Who is Jesus?

[good]

Who is Jesus?

Without a doubt, you have often heard the claim that Jesus is God, the second person in the "Holy trinity." However, the very Bible which is used as a basis for knowledge about Jesus and as the basis for doctrine within Christianity clearly belies this claim. We urge you to consult your own Bible and verify that the following conclusions are not drawn out of context:

1. God is All Knowing.....but Jesus was not
When speaking of the day of judgment, Jesus clearly gave evidence of a limitation on his knowledge when he said, "but of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the son, but the Father." Mark 13:32, and Matt 24:36. But God knows all. His knowledge is without any limitations. That Jesus, of his own admission, did not know when the day of judgment would be, is clear proof that Jesus is not all-knowing, and that Jesus is therefore not God.

2. God is All Powerful.....but Jesus was not
While Jesus performed many miracles, he himself admitted that the power he had was not his own but was derived from God when he said, "Verily, verily I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do..." St. John 5:19. Again he said, "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." St. John 5:30. But God is not only all-powerful, He is also the source of all power and authority. That Jesus, of his own admission, could do nothing on his own is clear proof that Jesus is not all-powerful, and that therefore Jesus is not God.

3. God does not have a God.....but Jesus did have a God.
God is the ultimate judge and refuge for all, and He does not call upon nor pray to any others. But Jesus acknowledged that there was one whom he worshipped and to whom he prayed when he said, "l ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." St. John 20:17. He is also reported to have cried out while on the cross, "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?" Matt 27:46. If Jesus were God, then couldn't this be read, "Myself, myself why hast thou forsaken me?" Would that not be pure nonsense? When Jesus prayed the Lord's prayer (Luke 11:2-4), was he praying to himself? When in the garden of Gethsemane he prayed, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: Nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt." Matt 26:36-39. Was Jesus praying to himself? That Jesus, of his own admission and by his own actions, acknowledged, worshipped, and prayed to another being as God is clear proof that Jesus himself is not God.

4. God is an invisible spirit.....but Jesus was flesh and blood
While thousands saw Jesus and heard his voice, Jesus himself said that this could not be done with God when he said. "No man hath seen God at any time." St. John 1:18. '"Ye have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His shape." St. John 5:37. He also said in St. John 4:24. "God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." That Jesus would say that no one had seen or heard God at any time, while his followers both saw and heard him, is clear proof that Jesus was not God.

5. No one is greater than God and no one can direct Him but Jesus acknowledged someone greater than himself whose will was distinct from his own.
Perhaps the clearest indication we have that Jesus and God are not equal, and therefore not one and the same, come again from the mouth of Jesus himself who said in St. John 14:28, "My Father is greater than I." When someone referred to him as good master in Matt 19:17, Jesus responded, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God..." Furthermore, Jesus drew clear distinctions between himself and God when he said, "I proceeded forth and came from God, neither came I of myself but He sent me." St. John 8:42. Jesus gave clear evidence of his subordination to God, rather than his equality with God,when he said in Luke 22:42, "not my will but thine be done" and in St. John 5:30, "I seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent me." That Jesus would admit that he did not come into the world on his own initiative but was directed to do so, that he would acknowledge another being as greater than himself, and that he would negate his own will in deference to affirming the will of another, give clear proof that Jesus is not the Supreme One and therefore Jesus is not God.

Conclusion
The Church recognizes the Bible as the primary source of knowledge about God and Jesus. But since the Bible makes it clear that Jesus is not the Supreme Being and the Supreme Being is not Jesus, upon what basis have you come to believe otherwise?

My brother or sister, the belief that the Supreme Being is a Trinity is false and completely inconsistent with the words of Jesus as presented in the Bible. God is one, not three. He is a perfect unity.

If you are interested in the truth about God and your relationship to Him, we invite you to investigate the religion of Islam.


What is the word of God about Jesus:

A. Regarding Sonship of Jesus:
That is Jesus, son of Mary, in word of truth, concerning which they are doubting. It is not for God to take a son unto Him. Glory be to Him! When He decrees a thing he but says to it "Be", and it is. (Qur'an 19:34,35).

And they say, 'The All-merciful has taken unto Himself a son.' You have indeed advanced something hideous. The heavens are well nigh rent of it and the earth split asunder, and the mountains well nigh fall down crashing for that they have attributed to the All-Merciful a son; and it behoves not the All-Merciful to take a son. None is there in the heavens and earth but comes to the All-Merciful as a servant (Qur'an 19:88-93).

Truly the likeness of Jesus, in God's sight, is as Adam's likeness; He created him of dust, then said He unto him, "Be", and he was. (Qur'an 3:59).

People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the Truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers. and say not, 'Three', Refrain, better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be on Him - that He should have a son! To Him belongs that which is in the heavens and on the earth, God suffices for a guardian. (Qur'an 4:171)

B. Regarding Jesus being God:
And when God said. 'O Jesus son of Mary,did you say unto men, "Take me and my mother as gods, apart from God?" He Said, 'To You be Glory! It is not mine to say what I have no right to. If I indeed said it, You knew it, knowing what is within my soul, and I do not know what is within Your soul; You know the things unseen. I only said to them what You did command me: "Serve God, my Lord and your Lord." And I was a witness over them, while I remained among them; but when You did take me to Yourself the Watcher over them; You are the witness of everything. (Quran 5:116,117)

C. Regarding Crucifiction of Jesus:
And for their unbelief, and their uttering against Mary a mighty calumny, and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God'...yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they did not slay him of certainty... no indeed, God raised him up to Him; God is Almighty, All-Wise. There is not one of the people of the Book but will assuredly believe in him before his death, and on the Resurrection Day he will be a witness against them. (Qur'an 4:156-159)
http://www.saaid.net/islam/5.htm

[EasternSP]

Good point there Cathar. I'm kinda drawing a conclusion that some folks go on the assumption that if someone claims that their God is the same as someone elses, regardless of the different characteristics, then it must certainly be so.
As far as God having different names throughout the ages, I would be inclined to think that would be based upon the person he is addressing. Sorta like the various names I have depending on the person. My wife had certain names for me that my boss at work wouldn't refer to me by. Remember, God wants a personal relationship with each of us, not just a distant leader roll like the POTUS, thus the various names.

[EasternSP]

Thats where you fail, those hadiths are not instructions for muslims to 'go on a genocide', they are signs of the last hour. There are around 50 Signs in Islam: http://www.allaahuakbar.net/important_i ... dgment.htm

I'm having a bit of difficulty here, finding where hadith refers to the last hour. I do find many places where hadiths are described as an essential role for Muslims in the interpretation and understanding of the Qur'an. The verse that I quoted instructs the Muslim to fight the Jews and that this will happen before the last hour. Do you or anybody else know when that last hour is? If not, would that imply for Muslims to comply with this verse at any time, anticipating that the last hour can come at any time.
My reference to Islamic leaders and others in influencial positions of the Muslims, calling for the destruction of Isreal presumes that they are making these calls based upon the writings of Muhammad. Some of these leaders are of Hamas, the PLO, the Muslim Brotherhood and Ahmadinejad to name a few. Why do you not consider these as evidence that the Islamic faith is looking to the genocide of the Jews?

[bernee51]

Good point there Cathar. I'm kinda drawing a conclusion that some folks go on the assumption that if someone claims that their God is the same as someone elses, regardless of the different characteristics, then it must certainly be so.

I actually agree with this despite my insistence that the god of Abraham is the god of the derivative monotheisms.

What has happened is the concept of a monotheistic god emerged and with changing culture that concept has evolved into the god of the specific monotheisms. As I see evolution as a matter of inclusion and transcendence the god of Christianity and Islam includes but transcends the god concept from which they have emerged. To that end the god of Islam and the god of Christianity, while having ‘common ancestry’, are different concepts.

As far as God having different names throughout the ages, I would be inclined to think that would be based upon the person he is addressing.

I would think it is the other way round. The various concepts of gods and the names attributed arose from the person addressing the gods.

Remember, God wants a personal relationship with each of us, not just a distant leader roll like the POTUS, thus the various names.

On what basis can you claim that god wants a ‘personal relationship’ and what exactly is the ‘personal relationship’?

A point...who we are - or more accurately who we imagine ourselves to be - is based on ‘relationship’ with a whole range of entities, individual and collective, with whom we interact. All those entities – like ‘who we are’ - are also concepts.

[EasternSP]

As far as God having different names throughout the ages, I would be inclined to think that would be based upon the person he is addressing.

I would think it is the other way round. The various concepts of gods and the names attributed arose from the person addressing the gods.

let's take one of the names for example, the great I am. Used by God to Moses, then referred to by Jesus. Quite a large expance of time and quite a few prophets between them. Do you suppose that some of the prophets didn't know God by that reference point?

Remember, God wants a personal relationship with each of us, not just a distant leader roll like the POTUS, thus the various names.

On what basis can you claim that god wants a ‘personal relationship’ and what exactly is the ‘personal relationship’?

I would think there are a few basis' to make that claim. God created man, face to face, in his (plural) image. He walked with Adam on a daily basis that Adam apparently knew his voice.
God deals with his children on a personal basis, not corporate, i.e. a military platoon, one order is sufficient for all. Sure, there are instances where God addresses the nation of Isreal concerning the good and bad things they have done that please him or really torque him off.
I think the NT offers quite a bit of material that tells us about God's desire for a personal relationship with him, starting with the personal salvation of one person at a time.

[Murad]

You seem to be attempting to force your beliefs on me as the authoritative word on this issue.

No i am not. You made an accusation against my faith, the burden of proof lies with YOU.

I have provided the basis of WHAT I BELIEVE in verse and of the current day desires of Muslim leaders.

(notice the bolded)

Now you are allusively deviating from your original statement.
First you said: "Islam calls for the genecide of the Jews", now you are blabbing on about so called "muslim leaders". You made an accusation against ISLAM, not "muslims". So justify your claims against Islam or retract your statement.

I never mentioned Al Queda, you did

No i mentioned the taliban. Al-Qaeda doesn't even exist, its a conspiracy.

I really don't think anything I could tell you would change your perspective of the matter.

No im open minded.
All you have to do is justify your original statement that: "Islam calls for the genecide of the Jews". If you cannot, retract your statement.

You make a charge of genocide and that's ok?

What on earth are you going on about? What genocide did i charge against Christianity? Did i mention the crusades? Did i mention the Catholic Church? No i didn't. Stop lying, its not healthy.

You make a claim that the god of Islam is the same God of Abraham, without backing it up, but that's ok?

Really now, we are talking about basic knowledge, you claiming to know about Islam should know this.

According to Francis Edwards Peters, "The Koran insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews (29:46). The Koran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham". Peters states that the Koran portrays Allah as both more powerful and more remote than Yahweh, and as a universal deity, unlike Yahweh who closely follows Israelites.[9]

[Quran 29:46]

Do not argue with the people of the scripture (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) except in the nicest possible manner - unless they transgress - and say, "We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you, and our god and your god is one and the same; to Him we are submitters."

So why do you wave the rule book at me for not convincing you of my statements but then you make similar claims with no evidence?

Well the name "Abrahamic Religion" kinda gives it away.

Thats where you fail, those hadiths are not instructions for muslims to 'go on a genocide', they are signs of the last hour. There are around 50 Signs in Islam: http://www.allaahuakbar.net/important_i ... dgment.htm

I'm having a bit of difficulty here, finding where hadith refers to the last hour.

This is what you quoted:

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

What on earth is "Difficult" to find?

I do find many places where hadiths are described as an essential role for Muslims in the interpretation and understanding of the Qur'an.

Sorry, i doubt you even read the Quran or the Sahih hadiths. Anyone that has, would not make such a ridiculous claim such as: "Islam calls for the genecide of the Jews"

The verse that I quoted instructs the Muslim to fight the Jews and that this will happen before the last hour.

Wrong.
I already told you there are 50 signs of Judgement day in Islam. One being, an epic battle between the Jews who would be headed by the false Messiah & the Muslims who would be headed by Jesus.

No where in the Quran or Sahih hadiths, are muslims instructed to kill Jews. Such a claim is ludicrious. & if you want to make a ludicrous claim, you obviously need evidence, which you failed to provide.

Retract your statement.

Do you or anybody else know when that last hour is?

Nope, there are only signs that signify the hour is drawing closer.

If not, would that imply for Muslims to comply with this verse at any time, anticipating that the last hour can come at any time.

There is nothing to "comply" with, its just a prophesy into the future, its not instructions for anyone, it has no authority in Islam, dont get it twisted. Also, all these apocalyptic prophecies such as wars etc.., follow the decension of Jesus, meaning they will not happen until Jesus appears. I suggest you study more before making false accusations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_vi ... t_Judgment

My reference to Islamic leaders and others in influencial positions of the Muslims, calling for the destruction of Isreal presumes that they are making these calls based upon the writings of Muhammad.

Please tell me, what "writings of Muhammad" instruct you to blow yourself up?
You are making baseless assumptions here, whatever a muslim does, whether its for a political, personal, military or whatever gain, does not mean its linked to Islam.

Some of these leaders are of Hamas, the PLO, the Muslim Brotherhood and Ahmadinejad to name a few.

Hamas is a terrorist organization
The Muslim Brotherhood is a political organisation that has different 'sects' within itself.
Ahmadinejad is the president for Iran, what religious authority does this man have?

Why do you not consider these as evidence that the Islamic faith is looking to the genocide of the Jews?

Because they are fallacious arguments, they hold absolutely no weight.

This is what you originally stated: "Islam calls for the genecide of the Jews".
Where is your evidence for such a claim? If you are going to make an accusation against Islam, then prove that accusation against Islam.

I honestly do not give a rats one what another muslim thinks, this is an OBJECTIVE DEBATE FORUM, opinions you can keep to yourself. Until you can provide me factual evidence that justifies your original ludicrous claim, retract your statement, or you will be reported for violating the rules.

[bernee51]

As far as God having different names throughout the ages, I would be inclined to think that would be based upon the person he is addressing.

I would think it is the other way round. The various concepts of gods and the names attributed arose from the person addressing the gods.

let's take one of the names for example, the great I am. Used by God to Moses, then referred to by Jesus. Quite a large expance of time and quite a few prophets between them. Do you suppose that some of the prophets didn't know God by that reference point?

That is an interesting one to hit on.

This famous phrase sounds a lot like Vedanta's tat twam asi, Thou art that.

The great Hindu sage Ramana Maharshi even said: "I am" is the name of God. Of all the definitions of God, none is indeed so well put as the Biblical statement "I am that I am" in Exodus .There are other statements, such as Brahmivaham, Aham Brahmasmi, and Soham. But none is so direct as the epithet Jehovah = I am.

What is in essence means is god is, as Sankaracharya noted "That which permeates all, which nothing transcends and which, like the universal space around us, fills everything completely from within and without, that Supreme non-dual Brahman -- that thou art."

It is not so much a name of god but a descriptor.

When Jesus alledgedly said, in John 8:58:... Before Abraham was, I am, the 'I' he is referring to what is known in Vedanta as Atman - pure consiousness as it manifests in the individual. Which is identical with Brahman - universal concsiousness.

There is a saying in Vedanta: in order to taste the ocean all thatis needed is a drop. Brahman and Atman are one.

Remember, God wants a personal relationship with each of us, not just a distant leader roll like the POTUS, thus the various names.

On what basis can you claim that god wants a ‘personal relationship’ and what exactly is the ‘personal relationship’?

I would think there are a few basis' to make that claim. God created man, face to face, in his (plural) image. He walked with Adam on a daily basis that Adam apparently knew his voice.

God deals with his children on a personal basis, not corporate, i.e. a military platoon, one order is sufficient for all. Sure, there are instances where God addresses the nation of Isreal concerning the good and bad things they have done that please him or really torque him off.
I think the NT offers quite a bit of material that tells us about God's desire for a personal relationship with him, starting with the personal salvation of one person at a time.

Indeed it does...but what is the source of that salvation?

Jesus is Yahushua.

“Yahu� is the Tetragrammaton YHWH, I AM; “Shua� is the verb “to save�. That is, I AM is what saves, I AM is the salvation; That which saves is I am.

It’s immaterial whether there was or there was not the historic figure of Jesus, because Yahushua – “I am is what saves�.

Seeking an understanding of the nature of "I am"...that is the 'personal relationship'.

edited to add:

Who would have thought: here I am, an atheist, giving a dissertation on basic Vedanta in the Islam sub-forum of a Debating Christianity website?

it truly is a wonderful world.

[Cathar1950]

As far as God having different names throughout the ages, I would be inclined to think that would be based upon the person he is addressing.

I would think it is the other way round. The various concepts of gods and the names attributed arose from the person addressing the gods.

let's take one of the names for example, the great I am. Used by God to Moses, then referred to by Jesus. Quite a large expance of time and quite a few prophets between them. Do you suppose that some of the prophets didn't know God by that reference point?

That is an interesting one to hit on.

This famous phrase sounds a lot like Vedanta's tat twam asi, Thou art that.

The great Hindu sage Ramana Maharshi even said: "I am" is the name of God. Of all the definitions of God, none is indeed so well put as the Biblical statement "I am that I am" in Exodus .There are other statements, such as Brahmivaham, Aham Brahmasmi, and Soham. But none is so direct as the epithet Jehovah = I am.

What is in essence means is god is, as Sankaracharya noted "That which permeates all, which nothing transcends and which, like the universal space around us, fills everything completely from within and without, that Supreme non-dual Brahman -- that thou art."

It is not so much a name of god but a descriptor.

When Jesus alledgedly said, in John 8:58:... Before Abraham was, I am, the 'I' he is referring to what is known in Vedanta as Atman - pure consiousness as it manifests in the individual. Which is identical with Brahman - universal concsiousness.

There is a saying in Vedanta: in order to taste the ocean all thatis needed is a drop. Brahman and Atman are one.

Remember, God wants a personal relationship with each of us, not just a distant leader roll like the POTUS, thus the various names.

On what basis can you claim that god wants a ‘personal relationship’ and what exactly is the ‘personal relationship’?

I would think there are a few basis' to make that claim. God created man, face to face, in his (plural) image. He walked with Adam on a daily basis that Adam apparently knew his voice.

God deals with his children on a personal basis, not corporate, i.e. a military platoon, one order is sufficient for all. Sure, there are instances where God addresses the nation of Isreal concerning the good and bad things they have done that please him or really torque him off.
I think the NT offers quite a bit of material that tells us about God's desire for a personal relationship with him, starting with the personal salvation of one person at a time.

Indeed it does...but what is the source of that salvation?

Jesus is Yahushua.

“Yahu� is the Tetragrammaton YHWH, I AM; “Shua� is the verb “to save�. That is, I AM is what saves, I AM is the salvation; That which saves is I am.

It’s immaterial whether there was or there was not the historic figure of Jesus, because Yahushua – “I am is what saves�.

Seeking an understanding of the nature of "I am"...that is the 'personal relationship'.

edited to add:

Who would have thought: here I am, an atheist, giving a dissertation on basic Vedanta in the Islam sub-forum of a Debating Christianity website?

it truly is a wonderful world.

Hartshorne say that the Buddhist idea of becoming was anticipated 2000 years before Whitehead.
I have read where a better interpretation of "I am what I am" is "I will be or become what I will be or become where God includes both all order and chaos as well as all contingencies and necessity.
Of course I think we can doubt that the OT say God dealing with people on a personal basis as the very notion of Israel is social, God's first born or adopted son as envisioned by later writers.

[EasternSP]

Rather than belabor this point about the Genocide of the Jews, I will retract my statement from these pages.

[Cathar1950]

Rather than belabor this point about the Genocide of the Jews, I will retract my statement from these pages.

I don't remember the point.
I guess Jesus is seen and interpreted differently from the beginning and many diverse ways.