Is Jesus God ? [Audio] (1 Viewer)

[Aleem]

A religious debate between a well-known islamic figure (Deedat) and a christian priest (Shorrosh) about the godhood of Jesus .

Audio file-Part 1
Audio file-Part 2
Audio file-Part 3
Audio file-Part 4
Audio file-Part 5

 

[leejosepho]

"And put thy trust in Him Who lives and dies not;
and celebrate his praise;
and enough is He to be acquainted with the faults of His servants;-
He Who created the heavens and the earth and all that is between, in six days,
and is firmly established on the Throne (of Authority):
Allah Most Gracious:
ask thou, then, about Him of any acquainted (with such things)." (Qur'an)

I am a former Christian who is not a Muslim, yet that certainly sounds right to me ... and no Christian has ever yet offered to me any rational explanation as to why, as a child, I was taught to pray to "Jesus".

 

[Arch Enemy]

I am a former Christian who is not a Muslim, yet that certainly sounds right to me ... and no Christian has ever yet offered to me any rational explanation as to why, as a child, I was taught to pray to "Jesus".

According to what I've been told, Jesus is the bridge to the kingdom of heaven, its obviously the only way we can communicate with "God" becasue he gave his own life to save us (/end Catholic Church Nonsense)

I'm still a Christian, but I don't believe that Jesus is god. I think that Jesus did preach about God and taught people on how to live a good-life through quality moral acts. I believe the early Catholic church edited some of the things Jesus preached about, in order to make him sound like he is God, just in a human form.

 

[Arch Enemy]

I didn't listen to much of it, but from what I can tell they both have their opinions greatly thought out.

I'd like to know, who eventually makes their opinion stand higher in that debate?

 

[leejosepho]

According to what I've been told, Jesus is the bridge to the kingdom of heaven, its obviously the only way we can communicate with "God" ...

"יהושע said to [whomever], 'I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me'" (John 14:6).

As I understand things today, what you have been told comes partly from a misunderstanding of the above from The Messiah, Himself, where while here on earth even He prayed to "The Father" and taught/teaches His disciples to do likewise. And as to the remainder of that erroneous "pray to 'Jesus'" teaching I had first heard:

The idea of a "bridge" implies some kind of "gap" to be crossed ...

... yet at Sinai, it was the *people* who decided to not listen for themselves and communicate directly -- no "gap" needed any "bridge" -- charging Moshe' to do that on their behalf. And of course, no, those people did not make Moshe' their saviour any more than anyone else can make "Jesus" theirs ...

Shabbat Shalom.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Just a bit of stupidity on my part, but could the event at Sinai coin the term "Sin"? To define the defiance of God?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Hmm I don't think so heh. The word sin was used prior to that while Adam and Eve were still in the Garden of Eden.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

"יהושע said to [whomever], 'I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me'" (John 14:6).

As I understand things today, what you have been told comes partly from a misunderstanding of the above from The Messiah, Himself, where while here on earth even He prayed to "The Father" and taught/teaches His disciples to do likewise. And as to the remainder of that erroneous "pray to 'Jesus'" teaching I had first heard:

The idea of a "bridge" implies some kind of "gap" to be crossed ...

... yet at Sinai, it was the *people* who decided to not listen for themselves and communicate directly -- no "gap" needed any "bridge" -- charging Moshe' to do that on their behalf. And of course, no, those people did not make Moshe' their saviour any more than anyone else can make "Jesus" theirs ...

Shabbat Shalom.

I agree with the first part though it is somewhat confusing sometimes because the bible occassionaly describes Jesus and God as one being. However in the book of Revelations it clearly seperates the two. It is Jesus who opens the 7 seals of the apocolypse standing while God is described as siting on the throne as this is happening.

 

[leejosepho]

Just a bit of stupidity on my part, but could the event at Sinai coin the term "Sin"? To define the defiance of God?

As Nightingale has shared and if I am understanding you correctly, no, none of the people's doings in relation to Sinai were the first "sin" ... if any at all. It can at least be argued that even the "golden calf" was more a matter of general ignorance -- Torah was yet to come -- than of outright defiance.

 

[leejosepho]

... the bible occassionaly describes Jesus and God as one being.

Greetings, Nightingale!

Meaning to be quietly considerate here, I would ask if you there have any particular passage(s) in mind. In my own experience, it is people who mis-read and/or misunderstand Scripture that teach that particular kind of thing.

Simply: No father or son is ever his own son or father, respectively. Nevertheless, and when the two are "one" in character and such -- like father, like son -- it can be nearly impossible (and at times even almost unnecessary) to distingush one from the other ... or something like that.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Lee, one quick question;

Do you personally believe that the Catholic church did some "editing" to the modern day Catholic church. Example, Throwing books out the window, and also making Jesus of Nazareth a seemingly total pious person, instead of what he truely was?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Greetings, Nightingale!

Meaning to be quietly considerate here, I would ask if you there have any particular passage(s) in mind. In my own experience, it is people who mis-read and/or misunderstand Scripture that teach that particular kind of thing.

Simply: No father or son is ever his own son or father, respectively. Nevertheless, and when the two are "one" in character and such -- like father, like son -- it can be nearly impossible (and at times even almost unnecessary) to distingush one from the other ... or something like that.

Hello Lee. I have some verses for you. These describe Jesus taking part in creation.The first is from Corinthians Chapter 1: "13: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18: And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

Then Hebrews 1-10: "1:God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2: Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3: Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4: Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5: For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6: And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7: And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8: But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9: Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10: And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands"

Then John Chapter 1:
"25: Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
26: But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27: My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29: My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30: I and my Father are one."

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html

This is the precise dilema. Jesus says that they are one but sometimes he says that God is more "blessed" than he, sometimes he refers to him as "Father", sometimes Jesus says that they reside within eachother. etc..It is a bit confusing. I assume that Jesus is part of the holy trinity.

 

[leejosepho]

Lee, one quick question;

Do you personally believe that the Catholic church did some "editing" to the modern day Catholic church. Example, Throwing books out the window, and also making Jesus of Nazareth a seemingly total pious person, instead of what he truely was?

I know some not-insignificant changes were made at/in Vatican II several years ago (such as "Muslims are included in the plan of salvation"), but I am no expert on all of that and I am not sure if that is the kind of thing you are asking about. Overall, I would say the Roman Catholic church did some convenient "editing" when deciding things like Peter being the first Pope and what writings should be conveniently canonized. But again, I am only thinking out loud a bit here without truly knowing the subject all that well.

As to the matter of their allegedly "making Jesus of Nazareth a seemingly total pious person, instead of what he truly was", you would first have to define those contrasts for me. YahuShua haMashiach was/is the Son of the living Elohim, and I do not question His so-called "piety".

 

[leejosepho]

Hello Lee. I have some verses for you ...

Thank you, Nightingale, and I already had at least some of those in mind!

I have begun a response, but my wife just told me she needs the phone in a few minutes, and I will not be able to get back here before going to work (third shift). So, until morning ...

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

I know some not-insignificant changes were made at/in Vatican II several years ago (such as "Muslims are included in the plan of salvation"), but I am no expert on all of that and I am not sure if that is the kind of thing you are asking about. Overall, I would say the Roman Catholic church did some convenient "editing" when deciding things like Peter being the first Pope and what writings should be conveniently canonized. But again, I am only thinking out loud a bit here without truly knowing the subject all that well.

As to the matter of their allegedly "making Jesus of Nazareth a seemingly total pious person, instead of what he truly was", you would first have to define those contrasts for me. YahuShua haMashiach was/is the Son of the living Elohim, and I do not question His so-called "piety".

Yes the Vatican makes all kinds of alterations to their bible. For example there are several cannons which were added then removed a few years later. We will never know whether or not any of them are acctually valid because they're kept under lock and key in the Vatican along with a great number of relics, cannons, treasures, and historical accounts. They claim to be protecting them..but the only thing they are truly protecting them from are beleievers because they refuse to let anyone look at them. Why do certain jewish branches use the name YahuShua instead of Christ or God's son or The Lamb..are they not representative of the same person?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

I know some not-insignificant changes were made at/in Vatican II several years ago (such as "Muslims are included in the plan of salvation"), but I am no expert on all of that and I am not sure if that is the kind of thing you are asking about. Overall, I would say the Roman Catholic church did some convenient "editing" when deciding things like Peter being the first Pope and what writings should be conveniently canonized. But again, I am only thinking out loud a bit here without truly knowing the subject all that well.

As to the matter of their allegedly "making Jesus of Nazareth a seemingly total pious person, instead of what he truly was", you would first have to define those contrasts for me. YahuShua haMashiach was/is the Son of the living Elohim, and I do not question His so-called "piety".

Yes the Vatican makes all kinds of alterations to their bible. For example there are several cannons which were added then removed a few years later. We will never know whether or not any of them are acctually valid because they're kept under lock and ket in the Vatican along with a great number of relics, cannons, treasures, and historical accounts. They claim to be protecting them..but the only thing they are truly protecting them from are beleievers because they refuse to let anyone look at them.

 

[Arch Enemy]

[Moderator Gravel]

Napolean, it seems like you have a double post. You should delete the one you don't want.

Thanks.
[/Moderator Gravel]

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

[Moderator Gravel]

Napolean, it seems like you have a double post. You should delete the one you don't want.

Thanks.
[/Moderator Gravel]

Yipe. I didn't notice that. How do I delete it?

 

[leejosepho]

Greetings again, Nightingale.

Trying to be brief here, I have not addressed everything you had posted. So, please let me know where I have set aside any issue most important to you.

Hello Lee. I have some verses for you. These describe Jesus taking part in creation ...

---
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
(Colossians 1:16-17)
---

At first glance, yes, it could *seem* like those verses indicate the Son "taking part in creation", but it is by seeing what those verses actually *do* say that we can see they do *not* say that. Here is the beginning of verse 16:

"For by him were all things created, that are *in* heaven, and that are *in* earth ..." (emphasis added).

Or to phrase that a little more clearly:

"For by him *were created* all things that are *in* heaven, and that are *in* earth ... whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers".

Do you see that? The things being created there are thrones, dominions, principalities and powers - we are not hearing about the creation of heaven and earth.

The title of this thread is a question: "Is Jesus God?"

Other than through mere extrapolation drawn from that expression "created by him", nothing so far would indicate anything like that ...

... and now let us back up a bit and look at verses 12-15:

"... giving thanks to the Father ... who has delivered us from the authority of darkness and transferred us into the reign of the Son of His love ... who is the likeness of the invisible Elohim, the first-born of all creation."

Again: Nothing so far indicates anything even close to "Jesus" being "God". And in fact, we are actually hearing the Son being described as "the *likeness of* the invisible Elohim [and] the first-born of all creation." Truly, The Messiah *did* have a beginning - He was actually born, we are told - and yes (if you might wonder), I am well aware that nearly all of Christendom would say only a heretic would ever say such a thing. But, so say certain writers of Scripture!

And now, look at this different translation of Colossians 1:16-17:

"... giving thanks to the Father ... (verse 12)
"Because *in* [the Son of His love] were created all [things] that are in the heavens and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or rulerships or principalities or authorities - all [those thrones or rulerships or principalities or authorities] have been created *through* Him and *for* Him."

(Side note: Looking in "e-Sword" - http://www.e-sword.net/ - at a comparison of several translations, there appears to be about a 50/50 split between the KJV's "created *by* Him" and the above translation's "created *in/through/for* Him".)

I could easily go on for pages, but the bottom line here is that all of those above verses are related to the matter of *authority*, and not whether or not the Son actually "took part" in creation. Maybe He did, but these verses do not say that. Rather, they essentially say that all authority is His ... "that in all [thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers] He might have the preeminence" (KJV, verse 18). Truly, every knee will ultimately bow.

You have quoted some additional verses and have commented:

This is the precise dilemma. Jesus says that they are one ...

Solidarity.

... but sometimes he says that God is more "blessed" than he ...

"... my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).

It is a bit confusing ...

Nothing so far *here* is confusing, but some of the above surely does "conflict" with sectarian religion (Christianity) ... thereby exposing *its* confusion.

I assume that Jesus is part of the holy trinity.

Oh, am I ever headed for trouble now ...

"The first and most important article of faith is the Shema, that YHWH is one, and there is only one YHWH ...
“It is the most basic truth of [a Scriptural] faith" ("Messianic" Mountain Jew).

Peace to you ...

 

[leejosepho]

Why do certain jewish branches use the name YahuShua instead of Christ or God's son or The Lamb..are they not representative of the same person?

First, because neither "Christ" nor "God's son" nor "The Lamb" (or even "God") is a name at all. Then, "YahuShua" (however accurately spelled or enunciated), meaning something like "YahSaves" is the Hebrew name the messenger conveyed to the Hebrew Joseph, as neither Joseph nor that messenger would have spoken Greek ...

... and of course, there is the far-greater matter of whether or not Christianity's "Jesus" truly meets the Scriptural "qualifications" for The Messiah.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Yipe. I didn't notice that. How do I delete it?

Click "Edit" on the post and there should be an option for "Delete"

If you can't figure out, then just notify me which one and I'll personally delete it.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Do you personally think there is a place in Christianity and other related religions for Evolution. (Yes, I'm a Baptized Christian who believes in Evolution)

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Do you personally think there is a place in Christianity and other related religions for Evolution. (Yes, I'm a Baptized Christian who believes in Evolution)

No. The bible describes creatures of the land, sea, and air as well as men being created seperatley from eachother. If you question the validity of part of a text, in this case Genosis, then the validty of the entire text must be scrutinized.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

I am a former Christian who is not a Muslim, yet that certainly sounds right to me ... and no Christian has ever yet offered to me any rational explanation as to why, as a child, I was taught to pray to "Jesus".

We pray to Jesus because the bible says in John chapter 14 verses 5-7 "Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him"

 

[leejosepho]

We pray to Jesus because the bible says in John chapter 14 verses 5-7: "Thomas saith unto him, 'Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?' Jesus saith unto him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me ...'"

Understood, Nightingale, but quite a leap is required to get from "come unto the Father by me" and "pray to me". Clearly, there is no record of The Messiah ever saying anything like that, and it would be unlike Him to be so ambiguous on that particular matter after being so detailed on all relevant others. In context, I believe you will find "cometh unto the Father by [Him]" to be related to reconciliation, not prayer.

Shalom.