Is Jesus God because he was “worshipped”?

To worship or not to worship?

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT


    In my numerous exchanges with Trinitarian Christians in discussing Jesus’ alleged divinity one thing that undoubtedly will not be missed is the notion that Jesus is given worship, hence making him God. At a glance the issue seems quite simple, at least to the uninitiated. God is the one who deserves worship and if Jesus is indeed given worship he must be that God. In reality, the issue is not as simple as that. In this article we will explore and dissect the main arguments that are usually propelled by Trinitarians in this regard to promote Jesus’ alleged deity. The following are some of the verses(from the KJV) that are often cited to prove that Jesus deserves our worship and as such is God:

And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. (Matthew 8:2)

While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. (Matthew 9:18)

Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God. (Matthew 14:33)

Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. (Matthew 15:25)

Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. (Matthew 20:20)

And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. (Matthew 28:9)

And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. (Matthew 28:17)

But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, (Mark 5:6)

In every single one of the above instances the word translated ‘worshipped’ comes from the Greek proskynein which is equivalent to the Hebrew shachah which as James Dunn explains means, ” ‘bow down, prostrate oneself, make obeisance before.’ It denotes the act of homage before a monarch or a superior, or prostration before God in worship.” [1] He then cites the scholars Walter Bauer and F.W. Danker who define proskynein as, ” ‘to express in attitude or gesture one’s complete dependence on or submission to a high authority figure, so ” (fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully” ‘.” [2] Thus the above cited verses are rendered alternatively in other various Bible versions in the following manner:

A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.” (Matthew 8:2, New International Version)

While he was saying this, a ruler came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.” (Matthew 9:18, New International Version)

The men in the boat bowed down in front of Jesus and said, “You are truly the Son of God.” (Matthew 14:33, God’s Word Translation [The Dhuay-Rheims has in its place ‘adored’])

The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. (Matthew 15:25, New International Version)

Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. (Matthew 20:20, New International Version)

and as they were going to tell to his disciples, then lo, Jesus met them, saying, ‘Hail!’ and they having come near, laid hold of his feet, and did bow to him. (Matthew 28:9, Young’s Literal Translation [The Dhuay-Rheims has in its place ‘adored’])

When they saw him, they bowed down to him, but some doubted (Matthew 28:17, World English Bible)

When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. (Mark 5:6, New International Version)

Some versions of the Bible have retained ‘worship’ as the favoured translation in several cases due to certain theological motifs. Even in such cases one should bear in mind that the word comes from the Greek proskynein which does not have to signify religious worship as we have already pointed out. Further more, the same word proskynein is used for others time and again apart from Jesus as we see in the following verses:

Then Abraham rose and bowed down before the people of the land, the Hittites. (Genesis 23:7)

The Hebrew word for ‘bowed down’ in the verse is the verb vaiyishtachu which comes from the root shachah which as we have noted earlier corresponds to the Greek proskynein. The KJV like all the other versions of the Bible chose to translate the word as ‘bowed down’ rather than worship. The fast and loose manner by which they translate the word is due to theological reasons as we have already stated. The Greek of Genesis 23:7 reads as follows:

ἀναστὰς δὲ Αβρααμ προσεκύνησεν τῷ λαῷ τῆς γῆς, τοῖς υἱοῖς Χετ,(the word is bold letters is prosekunisen which comes from proskynein)

Genesis 33:3 has Jacob bowing down(shachah;proskynein) his brother, Esau seven times! What is even more telling is what happened between King Nebuchadnezzar and the prophet Daniel. The following is from the Revised Standard Version:

Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, worshiped(shachah;proskynein) Daniel, and commanded that a grain offering and incense be offered to him. (Daniel 2:46)

Here is an instance of a person who is described in Daniel 2:37 as ‘the King of Kings’ giving worship(προσεκύνησεν) to Daniel. There isn’t a single instance anywhere in the New Testament of a king giving worship to Jesus. Following the line of reasoning of many Trinitarians, Daniel should be a greater God than Jesus since he was given worship by not just any Tom, Dick or Harry, but by ‘the King of Kings’. Some might say in an attempt at rebuttal, “yes, I agree, but those are people and actions in the Old Testament.” Firstly, even if it is in the Old Testament that does not negate the ethical and doctrinal value discernible from the verses that have been cited. After all, Jesus himself said that he did not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets in Matthew 5:17. Secondly, a careful reading of the New Testament will reveal that the instances found in the Old Testament recur in the New Testament e.g. Acts 10:25:

And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν τὸν Πέτρον, συναντήσας αὐτῷ ὁ Κορνήλιος πεσὼν ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας προσεκύνησεν(proskunisen)

It is thus clear that the occurrence of proskynein for Jesus does not make him deserving of worship in the sense that God the Creator deserves it. It does not make him God just as it does not make Abraham, Esau, Daniel and Peter God. Other instances of people given proskynein/schachah include 1 Samuel 25:23, 2 Kings 4:37, Genesis 50:18, 2 Samuel 19:18 etc.

