Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why jesus is not the son of god ?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Re: Why jesus is not the son of god ?

    Originally posted by JerryMyers View Post
    My apology if I am making incorrect assumptions about you but its what you said that makes me make ‘incorrect’ assumptions about you.
    I thought from your first post that you were an atheist, so I am guilty of poor assumptions.

    You got that almost right but, not quite. The Romans persecuted the EC, NOT because of the EC’s “claim of Jesus was the one true God was to deny that the emperor was”, BUT the persecution of the early Christians by the Romans was because of the EC refusal to worship the pagan gods or take part in sacrifices, which was expected of those living in the Roman Empire era.
    It's more complex than that. Jews had dispensation from sacrificing to the emperor, and early Christianity was (rightly) regarded by the Romans as a form of Judaism. The Christians were in a large part persecuted for calling Jesus their king. See the martyrdom of Polycarp for a Christian dying for calling Christ the king against the emperor. Christ means king, it's not a name.

    My point remains untouched- if Christians were calling Jesus part of the One True God, it implies that the emperor isn't a god. Given the growing emperor divinity cult, all of this spells trouble for Christians, the exact opposite of being forced to say Jesus is God!

    The early Romans are pagan-worshipers. They worshiped the sun-god, Mithra and had many rituals and sacrifices which they expect the EC/early Christians to adopt and when they refused, they are persecuted.
    Mithraism was a minor religion that was practised in the first century AD, but it was not the state religion, or anywhere remotely near being the state religion (there wasn't one, apart from the growing 'emperor is divine' cult).

    It had no influence at all on early Christianity, and indeed they were opposed to each other.

    Wikipedia link for Mithraism

    Thus, we can find profound similarities between Mithraism and Christianity such as –

    1) Mithra was born on December 25 as told in the “Great Religions of the World”, page 330; “…it was the winter solstice celebrated by ancients as the birthday of Mithraism’s sun god”. So, was Jesus of the Christians.
    <snip>
    In other words, by the power of the day, which is the Roman Empire, the EC was dictated on what to believe, what was to be in their holy books and what should be communicated to the public
    Jesus wasn't born on 25th December. That day was chosen roughly in the fourth century details The Bible evidence points to a time of the year when things were warm.

    There are compelling other reasons why Mithraism won't do as a source for Christianity, but simply put, there's no chance whatsoever the Romans would have forced a small minority religion onto Christianity, especially since Mithraism was opposed to the emperor cult. In addition, Christians were quite prepared to get persecuted for their beliefs about Jesus, as the New Testament makes clear.

    As you said – “…in which the writers clearly expressed their views….” – in other words, it’s their views, which, not necessarily mean, the correct views.
    To be clear, it was the general belief in Israel at the time that God would return to Israel, because the OT prophets told them from God that's what's going to happen.

    Yes, it was a vision which the prophet saw. It was also a vision in which, an angel was speaking, NOT God.
    <snip>
    Common sense tells us this is NOT so.
    I'm not sure what your point is here. An angel was telling Zechariah that God had said He would return to Israel. Hence the general belief that God said He would return to Israel. He did, as Jesus.

    It would be to the benefits of both of us and the other readers here if you can also quote those verses from the Bible which clearly showed that Jesus said he’s God or had said his ‘death’ will redeem the people of their sin OR as you said “along those lines”.
    I've done one, there are obvious others, and if Jesus hadn't said these things the disciples would not have gone where they did. But it would be better if we discussed the argument I'm actually making, and not one used by other Christians, however valid...

    Which is- Jesus did things that God said He would do. Therefore Jesus is God.

    Comment


      Re: Why jesus is not the son of god ?

      [MENTION=145690]Alex S[/MENTION]

      Hello.

      I would say that all the proofs I have read from you , as you attempt to suggest Jesus claiming inadvertently to be God (Yahweh) - are all bias interpretations , in hopes to remain consistent with Church History ( Theology ). Obviously us Muslims approach the Bible with our own perspectives which are unshakable. We believe the Quran is a criterion over the Bible , and a source by which we can affirm truth and negate falsehood. But leaving my position and standards out of this - the error from your perspective is rather obvious if one has sound standards.. (No offense)

      Jesus did not come and offer us a new religion. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Considering the fact that he was a Jew , and according to your Bible , he acknowledged the Torah and the Prophets , then your default position on his statements should never be to assume the most grandiose interpretation.

      The most important of all teachings is Monotheism in this religion , which means that it is not a matter to ever take lightly. Your default position should always be a negation of possible idolatry unless all conditions and perspectives are taken in to consideration.

      1) If Jesus claimed to be Yahweh , then he would automatically become a false Messiah.

      Jews are strict monotheist. They believe Trinity is idolatry regardless of how you interpret it , and it is unacceptable by God. The OT is full of passages vehemently opposing idolatry and claiming that there is only One God ( And besides Him there is no other i.e Partners )

      2) Your assumption that the Disciples understood those passages allegedly ascribed to Jesus(pbuh) in the grandiose manner that you have , is an absurdity.

      The Disciples were law abiding Jews , which means their default position is strict Monotheism. Had Jesus actually been God Himself ( The Father or a Co-Eternal ) , then that would require him to proclaim himself as Yahweh in a language which is undeniablely affirmative. For example , "I am Yahweh Himself."

      The Ebionites ( Who claimed to be on the teaching of James ) did not believe that Jesus was God. They simply believed that he was the Jewish Messiah , and that is all. A "Son of God" just like other Prophets(pbut) and nobles ( Though I do acknowledge Jesus being a very special Prophet - considering that he is the awaited Messiah )

      Also the Gospels which are present in the Bible have a growing theology as it is apparent from Mark ---> Matthew --> Luke ---> John. So it is not even a trustworthy source for the statements of Jesus , but that is besides the point.

      3) Early Christianity ( The followers ) had differences in their Christology. Indeed some may have believed Jesus was God, or a being which needs to be worshipped alongside the Father ( Something alien to Judaism ). I would say that this deviation must have came from the gentiles and Paul's own grandiose innovations of Jesus.

      Paul was converting the ignorant pagan gentiles and teaching them these alien doctrines which oppose the statements of Jesus. Within the Bible Paul's fellow Christian opponents were the "Party of circumcision /" "Christian sect belonging to the Pharisees" ( Real Jews ) / and even the Disciples in certain places ( Theological reasons ).

      -----

      At the end of the day , I could never accept that Jesus was Yahweh but wasn't walking around and making it absolutely clear at all times. I mean , he never even said that he is Yahweh , all your proofs are either historically inaccurate ( Typically found in John ) , or false grandeur interpretations , which we know are false based on the Old Testaments strong monotheistic stance. Logically speaking , the default must always be a humanly interpretation and not a godly one - had Jesus affirmed himself as God , in clear unequivocal language , then certainly all gospels (Including Mark) would contain all those juicy quotes. It doesn't , therefore Jesus never said anything of that nature.
      Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 29-10-17, 08:29 PM.

      Comment


        Re: Why jesus is not the son of god ?

        Originally posted by Alex S View Post
        It's more complex than that. Jews had dispensation from sacrificing to the emperor, and early Christianity was (rightly) regarded by the Romans as a form of Judaism. The Christians were in a large part persecuted for calling Jesus their king. See the martyrdom of Polycarp for a Christian dying for calling Christ the king against the emperor. Christ means king, it's not a name.
        Well, make up your mind – was Christians persecuted by the Romans for calling Jesus their king OR was it, as you said in your previous post, they were persecuted for claiming ‘Jesus was the one true God (and thus, to do so) was to deny that the emperor was’ ??

        Either way, neither would be the primary reason for the Romans’ persecution of the Christians as the Christians could still consider Jesus as their king or worship him as God secretly in their hearts and there’s nothing much the Romans can do about it as that (belief) would not be so apparent to them. However, when the Christians refused to take part in their rituals and sacrifices to their pagan gods (when everyone living under the Romans’ rule was expected to do so), it became very apparent to the Romans that the Christians are not complying with their traditional religious practice and thus, it became the primary reason for the Romans to persecute the Christians.

        By the way, 'Christ' means 'anointed/messiah' and Jesus Christ mean 'Jesus, the anointed one/the messiah'.

        Originally posted by Alex S View Post
        My point remains untouched- if Christians were calling Jesus part of the One True God, it implies that the emperor isn't a god. Given the growing emperor divinity cult, all of this spells trouble for Christians, the exact opposite of being forced to say Jesus is God!
        Well, fact is - you won’t be able to prove Jesus is part of the one true God from your own Scripture. But go ahead and try, anyway.

        Originally posted by Alex S View Post
        Mithraism was a minor religion that was practised in the first century AD, but it was not the state religion, or anywhere remotely near being the state religion (there wasn't one, apart from the growing 'emperor is divine' cult).

        It had no influence at all on early Christianity, and indeed they were opposed to each other.
        Wikipedia link for Mithraism
        I am not saying the early Christians were influenced by Mithraism, in fact, they were persecuted because they are NOT influenced by it. I am saying when the Romans made Christianity their official religion, the influence of their pagan beliefs was also incorporated into their new official religion – Christianity.

        Originally posted by Alex S View Post
        Jesus wasn't born on 25th December. That day was chosen roughly in the fourth century details The Bible evidence points to a time of the year when things were warm.
        There are compelling other reasons why Mithraism won't do as a source for Christianity, but simply put, there's no chance whatsoever the Romans would have forced a small minority religion onto Christianity, especially since Mithraism was opposed to the emperor cult. In addition, Christians were quite prepared to get persecuted for their beliefs about Jesus, as the New Testament makes clear.
        True, there’s no Biblical accounts of Jesus born on December 25 BUT that don’t seem to stop the Christians from celebrating Jesus’ ‘birthday’ on December 25 every year, does it ??

        And it’s not about “the Romans have forced a ‘small minority’ religion onto Christianity”, BUT rather it’s about a compromised solution, to a dispute between 2 schools of thought, which was sealed at the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD. It was the Council of Nicea that laid the cornerstone for the orthodox Christian’s understanding of Jesus Christ today – that he’s both human and God. In other words, THAT foundation belief of ‘Jesus is both human and God’, is a man-made foundation, formulated by the Council of Nicea, NOT decreed by God - a foundation that has stood ever since in Christianity.

        Originally posted by Alex S View Post
        To be clear, it was the general belief in Israel at the time that God would return to Israel, because the OT prophets told them from God that's what's going to happen.
        I'm not sure what your point is here. An angel was telling Zechariah that God had said He would return to Israel. Hence the general belief that God said He would return to Israel. He did, as Jesus.
        A general belief, like the general view, does not mean it’s the correct belief. At one time, it was a general belief that the earth is flat – well, we know today, that general belief was wrong.

        Perhaps, you understood the phrase ‘God will return’ to mean that God will physically return - is that a correct observation ?? And when did Jesus too say he will return to Israel ??

        Originally posted by Alex S View Post
        I've done one, there are obvious others, and if Jesus hadn't said these things the disciples would not have gone where they did. But it would be better if we discussed the argument I'm actually making, and not one used by other Christians, however valid... Which is- Jesus did things that God said He would do. Therefore Jesus is God.
        OK, let’s discuss “the argument you are actually making (and not the one used by other Christians)… Which is- Jesus did things that God said He would do. Therefore Jesus is God”, but, you need to quote verse(s) from your Scripture that clearly support your belief that Jesus is God. You said you have done one and I am not sure which one. If you are referring to Zechariah 2, how’s that proved Jesus is God ??
        Last edited by JerryMyers; 30-10-17, 08:01 AM.

        Comment


          Re: Why jesus is not the son of god ?

          Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

          1) If Jesus claimed to be Yahweh , then he would automatically become a false Messiah.
          .
          The primary contentions of the Jews today against the Biblical Jesus / Christianity's portrayal of Jesus's Messiah are ..

          1) If Jesus claimed to be God , who is known from the Torah to be YHWH - the One True God , typically referred to as The Father / Lord - Or if he claimed to be a Co-Eternal partner of YHWH , then this would necessitate a rejection of him , due to this being clear idolatry. The Trinity is universally rejected by all Jews for having no Basis in their Hebrew Bible , along with it being idolatry. The one who believes in a 'man-god' or the Trinity will not be admitted to Paradise in the hereafter - and such people have contradicted the Noah-chide laws , which God took from the gentiles.

          Muslims escape this unnecessary objection of the Jews with our portrayal of Jesus which conforms to what early accounts of Jesus are reporting of Jesus - along with what early Jewish-Christians believed about his Christology. Simply the Jewish Messiah and is not YHWH , the Eternal God of the Heavens and the Earth.

          2) The Messiah is expected to free the Jewish people from their rulers and to establish a Jewish state in conformity to King David(as). Jesus 'died' and did not complete his mission , therefore he is a false Messiah.

          Christians attempt to suggest that this is a misunderstanding of scripture , and rather , the Bible claims that the Messiah must suffer. This is in fact an interpolation which fits in with Pauline doctrine ..

          "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" [Galatians 2:21]

          And then further argue that this will take place in his second coming .. the Biblical Jesus is reported to have prophesies that he would return within his followers lifetimes.

          ""Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." [Matthew 16:28]

          The Jews reject him also on this basis ..

          -He said he was coming , but he didn't - and we know that he was being literal because Paul himself was deceived by this statement as he writes in his own works.
          - Any false claimant to the Messiah can say "I will fulfill all prophecies when I come back." , and his claim to return is not a proof for his messiah , and neither is him suffering. Suffering may happen to any claimant to the Messiah who was rejected by the Jews.

          Muslims can escape this by claiming that Jesus did not die , so this falsifying standard is erroneous to begin with. Allah(swt) cursed the Jews who rejected Jesus even after all the miracles and wonders he performed before them , by making it appear that he died and thus punishing them with false assumptions - for a penalty of rejecting God and his covenants. Now they await the False Messiah ( Dajjal ).

          -We know Jesus was rejected by his people , even through biblical sources , as John states.

          -He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. [John 1:11]

          And Paul claims that at the time of Ascension ..

          -In those days, Peter stood up among the brothers - a group numbering a hundred and twenty... (Acts of the Apostles 1:15)

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

          The primary claims of Jews(Modern) against Jesus being the Messiah are not even true reasons to reject him. This problem is only presented by Christianity , and indeed , Islam which is the reality , provides the exact solution to that problem.
          Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 30-10-17, 10:29 PM.

          Comment


            Re: Why jesus is not the son of god ?

            Originally posted by JerryMyers View Post
            Well, make up your mind – was Christians persecuted by the Romans for calling Jesus their king OR was it, as you said in your previous post, they were persecuted for claiming ‘Jesus was the one true God (and thus, to do so) was to deny that the emperor was’ ??
            It's a bit of both (politics and religion were viewed as inter-connected), and historical record is a bit light on exactly what the problem was that got Christians persecuted. The whole revolutionary Jewish 'No king but God' thing is also in there.
            My point is that the Christians had no Roman based incentive at all to declare Jesus as God, and the Romans had an incentive to discourage them from calling Jesus God (the emperor divinity cult), rather than forcing them to do it.

            I am not saying the early Christians were influenced by Mithraism, in fact, they were persecuted because they are NOT influenced by it. I am saying when the Romans made Christianity their official religion, the influence of their pagan beliefs was also incorporated into their new official religion – Christianity.
            But the Christians were calling Jesus God way back in the first Century (Paul writing in the 50s is clear that the Early Church considers Jesus to be God), so the decision was made a very long time before Rome went Christian.

            And it’s not about “the Romans have forced a ‘small minority’ religion onto Christianity”, BUT rather it’s about a compromised solution, to a dispute between 2 schools of thought, which was sealed at the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD. It was the Council of Nicea that laid the cornerstone for the orthodox Christian’s understanding of Jesus Christ today – that he’s both human and God. In other words, THAT foundation belief of ‘Jesus is both human and God’, is a man-made foundation, formulated by the Council of Nicea, NOT decreed by God - a foundation that has stood ever since in Christianity.
            Again, Nicea was long after the decision was made. It was a rather unhelpful conference to try to explain how Jesus as God operated. That He was God had been decided centuries earlier.

            Perhaps, you understood the phrase ‘God will return’ to mean that God will physically return - is that a correct observation ?? And when did Jesus too say he will return to Israel ??
            What God's return to Israel would look like was one of the hot topics in first century Israel. Jesus provided the answer.

            OK, let’s discuss “the argument you are actually making (and not the one used by other Christians)… Which is- Jesus did things that God said He would do. Therefore Jesus is God”, but, you need to quote verse(s) from your Scripture that clearly support your belief that Jesus is God. You said you have done one and I am not sure which one. If you are referring to Zechariah 2, how’s that proved Jesus is God ??[
            Proving that Jesus is God by quoting small verses from the Bible is the usual online Christian method, but it's not mine.
            Zechariah 2 is one of a number of passages I listed earlier, with many others around, in which God, in the Old Testament, makes certain promises about what He'll do in the future. He said He'll save mankind, return to Israel, invite the world to join in His blessing, and establish His Kingdom. The Early Church realised that Jesus had done these things, things God said (in the OT) he would do, and so Jesus clearly had to be an active part of God.

            Comment


              Re: Why jesus is not the son of god ?

              Originally posted by Alex S View Post
              It's a bit of both (politics and religion were viewed as inter-connected), and historical record is a bit light on exactly what the problem was that got Christians persecuted. The whole revolutionary Jewish 'No king but God' thing is also in there.
              My point is that the Christians had no Roman based incentive at all to declare Jesus as God, and the Romans had an incentive to discourage them from calling Jesus God (the emperor divinity cult), rather than forcing them to do it.
              Exactly my point – those who had power over politics also had great influence over religion. In other words, the Romans who were the power of the day, would eventually had the final say on what Christianity should be like.

              The revolutionary Jewish ‘No king but God’ simply means the Jews of the day only believe in the divinity of a God who’s up in the heavens, NOT in the divinity of a man living on earth. Why do you think they falsely charged Jesus with blasphemy (of calling himself as a God, which Jesus, of course, denied) if they truly believe Jesus is God or the Son of God ?

              Originally posted by Alex S View Post
              But the Christians were calling Jesus God way back in the first Century (Paul writing in the 50s is clear that the Early Church considers Jesus to be God), so the decision was made a very long time before Rome went Christian.
              What proofs have you got that the Christians were calling Jesus a God way back in the first Century ? There’s not a single verse in the Bible that said Jesus himself said he’s a God and neither is there a single verse in the Bible that stated God Himself said His servant, Jesus, is a God.

              Originally posted by Alex S View Post
              Again, Nicea was long after the decision was made. It was a rather unhelpful conference to try to explain how Jesus as God operated. That He was God had been decided centuries earlier.
              Well, as I said above, PROVE IT.

              Originally posted by Alex S View Post
              What God's return to Israel would look like was one of the hot topics in first century Israel. Jesus provided the answer.
              How did Jesus provide the answer ??

              Originally posted by Alex S View Post
              Proving that Jesus is God by quoting small verses from the Bible is the usual online Christian method, but it's not mine.
              Zechariah 2 is one of a number of passages I listed earlier, with many others around, in which God, in the Old Testament, makes certain promises about what He'll do in the future.
              Well, isn’t OT part of the Bible ?? Are you NOT contradicting yourself when you said quoting ‘small’ verses from the Bible to ‘prove’ Jesus is God is NOT your method ??

              Again, how did Zechariah 2, or for that matter, any other OT verses, proved Jesus is God ?? You need to explain how the verse(s) of the OT translate to Jesus being a God.

              Originally posted by Alex S View Post
              He said He'll save mankind, return to Israel, invite the world to join in His blessing, and establish His Kingdom. The Early Church realised that Jesus had done these things, things God said (in the OT) he would do, and so Jesus clearly had to be an active part of God.
              How is it that ‘Jesus had done these things’ means Jesus is God ?? If that’s the case, then, ALL prophets are Gods too !! Is it not ALL prophets’ mission was to save mankind, invite mankind to be part of God’s blessing and establish ‘the kingdom of God’ ?

              I am not sure what you mean by ‘an active part of God’. If you mean being ‘an active part of God’ means in the sense that Jesus does nothing but ONLY to the will of God, not his own or anyone else, then, I agreed. However, if you mean being ‘an active part of God’ means Jesus is one part of God, like in trinity, then, I will say you do not even understand your own Scripture. However, you are free to prove me wrong - I'm listening.

              Comment


                Re: Why jesus is not the son of god ?

                [MENTION=145690]Alex S[/MENTION]

                I am just curious , how do you explain the Ebionite movement? According to Trinitarian Christian scholars they existed within the first century, they believed that Jesus was a human Messiah, upheld the law, opposed Paul and they trace their teachings back to James.

                The unfortunate problem with investigating early Christianity is the lack of sources. The history of the disciples and the early community is primarily based on the writings of Paul. The history which is presented to us has a level of bias , considering that Paul himself is a theologian , and how adamant he was in delivering his 'gospel' of grace and salvation - only adds further suspicion to his writings.

                Allow me to ask you a few questions.

                1) Those hymns and early creeds found in Paul's gospel - were the ebionites unaware of them? I've hear Christians claim that these teachings must have dated back very early - which is taken to be a proof that Jesus was considered 'god' or worshipped by early Christians. So my question is, were the ebionites aware of such creeds, and if so, why did they oppose the "Church's" theology?

                2) If Jesus claimed to be Yahweh or a Co-Eternal and if the disciples believed that , then wouldn't all converts to the faith be aware of such a grand claim and belief? Acknowledge that these are Jewish Christians who worshipped with other law abiding Jews(the disciples). Wouldn't they be more representative of Orthodox belief, rather than Paul and his gentile following?
                Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 05-11-17, 06:41 PM.

                Comment


                  Re: Why jesus is not the son of god ?

                  AmantuBillahi- there is a lot to be said about your posts, but I tend to engage with one conversation partner at a time. I'm sure if you keep an eye on things, at some point I will be able to explain why the whole Ebionite thing doesn't really work. Just not at this precise time.



                  Originally posted by JerryMyers View Post
                  What proofs have you got that the Christians were calling Jesus a God way back in the first Century ?
                  The New Testament gives us a clear insight into the hot topics of the day. We know that saying the Torah is optional was immensely controversial for Paul, and there were hard battles over it. We know that eating meat sacrificed to idols, admitting Gentiles to a status previously reserved for Jews, abandoning claims on Israel, were immensely controversial. These battles are clear in the NT.

                  Now when Paul writes that At the name of Jesus, every knee will bow (v11) he's saying that Jesus is God as in Isaiah 45:23 . Then John talks about the Logos being with God, and being God, the same one who created the universe in Genesis 1. And so on. And so on.

                  We know that the Early Church believed Jesus was God, because they left a lot of writings to that effect (and Roman writings back this up e.g. Pliny).

                  And there's no controversy, anywhere, about this in the first century. Paul and the others are writing these things as agreed facts, not as points to be debated as for the other hot topics. It was a settled discussion long before the end of the first century, and long, long before the Romans got involved, long, long before Nicea, and the Romans had no influence whatsoever on the process.

                  There’s not a single verse in the Bible that said Jesus himself said he’s a God and neither is there a single verse in the Bible that stated God Himself said His servant, Jesus, is a God.
                  I've given you enough to contradict that already, and to repeat, it's completely irrelevant to the argument I'm making, which works 100% even if Jesus/the NT hadn't said anything.

                  How did Jesus provide the answer ??
                  By being God returning to Israel.

                  Again, how did Zechariah 2, or for that matter, any other OT verses, proved Jesus is God ??
                  Zechariah said that God would return to Israel and win a great victory. Jesus did just that. That's how the Early Church knew he was the active part of God.

                  If that’s the case, then, ALL prophets are Gods too !! Is it not ALL prophets’ mission was to save mankind, invite mankind to be part of God’s blessing and establish ‘the kingdom of God’ ?
                  No, the prophets had one job- prophecy. God had said He would sort out sin and death, free humanity and establish his Kingdom. That was not a job for mere prophets. It was a job for God alone.

                  That's how the Early Church knew Jesus was God, and not just a prophet.

                  Comment


                    Re: Why jesus is not the son of god ?

                    Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                    The New Testament gives us a clear insight into the hot topics of the day. We know that saying the Torah is optional was immensely controversial for Paul, and there were hard battles over it. We know that eating meat sacrificed to idols, admitting Gentiles to a status previously reserved for Jews, abandoning claims on Israel, were immensely controversial. These battles are clear in the NT.
                    You mean they are clear by the words of Paul, not Jesus. I can understand that as Christians today follow Paul, not Jesus.

                    Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                    Now when Paul writes that At the name of Jesus, every knee will bow (v11) he's saying that Jesus is God as in Isaiah 45:23 .
                    Obviously Paul was NOT referring Jesus as God when he said “Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God, the Father” (Philippians 2:11) AFTER the verse you quoted “At the name of Jesus, every knee will bow”. The statement “to the glory of God, the Father” tells us Jesus’ existence and works are only to the glory of God, NOT to the glory of his own. The reference of ‘Jesus is Lord’ is the same reference Paul made when he said “yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ” – (1 Corr. 8:6). Paul did not say there’s one God and Lord, Jesus Christ, which means even Paul, as controversial as he was, understood Jesus as someone very much different to God. In fact, I can’t find a single verse (which cannot be disputed) in the whole Bible, where Paul called Jesus God. Maybe you can help me here.

                    The term ‘Lord’ should NOT be generalized to mean God, as in the Jewish society, rabbis are also called ‘Lord’ and Jesus is THE rabbi to his followers, and thus, he’s called ‘Lord’, NOT as a God, BUT as a respected rabbi or teacher..

                    Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                    Then John talks about the Logos being with God, and being God, the same one who created the universe in Genesis 1. And so on. And so on.
                    The Greek word ‘Logos’ or “Word” as in John 1:1, is NOT exclusively a reference to Jesus. It’s a reference to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes and plans, especially as they are brought into action. Thus John 1:1 is all about God’s creation. All creations are initiated by God’s Word. Just as Jesus is God’s Word, so is Light is God’s Word (Let there BE Light and there was Light”) – there’s no distinction. Moreover, the first reference of ‘God’ (and the Word was with God) in Greek was ‘ho theos’ which mean ‘The God’, a reference to the one and only God while the second reference of God (the Word was God) in Greek, was just ‘theos’ (without the ‘ho’) which indicate godly or divine creation (of God).


                    Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                    We know that the Early Church believed Jesus was God, because they left a lot of writings to that effect (and Roman writings back this up e.g. Pliny).
                    And there's no controversy, anywhere, about this in the first century. Paul and the others are writing these things as agreed facts, not as points to be debated as for the other hot topics. It was a settled discussion long before the end of the first century, and long, long before the Romans got involved, long, long before Nicea, and the Romans had no influence whatsoever on the process.
                    Writings of which was obviously written to lead to the belief that Jesus is both God and human at the same time. When the Council of Nicea 325AD declared Jesus is both divine and human, the EC ‘was persuaded’ by the power of the day to ‘review’ the Scripture/manuscripts and find verses that can used to imply towards this new ‘revelation’ of Jesus being both God and human. This they did, and verses like John 3:16, John 1:1 are among those verses used to imply Jesus is God, and for that reason too, you will NEVER find a single verse in the whole Bible where Jesus himself said he’s God, or God Himself said His servant and prophet, Jesus, is God or equal to God – ONLY implications by scholars.

                    Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                    I've given you enough to contradict that already, and to repeat, it's completely irrelevant to the argument I'm making, which works 100% even if Jesus/the NT hadn't said anything.
                    Actually, it really does not work 100% at all IF Jesus, whom the Christians claimed to follow, DID NOT say it. This is NOT a question of Jesus being humble but a question of what Jesus himself believed. If God Himself had said on numerous occasions that He’s God, you will expect Jesus too to say the same IF he believes he’s God too, BUT he never said it, which only proved Jesus himself never saw himself as a God.

                    Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                    By being God returning to Israel.
                    Zechariah said that God would return to Israel and win a great victory. Jesus did just that. That's how the Early Church knew he was the active part of God.

                    When we said ‘God will return’, it means man have left God in the sense that they no longer follow the Commandments of God as taught by their prophet, and when man left God, His Spirit, that is, the Spirit of God which is always with those who were pious and righteous, is also said to have left them. Thus, the angel in Zechariah 2 was telling the prophet, to guide his people back to God and when they are back to God by obeying His Commandments and the teaching of their prophet, God, that is, His Spirit aka the Spirit of God, will return or be with them once again. Its NOT that God Himself will physically return to them.

                    Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                    No, the prophets had one job- prophecy. That was not a job for mere prophets. It was a job for God alone.
                    Prophets had only one job – prophecy ? Which Christian group do you belong to ?

                    Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                    God had said He would sort out sin and death, free humanity and establish his Kingdom.
                    Yes, and He does that through ALL His prophets, not just through Jesus. Do you even understand what is meant by “sort out sin and death, free humanity and establish his Kingdom” ??

                    Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                    That's how the Early Church knew Jesus was God, and not just a prophet.
                    Well, fact is - Jesus IS just a prophet and a servant of God. Even Jesus himself believe so, and so are those close to him, even to the time after Jesus was said to have been “resurrected” and ascended.
                    Last edited by JerryMyers; 08-11-17, 04:03 PM.

                    Comment


                      Re: Why jesus is not the son of god ?

                      Originally posted by JerryMyers View Post
                      You mean they are clear by the words of Paul, not Jesus. I can understand that as Christians today follow Paul, not Jesus.
                      I don't understand- are you saying that Christians follow Paul in saying that Jesus is God, or that Paul never said it?

                      Obviously Paul was NOT referring Jesus as God when he said “Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God, the Father” <snip>NOT to the glory of his own.

                      The term ‘Lord’ should NOT be generalized to mean God, as in the Jewish society, rabbis are also called ‘Lord’ and Jesus is THE rabbi to his followers, and thus, he’s called ‘Lord’, NOT as a God, BUT as a respected rabbi or teacher..
                      In the context of Isaiah 45, 'Lord' means 'God', without any doubt. Please check any standard Jewish reference for that. Hence Paul is identifying Jesus as God.

                      yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ” – (1 Cor. 8:6)
                      Sticking Jesus name in the middle of the Shema is absolute proof that the early Christians regarded Jesus as God!
                      It was the ultimate statement about God's oneness, yet Jesus is included there.

                      The Greek word ‘Logos’ or “Word” as in John 1:1, is NOT exclusively a reference to Jesus.<snip>... divine creation (of God).
                      I'm afraid you've missed the point. John is identifying Jesus as the creative, active part of God, as in Genesis. “ And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of [l]the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth”.

                      Writings of which <snip>.ONLY implications by scholars.
                      To repeat, Nicea was a debate about what Jesus as God meant, not whether He was God or not. The decision was made before then.

                      When we said ‘God will return’, <snip>will physically return to them.
                      It means both, but that doesn't matter because it works in both senses. God promised to return to Israel, and did in the person of Jesus.

                      Do you even understand what is meant by “sort out sin and death, free humanity and establish his Kingdom” ??
                      Yes- because that's what Jesus did. He showed us what all that means.

                      Comment


                        Re: Why jesus is not the son of god ?

                        Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                        I don't understand- are you saying that Christians follow Paul in saying that Jesus is God, or that Paul never said it?
                        When I said “I can understand that as Christians today follow Paul, not Jesus.”, I was responding to what you said in Post #1508 in which you said “We know that saying the Torah is optional was immensely controversial for Paul, and there were hard battles over it. We know that eating meat sacrificed to idols, admitting Gentiles to a status previously reserved for Jews, abandoning claims on Israel, were immensely controversial. These battles are clear in the NT.”

                        In other words, they are controversial for Paul because they are against the teaching of Jesus. As the Christians today agreed to what Paul said about these things, in that sense, they follow Paul, not Jesus.

                        As whether the Christians today follow Paul in saying Jesus is God, I do not know. I know Christians follow Paul, not Jesus, when Paul (not Jesus) said all Christians MUST believe Jesus died and rose again else the Christians’ faith will in vain, BUT, I have yet to find a verse in the whole Bible where Paul said Jesus is God.

                        I don’t think Paul himself believed Jesus is God BUT he did believe Jesus died for man’s sin and rose again. So, if Paul did not believe Jesus is God, then the Christians’ belief of Jesus is God came from the outcome of the First Council of Nicea 325 AD where Jesus was made to be both God and human.

                        Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                        In the context of Isaiah 45, 'Lord' means 'God', without any doubt. Please check any standard Jewish reference for that. Hence Paul is identifying Jesus as God.
                        Sure, because Isaiah 45 was referring to God (NOT Jesus) as the one who was talking about his anointed one, Cyrus.

                        What makes you believe Isaiah was referring to Jesus when he said “This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus…” in Isaiah 45:1 ?? When did Jesus ever refer Cyrus, the King of Persia, as his anointed one ??


                        Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                        Sticking Jesus name in the middle of the Shema is absolute proof that the early Christians regarded Jesus as God!
                        It was the ultimate statement about God's oneness, yet Jesus is included there.
                        “there is one God, the Father, ………… AND one Lord, Jesus Christ” means there are two very different personalities here. As I said, Paul did not say “There’s one God AND Lord, Jesus Christ”, now, did he ??

                        Similarly, in the Muslim’s Shahada (or the Shema, if you like), “There’s no god worthy to be worshiped but Allah, AND Muhammad, is (only) His Messenger”. Now, does that mean Muhammad should be worshiped by the Muslims too because of Muhammad name ‘sticking in the middle’ of the Shahada ?? Of course not ! Only those who are misguided will believe a human can be God or equal to his Creator.

                        Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                        I'm afraid you've missed the point. John is identifying Jesus as the creative, active part of God, as in Genesis. “ And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of [l]the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth”.
                        I’m afraid it’s you who have been misled away from the truth. Whatever God Willed it to be, it become. The Word became flesh is no different in meaning as in “Let there BE Light and there was Light”, in which case, the Word became Light.

                        Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                        To repeat, Nicea was a debate about what Jesus as God meant, not whether He was God or not. The decision was made before then.
                        Of course its about whether Jesus was God or not !! If everyone before Nicea believed Jesus is God, then there’s really nothing to debate. Even today, not all Christians believe Jesus is God, and so the debate continues even among the Christians.

                        Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                        It means both, but that doesn't matter because it works in both senses. God promised to return to Israel, and did in the person of Jesus.
                        But it does matter because Jesus is not God. He’s just like any other prophets, whom, because of their righteousness and piety, they are always accompanied by the Spirit of God in them. Having the Spirit of God in them does not mean they are all God or equal to God too.

                        God also said He will bring the Israelites out of Egypt and He did that thru the person of Moses. Does that mean Moses is also God ???

                        Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                        Yes- because that's what Jesus did. He showed us what all that means.
                        Yes what ?? What Jesus did is what all prophets did in the context of “sort out sin and death, free humanity and establish his Kingdom”.

                        You may have a different understanding, so, from your own understanding, what does “sort out sin and death, free humanity and establish his Kingdom” mean ??

                        Comment


                          Re: Why jesus is not the son of god ?

                          Originally posted by JerryMyers View Post
                          When I said “I can understand that as Christians today follow Paul, not Jesus.”...<snip>... So, if Paul did not believe Jesus is God, then the Christians’ belief of Jesus is God came from the outcome of the First Council of Nicea 325 AD where Jesus was made to be both God and human.
                          I think before we need to proceed, we need to clarify where you think the belief in Jesus as God came from.

                          Most non-Christians, including in my experience most Muslims, think that Paul was responsible for setting Christianity off on the 'wrong' track about Christ as God, and that by the end of the first century this was the general belief of the Early Church.

                          The alternative you seem to be proposing, that it was introduced by Constantine at Nicea coming from nowhere, flies in the face of every scrap of everything we know about Church History in general, and Nicea in particular. This is an idea that exists only on the internet, and is not proposed or debated in academic circles.

                          If that's what you believe, please give me the evidence that this is what happened at Nicea.

                          Sure, because Isaiah 45 was referring to God (NOT Jesus) as the one who was talking about his anointed one, Cyrus.
                          Isaiah 45:23 'By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return:“To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.”' most certainly does not refer to Cyrus, whose role in chapter 45 finished at v13. The "me" refers to God.

                          “there is one God, the Father, ………… AND one Lord, Jesus Christ” means there are two very different personalities here. As I said, Paul did not say “There’s one God AND Lord, Jesus Christ”, now, did he ??
                          The Shema “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one” refers to God alone both as Lord and God. In 1 Cor 8:6 Paul identifies the God bit as the Father, and the Lord bit as Jesus. Chaining Jesus to Lord in the Shema is chaining him to God directly.

                          In the same way, the opening to Genesis describes God as creating the universe. John 1 then chains the part of God that created the universe with the Word that came to dwell with us in Jesus. The word for 'dwelled' refers to the Tabernacle tent in which God's presence travelled with the Israelites in the desert, making the reference even more certain.

                          God also said He will bring the Israelites out of Egypt and He did that thru the person of Moses. Does that mean Moses is also God ???
                          But the role of redeemer was that of God alone e.g. Isaiah 41:14 “I will help you, says the Lord; your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel.”

                          You may have a different understanding, so, from your own understanding, what does “sort out sin and death, free humanity and establish his Kingdom” mean ??
                          There is no way that the language used by the first Christians about Jesus could ever be used about someone they believed was just a prophet. It always goes way, way beyond that. To His role doing the things God said He would do, such as Redeemer.

                          Jesus died so that we could be reconciled with God. Because of His act, we are freed from the price of our sins- death. This offer is open to all humanity. This is the start of God's Kingdom, which we are called to be citizens of.



                          Perhaps you could answer the question that talibilm09 wouldn't. What do you understand Quran 61:14 to mean?

                          Comment


                            Re: Why jesus is not the son of god ?

                            Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                            I think before we need to proceed, we need to clarify where you think the belief in Jesus as God came from.

                            Most non-Christians, including in my experience most Muslims, think that Paul was responsible for setting Christianity off on the 'wrong' track about Christ as God, and that by the end of the first century this was the general belief of the Early Church.
                            Yes, Paul started Christianity as what we know today, NOT Jesus. Jesus never heard or knew what “Christianity” or a “Christian” was.

                            As whether it was Paul who set the wrong track about Christ as God – that’s not very clear as there’s no verse in the whole Bible that states Paul himself said Jesus is God. Paul, nevertheless set the ball rolling for the doctrine of original sin, which obviously is a misguided belief.

                            Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                            The alternative you seem to be proposing, that it was introduced by Constantine at Nicea coming from nowhere, flies in the face of every scrap of everything we know about Church History in general, and Nicea in particular. This is an idea that exists only on the internet, and is not proposed or debated in academic circles.

                            If that's what you believe, please give me the evidence that this is what happened at Nicea.
                            Sure, here’s an excerpt from its ‘Overview’ paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea :

                            “One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of the Son in his relationship to the Father: in particular, whether the Son had been 'begotten' by the Father from his own being, and therefore having no beginning, or else created out of nothing, and therefore having a beginning........................ …………………………. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two agreed to sign the creed and these two, along with Arius, were banished to Illyria.”

                            So, clearly, not every one in the EC believed Jesus is God as the debate of Nicea 325 AD was whether Jesus is a God (having no beginning) or a created human being (that is, created from God's Word and thus having a beginning). In case you are not aware, Arius affirmed Jesus is not God but was a created being and because of his refusal to sign the creed (to make Jesus God), he was banished to Illyria. So, clearly, the concept of “Jesus is God” was officially established in the first council of Nicea 325 AD. It was also very clear, that those who attended the Nicea meeting were intimidated into signing the creed as refusals to do so will see them banished from the society, as to what happened to Arius.

                            You, however, said that this is not what happened in Nicea 325 AD as, in your own words, “this is an idea that exists only on the internet, and is not proposed or debated in academic circles” - so If that's what you believe, please give me the 'evidence'.


                            Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                            Isaiah 45:23 'By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return:“To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.”' most certainly does not refer to Cyrus, whose role in chapter 45 finished at v13. The "me" refers to God.
                            Yes, that’ what I said – “because Isaiah 45 was referring to God (NOT Jesus)..” nor was Isaiah 45 referring to Cyrus BUT was referring to God (NOT Jesus) TALKING ABOUT His anointed one, Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1-13). In other words, every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear to God, NOT to Jesus, NOT to Cyrus.

                            By the way, can we referred Cyrus as Christ or Messiah too since Isaiah 45 said he too is God’s anointed one ??

                            Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                            The Shema “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one” refers to God alone both as Lord and God. In 1 Cor 8:6 Paul identifies the God bit as the Father, and the Lord bit as Jesus. Chaining Jesus to Lord in the Shema is chaining him to God directly.
                            Again, “Lord” is not an exclusive title given to God only. Kings, judges, rabbis are called “Lord” too, so, one has to understand the context of the sentence in which the title “Lord” was used. The Jews called their teachers/rabbis “Lord” and Jesus was THE teacher to them and those who followed him.

                            So, yes, I agree with you, in the context of the Shema, “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one” refers to God alone both as Lord and God". In other words, THE God, who is sometimes also referred to Lord, is ONE, not two, not three and certainly NOT 3-in-1.

                            In 1 Corr. 8:6, Paul clearly identified God and Jesus as two different personalities – one God, the Father (who is sometimes referred to as Lord) and one great teacher, Jesus, (who is sometimes referred to as Lord too).


                            Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                            But the role of redeemer was that of God alone e.g. Isaiah 41:14 “I will help you, says the Lord; your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel.”
                            In the context of Isaiah 41, the Lord, the Redeemer is a reference to God, NOT Jesus. In fact, Isaiah 41:13 clearly said so – “For I am the LORD your God…….”.

                            You seemed to be misled into believing that the title “Lord” which was used sometimes to refer to God and Jesus means they are one entity – well, they are not as the title “Lord” is also a reference to kings, judges, rabbis and those in high position and status in a society.

                            Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                            There is no way that the language used by the first Christians about Jesus could ever be used about someone they believed was just a prophet. It always goes way, way beyond that. To His role doing the things God said He would do, such as Redeemer.
                            Well, the first Christians are the followers of Paul, not Jesus. In fact, Jesus never called his disciples or followers, ‘Christians’. So, what "language used by the first Christians about Jesus" are you talking about here ?

                            In the OT, “Redeemer”, "Saviour" are always a reference to the AlMighty God, NOT Jesus. Its only in the NT, those references, along with other references in OT, were made to imply to Jesus in an effort to rally the “Jesus is God” theme.

                            Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                            Jesus died so that we could be reconciled with God. Because of His act, we are freed from the price of our sins- death. This offer is open to all humanity. This is the start of God's Kingdom, which we are called to be citizens of.
                            So, how did the people before Jesus, reconcile with God ?? And what do you mean by “we are freed from the price of our sins- death” ?? Are you saying death is the price of sin and you will live forever because you are freed from sin as a result of Jesus’ “death” ?? Please enlighten me !


                            Originally posted by Alex S View Post
                            Perhaps you could answer the question that talibilm09 wouldn't. What do you understand Quran 61:14 to mean?
                            I am sure [MENTION=107034]talibilm09[/MENTION] could answer that easily and if he has not, that probably because he missed it or he gave up explaining to you as you will never get it.

                            Nevertheless, since you asked me, I will explain that to you –

                            The verse says “O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of God: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) God?" Said the disciples, "We are God's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed.” – Quran 61:14

                            First thing to note is that Jesus asked his disciples who will be his helpers TO THE WORK OF GOD, which means who will work, along with him, for and in the name of God, and NOT work FOR him (ie. Jesus).

                            Second thing to note is that his disciples understood Jesus and they responded “We are God’s helpers!” and NOT “We are YOUR helpers” meaning they are willing to work, helping Jesus in his works, to do the work of God. Also important to mention here that when the disciples said “We are God’s helpers”, it does not mean God needs help or that these people are fulfilling some needs of God for which He requires their help, but it is in the sense that these people are participating in the cause which God wills to accomplish thru His prophets instead of using His great power and might.

                            Thus, because of their willingness and their beliefs (in God and Jesus’ works), God promised them that they (those who believed) will be strengthened (with His Spirit) and they will always prevail against their enemies (those who disbelieved).

                            So, why did you ask ? Was it because you have a different understanding of Quran 61:14 ?? Care to share ?
                            Last edited by JerryMyers; 21-11-17, 07:08 AM.

                            Comment


                              Odd.




                              I'm sure I posted a reply. My apologies for the delay in replying, a technical one probably caused by not pressing 'post reply' properly. Fortunately for me, I keep drafts for a while, so no need for me to retype!


                              I'm also going to add a summary of basic Christianity. I get the impression from some of your questions that this would be valuable. What I post should be the normal agreed core of Christianity, rather than my personal take on things.


                              Incidentally, if you're into classical music of the absolutely beautiful kind, you might want to listen to/watch the live Festival of 9 Lessons and Carols from King's Cambridge this year. Or Youtube it. They do readings from the Bible, which go through this story (get it from the Bible rather than me!). Interspersed with that is some of the most beautiful music on the planet.


                              This can be enjoyed without being a Christian. I went to one previously as an atheist, and the music was mind-blowing.

                              Comment


                                This is Basic Christianity. It's intended to be helpful, rather than to provoke further debate.


                                Man, as represented by Adam and Eve, committed sin. (Genesis 3: 8–19). As a consequence, humanity was exiled from God's presence, and we were subjected to death.

                                This was only the beginning of the story. God had a plan of rescue. It all began with Abraham's obedience in being prepared to sacrifice his son, which was rewarded by being told that through his descendants, all the nations of the world would be blessed (Genesis 22)

                                Abraham's descendants, the Jewish nation, down the generations were a very mixed bunch. They were capable of great obedience to God, but at other times were awful. God would then punish them. However, God was always faithful to the Jewish nation, and would forgive them and restore them to their place in the world. Much of the OT is taken up with this cycle of sin-exile-forgiveness-restoration.

                                Finally, there came a time when the Israelites were overrun by the Babylonians as a punishment for sin; and the Temple, God's special dwelling place, was destroyed. Although a tragedy, at this time, God's prophets started predicting a time when God would forgive and restore Israel, and this would be an event that would result in a new age for the whole of humanity. (Isaiah 9). This would be done in some sense by a mysterious individual, who came to be known as the Messiah by Jesus' time. (Isaiah 11), and yet it was God Himself who would do these things (see earlier posts). And who was the suffering servant of Isaiah 53?

                                Cyrus the great in turn overran Babylon, and sent the Jews back to Israel, and rebuilt their Temple. But it soon became clear that this wasn't the promised Kingdom of God, as first the Greeks and then the Romans overran Israel.

                                Into this mess, Jesus was born (Luke 1,2)(Matthew 1,2). While the Jews were looking for a military victory, which would show the Jews the forgiveness-restoration of earlier Jewish kingdom days, Jesus had a much, much bigger plan.

                                This was to be the forgiveness of sins and restoration to God's presence that undid Adam's sin and exile. This was to be the sacrifice, not of Abraham's son, but God's, on the cross. This death of His Son was the price God had to pay for our sin, to restore the relationship between humanity and God broken by sin.

                                And so God came to dwell among us. Many failed to recognise Him, but He went ahead and did His job, paying for our sins, by His perfect life and death on a cross. (John 1)



                                I hope this helps.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X