What Really Happened At The Council Of Nicea

[Red Sky at Morning]

It’s not uncommon for various Christian lecturers and apologists to be faced with the accusation that the canon of Scripture was not derived until the Council of Nicaea. It is believed by many, largely influenced by popular films, that at this council Jesus was given divine status over human status and what we now call the New Testament was derived by purposefully removing any texts that revealed Jesus to be merely mortal.

Dan Brown’s elderly character Lee Teabing from the best-selling Da Vinci Code famously states, “Jesus’ establishment as the ‘Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on at the Council of Nicaea. . . . A relatively close vote at that (233).” While it must be remembered that this is a work of fiction, written for popular appeal, the persistence of this accusation, in light of our series on canonical authorship, deserves a response.

Before examining the historical account of what happened at Nicaea, a few practical considerations should be observed regarding this claim. First, if these allegations were true, it would require a nearly impossible feat of subterfuge. Given that the writings of the Christian Church had existed, been copied, and widely distributed for more than 2 centuries prior to this point, to remove any texts that might have proven the mortality of Jesus over His divinity would necessitate the confiscation and destruction of every document, and copy, spread across the entire empire.

This would have to be done completely and successfully, for if even one document remained, it could be re-circulated and re-copied. There is not a shred of evidence that this happened.

Second, to prove the claim that the canon of the New Testament derived from this council, it would need to be demonstrated that multiple “Christian” texts that spoke of Jesus only as human were in circulation prior to this period that held the same level of authority and recognition as those that exist today.

Given the extremely high level of implausibility for the first consideration, and the lack of extant evidence for the second, any careful observer should take pause when this accusation is presented.

It's worth reading the full article on this one...

http://reasonsforjesus.com/what-really-happened-at-the-council-of-nicea/

 

[rainerann]

I’m actually reading the first apology of Justin martyr who was a gentile believer in the second century.

His whole apology is a confirmation of what the New Testament says according to his study of what we know as the Old Testament.

He makes frequent references to how Christ confirmed what scripture says about the cross. In particular, he mentions how awareness of what we know as the Old Testament permiated the world before Christ.

He says that Plato was even influenced by the account of Moses.

“ And the physiological discussion1889concerning the Son of God in the Timæus of Plato, where he says, “He placed him crosswise1890 in the universe,” he borrowed in like manner from Moses; for in the writings of Moses it is related how at that time, when the Israelites went out of Egypt and were in the wilderness, they fell in with poisonous beasts, both vipers and asps, and every kind of serpent, which slew the people; and that Moses, by the inspiration and influence of God, took brass, and made it into the figure of a cross, and set it in the holy tabernacle, and said to the people, “If ye look to this figure, and believe, ye shall be saved thereby.”1891 And when this was done, it is recorded that the serpents died, and it is handed down that the people thus escaped death. Which things Plato reading, and not accurately understanding, and not apprehending that it was the figure of the cross, but taking it to be a placing crosswise, he said that the power next to the first God was placed crosswise in the universe. And as to his speaking of a third, he did this because he read, as we said above, that which was spoken by Moses, “that the Spirit of God moved over the waters.” For he gives the second place to the Logos which is with God, who he said was placed crosswise in the universe; and the third place to the Spirit who was said to be borne upon the water, saying, “And the third around the third.”1892And hear how the Spirit of prophecy signified through Moses that there should be a conflagration“https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lx.html

So for the early church following the apostles, understanding Christ came from confirming what they said with scripture.

Justin martyrs analysis also includes verifying that the scriptures he used to confirmed the writings of the apostles predated the life of Christ and had not been altered.

This was interesting because we don’t always here the writers of the ancient world credit the Hebrew writings for their influence. However, it would logically make sense considering the writings of Moses predate Plato significantly and Plato was clearly lifelong learner or sponge of information.

Either way, the writings of Justin martyr clarify the way we understand Christ as part of the trinity that I would be known as following the Council of Nicea according to the writings of Moses, not entirely the apostles even. So it is impossible that the way we understand Christ was established at the Council of Nicea. The only thing that may be credited with this council is the term trinity which would not have existed with the same clarity of definition.

 

[Kung Fu]

What happened at the Council of Nicea is fairly simple to understand. There was a group of people that believed Jesus was created (Arius or whatever his name was) while the other group believed he always existed. Thanks to Roman pagan support and their clear affinity for turning men into gods the group that thought Jesus always existed won. And to make sense of it (the best they could) they decided to create the "Trinity" and if anyone would go against this they were heretics who were put to death.

 

[rainerann]

I am not meaning to contradict you, but I wonder if you have yet gotten to Chapter 71?

No because you aren’t quoting from the first apology of Justin martyr. This is from a different writing called the dialogue of Trypho by Justin martyr.

I scanned a little bit and can’t quite see how you feel concerned about contradicting me. It seems to say that there are allusions to what was written in the account of Moses throughout the gentile world. Maybe if you could quote the part that you are referring to directly I would appreciate it.

 

[Kung Fu]

Well it would seem what he said was that some passages were omitted, not that the scripture was unreliable.

In other words it was altered. You really got to get your posts straightened out

 

[rainerann]

Well it would seem what he said was that some passages were omitted, not that the scripture was unreliable.

"Justin: But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' and say it ought to be read, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof."

So what it would seem to be saying is that they have withheld some scriptures. However, this doesn't mean that he is saying that the scripture that is available is not valid or was changed or inaccurate.

Then, he says that people say that the text which reads "a virgin shall conceive" means something other than what it means directly if you read the text, which means that the text is saying something and has not been changed even if people disagree with this because they want to reject the gospel.

This is something I agree with and I have said this before myself on the forum, but it was a long time ago now.
There was a really good definition of orthodoxy in a book I am reading called "the earliest Christologies: Five Images of Christ in a post-apostolic age"

"Therefore part of the definition of 'orthodoxy' is the refusal to ignore or explain away certain texts in favor of others. Orthodoxy is the acceptance of all of the prophetic and apostolic writings and asking, not which ones are true, but how they can be true together."
So it is the cohesion of scripture that Justin Martyr makes a case for in addressing passages about Moses because we are able to integrate them with the writings of the apostles.

However, he is not making a case that the scripture is inaccurate because of this. He is saying that verses were omitted.
This is true. There were verses that were omitted because the Jews were trying to stay in control the narrative and try to keep what was not able to be saved while in exile. They would omit verses that would still be included in the synagogue and within their own discussions because this is what set them apart.

It was a way of protecting their identity you could say, but this doesn't mean that the scriptures are falsified. The scriptures weren't changed. They are very difficult to change without getting caught. You can easily omit a verse. You can't so easily change a verse. This is evidenced by the presence of the Talmud. The Talmud provides the opportunity to change scripture that scripture does not provide.
So basically the Jews were trying to retain their status and did keep the whole thing intact because it is these writings that give them their identity even if some were omitted to keep them away from the Gentiles. In some ways, it was a superstitious attachment to them that provoked this that would lead to the study of Kaballah or trying to find a way to squeeze the magic out of scripture. It is as though keeping these verses for themselves would save them, set them apart, or give them some sort of magical abilities like Moses or Elijah in scripture that would protect them in foreign places.

If they gave these verses to the Gentiles, then the Gentiles could in theory be like Moses. I do feel some things were omitted, which is also the reason that I feel that the Catholic church was corrupted in order to control the distribution of scripture within the church. One very significant evidence of this oppression is the absence of healing and miracles like we read about in scripture. I am a firm believer that this was caused by the omission of verses and that this was intentionally done by descendents of Pharisees. It is one of the reasons I am so passionate about the vault in the Catholic church that contains all sorts of writings that are "classified" for lack of a better word. I firmly believe that some of these omissions are kept within this vault.

Daciple posted about cryptoJews within the Catholic church a while ago that was a good article on the subject. http://watch.pairsite.com/mystery-babylon.html

In the writings of Josephus, there is evidence of this same madness and desperate attempts to preserve the Pharisees and the Jewish monarchy. It is that that drive that would lead to trying to control church writings through the Catholic church. However, they did this by translating the Bible in Latin and reading the Bible to the people in a different language. Not by changing the scriptures. They are very hard to actually change and in regard to the Old Testament, this is not in the best interest of the Jews to do this. It doesn't benefit them to have people claim that their scriptures are false, which is why some have commented that the Old Testament is better preserved than the new. It is because these writings are like gold to the Jewish culture. You cannot tamper with them in a way that would bring persecutions. Changing scripture invites persecution. This is not something a people who are so concerned with self preservation would do.

However, at the end of the day the main point Justin Martyr is making is that we can integrate these writings with the writings of the apostles, which is how they are validated according to orthodoxy.

What the Jews do is more or less hoarding. Jesus references this in Luke 11:52 "Woe to you experts in the law! For you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."

 

[rainerann]

Sorry. As I read him, he certainly is claiming that scripture (the Septuagint) was changed, insofar as they, Jews of the era, "have taken away some passages," and specifically, in his opinion, some of those OT scriptures which directly, or clearly, pointed to and indicated Jesus.

With that said, I agree that Justin did not claim that the scriptures, in the main, were altogether invalidated in consequence. In fact, as I recall, elsewhere he goes on to point out how Jesus, as the incarnate Logos, is a fulfillment of OT prophecies. That is the primary point of his remarkably civil dialog with Trypho: he is trying to convince Trypho to become a Christian by use of the -Trypho's that is- scriptures, which are the Old Testament. He does that despite his claim, or contention, that the Septuagint has been, well, at least in part redacted.

Anyway, I wasn't meaning to detract from your overall point. I just thought it perhaps worthwhile to note that Justin did claim that Jews had tampered with the scriptures. He provides some examples, in fact, but, gentleman that he is, doesn't harangue or harp on the subject, and lets it slide. I will do the same.

I would not consider “change” or “alter” to be synonymous with “have taken away.”

If you have a shelf with five bottles and I have taken away one of them, you have four bottles.

That is what the language he uses suggests although it is more common to consider the scriptures were corrupted so it doesnt surprise me that this is the way you are reading this. I don’t often hear people realizing that omitting scripture is more than likely what the Jews would do to try to protect their identity.

However, “have taken away” is synonymous with remove or omit, not change or alter. This creates a sort of spiritual oppression. It doesn’t mean that the scriptures are corrupted to say something they didn’t say before or that they should say something else, which is sort of what it sounds like you are suggesting.

It would be an attempt to oppress the people and prevent them from realizing that Jesus is the son of god that he is suggesting. In theory, these verses would make it easier to realize that Jesus is the son of god and that there absence increases its difficulty. It isn’t suggesting that that the Bible was changed in such a way that the church falsely believes in the trinity like the church is accused of.

In theory, everything we do should be even easier and more abundant if this were not done to try to oppress this potential. It is like the parable of the man with the talents and the wicked servant is rebuked for hiding the talent in the ground. This is what happened. Some remain hidden. Howver, they are not changed.

Still the point is that the reliability of scripture is based on a researched approach and not the opinion or command of man to consider something holy for no reason other than taking someone’s word for it. That is a case Justin Martyr appears to make.

They are very interesting writings. He has a very fresh perspective when it comes to this subject and it is nice to be able to remove myself from the present by listening to him.

 

[Serveto]

However, “have taken away” is synonymous with remove or omit, not change or alter. This creates a sort of spiritual oppression. It doesn’t mean that the scriptures are corrupted to say something they didn’t say before or that they should say something else, which is sort of what it sounds like you are suggesting.

Justin Martyr claimed that Jews had redacted the Septuagint, which is what I just said (above). It is not my suggestion, it is his claim, and he clearly says it in Chapter 71 and subsequently of his Dialog with Trypho. Furthermore, he thought the matter a grave one, though he was able to work around it by using the scriptures they still had in hand.

"Trypho: Whether [or not] the [Jewish] rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible.

Justin: Assuredly, it does seem incredible. For it is more horrible than the calf which they made, when satisfied with manna on the earth; or than the sacrifice of children to demons; or than the slaying of the prophets. But you appear to me not to have heard the Scriptures which I said they had stolen away. For such as have been quoted are more than enough to prove the points in dispute, besides those which are retained by us, and shall yet be brought forward."

It would be an attempt to oppress the people and prevent them from realizing that Jesus is the son of god that he is suggesting. In theory, these verses would make it easier to realize that Jesus is the son of god and that there absence increases its difficulty. It isn’t suggesting that that the Bible was changed in such a way that the church falsely believes in the trinity like the church is accused of.

Agreed. But, to be clear, I was making no such accusation, I was only reporting on Justin Martyr and his claims to Trypho.

In theory, everything we do should be even easier and more abundant if this were not done to try to oppress this potential. It is like the parable of the man with the talents and the wicked servant is rebuked for hiding the talent in the ground. This is what happened. Some remain hidden. Howver, they are not changed.

Were the scriptures redacted? I think it's impossible to say. Evidently, Justin Martyr had copies of a version of the Septuagint which contained what he considered to be clearer, more direct references to Jesus, and he quoted from it.

They are very interesting writings. He has a very fresh perspective when it comes to this subject and it is nice to be able to remove myself from the present by listening to him.

Yes, I agree. As I said, I am an occasional reader not only of Justin Martyr but also of Origen, especially Origen's dialog with Celsus, which is another early Christian-Jewish document which predates the Nicene Council.

 

[Daciple]

Evidently, Justin Martyr had copies of a version of the Septuagint which contained what he considered to be clearer, more direct references to Jesus, and he quoted from it.

I havent read all of these writings, I am curious if he quoted from it, it is from parts of the Old Testament we dont have access to today, or parts that Trypho didnt have access to?

What I have seen of those in Judaism is that they withhold certain Scriptures from their congregation that clearly point to Christ, the most notable being Isaiah 53. Here is what I am talking about, in this video a man goes to Israel and walks up to multiple Jews and reads them Isaiah 53 and none of them have ever heard of it. When asked whom this seems to resemble of course they say Jesus:

So I wonder if it more of this type of thing, vs actually changing Scripture, so I appeal to those who have read from Justin more than I, what parts of the Bible did he quote from that we dont have access to today, or was it that just the Jews werent shown it because it clearly describes Jesus?

 

[Kung Fu]

What I have seen of those in Judaism is that they withhold certain Scriptures from their congregation that clearly point to Christ, the most notable being Isaiah 53. Here is what I am talking about, in this video a man goes to Israel and walks up to multiple Jews and reads them Isaiah 53 and none of them have ever heard of it. When asked whom this seems to resemble of course they say Jesus:

Don't worry Daciple they also do the same with verses in the OT that clearly depict Muhammad(pbuh).

 

[rainerann]

Justin Martyr claimed that Jews had redacted the Septuagint, which is what I just said (above). It is not my suggestion, it is his claim, and he clearly says it in Chapter 71 and subsequently of his Dialog with Trypho. Furthermore, he thought the matter a grave one, though he was able to work around it by using the scriptures they still had in hand.

"Trypho: Whether [or not] the [Jewish] rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible.

Justin: Assuredly, it does seem incredible. For it is more horrible than the calf which they made, when satisfied with manna on the earth; or than the sacrifice of children to demons; or than the slaying of the prophets. But you appear to me not to have heard the Scriptures which I said they had stolen away. For such as have been quoted are more than enough to prove the points in dispute, besides those which are retained by us, and shall yet be brought forward."

Agreed. But, to be clear, I was making no such accusation, I was only reporting on Justin Martyr and his claims to Trypho.

Were the scriptures redacted? I think it's impossible to say. Evidently, Justin Martyr had copies of a version of the Septuagint which contained what he considered to be clearer, more direct references to Jesus, and he quoted from it.

Yes, I agree. As I said, I am an occasional reader not only of Justin Martyr but also of Origen, especially Origen's dialog with Celsus, which is another early Christian-Jewish document which predates the Nicene Council.

Just clarifying whether or not we are on the same page. So basically, it would seem that you are referring to a removal as a change, and I am referring to as creating a more oppressive state rather than a change that would imply that it once said something different than it does. Essentially, we are on the same page which is what I was wondering because of how this understanding would relate to what I originally posted about Moses and Plato. So you wouldn't consider this removal to have an effect on the parallel he is trying to present here because by removing the scriptures, we still know that the scriptures available to Plato would have been in the same form that we are familiar with, even if we are oppressed by the absence of scripture that would edify our understanding of Christ?

I have no conflict with the suggestion that verses were removed. This phenomenon is what I would consider the first seal in the book of Revelation or the rider on the white horse (Revelation 6). This rider is the mystery of lawlessness that will culminate with the revealing of the lawless one, which we can assume is the described in Revelation 13 as the beast (2Thessalonians 2:7-8).

And the mystery of lawlessness would have its foundation in what Justin Martyr is describing so overall I am very excited that you shared this writing of Justin Martyr that says this because it supports my investigations of prophecy.

I am even reading through 1 Chronicles right now and have noticed references to other writings of the prophets that I hadn't noticed before. "Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the chronicles of Samuel the seer, in the chronicles of Nathan the prophet and in the chronicles of Gad the seer," (1 Chronicles 29:29).

I think it is pretty safe to say that scripture could be longer and it could very well benefit us to have access to some of these writings. I do think this creates a state of oppression that would appear to be the will of God according to prophecy. This is essentially so the mystery of lawlessness can be revealed in the time of judgment and it truly gives me a sense of validation to see a 2nd-century writer in the church recognizing this same thing.

 

[rainerann]

Good question @Daciple , and I have seen that vid as well.

Let this (Chapter 73) serve as a possible example:



When I check my KJV, I find "Say ["Tell"] among the heathen ["nations"] that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established ..."

I am clearly not referencing the Septuagint, in this case, but it seems to me that Justin is, when he claims that it originally said "The Lord has reigned from the wood." The phrase, "from the wood," it seems to me, he found in his then extant Septuagint. If need be, other examples could be cited from his dialog.

This also doesn't surprise me. I have a theory Jews trying to control the Catholic church was in order that they could try to establish Christianity as a religion of the Gentiles, not of the Jews.

Like a really early version of the accusation of replacement theology, which is basically Zionist propaganda to guilt the church into supporting the creation of Israel rather than try to support the conversion of the Jewish people and their acceptance of the Messiah.

In talking with many Messianic members, which is still a growing movement despite this, they all talk as though there was never a period of Jewish conversion in the church. In fact, there was, but for one reason or the other, this phenomenon stopped or died out so that from a European perspective, there are very clearly drawn lines between the Jews and the growing church.

As a result, it would make sense that something like this would have been the cause of the marked decline in Jewish conversion throughout the history of the church. The Jewish leaders after the temple was destroyed needed a way to control the Jewish community and keep them from converting.

 

[rainerann]

Don't worry Daciple they also do the same with verses in the OT that clearly depict Muhammad(pbuh).

When the Old Testament clearly portrays Muhammad, it is the same as saying that they portray Christ because the prophet Muhammad is a corruption of the teachings of the Messiah. The Messiah is the final messenger, so you would be right because Muhammad in the Quran is actually Jesus and the prophet Muhammad never actually existed. Muhammad in Islam is a caricature created to create an Arab empire that would invade and conquer many places.

This can be seen from the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock that would appear to be early Christian inscriptions that were plundered by the Arabs.

"But there is a grammatical difficulty with the traditional explanation of the first inscription above. Muhammad, remember, means 'praised one' in Arabic-and, accordingly, could be a title as well as a proper name. Al-muhammad would be precisely the 'praised one,' but the world muhammad here with the definite article al- could be a gereundive meaning 'praising' or 'being praised,' and hence also 'the one who is being praised.' Christoper Luxenberg a philologist explains that in the context of the Dome of the Rock inscription, the phrase commonly translated as 'Muhammad is the servant of God and His messenger' is more correctly understood as reading, 'praised be the servant of God and His messenger." (Did Muhammad Exist)

It is likely that everywhere Muhammad is used, it should be translated as the 'praised one' which would describe Jesus and while we are on the subject of omitting writings. This would further demonstrate the possibility that the Quran is one of these early writings that was omitted and corrupted considering how the Quran sparsely mentions Muhammad and when it does, it should probably be translated into English and not used in the form of a name.

In reality, Muhammad is a title that the early church would have more than likely used to describe Jesus. So yes the Bible does point to Muhammad.

 

[Kung Fu]

When the Old Testament clearly portrays Muhammad, it is the same as saying that they portray Christ because the prophet Muhammad is a corruption of the teachings of the Messiah. The Messiah is the final messenger, so you would be right because Muhammad in the Quran is actually Jesus and the prophet Muhammad never actually existed. Muhammad in Islam is a caricature created to create an Arab empire that would invade and conquer many places.

You would have to be a moron to think that all the verses in the OT only point to Christ when it points to two very different people one of them being Jesus. The last time I checked Jesus was never in Medina, nor was he a warrior, nor was he a descendant of the people of Kedar.

Look another one of your crazy nonsensical ideas in that Muhammad(pbuh) didn't exist. You sound as illogical and intellectually inept as those atheists that claim Jesus never existed lol. I guess all the historians and scholars got it wrong then and you have it right.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

When the Old Testament clearly portrays Muhammad, it is the same as saying that they portray Christ because the prophet Muhammad is a corruption of the teachings of the Messiah. The Messiah is the final messenger, so you would be right because Muhammad in the Quran is actually Jesus and the prophet Muhammad never actually existed. Muhammad in Islam is a caricature created to create an Arab empire that would invade and conquer many places.

This can be seen from the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock that would appear to be early Christian inscriptions that were plundered by the Arabs.

"But there is a grammatical difficulty with the traditional explanation of the first inscription above. Muhammad, remember, means 'praised one' in Arabic-and, accordingly, could be a title as well as a proper name. Al-muhammad would be precisely the 'praised one,' but the world muhammad here with the definite article al- could be a gereundive meaning 'praising' or 'being praised,' and hence also 'the one who is being praised.' Christoper Luxenberg a philologist explains that in the context of the Dome of the Rock inscription, the phrase commonly translated as 'Muhammad is the servant of God and His messenger' is more correctly understood as reading, 'praised be the servant of God and His messenger." (Did Muhammad Exist)

It is likely that everywhere Muhammad is used, it should be translated as the 'praised one' which would describe Jesus and while we are on the subject of omitting writings. This would further demonstrate the possibility that the Quran is one of these early writings that was omitted and corrupted considering how the Quran sparsely mentions Muhammad and when it does, it should probably be translated into English and not used in the form of a name.

In reality, Muhammad is a title that the early church would have more than likely used to describe Jesus. So yes the Bible does point to Muhammad.

I don't think the Jews as a whole will understand the Gospel till the "fullness of the Gentiles" has come in.

Neither they nor my friend @Kung Fu will understand the true prophetic future meaning of Isaiah 42, verse 10 onwards...

 

[Kung Fu]

I don't think the Jews as a whole will understand the Gospel till the "fullness of the Gentiles" has come in.

Neither they nor my friend @Kung Fu will understand the true prophetic future meaning of Isaiah 42, verse 10 onwards...

Isaiah 42, verse 10 and onward is pretty clear in which prophet they're talking about and it's not Jesus because he was never Medina, nor a warrior, and is definitely not a descendant of the people of Kedar, and nor does he make them rejoice.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Isaiah 42, verse 10 and onward is pretty clear in which prophet they're talking about and it's not Jesus because he was never Medina, nor a warrior, and is definitely not a descendant of the people of Kedar, and nor does he make them rejoice.

It all depends on how you look at it.

If you expect the return of Jesus to follow the prophetic pattern of the Bible, the latter part of Isaiah 42 appears to set out a picture of Jews and Muslims (Kedar) coming to realise He is the Messiah as He returns as a warrior.

E.g. Revelation 19:11

"11And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

I know that the things you hold to be true would hide this interpretation from you at present ;-)

 

[Kung Fu]

It all depends on how you look at it. If you expect the return of Jesus to follow the prophetic pattern of the Bible, the latter part of Isaiah 42 appears to set out a picture of Jews and Muslims coming to realise He is the Messiah. I know that the things you hold to be true would hide this interpretation from you at present ;-)

There's absolutely no way you can twist around it. It's clear for everyone who have eyes to see and a mind to read.

-Muhammad(pbuh) is the New Song.
-He's a descendant of the people of Kedar and made them rejoice and lift up their voice.
-Sela is a mountain in Medina where when the prophet entered the city the inhabitants literally sang a song of joy (they literally sang on his arrival).
-He was a warrior and him and his people led battle shouts praising the Most High.
-He literally drove out the idol worshipers and they turned in shame and ran (they literally carved out images of their false gods and worshiped them).

Isaiah 42, verse 10 and onward describes Muhammad(pbuh) to a T. Of course, out of pride and how it completely shatters your beliefs you won't admit it and it's okay. When Jesus was alive he did none of what is described according to Isaiah 42 and verse 10 onward. You're waiting for him to come and maybe do these things when the there's already a man in history who has already done it and described exactly the way Isaiah 42 describes it.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@Kung Fu

I can see why that interpretation is appealing to a Muslim. This, like many other passages contain many aspects of the prophetic imagery found elsewhere around the future return of Jesus. You will excuse me for finding the Biblical pattern of future prophecy a more convincing fit that the reading that places Muhammad as the shorter term fulfillment...

 

[rainerann]

Muhammad is the new song? Wow that has to be the funniest thing I have ever heard in my life.

You mean that man that doesn’t exist in the Quran or elsewhere until the creation of the Hadith and then the biography of him.

You mean the same guy that there was a Hadith battle over that has produced countless different versions of him describing him engaged in grave sins of varying degrees.

You mean the same guy that isn’t mentioned in the Quran so that a Hadith is required because of this in order to have any idea about anything about him that clearly presents such a legitimate possibility that the Quran is not written by Muhammad at all. It is about Jesus and the new song referred to by Isaiah is a way of describing how the Holy Spirit will lead the people out of bondage or by a way they have not know. This is cross referenced with scripture that refers to Christians as a peculiar people. Isaiah 42 describes a peculiar people that will be led by the lord.

There is no way that the man known as Muhammad who the writers of the Hadith fought over in order to further their own political interests is who is referenced in Isaiah 42.

The creation of Islam was to set out to conquer land. Falsified Hadith claiming different things about a ficitional Muhammad supported this. This is the reality of what Islam is, a political ideology that seeks to conquer and overthrow different areas by implementing harsh spiritual expectations that prevent assimilation within different cultures in the hope that these cultures can be conquered in order to expand the Arab empire.

At its core, there is good within Islam because it is actually based on the teachings of the final messenger who was Jesus. Period.

Islam is not a religion like Buddhism or Hinduism. It is a political system that desired to conquer other places not remove idolatry. Corruption of the teachings of Christ and the creation of Muhammad is how this was accomplished by Arab leaders in 8th century after they had already plundered and invaded Palestine which was the birth place of Christianity.