The Everlasting Man

Roosh

Cardinal
Orthodox
Originally posted on RooshV.com

man-city-1024x684.jpg



After my first experience slogging through G.K. Chesterton’s work, I would have sworn not to voluntarily read another one of his books again, but I bought two of them at the same time and felt compelled to read the second one on my bookshelf, The Everlasting Man. As expected, the book is uneven: it can swing from incredible insight to utter bore in just a matter of half a page, but thankfully it does have many gems.

Slow miracles are still miracles​

An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one. The Greek with may have turned sailors to swine with a stroke of the wand. But to see a naval gentleman of our acquaintance looking a little more like a pig every day, till he ended with four trotters and a curly tail, would not be any more soothing.

Just because your miracle of evolution took 5 billion years doesn’t make it less of a miracle than if it took 6 days. Both transformed nothing into something (life and consciousness). You can add a trillion years to evolution and you won’t be able to escape the fact that somewhere within that vast period of darkness you went from non-life to life, for no reason or explanation at all, and it happened only once.

Science cannot explain creation​

The science whose modern marvels we all admire succeeds by incessantly adding to its data. In all practical inventions, in most natural discoveries, it can always increase evidence by experiment. But it cannot experiment in making men; or even in watching to see what the first men make. An inventory can advance step by step in the construction of an aeroplane, even if he is only experimenting with sticks and scraps of metal in his own back-yard. But he cannot watch the Missing Link evolving in his own back-yard. If he has made a mistake in his calculations, the aeroplane will correct it by crashing to the ground. But if he has made a mistake about the arboreal habitat of his ancestry, he cannot see his arboreal ancestor falling off the tree.

[…]

He produces his little bone, or little collection of bones, and deduces the most marvelous things from it. He found in java a piece of a skull, seeming by its contour to be smaller than the human. Somewhere near it he found an upright thing-bone and in the same scattered fashion some teeth that were not human. If they all form part of one creature, which is doubtful, our conception of the creature would be almost equally doubtful. But the effect on popular science was to produce a complete and even complex figure, finished down to the last details of hair and habits. He was given a name as if he were an ordinary historical character.

You found a bone that you allege is a human ancestor. You use dating techniques to pinpoint an age of that bone. And then you fill in the gaps with the miracle of evolution, and if I dare doubt your myth, you label me the mythmaker? At least the atheists in the past craved some evidence to justify their lack of faith and desire to transgress the moral law, but today it’s merely sufficient to throw out the words “science,” “study,” “fact check,” or “expert” for someone to swallow whole a fantastical assertion without reading the fine print or investigating the presented evidence behind it. If a “scientist” said cannibalism is a way to improve the fitness of the human species, it must therefore be true.

“Bones and stones cannot in their nature bear witness”​

The other day a scientific summary of the state of a prehistoric tribe began confidently with the words ‘They wore no clothes.’ Not one reader in a hundred probably stopped to ask himself how we should come to know whether clothes had once been worn by people of whom everything has perished except a few chips of bone and stone. It was doubtless hoped that we should find a stone hat as well as a stone hatchet. It was evidently anticipated that we might discover an everlasting pair of trousers of the same substance as the everlasting rock.

[…]

According to the real records available, barbarism and civilisation were not successive stages in the progress of the world. They were conditions that existed side by side, as they still exist side by side. There were civilisations then as there are civilisations now; there are savages now as there were savages then.

A scientist looks at all living animals and picks the one we most resemble to exclaim “We evolved from them!” Then he looks at the most rudimentary societies and tribes, of which there are still many, and exclaims “We used to live like that!” Even though they still live like that. Of course it’s all nonsense, yet because it is intuitive enough, the lazy, rebellious man who most desperately wants to be entertained and soaked in pleasure will readily accept it as his personal gospel so that he finds no reason to love God.

Why Caesars rise​

A despotism may almost be defined as a tired democracy. As fatigue falls on a community, the citizens are less inclined for that eternal vigilance which has truly been called the prince of liberty; and they prefer to arm only one single sentinel to watch the city while they sleep.

We saw this with Donald Trump. American conservatives abrogated their duty to society for many decades and then wanted to fix it not through the hard work of community building but by putting their hopes into an outspoken businessman who has mostly proved himself through marketing and branding. How did that turn out for them? As I’ve written before, strong men don’t want a Caesar because they know that his hunger for power will soon bring tyranny to their front door.

Social theories are wish fulfillment​

In spite of all the pseudo-scientific gossip about marriage by capture and the cave-man beating the cave-woman with a club, it may be noticed that as soon as feminism became a fashionable cry, it was insisted that human civilization in its first stage had been a matriarchy. Apparently it was the cave-woman who carried the club. Anyhow all these ideas are little better than guesses; and they have a curious way of following the fortune of modern theories and fads.

It’s not hard to speculate what type of “archeological” findings will be published in the next decade: entire societies of our ancestral past were actually gay. Children had perfect outcomes from being raised by sodomites. And look, we have seen evidence in these tiny fragments of pelvic bones of successful gender reassignment surgery that resulted in material prosperity and happiness for the entire tribe. Liars will invent whatever they want for other liars to “peer review” the lies and give it a stamp of approval for the media liars to disseminate it to the minds of men and women who lost touch with the truth long ago.

Islam is a poor distortion of Christianity​

Islam was a product of Christianity; even if it was a by-product; even if it was a bad product. It was a heresy or parody emulating and therefore imitating the Church. It is no more surprising that Mahomedanism had something of her fighting spirit than that Quakerism had something of her peaceful spirit. After Christianity there are any number of such emulations or extensions. Before it there are none.

Let us pray that Muslims come to see the truth that Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

The Church will never fall​

Christianity has died many times and risen again; for it had a God who knew the way out of the grave. But the first extraordinary fact which marks this history is this: that Europe has been turned upside down over and over again; and that at the end of each of these revolutions the same religion has again been found on top.

[…]

[The Church] has not survived; it has returned again and again in this Western world of rapid change and institutions perpetually perishing. Europe, in the tradition of Rome, was always trying revolution and reconstruction; rebuilding a universal republic. And it always began by rejecting this old stone and ended by making it the head of the corner; by bringing it back from the rubbish-heap to make it the crown of the capitol. Some stones of Stonehenge are standing and some are fallen; and as the stone falleth so shall it lie. There has not been a Druidic renaissance every century of two, with the young Druids crowned with fresh mistletoe, dancing in the sun on Salisbury Plain. Stonehenge has not even rebuilt in every style of architecture from the rude around Normal to the last rococo of the Baroque. The sacred place of the Druids is safe from the vandalism of restoration.

[…]

At least five times therefore, with the Arian and the Albigensian, with the Humanist sceptic, after Voltaire and after Darwin, the Faith has to all appearance gone to the dogs. In each of these five cases it was the dog that died. How complete was the collapse and how strange the reversal, we can only see in detail in the case nearest to our own time.

If you seek salvation, no matter what year it is or how bad things get, or even if the Antichrist is ruler of the world, you will be able to be saved. God promised us that His Church would not fall and He has kept that promise. The rulers of today, on the other hand, make false promises that are not even good the moment after they are uttered. I put my trust in God, not man.

Conclusion

I beg you not to recommend any more G.K. Chesterton works to me. He was a great thinker and fine man, but I don’t have enough willpower to make it through another one of his books. If your willpower is strong than mine, however, you may very well enjoy The Everlasting Man.

Learn More: The Everlasting Man on Archive.org
Permalink
 
The miracle of creation is so mundane because we are so used to it. Yet a child can truly appreciate its miraculousness. We were once children and that was our experience.

The greatness of existence is what I appreciated in my childhood innocence. The rays of the sun. The rainbow. The ants about their business and so forth.

I suspect the reason that Israelites treated God in the Wilderness so poorly despite his obvious Glory is that they got too familiar with his Theophany and wonders and failed to appreciate his majesty as they probably ended up taking him for granted.
 
Where in the Bible does Jesus himself say he is the son of god and we should worship him?

"Before Abraham was "I AM"" referencing(Exodus 3:14). When God was asked to name himself.

Hence those listening to him accused him of Blasphemy and claiming equality with God. Only God Himself has a right of saying such a thing describing himself.

Just search up the following quoted statement to come across the relevant scriptures.

Likewise when people did worship Jesus. He didn't reject their worship. Unlike the Angel in the Book of Revelation who rejected the worship by John saying "Don't worship me since I am a servant just like you. Worship God" after John was overwhelmed by Divine Revelation.
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
Where in the Bible does Jesus himself say he is the son of god and we should worship him?

John 8: The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

Matthew 16: And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
 
Even Caesar required loyal competent men at their back and call. Even as their personalities were magnetic and their strategies perfect. They cannot do much on their own.

Even the perfect leadership of Aurelian later on was destroyed by treachery by a bureaucrat who forged a fake document of execution of the top officers of the Army. And he was murdered not long after to the regret of officers who then later found out.

Even many previous great Emperors of Rome died at the hands of Praetorian guards.

So even if a Caesar is perfectly virtuous not even his leadership is guaranteed if moral decay has undermined the soldiers' sense of duty and honor as much as such moral decay affects other key areas of society.

God cannot on the other hand be murdered by treachery or revenge. Since God has already experienced this in the person of Jesus Christ its impossible for that to happen again.

Also why we are extorted to leave vengeance in God's as well as the State's hands since they could handle attempted revenge on themselves far better. The long list of crushed revolts can testify.
 

The Prime Minister

Sparrow
Orthodox
Where in the Bible does Jesus himself say he is the son of god and we should worship him?

In the New Testament.

John 10:30
John 14:10
John 20:24-29
John 8:48-59
Matthew 16:13-17
Matthew 28:16-20
1 John 2:22-23

There are several references (over 50) in the Old Testament of Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.

In Daniel 7:13-14, Daniel sees a vision of the Messiah, calling him the Son of Man.
Jesus Christ refers to himself as the Son of Man, from Daniel (John 6:62, John 8:28)

In Psalm 110:1, King David calls the Messiah Lord.
In Matthew 22:41-46, Jesus Christ speaks to the Pharisees quoting that Psalm.

I'm just scratching the surface here. The Bible is very clear that Jesus is the son of God and that we should worship the Trinitarian God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

You can read more at this link. It explains it in far more detail.
 

Pioneer

Sparrow
Chesterton was a man of few ideas made expansive by a gorgeous imagination and a complete and accurate set of moral sympathies. He said the same things over and over again, but in so many different ways, and loved the same things over and over again, but from so many different angles, that he never found it needful to create a brave new world in order to be either courageous or original.
 

roger808

Pigeon
Chesterton was a man of few ideas made expansive by a gorgeous imagination and a complete and accurate set of moral sympathies. He said the same things over and over again, but in so many different ways, and loved the same things over and over again, but from so many different angles, that he never found it needful to create a brave new world in order to be either courageous or original.
Very nice characterization Pioneer, but do you mean few new ideas? If so, I agree completely. Well said.
 
In the New Testament.

John 10:30
John 14:10
John 20:24-29
John 8:48-59
Matthew 16:13-17
Matthew 28:16-20
1 John 2:22-23

There are several references (over 50) in the Old Testament of Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.

In Daniel 7:13-14, Daniel sees a vision of the Messiah, calling him the Son of Man.
Jesus Christ refers to himself as the Son of Man, from Daniel (John 6:62, John 8:28)

In Psalm 110:1, King David calls the Messiah Lord.
In Matthew 22:41-46, Jesus Christ speaks to the Pharisees quoting that Psalm.

I'm just scratching the surface here. The Bible is very clear that Jesus is the son of God and that we should worship the Trinitarian God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

You can read more at this link. It explains it in far more detail.

In Hebrew Bible - Tanakh, are these terms - Holy Ghost (ruach), Son (see Psalm 2 - You are my son today I have begotten you - God speaks about David). These terms were not interpreted by Jews as some Trinity, nevertheless doctrine of Trinity was finally decided just at council in Nicea in 325. Before that there was many christian groups who had different views on Christ (human but Messiah (apostles, first christians in Jerusalem; Angel (apostle Paul), God (maybe author of John gospel...).
Citations from John gospel are just teological understanding of some christian groups, which wanted to strenghten their own theological positions against only autenthic Jewish - Christians and some Gnostics. These statements in John gospel historical Christ had never said.

That Jesus is Messiah and that Messiah is Son of Man/Son of God is not a issue. Question is what that means - Son of Man/ Son of God? Is that pre-eternal logos or something different? ( - Dr. Ali Ataie (brilliant scholar) from 23:25 onward). If Jesus was pre-eternal God - to whom he prayed? Son is just realy high maqam = spiritual station.

Remnants of Jerusalem chrurch after destroying of the Temple were Ebionites who claimed that apostle Paul was heretic and apostate. They very strongly leaned towards James the brother of Lord, who was the first head of christians after Jesus death (not Peter). They believed that Jesus was man, who was anoited by God through his baptism because he FULFILLED WHOLE TORAH, and we can also be anoited into state of sonship if we can fullfill whole Torah.

Also - almost half of the New Testament canon is forgery, in which proto-orthodox christian groups tried to persuade other groups of their own theological truths. Early church fathers were criminals who bribed, lied and so on.


The key is in Early Chruch - Find out the Faith of Apostles and you will find the truth! And you will conclude that first christians had much more in common with nowdays islam than with nowadays Christians (catholic, orthodox, protestant).

some resources: How jesus become God (about genesis of different christologies during the early christianity): James the Brother of Jesus: (the book is brilliant)
Jesus Evidence: (to realize the fact that early christianity were not some monolithic phenomenon)
Torah and Law question:
read also James D. Tabor - Paul and Jesus
Paula Friedriksen - When christians were Jews
 
Last edited:

The Prime Minister

Sparrow
Orthodox
Blatlantlyblue, I'm guessing you're a Muslim too.

Earlier in this thread a Muslim asked where in the Bible does Jesus say he is the Son of God.

Many including myself gave him the specific verses. Now you, another Muslim, say that doesn't count. You're asking where in the Bible and then reject it when we give you the answer saying "New Testament is not reliable".

Jesus Christ himself said he is the Son of God. He preached that during his ministry and to his disciples and others during his life. Even enemies of Jesus heard that Jesus was calling himself the Son of God, even they saw his miracles.

Long before St. Paul's conversion to Christianity and long before the Council of Nicea.

The gospels were compiled soon after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The message of Jesus as the Son of God was transcribed relatively quickly.

Also, again, the Old Testament prophecies are clear about the coming of Jesus Christ and him being the Son of God. Is the Old Testament also not reliable to you?

"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." Isaiah 9:6

Isaiah made that prophecy 700 years before Christ.

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." Daniel 7:13-14

Daniel made that prophecy 600 years before Christ.

The Pharisees/Jews wanted the Romans to crucify Christ because of "blasphemy" (claiming to be God and the Son of God). Even they say Jesus is telling them he is the Messiah and the Son of God; that's why they wanted him crucified. Despite that many Jews and Gentiles converted to Christianity and accepted Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior.

Again I'm not sure why Muslims constantly keep coming on this Christian forum. But hopefully if they do come, I want them to be corrected about Christianity and I hope that will help convert them to Christianity down the road.
 

Blade Runner

Ostrich
Orthodox
What's more, even beyond the times in which he says he is YHWH (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν), or in other places where it is translated "I am He" (he is also giving the name of God there) the entire biblical narrative is about the Jews wanting to put Christ to death for "making himself God". It's amazing how shockingly stupid or dishonest this is, all you have to do is read the story, that's entirely what it's about. Several other instances also prove that (regardless of whether you want to believe it, it is the story) Christ is God, the living water, the one who can forgive sins and has power over the heavens and earth. There are countless examples, but one that stands out is the healing of the paralytic, where he forgives a man his sins - but "so that you may know the Son of Man has the authority to forgive sins" - he does a visible sign (since none can see that the man's sins are forgiven of course) showing his power and authority. The man walks away with his bed in his hands, rightly restored.

Many have been chosen to be instruments through which acts and healing can be done, but no one can forgive sins but God alone. People can question whether Christ is real, who He is, what He is doing, etc - but no one honestly reading the scriptures can suggest that Christ is not God.
 

Blade Runner

Ostrich
Orthodox
Also - almost half of the New Testament canon is forgery, in which proto-orthodox christian groups tried to persuade other groups of their own theological truths. Early church fathers were criminals who bribed, lied and so on.
One has to have logically coherent arguments to make a point. Here you have a type of tautology. The very definition of history is that something defined happened in the past, and that we look and explain it. No matter which way you look at it, there would be an eventual canon that existed. As such, anybody can come after the fact and claim that canon X was "forgery" or true, or whatever. The question is, by what authority or reasoning do they claim such a thing? If the Gospel of Peter or Judas are true (hint hint: they aren't) on what basis are they reliable or legitimate, as opposed to other gospels? Of course, we only get 1 liners from guys like you that neither tell us why you claim what you claim nor by what authority. As a result, the honest person will grade you a failure, since you failed not even once, but twice.

When a muslim can explain to me why Muhammad is the best example for us humans, I will convert to islam and call it true. The problem is that Jesus Christ is the antithesis in every way to that man, so it's pretty hard to explain why he is a good example at all, when Christ himself is the perfect example of love, beauty, truth, power, and authority - without sin. Unlike Muhammad, who shows in his example that worldly things are the entire basis for his character. Seekers of the truth will not find enlightenment in such mundane, profane things that all humans see even currently throughout the world.
 

Pioneer

Sparrow
Conclusion

I beg you not to recommend any more G.K. Chesterton works to me. He was a great thinker and fine man, but I don’t have enough willpower to make it through another one of his books. If your willpower is strong than mine, however, you may very well enjoy The Everlasting Man.
Well, you all heard the man.

STOP recommending G.K. Chesteron stuff to @Roosh

NO MORE.

Recommend Hillaire Belloc to him instead from now on.
 
Prime Minister-

Ad "Again I'm not sure why Muslims constantly keep coming on this Christian forum. But hopefully if they do come, I want them to be corrected about Christianity and I hope that will help convert them to Christianity down the road."

Ok, I will just type this message and I will not continue in our discussion in the thread. I see - this forum is just for "Christians" just for people who have their "bubble" and dont care about Truth in itself. Then your choice. I have nothing againts it.

ad "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." Isaiah 9:6

Just one thing - Isaiah 9:6 is very bad argument. Christ has never said about himself that he is Everlasting Father! This statement is heretical according to your own doctrine. You are mingling hypostatic Persons of Godhead. Everlasting in this case is nevertheless wrong translation - everlasting is actually "age/ aion" see "everlasting hell/fire which is actually "aionos" which is not absolutely infinitely... So the correct translation would be the "Father of (coming) Age".

What about "Mighty God"? - well, when you are making some dogmatical/theological claims you should have basis in primary texts, otherwise it would be like making sharia norms/ theological claims from English translation of Quran. So in this case is Hebrew "god" - el, but just same noun is used in Ezechiel 31:11 (el =ruler) and in other places. So if claiming Messiah would be God according to this, then also Babylonian king would be God. Isaiah is calling Messiah "Mighty Ruler".

Food for thought:
Just one another example of how your own translated Scriptures are corrupted - Your main prayer - Lords prayer:
"Give us this day our daily bread" - In original greek - "....ton arton epiousion..." Daily= epiousion in this translation. Ousia = essence, Epi = over. Not daily in ephemeral sense but super/over-essential/; supersubstantialem in latin. So Over any created essence/substance/nature. Ousia is also the term which is used for Trinitarian dogmatic vocabulary - Trinity is homo-ousion (one-essence).

Bible (Tanakh) has not been written in Greek so - before you would make some theological claims, go firstly into Hebrew Bible, learn jewish understanding of the things and stop with interpreting of the jewish religious text with greek pagan eyes.

ad Blade Runner:
"What's more, even beyond the times in which he says he is YHWH (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν), or in other places where it is translated "I am He" (he is also giving the name of God there) the entire biblical narrative is about the Jews wanting to put Christ to death for "making himself God". "

Yes of course it would be suitable argument IF these narrations will not be ONLY in the Gospel of John and we know that Jesus these "Iam ..." statements has never said.

ad "The question is, by what authority or reasoning do they claim such a thing? If the Gospel of Peter or Judas are true (hint hint: they aren't) on what basis are they reliable or legitimate, as opposed to other gospels? Of course, we only get 1 liners from guys like you that neither tell us why you claim what you claim nor by what authority. As a result, the honest person will grade you a failure, since you failed not even once, but twice."

There is 200 years history of field and textual work on New Testament canon in Europe and North America and of course I will not propose here the reasons for Iam claiming that half (maybe even more) of the NT canon is forgery, it is up to you to find out! These claims neverthless are not mine, 98% of academics agrees on that (catholics, protestants, ateist, agnostics...), just fundamentalistic protestants who believe that Earth has 6000 years and is flat do not agree.
At this place I can tell you at least that 1, 2 Timothy; 1 Titus; 2 Peter; Letter of James; Letter to Hebrew; Apocalypse and so on are all forgeries. Many church authors in primitive Church considered some of them forgeries too (foundator of biblistics - Origenes; Didymus the Blind; Dionysios of Alexandria and so on...)

Ad Muhammed - I am not a muslim so I cannot write an apology for him, but I would say that thing is not as simple as you put it. Try to read some muslim sources. I would suggest these 2 books:



and a little bit of prophetic grace of Muhammad:
ad "Jesus he problem is that Jesus Christ is the antithesis in every way to that man, so it's pretty hard to explain why he is a good example at all, when Christ himself is the perfect example of love, beauty, truth, power, and authority - without sin. "

Yea, well Quran actually states that Jesus was born miraculously from virgin and without "black spot" just as Mary, his mother. but You have to consider the fact, that Christ did not teach something "absolutelly unique", what he stressed and emphasized was the "heart of the Torah" (everything which Jesus teached can be found in the Old Testament), because at that time Jews fell just into external conducting of Torah prescribtions. He tried to make his listeners to focus on the essential things firstly and secondly on other things, just read Sermon on Mount. Jesus was himself a Law- observant Jew, just like apostles and first Christians. But on which basis stands Christic Deity statements? On prophecies? - well all Hebrew prophecies about Messiah can be interpreted in "jewish/islamic" consistent manner. On the miracles? - well read for instance the deeds of Elijah and his disciple Elisha in the Book of Kings ; On resurrection? - well then read about Rainbow body phenomenon in Tibetian Budddhism.
 
Last edited:

Gabriela Ltc

Chicken
Woman
Orthodox
Prime Minister-

Ad "Again I'm not sure why Muslims constantly keep coming on this Christian forum. But hopefully if they do come, I want them to be corrected about Christianity and I hope that will help convert them to Christianity down the road."

Ok, I will just type this message and I will not continue in our discussion in the thread. I see - this forum is just for "Christians" just for people who have their "bubble" and dont care about Truth in itself. Then your choice. I have nothing againts it.

ad "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." Isaiah 9:6

Just one thing - Isaiah 9:6 is very bad argument. Christ has never said about himself that he is Everlasting Father! This statement is heretical according to your own doctrine. You are mingling hypostatic Persons of Godhead. Everlasting in this case is nevertheless wrong translation - everlasting is actually "age/ aion" see "everlasting hell/fire which is actually "aionos" which is not absolutely infinitely... So the correct translation would be the "Father of (coming) Age".

What about "Mighty God"? - well, when you are making some dogmatical/theological claims you should have basis in primary texts, otherwise it would be like making sharia norms/ theological claims from English translation of Quran. So in this case is Hebrew "god" - el, but just same noun is used in Ezechiel 31:11 (el =ruler) and in other places. So if claiming Messiah would be God according to this, then also Babylonian king would be God. Isaiah is calling Messiah "Mighty Ruler".

Food for thought:
Just one another example of how your own translated Scriptures are corrupted - Your main prayer - Lords prayer:
"Give us this day our daily bread" - In original greek - "....ton arton epiousion..." Daily= epiousion in this translation. Ousia = essence, Epi = over. Not daily in ephemeral sense but super/over-essential/; supersubstantialem in latin. So Over any created essence/substance/nature. Ousia is also the term which is used for Trinitarian dogmatic vocabulary - Trinity is homo-ousion (one-essence).

Bible (Tanakh) has not been written in Greek so - before you would make some theological claims, go firstly into Hebrew Bible, learn jewish understanding of the things and stop with interpreting of the jewish religious text with greek pagan eyes.

ad Blade Runner:
"What's more, even beyond the times in which he says he is YHWH (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν), or in other places where it is translated "I am He" (he is also giving the name of God there) the entire biblical narrative is about the Jews wanting to put Christ to death for "making himself God". "

Yes of course it would be suitable argument IF these narrations will not be ONLY in the Gospel of John and we know that Jesus these "Iam ..." statements has never said.

ad "The question is, by what authority or reasoning do they claim such a thing? If the Gospel of Peter or Judas are true (hint hint: they aren't) on what basis are they reliable or legitimate, as opposed to other gospels? Of course, we only get 1 liners from guys like you that neither tell us why you claim what you claim nor by what authority. As a result, the honest person will grade you a failure, since you failed not even once, but twice."

There is 200 years history of field and textual work on New Testament canon in Europe and North America and of course I will not propose here the reasons for Iam claiming that half (maybe even more) of the NT canon is forgery, it is up to you to find out! These claims neverthless are not mine, 98% of academics agrees on that (catholics, protestants, ateist, agnostics...), just fundamentalistic protestants who believe that Earth has 6000 years and is flat do not agree.
At this place I can tell you at least that 1, 2 Timothy; 1 Titus; 2 Peter; Letter of James; Letter to Hebrew; Apocalypse and so on are all forgeries. Many church authors in primitive Church considered some of them forgeries too (foundator of biblistics - Origenes; Didymus the Blind; Dionysios of Alexandria and so on...)

Ad Muhammed - I am not a muslim so I cannot write an apology for him, but I would say that thing is not as simple as you put it. Try to read some muslim sources. I would suggest these 2 books:



and a little bit of prophetic grace of Muhammad:
ad "Jesus he problem is that Jesus Christ is the antithesis in every way to that man, so it's pretty hard to explain why he is a good example at all, when Christ himself is the perfect example of love, beauty, truth, power, and authority - without sin. "

Yea, well Quran actually states that Jesus was born miraculously from virgin and without "black spot" just as Mary, his mother. but You have to consider the fact, that Christ did not teach something "absolutelly unique", what he stressed and emphasized was the "heart of the Torah" (everything which Jesus teached can be found in the Old Testament), because at that time Jews fell just into external conducting of Torah prescribtions. He tried to make his listeners to focus on the essential things firstly and secondly on other things, just read Sermon on Mount. Jesus was himself a Law- observant Jew, just like apostles and first Christians. But on which basis stands Christic Deity statements? On prophecies? - well all Hebrew prophecies about Messiah can be interpreted in "jewish/islamic" consistent manner. On the miracles? - well read for instance the deeds of Elijah and his disciple Elisha in the Book of Kings ; On resurrection? - well then read about Rainbow body phenomenon in Tibetian Budddhism.
But the Quran fails to mention that Christ resurrected and that makes the whole difference.
 

lskdfjldsf

Pelican
Orthodox Catechumen
Gold Member
The Quran says that Jesus wasn't crucified, it was just "made to appear so". It also says Jesus was able to talk as a baby, and that he made a living bird out of mud. The Quran pulls most references from non-Bible Gospels floating around the Arabian peninsula at the time (e.g. the Infancy Gospel of Thomas) rather than the actual Bible, and contradicts itself repeatedly by denying Christ's divinity yet attributing divine powers to him.

5:47 in the Quran says that God revealed himself to the "People of the Book" through the Christian Gospels, yet it denies the validity of the Gospels later. It's a never-ending series of contradictions and abrogations. Debating Muslims is tiresome.
 
Last edited:
Top