Posted by Illuminati on 6/22/2009, 9:34 am, in reply to "Re: Jesus' Divinity 5"
75.173.17.91
Amir posted:
Since there were people at the time of prophet Muhammad who believed that God may have a son this verse was revealed to refute the fact that God can have a biological son.Allah almighty is making a direct claim here so we need no more evidence.It is not only illogical but is very insulting to God Almighty to say that he could have a son.
Although I am not Muslim, I believe that we both understand that passage the same way. The Koran is talking about a literal God-Son. This could well have been an argument against those who took Jesus' statements about His Father literally.
Amir posted:
Ok.So have about u back up your claims with some solid evidence?
Matt 1:18-21
18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit . 19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit . 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
NIV
Amir posted:
""What we do know is that Jesus claimed a special relationship with the Father which transcended anything available to ordinary humans.""
But between ordinary humans and God there exists other beings.Not being an ordinary human doesn t necessary mean God.
Once you recognize that Jesus was more than an ordinary human, you are well on your way to understanding the incarnation. Then it becomes a matter of determining what role Jesus played in Heaven before He was born on this earht.
Amir posted:
""In the context in Daniel, we see that Daniel gives credit to God, and that in turn the king gives credit to God, not to Daniel. In other words he wasn't accepting worship directed towards himself."""
I do not see that from the passage.Could u please show it to me where he credited the worship to God?
Before I print the texts, I should point out that this aramaic word translated "worship" in Daniel 2:46 is a different Aramaic word than the one in Daniel 7:27. Whatever we decide the word means here has no bearing on the interpretation of Daniel 7:27.
Daniel begins his meeting by giving all the credit to God:
Dan 2:26-28
26 The king asked Daniel (also called Belteshazzar), "Are you able to tell me what I saw in my dream and interpret it?"
27 Daniel replied, "No wise man, enchanter, magician or diviner can explain to the king the mystery he has asked about, 28 but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries. He has shown King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in days to come. Your dream and the visions that passed through your mind as you lay on your bed are these:
NIV
When the king "worships" Daniel, he, the king, gives the credit to God, not to Daniel.
Dan 2:45-47
"The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and the interpretation is trustworthy."
46 Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel and paid him honor and ordered that an offering and incense be presented to him. 47 The king said to Daniel, "Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery."
NIV
Amir posted:
With regard to your comparison of "I am" in the verse of Exodus 3:14 with that of John 8:59, please note that in John 9:9, a beggar who was healed by prophet Jesus used these exact same words used by Jesus ("I am") to refer to himself. We read
"Some said, This is he (the beggar):others [said],He is like him:[but] he said, I am [he]
John 9:9.
The words "I am" are normally used in the present tense. Therefore, the beggar was using the words according to proper Greek grammar. When Jesus used the term "I am" He used the present indicative of the verb "to be" for a past time period. The natural usage would hae been past tense since Jesus used the verb in reference to a past event. However, because Jesus' spirit is eternal, He has no past or future as we usually understand them. He is forever living in the present.
Amir posted:
John 9:17
Further, please notice how the "translators" chose to add the word "he" after the beggar's statement, but they did not chose to do so when Jesus said the exact same words.
Do you see how we have once again been reduced to implication?. Notice how since Jesus never once says "I am God!" or "Worship me!" that our own desire for him to actually say that he is God is making us "interpret" every innocent statement he makes to be equivalent to "I am God!"?
Because words do not always carry exactly the same connotations in different languages, a slightly paraphrased translation is often more accurate than a literal translation. I see no problem with the English translation here.
Let me see if I can give a more literal translation.
Some of the people who had known the beggar asked, "is this not he who sat and begged?"
Some answered, “he is.”
Others answered, “not, but like him he is.”
The man answered, “I am.”
Even this literal translation is not exactly like the Greek since the two English words “he is” are necessary to literally translate one Greek word. This literal translation carries exactly the same meaning that the NIV conveys. In other words, the standard English translations are correct.
Now let me give a literal translation of John 8:58.
Said unto them Jesus, truely truely, I say to you, before Abraham became, I am.
Once again, I see no problem with the English translation in the NIV. Jesus used a present tense verb instead of the past tense as one would normally expect. Thus not only did He claim preexistance, but He simultaneously applied God's name to Himself. Those native speakers, who heard him, are in the best position to understand the meaning of His statement. Their reaction confirms the accuracy of our interpretation.
Amir said:
When the translators have not allowed their preconceived doctrines to color their translation the result has been such faithful translations of John 8:58 as the following:
"'Truly, truly I tell you,' said Jesus, 'I have existed before Abraham was born'"
The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments, Dr. James Moffatt, John 8:58
and "Jesus said to them, 'I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born'"
The Complete Bible, an American Translation, by Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, John 8:58
Both of those translations are accurate in the sense that they acknowledge Jesus' preexistance. However they are both inaccurate since the have changed the verb form from the simple present indicative. One has changed it into the past tense, the other has changed it into the present perfect. Jesus actually used the present indicative. The NIV has correctly translated this passage.
Amir said:
Notice how people are driven in a chosen direction of faith through selective translation? Also remember that Jesus (pbuh) did not speak GREEK.If only the church had not felt it necessary to burn all of the original Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible.
Amir your frustration is showing. How could you possibly know that Jesus was ignorant of Greek? We know He spoke Aramaic because the Bible has occasionally attributed aramaic words to Him and then translated them into Greek. There is no idication that He was limited to Aramaic.
You are attributing incidents which occurred in your own history to Christians. Uthman is the one who burned manuscripts of the Koran which disagreed with his chosen copy. There is no indication that the Christian church ever indulged in that practice. The Dead Sea scrolls confirm the accuracy of both the Greek Septuagint and of the Jewish Masoritic text of the Old Testament. With the exception of Matthew, it appears that the New Testament was originally written in Greek.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread