1-Can you bring me the Passage where Jesus says I am God
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Claim 1>. Jesus says, " I and the Father are One (John 10:30)."
It is claimed on the basis of this quotation (which is almost always presented without its context) that Jesus was claiming equality with God. The problem with this assertion is that the context has been taken out, either deliberately or out of ignorance.
Beginning at verse 23 of the Gospel of John, chapter 10 we read (in the context of 10:30) about Jesus talking to the Jews. In verse 28, talking about his followers as his sheep, he states: "...Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29)My Father who gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30) I and the Father are One."
The above verses prove only that Jesus and the Father are one in that no man can pluck the sheep out of either's hand. It does not at all state that Jesus is God's equal in everything. In fact the words of Jesus, " My Father, who gave them me is Greater than ALL...," completely negates this claim, otherwise we are left with a contradiction just a sentence apart. All includes everyone even Jesus.
2-Can you bring me the verse where Jesus said God is three in One
John 10:34 jesus said -36 I am the Son of God
if the son... Matt 28:19 .... in the name[singular] of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit
or
2 cor 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, it is with you all. Amen
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:19)
This passage is a forgery
All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command (Matt. 28:19)
was inserted later (Tom Harper,
For Christs Sake, p. 84)
"The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus,
it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism" (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585).
"It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice (of baptism) to the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined,
does not appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized 'in' or 'into the name of Jesus' (or 'Jesus Christ' or Lord Jesus': Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13, 15) (The Dictionary of the Bible, 1947, page 83).
Matthew 28:19, "the Church of the first days did not observe this world-wide command, even if they knew it.
The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words "baptizing... Spirit" we should probably read simply "into my name," i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, "in my name," i.e. (teach the nations) in my spirit" (Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 1929, page 723).
"It cannot be directly proved that Jesus instituted baptism, for
Matthew 28:19 is not a saying of the Lord. The reason for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2)
The Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus and has not the authority of the Apostolic age which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself. On the other hand, Paul knows of no other way of receiving the Gentiles into the Christian communities than by baptism, and it is highly probable that in the time of Paul all Jewish Christians were also baptized. We may perhaps assume that the practice of baptism was continued in consequence of Jesus' recognition of John the Baptist and his baptism, even after John himself had been removed. According to John 4:2, Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples under his superintendence. It is possible only with the help of tradition to trace back to Jesus a "Sacrament of Baptism," or an obligation to it ex necessitate salutis, through it is credible that tradition is correct here. Baptism in the Apostolic age was in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 1:13; Acts 19:5).
We cannot make out when the formula in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit emerged" (History of Dogma, Vol. 1, Adolph Harnack, 1958, page 79).
"The very account which tells us that at the last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize among all nations (Mt 28:19) betrayed itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the founder himself.
No historical trace appears of this baptismal formula earlier that the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" (ch. 7:1,3 The Oldest Church Manuel, ed. Philip Schaff, 1887), and the first Apology of Justin (Apol. i. 61.) about the middle of the second century: and more than a century later, Cyprian found it necessary to insist upon the use of it instead of the older phrase baptized "into Christ Jesus," or into the "name of the Lord Jesus." (Gal. 3:27; Acts 19:5; 10:48. Cyprian Ep. 73, 16-18, has to convert those who still use the shorter form.) Paul alone, of the apostles, was baptized, ere he was "filled with the Holy Ghost;" and he certainly was baptized simply "into Christ Jesus." (Rom. 6:3) Yet the tri-personal form, unhistorical as it is, is actually insisted on as essential by almost every Church in Christendom, and, if you have not had it pronounced over you, the ecclesiastical authorities cast you out as a heathen man, and will accord to you neither Christian recognition in your life, nor Christian burial in your death. It is a rule which would condemn as invalid every recorded baptism performed by an apostle; for if the book of Acts may be trusted, the invariable usage was baptism "in the name of Christ Jesus," (Acts 2:38) and not "in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And doubtless the author (Luke) is as good a witness for the usage of his own time (about 115 A.D.) as for that of the period whereof he treats" (The Seat of Authority in Religion, James Martineau, 1905, page 568).
"It is clear, therefore, that of the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which
there was no mention either of Baptism or of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It had been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the present Dean of Westminister, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names out of many), that here the received text, could not contain the very words of Jesus? This long before any one except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading." "It is satisfactory to notice that Dr. Eberhard Nestle, in his new edition of the New Testament in Latin and Greek,
furnishes the Eusebian reading in his critical apparatus, and that Dr. Sanday seems to lean to its acceptance" (History of New Testament Criticism, Conybeare, 1910, pages, 98-102, 111-112).
"Feine (PER3, XIX, 396 f) and Kattenbusch (Sch-Herz, I, 435 f. argue that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 is spurious.
No record of the use of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts or the epistles of the apostles" (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, 1946, page 398).
Footnote to Matthew 28:19,
It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that the Acts speak of baptizing "in the name of Jesus", Acts 1:5 +. But whatever the variation on formula the underlying reality remains the same" (The Jerusalem Bible, 1966, Page 64).
Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and
regards it as of later origin. Undoubtedly then the baptismal formula originally
consisted of one part and it gradually developed into its tripartite form (The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1, Harry Austryn Wolfson, 1964, pg 143).
There is no indication that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one essence, Matthew is not speaking of trinity.
Further brother Akbarally Meherally states regarding Matthew 28:19
Often this particular verse is quoted to support the Nicene Creed of Trinity. It is argued that Jesus himself had said to baptize all the nations in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and thus the doctrine of Trinity stands endorsed by the Scripture and the Christ.Of course, the ceremony of Baptism does mention the three names and in the same sequence and order as the Trinity, but the most important factor is the status.
Where does it say that the three identities are co-equal? It could very well be a sequence for religious hierarchy in faith. In the political arena there could be similar sequence of command, for example; An Emperor, his Minister and his Military Commander. But, the Emperor and his appointee the Minister, are not equal. The Minister, by the virtue of being so opted, has a better status than the rest of the subjects. He can be considered as a chosen citizen and be so honoured. But, the Emperor would not condone his subjects if they were to call or glorify the chosen citizen as Emperor. (Understanding the Bible through Koranic Messages, p. 52)
3-Can you bring me the verse where Jesus claims to have dual natures i.e. fully man and fully God
Its does not say look two natures but in scripture one can see it...
John 4:6 Jesus[humanity] being wearied
John 4:29--35 not wearily ... acting in His diety refreshed by His God nature
My
Challenge was:
Can you bring me the verse where Jesus claims to have dual natures i.e. fully man and fully God
John 4:6 is
not speaking of Christ(
Read Red letter Bible)
Similarly John 4:29 to 31,33 is
not speaking of Christ.(
Read Red letter Bible)
Here is what Christ said in John 4:32(
Read Red letter Bible)
But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.
Further Jesus himself said in John 4:34-35 (
Read Red letter Bible)
34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
35 Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.
Question:Where in the above quoted verses Jesus claimed dual natures?
Let us look at Mark 12:29 "The first of all the commandments is, Here, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." If trinity was a valid belief, then Mark 12:29 would have said "God is three in one".
My Challenge is still there.
