How To Fill Form 47a: Fill & Download for Free

First of all, “The primary claim is that God cannot die, so Jesus could not have been God.” is not accurate.There are two issues. The first is if Jesus was G-d (Trinity). The second is if Jesus died.There are different interpretations about the death of Jesus in Islam, but the predominant one is that Jesus was raised to heaven and a surrogate was killed, in his place.TrinityThe Trinity is not 100% wrong and it is not 100% correct.The interpretation of the Messiah which Jesus and his followers used is the prophet promised by G-d in Deuteronomy 18, from the Torah, as well as prophecies from later prophets.Since the Israelites did not want to hear G-d’s voice again, after what happened at Horeb ("Let me not continue to hear the voice of the Lord, my God, and let me no longer see this great fire, so that I will not die."). G-d would put His Words in the prophet’s mouth.The question became … Jesus is this prophet, with G-d’s Words coming out of his (the prophet’s) mouth. And it is even written that “And it will be, that whoever does not hearken to My words that he speaks in My name, I will exact [it] of him”. So, if G-d is putting His Words in the prophet’s mouth, whose Words/words are they? Is it G-d speaking or the prophet speaking?The exegesis on the New Testament references to this is what led to the confusion about what Jesus was saying and who (or Who) was saying it.If Jesus was speaking the Words of G-d (logos), would he and the Father not be one? (G-d speaking through this man) based off of Jesus’s interpretation of the role of the Messiah and who the Messiah was?Jesus references as speaking for G-d, but does not claim to be G-d, anywhere in the Christian New Testament. In speaking for G-d (“anointed” - mashiach [messiah] / christos [christ] … “descending like a dove”) through his own mouth, who is the real Messiah? The One giving the Message through the prophet or the prophet just saying what they are told to say?This is why, it is sometimes easier to leave things at face value and not confuse an issue with “profound exegesis”.The “madness” begins …The issue is trying to over explain Deuteronomy 18, which is referenced by Jesus (John 5:46–47; 12:49–50; 14:10) and Peter (Acts 3:22–24).Since this prophet was in contact and speaking with the part of G-d humanity could comprehend, and spoke for G-d, via what the prophet heard (John 12:49–50), is that prophet also a part of G-d, as G-d is communicating through that human?Was Jesus homoiousios (ηομοιουσιος), meaning “of a similar substance,” or was Jesushomoousios (ηομοουσιος), meaning “of the same substance”. All based on G-d’s Words coming out of the prophet’s mouth.If you are confused, so was the common follower who was not into deep philosophical thought. And the simplified explanation became the Trinity.You can thank Platonism for this overreach.People believe that you can interpret John 1:1 without understanding the word logosand the Stoic thought it was associated with (which people of the time would have understood), you, also, cannot interpret 1 John 5:6–8 …“This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”… without understanding Platonism.(some try to argue that the reason that two distinct “trinities” are expressed [G-d=Father, Word, Holy Spirit / Jesus=water, blood, spirit] was a later addition, but this whole section was referenced by Priscillian of Avila in 380 CE - not long after Nicaea).These two writings, explain it well …[Deuteronomy 18:18} “I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.”[John12:49–50] “For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.”Surah 4:156–157And [We cursed them] for their disbelief and their saying against Mary a great slander, And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.The New Testament tells that Jesus was hung on a Roman cross, but it venerates (not “slanders”) Mary.What does “slander” Mary is either the Toledot Yeshu (one of its many variations) or the passages from the Talmud that the different versions of the Toledot Yeshu embellish on, to create the various versions of the Toledot Yeshu.So the surrogate ([another]) would have been hung by the Jewish elders and possibly from a carob stalk.[Whoever created the Toledot Yeshu borrowed from the Talmud, as most of the claims, creating the narratives, come from older versions (prior to censorship) of the Talmud.Passages, such as, Sanhedrin 47a, 671, 107b, Shabbat 104b of the uncensored versions.The idea of the father being Pandera, Yeshu being a sorcerer who was hanged on eve of Passover, and leading the people “astray” is the central theme of almost all the versions.The rest is embellishments created to “fill in” the narrative of …what types of sorcery? - learned superstitious idolatry of Ineffable Name [people really need to read Exodus 3:13–15], protected self from trees (so could not be hung), in some versions a man named Judas defended against Jesus (by, also, learning the Ineffable Name) causing a great battle in the sky.how was he hung? - because of his sorcery trees did not work, so a carob stalk was used, as it was more plant than tree.]