the origin of ALLAH's name

Muslim-UK said:

So just like the Qur'an, the statement Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh; I will be that I will be is not found in the NT.

'I am' is another statement, not a name and in the original manuscripts the whole chapter was either written in uppercase or 'I AM' was just written 'I am'. Jesus pbuh was explaining God had told Abraham pbuh about him, the Jews were confused and thought he was blaspheming, as Jesus pbuh went on to explain before Abraham pbuh was I am..... They picked up stones preventing him from explaining. What would his sentence have looked like before they interrupted? who knows...

'before Abraham pbuh was I am told him'
'before Abraham pbuh was I am had planned to'

etc etc

Like the Jews, you appear to be jumping to wild conclusions.

This is what you think and believe, and that's fine. I disagree as Jesus pbuh clearly denies he asked anyone to take him or his Mother as gods besides Allah swt. Jesus pbuh was performing miracles and healing the poor, he was preaching against the corrupt rulers and the Pharisees saw him as a threat. They looked for any excuse to rid themselves of him. The words I am are found in several places in the NT. Paul uses the term too.

Abraham pbuh knowing about him just confirms he was the expected Messiah. Nothing about being God here just confirmation Allah swt sent him.

"I am he"—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. "It is I"—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. "I am the one I claim to be"—John 8:24 and 28.).

It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as "I am" only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated "I am he" or "I am the one," like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God that Abraham pbuh knew of.

No, only that Abraham pbuh knew of him.

they picked up stones when he was mid sentence. It clearly explains, 'hid himself and went out of the temple.' God Almighty doesn't fear sticks and stones.

I'm sure he explains himself elsewhere and indeed he does:

John 10:33 “We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.” 34 Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’?

There you have it, clearly categorically denying he is divine.

Yes by the Jews themselves, not crucifixion at the hands of Pagans.

Click to expand...

Jesus is a Jew and His followers were Jews and the leaders of Judaism were Jews. They knew God is the Great I AM.

habibii zahra said:

Christians use the word ALLAH to refer to the father...thus the name of the lord for us and for Christians are the same
سفر التكوين الإصحاح 1 : 26 "وقال الله نعمل الإنسان على صورتنا على شبهنا "
this is a verse from the Bible uses the word "ALLAH" for their god and their lord..

Click to expand...

Arabic speaking Jews and Christians do not have the same concept of Allah that you do. They say "Allah" because "Allah" is the word for God in Arabic, nothing else.

gadar perets said:

Exodus 3:14-15 reads, "And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, YHWH, Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."
​

Therefore, the "I AM" is identified as "YHWH."


Exodus 3:15 makes it clear that the "I AM" is declaring that He Himself is the "Elohim (God) of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob."

Acts 3:13 says;

The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified His Son Jesus (Yeshua); whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.​

In other words, the great "I AM" is saying He has glorified His Son Yeshua. Therefore, Yeshua cannot be the "I AM".

Several individuals aside from Yeshua used "ego eimi" as well. In Luke 1:19, the angel Gabriel said, "Ego eimi Gabriel." In John 9:9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Yeshua said, "Ego eimi." In Acts 10:21, Peter said, "Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom you seek." Obviously, the mere use of "ego eimi" does not equate one to the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14.

Click to expand...

Jesus is the Word of "I AM" incarnate.

GeorgeTwo said:

Jesus is the Word of "I AM" incarnate.

Click to expand...

The verses I provided disprove that. He is the Son of the great "I AM". If you say Yeshua is the "I AM" incarnate, then you are saying he is the "Father".

Muslim-UK said:

Yes they have a different concept of God from Jews and Muslims. They ascribe partners unto Him which is polytheism. Much like the Hindus saying God is Omnipresent, the trees are god, the animals etc Millions of potential gods reduced to 3 in 1 by the majority of Christians.

Click to expand...

How do you know that God didn't send his spirit down? Or God does not send his word down? God's word is powerful and alive, it can became anything in this word, and God's word became Jesus in this word. It is not God reduced to 3 in 1, it is different "part" of God that come in contact of us.

Muslim-UK said:

I have no problem with God sending His word or Spirit down, but to worship that Word and Spirit as separate beings, co equal with God is wrong. Muslims Prophets as being the word of God, in that they communicated with God. We don't then start worshipping the Messengers.

Click to expand...

How do you distinguish worship from other forms of veneration? For example, I would expect that Muhammad might have shown some form of respect to Gabriel. Let's say Muhammad bowed his head slightly or diverted his gaze downwards. How is that different from kneeling in a mosque to Allah? Likewise if a person meets another human who is more important there is usually some show of respect. In the military you would salute.

So what is the difference? If the only difference is the object of the action (i.e. bowing to Allah is worship and bowing to a king is respect) then its a bit circular. Christians think that Jesus is God, so when they bow it is worship. Muslims think that Jesus is a prophet, so when they bow it is not worship.

cloudyday2 said:

How do you distinguish worship from other forms of veneration? For example, I would expect that Muhammad might have shown some form of respect to Gabriel. Let's say Muhammad bowed his head slightly or diverted his gaze downwards. How is that different from kneeling in a mosque to Allah? Likewise if a person meets another human who is more important there is usually some show of respect. In the military you would salute.

So what is the difference? If the only difference is the object of the action (i.e. bowing to Allah is worship and bowing to a king is respect) then its a bit circular. Christians think that Jesus is God, so when they bow it is worship. Muslims think that Jesus is a prophet, so when they bow it is not worship.

Click to expand...

The Hebrew word translated “worship” is Strong’s #7812 – “shachah” meaning; to depress, that is, prostrate (especially reflexively in homage to royalty or God).

Here are the various ways it was translated in the KJV; bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence, make to stoop, worship.

An example of “shachah” from one man to another is found in Genesis 23:7;


In the previous chapter, we see Abraham going to “worship” YHWH.


The same Hebrew word is used in two different ways. Abraham “bowed” himself to men, but was going to “worship” YHWH.

In Gen 33:3, Jacob bowed down to Esau;

What if “shachah” was translated “worship” here instead of “bowed down”? Would that make Esau “God”? Of course not. Neither does Yeshua receiving “worship” make him “God”.

The translators of the Old Testament made a distinction in the words they chose to translate “shachah” based on who was receiving the action. If men were the recipients, then words like bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, etc. were chosen. When the recipient was YHWH, they chose the word “worship”.

The New Testament Greek word translated “worship” is “proskuneo” (meaning; to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand); to fawn or crouch to, that is, (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore). Strong’s Lexicon.

Here is the definition from Thayer’s Lexicon:


Proskuneo is the same word used in Exodus 34:14 in the Greek Septuagint for the worship of YHWH.

The translators of the New Testament were not as selective as the translators of the Old Testament. They translated all occurrences of “proskuneo” as “worship”. Here are two important examples that will help understand the NT usage of “worship”. The first is the worship of the Son.


Here is how they translated “proskuneo” when the recipients were men;


This is being said by Yeshua to the believers comprising the Philadelphia church. A time will come in the future when Yeshua will command his followers to be “worshiped” as well. Now, should we consider these men to be “Gods” simply because they are worshiped? No. Neither should we consider the Son to be “God” simply because he was worshiped.

Yeshua and the believers in the Philadelphia church are not being worshipped as YHWH (God), but as YHWH’s representatives. They are being bowed down to and given honor as such.

Yeshua is deserving of our “worship” as we bow down to him, honor him, and adore him. However, it is Almighty YHWH alone that we are to worship as the one and only true God (John 17:3).

Muslim-UK said:

I have no problem with God sending His word or Spirit down, but to worship that Word and Spirit as separate beings, co equal with God is wrong. Muslims Prophets as being the word of God, in that they communicated with God. We don't then start worshipping the Messengers.

Click to expand...

They are separate beings; God is only one being.

Muslim-UK said:

John 10:33 refutes this as does Gardar Peret's post.

Where does Jesus pbuh claim to be the 'Word'?



Yes they have a different concept of God from Jews and Muslims. They ascribe partners unto Him which is polytheism. Much like the Hindus saying God is Omnipresent, the trees are god, the animals etc Millions of potential gods reduced to 3 in 1 by the majority of Christians.

Click to expand...

I don't understand your point in John 10:33.

Jesus made claims for Himself that only God could make for Himself.

God has no partners. There is only one God.

What you describe of the Hindus is pantheism

What is pantheism?

Muslim-UK said:

When we worship by praying to give thanks or call upon God for help, we only ever direct the prayer to Allah swt

When we pray for someone, a ill person, family, ancestors, prophets etc we still direct our prayer to Allah swt to grant a quick recovery, admission into paradise etc


Christians have 3 persons rolled into 1. A person might pray to the Holy Spirit one day, Jesus pbuh another, and the Father on another day.

This is shirk, ascribing partners unto Allah swt also known as Elahi, YHWH etc

Torah is clear, worship God alone, Qur'an is clear worship God alone, Jesus pbuh in the NT is clear, worship God alone.

"I am a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God." (John 8:40)

Mark 12:29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

"MY FATHER IS GREATER THAN I." [John 14:28]
"MY FATHER IS GREATER THAN ALL." [John 10:29]
"…I cast out devils BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD…."[Mathew 12:28]
"…I WITH THE FINGER OF GOD cast out devils…."[Luke 11:20]
"I CAN OF MINE OWN SELF DO NOTHING: AS I HEAR, I JUDGE: AND MY JUDGEMENT IS JUST; BECAUSE I SEEK NOT MY OWN WILL, BUT THE WILL OF THE FATHER WHICH HATH SENT ME."[John 5:30]

[Qur'an 10:68] They said, "GOD has begotten a son!" Be He glorified. He is the Most Rich. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth. You have no proof to support such a blasphemy. Are you saying about GOD what you do not know?

The punishment for ascribing partners unto God is everlasting and severe, though of course Allah swt may forgive, but who would want to run the risk?

Click to expand...

Jesus taught us to pray to the Father.

gadar perets said:

The Hebrew word translated “worship” is Strong’s #7812 – “shachah” meaning; to depress, that is, prostrate (especially reflexively in homage to royalty or God).

Here are the various ways it was translated in the KJV; bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence, make to stoop, worship.

An example of “shachah” from one man to another is found in Genesis 23:7;

And Abraham stood up, and bowed himself (shachah) to the people of the land, even to the children of Heth.​

In the previous chapter, we see Abraham going to “worship” YHWH.

And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship (shachah), and come again to you. Genesis 22:5​

The same Hebrew word is used in two different ways. Abraham “bowed” himself to men, but was going to “worship” YHWH.

In Gen 33:3, Jacob bowed down to Esau;

But he himself passed on ahead of them and bowed down to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother.​

What if “shachah” was translated “worship” here instead of “bowed down”? Would that make Esau “God”? Of course not. Neither does Yeshua receiving “worship” make him “God”.

The translators of the Old Testament made a distinction in the words they chose to translate “shachah” based on who was receiving the action. If men were the recipients, then words like bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, etc. were chosen. When the recipient was YHWH, they chose the word “worship”.

The New Testament Greek word translated “worship” is “proskuneo” (meaning; to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand); to fawn or crouch to, that is, (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore). Strong’s Lexicon.

Here is the definition from Thayer’s Lexicon:

1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence

2) among the Orientals, especially the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence

3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication

3a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank

3a1) to the Jewish high priests

3a2) to God

3a3) to Christ

3a4) to heavenly beings

3a5) to demons​

Proskuneo is the same word used in Exodus 34:14 in the Greek Septuagint for the worship of YHWH.

The translators of the New Testament were not as selective as the translators of the Old Testament. They translated all occurrences of “proskuneo” as “worship”. Here are two important examples that will help understand the NT usage of “worship”. The first is the worship of the Son.

Then they that were in the ship came and worshiped (proskuneo) him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God. Matthew 14:33​

Here is how they translated “proskuneo” when the recipients were men;

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship (proskuneo) before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Revelation 3:9​

This is being said by Yeshua to the believers comprising the Philadelphia church. A time will come in the future when Yeshua will command his followers to be “worshiped” as well. Now, should we consider these men to be “Gods” simply because they are worshiped? No. Neither should we consider the Son to be “God” simply because he was worshiped.

Yeshua and the believers in the Philadelphia church are not being worshipped as YHWH (God), but as YHWH’s representatives. They are being bowed down to and given honor as such.

Yeshua is deserving of our “worship” as we bow down to him, honor him, and adore him. However, it is Almighty YHWH alone that we are to worship as the one and only true God (John 17:3).

Click to expand...

Thanks, @gadar perets , that is a thorough analysis and very helpful. It seems to me that Muslims and others should stop criticizing people for worshiping people besides God. I worship my cat, because I treat him like a king. Is that a sin? - absolutely not. The sin would be to imagine that my cat can forgive my sins and things like that. Worship isn't the issue.

Muslim-UK said:

I should have said 10:33-34

34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?

Click to expand...

I think this short video will explain Jesus' point in quoting Psalm 82:

If you didn't understand what the video pointed out, then I can't help you.

Muslim-UK said:

How does his interpretation help you? Jesus pbuh is confirming he is there to bring them back to judging the people correctly.

Click to expand...

If you didn't understand what the video pointed out, then I can't help you.

cloudyday2 said:

Thanks, @gadar perets , that is a thorough analysis and very helpful. It seems to me that Muslims and others should stop criticizing people for worshiping people besides God.

Click to expand...

The problem is worshiping someone or something that is NOT the only true God (YHWH) as though he or it IS the only true God. This is the error of many Christians who worship Yeshua as the only true God in spite of the FACT that Yeshua himself said his Father is the only true God, thereby excluding himself.

I worship my cat, because I treat him like a king. Is that a sin? - absolutely not. The sin would be to imagine that my cat can forgive my sins and things like that. Worship isn't the issue.

Click to expand...

If your cat is worshiped or exalted above your Creator YHWH, then that is wrong. Since you label yourself an Agnostic, you risk exalting your cat over YHWH (God). I hope that is not the case.

GeorgeTwo said:

I think this short video will explain Jesus' point in quoting Psalm 82:

Click to expand...

The "teacher" on the video is wrong. Yeshua's sole purpose in referring to Psalm 82:6 was to point out the fallacy of the Jews understanding. The "teacher" said the Jews understood Yeshua perfectly to be saying he was God. They were wrong. Yeshua refuted them by first showing them it was not wrong for a man to be called "elohim" since that is what YHWH called those men in Psalm 82:6. Then he goes one step further by saying;

If he called them elohim (Yeshua did NOT say "gods"), unto whom the word of Elohim came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say you of him, whom the Father has sanctified, and sent into the world, You blaspheme; because I said, I am the Son of Elohim?

Yeshua was NOT claiming to be God/Elohim, but the Son of God/Elohim which he declared over and over again by referring to Him as his "Father".

gadar perets said:

The problem is worshiping someone or something that is NOT the only true God (YHWH) as though he or it IS the only true God. This is the error of many Christians who worship Yeshua as the only true God in spite of the FACT that Yeshua himself said his Father is the only true God, thereby excluding himself.

Click to expand...

Many statements of Jesus in the gospels are subtly different from gospel to gospel, and many of them are also open to interpretation. As I mentioned in other threads, there are historians who believe that ideas we considered to be Christian deviations from Jewish monotheism were actually common Jewish beliefs and expectations for over a hundred years before Jesus was born and had roots even further back (a suffering Messiah who would redeem Israel and also be a divine Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven). I suspect that Jesus did claim to be the divine Son of Man and the Messiah. Of course I also think that Jesus was mistaken.

But I get tired of people criticizing Christians over the Trinity when it seems that Second Temple Judaism had no problem with that conceptualization of God.

gadar perets said:

If your cat is worshiped or exalted above your Creator YHWH, then that is wrong. Since you label yourself an Agnostic, you risk exalting your cat over YHWH (God). I hope that is not the case.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid it is the case. My cat is royalty. You must not have a cat LOL

Muslim-UK said:

I defined worship as giving thanks or asking for help in prayer. Worshipping a pet or life partner, celebrity etc is not the same thing. Majority of Christians direct worship to one of 3 different distinct persons. Who should I pray to? The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit?

Click to expand...

That was never a source of concern for me growing up as a Christian, but when I briefly converted to Eastern Orthodox I became a bit confused about prayer. I bought an Eastern Orthodox book of prayers to read. Some prayers were addressed to the Theotokos. Some prayers were addressed to my guardian angel. ... and everybody you can imagine. Of course the idea was to ask these people to pray on my behalf, however it seemed very convoluted.

cloudyday2 said:

I'm afraid it is the case. My cat is royalty. You must not have a cat LOL

Click to expand...

Actually, we have three cats, but we know their place in the hierarchy of heaven (Father YHWH, Yeshua, man, woman, children, animals, mosquitoes).

ViaCrucis said:

But let us be clear, it's not in the New Testament either. So I suspect that whatever point you are attempting to make is somewhat rendered moot.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Hi Crypto

No point being made here - I asked a question and got my answer. Didn't realise that was not allowed on a Christian forum, my apologies. It will not happen again.

I am abit surprised that this was such a problem for you though since you're not identified as Muslim and my post was not directed to you.

NM as I said, I got my answer.

Muslim-UK said:

He tried to address this in post 71 by using a new set of words. As you say, it's a moot point.

