Since the New Testament written by the apostles of Christ, the Tetragramaton (four sacred letter: YHVH, Yahweh) had been translated into Greek language: κυριος Kyrios (LORD). This was already used by the Jews (Septuagint/LXX) and followed by Jesus and His apostles. Modern Jewish translate YHWH with THE LORD (with all capital letter). The first of all sects that shocking the translation tradition of this God’s name is the Jehovah’s Witnesses. This sect, with proud they proclaim brought back the Name: Yahweh into NT, even though the original texts (or the copy of it) from the apostles itself didn’t maintain that name. The question is: May “the proper name” be translated? If the translation of YHWH’s name is prohibited, why Jesus and His apostles didn’t maintain that Name?
The Name: YHWH
the Origins and Theological Meaning
YHWH’s name was declared to Moses for the first time in Exodus 6:1. God declares Himself to prophet Moses in the burning bush and when God sends Moses to face the Pharaoh to brought back the Israelites out of Egypt, Moses asks: “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, `The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, `What is his name?' (Hebrew: מַה־֯שּׁמ֔וֹ Mah symo) Then what shall I tell them?" (Exodus 3:13, NIV).
For the record, the common practice to ask about a person's name in Hebrew using Mi pronouns is: Who, but in this verse is used "What (mah) about his name?". Mah symo is a question that require more in-depth answers, which gives the meaning of what and how or the nature of the name. And the answer to the question of God is the deepest meaning and the meaning of that name which is "a mystery that is behind the existence of that name". Mah symo question from Moses is not answered with 4 letters "YHWH" but was answered by God with the sentence: אהיה אשר אהיה Ehyeh asher Ehyeh (or in Greek of the Septuagint / LXX Εγω ειμι ὁ Ων Ego eimi ho On) I AM THAT I AM (Exodus 3:14). With these words, God declared Himself. This signifies the real being of God, His self-existence, and that He is the Being of beings; as it also denotes His eternity and immutability, and His Constancy and faithfulness in fulfilling His promises, for it includes all time, past, present, and to come; and the sense is, not only I am what I am at present, but I am what I have been, and I am what I shall be, and shall be what I am.
How grammatically we finally found a form of Yahweh? According to a commentary in Hebrew is quite representative (derived from Jewish Rabbis themselves), the form of Yahweh is closely related to the omnipresent of God, in the past, present and future. The existence of God if it is associated with the three aspects of time, in Hebrew is: hayah, "He was"; hoveh, "He is" and yihyeh, "He will be". The point here, God is all-eternal, not bound by the aspect of time, and it was proved by His power and His omnipresent which is always dynamic.
From the description above, it is clear that NT is more referring to the theological meaning behind that name, which is his power of life and not hold literally that dead letters. The name of this translation of Yahweh, among other things we can read in The Revelation of John:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," declares the Lord God, the one who is, who was, and who is coming, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8)
Please note the phrase in italics. In Greek: ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος ho on kai ho en kai ho erchomenos, this phrase is a translation of an Adon 'Olam prayer in Siddur (famous Jewish prayer), which contains information from the name of Yahweh (the name that prohibited for pronounced it): Vehu Haya Vehu Hove Vehu Yyiheeyeh Beteefarah (He is already there, existing, and which would have, his eternal power for ever).
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
CUR DEUS HOMO
CUR DEUS HOMO, God became man
That statement will become major misunderstanding Christian doctrine, especially when we try to share it with the Muslims. For them, it sounds too pagan. God became man, it means that God being crucified, died, buried etc. Allah (the God) for them is sacral, just likes YHWH (God) for the Jews. It’s too rude for a Muslim and a Jew to say “Allah/YHWH became man”. And because of Christianity have same root with the Jews, so it’s impossible to say “the God (the Father) became man”. We can compare it with Islamic Theology (called ‘Ilm al-Kalam). In ‘Ilm al-Kalam, the God (Allah) can’t be understood in His Ousia (Dzat) but can be understood through His Hypostasis (Shifatullah). Shifatullah are “not God but not different with God”. Logos (Word of God, Kalimatullah) is one of the Shifatullah in Islam. “Power” and “Life” of God (called the Holy Spirit in Christian faith) are also Shifatullah, that ‘qaimah’ (paste or stand) on Dzatullah (Ousia). Sifatullah are “not God but not creation”.
In Islam, “Logos, Power and Life” of God are not to be understood as having a reality of self-identity entity, but in Christian faith both of them are having hypostasis (a reality that underlining identity). Logos is not the Father (God), but Logos is God (because He is immortal and not different with God), “The Word was God” (John 1:1).
The Word (the Son) is different with the Father, it’s explained by the Word himself when He became a man (nuzul, tajjasud): Jesus Christ and by the Bible statement in: John 1:1, 3:2, 3:17, 3:35, 5:24, 17:3, 20:17, 14:28 and many more. The Father (YHWH) that is transcendent, communicate Himself to mankind through His Word (called Memra in Targum). John 1:18, “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” Logos (the Word, the Son) is eternally coexisting with the Father. Origen of Alexandria appoint Christ as Logos, “if the first born of every creature, is the image of the invisible God, the Father is his arche.”
Because of this difficulty, so the Arabic Christian (may God protect them always!) never use term “God became man” (Allah al-Mutajjasad) but use term “Son of God became man” (Ibnullah al-Mutajjasad). So, clearly that Judaism tawhid (Unity), which is defending the God transcendency, in the same time give some space for Memra (Logos) that will be come in His Messiah, is still guarded and defended in the early church, because of it’s Judaic roots. And if we have open mind, we can more clearly understand this topic through reading The Epistle of St. Ignatius to Ephesians (VII) and to Magnesians (VIII), Adversus Haraeses (III) by Irenaeus, De Haraesibus by John of Damascus, The Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. It’s not just for Catholic or Orthodox Christian but for all Christian of any denomination. Haleluyah, Amen.
That statement will become major misunderstanding Christian doctrine, especially when we try to share it with the Muslims. For them, it sounds too pagan. God became man, it means that God being crucified, died, buried etc. Allah (the God) for them is sacral, just likes YHWH (God) for the Jews. It’s too rude for a Muslim and a Jew to say “Allah/YHWH became man”. And because of Christianity have same root with the Jews, so it’s impossible to say “the God (the Father) became man”. We can compare it with Islamic Theology (called ‘Ilm al-Kalam). In ‘Ilm al-Kalam, the God (Allah) can’t be understood in His Ousia (Dzat) but can be understood through His Hypostasis (Shifatullah). Shifatullah are “not God but not different with God”. Logos (Word of God, Kalimatullah) is one of the Shifatullah in Islam. “Power” and “Life” of God (called the Holy Spirit in Christian faith) are also Shifatullah, that ‘qaimah’ (paste or stand) on Dzatullah (Ousia). Sifatullah are “not God but not creation”.
In Islam, “Logos, Power and Life” of God are not to be understood as having a reality of self-identity entity, but in Christian faith both of them are having hypostasis (a reality that underlining identity). Logos is not the Father (God), but Logos is God (because He is immortal and not different with God), “The Word was God” (John 1:1).
The Word (the Son) is different with the Father, it’s explained by the Word himself when He became a man (nuzul, tajjasud): Jesus Christ and by the Bible statement in: John 1:1, 3:2, 3:17, 3:35, 5:24, 17:3, 20:17, 14:28 and many more. The Father (YHWH) that is transcendent, communicate Himself to mankind through His Word (called Memra in Targum). John 1:18, “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” Logos (the Word, the Son) is eternally coexisting with the Father. Origen of Alexandria appoint Christ as Logos, “if the first born of every creature, is the image of the invisible God, the Father is his arche.”
Because of this difficulty, so the Arabic Christian (may God protect them always!) never use term “God became man” (Allah al-Mutajjasad) but use term “Son of God became man” (Ibnullah al-Mutajjasad). So, clearly that Judaism tawhid (Unity), which is defending the God transcendency, in the same time give some space for Memra (Logos) that will be come in His Messiah, is still guarded and defended in the early church, because of it’s Judaic roots. And if we have open mind, we can more clearly understand this topic through reading The Epistle of St. Ignatius to Ephesians (VII) and to Magnesians (VIII), Adversus Haraeses (III) by Irenaeus, De Haraesibus by John of Damascus, The Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. It’s not just for Catholic or Orthodox Christian but for all Christian of any denomination. Haleluyah, Amen.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Mark 1:3 Prepare the way of the Lord
Mark 1:3
”the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare the way of the Lord (κυριου kyriou), make His paths straight." (LITV)
The name YHWH is translated into words kyrios (κυριος) in the LXX (Septuagint) and because of the LXX became a reference point for the writers and the early Christian church, so kyrios words in the books of the New Testament, so many which are intended to declare the name of YHWH. From the example in Mark 1:3 mentioned above, can be compared that Mark was referring to the books of the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 40:3 because the exact same sentence structure. While the Septuagint kyriou is a translation of the name YHWH in the Old Testament texts in Hebrew. From this it will be easy to conclude that the author of the Gospel of Mark since the first paragraph of his book have informed his readers that John the Baptist (because of this verse speaks of John the Baptist) has prepared the way for kyriou (that is YHWH) and in this case is Jesus (which is incarnation of the Word of YHWH himself).
If we want to see again in the text of the Septuagint, in Isaiah 43:10 (LITV) YHWH said, "that you may know (Greek: γνωτε gnote) and believe (πιστευσητε pisteusēte) Me, and understand that I am He (εγω ειμι ego eimi). ", as a form of Self declaration of YHWH to his people and we align with Self declarations of Jesus as follows:" Therefore, I said to you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe (πιστευσητε pisteusēte) that I AM (εγω ειμι ego eimi), you will die in your sins. "(John 8:24, LITV), and" When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know (γνωσεσθε gnōsesthe) that I AM (εγω ειμι ego eimi); "(John 8:28, LITV). We can easily see the parallel of 3 words from YHWH Self declaration with Self declaration of Jesus in the Gospel of John: gnosesthe, pisteusete and ego eimi. John took the same attitude with Mark that Jesus equates HimSelf with YHWH (because He is the incarnation of the Word of YHWH HimSelf).
”the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare the way of the Lord (κυριου kyriou), make His paths straight." (LITV)
The name YHWH is translated into words kyrios (κυριος) in the LXX (Septuagint) and because of the LXX became a reference point for the writers and the early Christian church, so kyrios words in the books of the New Testament, so many which are intended to declare the name of YHWH. From the example in Mark 1:3 mentioned above, can be compared that Mark was referring to the books of the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 40:3 because the exact same sentence structure. While the Septuagint kyriou is a translation of the name YHWH in the Old Testament texts in Hebrew. From this it will be easy to conclude that the author of the Gospel of Mark since the first paragraph of his book have informed his readers that John the Baptist (because of this verse speaks of John the Baptist) has prepared the way for kyriou (that is YHWH) and in this case is Jesus (which is incarnation of the Word of YHWH himself).
If we want to see again in the text of the Septuagint, in Isaiah 43:10 (LITV) YHWH said, "that you may know (Greek: γνωτε gnote) and believe (πιστευσητε pisteusēte) Me, and understand that I am He (εγω ειμι ego eimi). ", as a form of Self declaration of YHWH to his people and we align with Self declarations of Jesus as follows:" Therefore, I said to you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe (πιστευσητε pisteusēte) that I AM (εγω ειμι ego eimi), you will die in your sins. "(John 8:24, LITV), and" When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know (γνωσεσθε gnōsesthe) that I AM (εγω ειμι ego eimi); "(John 8:28, LITV). We can easily see the parallel of 3 words from YHWH Self declaration with Self declaration of Jesus in the Gospel of John: gnosesthe, pisteusete and ego eimi. John took the same attitude with Mark that Jesus equates HimSelf with YHWH (because He is the incarnation of the Word of YHWH HimSelf).
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Word of God or (a) god?
"In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God"
(John 1:1)
The above verse is the Greek reads, εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος (en arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos), invites controversy interpretation. For the Unitarians (in Indonesia call themselves a Christian Tawheed) and stuff, this verse is used to show that Jesus was not God but only a god or divine nature alone. The above verse is explained by Tjahjadi Nugroho, one of the Christian character of Tawheed, as follows:
The word "Word", ho logos, referred to as the name or other name of Jesus Christ (Revelation 19:13). While the basic understanding of the Abrahamic faith of the unity of God, (Deuteronomy 6:4) Yahweh - God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - are one and single. So, tons of theos in John 1:1 above clearly refers to Yahweh, while the second theos without the definite word as an adjective function (properties).
The same thing held by Jehovah's Witnesses who have a teaching that, when preceded by the definite (definite article, dhi 'ho / ton' in Greek) the word was translated without the word 'something or someone' and show the identity or personality, but if not preceded by the article 'ho / ton' will be translated with the addition of 'something or someone' so with the same example is 'theos' without the article 'ho' in John 1:1 should be translated as 'a god'. (Mk 6:49; 11:32; Jn 4:19; 6:70; 8:44,48; 9:17; 10:1,13,33; 12:6; 18:37)
The question raised is whether all nouns are not given a definite word (definite article) always have to be translated with the addition of 'a' or a '?
Another question is whether a given noun definite word 'ho / ton' is always addressed to YHWH?
Answering the first question above by using John 1:1-18 only if we follow the logic of Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Tawheed then at least we find the six words 'theos' the other addressed to YHWH is also not preceded by the word definite (definite article ) that is verse 2, 6, 12, 13 and twice in verse 18.
Verse 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was (a) God.
Verse 2 This Person was with (a) God in the beginning.
Verse 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.
Verse 12, however, how many people who receive it, to them he gave the right to become children of (a) God, because they show faith in his name;
Verses 13 and they were born not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but from (a) God.
Verse 18 No one has ever seen (a) God only begotten god who is the father's chest position, he was explaining about her. (Scripture - the New World Translation / S-NWT)
This is a consequence of the argument of Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Tauhid in paragraph 1, "the Word was (a) God" is Yahweh was also supposed to be just 'a' God because there is no definite word (definite article) that is not personal and a clear identity. Yahweh is (a) God! Moreover, paragraph 18, the word theos monogenes μονογενης θεος by KS-TDB translated "only begotten god" who is not consistent with the argument definite word of their own, also to manipulate the meaning monogenes theos which means the only Son of God becomes "the only god begotten ". Was a consequence of argumentation the definite article Jehovah's Witnesses the word theos monogenes should be interpreted "the only begotten (a) God" theos where there is also addressed to YHWH, but does not use definite words ( 'ho / ton') so that Yahweh nor only (a) God!.
Trinitarians explain the sentence και θεος ην ο λογος (kai theos en ho logos) as the right thinking and cautious in terms of language from John to deny the heresy that emerged later Sabellianisme without saying και ο θεος ην ο λογος kai ho theos en ho logos, because it would mean that all things of God expressed in ho logos and the terms are interchangeable, because each has the article. The idea that Yahweh (the Father) is ho logos (the Son) and ho logos (the Son) is Yahweh (the Father) is a clear case can not be justified. No definite article used in precisely these terms to emphasize that there is only one Divine Being (The Substance) is YHWH, in which dwells in His eternal Word (the Divine Word of God) and His Spirit (the Spirit of God) .
Answering the second question we can see that a given noun definite word 'ho / ton' is not always directed to YHWH as stated in 2 Corinthians 4:4, ο θεος 'ho theos' in paragraph 1 is not addressed to YHWH, but to ο θεος του αιωνος τουτου "the god of this age" "god of this world" or "the god of this world" "the god of this world".
(John 1:1)
The above verse is the Greek reads, εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος (en arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos), invites controversy interpretation. For the Unitarians (in Indonesia call themselves a Christian Tawheed) and stuff, this verse is used to show that Jesus was not God but only a god or divine nature alone. The above verse is explained by Tjahjadi Nugroho, one of the Christian character of Tawheed, as follows:
The word "Word", ho logos, referred to as the name or other name of Jesus Christ (Revelation 19:13). While the basic understanding of the Abrahamic faith of the unity of God, (Deuteronomy 6:4) Yahweh - God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - are one and single. So, tons of theos in John 1:1 above clearly refers to Yahweh, while the second theos without the definite word as an adjective function (properties).
The same thing held by Jehovah's Witnesses who have a teaching that, when preceded by the definite (definite article, dhi 'ho / ton' in Greek) the word was translated without the word 'something or someone' and show the identity or personality, but if not preceded by the article 'ho / ton' will be translated with the addition of 'something or someone' so with the same example is 'theos' without the article 'ho' in John 1:1 should be translated as 'a god'. (Mk 6:49; 11:32; Jn 4:19; 6:70; 8:44,48; 9:17; 10:1,13,33; 12:6; 18:37)
The question raised is whether all nouns are not given a definite word (definite article) always have to be translated with the addition of 'a' or a '?
Another question is whether a given noun definite word 'ho / ton' is always addressed to YHWH?
Answering the first question above by using John 1:1-18 only if we follow the logic of Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Tawheed then at least we find the six words 'theos' the other addressed to YHWH is also not preceded by the word definite (definite article ) that is verse 2, 6, 12, 13 and twice in verse 18.
Verse 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was (a) God.
Verse 2 This Person was with (a) God in the beginning.
Verse 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.
Verse 12, however, how many people who receive it, to them he gave the right to become children of (a) God, because they show faith in his name;
Verses 13 and they were born not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but from (a) God.
Verse 18 No one has ever seen (a) God only begotten god who is the father's chest position, he was explaining about her. (Scripture - the New World Translation / S-NWT)
This is a consequence of the argument of Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Tauhid in paragraph 1, "the Word was (a) God" is Yahweh was also supposed to be just 'a' God because there is no definite word (definite article) that is not personal and a clear identity. Yahweh is (a) God! Moreover, paragraph 18, the word theos monogenes μονογενης θεος by KS-TDB translated "only begotten god" who is not consistent with the argument definite word of their own, also to manipulate the meaning monogenes theos which means the only Son of God becomes "the only god begotten ". Was a consequence of argumentation the definite article Jehovah's Witnesses the word theos monogenes should be interpreted "the only begotten (a) God" theos where there is also addressed to YHWH, but does not use definite words ( 'ho / ton') so that Yahweh nor only (a) God!.
Trinitarians explain the sentence και θεος ην ο λογος (kai theos en ho logos) as the right thinking and cautious in terms of language from John to deny the heresy that emerged later Sabellianisme without saying και ο θεος ην ο λογος kai ho theos en ho logos, because it would mean that all things of God expressed in ho logos and the terms are interchangeable, because each has the article. The idea that Yahweh (the Father) is ho logos (the Son) and ho logos (the Son) is Yahweh (the Father) is a clear case can not be justified. No definite article used in precisely these terms to emphasize that there is only one Divine Being (The Substance) is YHWH, in which dwells in His eternal Word (the Divine Word of God) and His Spirit (the Spirit of God) .
Answering the second question we can see that a given noun definite word 'ho / ton' is not always directed to YHWH as stated in 2 Corinthians 4:4, ο θεος 'ho theos' in paragraph 1 is not addressed to YHWH, but to ο θεος του αιωνος τουτου "the god of this age" "god of this world" or "the god of this world" "the god of this world".
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
8. Is it true that Jesus's teaching came from Hinduisme thinking and Buddhisme?
Yes clear untrue please! That was true was Jesus gave the teaching to us in the context Jewishness because Jesus was born, was educated and big in the Jewish environment. Did not gush out at all for Jesus to teach the East current other apart from Jewish teaching. Jesus only taught one matter that is God's Kingdom. All the matters that were sent by Jesus regarding the theme of God's Kingdom. I thought, both the Hinduisme teaching and Buddhisme were not linked with the theme that was sent Jesus Christ for the length of his work in the Israel-Palestine area. God's kingdom the Jewish version was different far with the Kingdom of gods Hindu; while with Buddhisme, I thought about being not any the big religion the other world that was the same as Buddhisme that did not know the concept of the Lord.
A. Relations with Hinduisme.
A lot of the other group that said that Jesus's teaching (or at least the Christian teaching) had many similarities with the Hinduisme teaching. I did not think too deep about this because although having the similarity but his difference really more often was felt. Apart from that was mentioned beforehand about so different him God's royal conception according to Jesus (or Jewish generally) with the Kingdom of gods Hindu, still many others that could be mentioned like Jesus's teaching (read: Christian) in no way left the tracks of the teaching about the caste like that was met in the Hinduisme teaching. The Christian trinity completely was different from Trimurti Hindu. In Trimurti, Brahman (the Lord of the Lord) had three (3) the main manifestation that is Brahma, Wisnu and Siwa in the function of the Creator, the Protector and the Vandal. In his manifestation, the three main gods could be worshipped separately. In his manifestation, the three main gods could be worshipped separately. The example: a person of Hindu could choose to worship the God Brahma, or the God Wisnu, or the God Siwa without worshipping the other god. Nevertheless, according to the person Hindu that not the form politheisme or the worship of the idol because of these gods was the manifestation of Brahman (the Lord of the Lord, Sang Hyang Widdhi). Likewise his matter with other gods apart from 3 main gods, like the God Surya, Bayu, Indra, Baruna, Ganesha, Dewi Durga, Saraswati et cetera. These gods and goddesses were the shape from the holy rays broadcast (div, from these words emerged the god's words) Brahman (that in the conviction samawi possibly was on a level with the angel or the angel's village chief) and could be worshipped separately that was symbolised by gods and goddesses's statues (pratima).
The Holy trinity was three hypostasis (I more chose to use the term hypostasis than the persona term to avoid confusion of the persona term/personal for God with the persona/personal humankind) that is God the Father, His Word (the Son) and Holy Spirit was something that was real, not only the function or the manifestation completely. Hypostasis-hypostasis could not be worshipped in a manner be separated-separated, because of God is only one, and the 3 hypostasis that was the existence azali from God's Ousia that one. A Christian only worshipped God (that in himself God the One and only this adhered His Word and His Holy Spirit in a lasting manner). This why all of the Christian Church refused to understand Arianisme the version of the Jehovah Witnesses and Christian Unitarian (for me, the Unitarian group far more dangerous because of their leading figures's skill −that in general people philosophic− far exceeded witnesses Yehuwa and also they appeared they as the group humanitarian not sectarian like the Jehovah Witnesses so as to be able to enter all the circles) that placed the Word of God (the Son) as the lower creature and outside God the Father where being during him when the Word of God (the Son) that was not yet available. Afterwards after the Word of God was available, he played a role as the intermediary (demiurgos) for God in the creation incident (creation). If the Christian Church followed the Arianisme concept as this just could be said had the similarity with Trimurti. But the Christian Church stated clearly and clearly his refusal of this Arius teaching went through the Nicea Council. This refusal was not based on thinking personally from the Church's fathers, but only stressed again the holy teaching that was accepted by the apostles from the Lord, afterwards it was continued was accepted by pupils of the apostles continually from the generation to the generation until this.
Charges of the Christian religion of taking the Hindu teaching were unfair (unjust), not only for Christian group but also Hindu group because of having the reaction of the defence from Christian group that in turn the reaction of this Christian group was rather excessive by mentioning the Hindu religion was politheisme or the idolator that definitely this was unjust for Hindu group because they understood the existence of these gods and goddesses not as the form politheisme or the worship of the idol.
Yes clear untrue please! That was true was Jesus gave the teaching to us in the context Jewishness because Jesus was born, was educated and big in the Jewish environment. Did not gush out at all for Jesus to teach the East current other apart from Jewish teaching. Jesus only taught one matter that is God's Kingdom. All the matters that were sent by Jesus regarding the theme of God's Kingdom. I thought, both the Hinduisme teaching and Buddhisme were not linked with the theme that was sent Jesus Christ for the length of his work in the Israel-Palestine area. God's kingdom the Jewish version was different far with the Kingdom of gods Hindu; while with Buddhisme, I thought about being not any the big religion the other world that was the same as Buddhisme that did not know the concept of the Lord.
A. Relations with Hinduisme.
A lot of the other group that said that Jesus's teaching (or at least the Christian teaching) had many similarities with the Hinduisme teaching. I did not think too deep about this because although having the similarity but his difference really more often was felt. Apart from that was mentioned beforehand about so different him God's royal conception according to Jesus (or Jewish generally) with the Kingdom of gods Hindu, still many others that could be mentioned like Jesus's teaching (read: Christian) in no way left the tracks of the teaching about the caste like that was met in the Hinduisme teaching. The Christian trinity completely was different from Trimurti Hindu. In Trimurti, Brahman (the Lord of the Lord) had three (3) the main manifestation that is Brahma, Wisnu and Siwa in the function of the Creator, the Protector and the Vandal. In his manifestation, the three main gods could be worshipped separately. In his manifestation, the three main gods could be worshipped separately. The example: a person of Hindu could choose to worship the God Brahma, or the God Wisnu, or the God Siwa without worshipping the other god. Nevertheless, according to the person Hindu that not the form politheisme or the worship of the idol because of these gods was the manifestation of Brahman (the Lord of the Lord, Sang Hyang Widdhi). Likewise his matter with other gods apart from 3 main gods, like the God Surya, Bayu, Indra, Baruna, Ganesha, Dewi Durga, Saraswati et cetera. These gods and goddesses were the shape from the holy rays broadcast (div, from these words emerged the god's words) Brahman (that in the conviction samawi possibly was on a level with the angel or the angel's village chief) and could be worshipped separately that was symbolised by gods and goddesses's statues (pratima).
The Holy trinity was three hypostasis (I more chose to use the term hypostasis than the persona term to avoid confusion of the persona term/personal for God with the persona/personal humankind) that is God the Father, His Word (the Son) and Holy Spirit was something that was real, not only the function or the manifestation completely. Hypostasis-hypostasis could not be worshipped in a manner be separated-separated, because of God is only one, and the 3 hypostasis that was the existence azali from God's Ousia that one. A Christian only worshipped God (that in himself God the One and only this adhered His Word and His Holy Spirit in a lasting manner). This why all of the Christian Church refused to understand Arianisme the version of the Jehovah Witnesses and Christian Unitarian (for me, the Unitarian group far more dangerous because of their leading figures's skill −that in general people philosophic− far exceeded witnesses Yehuwa and also they appeared they as the group humanitarian not sectarian like the Jehovah Witnesses so as to be able to enter all the circles) that placed the Word of God (the Son) as the lower creature and outside God the Father where being during him when the Word of God (the Son) that was not yet available. Afterwards after the Word of God was available, he played a role as the intermediary (demiurgos) for God in the creation incident (creation). If the Christian Church followed the Arianisme concept as this just could be said had the similarity with Trimurti. But the Christian Church stated clearly and clearly his refusal of this Arius teaching went through the Nicea Council. This refusal was not based on thinking personally from the Church's fathers, but only stressed again the holy teaching that was accepted by the apostles from the Lord, afterwards it was continued was accepted by pupils of the apostles continually from the generation to the generation until this.
Charges of the Christian religion of taking the Hindu teaching were unfair (unjust), not only for Christian group but also Hindu group because of having the reaction of the defence from Christian group that in turn the reaction of this Christian group was rather excessive by mentioning the Hindu religion was politheisme or the idolator that definitely this was unjust for Hindu group because they understood the existence of these gods and goddesses not as the form politheisme or the worship of the idol.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
7. True or not, the Gospel of Barnabas is the gospel that 'original' rather than the four Gospels (the Gospels of the New Testament)?
This question was obviously not true, and contains elements ‘nonsense’! How Canonical Gospels be compared 'just' with 'gospel' of the XVI century (that is, if forced to call it gospel!). OK, fine, we just replied : Christians didn't know about the Gospel of Barnabas tuch, beside that the speaking Italian gospel ‘suddenly’ appeared sixteenth century it is clear not recognized by any Christian, even by those non-Christians are honest and sincere will admit that ‘suddenly gospel’ this is a forgery. One example, in Article 3 of the gospel of Barnabas about the birth of Jesus is said that Jesus was born at the time of Herod, by decree of Caesar Augustus, and Pilate was the governor. Well, ‘the nonsense’looks very clear khan? How can be Pilate was a governor at the time of the birth of Jesus, according to the history books new Pilate served prefect or governor in the region with the assumption that the earliest start of the year 20 AD until 37 AD Lha, the birth of Jesus then what year? And it was Herod the Great died in 4 BC. This is called 'keliru ing pandum' (wrong in what is a part). One more thing, mentioned also that when Jesus was born, Annas and Caiaphas the high priest was so, so when the high priest Annas 6-15 years AD, was Caiaphas who succeeded under Emperor Tiberius and appointed by Valerius Gratus, officials before Pontius Pilate.
Barnabas Gospel writers seem very impatient or even less well understood Bible verses and the Islamic faith itself. In the chapter of this false gospel 220:20 says, “Will come prophet named Muhammad. And this will go on until the coming of Muhammad Rasul Allah that when he arrived to unload his deceit for those who believe in the Law of God.” From the verse is clear that the author of the gospel of Barnabas go beyond the ethical prophecy, where the prophecy is more emphasis on certain characteristics or a certain time and not vulgar in the name. Ibn Ishaq (VIII century AD) is believed to be the first to cite the Gospel of John in the Palestinian Syriac dialect of 'The Other Helper' was interpreted prophecies concerning the presence of Muhammad from a word that does not directly spoken name of Muhammad but Parakletos although the matching with Ahmad / Muhammad is Periklitos not Parakletos). From this verse we can also see other irregularities when the writers 'gospel' of Barnabas states “... Muhammad Messenger of Allah when it comes to dismantling the falsity ini ...”. If it's false gospel was written by the Apostle Barnabas (I or II century AD), why should you wait for the arrival of the Prophet, Arabic (VII century AD), when writers 'gospel' Barnabas had already revealed the falsehood that there are deviations and teachings of Christ are happened at that time. Christians do not have to wait until 6 centuries later because of the Gospel of Barnabas is a very complete to overcome the false teachings of Paul and the disciples of Jesus more.
Barnabas was a man who became a friend of Paul's ministry. He comes from a Jewish family living in Cyprus. Barnabas as well as with Paul, including the new converts so as not included in the number of 12 apostles chosen directly by Jesus Christ. So my personal opinion, rather odd to say that Jesus also was believed that the density of Barnabas 'vent' to Barnabas even to cry lamenting the fate of his teaching that students diverted him. If Jesus was so close to Barnabas, surely He will put the numbers 12 apostles, or even he would make the beloved disciple. But it did not have the facts. Barnabas does not include numbers 12 apostles.
Some claimed that Paul also did not include numbers 12 apostles. Yes, Paul is also not in the first 12 apostles of Jesus, thus he is also the same as Barnabas did not receive direct instruction from Jesus Christ, apart from the 'vision of Damascus'. Instead of a standard is the teaching of Jesus to the 12 apostles of Jesus this option. Anyone who later in life should remain in the 'tracks' teachings received 12 first Apostles of Jesus from the mouth of the Messiah himself, anyone including Paul, Barnabas, Apollos, the evangelists Mark, Luke, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Anthiokia and people who called by the mediation of Jesus teaching the disciples.
If it is true Barnabas writes his own 'gospel', is very unnatural if he writes things that are contrasting or contrary to what was written by disciples of others. Even 2 of the four canonical gospels attributed to Matthew and John's name (which is clearly included 12 directly elected student Jesus) was the very opposite of what is called a 'gospel' Barnabas. Mark also wrote his gospel according to what he receives from the teaching of the Apostle Peter, also contrary to the 'gospel' of Barnabas (although it is clear that the Apostle Peter had been with Jesus Christ since the beginning of the proclamation of His gospel). Of course, for Christians is difficult to accept something so different / contrary to the gospel that has been acknowledged by all Christians as Jesus' teaching the disciples received Jesus and passed on to Christians all ages through the preaching of Jesus disciples.
Kif there is a non-Christian people who receive it as an original 'gospel', yes that's fine. Like the Apostle Paul's message to the church at Corinth, “For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.” (2 Cor 11:4)
This question was obviously not true, and contains elements ‘nonsense’! How Canonical Gospels be compared 'just' with 'gospel' of the XVI century (that is, if forced to call it gospel!). OK, fine, we just replied : Christians didn't know about the Gospel of Barnabas tuch, beside that the speaking Italian gospel ‘suddenly’ appeared sixteenth century it is clear not recognized by any Christian, even by those non-Christians are honest and sincere will admit that ‘suddenly gospel’ this is a forgery. One example, in Article 3 of the gospel of Barnabas about the birth of Jesus is said that Jesus was born at the time of Herod, by decree of Caesar Augustus, and Pilate was the governor. Well, ‘the nonsense’looks very clear khan? How can be Pilate was a governor at the time of the birth of Jesus, according to the history books new Pilate served prefect or governor in the region with the assumption that the earliest start of the year 20 AD until 37 AD Lha, the birth of Jesus then what year? And it was Herod the Great died in 4 BC. This is called 'keliru ing pandum' (wrong in what is a part). One more thing, mentioned also that when Jesus was born, Annas and Caiaphas the high priest was so, so when the high priest Annas 6-15 years AD, was Caiaphas who succeeded under Emperor Tiberius and appointed by Valerius Gratus, officials before Pontius Pilate.
Barnabas Gospel writers seem very impatient or even less well understood Bible verses and the Islamic faith itself. In the chapter of this false gospel 220:20 says, “Will come prophet named Muhammad. And this will go on until the coming of Muhammad Rasul Allah that when he arrived to unload his deceit for those who believe in the Law of God.” From the verse is clear that the author of the gospel of Barnabas go beyond the ethical prophecy, where the prophecy is more emphasis on certain characteristics or a certain time and not vulgar in the name. Ibn Ishaq (VIII century AD) is believed to be the first to cite the Gospel of John in the Palestinian Syriac dialect of 'The Other Helper' was interpreted prophecies concerning the presence of Muhammad from a word that does not directly spoken name of Muhammad but Parakletos although the matching with Ahmad / Muhammad is Periklitos not Parakletos). From this verse we can also see other irregularities when the writers 'gospel' of Barnabas states “... Muhammad Messenger of Allah when it comes to dismantling the falsity ini ...”. If it's false gospel was written by the Apostle Barnabas (I or II century AD), why should you wait for the arrival of the Prophet, Arabic (VII century AD), when writers 'gospel' Barnabas had already revealed the falsehood that there are deviations and teachings of Christ are happened at that time. Christians do not have to wait until 6 centuries later because of the Gospel of Barnabas is a very complete to overcome the false teachings of Paul and the disciples of Jesus more.
Barnabas was a man who became a friend of Paul's ministry. He comes from a Jewish family living in Cyprus. Barnabas as well as with Paul, including the new converts so as not included in the number of 12 apostles chosen directly by Jesus Christ. So my personal opinion, rather odd to say that Jesus also was believed that the density of Barnabas 'vent' to Barnabas even to cry lamenting the fate of his teaching that students diverted him. If Jesus was so close to Barnabas, surely He will put the numbers 12 apostles, or even he would make the beloved disciple. But it did not have the facts. Barnabas does not include numbers 12 apostles.
Some claimed that Paul also did not include numbers 12 apostles. Yes, Paul is also not in the first 12 apostles of Jesus, thus he is also the same as Barnabas did not receive direct instruction from Jesus Christ, apart from the 'vision of Damascus'. Instead of a standard is the teaching of Jesus to the 12 apostles of Jesus this option. Anyone who later in life should remain in the 'tracks' teachings received 12 first Apostles of Jesus from the mouth of the Messiah himself, anyone including Paul, Barnabas, Apollos, the evangelists Mark, Luke, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Anthiokia and people who called by the mediation of Jesus teaching the disciples.
If it is true Barnabas writes his own 'gospel', is very unnatural if he writes things that are contrasting or contrary to what was written by disciples of others. Even 2 of the four canonical gospels attributed to Matthew and John's name (which is clearly included 12 directly elected student Jesus) was the very opposite of what is called a 'gospel' Barnabas. Mark also wrote his gospel according to what he receives from the teaching of the Apostle Peter, also contrary to the 'gospel' of Barnabas (although it is clear that the Apostle Peter had been with Jesus Christ since the beginning of the proclamation of His gospel). Of course, for Christians is difficult to accept something so different / contrary to the gospel that has been acknowledged by all Christians as Jesus' teaching the disciples received Jesus and passed on to Christians all ages through the preaching of Jesus disciples.
Kif there is a non-Christian people who receive it as an original 'gospel', yes that's fine. Like the Apostle Paul's message to the church at Corinth, “For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.” (2 Cor 11:4)
6.Apa benar ada dosa asal dan dosa warisan, padahal dalam Yehezkiel 18:2,20 dikatakan ‘anak tidak akan turut menanggung dosa ayahnya, dan ayah tidak akan turut menanggung dosa anaknya’?
Kalau pertanyaan di atas, penulis ga’ mau mengatasnamakan orang Kristen semua, tetapi hanya mau menjawab menurut pendapat pribadi saja. Jawab saya: Yang benar adalah manusia mengalami ‘suatu akibat’ dari dosa yang dilakukan oleh leluhur umat manusia. Dosa itu tidak mewaris tetapi dampaknya dapat kita lihat dan rasakan. Kalau dalam ilmu kriminologi, kita semua ini mempunyai ‘bakat jahat’ sejak kita dilahirkan di dunia. Contoh kecil, dari kecil saja kita sudah mempunyai sifat ingin memiliki milik orang lain; anak-anak kecil sering kali berebut mainan, makanan dan sebagainya. Kemudian, agak besar sedikit ada kecenderungan dalam diri kita untuk berbohong. Nah, contoh-contoh sederhana inilah yang membuktikan bahwa kita ‘diperanakkan dalam kesalahan, dikandung ibu dalam dosa’ (Mazmur 51:7).
Kejatuhan leluhur manusia, Adam dan Hawa, di dalam dosa mengakibatkan semua keturunan manusia mempunyai kecenderungan berperilaku moral yang buruk dan tidak sesuai dengan Gambar dan Rupa Allah seperti pada masa awal penciptaan manusia (Kej 1:26-27). Kita tidak akan mengajarkan anak-anak kita melakukan hal-hal yang berlawanan dengan moral, namun tetap saja ada kecenderungan anak-anak kita melakukan perbuatan yang berlawanan dengan moralitas umum manusia. Diciptakan menurut Gambar dan Rupa Allah berarti manusia diberkati sekaligus sebagai refleksi ilahi dan hakikat kodrat-ilahi dalam kepanunggalan-Nya dengan Kristus, Anak Allah. Gambar Allah yang berarti menyatakan sifat-sifat Allah seperti kasih, adil, jujur, tidak sombong dsb dan melalui perilaku yang menyatakan sifat-sifat Allah inilah manusia mencapai hakikat-kodrat ilahi (Rupa Allah).
Kedatangan Firman Allah ke dunia dalam diri manusia Yesus bertujuan untuk menyatukan kembali hubungan Allah-manusia yang telah rusak. Karena jatuh di dalam dosa manusia tidak dapat bersatu dengan Allah Yang Maha Suci, Gambar dan Rupa Allah menjadi rusak sejak kejatuhan manusia ke dalam dosa. Sang Firman telah nuzul dalam diri manusia Yesus, benar-benar menjadi ‘daging’ (sarx) tidak lagi hanya menampakkan diri (Theopany) melainkan inkarnasi (Incarnatio) sehingga dengan mengenakan tubuh kemanusiaan inilah Firman Allah dalam kodrat ilahi-Nya memanunggalkan kembali antara manusia dengan kodrat asalinya yaitu Gambar dan Rupa Allah, kemudian melalui peristiwa penyaliban di Bukit Golgota maka derajat manusia yang telah jatuh akibat dosa sehingga kita tidak lagi mempunyai Gambar dan Rupa Allah yang utuh dalam diri kita, dapat terangkat kembali sehingga dapat bersatu kembali bersama Allah karena kodrat kemanusiaan kita adalah untuk menjadi “sama seperti Dia” (1 Yoh 3:2), yaitu “ambil bagian dalam kodrat ilahi” (2 Ptr 1:4) sehingga disebut “anak-anak Allah”.
Kalau pertanyaan di atas, penulis ga’ mau mengatasnamakan orang Kristen semua, tetapi hanya mau menjawab menurut pendapat pribadi saja. Jawab saya: Yang benar adalah manusia mengalami ‘suatu akibat’ dari dosa yang dilakukan oleh leluhur umat manusia. Dosa itu tidak mewaris tetapi dampaknya dapat kita lihat dan rasakan. Kalau dalam ilmu kriminologi, kita semua ini mempunyai ‘bakat jahat’ sejak kita dilahirkan di dunia. Contoh kecil, dari kecil saja kita sudah mempunyai sifat ingin memiliki milik orang lain; anak-anak kecil sering kali berebut mainan, makanan dan sebagainya. Kemudian, agak besar sedikit ada kecenderungan dalam diri kita untuk berbohong. Nah, contoh-contoh sederhana inilah yang membuktikan bahwa kita ‘diperanakkan dalam kesalahan, dikandung ibu dalam dosa’ (Mazmur 51:7).
Kejatuhan leluhur manusia, Adam dan Hawa, di dalam dosa mengakibatkan semua keturunan manusia mempunyai kecenderungan berperilaku moral yang buruk dan tidak sesuai dengan Gambar dan Rupa Allah seperti pada masa awal penciptaan manusia (Kej 1:26-27). Kita tidak akan mengajarkan anak-anak kita melakukan hal-hal yang berlawanan dengan moral, namun tetap saja ada kecenderungan anak-anak kita melakukan perbuatan yang berlawanan dengan moralitas umum manusia. Diciptakan menurut Gambar dan Rupa Allah berarti manusia diberkati sekaligus sebagai refleksi ilahi dan hakikat kodrat-ilahi dalam kepanunggalan-Nya dengan Kristus, Anak Allah. Gambar Allah yang berarti menyatakan sifat-sifat Allah seperti kasih, adil, jujur, tidak sombong dsb dan melalui perilaku yang menyatakan sifat-sifat Allah inilah manusia mencapai hakikat-kodrat ilahi (Rupa Allah).
Kedatangan Firman Allah ke dunia dalam diri manusia Yesus bertujuan untuk menyatukan kembali hubungan Allah-manusia yang telah rusak. Karena jatuh di dalam dosa manusia tidak dapat bersatu dengan Allah Yang Maha Suci, Gambar dan Rupa Allah menjadi rusak sejak kejatuhan manusia ke dalam dosa. Sang Firman telah nuzul dalam diri manusia Yesus, benar-benar menjadi ‘daging’ (sarx) tidak lagi hanya menampakkan diri (Theopany) melainkan inkarnasi (Incarnatio) sehingga dengan mengenakan tubuh kemanusiaan inilah Firman Allah dalam kodrat ilahi-Nya memanunggalkan kembali antara manusia dengan kodrat asalinya yaitu Gambar dan Rupa Allah, kemudian melalui peristiwa penyaliban di Bukit Golgota maka derajat manusia yang telah jatuh akibat dosa sehingga kita tidak lagi mempunyai Gambar dan Rupa Allah yang utuh dalam diri kita, dapat terangkat kembali sehingga dapat bersatu kembali bersama Allah karena kodrat kemanusiaan kita adalah untuk menjadi “sama seperti Dia” (1 Yoh 3:2), yaitu “ambil bagian dalam kodrat ilahi” (2 Ptr 1:4) sehingga disebut “anak-anak Allah”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)