Advertisements

What Did Jesus Mean in John 10:30? (A Response to Muslims and Unitarians)

The Trinity

A few days ago I posted an article titled, “Are You a Sheep?” The post focused on Jesus’ words found in John 10:24-30. This post will also revolve around Jesus’ words in this text but, we will only be looking at verse 30. This is what Jesus says in John 10:30:

‘I and the Father are one.’ -ESV

Other religious groups dislike this passage of Scripture. Muslims cannot fathom the idea that God would ever become a man and, because of their presuppositions, they cannot accept Jesus’ words. Muslims believe that Jesus was a good teacher and a prophet sent by God. Muslims believe that Jesus did many of the miracles that we find in Scripture but, they reject his deity. The real question is, based on this passage, should they?

Muslims, and others, will say that Jesus never makes it clear that he is divine but, this passage of Scripture does not support that assertion. Notice how the Jews respond to Jesus’ words in verse 30:

31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, ‘I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?’ 33 The Jews answered him, ‘It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.’ -John 10: 31-33

The Jews pick up stones to kill Jesus and, Jesus asks them why they are upset. They accuse Jesus of blasphemy because, as it says in verse 33, Jesus made himself God. The Jews knew exactly what Jesus was saying. Jesus was placing himself on the same level as the Father and, according to the Old Testament, it was blasphemous for a mere man to say those words. In light of the Jews reaction the Muslim has to answer this question, “If Jesus wasn’t claiming deity, why did the Jews want to stone Jesus?” The Jews make it clear why they were going to stone Jesus. Jesus was claiming deity.

Unitarians also misuse this passage but for a different reason. Merriam-Webster gives a good definition of “Unitarian” as:

one who believes that the deity exists only in one person

Unitarians believe that God exists in one person and, on the surface Jesus’ words seem to reflect this. The Unitarian will often claim that Jesus is saying that he and the Father are one person but, is Jesus really saying that? I bet you can guess the answer.

In John 10:30 Jesus uses a plural verb. So, when Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” the “are” is plural. The Greek word used is  ἐσμεν (esmen) which is the plural form of εἰμί (eimi). The Greek word “eimi” is defined by the NAS Exhaustive Concordance as:

I exist, I am

The plural form of these words would be, “we exist, we are”. Unitarians teach that Jesus means, “I and the Father is one,” but, Jesus didn’t use a singular verb. Since the plural form of the verb is used a more accurate translation would be, “I and the Father, we are one.” Jesus is clearly stating that the Father and himself are both God yet, he makes a distinction between them. They are unified in deity but are different in personhood.

Jesus’ words are wonderful and amazing but, there will always be people attempting to twist his words to fit their views. When the Muslim, or anyone else, says that Jesus never spoke clearly about his deity, you can point them to Jesus’ words in John 10:30 and the Jew’s response that followed. When the Unitarian, or anyone else, denies the Trinity you can point them to Jesus’ use of the plural verb in verse 30.

Every Christian needs to be ready to answer every objection to the faith and, I pray this article will help you do that.

Thanks for Reading,

Travis

Advertisements

About Travis Berry

I am a blatantly honest person who loves to think, read, discuss, and write about God and theology. I have a bachelor's degree in Youth Ministry from Crown College. I work at a church in Houston, TX as a Youth Director and love every minute of it! I am married to a wonderful woman named Becky and we have one amazing child! I have a love for God's Word, and a fervor to live it out in the fullest, and I pray this blog reflects that. Thanks for checking out AnotherChristianBlog!.

Posted on May 10, 2012, in Christianity, Theology and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 29 Comments.

  1. Nice post!

    What would you say to the Muslim who argues that Jesus tries to get the Jews to understand that He isn’t claiming anything overly special based upon the next few verses in John 10 (the “I said, you are gods” part)?

    • Thanks for commenting.

      Jesus is claiming something special here. verses 34-35:

      Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—’

      Jesus is referring back to the judges of the OT. They were called “gods” because of the role they took within the community of Israel. He then says:

      do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

      The title “Son of God” is a special title. And it seems like the Jews understood again what Jesus was saying because at the end of their interaction they were seeking to arrest him.

      Travis

  2. Thank you for your insightful post. As a Muslim, I feel I should answer you in accordance with MY scripture, and not use Yours as the ice-breaker.
    We believe that Paul and a few late converts took the original teachings of the Gospel, and molded it to please their Roman masters. You can find subtle hints in the New Testament book of Revelation among others. For example, the Ebionites, whom Paul has a dialogue with, are introduced and debated in his texts. Yet their opinions are not given, and it seems as if Paul was greatly disturbed by their teachings, even though they were Christians by name. These could have been the true followers of Jesus. Who are you to claim that Your Christianity is correct and all others, even the first, were corrupt? We, as do early Gnostic groups like the Ebionites, believe that Jesus was the true Jewish Messiah, not a God-incarnate.
    Their is nothing forcing us to believe in Your scriptures, or else it would say so in the Qur’an. Peace.

    • Eli,

      Thanks for commenting. I am familiar with the common Muslim positions to the text of the Bible. The problem I have with your position is this:

      There is no evidence historically or biblically saying that Paul and others would twist Jesus’ teachings in the way you claim. Let’s say that Paul did change the teachings of Jesus, wouldn’t the eye witnesses, James, Peter, Matthew, Mark, and John, have spoken up about his plot to make Jesus into more than he claimed to be? Or is your position a wild-eyed conspiracy theory? I would suggest the later.

      As a Muslim I have this question for you. What text would be more trustworthy when talking about the life and teachings of Jesus?

      A) A text that was written by eye-witnesses to Jesus’ teachings.
      B) A text written roughly 600 years after Jesus lived, written by an author who knew very little about Christianity.

      I think most people would choose the eye-witness accounts.

      As a person of truth I think that you should take the Qur’an at it’s word when it says:

      It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)-Sura 3:3, Yusuf Ali

      Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, Eli. And without him, you will not enter the gates of heaven.

      Thanks for reading,

      Travis

    • Jesus was a Gnostic and part of a group named the Essenes.

      Kind of Chuckling to myself…Paul did tend to be more “black and white” since that was part of his business in everyday life. He found it to be difficult; and at times to understand Jesus. I love his manner of writing; but I have had problems reading Paul.

      I took a week seminar at Southern Methodist University year ago. I bought the small text book due to its rare and original text.

      On One side of the page was the King James Version of the Bible; then on the other page was the original text written in Aramaic (the language of Jesus.)

      Much of what is “misunderstood” in the west in trying to teach some of the scriptures is because the ORIGINAL Scrolls of the time of Jesus were written IN Aramaic.
      In other words, it was written from the eyes and understanding of the Middle East THEN translated to Western understanding.

      Example: If you ask me how to get to downtown Dallas. I will say, “Believe me, this is the way to go.”….NOT “Believe IN me” and you will get there.
      YOU ARE ALREADY GOING THERE… and all you have to do is accept it.

      I am quite sure I will catch a lot of flack…but I studied VERY hard because I wanted to know the total truth. There were bits of pieces of scriptures that were left out; some could not be retrieved; and others were deliberately left out during the Council of Nicea.

      • If there were pieces of the Bible that were “left out” and we “couldn’t retrieve them” how could you know they were cut out? Truthfully, the Aramaic is not relevant because the Bible wasn’t written in Aramaic. It was written in Greek and Hebrew. When you read the Aramaic and the KJV, you are actually only reading two translations. It is far better to learn and read the actual sources of the Word of God rather than another translation.

        Travis

  3. Go to a very large Church school….Southern Methodist is where I took the class.
    Google: The Council Of Nicea.

  4. Aramaic is what Jesus and his people spoke. It is VERY relevant. It was later transcribed to Greek and Hebrew.
    Again, Google the Council of Nicea.
    There were great stories of Jesus when he was a little child.
    They felt they had to leave a great deal out … plus you have to remember that the “men” who sat in at the Council of Nicea were just that “men”…men of flesh and blood trying to give us the best they could without confusing, at the time, relatively uneducated and more primitive people. No one at that time, unless they had $$, went to school during Jesus time. They were taught in their places of worship and at home.

    • Where is the proof that the words of Jesus’ were written in Aramaic then translated to Greek? If that was the case then why do we have so many manuscripts in Greek? Also, if you would like some reliable resources on the Council of Nicea you can check this out: What Really Happened at the Council of Nicea?

      Travis

    • The Original Texts were written in Greek, it was the most common Language of the time, the trade language and the language that everyone knew to write in for others to here the Gospel. They did speak it, but they wrote, and often spoke in Greek. I promise you, and the oldest closest to the original texts which are 100ish years younger than the original are in koine greek. Trust me. The Gospel of John was writtin in Ephesus around AD 85. How are you going to say the original was written in Aramaic? That makes no sense.

  5. Travis, the first scriptures of Jesus HIMSELF were written in ARAMAIC and translated to Hebrew and Greek.
    Let go of your pride and research. You will be so thrilled you did. You will find even more about the life of Jesus. Did you know that he was honored and believed to be a Messiah in India? There were even legends about a man from “across the great waters” written by the Indians who migrated here from the Bering Straits?
    He was known in many lands that are not mentioned in our Bible…and drew great crowds of people.

  6. I will try to find the information that I copied and pasted which is in no way similar to what you gave me as the URL.
    This is NOT an insult to Our Christianity…what I am trying to explain”enhances” and helps us to understand that he is THE CHRIST.

  7. The Ancient Aramaic Scriptures come to us from the first language ever recorded … The first writing ever recorded was in Mesopotamia at Ur, 6000 years ago. … However, the mistakes in the Western Bibles are deliberate distortions, and that is …
    ….—–
    W
    HILE most of western Christianity holds firmly to the belief that the New Testament was written originally in Greek, millions of Christians in the Eastern Orthodox traditions believe just as fervently that the New Testament (NT) was written originally in Aramaic.
    There can some room for disagreement regarding the original languages of most of the books of the NT. However, it is documented beyond all doubts that the original Gospel by Matthew was written in Hebrew – not Aramaic, and certainly not Greek.
    David Bivin and Roy Blizzard wrote an excellent book called Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus which was published by Makor Foundation, Arcadia CA 91006 © 1983. Bivin & Blizzard presented a considerable amount of extra-biblical evidence for a Hebrew original of the Gospel of Matthew, particularly with quotes from many of the Ante-Nicean “church fathers,” that is, the leaders of the Christian church prior to the Council of Nicea in 325 CE.[1] Bivin and Blizzard provide us with the following quotes from the “church fathers” on pages 45 to 48:
    Eusebius, quoting Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis (mid-second century CE), writes:
    “Matthew put down the words of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and others have translated them, each as best he could.” [2]

    Irenaeus (120-202 CE) stated:
    “Matthew, indeed, produced his Gospel written to the Hebrews in their own dialect.” [3]

    Origen (first quarter 4th Century) stated:
    “The first (Gospel), composed in the Hebrew language, was written by Matthew … for those who came to faith from Judaism.”[4]

    Eusebius, writing in 325 CE, said:.
    continue reading:
    http://www.petahtikvah.com/Articles/OriginalLanguagesoftheNewTestament.htm

  8. Pride will get in our way to understand the Teachings of Christ…. We have to let go of it.

  9. Are you confusing pride with a wanting to share?

    • The problem is when we say other’s suffer from pride, because they don’t agree with our conclusions, we are opened up to the same pride we are accusing others of. I suggest you take the time to read that link I gave because it is quite informative.

      • I only wanted to share. That was my intent. What you want to make of it…I have no control over. It was a blessing for me to learn what I shared. That was all…no pride…just wanted to share. It is now up to you whether you do or don’t want to know any more…it isn’t my place to expect anything from any one. I just wanted to share.

  10. Thanks for the insightful info upaces88. It is absolutely true Jesus SPOKE Aramaic, but the only records of his words are in Greek. Their are very scarce documents in Aramaic to support the theory you’re proposing. Also, Galilee was a heavily Greek-speaking locality, and as i’m sure you already know, that Jesus preached a lot in that area, so he most certainly spoke Greek as well.
    The Quran calls the Gospels: Al-Injil. This is a transliteration of the Greek: Evangel, which means Good News. So I personally believe Jesus spoke in Greek and Aramaic, but most educated men wrote in Greek. Also, in first-century Palestine, the word ‘Hebrew’ was also used to refer to ‘Aramaic’ by the Gentiles. The languages were obviously extremely similar and sometimes the Gospel-writers couldn’t differentiate them. So Matthew, in all probability, did write a Aramaic Gospel, not a ‘Hebrew’ one.

    Now, back to Travis.
    -” common Muslim positions to the text of the Bible.”
    Please don’t lump me in the ‘Muslim Rebuttal’ category, i’m trying to have an honest debate.

    -“There is no evidence historically or biblically saying that Paul and others would twist Jesus’ teachings in the way you claim.”
    I advise you to check out Bart Ehrman, who can fill your cup pretty good. read this…

    -“Let’s say that Paul did change the teachings of Jesus, wouldn’t the eye witnesses, James, Peter, Matthew, Mark, and John, have spoken up about his plot to make Jesus into more than he claimed to be? Or is your position a wild-eyed conspiracy theory?”
    Well, surprisingly enough in the Greek Orthodox Church in Jerusalem, they claim to have a document written by James, and of Jude, that calls Jesus the ‘servant’ of God and says that ‘Don’t listen to these NEW things, follow the family tradition.’ It’s of a Christian source btw.

    -“A) A text that was written by eye-witnesses to Jesus’ teachings.
    B) A text written roughly 600 years after Jesus lived, written by an author who knew very little about Christianity.
    I think most people would choose the eye-witness accounts.”
    Well, almost all of the miracles of the Gospels and Apocrypha(“eye-witness accounts”) are in the Quran. Of course, we believe that Muhammad is a prophet, and you don’t. So no matter what I say, you will not believe that he prophecised Muhammad, and didn’t claim divinity.

    By the way, Paul never MET Jesus and claimed to see him in a vision. This man can not possibly be trusted as a historical source.

    • Eli!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH for giving me more information. You are right, there was “very little written in Aramaic…only a few scrolls.” Don’t quote me on this…it seems they were only found over the past 30-40 years(?)…I’ll try to research more about it and get back to you. I think(?) they were part of the dead sea scrolls that they finally got around to making public.(?) again, not sure..it has been a long time for me researching all of that.
      SO! any information, corrections and/or leads anyone can give me are VERY welcome!

      I did know that Paul never knew him. (chuckling at your last statement about Paul)… I said the same thing about him at church…and ya wudda thought I threw rocks at the preacher’s head! lol
      A child takes everything in and weighs it without bias or prejudice than comes back with questions; and sometimes(?) lol…the “grown-ups” really aren’t ready to answer a MERE Child’s questions… and especially the “off-the-cuff comments.”

      And, AGAIN, thank you for adding information for me to research!

    • Eli,

      First, I want to let you know that I deleted your youtube video. I do not allow videos to be posted in my comment section. If you would like to provide the URL that is fine but please don’t post the actual video.

      Now I would like to respond to some of your comments.

      You: “Please don’t lump me in the ‘Muslim Rebuttal’ category, i’m trying to have an honest debate.”

      Me: I was only saying that I am familiar with common arguments made by Muslims. I was not saying that your arguments would be common. I was saying that I am not familiar with many arguments you may make. This was an obvious communication break down.

      You: “I advise you to check out Bart Ehrman, who can fill your cup pretty good. read this…”

      Me: I find it interesting that a Muslim would use Bart Ehrman to attack the Christian Scriptures because if his standards were applied to the Qur’an it would fail also. The truth is Ehrman is not a good person to use because his skepticism is so radical that he says that we would need zero textual differences between manuscripts. Both the New Testament and Qur’an wouldn’t pass that test.

      You: “Well, surprisingly enough in the Greek Orthodox Church in Jerusalem, they claim to have a document written by James, and of Jude, that calls Jesus the ‘servant’ of God and says that ‘Don’t listen to these NEW things, follow the family tradition.’ It’s of a Christian source btw.”

      Me: Really? What is the history behind this text? Are there thousands of manuscripts like we have for the NT? IF not why even bring up such a poor source?

      You: “Well, almost all of the miracles of the Gospels and Apocrypha(“eye-witness accounts”) are in the Quran. Of course, we believe that Muhammad is a prophet, and you don’t. So no matter what I say, you will not believe that he prophecised Muhammad, and didn’t claim divinity.”

      Me: So, you only believe the stories that are recorded in the Qur’an? Obviously, the Qur’an couldn’t possibly re-record every true story of Jesus. You are right though, I don’t believe that Muhammad was a prophet. In fact, he is a false prophet. He lead people away from Jesus not to him. Jesus said that he was the way, the truth, and the life. Unfortunately, Muhammad didn’t believe that.

      You: “By the way, Paul never MET Jesus and claimed to see him in a vision. This man can not possibly be trusted as a historical source.”

      Me: I never once said that Paul witnessed Jesus’ ministry. He did have an encounter with Jesus that changed his life radically. Remember, Paul was a Jew that persecuted the early Christians. He then became a believer and became a great preacher of the Gospel. And here is the thing that we need to understand. If Paul was teaching and writing things about Jesus that were untrue, the disciples of Jesus would have corrected him. They would have made it clear to Paul that he was wrong on something. Since Paul wasn’t writing in a vacuum, we can have confidence that what he wrote was true.

      Thanks for responding,

      Travis

  11. Did you know there was a legend from the American Indians up around Montana and the surrounding areas about the ANCIENTS (meaning Indians) who crossed the Bering Straits to American….handed down that a Holy Man from “across the great water” appeared to them. Interesting, from the accounts of what we have of Jesus’ appearance, it was him.
    We will never know…..but it is a very interesting old tale.

  12. Just to share this….and I am sorry, I saw the comment ion my inbox and can’t find out who said it now.
    Some of the scriptures of the New Testament WERE written in Aramaic and translated later. Not a great many…but they did find a few.

  13. Here is the video again: watch?v=c-8UTxTbuXE

    YOU: if his standards were applied to the Qur’an it would fail also.”
    ME: It was never my argument that the Qur’an would ‘pass’. I am saying that Jesus’ original teachings have been corrupted, which Ehrman proves to be true.

    YOU: “The truth is Ehrman is not a good person to use because his skepticism is so radical that he says that we would need zero textual differences between manuscripts.”
    ME: Please provide a source for that. I think Erhman is trying to say that due to 1000’s of documents ATTRIBUTED to Jesus, most can not be true. Most of them are by definition false because they contradict all the other Gospels/sources.

    YOU: “IF not why even bring up such a poor source?”
    ME: Here is the video again: watch?v=c-8UTxTbuXE
    It’s your opinion that it is a ‘poor source.’ I consider Paul to be a false source, but we all have our own beliefs. Check out other Gnostic documents, which can back that up as well.

    YOU: “So, you only believe the stories that are recorded in the Qur’an?”
    ME: No, I never said that. I said most of the miracles in the NT can be found in the Qur’an. As far as historical accuracy goes, the Gospels as a whole are pretty reliable. But you must look towards the motives, as well as the earliest source documents. I myself believe only small portions of the Bible have been altered/added.

    YOU: “He did have an encounter with Jesus that changed his life radically. ”
    “If Paul was teaching and writing things about Jesus that were untrue, the disciples of Jesus would have corrected him. ”
    ME: That was not an encounter. He claimed to have a vision of a burning cross. Again, look up Paul’s debate with the Ebionites. You yourself said he was an Bounty hunter. Maybe he…

    • Eli,

      Thanks for only posting the link of that video and not the video itself.

      You: “It was never my argument that the Qur’an would ‘pass’. I am saying that Jesus’ original teachings have been corrupted, which Ehrman proves to be true.”

      Me: Really? Ehrman proves that the Bible can’t be trusted? I think you should listen to Dr. James White’s debate with Ehrman. You can find it here: Did the Bible Misquote Jesus?

      You: “Please provide a source for that. I think Erhman is trying to say that due to 1000′s of documents ATTRIBUTED to Jesus, most can not be true. Most of them are by definition false because they contradict all the other Gospels/sources.”

      Me: In Ehrman’s debate with Dan Wallace he says that he would need copies of the NT without any variation for him to believe they were accurate. That is a radical view considering the NT was written a long time ago. Just because there is variation doesn’t mean they aren’t accurate. It only means that scribes were human beings, and human beings are prone to make mistakes.

      You: “It’s your opinion that it is a ‘poor source.’ I consider Paul to be a false source, but we all have our own beliefs. Check out other Gnostic documents, which can back that up as well.”

      Me: “Check out other Gnostic documents”? Do these documents have the same textual support as the accepted Gospels? No they do not. The Gnostics wrote about Jesus and exaggerated Jesus’ life. That is not what the NT does. The NT attests to Jesus’ life and can be trusted because of the vast number of manuscripts we have.

      You: “No, I never said that. I said most of the miracles in the NT can be found in the Qur’an. As far as historical accuracy goes, the Gospels as a whole are pretty reliable. But you must look towards the motives, as well as the earliest source documents. I myself believe only small portions of the Bible have been altered/added.”

      Me: “You must look towards motives”? How do we know the motives of people we have never met. Most of the time, we don’t know the motives of people we have met. What you are saying is dangerous because it goes beyond what we have in front of us and leads us into conjecture. That is dangerous. I would prefer to look at the support we have instead of motives. Also, there is no proof of altering or adding things. If you believe most of Jesus words then you should become a Christian. Place your sins upon Jesus pure sacrifice because that is the only way to have peace with God. Right now you don’t have peace. Allah could decide to send you into hell or let you into heaven, but Jesus paid the penalty for sin, and if you trust him you can have true peace.

      Travis

  14. The link you gave me wants me to purchase the product. Do you have one that gives me the free video(cuz ima cheap), or just give me 3 hard facts from it?

    Anyway, James White is not really a qualified person: “White… a D.Min. from Columbia Evangelical Seminary, an Unaccredited Distance Learning school.” If you are seriously trying to compare him the Bart Ehrman: “He began studying the Bible and its original languages at the Moody Bible Institute and is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois. He received his PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied under Bruce Metzger. He received magna cum laude for both his BA in 1978 and PhD in 1985.” In terms of scholarship I think Barty wins.

    As far as the scribes making “mistakes,” like when Mark suddenly got 11 extra verses after Jesus’ Resurrection, surprisingly enough(which is missing from Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus!). If you honestly believe that the Word of the Gospel, within the 4 of your book today, definitely happened to Jesus, then you’re wrong. Many Biblical scholars agree with me on this point. Just open any 2 Gospels, read, and you will see the blatant contradictions, because it either happened one way, or it didn’t. The Gospels have been clearly tampered with by certain peoples over the course of history.

    As for Erhmans’ “radical view” on manuscript consistency. I think you are over-stating. He most likely means 2 manuscripts that both agree in essence on a fact. Not an analogy, parable, or weird wording, etc. Just a line or 2 that can be exactly the same across the board. The sad fact is, there are but a few.

    “The NT attests to Jesus’ life and can be trusted because of the vast number of manuscripts we have.” Oh, so I guess the Gospel writers went to Heaven with Jesus and the Thief, right? Or else, they wouldn’t have witnessed it. I use this verse because the Gospels are easily the Least Reliable sources for the ‘crucifixion’. They all do not match, and one even nullifys all the rest and ends with a Messianic quote from the Psalms. Having X number of manuscripts doesn’t make it true, because you have Y number of another manuscript which is in clear refutation to X.

