Is Jesus God – A Muslim Perspective

The following in a “cut and paste” I did some time back; unfortunately, I do not remember the address from where I retrieved it. Nevertheless, I thought it would be good to answer these questions and the others as I have opportunity in the future.

************

All Christians: DO YOU HAVE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS?

1.      If Jesus was GOD, then why in Mark 12:29 Jesus said “Here, O Israel:  The Lord our God is one Lord.”   The words “our God” indicate that Jesus had a higher God over him, a stronger God than him.  Jesus didn’t say “Your God”. The context of this remark is when the Lord is asked a question concerning what is the great commandment. Jesus answers with the action of loving God with all of one’s being and then also loving one’s neighbor as self. When Jesus said “our God” did he mean that he (Jesus) was not God himself? Jesus’ words are a direct quotation of Deuteronomy 6 when Moses spoke to the Israelites as they were preparing to enter into the land of promise. Thus, the words actually belong to Moses, and Jesus was answering the question with a direct quote.

2.      He said “our God” which includes Jesus as the creation of GOD. Is Jesus the creation of God? No, Revelation 5:13 makes this clear (not to mention other passages such as John 1:1-3). Jesus became a man and as a man he could say that which other men said in regard to one’s approach to the Almighty.

3.      If Jesus was GOD, then why did he ask for GOD’s Forgiveness in Luke 23:34? Evidently this question is supposed to call into question Jesus as God because he didn’t forgive. It is missed that Jesus did forgive sins (Mark 2:5-12). Since he did forgive sins, to merely ask a question as to why he did not do so, but asked the Father to do so, is not even close to intimating that he could not, that he would not, or that he was not God!

4.      If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 20:17 Jesus said I ascend to my God and your God?  This tells us that we and Jesus have a common GOD. As I answered in number 2 the answer applies here. More than that, however, note how another addressed him in 20:28 – something the Lord did not denounce or correct!

5.      If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 8:28 Jesus said “I do nothing of myself”?  Can’t GOD do anything he wills? God can do anything that can be done, but the passage does not support your contention that he is not God. For one thing the context has those surrounding him calling Jesus’ deity into question (just like you are); Jesus brings into contrast two things: the standard by which they judge and the standard by which he operates (judges). In C-7 the Lord already took note that they were making judgments based on a standard of this world; he told them to use a different standard (7:24). With this as a backdrop Jesus demands of them to look at the evidence (8:13-29). Thus, when he says what he does in 8:28 the point is simply that he and the Father are working together and that he (Jesus) will do nothing apart from the Father’s will. 

Evolutionary Morality

I wrote this letter because of my continued effort to expose the irrational nature of an objective moral code based on evolution.

Letter to editor,

According to the evolutionary model of morality that is being pawned on society it is necessarily the case that right and wrong are muddled (at best). Such confusion results in there being no justice done when a malcontent decides to extinguish the life of others, including himself (“Five die in shooting at Ariz. Home,” JG-TC, p. A-2, 5/3/2012). In such an evolutionary model to whom will he account himself?

Many people will assert that the perpetrator of the crime most certainly did wrong, but in accordance with relativism (evolutionary morality) that value judgment has no substantive meaning; it is only wrong because one wants to believe it is wrong. Fortunately, most that are rational have forsaken such a godless approach.

The value of life is minimized when the judicial system takes a perpetrator of a crime and a judge allows for a possible sentence for that crime of only three years (“Verdict,” JG-TC, pp. A 1-2, 5/5/2012). What is the value of a person’s life? Since abortion holds sway with liberal ideology it has become much less valuable. Our judicial system does not even know how to value a person’s life when a crime is committed. Consequently, the judicial system perpetuates a confusing mess.

In such a chaotic world people seek for wisdom that is more than the mundane, more than confusing in a world where morality is quite confusing. Many turn to Buddhism, and perhaps much can be gained there, but it is a system that is atheistic. Moreover, it got its start with a man who abandoned his wife and child to find meaning and answers in his own life. For one local person I guess he did no wrong, he just evolved! Perhaps this is the kind of morality that particular one adheres to.

If morality originates in the mind of man, confusing will be the modus operandi of life. The alternative to such confusion is for one (all) to turn to Him who transcends life. To Him and His standard we will be held accountable. The moral code of man’s Creator can’t be improved on; it can only be applied.

What some people hope to escape when they kill themselves (after killing others) will bring them right to the feet of Him who created all.

Submitted 5/11/2012; printed 5/15/2012

UMC and Same Sex Marriage

Letter to editor,

I just read today that the United Methodist Church (UMC) recently had a vote and passed by a 6 to 4 ratio that homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching” (http://www.newsmax.com/US/Methodists-Gays/2012/05/03/id/437991). I find this interesting because in the same article we are told that the UMC has been debating among themselves for four decades about the issue. If they stayed with biblical teaching there would be no debate (Romans 1:24-27).

Homosexuality is a behavioral activity that is degenerating, but a behavioral activity that can be changed if one desires to do so. It may be terribly difficult (like such vices as alcoholism and drugs), but it can be done. If one would be pleasing to the Lord it must be done.

Printed 5/9/2012 in the Sullivan News-Progress

Changing Attitudes

According to the Pew Research Firm there is an attitude change with regard to gay marriage. In 2001 the percentage of people opposing gay marriage was only 57%, while 35% supported it. In 2012 the percentage of people that oppose gay marriage is even worse; it now stands at 43%, while those who support it are at 47%. Why the change?

In a context dealing with religious false teachers Paul said this, “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.  And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds” (2 Corinthians 11:13-15, ESV).

Earlier in the same letter he told the church in Corinth that he was fully aware of the schemes of the devil, and those not aware will surely fall into his trap (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:11). Why the change? When the god of this world seeks whom he may devour (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4; 1 Peter 5:8), those who are uninformed in eternal matters as revealed by God will surely play into the hands of Satan. This is why the changes have occurred.

When people lay aside the Lord God and his way of thinking and living it is a mere matter of time before changing attitudes begin to occur.  Have any of you prayed in accordance with 1 Corinthians 16:22?

A Recent Letter to Editor

Letter to editor,

If you are a political candidate for office would it be proper to ask about the moral code upon which your moral decisions are made? Sure it would, but in the national picture some do not want to tread into rough waters about such things. “Gay marriage is already a big issue in a handful of states that have it on their ballots in November, including Maine, where Obama was headlining two fundraisers Friday. He was not expected to wade into the issue during his remarks” (“Obama may face jam on gay marriage issue,” JG-TC, p. A-6, 3/31/2012).

That President Obama’s moral code is evolving he readily admits (at least with regard to one topic). Why was it evolving, you might ask? Presumably because the moral code that helps him make many decisions in his life is something he is not too sure about.

Not too long ago there was a reasonable attempt in the letters to the editor section that sought to delineate how conservatives and liberals viewed morality. While it was a reasonable attempt, and one that many could tweak to be more accurate, it failed in the ultimate foundational aspect of what morality is and why it exists. If the state (or community) determines morality, then that determination has its basis in man’s thinking. Thus, what today is moral could very well be, by tomorrow, immoral. Morality, in this case, is an evolving hypothesis.

When a person’s moral code evolves the impermanent quality of its substantive teaching brings degenerate behavior; this is necessarily the case. Yet, when man (either singularly or as a society) is the basis of a moral code that evolves there is nothing that can be permanent about it. This is also the case because morality is based upon a thinking subject (person) who does evolve his thinking as he matures. This is the nature of life.

On the other hand, when morality is based on a transcendent being (God), whose being is the very substance of what is right, then man’s moral code is firmly in place, with no evolving.  While the president might have an evolving moral code, with God there is none. I think I will align myself where no evolution takes place.

Submitted 4/12/2012 to the Mattoon Journal-Gazette, printed 4/23/2012

Passing a Test

As the nation of Israel traveled from Egypt toward a destination the Lord determined they grew hungry. They had much in the way of livestock, they had much in the way of plunder, but neither was sufficient to keep them strong for the journey. Rather than appeal to the Lord, they complain to and against Moses. The Lord put them to the test (Exodus 16:4). The Scriptures make clear the Lord will tempt no one to do evil (James 1:12), but He will certainly test His servants. Testing is not tempting. Testing is having the relevant information and making use of it – or not! Tempting is nudging, compelling, and/or persuading to do wrong. When we look at events in life as a temptation, perhaps we have misapplied the knowledge given to us. On the other hand, if we look at the events in life as a test, then the answer sheet is right before us (Hebrews 12:1-2).

What is an apostate?

The dictionary defines the word as one who commits apostasy. That word, in turn, means to revolt, renounce, or abandon a particular way of thinking (Merriam Webster’s, p. 84.). One man, however, defined it: “An apostate is a person who once professed to believe the truth but then turned from it.”[1] He goes on to emphasize the word professed in order to make the following remark: “…no apostate has ever had eternal life abiding in him.”[2] In fact, he was never saved. In the ESV the word apostasy is used twice (Jeremiah 2:19 and Hosea 14:4). In the Jeremiah passage the definition given by Mr. Van Gorder does not stand up to the application as used by the Lord. The context has the Lord saying of Israel that she was devoted and holy (Jeremiah 2:2-3); not exactly words to be used for one “never saved.” In fact, in 2:13 the Lord took note that those to whom He addressed these words had actually forsaken Him. This word is a synonym of the word abandon. To illustrate the practical use of this word, and its real meaning, take note of the use in the following sentence: Mary and John had been married for 23 years, but John abandoned her for another woman. Take the word abandon and replace it with forsake, and the idea is clear. Thus, apostate (apostasy) is not just turning away, but it is turning away from that which had been embraced (cf. Hebrews 13:5).

---

[1] Since You Asked, Bible Questions Answered by Paul R. Van Gorder, Radio Bible Class, 1980, p. 7

[2] Ibid, p. 8

What is it the Lord Sees?

Last night (4/15/2012) I had a short lesson from Ezekiel 8 with three primary points. There is an image of jealousy, does the Lord see, and is it a trivial matter. Ezekiel was God’s prophet while Judah was in Babylonian captivity. While in Babylon the Lord took Ezekiel (8:3) to Jerusalem (in the spirit), and showed him those things that many thought the Lord did not see.

The image of jealousy – whatever it might have been – was an image that provoked anger in the Lord. What were these people thinking at the time? Did they actually think the Lord could not see what it was they were doing? That is exactly what they thought. Because the Lord had “scraped” the land of the inhabitants in His wrath, surely the Lord did not see, at the very least, did not care what was going on in Jerusalem (8:12).In this they were mistaken. In this, that which they thought was relatively trivial, to this the Lord took great exception.

There is a lesson in here for us. There is never a time in a Christian’s life where the Lord does not see or does not care. Whatever it might be that resides in the dark chambers of our heart we can be sure the Lord sees it. It is a challenge to us to open our heart to Him and expose it (cf. Psalm 51:7-12).

You Induced Me

Jeremiah was God’s preacher to a nation that was bent on its own destruction. Not only was there resistance from the nation in general, but especially disappointing was there resistance from those of the priestly class that had some semblance of knowledge. As God’s preacher was lamenting his circumstances he cries out to the Lord, “O Lord, You induced me…” (Jeremiah 20:7). The word “induced” is also rendered “coerced,” “enticed,” “persuaded.”

Interesting when you think about Jeremiah using such a word in the Lord’s direction, isn’t it? As Jeremiah tied to resist the Lord’s fire within him would not allow it. When Jeremiah considered the effort of others to persuade, coerce, or induce him in their direction – the choice was easily made (Jeremiah 20:7-10). Do you feel the weight of the family, the church, your work environment, or your community against you? If you do you might remember Jeremiah.

Modesty Made Me Fat (2) [1]

Though, there may be no clear idea as to what modesty actually is, we do learn that it is has something to do with propriety in dress (speech and conduct). She closed her essay by saying (in part), “Modesty made me “fat” because it defined my relationship with my body in terms of appearance. Not action. Not gratitude. Not the joy of movement. Just appearance. It also defined my relationship with men as one of predator and prey.”

From the point of view of Scripture what can be said about modesty? Does it have any connection with appearance? Is it a doctrine that is immoral and, thus, not part of God’s ideal? In brief, let’s address these.

First, the Scripture does have something to say about modesty, and it all begins with one’s approach to the Lord (1 Peter 3:15). The KJV uses the word “modest” only in 1 Timothy 2:9; it comes from a Greek word (kosimos) that means “well-arranged.” The actual Greek word is used one other time and that is in the next chapter (3:2); a man who desires to be an elder must be a male “of good behavior” (NKJV), “orderly” (KJV). The KJV uses the words “modest apparel” in 1 Timothy 2:9, while other translations will read, “suitable apparel with modesty” (NET), “respectable apparel with modesty” (ESV), “dress modestly with decency and propriety” (NIV).

Second, does it have any connection with appearance? As we have seen in the previous paragraph it does. Does the clothing have to meet a certain standard? The only standard that I am aware is that standard that expresses itself in godliness. There is no certain length to a skirt, no certain arrangement to a blouse top, and neither is there an exhortation that a man must wear a shirt. But there is a connection to apparel that has propriety in view, something that is respectable, suitable, and decent. In the end, the individual will have to judge what is best, but they need to do so in accordance with godliness. If one does not use this standard, then the only standard remaining is one’s own. Can one be pleasing to God with such a standard? Moreover, if godliness has its start in the heart, it can’t help but to come out in the appearance.

Third, is the teaching on modesty in Scripture immoral? No, and those who so identify it as such probably do not have a very good standard themselves. Morality has, at its core, the idea and teaching of the very essence of that which is good – God. Thus, the answer to the question is no, and neither is modesty immoral.

The problem is not modesty; it is the person who has taken modesty, coupled with whatever influences there might be in life, and made a particular application and response to it.

---

[1] The blog link is: http://phoenixandolivebranch.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/how-modesty-made-me-fat/