(If the topic is inappropriate the moderator may delete it)

In this easter holiday I don't know where to say something to the christians, do we say happy easter? But I have something in mind.

In the Qur'an we are told that The messiah was not killed or crucified but game was played in there. But here I only want to point what I see, the direction of the book's author of what is all about, aside of the differences with Islam.

In easter there is a message in it in this story. In the weirdness the
way this story narrated, it is the story that has brought you so far today. In defending this story people do and did kill. Person, families, tribes and nations suffered in defending the disputed stories, but in this story there is a message, the message of self sacrifice.

Islam is deen or way of life and it does not recognize religions. What muslim believe in it must act upon it, that is way of life or deen - otherwise it is a religion.

Christianity is not recognized as a religion but it's followers are encouraged to continue the transition to todays Islam or otherwise to act upon what you highly valued as something worthy to die for, beneficial to others.

The believe in death and the ressurection is an Islamic faith by itself, and easter is about death and ressurection. It is about self sacrifice to the valued belief. Such sacrifice is not wasted, there is no death but life continues in martyrdom, a shaheed.

Hopefully you find comfort in differences.

And call not those who are slain in the way of Allah "dead."
Nay, they are living, only ye perceive not. (2:154)

Islam is deen or way of life and it does not recognize religions. What muslim believe in it must act upon it, that is way of life or deen - otherwise it is a religion.

Of course Islam recognises other religions!

It states it very clearly states that everyone is free to choose their path and that Allah guides whom He will.

Will find the qoute....

Yusuf Ali:

[022:016]  Thus have We sent down Clear Sings; and verily God doth guide whom He will!

[024:035]  God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! God doth guide whom He will to His Light: God doth set forth Parables for men: and God doth know all things.

Mankind since the beginning of time has made heros of such sacrifice whether it be work or life.

However the true path is for no one to do more than their share and share the challenges and burdens fairly amongst everyone according to their capacity.

For why should one person have to give his life for a cause when if the burden is shared many more may be saved and the load made light and bareable.

 Anne Marie

The term "Easter" is really being less and less used by Evangelical Christians, which are those Christians who are most interested in having their faith conform to Scripture.  More and more, Christians are using the term "Resurrection Day."

As far as "sacrifice" is concerned, it is true that Jesus is seen by Christians as offerring Himself as the ultimate sacrifice, shedding His blood for the remission of sin.  In the Old Testament, the Jews sacrificed lambs, goats, bullocks, etc., on the altar of the Temple daily for the forgiveness of sins committed.  These animal sacrifices were a shadow of, or a type of, the sacrifice of Christ.  The Book of Hebrews in the New Testament states that the blood of animals  could never take away sins - but only the Blood of Christ, which these animal sacrifices pointed to.

As far as Muslims denying that Christ died on the cross, might I point out that the execution was carried out by the Roman soldiers - the most disciplined army the world has ever known.  Believe me, if the Romans crucified you, they made sure it was YOU up on the cross, and they made sure you were DEAD when they took you down.  There was no final switch.  Christ was guarded by Roman solidiers from the time He was taken captive in the Garden right up to the time He was executed.  To attempt to refute this, not only goes against the many eyewitness accounts, but secular accounts as well.

DavidC wrote: Why not say happy Easter?  It doesn't imply that you believe anything is special about Easter, just that you want me to have a happy day. It's Ok for Christians to wish muslims Eid Mubarak - why not vice versa?

I have never heard a person say "happy easter" ever, no kidding. In writing like this maybe ok it sound appropriate, but I won't say this verbally until somebody out there start it and I hear it myself. As always the case some people at work are waiting for me to make a slip for their fun. I wait until they start.

superme wrote: DavidC wrote: Why not say happy Easter?  It doesn't imply that you believe anything is special about Easter, just that you want me to have a happy day. It's Ok for Christians to wish muslims Eid Mubarak - why not vice versa? I have never heard a person say "happy easter" ever, no kidding. In writing like this maybe ok it sound appropriate, but I won't say this verbally until somebody out there start it and I hear it myself. As always the case some people at work are waiting for me to make a slip for their fun. I wait until they start.

David's right, just say happy easter, just about everyone I know says happy easter, or have a good easter.

For some I think its just an excuse to eat chocolate

As always the case some people at work are waiting for me to make a slip for their fun. I wait until they start.

Yes, that could be a very good move

Athanasius wrote: As far as Muslims denying that Christ died on the cross, might I point out that the execution was carried out by the Roman soldiers - the most disciplined army the world has ever known.  Believe me, if the Romans crucified you, they made sure it was YOU up on the cross, and they made sure you were DEAD when they took you down.  There was no final switch.  Christ was guarded by Roman solidiers from the time He was taken captive in the Garden right up to the time He was executed.  To attempt to refute this, not only goes against the many eyewitness accounts, but secular accounts as well.

Yes, a very execellent points.

And I have alway proclaimed that, if God had a imposter as muslims proclaim, then God is a liar.

This reminds me of a discussion I had once with another member about this, I guess i could pull it up from the old forum.

Angel wrote: Athanasius wrote: As far as Muslims denying that Christ died on the cross, might I point out that the execution was carried out by the Roman soldiers - the most disciplined army the world has ever known.  Believe me, if the Romans crucified you, they made sure it was YOU up on the cross, and they made sure you were DEAD when they took you down.  There was no final switch.  Christ was guarded by Roman solidiers from the time He was taken captive in the Garden right up to the time He was executed.  To attempt to refute this, not only goes against the many eyewitness accounts, but secular accounts as well. Yes, a very execellent points. And I have alway proclaimed that, if God had a imposter as muslims proclaim, then God is a liar. This reminds me of a discussion I had once with another member about this, I guess i could pull it up from the old forum.

Those that deny Christ's death do so because His Resurrection proves beyond all doubt that He is the Son of God, the Savior of the World, the Messiah of Israel prophesied throughout the Jewish Scriptures.

Frankly, if I wasn't a Christian, the first thing I'd do is attempt to cast doubt on Jesus' death.

"Those that deny Christ's death do so because His Resurrection proves beyond all doubt that He is the Son of God, the Savior of the World, the Messiah of Israel prophesied throughout the Jewish Scriptures."

Don't Christians believe Lazarus was resurrected from the dead?

Torrencedelay,

You wrote: "Those that deny Christ's death do so because His Resurrection proves beyond all doubt that He is the Son of God, the Savior of the World, the Messiah of Israel prophesied throughout the Jewish Scriptures."

If you look at Isaiah 45:21-24, then Jesus is not the saviour.

"Declare what is to be, present it - let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past?

Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Saviour, there is none but me.

"Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. They will say of me, 'In the Lord alone are righteous and strength.' " All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame."

Since Lazarus was also resurrected, was he also a Son of God?

BMZ

bmzsp wrote: Torrencedelay, You wrote: "Those that deny Christ's death do so because His Resurrection proves beyond all doubt that He is the Son of God, the Savior of the World, the Messiah of Israel prophesied throughout the Jewish Scriptures." If you look at Isaiah 45:21-24, then Jesus is not the saviour. "Declare what is to be, present it - let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Saviour, there is none but me. "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. They will say of me, 'In the Lord alone are righteous and strength.' " All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame." Since Lazarus was also resurrected, was he also a Son of God? BMZ

Lazarus was resusitated, not resurrected and no, Lazarus is not the King Messiah, and he is not the Word made flesh.

bmzsp wrote: Torrencedelay, You wrote: "Those that deny Christ's death do so because His Resurrection proves beyond all doubt that He is the Son of God, the Savior of the World, the Messiah of Israel prophesied throughout the Jewish Scriptures." If you look at Isaiah 45:21-24, then Jesus is not the saviour. "Declare what is to be, present it - let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Saviour, there is none but me. "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. They will say of me, 'In the Lord alone are righteous and strength.' " All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame." Since Lazarus was also resurrected, was he also a Son of God? BMZ

Christians have no problem with the verses you quoted.  God is our Savior and it is up to him to decide how to save us and through whom.  "Salvation is through the Jews," Jesus said.

George,

From you: "Christians have no problem with the verses you quoted.  God is our Savior and it is up to him to decide how to save us and through whom.  "Salvation is through the Jews," Jesus said."

I have already quoted the crystal clear verses from Isaiah, already an important prophet of the Jews. Reading "God is our Saviour" is more factual than saying,"Salvation is through the Jews as purported to have been said by Jesus." Some say that Salavation is through Jesus but personally I don't believe that.

When God is assuring us directly of being the only Saviour, we do not have to look to others.

Torrencedelay wrote: Angel wrote: Athanasius wrote: As far as Muslims denying that Christ died on the cross, might I point out that the execution was carried out by the Roman soldiers - the most disciplined army the world has ever known.  Believe me, if the Romans crucified you, they made sure it was YOU up on the cross, and they made sure you were DEAD when they took you down.  There was no final switch.  Christ was guarded by Roman solidiers from the time He was taken captive in the Garden right up to the time He was executed.  To attempt to refute this, not only goes against the many eyewitness accounts, but secular accounts as well. Yes, a very execellent points. And I have alway proclaimed that, if God had a imposter as muslims proclaim, then God is a liar. This reminds me of a discussion I had once with another member about this, I guess i could pull it up from the old forum. Those that deny Christ's death do so because His Resurrection proves beyond all doubt that He is the Son of God, the Savior of the World, the Messiah of Israel prophesied throughout the Jewish Scriptures. Frankly, if I wasn't a Christian, the first thing I'd do is attempt to cast doubt on Jesus' death.

Torrence, give us a glimpse how do you see God as best as you can do by penning it here. By right - to me it is a lot easier if God himself to come down and do all what we want instead we do it ourselves, yes that is better life. But what picture can I draw to see The God himself with the available mind?

George: Lazarus was resusitated, not resurrected and no, Lazarus is not the King Messiah, and he is not the Word made flesh.

O.K. I have never seen in the Bible that Lazarus was resusitated. Wasn't Lazarus in the tomb for 4 days?

Since almost anyone can resusitate a person, if Lazarus was resusitated and not resurrected, then that would be denying one of the great miracles of Jesus.

Either Lazarus was resurrected from the dead and it was a miracle as the Bible states, thus making Jesus not the only human ever resurrected, or he was resusitated, not what the Bible states, and it was not a miracle.

John 11:39  Jesus said, Take ye away the stone.  Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.

John 11:40  Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

John 11:41  Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid.  And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.

John 11:42  And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

John 11:43  And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

John 11:44  And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin.  Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

Well said Mishmish and there is concrete proof in the verses quoted that Jesus carried out that miracle not on his own.

It was an act carried out by God Almighty whose glory he wanted Martha to see and believe. Jesus prayed to God Almighty and God Almighty heard his prayers.

"John 11:40  Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?" Hope someone does not come up and say Jesus was claiming to be God or Divine here.

BR & Salaam Alaikum

BMZ

bmzsp wrote: George, From you: "Christians have no problem with the verses you quoted.  God is our Savior and it is up to him to decide how to save us and through whom.  "Salvation is through the Jews," Jesus said." I have already quoted the crystal clear verses from Isaiah, already an important prophet of the Jews. Reading "God is our Saviour" is more factual than saying,"Salvation is through the Jews as purported to have been said by Jesus." Some say that Salavation is through Jesus but personally I don't believe that. When God is assuring us directly of being the only Saviour, we do not have to look to others.

You just don't get it, do you?  Since Jesus was God's Holy Word made flesh, Jesus is our savior--yours and mine.  "Salvation through the Jews" is through God's King Messiah, both 100% human and 100% divine in nature.  This is the Christian belief.

You, as a Muslim, don't have to believe it.  You are free to not to believe anything God has revealed or his method of our salvation.  It is up to you.

Main Entry: re�sus�ci�tate javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?resusc01.wav=resuscitate'">
Pronunciation: ri-'s&-s&-"tAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -tat�ed; -tat�ing
Etymology: Latin resuscitatus, past participle of resuscitare to reawaken, from re- + suscitare to rouse, from sub-, sus- up + citare to put in motion, stir -- more at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sub- - SUB- , http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/cite - CITE
transitive senses : to revive from apparent death or from unconsciousness; also : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/revitalize - REVITALIZE

Main Entry: res�ur�rect javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?resurr01.wav=resurrect'">
Pronunciation: "re-z&-'rekt
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: back-formation from resurrection
1 : to raise from the dead
2 : to bring to view, attention, or use again

Main Entry: res�ur�rec�tion javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?resurr02.wav=resurrection'">
Pronunciation: "re-z&-'rek-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin resurrection-, resurrectio act of rising from the dead, from resurgere to rise from the dead, from Latin, to rise again, from re- + surgere to rise -- more at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/surge - SURGE
1 a capitalized : the rising of Christ from the dead b often capitalized : the rising again to life of all the human dead before the final judgment c : the state of one risen from the dead
2 : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/resurgence - RESURGENCE , http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/revival - REVIVAL
3 Christian Science : a spiritualization of thought : material belief that yields to spiritual understanding

Either Lazarus was dead or he wasn't...

Mishmish wrote: Main Entry: re�sus�ci�tate javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?resusc01.wav=resuscitate'"> Pronunciation: ri-'s&-s&-"tAt Function: verb Inflected Form(s): -tat�ed; -tat�ing Etymology: Latin resuscitatus, past participle of resuscitare to reawaken, from re- + suscitare to rouse, from sub-, sus- up + citare to put in motion, stir -- more at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sub- - SUB- , http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/cite - CITE transitive senses : to revive from apparent death or from unconsciousness; also : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/revitalize - REVITALIZE Main Entry: res�ur�rect javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?resurr01.wav=resurrect'"> Pronunciation: "re-z&-'rekt Function: transitive verb Etymology: back-formation from resurrection 1 : to raise from the dead 2 : to bring to view, attention, or use again Main Entry: res�ur�rec�tion javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?resurr02.wav=resurrection'"> Pronunciation: "re-z&-'rek-sh&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin resurrection-, resurrectio act of rising from the dead, from resurgere to rise from the dead, from Latin, to rise again, from re- + surgere to rise -- more at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/surge - SURGE 1 a capitalized : the rising of Christ from the dead b often capitalized : the rising again to life of all the human dead before the final judgment c : the state of one risen from the dead 2 : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/resurgence - RESURGENCE , http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/revival - REVIVAL 3 Christian Science : a spiritualization of thought : material belief that yields to spiritual understanding Either Lazarus was dead or he wasn't...

Lazarus was dead.  You need to understand the concept of Resurrection as understood by the Jews.  You cannot find this in a dictionary.

Lazarus was recusitated back to his mortal body; Jesus was resurrected into his resurrected body.  Jesus was the only person on earth who was resurrected. 

fredifreeloader wrote: faizIbnFareed - what do you mean well all be united - the people who believe in muhammad right now arent united - theyre killing each other right left and centre in iraq and elsewhere.  they dont believe the same things.  some say killing innocent children in israel is ok, some say its not.  some say 9/11 was ok, some say its not.  who knows what the truth of islam actually is?  does anyone?  some believe apostates should be killed, others say no, this is not the true islam.  some believe adulterers should be stoned, others say no, this is not true.  they are making up fairy tales so that gullible people will believe them, and end up in hell

We are united in that we believe there is only ONE God, and that there can be no other deity other than God. No Muslim would ever say otherwise.

Christians believe that God is a trinity, that God is not a trinity, that Jesus is the son of God, that Jesus is not the son of God, that Jesus is God, that Jesus is not God, that there is is a Godhead (just the sound of that makes me queasy), that there is no Godhead...

At least Muslims can agree there is only ONE God.

Mishmish wrote: fredifreeloader wrote: faizIbnFareed - what do you mean well all be united - the people who believe in muhammad right now arent united - theyre killing each other right left and centre in iraq and elsewhere.  they dont believe the same things.  some say killing innocent children in israel is ok, some say its not.  some say 9/11 was ok, some say its not.  who knows what the truth of islam actually is?  does anyone?  some believe apostates should be killed, others say no, this is not the true islam.  some believe adulterers should be stoned, others say no, this is not true.  they are making up fairy tales so that gullible people will believe them, and end up in hell We are united in that we believe there is only ONE God, and that there can be no other deity other than God. No Muslim would ever say otherwise. Christians believe that God is a trinity, that God is not a trinity, that Jesus is the son of God, that Jesus is not the son of God, that Jesus is God, that Jesus is not God, that there is is a Godhead (just the sound of that makes me queasy), that there is no Godhead... At least Muslims can agree there is only ONE God.

From you: Christians believe that God is a trinity, that God is not a trinity, that Jesus is the son of God, that Jesus is not the son of God, that Jesus is God, that Jesus is not God, that there is is a Godhead (just the sound of that makes me queasy), that there is no Godhead...

At least Muslims can agree there is only ONE God.

Comments: The Christians who believe in the Trinity believe in one God.

The Christians who believe that God is not a trinity, believe in one God.

Trinitarians believe that Jesus was the Son of God and the Word of God made flesh--One being, one God.

"Christians" who believe that Jesus was not God are not mainstream Orthodox Christians.

Why not base your arguments on what the vast majority of Christians believe rather than confuse yourself with what "Christians" outside of the vast majority believe?

There is only one God, period.

O.K. I have to ask this and I am asking not as a Muslim here but just as a logical person: If there is a Trinity then why didn't God just say so? In the Old Testament God never once said I am the Lord thy Godhead. I am One but I am three. I am the Lord and you shall worship none before Me except Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Never once was this made clear. With all of the Prophets and Messengers God sent, this was never made clear. Why would God send all of the Prophets and Messengers to clarify His Word, yet never make something so vitally important to mankind clear? Why would God send Himself to earth in human form, allow Himself to be killed, and not just say outright and very clearly: I am Jesus, one of the three parts of the Godhead therefore I am God, and I am killing myself for your sins.

Because when God spoke to Moses He was very clear: He told him to free the Jews, He gave Moses the Ten Commandments, He told Moses: I am God. When God sent Gabriel to Noah, He was very clear: I am going to destroy the wickedness of the earth, build an arc this many cubits high, this many cubits wide,... very clear. When God sent Gabriel to Lot, He was very clear: I am going to destroy Sodom and Gamorrah, take your family and leave and do not look back. Very clear.

Yet, in what is perceived the most important event in the history of the world, God actually coming to earth and dying for man's sin, there is no absolute clear message that this is God, the Almighty. And, after God commanded mankind to worship no other being than Himself, He doesn't explain that there is actually a Trinity that mankind will be asked to worship and that it is necessary to worship Jesus, and in fact, all people should pray in Jesus' name, not to God.  Nowhere in the Bible is this just explained clearly and concisely.

What was the point of all of the scriptures, the Prophets, the Messengers, if these two points: the Trinity and the fact that Jesus is God/the son of God, the whole basis of "mainstream" Christianity were not going to be made absolutely, without a doubt, 100% clear?

That doesn't really answer the question though. That is just theory and supposition. In the Old Testament, if God wanted something to be clear He made it so. There weren't clues. God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, he didn't tell him, O.K. guess what I want of you.

He told Moses to warn Pharoah what would happen if he didn't fre

e the Jews. God didn't play games and make Pharoah try to figure out what was expected.

He is God, the Almighty. Why does He have to appease people by giving them little clues and playing word games. God said, I am the ONE God. That's pretty clear. Worship the One true God or else. That's pretty clear. The Messengers and Prophets proclaimed that's what they were, they were ridiculed and not believed, but they made it very clear that's what they were, and they were just men. Yet God, in human form as Jesus, would not make that very clear because He might not be believed? Yet, mankind's very salvation rests on the belief that Jesus is God. But it couldn't be made completely clear because people might not have believed it?

So basically, God came to earth in the human form of Jesus, and died to save men from sin, but He couldn't really just tell people that's who He was or what He was doing because people wouldn't have believed Him. And, God did not just say that I am a Trinity and not ONE God because people were already worshipping many false gods at the time and it would confuse people. So He doesn't mention the Trinity, just hints at it, which is much less confusing, yet clearly states I am God, the one true God and worship none before Me.

George,

For the post that you wrote and posted on 25 April 2006 at 9:54am, I hereby award you an F Grade. It was a very weak post with ruptures and fault lines exposed.

bmzsp wrote: George, For the post that you wrote and posted on 25 April 2006 at 9:54am, I hereby award you an F Grade. It was a very weak post with ruptures and fault lines exposed.

Thanks for your opinion.

George,

From you:"I think that there are little clues in the Old Testament that God is triune in nature.  The problem back in those days was that people were worshipping many gods.  So, I think God's main aim was to emphasize that there was only one God and he was it. 

Could you please write down those cute little clues from the Old Testament and from the Jewish Bible too, for us to compare?

bmzsp wrote: George, From you:"I think that there are little clues in the Old Testament that God is triune in nature.  The problem back in those days was that people were worshipping many gods.  So, I think God's main aim was to emphasize that there was only one God and he was it.  Could you please write down those cute little clues from the Old Testament and from the Jewish Bible too, for us to compare?

Isaiah 48:¹⁶"Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I was there.  And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit Have sent Me."

Here we have someone identified as "Me" talking.  He is saying that "from the time that it was, I was there, which puts more dynamics behind Jesus' statement, http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JOHN+8:58&language=english&version=NKJV&showfn=on&showxref=on - before Abraham was, I AM."   Then "Me" refers to the "Lord GOD" and "His Spirit" sending "Me" somewhere.  In this verse we have three "entities," the Lord GOD, His Spirit and "Me."

The "Me" is the Messiah.  Throughout this section of the book the Spirit of God brings before us the coming and the rejection of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, and in verse 16 the Messiah, speaking through the prophet says this, "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and His Sprit, hath sent me."  We know that these words refer to Jesus Christ for we read in John 18:20, "In secret have I said nothing" and this is the passage in the OT to which he referred.  Here we are listening to the voice of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God who was to be manifested in the flesh.  "I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and n ow (looking on to the incarnation) the Lord God, and His Sprit (that is, the Holy Spirit), hath sent me (that is, the Son)."  So there you have the Trinity in the book of the prophet Isaiah.

Then in a later chapter of this same book we have the three persons definitely indicated.  It is the passage that Jesus Christ read in the synagogue at Nazareth and applied to Himself.

Isaiah 61:¹ "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;

Here we have God's Spirit�"the Spirit of the Lord GOD"�(this is not an angel) upon "Me."  The LORD has anointed "Me" to preach and He has sent "Me."  This is the same verse that Jesus quoted below:

Luke 4:¹⁷And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:

¹⁸"The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind,  To set at liberty those who are oppressed;  ¹⁹To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD."

²⁰Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. ²¹And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

Here Jesus identifies Himself as the "Me" in the OT Scriptures above.

Notice how the three persons come before us there.  "The Spirit (the Holy Spirit) of the Lord is upon me (that is, the Son); because the Lord (that is, God the Father) hath anointed me to preach good tidings (the gospel) unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord"  (Isaiah 61:1)

Now linking the NT passages with these you will see how completely they fulfill what has been set forth prophetically in the OT.  Matthew 3:16 reads, "And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him: and lo a voice from heave, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 

The prophet Malachi predicted that God would personally appear at the second temple:

"See I will send my messenger who will prepare the way before me.  Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant whom you desire will come, say the LORD Almighty."  Malachi 3:1

According to this prediction, the Lord Himself was to come and enter His temple.  The only person who claimed to be the divine Messiah and appeared while the second temple was still standing is Jesus Christ.

bmzsp wrote: George, From you:"I think that there are little clues in the Old Testament that God is triune in nature.  The problem back in those days was that people were worshipping many gods.  So, I think God's main aim was to emphasize that there was only one God and he was it.  Could you please write down those cute little clues from the Old Testament and from the Jewish Bible too, for us to compare?

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." 

This verse points out the inescapable fact that the Messiah is God Almighty appearing in human form. That this passage was considered Messianic is evident from the fact that verse7 says that the Child would sit on the throne of David forever, a description which only fits the Messiah. 

In the Targum of Isaiah we read:  "His name has been called from old, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, He who lives forever, the Anointed One (Messiah), in whose days peace shall increase upon us."  

Pereq Shalom: R. Yose the Galilean said: "The name of the Messiah is Peace, for it is said, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." 

Midrash Mishle, S. Buber edition: The Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon, Tzemah, Pele ["Miracle"], Yo'etz ["Counselor"], Mashiah ["Messiah"], El ["God"], Gibbor ["Hero"], and Avi 'Ad Shalom ["Eternal Father of Peace"] 

Whoever this Child is one thing remains certain - This Child must shine forth from Galilee according to Isaiah 9:1: 

'Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past He humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali but in the future He will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea along the Jordan...'

NOTE: In an attempt to avoid the impact of this passage�s significance to the divinity of the Messiah, certain Jewish Publications have translated it in a way as to suggest that the divine titles are not messianic in nature. Rather, they are descriptions of God: 

For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the dominion will rest on his shoulder; the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, eternal Father, called his name Sar-shalom [Prince of peace]. (This appears as Isaiah 9:5 in the Stone Edition Tanakh, Arts Scroll Series, published by Mesorah Publications Ltd.; Brooklyn, NY, 1998) 

The great rabbi Ibn Ezra responds: There are some interpreters who say that �wonderful, counselor, mighty God, everlasting Father� are the names of God, and that only �prince of peace� is the name of the child. But according to my view, the right interpretation is that they are all the names of the child. (Walter Riggans, Yeshua Ben David [Wowborough, East Sussex; MARC, 1995], p. 370)

Jeremiah 23:5-6 'The days are coming,' declares the Lord, 'When I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a king who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In His days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which He will be called; The Lord our Righteousness (YHVH Tseidkeynu).'

The Targums concluded that this passage was speaking of Messiah.

For instance, the great Rabbi David Kimchi wrote in reference to this verse, 'By the righteous Branch is meant Messiah.' The compilers of the Targum agreed with Kimchi since they introduced Messiah by name in this passage. (David Baron, Rays of Messiah�s Glory: Christ in the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, MI; Zondervan, 1886], p. 78) 

Hebrew scholar Alfred Edersheim quotes other Rabbinic writings in reference to this passage: 

On Jer. xxiii, 5, 6 the Targum has it: �And I will raise up for David the Messiah the just.� This is one of the passages from which, according to Rabbinic views, one of the names of the Messiah is derived, viz.: Jehovah our Righteousness. So in the Talmud (Babha Bathra 75b), in the Midrash on Ps. xxii.1, Prov.xix.21, and in that on Lamentations I 16. (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1972], pt. 2, p. 731). 

Hence, we find the Hebrew Scriptures testifying to the fact that Messiah would be the Lord Himself. (Hebrew YHVH / Adonai) 

George! You and your pearls.

From you :"Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.""

If you are talking of above to be applicable to Jesus, then I must say that none of the above came true. the word Messiah is not even present in Isaiah 9.6. Why should we look into the Targum of Isaiah for something that is missing in Isaiah 9.6?

From you: "Pereq Shalom: R. Yose the Galilean said: "The name of the Messiah is Peace, for it is said, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." 

Midrash Mishle, S. Buber edition: The Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon, Tzemah, Pele ["Miracle"], Yo'etz ["Counselor"], Mashiah ["Messiah"], El ["God"], Gibbor ["Hero"], and Avi 'Ad Shalom ["Eternal Father of Peace"] "

No wonder, the Jews did not accept Jesus as their Messiah for they were waiting then for God Almighty to come down himself!

From you: "Whoever this Child is one thing remains certain - This Child must shine forth from Galilee according to Isaiah 9:1: "

That child was the son of a young married woman, perhaps a wife of Isaiah or a woman of Isaiah and he was named Immanuel.

'Who quoted this? "Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past He humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali but in the future He will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea along the Jordan...'"

There was no land or any goverment that was humbled by Jesus. He was not even a King and never ruled the land. There was even no peace except fighting and killing.

From you: "NOTE: In an attempt to avoid the impact of this passage�s significance to the divinity of the Messiah, certain Jewish Publications have translated it in a way as to suggest that the divine titles are not messianic in nature. Rather, they are descriptions of God: 

For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the dominion will rest on his shoulder; the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, eternal Father, called his name Sar-shalom [Prince of peace]. (This appears as Isaiah 9:5 in the Stone Edition Tanakh, Arts Scroll Series, published by Mesorah Publications Ltd.; Brooklyn, NY, 1998)"

The same can be said of Christian gospel writers who have reduced the impact of the message given to Jews and have used it to justify Jesus as God or son of God by using the prophecies and in reality changed the words of the Jewish Tanakh. 

I think God was specific about raising a Messiah from the Jews for them.That is why the Almighty God spoke about a child, not about himself. Mere mortals are born to and through a woman, not God.

Good Night

BMZ

Mishmish wrote: That doesn't really answer the question though. That is just theory and supposition. In the Old Testament, if God wanted something to be clear He made it so. There weren't clues. God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, he didn't tell him, O.K. guess what I want of you. He told Moses to warn Pharoah what would happen if he didn't fre e the Jews. God didn't play games and make Pharoah try to figure out what was expected. He is God, the Almighty. Why does He have to appease people by giving them little clues and playing word games. God said, I am the ONE God. That's pretty clear. Worship the One true God or else. That's pretty clear. The Messengers and Prophets proclaimed that's what they were, they were ridiculed and not believed, but they made it very clear that's what they were, and they were just men. Yet God, in human form as Jesus, would not make that very clear because He might not be believed? Yet, mankind's very salvation rests on the belief that Jesus is God. But it couldn't be made completely clear because people might not have believed it? So basically, God came to earth in the human form of Jesus, and died to save men from sin, but He couldn't really just tell people that's who He was or what He was doing because people wouldn't have believed Him. And, God did not just say that I am a Trinity and not ONE God because people were already worshipping many false gods at the time and it would confuse people. So He doesn't mention the Trinity, just hints at it, which is much less confusing, yet clearly states I am God, the one true God and worship none before Me.

Orthodox Christians--the vast majority of the 2.1 billion Chrisians worship only one God--the Creator God.

You might want to look over this site:  http://www.jesusplusnothing.com/messiah/messiah.htm - http://www.jesusplusnothing.com/messiah/messiah.htm

And these:

http://www.realmessiah.com/index.htm - http://www.realmessiah.com/index.htm

Sub section of site above: http://www.realmessiah.com/answers.htm - http://www.realmessiah.com/answers.htm

http://www.shalom.org.uk/Messiah/SonGod.htm - http://www.shalom.org.uk/Messiah/SonGod.htm

Christians and Messianic Jews believe that Jesus was the Messiah--the King Messiah--the Messiah over all other Messiahs.

Jews and Muslims do not.

I've have studied this subject for years.  Everyone has to make their own decisions.  I made mine.

Greetings George.

I was suprised when I saw the great deal of pasting sources that have been cited by someone else (meaning you have not actually read the material and we have only your missionary sources to trust that Jews agree with missionaries and the sources cannot be readily verified).

At this point, nothing in your reply actually stands on its own, as one must either trust the people who cited the work, or not. I choose "or not".

George wrote: bmzsp wrote: George, From you:"I think that there are little clues in the Old Testament that God is triune in nature.  The problem back in those days was that people were worshipping many gods.  So, I think God's main aim was to emphasize that there was only one God and he was it.  Could you please write down those cute little clues from the Old Testament and from the Jewish Bible too, for us to compare? Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."  This verse points out the inescapable fact that the Messiah is God Almighty appearing in human form. That this passage was considered Messianic is evident from the fact that verse7 says that the Child would sit on the throne of David forever, a description which only fits the Messiah.

I noticed that you did not quote a Jewish Bible. Your interest in Jewish thought seems to decline at certain "Christolgical" impasses in your bible. I had started to write a rebuttal to your assertion that Isaiah 9 is about a Messiah who is Gd Almighty in the flesh. 

1) The Herbew Grammer does not support your view.

2) If my real name, Daniel, was literally translated, it would be, "Gd is my Judge". So if you refer to me as "Gd is my judge", why not worship me? I am "Gd is my Judge". 

I have found that Christians have played extremely loose with translations. An example is the word "moshiach". In the Hebrew bible, the word is translated as "annointed one", in the Christian bible, your doctors have decided that "moshiach" should be "annointed one", except for the book of Daniel, where the place the word, "messiah", which is latin for the Hebrew, "moshiach". Why this word game? Thats a good question. And this is also related with the play on Hebrew Names to try and show that Jews really did believe that the Messiah was a Gdman that would one day come. But in reality, in it just a word play with Hebrew names.

3) My Hebrew is a bit rusty, and would take a week or more for me to finish my reply. I had this link sent to me some time ago, and felt that I would not be able to do a better job. It is a full analysis of the verse in question, and it dispells any notion of "Christological value".

http://www.messiahtruth.com/isa9.html - http://www.messiahtruth.com/isa9.html

Peace