    “Also, there is no proof of altering or adding things.” I really just don’t get how Christians can make this claim. Through my references above, you will find many. There is a plethora of additions that have been done. Plain and Simple. Even Christian bible scholars openly agree on this, because they are using reason and logic, but you only look through it by means of faith. Faith is intangible and thus can not be proven nor can it be dis-proven. When I said Paul’s motives, I was referring to how this Pharisaic Jewish Bounty-Hunter Roman suddenly ‘finds Christ’. It seems awfully sketchy to me, and his actions after conversion sort of increase my doubts on this man. So I am using logic to try to understand what his motives ‘could have been’. It’s easy if you are willing to look for it.

    You: “Place your sins upon Jesus pure sacrifice because that is the only way to have peace with God. Right now you don’t have peace. Allah could decide to send you into hell or let you into heaven, but Jesus paid the penalty for sin, and if you trust him you can have true peace.”
    Me: Your statement is profound and wonderful and all but, really? Do I need to believe that a Jewish man who lived 2000 years ago, whom I never met, nor have an ‘accurate’ portrayal of, in order to have peace. My own Peace is from how much I implement my own Religion(be it Islam, Christianity, Hinduism,etc.) into my daily life, and how much I feel that benefits me. Any person following any religion will say ‘I’ve achieved peace!’, but it’s just folly. They just want to promote their faith, because they assume it’s correct. If any religion is peaceful, then it is Buddhism, and they don’t have a God. I will agree with you on this, Islam does not mean Peace, it means full Submission to the Word of God, which I have gladly partook in. God could send me to Hell, as he is the Mighty. But remember Jesus’ famous statement: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” So, I think Islam is more open to all people than Christianity is. The Rabbi’s, who followed the Torah to the letter, were ‘lost sheep’ in Jesus’ eyes. How can any normal man, who sins, have any chance at going to Heaven with him?

    • Eli,

      You said: “Anyway, James White is not really a qualified person: “White… a D.Min. from Columbia Evangelical Seminary, an Unaccredited Distance Learning school.” If you are seriously trying to compare him the Bart Ehrman: “He began studying the Bible and its original languages at the Moody Bible Institute and is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois. He received his PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied under Bruce Metzger. He received magna cum laude for both his BA in 1978 and PhD in 1985.” In terms of scholarship I think Barty wins.”

      Me: All of this is Ad hominem. You attack Dr. James White because of the schools he went to and claim that Ehrman must be better because of the school he went to. I think the better measure of being academic is the work that they do. Ehrman is bias against Christianity which causes his work to suffer.

      You: “As far as the scribes making “mistakes,” like when Mark suddenly got 11 extra verses after Jesus’ Resurrection, surprisingly enough(which is missing from Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus!). If you honestly believe that the Word of the Gospel, within the 4 of your book today, definitely happened to Jesus, then you’re wrong. Many Biblical scholars agree with me on this point. Just open any 2 Gospels, read, and you will see the blatant contradictions, because it either happened one way, or it didn’t. The Gospels have been clearly tampered with by certain peoples over the course of history.”

      Me: The ending of Mark is a very interesting thing. Almost all Bible believers admit that the ending is added. However, is this really a problem? If we have a puzzle with extra pieces, we can still complete the picture.

      You: “Oh, so I guess the Gospel writers went to Heaven with Jesus and the Thief, right? Or else, they wouldn’t have witnessed it. I use this verse because the Gospels are easily the Least Reliable sources for the ‘crucifixion’. They all do not match, and one even nullifys all the rest and ends with a Messianic quote from the Psalms. Having X number of manuscripts doesn’t make it true, because you have Y number of another manuscript which is in clear refutation to X.”

      Me: Ummm…what Bible passage are you talking about with Jesus and the thief in heaven? Also, Jesus being crucified is accepted among the academic community because history attests to it. Even Ehrman believes that Jesus was crucified. Do you still like Ehrman?

      I would like to write more but this is all the time I have right now.

      Thanks for commenting,

      Travis

  15. Reblogged this on Another Christian Blog and commented:

    The #Trinity Matters!

Share Your Thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: