Paul Williams bans me again, just for answering questions with reason and Scripture

Paul Williams, a British Muslim, doesn’t like it when I offer Scriptural answers to Muslims’ questions.

Burhanaddin1 asked me about the Deity of Christ and the Trinity; I answered with Scriptural texts and sought to explain it.  Paul and Burhanaddin1 don’t like it when I answer with Scripture verses.

I wonder what they are afraid of?

Paul and Burhanaddin1 don’t mind interacting with a Unitarian and other non-Christian anti-Trinitarians, (or Christians who don’t use Scripture, it seems) but they cannot handle an Evangelical who uses Scripture in his answers.  Seems contradictory to the Qur’an also, since the Qur’an affirms the previous Scriptures. (Surah 2:136; 5:46-48; 10:94; 29:46)

See here.

David Kemball-Cook
July 26, 2014 • 9:07 pm
Hi Ken
What biblical distinction is there between ‘God’ and ‘the Father’?

Regards
David

Reply ↓

Ken Temple
July 27, 2014 • 9:30 pm
Depends on the context.

When Theos / θεος is used for God, it is usually referring to “the Father” in the NT; but not always.

Here are verses that use “Theos” to refer to the Son:

Romans 9:5
Hebrews 1:8
John 28:20
John 1:1 (the word was God = the Son); but “the word was with God” = with God the Father
1 John 5:20

The Holy Spirit is called “Theos” (God) in Acts 5:3-5

So, God can be referring to the Divine nature (in either the Son or Spirit), or it can be referring to the Father.

Reply ↓

Ken Temple
July 27, 2014 • 9:31 pm
oops – typo – I meant John 20:28; not 28:20

Reply ↓

Burhanuddin1
July 28, 2014 • 7:16 am
Denis G. didn’t prove anything. He offered explanations. Do you agree with Denis G. that God is like a split brain patient?

Do you agree with erasmus that God is 3 persons in 3 beings and Jesus is a human person?

Reply ↓

Ken Temple
July 28, 2014 • 12:48 pm
God is One God in substance/nature/essence (Mark 12:29; Deut. 6:4, Isaiah chapters 40-48, I Timothy 2:5), eternally existing in three persons in a perfect spiritual love relationship. “God is Love” (I John 4:8), means God is relationship from all eternity. Only the Triune God, who is unique and the only pure relationship of love; He is the only one who can fill your heart of longing for relationship with the Creator, since only He is the creator. “split brain patient” – no. Jesus is one Divine person with 2 natures, a human nature and a Divine nature. His Divine nature was from all eternity, being the eternal Son, the eternal Word (John 1:1-5), who in time, took on flesh; that is, He took on an additional human nature. (John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-11)

Reply ↓

Burhanuddin1
July 28, 2014 • 2:02 pm
Why do you keep silent when false “trinitarian” Gods or Jesuses are presented by self-appointed “trinitarians”?

A Jesus who is a human person is a fake Jesus, isn’t he?
A God who is like a split-brain patient is not your God, is he?

Is God one person in two natures?

Reply ↓

Burhanuddin1
July 28, 2014 • 2:16 pm
“His Divine nature was from all eternity, being the eternal Son, the eternal Word…”

Seems you are confusing and conflating “nature” and “person” here”. Remember: there is only ONE divine nature, isn’t there? Is the Son’s nature the same as the Father’s? Are you saying the Father’s Divine nature was from all eternity, being the eternal Son, the eternal Word …?

Please never never ever confuse “nature” and person”.
“The one what is the one Being or essence of God; the three who’s are the Father, Son, and Spirit. We dare not mix up the what’s and who’s regarding the Trinity.” (James White, The Forgotten Trinity, p. 27).

You seem to worship a false Jesus too. Oh dear.

Reply ↓

Ken Temple
July 28, 2014 • 2:43 pm
No, I am not confusing “nature” and “person”. God is One in nature, three in person. What I wrote is totally consistent with what James White wrote. We totally agree with each other and that is standard Christian doctrine in all of church history. Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox all agree with each other on the doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ.

It is you who have a false Jesus. The Isa of Islam is false, since you deny that He is God in the flesh and you deny His crucifixion and resurrection. But even the Qur’an calls Him “Kalamat Allah” کلمه الله – the truth is there in the Qur’an, but it contradicts the truth by also saying that He was only a man and only a messenger. Jesus is a prophet for sure, but more than a prophet.

The Qur’an also affirms the substitutionary atonement that was prophesied and foreshadowed and foretold in Genesis 22. Surah Al Saffat 37:107 – “We ransomed Him with a mighty sacrifice.” و فدینه بذبح عظیم By affirming the truth of Genesis 22, Muhammad affirmed the truth of substitutionary atonement and redemption. فدینه is from the word for “redemption”, فدا ، فدیه The innocent ram in Genesis 22, (and lambs, goats, sheep in Exodus 12, book of Leviticus, Isaiah 53) – all point to the sins being layed on the innocent victim and being sacrificed ذبح / slaughtered in the place of the guilty humans/sinners. “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and give His life a ransom (فد یه، فدا ) for many.” Mark 10:45

Jesus Al Masih عیسی المسیح is the fulfillment of all that Old Testament teaching on sacrifice, substitutionary atonement.

Reply ↓

Burhanuddin1
July 28, 2014 • 2:52 pm
What do mean by “His Divine nature was from all eternity, being the eternal Son, the eternal Word…”?
Does the Son have a different nature from the Father? No, according to trinitarianism there is only one nature.

If the Son’s nature from all eternity is being the Son, then it follows The Father’s nature from all eternity is being the Son. Ouch. Sounds like some ill theology.

Or you are confusing “nature” and “person”. Simple as that. No need to preach or throwing red herrings.

Is God one person in two natures?

Reply ↓

Ken Temple
July 28, 2014 • 2:59 pm
No; God is One nature in three persons. You mis-understand the point that Jesus was the Word from all eternity past – John 1:1 – “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” His nature was always one with the Father’s nature, but they are three persons in personal spiritual relationship of love. The Father’s nature is God, the Son’s nature is God, the Holy Spirit’s nature is God, but the three are three divine persons, in love relationship. Only the Trinity is the true God relationship. Your Allah is not love nor relationship; therefore Allah of Islam cannot fill your heart with love or truth or relationship. Allah in Islam is just a lonely dictator, Al Jabbar, the very best deceiver – خیر المکارین = Surah 3:54

Reply ↓

Burhanuddin1
July 28, 2014 • 3:12 pm
So Jesus is not God. Jesus is one person in two natures.

Three “Who’s” sharing one “What” are three “Who’s”, not one Who. Despite your claims, despite your special pleading.

Why does your “God” (who is not the triune God) deceive people until this day (see Erasmus) making them believe he is a human person when he is NO human person at all?

There are Millions and Millions of Christians worshipping a false God (a human person called Jesus). Is it their fault? Can’t your “God” come straight? He left his “family” in the Bible wondering if he was gone mad … why didn’t he tell them I cannot be mad, as I am NOT a human person? What a deceiver!

Reply ↓

Ken Temple
July 28, 2014 • 3:20 pm
Jesus is both a human and God, One person with 2 natures. He always spoke the truth and is the truth.

37 Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” 38 Pilate *said to Him, “What is truth?”

And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and *said to them, “I find no guilt in Him.

John 18:37-38

John 14:6 – Jesus answered, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one can come to the Father except through Me.”

You cannot know God except through coming to Jesus as the Truth, the one mediator, the God-man, the substitute for your sins. You must repent of your sinful, prideful heart and realize that your external wuzu cannot cleanse your heart – you need a new heart. You must be born again. John 3:1-10; Ezekiel 36:26-27. Repent and believe the gospel. Mark 1:15

Burhanuddin1
July 28, 2014 • 3:27 pm
“Only the Trinity is the true God relationship.” Erasmus claims he has “a true God relationship” with his “God” = Jesus who is a human person.
Im sure you agree he must be deceived by his personal Jesus, as a Jesus who is a human person must be a fake Jesus.

What makes you so sure you are not deceived, apart from blind faith in the teachings of men?

Reply ↓

Ken Temple
July 28, 2014 • 4:38 pm
True believers in Jesus have assurance because Jesus and His apostles told us in the 27 NT books that we have the promise of forgiveness and salvation through repentance and faith in Him. Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice . . . ” John 10:27-30, 1 John 5:13 I know I am not deceived because God cannot lie – Titus 1:2 “. . . the God who cannot lie” But your Allah in the Qur’an lies – He is the very best deceiver/trickster / schemer خیر المکارین – Surah 3:54

Burhanuddin1
July 28, 2014 • 3:34 pm
Ken Temple: I asked you “Is God one person in two natures?”
You answered. “No; God is One nature in three persons”

Then you claim “Jesus is both a human and God, One person with 2 natures.”

I see no reason to believe any of your preaching as you are blatantly contradicting yourself.

Reply ↓

Ken Temple
July 28, 2014 • 4:40 pm
It is not a contradiction. I fee sorry for you that you cannot understand. When Jesus takes on an additional nature, a human one, with His divine nature, it is not a contradiction. Only the Son Jesus takes on an additional nature.

Reply ↓

Ken Temple
July 28, 2014 • 4:42 pm
I feel sorry for you.

Reply ↓

Paul
July 28, 2014 • 4:57 pm
Ken you might find your exchanges on this blog to be more fruitful if you did not preach at people and bombard us with proof texts.

Reply ↓

Burhanuddin1
July 28, 2014 • 3:52 pm
Ken Temple: “Repent and believe the gospel. Mark 1:15″
I am claiming to do exactly that “Repent and believe the gospel.” I do not want you to superimpose your irrational belief on my reality. Who are you to tell me I cannot know God? I find your attitude arrogant and insulting, sinful.

Reply ↓

Ken Temple
July 28, 2014 • 4:41 pm
You have not repented and you do not believe the gospel, since you reject Jesus and you reject His atoning death on the cross. You are still dead in your sins. Ephesians 2:1-3; Genesis 6:5; Mark 7:20-23; Matthew 5:21-30.

Reply ↓

Burhanuddin1
July 28, 2014 • 4:47 pm
Who do you think you are?

Reply ↓

Ken Temple
July 28, 2014 • 4:51 pm
Who do you think you are?

Read those verses and you will learn who you are. A sinner in need of Al Masih as Savior and Lord. Jesus is Lord and Master over you, so repent and submit to His Lordship.

Reply ↓

Burhanuddin1
July 28, 2014 • 4:55 pm
Why do you sin and do not repent?

Reply ↓

Paul
July 28, 2014 • 5:00 pm
OK folks that’s enough preaching and counter preaching. Lets have some more elevated discourse

Reply ↓

Ken Temple
July 28, 2014 • 4:52 pm
We have authority to proclaim the gospel, because Jesus died and rose from the dead, and gave us that authority to preach to you.

Reply ↓

Burhanuddin1
July 28, 2014 • 4:54 pm
Ken Temple: “True believers in Jesus have assurance because Jesus and His apostles told us in the 27 NT books that we have the promise of forgiveness and salvation through repentance and faith in Him.”

Is someone who believes Jesus is a human person a true believer in Jesus? Is someone who believes God is like a split-brain patient a true believer in Jesus?

If not, do you feel sorry for them?

Reply ↓

Ken Temple
July 28, 2014 • 5:01 pm
Is someone who believes Jesus is a human person a true believer in Jesus?

Do they also accept His full Deity?

They are not true believers if they ONLY believe is a human person and nothing more.

Jesus Al Masih said, “Truly truly I say to you, unless you believe that I am [ "I am" = the name of God, "Yahweh" in the Old Testament, Exodus 3:14, John 8:56-58; Isaiah 43:10-13; Isaiah 41:4], you will die in your sins.” John 8:24

Reply ↓

Ken Temple
July 28, 2014 • 5:03 pm
Proof texts – so you are unwilling to read the Holy Scriptures? Allah told Muhammad to ask the people of the book – Surah Yunis Nabi 10:94

Reply ↓

Paul
July 28, 2014 • 5:06 pm
Ken – you have only been allowed back for 5 minutes on this blog and already you are being a pain. You seem to just have one mode of communication with non Christians – preach at them. Can you not just have a normal conversation?

Reply ↓

Ken Temple
July 28, 2014 • 5:08 pm
What would you like to discuss? Don’t you also believe in the Holy Scriptures and your own Da’wa ?

Reply ↓

Paul
July 28, 2014 • 5:13 pm
Ken you are banned (yet again!).

Until you choose to conduct yourself in a fitting manner like David Kemball-Cook and Erasmus (see the Is it logically possible that Jesus died? discussion) you are not welcome on this blog.

Until then – go and preach at people somewhere else.

Reply ↓

Burhanuddin1
July 28, 2014 • 5:10 pm
Ken, cut the preaching and prooftexting, I’m not impressed.

Is someone who believes Jesus is 2 persons (one divine, one human) in two natures a true believer in Jesus?
Is someone who believes God is like a split-brain patient a true believer in Jesus?
Is someone who believes God is 3 persons in 3 beings a true believer in Jesus?

If not, do you feel sorry for them? If you feel sorry for them, why don’t you preach to them and present them with your proof texts?

Reply ↓

Paul
July 28, 2014 • 5:15 pm
I have banned Ken. He is just a troll.

Reply ↓

Posted in Apologetics, Islam, Muslims | Leave a comment

The Qur’an affirms substitutionary atonement in Surah Al Saffat 37:107

Interaction with Muslims over at Paul Williams web-site.

The Qur’an also affirms the substitutionary atonement that was prophesied and foreshadowed and foretold in Genesis 22. Surah Al Saffat 37:107 – “We ransomed Him with a mighty sacrifice.” و فدینه بذبح عظیم By affirming the truth of Genesis 22, Muhammad affirmed the truth of substitutionary atonement and redemption. فدینه is from the word for “redemption”, فدا ، فدیه The innocent ram in Genesis 22, (and lambs, goats, sheep in Exodus 12, book of Leviticus, Isaiah 53) – all point to the sins being layed on the innocent victim and being sacrificed ذبح / slaughtered in the place of the guilty humans/sinners. “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and give His life a ransom (فد یه، فدا ) for many.” Mark 10:45

Jesus Al Masih عیسی المسیح is the fulfillment of all that Old Testament teaching on sacrifice, substitutionary atonement.

See here for more extended explanation.

Also here: Why Did Allah substitute an innocent ram (lamb, sheep, goats) for the guilty human?

Posted in Apologetics, Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Islam, Muslims, The Atonement of Christ | Leave a comment

Be careful of the way you communicate the issue of the canon in the early church

I wrote this article over at my other Blog (Beggar’s All, with James Swan): “Be Careful of the way you communicate the issue of the canon in the early church”

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/07/be-careful-way-you-communicate-issue-of.html

Posted in Apologetics, Canon of Scripture, church history, Roman Catholicism | Leave a comment

“Sola Scriptura”, the Canon, and Roman Catholicism

Dr. James White and Dr. Michael Kruger, President and Professor of New Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC, discuss the issues of the NT Canon, Sola Scriptura, and Roman Catholicism.

I don’t know why it starts where it does; so please rewind to the beginning after clicking on it.

Anyone commenting by way of seeking to refute the Protestant position on Sola Scriptura or the Canon as oppossed to the Roman Catholic view, needs to demonstrate that they have listened to the whole thing first. 

I especially encourage Muslims to listen to this carefully and take notes. It will help you understand why liberal critical scholarship is wrong about the canon of Scripture, and why the popular “Da Vinci Code” type argumentation by Dan Brown is wrong. Also, it will help to understand why the common mis-conception that the council of Nicea in 325 AD had anything to do with the canon of Scripture, is wrong. For more on the Council of Nicea of 325 AD, see here.  Also, you should invest in 3 of Michael Kruger’s books, in order to properly understand the truth of these issues:  

1.  Canon Revisted

2.  The Heresy of Orthodoxy, with Andreas Kostenberger

3.  The Question of Canon

see his 3 books at his excellent website here; and also see his past series on the canon.  

and here.

Also, see my earlier post on 2 of his books and website.

The English word “canon”, comes from the Greek word, “canon” ( κανων ) which came from Hebrew קנה ( QaNeh ), which originally meant a “measuring rod”, “a reed”, and came to mean “standard” (in Arabic and Farsi = معیار ،”criterion” (Furqan) فرقان , “rule”, “law” قانون , “principle” قاعده. It is related to the Arabic word, Qanoon (قانون ), which is another for “law”, “rule”, besides Sharia/Shariat شریعت / شریعه.  

“Canon” eventually came to mean the list of books that Christians believed were “God-breathed”/inspired (2 Timothy 3:16) and inspired. (2 Peter 1:20-21) They were only “canon”/ “standard” because they were already “God-breathed”/inspired. As R. C. Sproul has written, “the Bible was canon as soon as it was written”. (p. 82, Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, Don Kistler, editor, Soli Deo Gloria, 1995) The books of the Bible were God-breathed and therefore canon, the minute they were written and the ink dried, for the NT, in the first century, for the OT when they were written. Because the 27 books of the NT were God-breathed at the time they were written, from around 48 AD to 96 AD, they were already canon because they already existed as God-breathed, inspired books. (same principle applies to the OT canon – they were inspired / God-breathed at the time of writing.) That is what Dr. White means by “canon is an artifact of inspiration”; “a book is canon, because it was already “God-breathed” when written.

That it took some time for the early church to discover all the books was because:
1. When they were originally written from 48-96 AD, they were individual scrolls written to different areas, communities, churches, by various people. So churches in certain areas did not even have all the books or letters yet, because others were written to other areas.
2. The codex form of a “book” was not even used much until the middle of the second century.
3. Many scholars believe it was the Christians of the early centuries that made the codex form popular and eventually evolved into our modern “book” form with a binding.
4. The Romans burnt many of the Scriptures during the first 3 centuries.
5. The persecution of Christians and difficulty of travel and communication contributed to the time it took to gather them all together under “book cover”, so to speak.

Also: Other Significant points to keep in mind:
1. The earliest list of all the 27 books together is by Origen around 250 AD.
(see here) at Dr. Kruger’s site

and

here. at Triablogue by Jason Engwer

2. The most well known list is Athanasius in 367 AD with his Festal letter 39. After listing the 27 NT books, Athanasius writes, “in these alone is the teaching of godliness” – notice the word “alone”. “sola” in Latin, Mono in Greek. It is a piece of historical evidence for “Sola Scriptura” in the early church.

3. But, both Irenaeus and Tertullian use most of the NT books (all four gospels and all of Paul’s letters except for they are silent on Philemon, a very small book. And they use Hebrews, 1 John and 1 Peter, Jude, and Revelation), these are either quoted as Scripture, alluded to, or named as authentic and written by an apostle or student of an apostle, by Irenaeus (writings – 180-200 AD); and Tertullian (writings -190-225 AD). They are silent on Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John. But Clement of Rome, in 96 AD, earlier, uses 2 Peter! Before Irenaeus and Tertullian, we don’t have earlier writings that are large. The letters and writings of Clement of Rome (96 AD), Ignatius (110 AD), Justin Martyr (165 AD), Polycarp (155 AD), the Didache(70-120 AD), The epistle of Mathetes to Diognetes (130-190 AD ?), pseudo-epistle of Barnabas (70-131 AD) (NOTE – this is not the late 16th Century forgery “The gospel of Barnabas”), the Shepherd of Hermas (140-155 AD) – these earlier writings are very small compared to the volumes that Tertullian and Irenaeus wrote.

Posted in Apologetics, Canon of Scripture, church history, Muslims using Roman Catholic Apologetic Arguments, Roman Catholicism, The Canon of Scripture | Leave a comment

James White on the Dividing Line (May 8, 2014) – 1. Behold the secular woman and 2. William Lane Craig’s Molinism

First part, Dr. White discusses the young woman named Emily Lett, who made a video of her decision to have an abortion, her thoughts before and after the abortion. It does not show the abortion, or results of the abortion.   Dr. White’s title:  “Behold, the secular woman” is appropriate.  He also made some excellent exhortations that in all our righteous anger (Psalm 4:4; Ephesians 4:26) over this callous act of murdering her own unborn child, we need to weep for the new secular generation and reach out to them with the gospel and love.  They are the new mission field in our culture. 

The Second part was deep.  It is analyzing William Lane Craig’s Molinism and middle knowledge and libertarian free will.  Molinism came from a Jesuit priest named Molina who was charged with the task of coming up with an answer to the Reformation’s view of the bondage of the human will without grace and the Sovereignty of God.   Rich Pierce made the insightful comment that the way William Lane Craig explains God sounds like He is just an algorithm, a mathematical formula.  Deep stuff.  

Posted in Abortion, Free will, Molinism, moral corruption of culture, William Lane Craig | Leave a comment

Understanding Mormonism

Is the Mormon my Brother? by James R. White


Since Glenn Beck, a Mormon, spoke recently at Liberty University, it seemed especially appropriate to post this now. I had most of this ready in a draft for a while now. Denny Burk commented on Liberty allowing Beck to speak here.

James White commented also this morning here, along with comments on Ergun Caner, hypocrisy and Liberty University.

It seems that Liberty University puts conservative politics and social values as more important than the doctrines of the gospel and historic Christianity, and making it clear that Mormonism is a false religion, polytheism, and a cult.

Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries analyzes the religion of Mormonism, otherwise known as “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”. Mormonism is not Christianity at all; it is polytheism – thousands, even millions of gods exist in Mormon theology. It is not a Monotheistic religion. One of the most interesting comments that Dr. White has made is, in my own words, something like, “Islam has more in common with Christianity, in the doctrine of God, than Mormonism.” I knew this many years ago before even knowing about Dr. White.

————

 

From Dr. White’s You Tube Page.

Also:
Letters to a Mormon Elder, by James White

Is the Mormon my brother?, by James White

One nation under gods: A History of the Mormon Church, by Richard Abanes

Kingdom of the Cults, by Walter Martin

Posted in Apologetics, Mormonism | Leave a comment

Jesus rose from the dead in history; the empty tomb

N. T. Wright’s book on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, that Dr. Habermas mentions, with a 550 page word study on the two Greek words for resurrection, anastasis (to stand up again) αναστασις and egeiro – εγειρω (to raise, to lift up).  

 

These Greek words, whether used by Jews, Christians, pagan Greeks, etc. were always or almost always used about a body – a body that had died.

The resurrection proves that Jesus really died, and that His death was the atonement for sins and that Jesus truly was all that He Himself claimed that He was – Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man, God the Son, prophet, final sacrifice and atonement for sins.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died (απεθανεν) for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried (εταφη), and that He was raised (εγηγερται, perfect past passive indicative = “he has been raised up”, 3rd singular, from εγειρω, to raise) on the third day according to the Scriptures, (“according to the Scriptures” = κατα τας γραφας)

1 Corinthians 15:3-4

παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, 4 καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη, καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς

Remember James Dunn’s assessment of 1 Corinthians 15:3-4:
James D. G. Dunn on the apostle Paul’s testimony in 1 Corinthians 15:1-9 – “This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as a tradition within months of Jesus’ death.” Jesus Remembered, page 855. That was some time between 30-34 AD, very early testimony. And Mark wrote his gospel, from Peter’s preaching, sometime between 48-60 AD.

“Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. 5 Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’

Mark 16:4-7

“Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified”

“He has risen”
εγερθη – Aorist Passive Indicative, 3rd singular – “He was raised”, from same root word in 1 Cor. 15:4 – from εγειρω – “to raise up”

Posted in Apologetics, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ | Leave a comment