freeborn | ελεύθερος on Nostr: You say Isa is a Prophet - can a Prophet lie? He said, "I and the Father are one." He ...
You say Isa is a Prophet - can a Prophet lie? He said, "I and the Father are one." He said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." He said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." This was what the Jews charged him with--making himself equal with God. He did not deny it. If he was not divine and was charged with blasphemy, surely he would have objected--being a true Prophet? Wouldn't a faithful messenger of God adamantly deny to be God himself?
Of course he received worship, from Thomas, and many other places--especially in The Revelation. Mere angels/messengers of God would (and did) strongly forbid this--but Jesus did not. He is named as Creator in John 1 and Colossians 1, and numerous other places. Scriptures referring to God in the OT are explicitly applied to him the New Testament.
The Koran says the OT and the NT are also Scriptures. Centuries before Mohammad was born, Isaiah called God not only "Father" but "everlasting Father" -- how can he be an everlasting Father unless he has an everlasting Son as well? Jesus, in the NT, refers to him almost exclusively as "father." The Koran teaches that our Scriptures "were corrupted" yet it also says that God keeps his Scriptures pure--and we have copies of the NT from before Mohommad that match what we have today, and we have copies of the OT from before Mohammad that match what we have today also. So -- what can be logically deduced from that?
We can be adopted into the household of God by faith in Christ. We are not mere servants--we submit, yes--but we are more than mere servants and supplicants. We (like Moses) are the "friends" of God, even the "sons and daughters" of God (by adoption):
> Behold, what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called sons of the living God.
Respectfully - consider your reasons for not also accepting the Book of Mormon, since it's the exact same scenario with Joseph Smith as it was with Mohammad. It is *those* documents that internally refute themselves, it is *those* documents that are not, and never were, the Word of God.
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. ... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only begotten Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
[John 1:1–5, 14](https://esv.org/John+1), ESV
No doubt we will continue to disagree, which is fine -- so rather than continue, let's go on enjoying one another's posts on other things we enjoy and/or have in common. 🤙
Of course he received worship, from Thomas, and many other places--especially in The Revelation. Mere angels/messengers of God would (and did) strongly forbid this--but Jesus did not. He is named as Creator in John 1 and Colossians 1, and numerous other places. Scriptures referring to God in the OT are explicitly applied to him the New Testament.
The Koran says the OT and the NT are also Scriptures. Centuries before Mohammad was born, Isaiah called God not only "Father" but "everlasting Father" -- how can he be an everlasting Father unless he has an everlasting Son as well? Jesus, in the NT, refers to him almost exclusively as "father." The Koran teaches that our Scriptures "were corrupted" yet it also says that God keeps his Scriptures pure--and we have copies of the NT from before Mohommad that match what we have today, and we have copies of the OT from before Mohammad that match what we have today also. So -- what can be logically deduced from that?
We can be adopted into the household of God by faith in Christ. We are not mere servants--we submit, yes--but we are more than mere servants and supplicants. We (like Moses) are the "friends" of God, even the "sons and daughters" of God (by adoption):
> Behold, what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called sons of the living God.
Respectfully - consider your reasons for not also accepting the Book of Mormon, since it's the exact same scenario with Joseph Smith as it was with Mohammad. It is *those* documents that internally refute themselves, it is *those* documents that are not, and never were, the Word of God.
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. ... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only begotten Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
[John 1:1–5, 14](https://esv.org/John+1), ESV
No doubt we will continue to disagree, which is fine -- so rather than continue, let's go on enjoying one another's posts on other things we enjoy and/or have in common. 🤙