Click to expand...

Hi MuslimUK actually I am a 'she' and thank you so much for dismissing so arrogantly a genuine question set by me.

I don't frequent this part of the forum as I use to, for the main fact that I do not have time to waste but when I post, I post looking for answers. Period. I think the last time I posted here was when I was trying to get my head around the fact that a revert refused to go to his Christian mother's funeral and I thank God that another Muslim poster was able to help me with that.

I find it fascinating that I am not allowed to ask a question without it being dismissed as a "moot point''. For future reference if you're not sure of a poster's motives just ask for clarification. And for the record, I wasn't making a point, but thanks ever so much for helping me out the way that you have.

For you and another poster to be so dismissive has served to show me how thankful, I am that I'm where I need to be.

BTW, since it has been so dismissive I will leave this thread with this thought. My question is of tantamount importance if you are searching for who God is, like I was when I was an atheist and I would urge readers of this thread asking the same questions, to take the journey I did, and research this topic area. Just because there is reams and reams of information out there does not make it fact.

There is so much more to God's Name than you think or that you've been taught.

Muslim-UK said:

Video didn't point out anything to support you. 'The father and I are one' one in mission. Raising the dead is explained by acts 2:22

Click to expand...

Did you miss the part where Jesus said He is the Son of God? (your Allah claims he doesn't have a son)

John 5:25 I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.

John 10:36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, `I am God's Son'?

John 11:4 When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it."

John 17:1 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you."

Saying Jesus is a man means nothing to a Trinitarian because Jesus is a man, but more than a man.

As for "the Father and I are one"---

Jesus has just spoken not about His union with the Father's purpose, but with His Father's power (vv. 28 - 29). Jesus has said that no one can snatch those the Father has given Him from His hands. He has said that He gives eternal life to His sheep - a claim to Divine prerogative in itself. He then repeats what He has said about no one being able to steal His sheep, but this time, it is the Father's hands who hold them - the Father who is "greater than all." Thus, Jesus equates Himself to His Father in both giving eternal life to the sheep and in the power to "hold" them fast. It is in this context of Divine salvation and preservation that Jesus says, "I and the Father are one."

In this context, He can only be asserting His unity with His Father as the author of eternal life and equal in power to Him who is "greater than all." This view is supported by several additional facts:

1. The Jews understood Him to be claiming to be God. (vv. 31 - 33).

2. Jesus does not deny their accusation (vv. 34 - 36).

3. Jesus repeats His original assertion in slightly different language (vv. 37 - 39).

Muslim-UK said:

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth was a man attested to you by God with powerful works and wonders and signs, which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves know."

All miracles done by god through a man.

Click to expand...

Lets put Acts 2 in context:

22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: This Jesus the Nazarene was a man pointed out to you by God with miracles, wonders, and signs that God did among you through Him, just as you yourselves know. lawless people to nail Him to a cross and kill Him. 24 God raised Him up, ending the pains of death, because it was not possible for Him to be held by it.

Muslim-UK said:

Hi, I was talking about georgetwo who asked if the name 'Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh' was in the Qur'an then I believe in post 71, he changed the name he was seeking to 'I am'.

You had previously asked about the word Lord/Adonai and I responded, you thanked me saying it wasn't what you were after, and that was the end of the matter.

In post 74 I quoted ViaCrucis response with a view to using 'moot point' to address georgetwo's post. Nothing to do with you, but I should have made that clear.
Sorry for any confusion my Sister in Humanity.

Click to expand...

Hi Muslim UK,

Oh ok, thank you. I very much appreciate your response and it has clarified, thank you.

Shalom to you. I may not be online by the time Ramadhan finishes so if that is the case, wishing you Eid Mubarak for you and your family.

Muslim-UK said:

Nor does God in the Torah. Well not in the context of how you understand the term.

Click to expand...

Psalm 2: I will tell of the decree; The Lord said to me, "You are My son; this day have I begotten you.

Why don't Muslims make a fuss about this verse, since your Allah claims he has no son?

Muslim-UK said:

Jewish and Muslim understanding of 'son of God' = religious, pious God fearing person or Prophet.

Click to expand...

This is not the understanding of Muslims; otherwise, Muhammad would be referred to as the son of Allah.

Muslim-UK said:

Greek writer John's understanding = The Logos, intermediary between God and man. This is a Pagan concept based in Greek Philosophy. Philo the Jewish Philosopher agreeing with Plato used the idea of the eternal logos:

"The Logos was the image of God in man (Genesis 1:27), the glory of God revealed in creation (Psalm 19), the means by which God speaks (prophecy) His will and mind to man, the mediator by which God reaches man, etc. But for Philo, this was not a person, this was a reflection, an underlying idea in the world." John simply made the idea of the Logos the word incarnate.

Click to expand...

Apostle John was a Jew and would think like a Jew. The Word/Logos is God's Memra.

Jewish Encyclopedia Memra-In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," [The Word] instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra [The Word]," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). " I will cover thee with My Memra, [My Word] " instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra [My Word] shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra, [The Word] " instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes "a sign between My Memra [My Word] and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra [His Word] has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, [The Word] not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra [The Word] brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" " (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). . . So, in the future, shall the Memra [The Word] be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra [My Word] shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12).

The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra [The Word] the redemption will be found " (Targ. Zech. xii. 5).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=399&letter=M

Muslim-UK said:

The question should be, did Jesus pbuh preach anything like this? No because this would have such a important understanding of who he was, you'd expect to find all the Gospels to be writing about it.

Click to expand...

Jesus made claims for Himself that only God could make for Himself.

Muslim-UK said:

Rather for Mark Salvation is by keeping the Commandments and worshipping God alone. Luke and Matthew hold similar views and improve on the powers of Jesus pbuh in their accounts of the oral stories. John makes clear Salvation is by believing in the Father and Son (dualism), Jesus pbuh being the saviour of the World. Paul has Salvation pinned to the cross in favour of grace by blood atonement.

Click to expand...

Read the New Testament as a whole.

Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the synoptic (giving an account from the same point of view; syn means "together"; optic means "seeing") gospels. Even though they had the same source materials, each preached with a different emphasis.


Matthew: The Jewish flavor of Matthew's gospel is remarkable. This is evident even in the opening genealogy, which Matthew traces back only as far as Abraham. In contrast, Luke, aiming to show Christ as the Redeemer of humanity, goes all the way back to Adam. Matthew's purpose is somewhat narrower; to Old Testament prophetic passages, emphasizing how Christ is the fulfillment of all those promises.


The probability that Matthew's audience was predominantly Jewish is further evident from several facts: Matthew usually cites Jewish custom without explaining it, in contract the other gospels (cf. Mark 7:3; John 19:40). He constantly refers to Christ as "the Son of David" (1:1,9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30; 21:9, 15; 22:42, 45). Matthew even guards Jewish sensibilities regarding the name of God, referring to "the kingdom of heaven" where the other evangelists speak of "the kingdom of God." All the book's major themes are rooted in the Old Testament and set in light of Israel's messianic expectations.


Matthew's use of Greek may suggest that he was writing as a Palestinian Jew to Hellenistic Jews elsewhere. He wrote as an eyewitness of many of the events he described, giving firsthand testimony about the words and works of Jesus of Nazareth.


His purpose is clear: to demonstrate that Jesus is the Jewish nation's long-awaited Messiah. His voluminous quoting of the Old Testament is specifically designed to show the tie between the Messiah of promise and the Christ of history. This purpose is never out of focus for Matthew, and he even adduces many incidental details from the Old Testament prophecies as proofs of Jesus' messianic claims (e.g., 2:17, 18; 4:13-15; 13:35; 21: 4, 5; 27: 9, 19).


Since Matthew is concerned with setting forth Jesus as Messiah, the King of the Jews, an interest in the Old Testament kingdom promises runs throughout this gospel. Matthew's signature phrase "the kingdom of heaven" occurs 32 times in this book (and nowhere else in all of Scripture).


Mark: Whereas Matthew was written to a Jewish audience, Mark seems to have targeted Roman believers, particularly Gentiles. Why employing Aramaic terms, Mark translated them for his readers (3:17, 5:41; &;11, 34; 10:46; 14:36; 15:22,34). On the other hand, in some places he used Latin expressions instead of their Greek equivalents (5:9; 6:27; 12:15, 42; 15:16,39). He also reckoned time according to the Roman system (6:48; 13:35) and carefully explained Jewish customs (7:3, 4; 14:12; 15:42). Mark omitted Jewish elements, such as the genealogies found in Matthew and Luke. This gospel also makes fewer references to the Old Testament, and includes less material that would be of particular interest to Jewish readers, such as that which is critical of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Sadducees are mentioned only once, in 12:18). When mentioning Simon the Cyrene (15:21), Mark identifies him as the father of Rufus, a prominent member of the church at Rome (Rom. 16:13). All of this supports the traditional view that Mark was written for a Gentile audience initially at Rome.


Mark presents Jesus as the suffering Servant of the Lord (10:45). His focus is on the deeds of Jesus more than His teaching, particularly emphasizing service and sacrifice. Mark omits the lengthy discourses found in the other gospels, often relating only brief excerpts to give the gist of Jesus' teaching. Mark also omits any account of Jesus' ancestry and birth, beginning where Jesus' public ministry began, with His baptism by John in the wilderness.


Mark demonstrated the humanity of Christ more clearly than any of the other evangelists, emphasizing Christ's human emotions (1:41; 3:5; 6:34; 8:12; 9:36), His human limitations (4:38; 11:12; 13:32), and other small details that highlight the human side of the Son of God (e.g., 7:33, 34; 8:12; 9:36; 10:13-16).


Luke: Luke was the author of Luke and Acts and was a close companion of the Apostle Paul. Luke expressly stated that his knowledge of the events recorded in his gospel come from the reports of those who were eyewitness (1:1, 2)—strongly implying that he himself was not an eyewitness. It is clear from his prologue that his aim was to give an ordered account of the events of Jesus' life, but this does not mean he always followed a strict chronological order in all instances.


By acknowledging that he had compiled his account from various extant sources. Luke was not disclaiming divine inspiration for his work. The process of inspiration never bypasses or overrides the personalities, vocabularies, and styles of the human authors of Scripture. The unique traits of the human authors are always indelibly stamped on all the books of Scripture. Luke's research is no exception to this rule. The research itself was orchestrated by divine Providence. And in his writing, Luke was moved by the Spirit of God (2 Pet. 1:21). Therefore, his account is infallibly true.


Luke's style is that of a scholarly, well-read author. He wrote as a meticulous historian, often giving details that helped identify the historical context of the events he described (1:5; 2:1, 2; 31:2; 13:1-4).


His account of the nativity is the fullest in all the gospel records—and like the rest of Luke's work—more polished in its literary style. He included in the birth narrative a series of praise psalms. He alone reported the unusual circumstances surrounding the birth of John the Baptist, the annunciation to Mary, the manger, the shepherds, and Simeon and Anna (2:25-38).


The high profile Luke accords to women is particularly significant. From the nativity account, where Mary, Elizabeth, and Anna are given prominence (chaps 1; 2), to the events of resurrection morning, where the women again are major characters.


Several other recurring themes form threads through Luke's gospel—human fear in the presence of God, forgiveness, joy, wonder at the mysteries of divine truth, role of the Holy Spirit, the temple in Jerusalem, and Jesus' prayers.


Starting with 9:51, Luke devoted 10 chapters of his narrative to a travelogue of Jesus' final journey and it features a theme Luke stressed throughout: Jesus' relentless progression toward the cross. This was the very purpose for which Christ had come to earth and He would not be deterred. The saving of sinners was His whole mission.


John: John was described as the disciple that Jesus loved. Strategic to John's background and setting is the fact that according to tradition John was aware of the synoptic gospels. Apparently, he wrote his gospel in order to make a unique contribution to the record of the Lord's life ("a spiritual gospel") and, in part, to be supplementary as well as complementary to Matthew, Mark, and Luke.


The gospel's unique characteristics reinforce this purpose: First, John supplied a large amount of unique material not recorded in the other gospels. Second, he often supplied information that helps the understanding of the events in the synoptics. For example, while the synoptics begin with Jesus' ministry in Galilee, they imply that Jesus had a ministry prior to that (e.g., Matt. 4:12; Mark 1:14). John supplies the answer with information on Jesus' prior ministry in Judea (chap. 3) and Samaria (chap. 4). In Mark 6:45, after the feeding of the 5,000, Jesus compelled his disciples to cross the Sea of Galilee to Bethsida. John recorded the reason. The people were about to make Jesus king because of His miraculous multiplying of food, and He was avoiding their ill-motivated efforts (6:26). Third, John is the theological of the gospels, containing, for example, a heavily theological prologue (1:1-18), larger amounts of didactic and discourse material in proportion to narrative (e.g., 3:13-17), and the largest amount of teaching on the Holy Spirit (e.g., 14:16, 17, 16; 16:7-14). Although John was aware of the synoptic and fashioned his gospel with them in mind, he did not depend upon them for information. Rather, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he utilized his own memory as an eyewitness in composing the gospel (1:14; 19:35; 21:24).


