Jesus said, if you love me you will keep my commandments, if they recognize him then they will keep his words and statutes...........Jesus as rightly said is not a prophet, he is the son of God there is a palpable difference between the two

They should keep with his commandments. But remember they are not christians so they do not do exactly as most christians would like.

i like handling issues from the simplest perspective possible.

hope u accept that he's not GOD or LORD?
but theson of GOD abi.

The word and acts and works of God which are most important. Does not change much what one believes about Jesus. Practice is more important than theology.

Main concerns for me are

1.Transgression
Disobedience to God

2.Unrighteousness
Doing what is unjust, immoral and wrong

3.Omission of known duty
A person that knows to do good works, and does not do them

4.Faithlessness
Failing to act on faithful conviction

5.Foolish thinking
Wicked or reckless planning

Much more important than where we put the role of Jesus or not. Let's say we fing also the human aspect in Jesus.

nice one chrisd, but i dont quite get what theORAKU is driving at

Jesus said, if you love me you will keep my commandments, if they recognize him then they will keep his words and statutes...........Jesus as rightly said is not a prophet, he is the son of God there is a palpable difference between the two

Then it would be right to say if Jesus is the son of God, then your God preferes begetting male rather than female! Why does he choose to have a son and not a daughter? You christians are at the forefront of gender equality yet your God is gender bias!

Secondly, the word son is used in the bible metaphorically. Just as G.Washington is said to be the father of the nation, or M. Ghandi is said to be the father of India, doesnt mean they are literally the fathers of all americans or indians.

Thirdly, if you claim that "son of God" in the bible literally means what it says, then God has many sons as the following verses in the bible state;

"...Adam, which was the son of God."(Luke 3:38)

"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair... And when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them..." (Genesis 6: 2,4)

"...Israel is[b] My son, even [/b] My firstborn:" (Exodus 4:22)

"...for I (God) am a Father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn." (Jeremiah 31:9)

"...the Lord hath said unto me (David): 'Thou art My son: this day have I begotten thee." (Psalms 2:7)

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons[b] of God[/b]." (Romans 18:14)

Religious debates, if not properly handled, could generate into acrimony and disharmony. Religious books are opened to several interpretattions. It is like the story of The 6 Blind Men and the elephants. You only know your own perspective. it borders on religous bigotry to force our view down other people's throats. As a matter of practical illustration: the Jehovah Witnesses, the Roman Catholic and the Pentecostal read the same Bible and give it different interpretattion. Who is right and who is wrong?

Let's leave unhealthy debates alone and glorify the Holiness of Almighty God

We all are bible scholars here

chrisd:

We all are bible scholars here

u cant be too sure about that.

@niniowo, u said it right.

That's what I thought upon reading all this

kismat long time, where have you been? Well nice to have you back. As per your comments on the gender equality, funny to say that never crossed my mind. Why do you want to make that an issue? In the Quar'an, did Allah make Adam  Or Eve first? Does that make Him biased? If you say christians are at the fore front of gender equality yet our God is biased, i guess thats your unfortunate opinion. But really how does that affect or concern you? And how does that imply that Prophet Mohammed (SAW) is in the BIBLE? You really dont have to post if you've got nothing reasonable to contribute to the topic discussed and i mean no offence by that.

Yes God has many sons. I am one of them, so is goodguy,prettyH,donnie and co, SO? It still doesnt change the fact that The Lord Jesus is the ONLY begotten son of God!

coughs:: clears throat.

Very interesting thread. But honestly what I did not understand is, plain simple.

The Bible => A supposed book of Godly words, maybe a guide to the followers, which can't be understood?

What is the use of it then?

OK what I think is this, opinion mind you, so don't go bombarding me with something out of context, I would never believe in something I do not understand or can't interpret. It is as simple as that.

Until Bible becomes understandable based on common sense and logical reasoning, then and only then would I be able to discuss it or even debate it.

Throwing argument on something the followers said you can't understand, nor even be able to interpret is a total wastage of time, and thus there is nothing intellectual about all the debates in this thread so far. I doubt whether they do even understand it. Well maybe the understanding is for special people. It must be spiritually attached, doesnt that make it creepy?

A guide is something that you can understand and be able to interpret and apply logic straight away in real time. And honestly to me, the bible is not a guide or shouldnt be called one.

Opinions , so treat it with rationality.

I just had wish we could argue based on logic and human understanding, but No we can not. How pathetic.

Logical, how do you know that we christians (as you imply) do not understand the Bible?

I concluded to that fact because from what I have read so far I can only understand this from them "you can't apply logic to the bible", it has to be specially interpreted by a specific source, maybe a Pastor, who knows. which means until he interpretes it, they are in a state of confussion, which means , They do not understand it.

Something without a logical answer would of course need an authourity for definition based on the scope of what it is supposed to be, or the way it is supposed to be interpreted, as they said. So it is according to the bible, and interpreted based on the Pastor or the Bible school teacher understanding.

But before that , there is no understanding, so with that I can conclude they do not understand it. They can only be told what it is. So I think my assertion is correct. Otherwise a simple question should be receiving a simple answer.

Thats what I have deduced from what I have read so far. You cannot apply logics and deduction to the bible message.

Or cant I apply logics to assume that too . Pardon me .

nicetohave:

Jesus said, if you love me you will keep my commandments, if they recognize him then they will keep his words and statutes...........Jesus as rightly said is not a prophet, he is the son of God there is a palpable difference between the two

That all depends on the interpretation. The Bible scholar Robert M. Price, who was a member of the Jesus Seminar, says the following about the son of God passage in John (I'm paraphrasing here):
- when interpreting the Bible and trying to find out the core message and shift out all that has been added later, you need to look at the date at which the Gospels were written. The earliest Gospel is probably closest to the original message as the different Gospels build on one another
- when you find complicated theological passages as opposed to simpletheological passages in the different Gospels, the simpler ones are probably closer to the original message

Using this technique on the statement You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:16)
The earliest Gospel, that of Mark talks about You are the Christ (Mark 8:29), the more recent gospel of Luke has Peter saying You are the Christ of God(Luke 9:20) the even more recent version of Matthew talks about You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:16)
The most recent gospel that of John, swings this back around and says You are the Holy one of God (John 6:69)
Why this change, you may ask? Simple: Mark, Luke and probably Matthew were mostly written for a Jewish Christian audience, where they needed to make it abundantly clear that Jesus was not just the Jewish Messiah, but something entirely different, so they beef up their account considerably. John was intended for a gentile audience, so the divinity of Jesus is no longer a main issue (the intended audience is also visible in the antisemitic tone of John)

The most likely saying by Peter was thus: You are the Christ. All the rest is later stage editing to create a greater propaganda effect.

@logical,
God's words and workings is beyond the logical reasoning of the greatest human being.

There are so many things that are logically beyond the reasoning of the human being.\
Like i keep wondering if GOD when he was creating the garden of eden didnt know that Adam and eve were going to eat the forbidden fruit.
Of course, he knew rite from the outset and he still went ahead to warn them not to eat it, Whereas he knew they were.

The reason for that is beyond my own logical reasoning, but GOD knows better.

theORAKU:

@logical,
God's words and workings is beyond the logical reasoning of the greatest human being.

There are so many things that are logically beyond the reasoning of the human being.\
Like i keep wondering if GOD when he was creating the garden of eden didnt know that Adam and eve were going to eat the forbidden fruit.
Of course, he knew rite from the outset and he still went ahead to warn them not to eat it, Whereas he knew they were.

The reason for that is beyond my own logical reasoning, but GOD knows better.

Retreat into ignorance. What a solution
If that were true, why does anyone then claim to know anything about the nature of God?

nferyn:

That all depends on the interpretation. The Bible scholar Robert M. Price, who was a member of the Jesus Seminar, says the following about the son of God passage in John (I'm paraphrasing here):
The most likely saying by Peter was thus: You are the Christ. All the rest is later stage editing to create a greater propaganda effect.

MOST LIKELY: a feeble attempt by man to explain away his source and life

nicetohave:

MOST LIKELY: a feeble attempt by man to explain away his source and life

Meaning?

meaning he either has sincerely got his commentary on the origin and compilation of the gospels wrong or he his making an attempt to discredit that which cannot be discredited, both ways what i have read above is utter baloney

kismat long time, where have you been? Well nice to have you back. As per your comments on the gender equality, funny to say that never crossed my mind. Why do you want to make that an issue? In the Quar'an, did Allah make Adam  Or Eve first? Does that make Him biased? If you say christians are at the fore front of gender equality yet our God is biased, i guess thats your unfortunate opinion. But really how does that affect or concern you? And how does that imply that Prophet Mohammed (SAW) is in the BIBLE? You really don't have to post if you've got nothing reasonable to contribute to the topic discussed and i mean no offence by that.

Yes God has many sons. I am one of them, so is goodguy,prettyH,donnie and co, SO? It still doesnt change the fact that The Lord Jesus is the ONLY begotten son of God!

Its good to be back. I've been doing some travelling taking a break from work. Back to my previous point. The reason why i've stated the biasness is because we all believe God loves us all regardless of faith, color, status, wealth, gender etc. The point you've stated (making of Adam and eve) clearly shows this. Its not who was created first or last, but they were both created and will be judged equally. The christians believe that Jesus is the ONLY begotten son of God. So why Son and not a daughter? If he can have a son, why not have a daughter? You call God just, loving, caring etc and want to visualise/associate him with sonship right? Then wouldnt it be right to say that if He possess these qualities, he ought to have a daughter too? Or to make it simple, why did He Choose a Son only?

I guess my logic is too deep for you hence you get lost and miss the point.

nicetohave:

meaning he either has sincerely got his commentary on the origin and compilation of the gospels wrong or he his making an attempt to discredit that which cannot be discredited, both ways what i have read above is utter baloney

Right, one needs to be a true _(tm) believer before one can comment on the Bible, regardless of one's accademic credentials.
Again you come with statements like utter baloney without substantiating them. Why is it utter balony?

No kismat, I didnt get lost and miss the point. You are raising issues which do not apply here. To your not so "simple" guestion " why did He choose a Son only?" Who am I to ask God, why? Who are you to ask God, why? If you want to start asking God why on this one issue, then I gues you better start asking God why speak the world into existence in the first place. Is Allah biased by making his last prophet the Prophet Mohammed(SAW) Male and not female according to your beliefs? Please lets just make intelligent discuss here and stop bringing in issues which do not make sence(as far as I'm concerned) and do not relate to the topic been discussed.Why God choose to have a Begotten Son instead of a daughter?You say bias, I say I really don't know but God is " All knowing" and He Knows best why He choose a SON..

theORAKU:

@logical,
God's words and workings is beyond the logical reasoning of the greatest human being.

Thats according to you, not according to what I believe. And thats why Islam is a beautiful religion, it allows you to question, to challenge, and to use logics.

God's words to humans should be logical, otherwise it is useless, and sends know message and therefore establishes no propose. Why believe in something you cannot understand? I still don't get it.

I just wish that we could apply logics with the Bible or we could apply human basic understanding of language construct. argh

What, "God's words and workings is beyond the logical reasoning of the greatest human being". Nonsense. I call this anti-intellectualism.

nferyn:

Right, one needs to be a true _(tm) believer before one can comment on the Bible, regardless of one's accademic credentials.
Again you come with statements like utter baloney without substantiating them. Why is it utter balony?

One thing i have found out nferyn is that you are always right yet you rope yourself in in contradiction, you are right because you cannot know God or his ways or the things written about him if you do not belong, now that may sound antiintellectualistic to chrisd but sorry that's just the way it is, because "they could not come to him because they do not know his voice" how do you know it? i believe enough has been said, we will only continue to go round and round in circles----so now does it makes sense even without punching holes in your quote why it is[b] baloney[/b]? because everything you say about my dad, outside the family is baloney because you do not know him-----his commentary of the records of John, Matthew, Luke and Mark are wrong, he neither knows who these people are, when the verses were written or their intended audience, can there be greater falsehood?

chrisd:

What, "God's words and workings is beyond the logical reasoning of the greatest human being". Nonsense. I call this anti-intellectualism.

Well then you are part of this nonsense afterall, because even the very mechanism by which you live, eat ,breathe, reason "intellectually" and survive is beyond logical reasoning----that is just bringing the point of antiintellectuallism home to you, there are far more illogical reasonings around us.

This approach leaves us entirely unable to communicate with the modern world. This also dishonors God by refusing to use the minds and the knowledge He has given us. Assuming that faith is not rationally explainable or justifiable, you end up with a compartmentalized mind. Thus your faith does not connect with anything outside it. This movement has had a strong effect on evangelical churches. Remember that the term "leap of faith" comes from an existentialist philosopher (Kierkegaard), not the Bible; and "ya gotta believe" is the motto Peter Pan, not Jesus.

Again the Book of Proverbs points in this direction when it exclaims: "It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out" (Prov 25:2).

Not until the eighteenth century do we see a fundamental break between reason and religion. In the new rationalistic climate of the Enlightenment philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that rationality and religion were two separate domains that must be kept apart. Nonsense again.

chrisd:

This approach leaves us entirely unable to communicate with the modern world. This also dishonors God by refusing to use the minds and the knowledge He has given us. Assuming that faith is not rationally explainable or justifiable, you end up with a compartmentalized mind. Thus your faith does not connect with anything outside it. This movement has had a strong effect on evangelical churches. Remember that the term "leap of faith" comes from an existentialist philosopher (Kierkegaard), not the Bible; and "ya gotta believe" is the motto Peter Pan, not Jesus.

This is exactly what I've noticed with nicetohave. As a medical doctor, he surely does have the intellectual power and rationality to pass his studies and apply that knowledge to his everyday life. When it comes to matters of religion, he refuses to apply those same reasoning skills because it would lead to conclusions that he does not like to. A compartimentalized mind, indeed.

Either you abandon that backwards anti-intellectual reading of the Bible or you remain a walking contradiction and - in some cases - a menace to the advancement of the human race. I have had extremely meaningful and deep discussions with a parish priest about the meaning of the divine and God. But that was a man that lived among the poor and the oucasts, not some fire and brimstone paster who likes to show off in BMW X5 bought on the tithes of his poor suffering flock.

We can ask him if he uses ONE AND ONLY ONE book in his medical analysis

Perhaps he does not like that man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits.