but these are only speculations):
  1. God reveals himself to those who want to follow him and conceals himself from others;
  2. Jesus did not come to glorify himself but to be a servant. To make an explicit assertion of his divinity would make it very difficult to do the work for which he came.//

  -Or the reasons may simply be:

  1-There is no Trinity in the Old Testament.
  2- God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).
  3- Jesus teaching the trinity is not glorifying himself—rather would be stating the obvious fact.

  // Jesus claimed inferiority to the Creator
  Jesus IS the creator. He is the Word of God. God spoke and the world was created and formed. Each person of the trinity was fully involved in the creation. Jesus also maintains the creation from moment to moment.//

  -Jesus is a messenger and slave of God.
  -Jesus could not do anything by himself (John 5:30)—definitely not to create.

  -Jesus is not equal to God—he assured his inferiority par rapport to Him—“My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)
  -Jesus himself was created and formed in a human womb.

  // Jesus deferred to the Father. He is the eternal Son of God and his relationship to the Father is as an ideal human son to his ideal father. The son honours and defers to his father. //

  -God, Almighty is not a Father to himself.
  -Nor does He have a son—who is himself—who talks with himself and have a relationship with himself.
  -What you are saying my friend is “nonsense” 😀

  // Thus the Father is greater than the Son, but this does not detract from the divinity of the Son. Similarly the Holy Spirit is sent by both Father and Son and seeks only to honour the Son; yet he is also fully God.//

  -Are we to believe that God is constituted of parts where one is greater than the other and to add ze sauce—they are all one 😉
  -Fantastic.

  // Claims about Buddha etc are different in one essential factor: Jesus was born in history at a known time, of a known family and we have the witness of people who lived with him and spoke to him face to face and their record was made within 30 years of his death and resurrection, when the eye-witnesses were still alive.//

  -We do not have eye witnesses in what concerns the life and deeds of Jesus.
  -The Gospels that are part of the present New Testament canon are not eyewitnesses and certainly not reliable for the mere fact they are (1) anonymous books—we do not know who penned them. This “according to” was labeled not less than 100 years after they were produced by a false narration of an early church Father—Papias.

  – (2) They contradict with one another— filled with discrepancies and errors.
  – (3) They are the result of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy where we have proof of alterations and corruption in these copies—more and more as we move to the earliest copies available!!!
  – (4) The Gospels authors of Matthew and Luke took information from the author of the Gospel of Mark who took from another source—this shows that they were not eyewitnesses.

  // Jesus also demonstrated the power of God in a way that no historical character ever has. He is in no way to be compared to mythological characters, the accounts of whom are very different from the bible.//

  -Why not? Appolonious of Tyanna is said to be have made similar miraculous claims.
  -Nonetheless, miracles does not prove divinity.

  // That is not the reason at all. Jesus became incarnate as a man, because only a man could be qualified as the kinsman-redeemer for the human race, and only God could be sinless so as to be able to bear the sins of others.//

  -That’s a deluded argument.
  -God does not need to become a man and kill himself to forgive man of what man sinned.

  // The writer dislikes the humility of God. He is offended by the idea of God taking on a body with its necessary bodily functions.//

  -You call that humility?
  -Seeing God allegedly hitting the toilet is a sign of humility?
  -What are you talking about?!

  // His attitude derives from Greek ideas of the purity of spirit and the crudeness of matter. It is not a biblical idea.//

  -My belief unlike you, originates from logic and understanding—two things you lack apparently.

  // As to Jesus’ being spat on etc, this was prophesied 800 years before, by Isaiah. God’s ideas are not the same as the writer’s, which are based on pride, which God hates.//

  -Let’s say for the sake of the argument that it was indeed prophesized—so what? Does that mean that spitting on God is a good thing?
  -My ideas are based on pride—So God fleeing from Jews so that he does not get stoned is a definition of humility?

  // Dionysos: not virgin-born — in the myth, son of the god Zeus and a human woman, Semele, by sexual intercourse. Not called “King of kings”, “god’s only begotten son”, “alpha and omega”. Sort of resurrected: he was mostly eaten by the Titans, except for his heart which Zeus used to recreate him in his thigh.//

  -True—these will be corrected insh’Allah.
  -Nonetheless, the resurrection point still stands (despite how he was resurrected).

  // Krishna: eighth son of the princess Devaki and her husband Vasudeva. The Baghavata Purana claims he was born without sexual union, but its current form dates back only to 900 AD, so this almost certainly derives from the story of Jesus’ birth. No mention of any star, except possibly for astrological calculations. Not resurrected.//

  – Actually, the worship and the tradition of the deity Krishna can be traced to as early as 4th century BC.—so it is the other way round.
  – The Mahabharata says that Krishna, who is alternately referred to as Keshava, is killed and that he returns to life—hence resurrected.

  // Attis – no date for his birth; his conception was by bizarre means. Not crucified. Not resurrected; the myth says his body was not allowed to decay.//

  -The Professor of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Manchester Dr. Andrew T. Fear states:

  “The youthful Attis after his murder was miraculously brought to life again three days after his demise. The celebration of this cycle of death and renewal was one of the major festivals of the metroac cult. Attis therefore represented a promise of reborn life and as such it is not surprising that we find representations of the so-called mourning Attis as a common tomb motif in the ancient world.”

  -” There was rivalry too in ritual. The climax of the celebration of Attis’ resurrection, the Hilaria, fell on the 25th of March, the date that the early church had settled on as the day of Christ’s death…. (Lane, 39-40)

  – Attis is said to have been “crucified” to a pine tree, while Christ too was related as being both crucified and hung on a tree (Acts 5:30 ; 10:39 ). As stated by La Trobe University professor Dr. David John Tacey (110):

  “Especially significant for us is the fact that the Phrygian Attis was crucified upon the tree…”

  // Given the level of inaccuracy in the first three, I am not going to bother with the rest//

  -Inaccuracies shall be dealt with Insh’Allah and modifications will be made.
  -Nevertheless, I would like to hear your comments on Mithra.
  -Peace out.
• Alex Haddad

  January 29, 2012 6:00 pm

  

  Oliver Elphick,

  //Therefore Jesus makes himself less than God while he is in the world,//

  -So he was not fully God 🙂

  // We can conclude, then, that Jesus was indeed less than God while he was in the world, by his own willing decision, in order that he could be fully man. As such, he temporarily gave up his own divine power and knowledge, but instead depended entirely on the Holy Spirit to be God in him. Therefore he knew what the Father revealed to him by the Holy Spirit and he did not know things that the Father did not so reveal.//

  -God does not change (Psalms 102:27)—he remains always the same.
  -Therefore your theory that God became less than God and needed His Father who is himself to reveal to Him what He did not know but know is bankrupted mainly from two perspectives:

  -The Biblical Perspective (God does not change).
  -The Logical Perspective (God allegedly gave His powers but only knew what He Himself revealed to Himself—what a show!

  //Jesus did not know the date of his second coming, because the Father had not revealed it to him. He did not know it of his own divine power because he had given that power up in order to fulfil his work of salvation.//

  -You consider this as a response? An actual argument? Really?
  -Listen to this ladies and gentleman:

  -Elphick is telling us that God did not know the date of the Judgment day because He did not revealed to Himself! How can He be ignorant of it while It is He who revealed to Himself? One heck of a weird concept.

  -Moreover, you say God did not know of his Divine Power—how can this be when it was He who was revealing to Himself? Are we on the same channel here 😉
  -Unfortunately for you—your scenario does not work.

  //The same reasoning deals also with the second point, that Jesus said, “I can of mine own self do nothing”. That is entirely consistent with the manner in which he had emptied himself. Beyond that, however, it is, I believe, eternally true.//

  -The same reasoning? Cool 😉

  // The unity of God is such that neither Son nor Holy Spirit would do anything out of unity with the Father; to act of their own will contrary to his would be inconceivable; therefore it must eternally be true that the Son does nothing but what he sees the Father doing. Since the relationship is of Son to Father, the reverse would not be the case — the Father would not do what he saw the Son doing.//

  -Why is the Relationship Son to Father? Why not the reverse?
  -Are you saying that God is composed of three parts—where two of them simply follow the orders of the first one and yet despite that—they are still one? Are we to believe such awkward notions?

  -You say the Son or the Holy Spirit cannot act from their own will and contrary to the Father—what is this? How would God acts differently to His own will from the first place—how many wills does He have?

  -How can you consider all of these parts or personalities or whatever you want to refer to them as one entity while they are (1) different (2) Unequal (3) Possess different wills?

  // Quoting Jesus, “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid”. Jesus is not at all saying he is capable of saying what is untrue or mistaken. He is referring to the principle of the law that “by the testimony of two or three witnesses shall everything be established.” (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15) This law was given for trying cases of capital crimes, but was extended to be a more general principle. Thus, a person’s saying something on his own authority alone would not be regarded as valid testimony.//

  -God testimony cannot be un-valid or unreliable—if His Testimony is not to be considered—who is then?!
  -Deuteronomy 17 and 19 are applied to men—they cannot be applied to the Almighty.
  -The only plausible explanation that God testimony could not be held reliable (he needs another) if he ceased to be God—which is a blasphemous according to your doctrine.

  -Peace out.
• Alex Haddad

  January 29, 2012 6:08 pm

  

  Oliver Elphick,

  //Absolutely. There is no problem here. This quotes Deuteronomy 6:5. The word for “one” is “echad”, which is also used for “the LORD said, Behold, the people is one” in Genesis 11:6. The Lord is not saying there is only one person; he is saying the people are united so that they are acting as one. In the same way, but more so, God is one even though he is also three persons. There is a different Hebrew word, “yachad” (I think), which means “single”. That is the word that the scripture would have used if your interpretation were correct.//

  -I think your Deuteronomy 6:5 should be Deuteronomy 6:4.
  -As a matter of fact, Echad does not signifies plurality in unity as you are trying to mislead—for instance, in the next quotations— I will shiny prove how this Hebrew word strictly means singularity:

  a) 2 Samuel 13:30: “Absolom has slain all the king’s sons, and there is not one (echad) of them left”.
  b) 2 Samuel 17:12: “And of all the men that are with him we will not leave so much as one (echad)”
  c) Exodus 9:7: “There did not die of the cattle of Israel even one (echad)”;
  d) 2 Samuel 17:22: “There lacked not one (echad) of them that was not gone over the Jordan”;
  Ecclesiastes 4:8: There is one [echad], and he has not a second; yea, he has neither son nor brother.”

  -The Hebrew word “Echad” functions exactly as the English word “One” does.
  -Hence, your poor desperate Trinitarian interpretation falls to water.

  //Because Jesus became a man and he was exemplifying perfect manhood; in becoming a man he emptied himself of his divine power, as shown in the previous comment. Therefore it is entirely appropriate for Jesus to refer to God as his God. Whether he would still refer to God as such now when he is seated at God’s right hand on his throne, the bible does not tell us.//

  -Becoming a man does not make him having a Deity which is ironically himself!
  -It is entirely absurd, ridiculous, incomprehensible and illogical to grasp the fundamental idea that God, Almighty was praying and worshipping himself and acknowledging a “God” par rapport to him who is himself.
  -How can he have a God while he was still God?! One heck of a dilemma.

  -You say he emptied himself—Irrelevant—unless by emptying himself you mean he ceased to be Divine which is a heretical and blasphemous claim according to your faith—what you are saying fails to explain logically how God affirmed that he had a God who is himself.

  // You quote certain commentators. Matthew Henry’s commentary contains the following:
  “The summary of the new covenant is that God will be to us a God; and therefore Christ being the surety and head of the covenant, who is primarily dealt with, and believers only through him as his spiritual seed, this covenant-relation fastens first upon him, God becomes his God, and so ours; we partaking of a divine nature, Christ’s Father is our Father; and, he partaking of the human nature, our God is his God.”//

  -God does not become God to himself—this is pure nonsense 😉
  -What was he back then—not God 😉
  -I don’t see your purpose of presenting this quotation apart of being entertaining and well originally weird.

  //No, that is not the significance of ‘firstborn’ here. In relation to God, Jesus has the rights of the firstborn. It is not saying that he had a physical birth (or even a spiritual one); it is saying that he is pre-eminent.//

  -Your interpretation does not make sense unless he was born or created.

  -First, you say Jesus par rapport to God has the rights of a firstborn—Jesus par rapport to whom? God? Himself? The hell is this nonsense?!
  -Second, in order to have the rights of a firstborn you must be created or born or else what rights are you talking about?! God does not have the rights of a firstborn or anyone else as per se.
  -Third, was Jesus created and born? Of course! He was shaped and formed in his mother’s womb.

  -Peace out.
• Alex Haddad

  January 29, 2012 6:12 pm

  

  Oliver Elphick,

  // The writer’s treatment of this passage is bizarre and really illustrates the blindness of Muslims as they misread the scripture.//

  -You think?

  // The writer knows that this is a quote of Psalm 22. This psalm is quite evidently a prophecy of the crucifixion; it describes the physical effects of this dreadful means of execution at least 700 years before it was invented, and it prophesies (1000 years in advance) how the soldiers divided Jesus’ garments among them and cast lots for his clothing. The physical difficulty of reciting the entire psalm on the cross would have been too great, but Jesus quoted the first verse and thus applied the whole psalm to himself. To quote the first line of a passage is to invoke all of it.//

  -I don’t consider Psalms 22 to be a prophecy concerning the Messiah—if you wish to know—I can list to you my reasons.
  -Nonetheless, even if I was to accept (for the sake of the argument) that it is indeed a Prophecy– how does that answer my point—the issue of Jesus blaming God who is himself for leaving him who is himself on a thing he did it according to his own eternal will by himself—according to yourself 😉

  // This was the only time ever that Jesus did not address God as “Father”.//

  -Actually, he referred to him literally as “My God” in John 20:17.

  // That was because he was bearing the sins of the world and was therefore cut off from God; his eternal relationship with the Father had ended as soon as he was made sin.//

  -How can God be cut from himself 😉

  // The author of this article ties himself in knots because of the way he misunderstands the Trinity. There is no confusion of persons in God. Jesus addresses the Father, not himself!//

  -Jesus and the Father are the One and Only God—hence when Jesus is speaking to His Father—he is talking with himself—unless you have two Gods there.

  // The last part of the sentence, after “silent”, is pure invention. In fact, Jesus said some other things, that are recorded in other gospels. Mark simply does not mention them, but goes straight on to the quote of Psalm 22.//

  -The author of the Gospel of Mark portray Jesus as silent—he does not know what is happening to him—he was completely shocked—hence, his words “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

  -Luke for instance, portray him as a confident man who exactly knew what he was doing, he tells the women mourning not to mourn over him but over herself—in a self-assured tone he dialogues with the two thieves—and finally, instead of blaming God—he says his famous words “Father in thy hands, I command my spirit”.

  -These are different Gospels.

  // Indeed it is fantastic that someone could be so blind and so misunderstand what he is reading.//

  -Rather it is indeed fascinating how Elphick thought that by just crying Prophecy that answers the issue of Mark 15:34—how Jesus talked with God (himself) blaming him for leaving him!
  -No wonder who is the blind person 😉

  -Peace out.
• Alex Haddad

  January 29, 2012 6:16 pm

  

  Oliver Ephlick,

  //Again, Jesus is operating as a man, not as God.//

  -According to the Christian Doctrine—Jesus was fully God and fully human.
  -Hence, he was operating in both natures.

  // As a man he had desires and physical needs which, in us, because of our sinful nature, are a basis for the suggestion of evil.//

  -God is not a man.
  -God does not have evil desires.
  -How dare you attribute physical needs, sinful nature and evilness to the Almighty?!

  //Jesus came to earth as a man, emptying himself of his divine power and glory. As a man, Jesus became hungry, thirsty and tired. He had a physical body and a physical body has needs. So having not eaten for 40 days, he indeed became hungry.//

  -When will Oliver Elphick going to understand that God is not a man (Numbers 23:19)—and He will not become a man as He does not Change (Psalms 102:27)?!
  -You say that “As a man, Jesus became hungry, thirsty and tired”—which means that God became hungry, thirsty and tired—an incomprehensible thing.

  //Satan, of course, can never do anything that God does not permit him to do. The spiritual has power over the physical, so Satan has the power to move matter about, including people’s bodies, provided that God allows him to, which he normally does not. Yet again, the author of this article fails to understand what Jesus’ emptying himself means. Although he is God, he did not come to earth in the form of God but as a man.//

  -Whether a man or Divine—how could Satan have control and power over God?!
  -He can’t—no one can.
  -It is blasphemous to imply otherwise.

  //Jesus needed to demonstrate that. As Hebrews says, “He learned obedience by the things he suffered”, not meaning that he was previously disobedient, but that obedience only becomes an issue when there is something difficult to obey.//

  -And now God learned Obediance—Cool 😉
  -Astaghfor Allah.

  -Despite the issue that God became (or learned to be obedient)—how can God learn anything? Isn’t He All Knowing?

  //The basic meaning of “tempt” is to test. The writer confuses his own experience with that of Jesus. When we are offered these temptations, all too often we grab at them, at least in our minds. The experience of lust is mental. But Jesus never entertained these temptations. When they were offered to him, he never allowed them any hold on him; they remained entirely outside himself. Thus he passed the test and demonstrated his complete purity and holiness.//

  -Oliver Elphick cannot understand a simple point and goes on twisting—hoping and wishing that by that poor way he would refute my point—a logical fallacy that is referred to as “Straw Man Argument”.

  -Moreover, Elphick completely evaded how his scripture contradicts one another—God cannot be tempted (James (1:13) V/S God was tempted (Matthew 4)
  -I never stated that Jesus sinned—or lost to the temptations of Satan.
  -Jesus had these temptations in his mind or else how was he tempted?!

  -The issue of succumbing to these temptations or not is unrelated to my point—yet Elphick seems unable to understand that.

  //The writer again fails to understand that Jesus was operating as a perfect man, not as God.//

  -Elphick still cannot comprehend that whether it was the perfect man or the perfect Divine—It was God who was tempted—who went to the toilet—who was unaware of his own Judgment day—who had a different will than his Father who is himself.

  -Is it that hard to understand? It seems so—well to Elphick in the end.

  //Perhaps we should, because in fact we have the Holy Spirit of God living in us and every moment we have the choice of walking with him or of walking in our old nature, which we might indeed call our “human part”; the bible calls it the flesh. Unlike everyone else, we have a real choice not to sin and the means of exercising that choice rightly is to walk entirely with God, as Jesus did.//

  -Elphick again misses my point.
  -How can we know when Jesus is talking in his human nature or Divine nature?
  -Or is it when you get embarrassed you immediately shout—human nature!!!!
  -That’s a desperate illogical reasoning.

  // I don’t think I would put it that way, and doing so is leading you to a false conclusion. Rather, Jesus is fully God and also fully man. He is God, but his human nature regarded separately is not God.//

  -Who is then the human nature in Jesus—Casper the ghost 😉
  -Or maybe was it you?

  //Finally, the only possible source of information for these gospel accounts was Jesus himself. He was alone when he was tempted by the devil; only he could have told the disciples about them//

  -Not at all—the source of information was (1) word of mouth or more precisely rumors floating around on which these authors based their material on and (2) each other’s—Matthew and Luke took from Mark.

  – Furthermore, if your theory is indeed true why do Matthew and Luke Contradict on the sequence of the temptations? In Matthew, the second temptation that Satan launches against Jesus is to jump from the holy temple of Jerusalem while Luke renders it as the third and final temptation? Was Jesus confused about the sequence of his own temptations? I doubt so.

  -Peace out.
• Alex Haddad

  January 29, 2012 6:18 pm

  

  Oliver Ephlick,

  //Jesus is not saying he is not God.//

  -He actually refused to be compared to Him or to be put at the same level as God.
  -Obviously, God wouldn’t refuse to be put at the same level of himself or to reject the very fact that he was good on the basis that only God is good who is himself.

  // He called Jesus “good teacher”, but if Jesus was only a teacher, he should not have called him good, and if he was truly calling him good, he should not have described him as only a teacher.//

  -I don’t know how that refutes my point.
  -I don’t understand your reasoning here.
  -He should have called him good but not teacher? Or teacher but not good? What the?!

  // The text in Matthew is one of the rare passages where the manuscripts are very confused. Not every manuscript has the text as you quoted it; there are at least six variants. The Textus Receptus has a version that agrees with Mark and Luke. The Matthew version you quote might well have been altered by someone with gnostic leanings, because it reflects the kind of pagan philosophical discussions that were in vogue in some gnostic quarters, and that text actually makes little sense, as the writer realises: what Jesus says does not follow at all from what the man said to him. Most likely the variants arise form attempts to reconcile the discrepancy in different ways. So in this case I think that the TR reading is more likely and we should read with the KJV: ‘And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’//

  -The Codex Sinaiticus render the passage as I quoted it.
  -Actually, the New International Version, the New Living Translation, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, International Standard Version, American Standard Version, English Revised Version, Weymouth New Testament and many others (if you wish I can list them) all renders it as well as my quotation.

  -As for the Textus Receptus—it is based on old Manuscripts of the Byzantine Type which are not reliable as the Alexandrian types (i.e. Codex Sianaiticus).

  -Peace out.
• Alex Haddad

  January 29, 2012 6:20 pm

  

  Oliver Elphick,

  // Then again, Jesus asked his disciples about what people said of him:‘Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.’ (Matthew 16:13-17)//

  -Christ is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Messiah which simply means “Anointed One”.
  -The title Son of God does not denotes divinity—several icons were referred to by that title in the Biblical Scriptures. Son of God simply means a pious person.

  // What is a prophet? A prophet is someone who speaks to people the words of God.//

  -A Prophet is someone who delivers another entity words to people or to a person.
  -Jesus cannot be the Prophet of God as he is God according to your belief.

  // So when the writer says, “If Jesus was God, how would he be a Prophet? A prophet to whom? To himself?”, he is yet again showing his confusion of thought. Jesus is sent from God and he speaks to men the words of God; that is in no way inconsistent with his being God who has become man for our sake.//

  -How can He be a Prophet to God when he is God 😉
  -Can anyone be a Prophet to himself? Well according to Elphick rules of reasoning yes we can!
  -Quite entertaining if I might say 😉
  -Peace out.
• Oliver Elphick

  January 30, 2012 2:10 am

  

  In all your responses, you insist on imposing your own ideas of what is appropriate to God on what the bible actually tells us.
• Oliver Elphick

  January 30, 2012 2:39 am

  

  You asked for my comments on Mithra:
  Mithra, Persia, 1200 B.C.

  None of the details given below match this Persian/Zoroastrian god (going by Wikipedia), so I assume you mean Mithras, which is the form of the name used in the Roman empire, where Mithras was a popular god, especially among soldiers.

  * Born of a virgin, on Dec. 25th

  Wikipedia: According to M.J.Vermaseren, the Mithraic New Year and the birthday of Mithras was on December 25.[51][52] However, Beck disagrees strongly.[53] Clauss states: “the Mithraic Mysteries had no public ceremonies of its own. The festival of natalis Invicti [Birth of the Unconquerable (Sun)], held on 25 December, was a general festival of the Sun, and by no means specific to the Mysteries of Mithras.”[54]

  (The celebration of Christ’s birth on December 25th is something invented by the church some time after the second or third century, probably in order to replace this festival and the Saturnalia, which occurred at the same time. The bible gives information which suggests that Jesus was born at the time of the feast of Tabernacles, in September/October.)

  Mithras is depicted as being born from a rock. He is shown as emerging from a rock, already in his youth, with a dagger in one hand and a torch in the other.

  * Had 12 disciples

  I found no mention of that

  * Performed miracles

  Nor that, except for the so-called “water miracle”. Since Mithras was supposedly a god, it is not really appropriate to speak of miracles, which would be performed by men.

  * Dead for 3 days

  No mention of that

  * Resurrected

  Nor that; in the myth, he did not die at all, as far as I can see.

  * Nicknames: “the truth”, “the light”
  (Sacred day of worship of Mithra was Sunday)

  Mithras is associated with the sun and worship of the sun, so associations with light are not surprising.

  The rise of Mithraism began in the late first century AD, so any similarities to Christianity are most likely by copying from Christianity.
• Oliver Elphick

  January 30, 2012 4:00 pm

  

  “The title Son of God does not denotes divinity—several icons were referred to by that title in the Biblical Scriptures. Son of God simply means a pious person.”

  Let’s have a look at some scripture:

  ‘…Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.”’ (Matthew 26:63-66)

  ‘…the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
  The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”’ (John 10:24-38)

  This shows that you are wrong about the title “Son of God”. As Jesus used it, the Jews correctly understood him to be claiming equality with God.

  The term is also used for any being who is directly created by God, that is Adam and the angels, and also for Christians who are adopted sons of God, through Christ, but that occurs only in the plural; there is only one occurrence (Adam) in the bible of the phrase “son of God” apart from in relation to Jesus Christ.

  Further, Jesus is not just a son of God, he is the unique Son of God:

  “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” (John 3:18) Here the last phrase translates το ονομα του μονογενους υιου του θεου. μονογενος was traditionally translated “only-begotten”, but is better translated “unique” or “one of a kind”. Therefore no other occurrence of “son(s) of God” is relevant, because Jesus is in a different class from any of them.

  “Jesus cannot be the Prophet of God as he is God according to your belief.”

  You insist on your misunderstanding of the Trinity and argue on the basis of that. So you don’t reach any valid conclusions. Jesus became a man on earth; he temporarily ceased to use his divine power in respect of his life as a man. Also the three persons of the Trinity are each and all together God, but they are distinct persons too. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand anything about what the bible teaches.The title Son of God does not denotes divinity—several icons were referred to by that title in the Biblical Scriptures. Son of God simply means a pious person
• Oliver Elphick

  January 30, 2012 4:03 pm

  

  “The title Son of God does not denotes divinity—several icons were referred to by that title in the Biblical Scriptures. Son of God simply means a pious person.”

  Let’s have a look at some scripture:

  ‘…Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.”’ (Matthew 26:63-66)

  ‘…the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
  The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”’ (John 10:24-38)

  This shows that you are wrong about the title “Son of God”. As Jesus used it, the Jews correctly understood him to be claiming equality with God.

  The term is also used for any being who is directly created by God, that is Adam and the angels, and also for Christians who are adopted sons of God, through Christ, but that occurs only in the plural; there is only one occurrence (Adam) in the bible of the phrase “son of God” apart from in relation to Jesus Christ.

  Further, Jesus is not just a son of God, he is the unique Son of God:

  “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” (John 3:18) Here the last phrase translates το ονομα του μονογενους υιου του θεου. μονογενος was traditionally translated “only-begotten”, but is better translated “unique” or “one of a kind”. Therefore no other occurrence of “son(s) of God” is relevant, because Jesus is in a different class from any of them.

  “Jesus cannot be the Prophet of God as he is God according to your belief.”

  You insist on your misunderstanding of the Trinity and argue on the basis of that. So you don’t reach any valid conclusions. Jesus became a man on earth; he temporarily ceased to use his divine power in respect of his life as a man. Also the three persons of the Trinity are each and all together God, but they are distinct persons too. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand anything about what the bible teaches.

  [Please delete the previous comment, which had a misplaced quote as its last sentence and thus made no sense.]
• Alex Haddad

  February 6, 2012 5:42 pm

  

  Oliver Elphick,

  -You quoted two passages in order to support your claim– that the title “Son of God” designatesd ivinity. As for Matthew 26:63-66, nowhere does the passage mentions anything about deity. In fact in John 10:24-30, Jesus rebuke the accusation of divinity attributed to him by clarifying what was mentioned previously in the scripture ““Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?” Hence, both your poor arguments fall into cold water.
  -The Title “Son of God” was used to many icons in the Bible (again if you wish, I can enumerate them for you)—if it signified Divinity then you have a jumbo serious problem here—How many Gods do we have 😉

  //This shows that you are wrong about the title “Son of God”. As Jesus used it, the Jews correctly understood him to be claiming equality with God.//

  -On the contrary, that shows how poor and desperate your claim really is.
  -Just because the Jews accused him of so—does not mean their charge was true.
  -Furthermore, Jesus (pbuh) himself declined equality with God—just a few verses earlier—Isn’t that obvious?

  //Further, Jesus is not just a son of God, he is the unique Son of God:
  “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” (John 3:18) Here the last phrase translates το ονομα του μονογενους υιου του θεου. μονογενος was traditionally translated “only-begotten”, but is better translated “unique” or “one of a kind”. Therefore no other occurrence of “son(s) of God” is relevant, because Jesus is in a different class from any of them.//

  -Was Jesus unique in a sense? Yes! He was born without male intervention?
  -Does that render him Divine? I don’t think so.

  // You insist on your misunderstanding of the Trinity and argue on the basis of that. So you don’t reach any valid conclusions. Jesus became a man on earth; he temporarily ceased to use his divine power in respect of his life as a man.//

  -I already asked you—if he ceased or didn’t have Divine capabilities—what made him Divine?

  // Also the three persons of the Trinity are each and all together God, but they are distinct persons too.//

  -Being three distinctive persons does not change the fact that they still are the one and only God.
  -Hence, when Jesus talks with His Father—he is addressing himself as he is God– the one and only– who is both Jesus and the Father.

  -I read your comment on Mithra–I will return on that in the couple days to follow–I am sorry, i have been stock with exams lately (and got sick–still am).

  -Peace out.
• Oliver Elphick

  February 16, 2012 4:43 pm

  

  >> …in John 10:24-30, Jesus rebuke the accusation of divinity attributed to him by clarifying what was mentioned previously in the scripture ““Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?”

  The Jews’ accusation is that in calling himself Son of God he is making himself equal to God. He did not say that this was untrue; he pointed out that scripture allowed for it. Later, he said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9)

  >> -Was Jesus unique in a sense? Yes! He was born without male intervention?
  >> -Does that render him Divine? I don’t think so.

  That is not the reason for calling him μονογενος. He was with the Father before the world was created, and it was through him that God created the world. (John 1:2-3) John does not even mention his virgin birth, because he is concerned to describe Christ in his divine aspect. See also Hebrews 1:

  1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
  5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
  “You are my Son,
  today I have begotten you”?
  Or again,
  “I will be to him a father,
  and he shall be to me a son”?
  6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
  “Let all God’s angels worship him.”
  7 Of the angels he says,
  “He makes his angels winds,
  and his ministers a flame of fire.”
  8 But of the Son he says,
  “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
  the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of your kingdom.
  9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
  therefore God, your God, has anointed you
  with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
  10 And,
  “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
  and the heavens are the work of your hands;
  11 they will perish, but you remain;
  they will all wear out like a garment,
  12 like a robe you will roll them up,
  like a garment they will be changed.
  But you are the same,
  and your years will have no end.”
  13 And to which of the angels has he ever said,
  “Sit at my right hand
  until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

  So we see that God describes the Son as God and Lord, the creator and maintainer of the universe, eternal, sitting at the right hand of the Father and one whom the angels should worship — but no one may be worshipped but God alone.

  >> -I already asked you—if he ceased or didn’t have Divine capabilities—what made him Divine?

  And I really have made it clear, that Christ is divine from all eternity. In becoming a man he temporarily ceased to use the powers of divinity, but he did not therefore cease to be divine; he still possessed all his divine power, but he chose not to use them for a time.

  >> -Being three distinctive persons does not change the fact that they still are the one and only God.
  >> -Hence, when Jesus talks with His Father—he is addressing himself as he is God– the one and only– who is both Jesus and the Father.

  Here you simply deny the truth. If you cannot understand or appreciate it, that does not stop its being true! Because God exists in three persons, he is obviously able to converse between the persons, and we see this from the beginning of the bible, as in Genesis 1:26 and 11:7
• Oliver Elphick

  February 18, 2012 6:44 pm

  

  There are still 2 comments on this article from 24th January awaiting moderation
• Alexus Haddad

  February 23, 2012 6:07 am

  

  Oliver Elphick,

  //The Jews’ accusation is that in calling himself Son of God he is making himself equal to God. He did not say that this was untrue; he pointed out that scripture allowed for it.//

  -It is erroneous and misleading to consider the interpretation of Jews—precisely the Pharisees—as authentic for the mere simple fact they were regarded by Jesus himself as liars, hypocrites and fools (Luke 12:1; Matthew 23:13; Matthew 23:27-28; Matthew 16:3). In fact, they tried by hook or crook– as hard as they could to twist and put words in Jesus mouth.

  -Jesus did not show that scripture allows people to be considered as Deities—on the contrary, he was proving the very exact opposite.

  //Later, he said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9)//

  “And He (God) said, You can not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live” (Exodus 33:20).

  //That is not the reason for calling him μονογενος.//

  -Oliver Elphick, still refuse to understand that the title “Unique Son of God” does not equal divinity.

  //He was with the Father before the world was created,//

  -He was with himself? 🙂
  -Actually, we were all with God, Almighty before the world was created—in His Divine knowledge. This is a basic Islamic concept.

  // So we see that God describes the Son as God and Lord, the creator and maintainer of the universe, eternal, sitting at the right hand of the Father and one whom the angels should worship — but no one may be worshipped but God alone.//

  -Hebrews is a word by word quotation of Psalms 45:6-7
  -Obviously, this is not God talking here rather a quote made by the unknown author of the book of Hebrews.

  – It is originally funny that you are making such a weird deluded argument: God calls himself–My God–talks with himself—and worships himself.
  -Hilarious!

  -Furthermore, Hebrews 1:8—‘the Greek translation of this verse can be translated in different ways. For example: But of the Son, (God )says:

  “God is your throne forever and ever”’ (Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament, a historical Introduction to the early Christian Writings, pp421).

  -Hence, this passage would not be referring to Jesus as Divine rather that God is his deity.

  //In becoming a man he temporarily ceased to use the powers of divinity, but he did not therefore cease to be divine; he still possessed all his divine power, but he chose not to use them for a time.//

  -Your argument is flawed.
  -When Jesus/God (according to your faith) asserted the fact that he did not know when the judgment day is (Mark 13:32)—he did not ceased to use his powers— how can this be? It was he who allegedly created it in the first place!!! Thus, either he was lying or He forgot—two incomprehensible notions.

  //If you cannot understand or appreciate it, that does not stop its being true!//

  -Actually, no one can and you failed (still are) to logically explain it.

  //Because God exists in three persons, he is obviously able to converse between the persons//

  -Are you saying that God talks with himself 😉
  -If He is three persons—why do you desperately label yourself as monotheistic? You are not—you are polytheistic . Three cannot be one—as much as one cannot be three—Is that so hard to understand, Elphick?

  -Back to my argument—Jesus clearly identified himself as a Prophet according to your scripture—a Prophet to whom? To God? But….HE IS GOD (as per your belief)!!!
  -Saying that the Father and Jesus are two different persons in the Three in one God—does not refute my point as the one God is both the Father and Jesus—therefore when Jesus/God talks with the Father/God—God is talking with Himself as He IS ONE AND BOTH!!!

  //and we see this from the beginning of the bible, as in Genesis 1:26 and 11:7//

  -The practice of pluralizing words of authority was common in the ancient Hebrew language. The words for lord, master and God might appear in the plural to DENOTE A SINGULAR BEING if that being held authority. If the context expressed control and/or authority, the verb might be pluralized also. In Hebrew usage, “God” (Elohim) always appears in the plural for obvious reasons.

  -In Genesis 39:2, the Bible states that Joseph was in the house of his “master” the Egyptian. The translators render “master” correctly as singular in this instance — even though the word is PLURAL in the Hebrew text! A similar pluralization takes place in Exodus 21:9, speaking about the “owner” of an ox with the tendency to gore. The word is translated in the singular even though it also occurs in the plural. Again, the substantive reason for pluralizing the above two examples in the Hebrew text is because both “master” and “owner” denote authority and control — thus qualifying under the principle of the “Royal We.”

  -Another illustrative example I can give is from the first verse of the first book in the Bible—Genesis 1:1.

  -It is interesting to note that the Hebrew word that refers to God is Elohim—which if you translate it literally means Gods—not God yet it is rendered in all your biblical versions as singular God. Why? Because you will end up being polytheistic—believing that Gods created the world 😉

  -As a matter of fact, in the Hebrew Bible, when applying to God, ‘Elo.him’ is used as a PLURAL OF MAJESTY, DIGNITY, OR EXCELLENCE. (Ge. 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: “That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in…[‘Elo.him’] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a SINGULAR verbal predicate, and takes a SINGULAR adjectival attribute…. [‘Elo- him’] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness, and majesty, being equal to The Great God.” — The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.

  -In Smith’s Bible Dictionary we find this explanation of “Elohim”:

  Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures TWO chief names are used for the ONE true divine Being — ELOHIM, commonly translated God in our version, and JEHOVAH [YEHOVAH], translated LORD. Elohim is the plural of Eloah; it is often used in the short form EL (a word signifying strength), as in EL-SHADDAI, God Almighty, the name by which God was specially known to the patriarchs. Gen. 17:1; 28:3; Ex. 6:3. The etymology is uncertain, but it is generally agreed that the primary idea is that it properly describes God in that character in which he is exhibited to all men in his works, as the creator, sustainer and supreme governor of the world. The plural form of Elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea that it referred to the trinity of persons [or duality of persons] in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God. — Page 220.

  -Peace out.
• Steve Picotte

  March 11, 2012 3:50 pm

  

  Yet, the world would be better off without any religion.
  People need to stop being afraid of the dark.
  Judaism, Christianity, Islam, are all cut from the same cloth, and all have been detrimental to mankind.
  No matter what one calls a religion, religions cannot overcome human nature.
  It just gives people a group to kill others in the name of, one way or the other.
• Ijaz Ahmad

  March 12, 2012 7:50 am

  

  Religion is just one of many ideologies that humans adhere to. We have political, social, financial, sexual ideologies that all drive us on some scale. To isolate one facet of the human identity for criticism, is to negate your own humanity. Rather, social vices and character flaws are detrimental to mankind and our known ideologies are tools for such characteristic flaws. A man who is greedy, will use his faith for greed, a man who wants power will use another ideology for it, whether political, financial, military or otherwise.

  Humans will kill each other with or without religion, if your statement was true, then no atheist would have ever killed anyone.
• stevepicotte

  March 12, 2012 10:02 pm

  

  I did not say atheists haven’t killed people.
  I agree with most of your words. Sadly, religions should help overcome humanities frailties and faults instead of promote them.
  To dismiss religion so easily as just an ideology along with others listed is just further proof it is created by man and not worth believing in.

  To borrow some words from Colin…

  There are some pretty fundamental objections to Judaism/Christianity/Islam that are hard to get around.

  At their most fundamental level, these religions require a belief that an all-knowing, all-powerful, immortal being created the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies 13,700,000,000 years ago (the age of the Universe) sat back and waited 10,000,000,000 years for the Earth to form, then waited another 3,700,000,000 years for human beings to gradually evolve, then, at some point gave them eternal life and sent their ‘prophets’ to Earth to talk about sheep and goats in the Middle East.

  While here, these ‘prophets’ exhibit no knowledge of ANYTHING outside of the Iron Age Middle East, including the other continents, 99% of the human race, and the aforementioned galaxies.

  Either that, or it all started 6,000 years ago with one man, one woman and a talking snake. Either way “oh, come on” just doesn’t quite capture it.
• Ijaz Ahmad

  March 12, 2012 10:50 pm

  

  [Sadly, religions should help overcome humanities frailties and faults instead of promote them.]
  Religion is simply a structured set of rules and guidelines to promote well being among a major populace. It tries to instil an ideal culture, based on these codified and canonized absolute rules. Humans have faults which religions expose, so as to display and correct. How can you correct a fault, if there is no way of discovering such fault?

  [To dismiss religion so easily as just an ideology along with others listed is just further proof it is created by man and not worth believing in.]
  I didn’t dismiss religion, rather I simplified it. Religion is one of many ideologies which all humans subscribe to. I could be religious but also a father, son, brother, fitting the ideas of what society believes are responsibilities upon me. It doesn’t mean by subscribing to more than one ideology in my daily life that I somehow threw away religion.

  [There are some pretty fundamental objections to Judaism/Christianity/Islam that are hard to get around.]
  We’ll see…

  [At their most fundamental level, these religions require a belief that an all-knowing, all-powerful, immortal being created the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies 13,700,000,000 years ago (the age of the Universe) sat back and waited]
  If God is the originator of time and exists outside of it, i.e. no beginning nor an end (Al Awwal, Al Akhir), then why say God, “waited”?

  [10,000,000,000 years for the Earth to form, then waited another 3,700,000,000 years for human beings to gradually evolve, then, at some point gave them eternal life and sent their ‘prophets’ to Earth to talk about sheep and goats in the Middle East.]
  We believe God created men and placed them to roam the earth. Prophets were sent to all peoples, not only to those of the middle east. Whoever you copy pasted this from, shows wanton ignorance of basic Islamic theology.

  [While here, these ‘prophets’ exhibit no knowledge of ANYTHING outside of the Iron Age Middle East, including the other continents, 99% of the human race, and the aforementioned galaxies.]
  The message or risalah of the prophets isn’t meant to be scientific of technological, rather the message God sends them with, is to guide them morally, and spiritually, again to develop an ideal culture based on absolute morality.

  [Either that, or it all started 6,000 years ago with one man, one woman and a talking snake. Either way “oh, come on” just doesn’t quite capture it.]
  We don’t believe in the Biblical creation story.

  The rest is simply revolving around Christology and hardly to do with Islamic theology, please be relevant. Thanks.
• stevepicotte

  March 12, 2012 11:14 pm

  

  An ‘ideology’. This website contains much on Christianity. It is relevant.
  Man-made. Total rubbish. Perhaps some day people will value life more than they do now, but the actions of the world say that will not happen.
  It is stated, with complete honesty, that there are no gods. Just ideology.
  Then why continue the charade?
  Religion is a means of control of the masses to extort their wealth, their labor and more.
  So, people should stop calling any religion and use common sense. Yes?
• Ijaz Ahmad

  March 12, 2012 11:39 pm

  

  While it in some way maybe relevant, it’s not really of the standard I would like to up keep on the website. While the arguments are founded in mockery, my arguments are more centered on Christology,Patrology, Exegeses, Hermeneutics, Logic.
• stevepicotte

  March 13, 2012 12:00 am

  

  Logic?
  What logic is there in your mocking other religions as you have above when yours is just a variant that is not original, especially when you obviously understand they are all false?
  Study and interpretation of religion is subjective. This is why there are so many sects and branches and cults. And oddly people think theirs is the only ‘real’ set of smoke and mirrors.
  But your life is yours to do with as you choose. If it pleases you to study then I applaud your effort.
• Ijaz Ahmad

  March 13, 2012 7:32 am

  

  ‘Aql = Logic/ Intellect. We as Muslims are commanded to apply it and I’m sure if you studied any form of basic history, you should be thankful for the Muslim Empires in Africa, Andalus and Iraq.

  See, there is a difference between mocking and then doing comparative theology, we do comparative theology by using the sciences of religion (exegesis, Ulum al Qur’an, Ulum al Hadith, Textual Criticism, Oral Criticism, Patrology, Hermeneutics, Usul al fiqh, Usul al fiqh al akbar (‘aqidah/ doctrine), etc etc). While you simply make fun of such things, we consider them dear to our hearts.

  We in Islam believe that all faiths have at least in some way, one source, perhaps a Messenger which the Qur’an says, was sent to all nations, delivered a message, later to be perverted by the people, as with Judaism and Christianity. So no, we don’t say they’re false simply to disbelieve, we say they’re false because that’s how we understand them to be, given our theology.

  There will always be sects, which in Islam, we call this ikhtilaf al masa’il, we may differ on a few laws here and there, but once the doctrine (‘aqidah) is clear and adheres to dala’il (evidences) from Qur’an and Sunnah, we’re all good to go.

  You do realise, your posts aren’t elucidating any of the readers or myself, so if I may ask, why are you an anti-theist?
• Oliver Elphick

  May 26, 2012 8:03 pm

  

  “At their most fundamental level, these religions require a belief that an all-knowing, all-powerful, immortal being created the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies 13,700,000,000 years ago (the age of the Universe) sat back and waited.”

  Creation took 6 days from the point of view of an observer on the earth. The theory of relativity has consequences that mean that the outer universe could be created on day 4, as the bible says, and that those billions of years could pass there while almost no time passed on earth, so that the heavens were ready to serve their purpose for Adam on day 6. The main requirement is that the earth should be close to the centre of the universe, which is consistent with the biblical account, and is denied by secular scientists not from evidence but by philosophical presupposition. (See http://creation.com/astronomy-and-astrophysics-questions-and-answers for example. http://creation.com/new-time-dilation-helps-creation-cosmology gives a mathematical treatment tied to some verifying data)
• aslama1

  January 9, 2014 4:56 pm

  

  Hi Oliver, it’s cute that you try to save the biblical creation story from embarrasment,when we already know how wrong it is. For instance,day and night are created without the sun and moon. Interestingly, the day, as defined by the bible, has an evening and a morning, features which are impossible without the sun and moon.
• Oliver Elphick

  January 10, 2014 8:38 am

  

  It is not impossible. God himself is the source of light until he creates the sun and moon. All that is needed for day and night is that the earth should be rotating.

  In the new heavens and earth it will be the same again:

  Revelation 21:23 The city has no need for the sun, neither of the moon, to shine, for the very glory of God illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb. 

  22:3 There will be no curse any more. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants serve him.  4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.  5 There will be no night, and they need no lamp light; for the Lord God will illuminate them. They will reign forever and ever.
• Alhassan Eliasu

  January 11, 2014 4:12 am

  

  Hi Oliver, another commendable attempt. However, you do not need to be a biblical scholar to know that the verses being spoken of have nothing to do with day and night. Even if we assume they do, you still have to explain how night can occur in the presence of God’s light, which you will agree is no ordinary light. Even Revelation 22:3 bears witness that ”….There will be no night,…”

  It is quite evident that the verses you posted do not speak about an alternation of day and night. Instead, they clearly speak of how the new world will have no night in them since God will be its light. However, Genesis makes it clear that there were series of nights before the sun. If God had been the source of light, Revelations 22:3 says it is impossible for night to have occurred. Therefore, it apears to me that the author(s)/editors of genesis have made a grave error.

  wassalam
• Paul Williams

  January 12, 2014 6:25 am

  

  this is a very good brief intro to Christianity. Well done Brother Alexus!
• Paul Williams

  January 12, 2014 10:13 am

  

  Christianity is pantheistic (it’s just that Christians don’t realise it)

  http://bloggingtheology.org/2014/01/12/555/
• Oliver Elphick

  January 12, 2014 2:27 pm

  

  Christianity is pantheistic

  First we heard of it!

  Pantheism is the belief that the entire universe is itself god, in some manner. Of course it isn’t; God created the universe and it is separate from him.

  When we believe in Jesus we are incorporated by the Holy Spirit into a spiritual body, the body of Christ, of which he is the Head. That does not make us the same as him, and it certainly isn’t pantheism.
• Paul Williams

  January 12, 2014 6:51 pm

  

  In John’s Gospel Jesus Christ is described as the Logos of God. So Jesus is divine (apologies to the unitarian Christians who visit this website). Most Christians today believe that Jesus is God.

  In Paul’s letters there are over 25 places where he says to Christians you are “the body of Christ”. But here is the odd thing: for some reason people do not put the two things together, but put them together and you get the following syllogism:

  * Christ is God

  * you are the body of Christ

  conclusion: therefore you are the body of God

  Simple! But why don’t Christians say this? It is there in the NT.

  “You are the body of god” is exactly the way some of the greatest Hindu thinkers expressed the doctrine that Atman is Brahman.
• Paul Williams

  January 12, 2014 7:48 pm

  

  English New Testament scholar John A. T. Robinson (Dean of Trinity College, Cambridge) in his book The Body, A Study in Pauline Theology, writes in reference to Paul’s use of the phrase the body of Christ

  ‘One must be chary of speaking of the ‘metaphor’ of the Body of Christ. Paul uses the analogy of the human body to elucidate his teaching that Christians form Christ’s body. But the analogy holds because they are in literal fact the risen organism of Christ’s person in all its concrete reality. What is arresting is his identification of this personality with the Church. But to say that the Church is the body of Christ is not more of a metaphor than to say that the flesh of the incarnate Jesus or the bread of the Eucharist is the body of Christ. None of them is ‘like’ His body (Paul never says this): each of them is the body of Christ, in that each is the physical complement and extension of one and the same Person and Life.

  It is almost impossible to exaggerate the materialism and crudity of Paul’s doctrine of the Church as literally now the resurrection body of Christ. The language of ‘membership’ of a body corporate has become so trite that the idea that the individual can be a ‘member’ has ceased to be offensive. The force of Paul’s words can to-day perhaps be got only by paraphrasing: ‘You are the body of Christ and severally membranes thereof’ (1 Cor. 12.27). (The description of Christians as ‘joints’ and ‘ligaments’ actually occurs in Col. 2.19; cf. Eph. 4.16). The body that he has in mind is as concrete and as singular as the body of the Incarnation. This underlying conception is not of a supra-personal collective, but of a specific personal organism. Compare Karl Barth: ‘Believers…are therefore, in their full-grown and no way attenuated individuality, one body, one individual in Christ. They are not a mass of individuals, not even a corporation, a personified society, or a “totality”, but The Individual, The One, The New Man’ (Romans, 443).’

  page 51.
• Oliver Elphick

  January 13, 2014 1:26 am

  

  * Christ is God
  * you are the body of Christ
  conclusion: therefore you are the body of God

  It is a conclusion that Paul does not draw, because it is based on an unstated, faulty premise: that Christ is all of God. Christ is distinct from the Father, even though both share in the one essence of God.