The ordinary Evangelist would by now have been defeated. However, the learned and clever Evangelist will persist. He will insist that Jesus deserves worship just like the Father. To do this they will start talking about the term letreuein/latreia. They will argue in the following manner:

Evangelist : In the Bible the term latreuo is a specific and unique term which means religious service or devotion. It is always used for worshipping deity and never for a human being. Did you know that Jesus is given latreuo?  That makes him God like the Father!

Inquirer: Really? Where is it in the Bible?

Evangelist: Daniel 7:14. The Septuagint uses the term latreuo there for the Son of Man and in Mark 16:62 Jesus uses that verse for himself.

-end of hypothetical exchange-

What does Daniel 7:14 actually say? The verse in English reads as follows:

“And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.”

The key word in that verse which according to Trinitarians designates Jesus as God is ‘serve’ which according to them is letreuo in the Septuagint. This conclusion is actually inaccurate because there are two readings of the same verse in Greek. The one that is appealed to by Trinitarians is the LXX  manuscript Codex Syro-hexaplaris Ambrosianus 88 reading which is as follows:

καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα αὐτῷ λατρεύουσα· καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, ἥτις οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ.

The above reading certainly does have the word λατρεύουσα or latreousa. However, many scholars will argue that a better reading comes from Theodotian’s Greek text which reads as follows:

καὶ αὐτῷ ἐδόθη ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλεία, καὶ πάντες οἱ λαοί, φυλαί, γλῶσσαι αὐτῷ δουλεύσουσιν· ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ παρελεύσεται, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ οὐ διαφθαρήσεται.

As opposed to the LXX, Theodotian’s text reads douleusousin which comes from douleo. The theologian Sir Anthony Buzzard commenting on this says, “The Septuagint chooses latreuo (worship) in 7:14, but Theodotian, another Greek version of the Old Testament, uses the verb douleuo, a neutral word meaning to serve. The word latreuo, used in the Greek New Testament only of divine service, is not applied to Jesus.”[3] In the same discussion Buzzard cites Professor of New Testament Emeritus at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Arthur Wainwright who says in his book The Trinity in the New Testament, “there is no instance of latreuein [to do religious service to] which has Christ as its object”. [4] Agreeing with Buzzard, Biblical scholar Dr. T.J. Meadowcroft of the Auckland Bible College says, “Incidentally, in v. 14 θ chooses to translate פלח with δουλεύω, a term which we have noted is more generally applicable than λατρεύω to human relationships of subservience.” [5] Elsewhere he notes that “As a rule, the θ translator follows the sense of the Aramaic closely but not slavishly.” (The θ [theta] symbol represents Theodotian’s Greek text) This means that douleuo is a close rendering of the Aramaic פלח (palach). The Eminent British Biblical scholar and Lightfoot Professor of Divinity Emeritus at the University of Durham, James Dunn unequivocally says, “Cultic worship or service (latreuein, latreia) as such is never offered to Christ…”[6]. In conclusion, Jesus did not receive unique worship as the Father did which clearly shows that he is lower in status to the Father, hence doing away with the Athanasian creed which suggests equality between the two.The verdict is NOT to worship Jesus as one would worship the Creator God.

Addendum

A question that might arise from the above discussion is whether Daniel 7:14 is actually about Jesus or some other person. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary in its commentary on Daniel 7 markedly makes no mention of Jesus at all. The following is W.H. Green Professor of Old Testament literature, Princeton Theological Seminary, Rev. James Barr’s commentary on Daniel 7:14:

13-14 One like a Son of Man – The word ‘man’ in Heb. and Aram. is generic in sense and means ‘mankind’. ’Son of Man’ is therefore a normal expression for a single human being. The first point is therefore the contrast between this figure and the bestial figures preceding. It is commonly held that here he is a human figure representing Israel as the beasts represented the other empires. But the fact that he comes with the clouds of heaven, i.e that he is a celestial being, unlike the other beings who arise from the earth or sea, is also important. The appearance or likeness of a man is in fact a normal expression for an angelic manifestation (Ezek. I). The ‘son of man’ or rather the One like a Man is then what we would call an angel, one of the holy ones or their representative. He has a relation to Israel, for he serves the God of Israel; but is more than a figure for Israel. In the interpretations following he merges back into the host of the holy ones. The further comprehension of his significance depends on the question why what we call ‘angels’ are so often described as ‘man’ and why on the other hand ‘man’ is sometimes brought so close to God, especially in his capacity as a ruler( Gen. 1-2; Ps. 8 ); and with this place of man as ruler hangs together the question of the relation of the ‘Man’ here to the Messiah. There is no specific reference here to the Messiah as such, but there is a certain overlapping and community of expression; the Messiah is the king, and the king is also ben’adham, ’man’, in PS. 80:17, cf. 146:3. Nor can we neglect the use of ‘son of man’ for Daniel himself (see on 8:17). But what we have here in essence is an eschatological appearance of an angelic being as man in heaven. [7](emphasis added)

Though being a Christian himself like the New Jerome Biblical Commentary he too markedly leaves Jesus out. Rather he proposes that the subject in question is an angelic being(and not a divine one!). E. P. Sanders says about Matthew 26:63 which parallels Mark 16:62, “The word ‘but’ (Greek plen) is adversative: ‘But on the other hand’, and thus, according to Matthew, Jesus claimed to be expecting a heavenly figure, not his own return.”[8] Commenting on Mark’s version he says, “It is not possible to come to a firm conclusion about Jesus’ use of the phrase ‘Son of Man. He used it; sometimes he used if of himself; he expected the Son of Man to come from heaven; but it is not certain that he identified himself as that future Son of Man.” [9] Historically, one cannot firmly conclude that Jesus saw himself as that ‘Son of Man’  and as Prof. Rev. Barr notes “there is no specific reference here to the Messiah…” in Daniel 7.

References:

[1] Dunn, J. D. G. (2010). Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 8

[2] Ibid. pp. 9

[3] Buzzard, A. (2007). Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian: A Call to Return to the Creed of Jesus. Morrow, GA: Restoration Fellowship. pp. 143

[4] Ibid.

[5] Meadowcroft, T.J. (1995). Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 198. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd. pp. 229

[6] Dunn, J. D. G. Op. Cit. pp. 27

[7] Barr, J. (1962). The Book of Daniel. In Matthew Black & H. H. Rowley (Eds.), Peake’s Commentary on the Bible. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. pp. 597-598

[8] Sanders, E.P. (1995). The Historical Figure of Jesus. England: Penguin Books. pp. 247

[9] Ibid. pp. 247-248

Incoming search terms:

  • unveiling-christianity org
  • worship Jesus marc taylor
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

28 Responses to “Is Jesus God because he was “worshipped”?”

  1. rocky says:

    1. the word “yiflechun” (more accurately yifl’ḥun) is spelt יִפְלְחוּן (yod, pé, lammed, ḥet, vav, nun) in Aramaic and the root is פלח (pé, lammed, ḥet).

    2. There is considerable scope for confusion on this point because there is a Hebrew root עבד and also an

    Aramaic root עבד (i.e. exactly the same letters), but they have different meanings:

    In Hebrew, the root עבד means to work, and the corresponding Aramaic root is פלח.

    In Aramaic, the root עבד means to do or to make, and the corresponding Hebrew root is עשה.

    3. It is not easy to provide Scriptural evidence to refute the claim that the Aramaic verb פלח is only used in connection with God or with idols, because that root simply does not occur enough times in the text—the verb is actually only used nine times in the Aramaic passages of the T’nach (the 3rd person singular of the simple past tense פָּלַח palaḥ “he worked” twice in Daniyyél 6:17, 6:21 and its plural פָּֽלְחִין pal’ḥin “they worked” in Daniyyél 3:12, 3:14, 3:17, 3:18; and the 3rd person plural of the simple future tense יִפְלְחוּן yifl’ḥun “they will work” in Daniyyél 3:28, 7:14, 7:27), and the related nouns לְפָלְחָן l’fol’ḥan (“for the work of…”) and וּפָֽלְחֵי ufal’ḥei (“the workers of…”) occur only once each—in Ezra 7:19, 7:24 respectively.

    What I can offer you is an excerpt from the text of the k’tubbah, the marriage contract that every Jewish bride receives setting out her marital rights and the undertakings that her husband makes to her in connection with their marriage. In this part of the document, the bridegroom makes a solemn declaration to his bride undertaking to maintain and support her—

    “הֲוִי לִי לְאִנְתּוּ כְּדַת מֹשֶׁה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֲנָא אֶפְלֹחַ וְאוֹקִיר וְאֵיזוֹן וַאֲפַרְנֵס יְתִיכִי לִיכִי כְּהִלְכוֹת גֻּבְרִין יְהוּדָאִין דְּפָֽלְחִין וּמוֹקְרִין וְזַנִין וּמְפַרְנְסִין לִנְשֵׁיהוֹן בְּקֻשְׁטָא….”

    “Be thou my wife according to the law of Mosheh and of Yisraél, and I will work for, cherish, feed and [financially] support you, in the manner of all Jewish men who faithfully work for, cherish, feed and [financially] support their wives….”

    The words set in red are both inflections of the same verb we have been discussing, i.e. פלח “to work”—but there is no suggestion of the husband “worshipping” his wife as a god/goddess.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      You have already cited Daniel 7:27 which does away with claims that ‘palach’ is only given to God. In the same chapter, verse 27 we find that ‘palach'(יִפְלְח֖וּן/yiflechun) is given to the saints. The JPS translates the verse as follows:
      And the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.’
      Both the Revised Standard Version and the English Standard Version agree with the final third person plural pronoun.

  2. rocky says:

    All this confusion concerning the verb “to serve” is a direct result of the use of antiquated translations such as KJPV, and the insistence of even modern Jewish translations on continuing to use the old-fashioned terms invariably employed by christians (who are terrified of the word “work” because they associate it in their minds with “the devil’s works”).

    Serving (עָבוֹד ‘avod) is what a servant (עֶֽבֶד ‘ĕvĕd) does. Is it true to say that a servant worships his master/owner as a god? Of course not; he just WORKS for him. The Hebrew root עבד (“to work”) is used on numerous occasions throughout the T’nach, both in the sense of “working” for a master or employer and also in the sense of “working” for God and the Aramaic root פלח is used similarly nine times in the Aramaic passages of Daniyyél (2:4b-7:28) and Ezra (4:8-6:18, 7:12-26). This is yet another example of the way christian translators cunningly employ English usages from the 17th century, which their unwitting contemporary readers are—quite understandably—unfamiliar with, to mislead and deceive them.

    Note that, as I mentioned in Post #12, the Aramaic root עבד, although consisting of exactly the same three letters, actually has the slightly different meaning “to do” or “to make”; for example, it has this meaning in the only Aramaic verse in the entire N’viyim division of the T’nach—

    כִּדְנָה֙ תֵּֽאמְר֣וּן לְה֔וֹם אֱלָ֣הַיָּ֔א דִּֽי־שְׁמַיָּ֥א וְאַרְקָ֖א לָ֣א עֲבַ֑דוּ יֵאבַ֧דוּ מֵֽאַרְעָ֛א וּמִן־תְּח֥וֹת שְׁמַיָּ֖א אֵֽלֶּה׃

    “This is what you are to tell them: ‘The gods that didn’t make the heavens and the earth will be destroyed from the earth and from below these heavens….’ ” (Yirm’yahu 10:11)

  3. Talibul Ilm says:

    Jzk ibn anwar. This is an excellent article.

  4. rocky says:

    i see the jesus of the new testament as a crucified failure who dare not show his face after his alledged ressurection, yet there are other ancient israelites and greeks who have big names attributed to them and do far more greater things than a failure who hid behind his deciples. why should anyone be bothered what christians have been attributing to him? in the illiterate culture of indian a 7 year old kid performs an operation and the villagers think the 7year old is vishnu incarnate. the qur’aan is correct jesus and his mum EAT food to live , yet angels don’t eat food.

  5. rambo says:

    as the people know, yhwh in the torah is god of war.
    he , according to the torah, helps israeli’s win wars.

    “the Canaanites came to fear the terror of Yahweh, such that even seeing the Ark struck fear in their hearts. For example, as Henricus Oort’s Bible for Learners (vol.1, p.337) so presciently notes, Rahab (a Canaanite) cooperates with the Israelite army ”because she feared Yahweh,” as she had seen what Yahweh had done to the surrounding nations”

    as it is clear, yhwh was supposed to be an AWESOME god .

    yhwh , worked with the israelites to accomplish victory:

    Exodus 14:13 Moses answered the people, “Do not be afraid. Stand firm and you will see the deliverance Yahweh will bring you today. The Egyptians you see today you will never see again. 14 Yahweh will fight for you; you need only to be still.”

    Joshua 10:14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when Yahweh listened to a man. Surely Yahweh was fighting for Israel!

    Joshua 10:42 All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because Yahweh, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.

    Joshua 23:3 You yourselves have seen everything Yahweh your God has done to all these nations for your sake; it was Yahweh your God who fought for you.

    yhwh was also a jeolous god. he knew how quickly the israelites fall into polythiesm and how they are ATTRACTED to pagan PRACTICES , so he tells the jews to completely destroy that which will allow them (jews) to fall into idolatary. there is no doubt that jews , according to the torah, did leave yhwh for other gods because the jews thought they were getting better RESULTS with the other gods in securing victory.

    so yhwh says, Otherwise, they will TEACH you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against Yahweh your God.

    lets assume that yhwh , in the form of a man, came down and fought side by side with the israeli’s . the israeli’s would see a warrior god.

    when the pagan romans beat, slapped, punched, whipped, stripped, hooked jesus on a cross , how many of them would say , ” ah what an awesome god” ? how many of them would be convinced that this was the yhwh of ancient days who used to assist the jews on the battle field?

    no, they would see jc as a sissy god, a god whom there FATHERS NEVER KNEW .

    next time shamoun or any christian makes a fuss about hubal and ALLAH , i will ask how many jews knew christianties greek yhwh?

    yhwh told the jews explicitly to reject the gods of the surrounding nations and we know that in ancient israelite times gods were not only made out of idols , but FLESH AND BONES.

    let me quote something interesTING

    :

    “Archaeological evidence secures the case: though a vast amount of material evidence has been uncovered of unmistakably Jewish occupation throughout Palestine, as well as considerable evidence of pagan inhabitants, absolutely no material evidence of any Christian population can be found there until later centuries. In fact, only in the 3rd century does material evidence of a Christian presence anywhere in the Empire begin to match that of even minor pagan cults. Therefore, from both observations it follows that if Christians inhabited Palestine in the first century, their numbers must have been truly negligible. And to carry the point home, even the most biased of Christian sources make no claims to the contrary. Acts suggests the mission was taken to the Gentiles because Jews simply weren’t buying it anymore.”

    thats interesting isn’t it, no big numbers for the christian foriegn greek god and whats even more interesting , the jews are not buying into the christian yhwh so the paul takes his message to another place.

    so next time you make a fuss about the idols in the kabah and the superior GOD ALLAH , think about your christian yhwh and the jewish YHWH.

    “Likewise, after their disheartening failure to gain significant
    headway in Palestine, most Christian success in Acts is gained in the
    Diaspora–and not just geographically, but ideologically: Diaspora
    Jews had the most cosmopolitan outlook, and had either been pagans or understood pagan ideals quite well. It should not surprise us that
    they were the most receptive to the Christian mission”

    over 2000 people from the united states visit this blog. and i bet many of them are the people who cling to the moon god bull s hit. why are you viewers from the states hypocrites? don’t you see that the jews rejected your god because he was flesh and blood god UNKNOWN to the the ancient jews?

  6. Ibn Anwar says:

    Salam Don,
    No, the Aramaic ‘palach’ does not have the equivalent semantic value as the Arabic ‘fa’ala’. The word ‘palach’ carries with it the idea of ‘cultic devotion’ though that is not always the case as Rocky and I have illustrated. yaf’aloon which is the third person masculin plural(ism mudhari’ jama’ muzakkar saleem) means ‘they are working/doing’ whilst ‘yiflichun’ means ‘going to serve'(in the simple future tense as Rocky correctly indicated).

  7. Abu Layth says:

    Interesting read.

    Jazakum Allahu Khayran!

    Abu Layth

  8. Dr.Mustafa says:

    DANIEL 7:14 DOES NOT POINT TO JESUS CHRIST

    Daniel 7:14 is usually taken to be for Jesus Christ ,but a closer look shows that is not the case .

    Daniel 7:14 talks about the vision of Daniel about the last days on the earth where 4 kingdoms will arise with the last kingdom being most powerful and in the end getting destroyed and saints of most high getting the power .

    Son of man coming on the clouds is actually seen by Daniel in his vision NOT IN REALITY .In reality it signifies saints of most high getting the dominion in the end .

    Where as Matthew 24:30 , 26:24 ; Mark 13:26 , 14:62 and Luke 21:27 , 22:;69 talks about son of man(Jesus Christ) coming on clouds IN REALITY NOT IN VISION and this must take place in the HEREAFTER i.e THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT and not in the end of times as mentioned in Daniel 7:14 .

    Mathew 24:29 CLEARLY STATES THAT “…the sun will be darkened ,and the moon will not give its light and the stars will fall from heaven ,and the power of heaven will be shaken AND THEN will appear the sign of son of man IN HEAVEN..”

    Same is repeated in Mark 13:24 and Luke 21:27

    So basically Daniel talks about vision in metaphorical sense and in reality son of man will not come on clouds it signifies saints of most high will get the power from bad kingdoms of earth and this will happen in the last days .Whereas Mathew,Mark and Luke tells that son of man will literally come on clouds and that to in the hereafter not in the last days.

    So the Christians falsely attribute Daniel 7:14 to Jesus Christ.

    CONTRADICTIONS IN GOSPELS IN THE ACCOUNT OF SIGN OF SON OF MAN

    1) Matthew 24:30 tells all the tribes of earth will mourn after sign of son man appears Mark and Luke does not mention this .

    2)Matthew and Mark tells that son of man will gather his elect from four winds whereas Luke does not mention this.

    3)John totally omits this important event.

    4)Matthew 24:30 says “..son of man COMING ON CLOUDS OF HEAVEN…””

    Mark 13:26 says”….son of man COMING IN CLOUDS OF HEAVEN…”

    Luke 21:27 says”…..son of man COMING IN A CLOUD …..”

    Such a contrast and contradiction!

    SCIENTIFIC CONTRADICTIONS IN THE STORY

    A cloud is a visible mass of liquid droplets or frozen crystals made of water and/or various chemicals suspended in the atmosphere above the surface of a planetary body

    1)Since clouds are liquid droplets and vapor how can a man stand on it ?

    High clouds form between 10,000 and 25,000 ft (3,000 and 8,000 m) in the polar regions, 16,500 and 40,000 ft (5,000 and 12,000 m) in the temperate regions and 20,000 and 60,000 ft (6,000 and 18,000 m) in the tropical region

    Middle clouds tend to form at 6,500 ft (2,000 m) but may form at heights up to 13,000 ft (4,000 m), 23,000 ft (7,000 m) or 25,000 ft (8,000 m) depending on the latitudinal region. In general, the warmer the climate the higher the cloud base

    Low clouds are found from near surface up to 6,500 ft (2,000 m).

    2)Since lowest clouds are at a distance of 6,500 ft a man standing on it will not be visible at that height then how can people see son of man on cloud?

    • Harry says:

      Hi Dr Mustafa
      just who is Daniel talking about? I take offence to people calling me as a Christian a liar,I wouldn’t call you a liar if you made a interpretation of a scripture if you were from another religion,I really would like to hear what your thoughts as to who this individual is.

      you can mention scientific contradictions all you want but don’t you think the one that created everything as the ability to overcome the issue with the clouds he created?

      Don’t you remember Jesus walked on water! or are you going to find something scientific to counteract that text in the bible.

      The other thing that I read is that you find it a problem when two writers don’t exactly the same things in courts of law when listening to witness statements they are not all identical when they recalled what they saw.

      Are you a Muslim?

  9. Dr.Mustafa says:

    THE 4TH BEAST OF DANIELS VISION

    1) Daniel sees 4 beasts in his vision .The 4th beast what he sees is more terrible and more powerful than the remaining 3 .

    2) Daniel says these beasts will be 4 kingdoms which are to come on earth.

    3) So to which kingdom does the 4th beast point to ?

    4) Daniel 7:25 gives a hint that the 4th beast or the 4th kingdom which will come on earth will speak against most high and will try to change . the law of most high.

    5) I THINK the 4th beast or the 4th kingdom points to trinitarian Christianity.

    6) Cos they speak against most high by saying he is a trinity a concept not spoken by God himself in the old testament nor spoken by any prophet from Abraham to Jesus.

    7) They also changed the law of God by nullifying most of it which again was not done by any prophet from Abraham to Jesus..

    8) It is not to hurt my christian brothers but just to tell them that to stop saying God a trinity because trinity is not told by God nor by any prophet including Jesus Christ himself nor it is present in the bible .

  10. rambo says:

    brother , i have found something awesome here

    http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=308043

    is this research awesome or what?

    man this research is a solid PUNCH to trinitarianism .

  11. holy ghost says:

    THIS IS THIS GOD “IN THE FLESH” BROTHERS AND SISTERS

    The power and popularity of relics in Medieval Europe was dependent upon the saintliness of the original “owner.” The ultimate source of relics, of course, was Jesus himself. But there was just one problem: it is clear in the New Testament that after his resurrection, Jesus was “carried up to Heaven.” Thus, there just wasn’t any possibility of a church acquiring Jesus’ head or foot, as happened with various saints. For the most part, the only Jesus relics available were things like his crown of thorns, his robe, his sandals, or even pieces of the “True Cross.”

    But then some astute theologian — or was it a businessman? — realized that not all of Jesus’ body could have been actually transported up to Heaven. Jesus was, after all, a faithful Jew, and as such, he would have been circumcised like every other boy. So where was his foreskin? Whatever happened to that bit of divine flesh?

    And thus began a search for a very odd “Holy Grail” which resulted in not one, but up to a dozen different holy foreskins, each competing to be the genuine article. Of course, one presumes that they could not all be genuine and I am not aware of anyone who tried to argue that the unusual bounty was a miracle akin to the loaves and fishes.

    In France, Charroux claimed that they inherited their foreskin from Charlemagne. In the early twelfth century they took it to Rome and paraded it through the streets alongside one of those pieces of the True Cross and Jesus’ sandals, bringing them before Pope Innocent III.

    At the same time, however, the parish of Calcata north of Rome also claimed to possess Jesus’ foreskin. Then there was the abbey of Coulombos in the diocese of Chartres claiming that they were the owners of the True Foreskin. Other claimants included Puy, Metz, Anvers, the church of Notre-Dame-en-Vaux, and Hildersheim.

    It shouldn’t be surprising that all of these strongly disputed the claims of everyone else. Pope Innocent III decided not to become involved and refused to judge who was right. According to him, only God could know the truth about such a “delicate” matter. It’s probably better for his legacy that he didn’t become involved — who would want to become known as the Foreskin Pope?

    Imagine what it would have been like had they chosen to rule on the issue! Can you see them peering into the reliquaries, attempting to determine if the foreskin before them was from Jesus’ or just some leper’s? By what standards would they have made their judgments? Sight? Texture? Smell? Unfortunately, the pope’s reluctance to become involved just led to the “discovery” of several more “real” foreskins.

    In the end, it was Charroux who “won” the battle of the foreskins when Pope Clement VII (1523-1534) issued a bull granting indulgences to any and all who made a pilgrimage to the Charroux foreskin. Just think — you could have sins forgiven by God just for getting a glimpse at a bit of severed genitalia!

    But then tragedy struck: the foreskin went missing! The relic disappeared from Charroux for centuries and was thought to have been stolen. What kind of a sicko would steal a foreskin? (Of course, the same could be asked of anyone who would display one for money.)

    Then, in 1856, a lucky workman discovered the reliquary hidden inside a wall, perhaps put there to protect it during the many religious wars. I wonder if that workman had his sins forgiven for the discovery? Nineteenth century Catholics hadn’t grown out of their taste for relics, and a new church was built to house the tiny ringlet of flesh. Monsignor Pie, who spoke at the dedication ceremony, informed the excited crowd that if they looked closely, they could still see a bit of coagulated blood on the holy flesh.

    For some strange reason, however, the Vatican grew less and less supportive of relics, particularly foreskins. In 1900 the Vatican suggested that foreskins encouraged “irreverent curiosity” and that, somehow, this was a bad thing. Generally the foreskin fever died down with the lack of official encouragement, although it didn’t disappear entirely. One church in Italy kept up the worship right through the 1980s — and each year the relic was exposed to the adoring crowds during the Feast of the Circumcision. (I wonder — what was served?)

    But in 1983, thieves broke in and stole the 300 year-old jewel-encrusted reliquary and the holy flesh it contained. Presumably they only wanted the case — but what on earth did they do with the foreskin? Is it sitting in someone’s basement right now?

    THIS IS SHAMOUNS GOD

  12. The Bull says:

    A careful study of Rev 22:8,9 affirms that the use of the word proskyneō does imply ‘real deity’ worship in the case of Christ:

    Rev 22:8 :”And I John saw these things, and heard [them]. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.”
    Rev 22:9 :”Then saith he unto me, See [thou do it] not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.”

    In other words the angel is saying dont proskyneō (worship) angels or prophets, proskyneō (worship) ONLY God!

    Ibn Anwar used Acts 10:25 to show proskyneō ‘worship’ was given to Peter:

    “And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.”

    What he didn’t didn’t state was that Cornelius was corrected by Peter for his action in the next verse (Acts 10:26).
    Therefore Acts 10:25,26 and Rev 22:8,9 both support the case that proskyneō worship should only be given to God.
    This in turn supports the case that Jesus is in fact God.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      What you fail to understand is that Peter was not rebuking Cornelius for worshipping(proskuneo) him, but rather he was demonstrating his position as a humble fellow believer. It is humility that called him to ask Cornelius to stand up, “But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.” It is pretty much like the instance where a man called Jesus “good master” and he basically said that there is non(including himself) that is good except God alone. That of course does not mean that Jesus is not good. Rather in his humility he could not accept the man’s glorification, hence relegated all praise of goodness to God. Nowhere does Peter say that “proskuneo” is only for God. What about revelation 22:8? That is a solitary passage about proskuneo that should be given to God. I have already explained that the term itself is generic which simply means “to kiss”. It is applicable to both God and human beings. What you fail to know is that Jesus himself used the word to describe a kind of master and servant relationship without entailing any kind of divine sense:
      The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. (Matthew 18:26,29)
      I have also shown in the article that Daniel is given worship by The “King of Kings” Nebuchadnezzar:
      Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, worshiped(shachah;proskynein) Daniel, and commanded that a grain offering and incense be offered to him. (Daniel 2:46)
      Abraham worshipped the Hittites:
      Then Abraham rose and worshipped before the people of the land, the Hittites. (Genesis 23:7)
      Jacob worshipped his brother Esau:
      He himself [Jacob] went on ahead and worshipped] to the ground seven times as he approached his brother [Esau]. (Genesis 33:3)
      Joseph’s brothers worshipped him:
      Now Joseph was the governor of the land, the one who sold grain to all its people. So when Joseph’s brothers arrived, they worshipped him with their faces to the ground. (Genesis 4:6)
      Nathan worshipped the king:
      And they told the king, “Nathan the prophet is here.” So he went before the king and worshipped with his face to the ground. (1 Kings 1:23)
      Joab worshipped the king:
      Joab fell with his face to the ground to pay him worship, and he blessed the king. Joab said, “Today your servant knows that he has found favor in your eyes, my lord the king, because the king has granted his servant’s request.” (2 Samuel 14:22)
      David worshipped Saul:
      Then David went out of the cave and called out to Saul, “My lord the king!” When Saul looked behind him, David worshipped and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. (1 Samuel 24:8)
      Adonijah worshipped Solomon:
      Then King Solomon sent men, and they brought him down from the altar. And Adonijah came and worshipped King Solomon, and Solomon said, “Go to your home.” (1 Kings 1:53)

      As usual, the Bull gets smacked by the truth.

  13. rocky says:

    was the suffering servant jesus or israel? do authours of the ot believe that israel was despised and hated and suffered becoz of other nations around them?

    http://religionatthemargins.co.....ah-part-2/

    any honest reader will conclude that jesus IS NOT THE SUFFERING SERVANT

  14. Marc Taylor says:

    The Lord Jesus receives latreuo in Revelation 22:3. This proves that He is God.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      No, Revelation 22:3 does not help your case. Verses 1 and 3 speak of God’s throne and the lamb’s. The “him” referent is unclear as no being is specifically identified from verses 1 to 3.

  15. Marc Taylor says:

    Is there another passage in Revelation that will demonstrate by its syntax that the Lamb is being referred to when it reads “Him” in Revelation 22:3? Revelation 20:6 reads: …priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years. According to verse 4 the “Him” of Revelation 20:6 refers to the Lamb. Revelation 20:6 then lets us know that the Lamb is included as the recipient of latreuo in Revelation 22:3.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      The syntax of Revelation 22:3 does not determine the referent to the third person singular masculine pronoun used. Revelation 20:6 is not the context of Revelation 22:3. You have no case and it is out of desperation that you are trying to connect a referent in Revelation 20 to one that is two chapters away. That is not only grammatically fallacious, but also contextually disingenuous. You have failed miserably. Finally, the notable scholar James Dunn who is himself a Trinitarian makes it clear that nowhere in the Bible is Jesus ever given “λατρεύσουσιν” or “latreuo.”

      • Marc Taylor says:

        ***Note: You plagiarised from theologyweb forum. There is zero tolerance for plagiarism on this site. For that you are permanently banned from posting comments here for one year.

        -Unveiling Christianity team

  16. Marc Taylor says:

    It is not plagiarism if I have cited what I had previously written elsewhere.

    Revelation 20:6 was also written by John so we have an example of his grammatical style.

  17. Anthony Buzzard says:

    This whole discussion is really at least in part unnecessary!
    Once a person accepts the unitarian creed of Jesus in Mark 12:29 citing Deut. 6:4 all is simple and clear. No one who cites the Shema (“Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One”, Mk 12:29) thinks that he himself is GOD! That would also create the shattering fact that there are two who are God!
    That is not monotheism.

    Jesus in the NT claims to be the Messiah, Son of God. Mary did not bear God! She bore the Son of God, Messiah, the non-Deity lord (not Lord) of Ps. 110:1, which is a mini-Bible and would solve all problems if believed.

    Luke 2:11 introduces Jesus and his identity, as the Messiah lord! Certainly not the Lord God!

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      I wholeheartedly agree with you Prof. Buzzard. Should we approach the Bible with monotheistic parameters as taught by the prophets and Jesus, then Daniel 7 and other passages of the Bible that are typically misused by Trinitarians become theologically coherent and simple. And as you tirelessly point out in your writings, the polytheistic Trinitarians happily and most conveniently treat Mark 12:29 as if it didn’t exist.

  18. Marc Taylor says:

    Meanwhile the evidence that the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of latreuō in Revelation 22:3 which proves He is God went ignored.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      I’ve already replied to you on this in 2013 (see your comments and my replies to them above). Once again, Revelation 22:3 does not help your case. Verses 1 and 3 speak of God’s throne and the lamb’s. The “him” referent is unclear as no being is specifically identified from verses 1 to 3.

      And I remind you again that plagiarism is not tolerated here. Remember that you were banned for one year for plagiarising other people’s material.

Leave a Reply