John's gospel is the only one of the 4 that contains a precise statement regarding the author's purpose (20:30, 31). He declares, "these are written that you may believe that Jesus in the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name" (20:31). The word "believe" occurs approximately 100 times in the gospel (the synoptics use the term less than half as much).


John wrote to convince his readers of Jesus' true identity as the incarnate God-Man whose divine and human natures were perfectly united into one person who was the prophesied Christ ("Messiah") and Savior of the world. He organized his whole gospel around 8 "signs" or proofs that reinforce Jesus' true identity leading to faith. The first half of his work centers around 7 miraculous signs selected to reveal Christ's person and engender belief: 1) water made into wine (2:1-11); 2) the healing of the royal official's son (4:46-54); 3) the healing of the lame man (5:1-18); 4) the feeding of multitude (6:1-15); 5) walking on water (6:16-21); 6) healing of the blind man (9:1-41); and 7) the raising of Lazarus (11:1-57). The eighth sign is the miraculous catch of fish (21:6-ll) after Jesus' resurrection.


Sources: John MacArthur Study Bible; gty.org;

Muslim-UK said:

I can't help you as there's no explanation of the Trinity found in Jewish, Christian or Islamic Scriptures. Allah swt says, the Christians take Scholars as partners besides him, meaning you believe what the Church has decided. Jesus pbuh is innocent of this deviation.

Click to expand...

We read the Scriptures and make our own mind up.

We could accuse Muslims of taking their scholars as partners as well. You believe what they say, scholars such as:

• Ahmed Deedat
• Dr. Jamal Badawi
• Shabir Ally
• Moiz Amjad ("The Learner")
• Dr. Zakir Naik
• Dr. Maurice Bucaille
• Akbarally Meherally

And others.

Muslim-UK said:

There's no hint of a pre-existing Jesus in the birth narratives. If you wish to blindly follow the anonymous writers of John's Gospel, then go ahead. I'll let you argue it out with the Unitarian Christians.

Click to expand...

Like a said, read the New Testament as a whole.

Muslim-UK said:

I can't help you as there's no explanation of the Trinity found in Jewish, Christian or Islamic Scriptures. Allah swt says, the Christians take Scholars as partners besides him, meaning you believe what the Church has decided. Jesus pbuh is innocent of this deviation.

Click to expand...

The Concept of the Trinity was fully revealed in the New Testament.

We read the Scriptures and make our own mind up. If we don't agree with a Pastor, we tell him so.

We could accuse Muslims of taking their scholars as partners as well. You believe what they say, scholars such as:

• Ahmed Deedat
• Dr. Jamal Badawi
• Shabir Ally
• Moiz Amjad ("The Learner")
• Dr. Zakir Naik
• Dr. Maurice Bucaille
• Akbarally Meherally

And others.

Muslim-UK said:

Words of a man who never met Jesus pbuh.

Click to expand...

The words I q


Peter says the man is a clear enemy of the believers, with Paul himself saying he became all things to all men, so that he might win them over to his brand of Salvation.

btw this is all off topic and likely to fall foul of the mods who've been trimming the threads.[/QUOTE]

George Two believes the Son of God is really God Himself. That is an impossibility. The Scriptures make it perfectly clear that there is only one true God (Yeshua's Father - John 17:3). He is the "Son of God" as it is written, not "God the Son" as trinitarians like to claim.

Muslim-UK believes the phrase "Son of God" refers only to a "religious, pious God fearing person or Prophet". That, too, is in error since the Scriptures make it clear that Yeshua was born in a miraculous way without an earthly father. Also, the fact the the Greek article precedes "Son of God" in many verses making him "the Son of God" and not just "a Son of God" as the Muslim definition suggests makes him YHWH's Son in a supernatural sense. YHWH spoke Yeshua into existence inside Mary's womb. The Father's spoken words and thoughts (logos) became flesh.

There is a position in between your two extremes. That is, that Yeshua is a 100% man brought directly into existence miraculously by God (Father YHWH). That man was then filled with the Holy Spirit empowering him to work miracles because the one true God was living in him as He reconciled the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). Yeshua died because he was a flesh and blood man. He needed a resurrection from the dead that only his Father could provide. Upon his glorification, he ascended into heaven to sit at YHWH's right hand (two separate beings, a Father and a Son, the only true God and His Son).