[pinkpanther]

Ready.

Peter is talking to the jews who don believe jesus the messiah let alone god... who just 40 days earlier saw him killed on the cross..,so you gonna start your conversation with "hey jews..Jesus is a god who did miracles" does that make sense to start a conversation to a group of unbelieving jews? 

Learn from Peter on how to preach and how not to preach....
He starts with something that they both can agreed upon .."Jesus is a man that did miracles infront of you" and then he's going to build his way up to Jesus being god ...acts 2:23-28

Ah bang...Next time read the whole chapter first .
2nd time already...one more time..Allah will confiscate your 72 virgins
Sub them with 72 orange utans!

[luncheonmeat]

God and Savior
Both Paul and Peter refer to Jesus as our “God and Savior.” Peter, for example, writes:

“Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” (2 Peter 1:1).

While it seems pretty straight forward that Jesus is called both God and Savior here, some who deny Christ’s divinity try to dispute this. They claim that the translation should be something like:

“Simon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ,” (2 Peter 1:1 NWT).

Thus, they try to divide “God” and “Savior” into two separate people. One doesn’t need to be an expert in Greek, however, to see that this is incorrect. The exact same sentence structure occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, and the translation there is uncontroversial. Note the following:

“for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.,” (2 Peter 1:11).

“For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first,” (2 Peter 2:20).

“but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen,” (2 Peter 3:18).

In each of these verses, we see the phrase “Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.” Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses‘ “New World Translation” renders these as “Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.” No one tries to break up the “Lord” and the “Savior” into two different people. Yet, the grammar and sentence structure for “Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ” is exactly the same as “God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” Since everyone agrees that “Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ” is the correct translation throughout the rest of the book, then it is completely inconsistent to separate “God” and “Savior” in 2 Peter 1:1. Jesus is directly called both God and Savior just as He is called both Lord and Savior.

We see the same phrase occur in Paul’s letter to Titus:

“looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,” (Titus 2:13).

The context here is also quite revealing. For whose glorious appearing are Christians looking? Jesus, of course. It is not both Jesus and the Father whose triumphant return Christians anticipate. It is specifically Jesus. Further, the very next verse goes on to explain:

“who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds,” (Titus 2:14).

The subject is singular, not plural. And who is it that “gave Himself to redeem us?” It is Jesus. Further, it says that Jesus purifies a people “for His own possession.” No king or prophet ever claimed God’s people as his own possession, nor could they. Yet, here we are told that the redeemed are a people of Christ’s own possession. This fits perfectly with the fact that Paul just called Jesus “God.” If Paul had mentioned God Himself as someone separate from Jesus, it would be unthinkable that the people would be called the possession of Christ and not of God. This context just further reinforces what the language makes clear: Peter and Paul both called Jesus our “God and Savior.”

My Lord and my God
The testimony of Thomas after Jesus’ resurrection is also clear and compelling:

“After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ Then He said to Thomas, ‘Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.’ Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed,’” (John 20:26-29).

Thomas calls Jesus both Lord and God. Jesus then affirms this belief and blesses others who believe it. Some have tried to get around this by saying that Thomas was not addressing Jesus as “My Lord and my God,” but was crying out to heaven in his joy. The passage, however, plainly says that “Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!'” Thomas said this to Him! He didn’t pray this to God in Heaven. He said it straight to Jesus. There is no getting around the fact that Thomas called Jesus his God, and Jesus affirmed and blessed that belief.

Mighty God
This is not only a New Testament phenomenon. Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would be God. He proclaimed:

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace,” (Isaiah 9:6).

This passage is covered in more detail HERE. It is worth briefly noting, however, that Jesus is called the “Mighty God.” The very next chapter identifies the LORD (Jehovah, Yahweh), the one true God of Israel, as the Mighty God:

“Now in that day the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God,” (Isaiah 10:20-21).

Isaiah is not telling Israel to rejoice at the coming of some lesser god. The Messiah who is to come will be their own Mighty God, the one true and living God. Thus, even the prophets referred to Jesus as God.

God over all
There is a little bit more debate about this one, but the clearest reading of Paul in Romans 9 is that He once again refers to Jesus as God here. The verse reads:

“They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen,” (Romans 9:4-5 ESV).

Most other reputable modern translations agree with this reading, such as the NIV, NKJV, HCSB, and NET. Popular paraphrases like the NLT also render it this way, and the Messianic Jewish “Tree of Life” version likewise agrees. The highly trustworthy NASB, however, is a bit more ambiguous:

“whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen,”

This could be read as saying that Jesus is “God blessed over all,” but one could also read it as praising God distinctly from the description of Jesus. The NRSV and the KJV share in this ambiguity. The KJV, however, is somewhat of an anomaly here among historical translations. English translations before the KJV, like that of John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, Bishop’s Bible, Great Bible, and Coverdale Bible all very clearly read that Jesus is God over all. The NKJV returns to this clarity.

Even if one prefers the more ambiguous translation of the KJV or NASB in this passage, it seems to make the most sense to read it as referring to Jesus as “God blessed forever.” The interpretation that Paul is simply pausing to praise God rather than continuing his thought would be abrupt and somewhat awkward in the context.

The Word was God
That the Word who “became flesh and dwelt among us,” (John 1:14) was Jesus is obvious in the context and uncontroversial. Of this Word, John starts by saying:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” (John 1:1).

The Word is Jesus, and the Word is called God. Therefore Jesus is called God. The primary objection to this passage (raised most often by Jehovah’s Witnesses, though also by many others) is that it is allegedly calling Jesus “a god” rather than “God.” This is dealt with in much greater detail HERE with some additional points HERE. In brief, the Greek Grammar does not, in fact, allow for that interpretation. One does not, however, need to go to the Greek to see the problem. John immediately goes on to explain:

“All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being,” (John 1:3).

If everything came into being through the Word, then the Word is Himself uncreated. Ironically, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own translation of this verse is even clearer on this:

“All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence,” (John 1:3, NWT).

Not even one thing came into existence apart from Him. Jesus is, therefore, an uncreated creator. The Bible knows of only one uncreated creator, and that is Jehovah God. Further, the passage goes on to say:

“He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him,” (John 1:10).

The maker of the world came to His own people. Who is the maker of the world whose people are the Jews? Obviously, Jehovah God alone. No archangel or demigod could claim the Jews as his own people. The Word, the uncreated maker of all things, came to His own people and they did not receive Him. This is obviously talking about God Almighty. It could be no one else! Jesus, therefore, is plainly called God in this context.

Revealed in the flesh
This final example is much more disputable than the others but is still worth noting. If one reads in the NKJV, the KJV, or many older translations, they will find Paul writing to Timothy:

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested [or “shown” or “revealed”] in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory,” (1 Timothy 3:16).

Rendered this way, this would be another clear example of Paul calling Jesus God. However, with the discovery of many earlier manuscripts unknown during the making of most of these early translations, there are questions as to whether this is the original reading. Modern translations, based on older Greek manuscripts, say “He was revealed in the Flesh,” rather than “God was revealed in the flesh.” Early New Testament scribes created abbreviated forms called “nomina sacra” for divine names like “God.” The abbreviation for “God” and the Greek pronoun for “he” are actually very similar, and both words make sense in the context, so it is not surprising that some scribes would make this mistake (one way or the other) and that it would then be passed on to future copies of the text. If we take “he” to be the original reading, we still have to ask to whom the pronoun “he” is referring? The immediate context reads:

“I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He was revealed in the flesh…” (1 Timothy 3:14-16).

God is the only one mentioned in the immediately preceding verses (and He is mentioned repeatedly) which makes “God” the most likely referent for the pronoun “he” in this context. So, while the original reading is probably “he” (as most modern Biblical scholars now believe), that doesn’t necessarily mean that this is not an instance of a biblical author referring to Jesus as God. It is no stretch to read “he” as referring to God in this context. However, since Jesus Christ is mentioned earlier in the chapter, and since the details would undoubtedly bring any Christian reader’s mind to Christ, the argument can be made that “he” was simply meant to refer to “Jesus” rather than to “God.” In fact, some scholars argue that Paul is quoting from an earlier Christian tradition here, and so the meaning of “He” is not to be drawn from Paul’s letter but rather from the original source Paul is quoting. At any rate, this passage represents a very plausible instance of the Bible referring to Jesus as God, but not one on which we need to be dogmatic, especially with so many other examples readily available.

https://carm.org/about-jesus/does-the-bi...us-as-god/

[Ali Imran]

Peter is talking to the jews who don believe jesus the messiah let alone god... who just 40 days earlier saw him killed on the cross..,so you gonna start your conversation with "hey jews..Jesus is a god who did miracles" does that make sense to start a conversation to a group of unbelieving jews? 

Learn from Peter on how to preach and how not to preach....
He starts with something that they both can agreed upon .."Jesus is a man that did miracles infront of you" and then he's going to build his way up to Jesus being god ...acts 2:23-28

Ah bang...Next time read the whole chapter first .
2nd time already...one more time..Allah will confiscate your 72 virgins
Sub them with 72 orange utans!

I would disagree St Peter was preaching Jesus is God in Acts 2. In the whole of Acts 2, Jesus is seen as subordinate to God. 

The Jews there at that time already believed a couple of things about God, that God is not a man and that they could not see God and live. So it is never going to cross their mind that a man seen by many would be God in the flesh. And we can also see that the main message of St Peter to the Jews was that Jesus is the Messiah, a human king. 

My 2 points remain standing.

[luncheonmeat]

I hope Ali actually reads this. Usually after posting our answers, he doesn't bother to read it, or if he does, it somehow washes over him and he draws a blank only to repeat the same qns later. Another habit is to reject the ans bcos he doesn't understand the ans or resort to strawmen tactic.

Visionaries who have seen the Holy Triune all have consistent testimony that it is an Illuminating Triangle [it is believed that God the Father sits on top, God the Son on the Lower Right, and God the Holy Spirit on the left. Make of it what you will].

[Ali Imran]

I hope Ali actually reads this. Usually after posting our answers, he doesn't bother to read it, or if he does, it somehow washes over him and he draws a blank only to repeat the same qns later. Another habit is to reject the ans bcos he doesn't understand the ans or resort to strawmen tactic.

I have read that page from CARM.

Let's deal with 2 Peter 1:1. If we go to the Greek interlinear, we can read it as Peter differentiating between God and Jesus. If I put the comma in a different place, it would read like two different persons.

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

I will also argue against CARM's point of that being a wrong translation. The writer at CARM pointed to 2 Peter 1:11 but that verse doesn't say "the" or God.

I've more to say. I'll come back with more.

[pinkpanther]

I would disagree St Peter was preaching Jesus is God in Acts 2. In the whole of Acts 2, Jesus is seen as subordinate to God. 

The Jews there at that time already believed a couple of things about God, that God is not a man and that they could not see God and live. So it is never going to cross their mind that a man seen by many would be God in the flesh. And we can also see that the main message of St Peter to the Jews was that Jesus is the Messiah, a human king. 

My 2 points remain standing.

You a Muslim took the Bible verse and quoted a Christian..and I have to stand by your Muslim beliefs of the 2 points...  you win liao lor

If jesus really appears infront of you...I am pretty sure you will ask this qns :" hi, are you mohammad ?"

[Ali Imran]

You a Muslim took the Bible verse and quoted a Christian..and I have to stand by your Muslim beliefs of the 2 points...  you win liao lor

If jesus really appears infront of you...I am pretty sure you will ask this qns :" hi, are you mohammad ?"

It is not about winning. I don't care about that. I read Acts 2, just like how you read it. 

You have 3 options. From what I can see, you are choosing option 2, the ostrich. It makes a problem go away by burying its head in the sand.

[Blasterlord2]

You all should go into a ring and fight it out 

[Goldmine]

You guys are unbelievable amazing! Still at it.

[pinkpanther]

It is not about winning. I don't care about that. I read Acts 2, just like how you read it. 

You have 3 options. From what I can see, you are choosing option 2, the ostrich. It makes a problem go away by burying its head in the sand.

I also don care how a Muslim interpreted the text...my job is not to give your ego a pat..
There is no problem with how I read that verse..,what is there to hide my head..
You are now on strike 2...one more qns without you fully understanding the text, I will need to complain to Allah to void your entitlements 

[Ali Imran]

I also don care how a Muslim interpreted the text...my job is not to give your ego a pat..
There is no problem with how I read that verse..,what is there to hide my head..
You are now on strike 2...one more qns without you fully understanding the text, I will need to complain to Allah to void your entitlements 

I have a different understanding of the text, without doubt. You cannot expect me to just accept your understanding as truth. So I let the text speak for itself. In Acts 2, the text paints a picture of Jesus being a man, a subordinate to God. But you see a picture of Jesus as God. Aren't you superimposing your faith on the text? Yes, I believe you are.

[pinkpanther]

I have a different understanding of the text, without doubt. You cannot expect me to just accept your understanding as truth. So I let the text speak for itself. In Acts 2, the text paints a picture of Jesus being a man, a subordinate to God. But you see a picture of Jesus as God. Aren't you superimposing your faith on the text? Yes, I believe you are.

Sometimes you need to put in common sense to how you interprete the text...
Why would Peter contradict himself? You explain lah!
You can choose not to agree with my opinions ...I'm fine with it...

[pinkpanther]

Tell me, are they going to hell 

[Ali Imran]

Tell me, are they going to hell 

Nothing wrong with dogs. My daughter handles dogs all the time. She works at a vet clinic.

[pinkpanther]

Nothing wrong with dogs. My daughter handles dogs all the time. She works at a vet clinic.

Then why muslims are so afraid of them? 
If it is not against Islamic teachings...why you don buy one for yourself?

