What does this mean to you?

[EdUaRDo2]

Hey guys,

It's my understanding that anyone can read the Bible for the FIRST time and clearly read that Jesus is NOT refered to as God in the New Testament, so I pose this question for you.

- John 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

- John 20:27 Next he said to Thomas: “Put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop being unbelieving but become believing.” 28 In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him: “Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe.”

- Mark 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? 8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? 9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? 10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) 11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. 12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.


After reading these verses, is Jesus being refered to as God the Almighty? Let's keep in mind that first century jews were strongly monotheists, and they either believed Jesus was claiming to be the God of Abraham or an idol for which he would had been stoned.

Your help will be greatly appreciated.

[Sojourn]

Peace Eduardo,

There are many a verse that reveal Jesus' Divinity. The very reason why Christ was executed was because according to the Jewish ulema he had committed Shirk. It's because of His Resurrection that we know Jesus was innocent of shirk and therefore truly Divine.

[Rasema]

From an unreliable document.

[Sojourn]

From an unreliable document.

To your surprise the New Testament does contain reliable information, it's why even secular historians turn to the NT when writings books on Jesus. Sure, they may reject a great portion of it, even all His miracles, but the Crucifixion of Christ is not something they reject. Even the first century Roman Historian Tacitus records Christ was executed under the Procurator Pontius Pilate.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Rasema]

To your surprise the New Testament does contain reliable information, it's why even secular historians turn to the NT when writings books on Jesus. Sure, they may reject a great portion of it, even all His miracles, but the Crucifixion of Christ is not something they reject. Even the first century Roman Historian Tacitus records Christ was executed under the Procurator Pontius Pilate.

It does" HAVE YOU NOT SEEN THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN A PORTION OF THE SCRIPTURE. THAY HAVE BEEN INVATED TO THE BOOK OF ALLAH TO SETTLE THEIR DISPUTE BUT STILL PLENTY OF THEM TURN AWAY AND THEY ARE AVERSE." Qur'an(my wording)

[Sojourn]

It does" HAVE YOU NOT SEEN THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN A PORTION OF THE SCRIPTURE. THAY HAVE BEEN INVATED TO THE BOOK OF ALLAH TO SETTLE THEIR DISPUTE BUT STILL PLENTY OF THEM TURN AWAY AND THEY ARE AVERSE." Qur'an(my wording)

There is no dispute about the Crucifixion.

[Rasema]

There is no dispute about the Crucifixion.

Crucifixion is from the unreliable document. You can't prove that this piece is from the original Bible. No chain of authority,correct?

[Sojourn]

Crucifixion is from the unreliable document. You can't prove that this piece is from the original Bible. No chain of authority,correct?

The Gospels are our earliest and most reliable documents on Jesus Christ. They were written several decades after His Resurrection by people who learned from Jesus directly or learned from His Apostles and disciples. All the Gospels record Jesus' Crucifixion. We have authentic early Christian non-canonical writings that also testify to this fact. We have archeological evidence of early Christian cemeteries in Jerusalem bearing etchings of crosses where the dead Jewish Christians were laid. The evidence is simply overwhelming, but you will reject it because the Quran says He was not crucified, and you believe it to be the word of Allah. Shrugs... to you be your way and to me be mine...

[_ALI_]

Salam Sojourn
Even some Christian documents say that he was not crucified. If you read gospel of Barnabas, it says Judas was crucified instead of Jesus.
It can even be proved that Christ was not crucified according to the Bible. Check out this debate between Pastor Henry Pio and Dr. Zakir Naik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPzZR...eature=related
As for historical proofs of crucifixion, we cannot bank on that since opinion in history vary so much that according to some historians, Jesus did not even exist. Surely we cannot believe that.
Peace

[mkh4JC]

Hey guys,

It's my understanding that anyone can read the Bible for the FIRST time and clearly read that Jesus is NOT refered to as God in the New Testament, so I pose this question for you.

- John 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

It doesn't say the Word was 'a' God it says it was God.

- John 20:27 Next he said to Thomas: “Put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop being unbelieving but become believing.” 28 In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him: “Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe.”

- Mark 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? 8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? 9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? 10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) 11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. 12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

The point of this passage was, that it was easier to proclaim to someone that their sins had been forgiven. So Jesus backed up that he could forgive sins by healing him also, something only God can do.

After reading these verses, is Jesus being refered to as God the Almighty? Let's keep in mind that first century jews were strongly monotheists, and they either believed Jesus was claiming to be the God of Abraham or an idol for which he would had been stoned.

Your help will be greatly appreciated.

Well, there are scriptures--even in the Old Testament--that points to Jesus and who he is, such as Psalms 110: 1

'The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.' Here's Jesus referencing this verse:

'Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, til I make thine enemies thy footstool?

If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.' Matthew 22: 42-46.

[Sojourn]

Salam Sojourn
Even some Christian documents say that he was not crucified. If you read gospel of Barnabas, it says Judas was crucified instead of Jesus.
It can even be proved that Christ was not crucified according to the Bible. Check out this debate between Pastor Henry Pio and Dr. Zakir Naik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPzZR...eature=related

Wa salaam Ali,

The "Gospel of Barnabas" you're referring to is a late 16th century forgery.

As for historical proofs of crucifixion, we cannot bank on that since opinion in history vary so much that according to some historians, Jesus did not even exist. Surely we cannot believe that.
Peace

I don't know of any historian who seriously proposes Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. There are *authors* who claim this, but they are not historical scholars. I'd say its pretty much a consensus that Christ lived and that he was crucified.

[Ramadhan]

So Jesus backed up that he could forgive sins by healing him also, something only God can do.

Doctors heal.
Are doctors God?

[mkh4JC]

Doctors heal.
Are doctors God?

Well, of course not. But even in the case of Doctors it is still God that uses the individual to do the healing. Just like today God uses people of faith as instruments to heal people supernaturally.

[جوري]

Hey guys,

Re: What does this mean to you?

.

inspirational addendum to quell Christians to feel better about their delusions-- and as I pointed out in the other thread, not even in concert with all the 'four gospels' but, it is no matter, as I personally don't like to engage folly.. a couple of four mins vids. should shed some light on how others )outside of the zillion sects of Christianity who surprisingly deem each other heretics) view and understand Christianity ..

Media Tags are no longer supported

Media Tags are no longer supported

FROM MAN TO GOD BY POPULAR VOTE.

good luck with all of that :shade:

[Ramadhan]

Well, of course not. But even in the case of Doctors it is still God that uses the individual to do the healing. Just like today God uses people of faith as instruments to heal people supernaturally.

I see.
So based on your explanation, that means God used Jesus pbuh to do the healing.

Thank You!

[mkh4JC]

I see.
So based on your explanation, that means God used Jesus pbuh to do the healing.

Thank You!

This is what Jesus said:

'Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.' St. John 5: 19.

And here:

'For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself...' St. John 5: 26

And also here:

'And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,

Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched (dried up).

And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?

And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.

Luke 8: 43-46

Jesus has life in himself (he's the Son of God), just like the Father has life in himself, therefore he could heal people.

[GreyKode]

Peace Eduardo,

There are many a verse that reveal Jesus' Divinity. The very reason why Christ was executed was because according to the Jewish ulema he had committed Shirk. It's because of His Resurrection that we know Jesus was innocent of shirk and therefore truly Divine.

I don't really think the eduardo knows what shirk is? or ulema.
What are Jewish "ulema" anyway?

[Ramadhan]

Yes, thank you, it is very clear now.
So God gave power/miracle to Jesus Alaihi Salam to perform healing, just like God gave power to Moses Alayhi Salam to part the sea, and Sulaiman Alayhi Salam to talk to animals.

'Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.' St. John 5: 19.


'For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself...' St. John 5: 26


'And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,

Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched (dried up).

And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?

And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me

Luke 8: 43-46

[Sojourn]

I don't really think the eduardo knows what shirk is? or ulema.
What are Jewish "ulema" anyway?

The Pharisees

[_ALI_]

Salam Sojourn

Wa salaam Ali,

The "Gospel of Barnabas" you're referring to is a late 16th century forgery.

The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 A.D.

Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support of pure monotheism. He had quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his views. How can he quote a gospel which did not exist at his time? Ahmed Thomson, a convert to Islam from Christianity, wrote a book "Jesus, Prophet of Islam" with Muhammad Ata Ur-Rahim, which tells us about Iranaeus' references to the gospel of Barnabas.
http://www.answering-christianity.co...s_survived.htm

I don't know of any historian who seriously proposes Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. There are *authors* who claim this, but they are not historical scholars. I'd say its pretty much a consensus that Christ lived and that he was crucified.

First, I'll just clear it up that Muslims believe that Jesus existed and that he was a prophet of God. But there are scholars of history who think that Jesus did not exist. I'm telling you that to show that opinions of historians regarding Jesus' crucifixion vary from Jesus being crucified to Jesus not even existing so there is no point of crucifixion. Here are a few of them
Constantin-François Volney
Charles François Dupuis
George Albert Wells
Since the opinion vary so much, why should we believe some historians if they say that Jesus was crucified. History is not a definite science and has question marks. Furthermore, Quran explains why many historians think that Jesus was crucified.

004.157 وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِنْهُ مَا لَهُمْ بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلا اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا
004.157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

Al-Qur'an, 004.157 (An-Nisa [Women])

Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910
Peace

[Sojourn]

Salam Sojourn

Wa salaam Ali,

The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 A.D.

If Barnabas did write a Gospel that was read, it's not the same gospel you are referring to. Like I said, the "gospel" you refer to is a recognized forgery.

Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support of pure monotheism.

Irenaeus explicitly calls Jesus God:

"Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth
Against Heresies 1:10:1

He had quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his views. How can he quote a gospel which did not exist at his time?

You're assuming the late 16th century forgery is what the Early Church Father's quoted.

I'm telling you that to show that opinions of historians regarding Jesus' crucifixion vary from Jesus being crucified to Jesus not even existing so there is no point of crucifixion.

An opposing opinion can always be found. Muhammad Sven Kalisch is a Muslim convert and professor of Islamic Theology who, based off his research, believes Muhammad probably never existed.

Constantin-François Volney
Charles François Dupuis
George Albert Wells

The first two lived during the French revolution. George Albert Wells initially believed Jesus was pure myth, but in his later years accepted that there is a historical basis for the existence of Jesus.

Since the opinion vary so much, why should we believe some historians if they say that Jesus was crucified.

As mentioned above opinions vary about Muhammad's existence, but even I can say it's more probable and reasonable to say that he did exist. I think it's the same with the crucifixion. I see all the reason to accept the historical reality that Jesus suffered and died via crucifixion, but I see no reason to doubt it. Early Christians, Jews, and Romans all accepted that he was crucified, so why should I doubt it?

Furthermore, Quran explains why many historians think that Jesus was crucified.

004.157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

Notice the aya is directed to Jews who mockingly said they killed Jesus. Muhammad retorted that he was not killed, but they were fooled into thinking they killed him. I don't think Muhammad understood the significance or purpose of the crucifixion, so to him it was just a barbaric death, and how could Allah permit a prophet to die such a fate?