Similarity: it seems " The Koran was compiled in 650 A.D. " only after (Mohammed) " He marched on Mecca in 630 A.D. two years before he died, ... " . Q ‘Some of Muhammad’s writings were placed in the Koran, others were never published. They are now in the hands of high ranking holy men (Ayatollahs) in the Islamic faith.’ http://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...reated-islam-and-why-they-did-so-3109298.html Mohammed Mustafa was born in 570 A.D. – died 632 A.D. Caliph Omar became Caliph in 634 A.D. upon the death of Caliph Abu Bakr, only two years after Mohammed’s death and sixteen years before the Koran was completed. He captured Jerusalem and had the mosque built – the Mosque of Omar or Dome of the Rock. Mohammed’s dad Abd Allah died before he was born; his mother Aminah died when he was six; his grand-dad Abd Al-Muttalib when he was eight. He was then looked after by his uncle. Mohammed married Khadija, who was a Roman Catholic, when he was 25 and she was 40. Her cousin was called Waraquah and was also a Roman Catholic Meccan. The most famous of Mohammed’s four daughters was Fatima, after whom the Moslem conquerors named the place in Portugal where, in 1917, the young girl had three visions: the third of which the Vatican has never revealed, because it was from God and was against them and their evil ways. Mohammed was visited by Gabriel in a cave on Mt. Hira in 610 A.D. at age 40. Mohammed said, “Satan touches every son of Adam the day his mother beareth him (Revelation 12:4), save only Mary and her son (Jesus).” Mohammed fled to Medina in 622 A.D. after Khadija’s death. He marched on Mecca in 630 A.D. two years before he died, and four years before Omar became Caliph. The Koran was compiled in 650 A.D. http://jahtruth.net/dates.htm UQ
Jesus declared that, He and the Father were One. John 10:30 Christianity isn't built upon the belief of living a moral life defined by a religious Biblical code. Instead it's the Divinity of Jesus (Jesus being God i.e. Triune Nature) and Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection. God Himself in Human form paid your debt of sin, and then had the power over death to resurrect Himself. That propitiation for sin and power over the grave are given freely when a person repents and asks God. The indwelling of His Holy Spirit, i.e. 3rd person of His Triune Nature ( not human spirit) is what He gives us, our deposit and assurance, bringing our dead spirit (due to sin) alive.
imo, must check: Q In Chapter 10, I explore foundations to build a cosmological ethics. I build on insights from thermodynamics, evolution, and developmental theories. Finally, I examine the idea of immortality with a cosmological perspective and conclude that the ultimate good is the infinite continuation of the evolutionary process. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.1648.pdf The Beginning and the End: The Meaning of Life in a Cosmological Perspective Clement Vidal (Submitted on 5 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 5 Jun 2013 (this version, v2)) Where does it all come from? Where are we going? Are we alone in the universe? What is good and what is evil? The scientific narrative of cosmic evolution demands that we tackle such big questions with a cosmological perspective. I tackle the first question in Chapters 4-6; the second in Chapters 7-8; the third in Chapter 9 and the fourth in Chapter 10. However, where do we start to answer such questions? In Chapters 1-3, I elaborate the concept of worldview and argue that we should aim at constructing comprehensive and coherent worldviews. In Chapter 4, I identify seven fundamental challenges to any ultimate explanation. I conclude that our explanations tend to fall in two cognitive attractors, the point or the cycle. In Chapter 5, I focus on the free parameters issue, while Chapter 6 is a critical analysis of the fine-tuning issue. I conclude that fine-tuning is a conjecture and that we need to further study how typical our universe is. This opens a research endeavor that I call artificial cosmogenesis. In Chapter 7, I show the importance of artificial cosmogenesis from extrapolating the future of scientific simulations. I then analyze two other evolutionary explanations of fine-tuning in Chapter 8: Cosmological Natural Selection and the broader scenario of Cosmological Artificial Selection. In Chapter 9, I inquire into the search for extraterrestrials and conclude that some binary star systems are good candidates. Since those putative beings feed on stars, I call them starivores. The question of their artificiality remains open, but I propose a prize to further continue and motivate the scientific assessment of this hypothesis. In Chapter 10, I explore foundations to build a cosmological ethics and conclude that the ultimate good is the infinite continuation of the evolutionary process. Appendix I summarizes my position and Appendix II provides argumentative maps of the entire thesis. Comments: 366 pages, 20 tables, 33 figures, 731 references, 4 argumentative maps; PhD thesis defended at the Free University of Brussels (Vrije Universiteit Brussels). Numerous improvements from v1, including a new front cover. See the revision history page 328 for details Subjects: General Physics (physics.gen-ph) DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-05062-1 Cite as: arXiv:1301.1648 [physics.gen-ph] (or arXiv:1301.1648v2 [physics.gen-ph] for this version) UQ
Q http://www.21stcr.org/21stcr_commentary/john10_30.html B. What John 10:30 is not saying - John 10:30 does not say that Jesus and the Father are one "person" nor does it say they are one "God." The assertion of the Oneness point of view that Jesus is saying he is the Father doesn't make sense. It is ipso facto that Jesus in these very words is distinguishing himself from the Father. The one saying "I and the Father..." is in those words making a distinction between himself and God. Likewise, the oft heard Trinitarian view that this verse is indicating that Jesus and his Father are of the same "substance" or "essence" completely misses the mark. This verse says nothing about "substance" or "essence." It is entirely mistaken to say that Jesus means by these words that he and the Father are both of the same "God" substance or the same "God" essence. That idea is clearly post-Biblical and efforts to read such a non-Scriptural notion back into John 10:30 are faulty at best and deliberately calculated at worst. Let Jesus Decide - If we allow Jesus himself to decide the matter about what sense he and the Father are one, then there is no room for doubt. Note for example statements he made regarding his people in the prayer he prayed to the Father in John 17 (NASB) - 11 "... so that they [the disciples] may be one, as we are one. 21 "...that they [the disciples] may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one. Jesus' words are "That they may be one, just as We are one." The sense in which Jesus and the Father are one is the exact same sense in which Jesus can pray that his people would be one. Jesus is not praying that his people would be one "person" nor that they would all be one "substance" or "essence." Such notions would not even make good sense. His desire is that they would be one in will, purpose and work. Just as Jesus and his Father are one in will, purpose and in their work. Conclusion - Clearly, if one believes in the Oneness or Trinitarian points of view, they cannot rely on John 10:30 to support those ideas. John 10:30 is not a statement about the "composition" or "essence" of God nor is it a statement that Jesus and God are one "person." When Jesus speaks of his being "one" with the Father, it is always set in the framework of unity, work and love. That is the exact same way in which Jesus desires that his people would be "one." John 10:30 is a statement about the unshakable unity between God and Jesus regarding their love and protection for his people – his sheep. *Unless otherwise indicated Scriptures quoted in this article are from the NASB. www.21stcr.org UQ
Q http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn10_30.htm COMMENTARY This verse is often used by Trinitarians as proof of the essential unity and equality of Jesus with His Father. Some Trinitarian commentators and many non-Trinitarians argue that Jesus is simply speaking about a unity of purpose, of His union with God's design and plan for His people. Still others cite this verse as teaching that the Father and Jesus are actually the same divine Person. The word translated "one" is in the neuter gender, not the masculine, and specifies "unity" in a general, not personal, sense. The precise nature of this unity must be derived from context. Jesus has just spoken not about His union with the Father's purpose, but with His Father's power (vv. 28 - 29). Jesus has said that no one can snatch those the Father has given Him from His hands. He has said that He gives eternal life to His sheep - a claim to Divine prerogative in itself. He then repeats what He has said about no one being able to steal His sheep, but this time, it is the Father's hands who hold them - the Father who is "greater than all." Thus, Jesus equates Himself to His Father in both giving eternal life to the sheep and in the power to "hold" them fast. It is in this context of Divine salvation and preservation that Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." Thus, Jesus is not asserting that He is the same person as the Father (which would have demanded the masculine "one"); nor is He claiming unity in purpose or plan. In this context, He can only be asserting His unity with His Father as the author of eternal life and equal in power to Him who is "greater than all." This view is supported by several additional facts: 1. The Jews understood Him to be claiming to be God. (vv. 31 - 33). 2. Jesus does not deny their accusation (vv. 34 - 36). 3. Jesus repeats His original assertion in slightly different language (vv. 37 - 39). This claim in an overt declaration of Jesus' Deity. I and my Father are one. Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, "I and my Father", esmen, "we are one"; that is, in nature and essence, and perfections, particularly in power; since Christ is speaking of the impossibility of plucking any of the sheep, out of his own and his Father's hands; giving this as a reason for it, their unity of nature, and equality of power; so that it must be as impracticable to pluck them out of his hands, as out of his Father's, because he is equal with God the Father, and the one God with him (Gill). It seems clear that the unity spoken of cannot fall short of unity of essence. The thought springs from the equality of power (my hand, the Father's hand); but infinite power is an essential attribute of God; and it is impossible to suppose that two beings distinct in essence could be equal in power (Westcott). The oneness of will and task, in this context, is so transparently a divine will, a divine task (viz. the saving and preserving of men and women for the kingdom) that although the categories are formally functional some deeper union is presupposed (Carson, John). UQ
Q http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn10_30.htm GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS egw kai `o pathr `en esmen. EGO KAI hO PATHR hEN ESMEN I and the Father one are. hEN (1520) To be united most closely (in will, spirit), Jn x. 30 (Thayer). In contrast to the parts, of which the whole is made up ... J 10:30 (BAGD). One (hen). Neuter, not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. in Gal 3:28), but one essence or nature. By the plural sumus (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by unum Arius. So Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father (John 5:18). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (5:19-30). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (17:11, 21). Note hen used in 1 Cor 3:3 of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in 17:11, 23 of the hoped for unity of Christ’s disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ’s claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son). They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger (RWP). ESMEN (2070) First person plural (present indicative active), "we are" The present indicative asserts something which is occurring while the speaker is making the statement. UQ
Writing about Jesus, the Apostle beings his Book with the following... John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. Commentary from Chuch Smith, In the beginning was the Word (John 1:1a), Now, the Greeks talked much about the Logos. And according to the Greek philosophy, everything pre-existed in a thought. Anything that you see existed in thought before it became form. In other words, this pulpit here began with a thought. Some craftsman had in his mind a design, an idea for a podium. And so, he drew it out on a piece of paper, but it was the expression of his thought. And so, before anything exists, it has pre-existed in a thought. So, to the Greek philosopher, the thought was the origin of things. Well, the Bible takes you one step further back. It said if there was a thought, then there had to be a thinker, because you can't have a thought without a thinker. So, in the beginning, God, "In the beginning, was the Word." And so, it actually goes back even before the thought, you have the existence of the One who thought, or the existence of God. So, "In the beginning, God," here, "In the beginning was the Word," He was existing then. and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1b), Powerful declaration of the deity of Jesus Christ. So plain, so straight, so forthright, that even a little child in reading it could not be confused https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/smith_chuck/c2000_Jhn/Jhn_001.cfm?a=998001
" Powerful declaration of the deity of Jesus Christ. " That's nice! Always a good thing when finding support of one's faith! imo, finding and applying the relevance and meaning of Jesus' thoughts/words into one's own life, whether a believer or not, would be important! Jesus said, Spread the Gospel! (that All souls and every soul has been saved! Whether today you believe it or not! One day you will understand! Jesus didn't say, Everyone has to believe immediately at the time of listening the Gospel! ) Just 2 cents!
" ( not human spirit) " The Spirit is a/the Cosmological Spirit that exists in every human-being. Modern day researchers have already started to find it out with certain advance scientific theories/ methods/experiments. This Cosmological Spirit, or God's Spirit, in (Every) human-being's soul, (once being born), as a human nature, can be found in multiple cultures, or from some western or eastern philosophers! Naturally this Cosmological Spirit in humans can be logically called the Human Spirit. (perhaps: In animals, Animal Spirit. In plants, Plant Spirit!) Just 2 cents!