[Ali Imran]

Then why muslims are so afraid of them? 
If it is not against Islamic teachings...why you don buy one for yourself?

I'm not afraid of dogs generally, except the ones that can harm me.

Dogs are just animals but surprisingly, our prophet discouraged us from keeping dogs as pets. However, we can keep dogs as service animals like a guard dog.

[pinkpanther]

I'm not afraid of dogs generally, except the ones that can harm me.

Dogs are just animals but surprisingly, our prophet discouraged us from keeping dogs as pets. However, we can keep dogs as service animals like a guard dog.

OK.. your daughter is a Muslim and her job requires her to handle dogs...
How about a Muslim chef working for a non Muslim entity...can he wear gloves and handle pork?

[Ali Imran]

Sometimes you need to put in common sense to how you interprete the text...
Why would Peter contradict himself? You explain lah!
You can choose not to agree with my opinions ...I'm fine with it...

How did Peter contradict himself? He never preached Jesus is God.

[Blasterlord2]

I'm not afraid of dogs generally, except the ones that can harm me.

Dogs are just animals but surprisingly, our prophet discouraged us from keeping dogs as pets. However, we can keep dogs as service animals like a guard dog.

What's the reason given for the discouragement?

[Goldmine]

What's the reason given for the discouragement?

Ali say its their saliva the last time I ask him. My female colleague also give the same answer. Not convincing answer. 

I think it's more on  the behaviour of dog. Dog also got excited and they cling to the leg of their human friend with their two front leg and .....   ok. fill in the rest.

[pinkpanther]

Is this haram?

[Ali Imran]

What's the reason given for the discouragement?

The reason given was spiritual but I suspect it is more than that.

[luncheonmeat]

I have read that page from CARM.

Let's deal with 2 Peter 1:1. If we go to the Greek interlinear, we can read it as Peter differentiating between God and Jesus. If I put the comma in a different place, it would read like two different persons.

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

I will also argue against CARM's point of that being a wrong translation. The writer at CARM pointed to 2 Peter 1:11 but that verse doesn't say "the" or God.

I've more to say. I'll come back with more.

Which bible did you quote this verse from? The meaning of the verse has been completely changed with the adulterated order of words, not punctuation. Small wonder you are still in the dark... you read what you want to see.

[Ali Imran]

Which bible did you quote this verse from? The meaning of the verse has been completely changed with the adulterated order of words, not punctuation. Small wonder you are still in the dark... you read what you want to see.

From here.

https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte...f/2pe1.pdf

[pinkpanther]

Diu!  CARM also have a whole page of the contradictions from the quran

[Lukongsimi]

Hatred makes u search for all kinds of untrue sources to smite mock n attack which is very sinful

[pinkpanther]

This thread is almost dead.,,let me revive it with one final attempt!

Haram or not?

[pinkpanther]

https://saltandlight.sg/service/in-their...of-before/

[luncheonmeat]

From here.

https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte...f/2pe1.pdf

Glad you posted this. Hard to believe this, even for me, but there actually was an error in the translated quote you provided. See for yourself, on the left side of the document, the word for word translation literally reads like this: "The God of us and Saviour of us Jesus Anointed Christ." No punctuation unlike what you claim.

Here is another source of greek to english interlinear translation

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_peter/1.htm

Both yours and the one I have posted place the pronoun "us" after  God.

1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

2 Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

Confirming One’s Calling and Election
3 His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.

10 Therefore, my brothers and sisters,[a] make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Who is St Peter speaking of in this passage? Both God and Jesus whom he has conferred Godliness to [ie Jesus who is one with God]. Has such attributes been bestowed on other prophets, even in the Koran?

[Ali Imran]

Glad you posted this. Hard to believe this, even for me, but there actually was an error in the translated quote you provided. See for yourself, on the left side of the document, the word for word translation literally reads like this: "The God of us and Saviour of us Jesus Anointed Christ." No punctuation unlike what you claim.

Here is another source of greek to english interlinear translation

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_peter/1.htm

Both yours and the one I have posted place the pronoun "us" after  God.


Who is St Peter speaking of in this passage? Both God and Jesus whom he has conferred Godliness to [ie Jesus who is one with God]. Has such attributes been bestowed on other prophets, even in the Koran?

Yes exactly, no punctuation marks in the original Greek text. But we find NT translators putting punctuation marks at their discretion which can change the meaning of the text, like how I've demonstrated. At best, we can mark that verse in 2 Peter 1 ambiguous as proof Peter was preaching Jesus is God. 

Peter could not have been preaching Jesus is God because he would have been chased out of the temple if that was what he was preaching.