Posted by Illuminati on 7/3/2009, 11:00 am, in reply to "Re: Jesus' Divinity 6"
208.189.200.2
Amir posted:
Luke 1:34 - 1:35
"But Mary said to the angel: How is this to be, since I am having no intercourse with a man? In answer the angel said to her: Holy Spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy,God's Son."
""""Once you recognize that Jesus was more than an ordinary human, you are well on your way to understanding the incarnation.""""
Yes i believe he was not a normal human.A prophet is not a normal human and he was a great prophet.
I have not heard that prophets are not normal people. In what way are prophets different from ordinary people? Are all prophets conceived by the Holy Ghost, without an earthly father?
Amir posted:
""""When the king "worships" Daniel, he, the king, gives the credit to God, not to Daniel."""""
The king did praise God but the texts clearly said that he prostrated before Daniel.Now as far as i know God doesn t tell us to prostrate before a human.The king prostrated before Daniel thus 'worshipping".
U also rightly said that the words are different.That s what i was mentinning earlier.The "worship" mentionned here is accompanied by physical "prayers" and in this case its prosternation.Its different from that of the prophecy which doesn t mean to pray to but rather "to serve".
The word translated "worshiped" here is a different Aramaic word than the word translated worshiped when applied to the "son of man" in Daniel 7. Therefore, your argument misses to mark.
Amir posted:
"And they [the disciples] were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?"
However, if we want to translate this word as "I am" when Jesus says it then we need to be honest and consistent and translate it the exact same way when the disciples say it too.In such a case, Matthew 26:22 would be translated as follows:
"And they [the disciples] were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him,Lord,is it I AM?"
Amir, you make allegations against numerous groups of professional Bible translators because their translations don't support your version of truth. Other than the fact that the Bible doesn't support your beliefs, there is no reason to suppose these scholars are deliberately changing the Bible. On the other hand, we know that you don't believe the Bible and do not accept its teachings.
In the verse you have challenged, the literal translation seems to be, they began to say".. everyone, not I am Lord." I'm not sure how you think this verse advances your argument.
Amir posted:
"""" Thus not only did He claim preexistance, but He simultaneously applied God's name to Himself. """"
Exodus 3:4 reads:
"And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here I am."
So Moses is God also?
There is nothing in the passage to suggest that Moses is God. It is irrelegant to our interpretation of Jesus' statement.
Amir posted:
"""Amir your frustration is showing. How could you possibly know that Jesus was ignorant of Greek?""""
Aramaic speaking people in the time of Jesus considered it sinful to speak any other language.This had to be true because the Aramaic Estrangelo Script was the lingua franca in Palestine at the time of Jesus.Aramaic in this script is similar to Arabic and this was the language of commerce and industry.A growing number of scholars now recognize that Jesus spoke this form of Aramaic,not Greek.
He may have had a limited grasp of Greek but there is no question that he could have spken fluent greek.
There are many scholars who believe that Jesus' native language was Aramaic. I don't know of any evidence to support your claim that Jesus either didn't know Greek, or if He knew it, his grasp of it was limited. Unless one of his companions made that claim, there is no reason to believe that you are correct. You are trying to prove a negative which logically puts you on very shak y ground.
Amir posted:
""""Uthman is the one who burned manuscripts of the Koran which disagreed with his chosen copy.""""
Not only his chosen copy,he asked for advice from other companions and since they also knew the Quran by heart they could eliminate any variantion in the texts.he did not accomplish this task on his own.
If Uthman burned manuscripts, that proves that there were textual variants. Undoubtedly each of those variants had people supporting their validity. Uthman made a choice which variants to keep, and which to destroy.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread