Jesus prophet or God

[Redeemed]

There are many books that speak of the inerrancy of the Bible (Bibliography available upon request). The Bible also talks about Ishmael the father of the Arab race. God told Hagar to go back from running away from Abraham and Sarah. He said Ishmael was going to be very strong (Donkey of a man) with him against very man and very man against him. That is what I believe we see today - the Arab race against every man and every man against him. That is Biblical prophesy in action today. Jesus comes from the seed of Isaac and Ishmael comes for the seed of Ishmael Jehovah spoke in Isaiah 45:23 and said “I have sworn by myself, the word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear.” Colossians 2:9 States that in Christ dwells all of The Godhead fully. Every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. In Jn. 13:19 Jesus declares himself “ I am” To the Jews he does it again by saying before Abraham was “I am” That is some pretty strong evidence according to the Bible that is inerrant by the hand of the Almighty that Jesus will tear down very imagination that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against spiritual wickness in high places. This is all said according to Scripture and can be backed up as such.

[Redeemed]

Even though 15% of the Arab race make up Islam, the root of that religion comes from their race. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[NoName55]

There is no point in correcting you; no point in saying root is Adam (taught by Allah). No more any point in you being allowed to remain a member here, but that is too much to hope for, for I'll be deleted from here long before you. Wa-salaam alaikum

[NoName55]

One pseudo scholar gave me warnings, posted against me in public for calling another pseudo scholar a pervert for misusing Qurân. And accused me of "Attacks against Islam including attacks on the Qur'an, Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), his family and companions, or any other prophets in Islam, or Islamic scholars, past or present".

Yet here you are going from strength to strength talking nonsense, and the only staff member that is resisting you is Br. Woodrow.

My posts refuting your tripe disappear quicker than I can post them!

What a weird world!!!

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

[north_malaysian]

I wonder why this is under Halal Fun category?:?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you alapiana1 and NoName55;

We are all created by the same God even though we have very different beliefs about Jesus. I hope and pray that we are able to find it in our hearts to live in peace with our differences.

In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith friendship

Eric

[NoName55]

Any one know who wrote or taught the Lord's prayer?

Our Father, who art in heaven, .(not my father but our father)
hallowed be thy name..............(not hallowed be my name)
Thy Kingdom come, .................(not my kingdom come)
thy will be done, .....................(not my will)
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread..(why ask, when I am god?)
And forgive us our trespasses,..(if I am God, why do I need forgiveness?)
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation, (if I am God I can do as I will)
but deliver us from evil. ............(If I am God I don't need protection from evil but rather I give protection)
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen .(mine is not the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever but yours)



Wa-Salaam Alaikum

[Woodrow]

Any one know who wrote or taught the Lord's prayer?

Our Father, who art in heaven, .(not my father but our father)
hallowed be thy name..............(not hallowed be my name)
Thy Kingdom come, .................(not my kingdom come)
thy will be done, .....................(not my will)
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread..(why ask, when I am god?)
And forgive us our trespasses,..(if I am God, why do I need forgiveness?)
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation, (if I am God I can do as I will)
but deliver us from evil. ............(If I am God I don't need protection from evil but rather I give protection)
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen .(mine is not the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever but yours)



Wa-Salaam Alaikum

In that form it did not show up until atleast the 1600s. The original form which dates back to the time of Isa(as) is still intact in the original Aramaic and is still said in Aramaic by the Coptics. It's original form is:

The Prayer To Our Father
(in the original Aramaic)

Abwûn
"Oh Thou, from whom the breath of life comes,

d'bwaschmâja
who fills all realms of sound, light and vibration.

Nethkâdasch schmach
May Your light be experienced in my utmost holiest.

Têtê malkuthach.
Your Heavenly Domain approaches.

Nehwê tzevjânach aikâna d'bwaschmâja af b'arha.
Let Your will come true - in the universe (all that vibrates)
just as on earth (that is material and dense).

Hawvlân lachma d'sûnkanân jaomâna.
Give us wisdom (understanding, assistance) for our daily need,

Waschboklân chaubên wachtahên aikâna
daf chnân schwoken l'chaijabên.
detach the fetters of faults that bind us,
like we let go the guilt of others.

Wela tachlân l'nesjuna
Let us not be lost in superficial things (materialism, common temptations),

ela patzân min bischa.
but let us be freed from that what keeps us off from our true purpose.

Metol dilachie malkutha wahaila wateschbuchta l'ahlâm almîn.
From You comes the all-working will, the lively strength to act,
the song that beautifies all and renews itself from age to age.

Amên.
Sealed in trust, faith and truth.
(I confirm with my entire being)

That is probably the closest to what was actually written in the Bible. But somehow it seems different than the current version.

[Woodrow]

Even though 15% of the Arab race make up Islam, the root of that religion comes from their race. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The Root of Islam comes from Allah(swt) It was revealed to Muhammad(PBUH) who was Arab, but it is for all people and not just Arabs.

[NoName55]

In that form it did not show up until atleast the 1600s. The original form which dates back to the time of Isa(as) is still intact in the original Aramaic and is still said in Aramaic by the Coptics. It's original form is:

The Prayer To Our Father
(in the original Aramaic)

...................
..................
....................
..................

That is probably the closest to what was actually written in the Bible. But somehow it seems different than the current version.

:sl:
JazakAllah khaira

This is even better at showing that Christ was worshiping and teaching the worship of our Creator and not saying worship me for I'm God your Lord

:w:

[Woodrow]

There are many books that speak of the inerrancy of the Bible (Bibliography available upon request). The Bible also talks about Ishmael the father of the Arab race. God told Hagar to go back from running away from Abraham and Sarah. He said Ishmael was going to be very strong (Donkey of a man) with him against very man and very man against him. That is what I believe we see today - the Arab race against every man and every man against him. That is Biblical prophesy in action today. Jesus comes from the seed of Isaac and Ishmael comes for the seed of Ishmael Jehovah spoke in Isaiah 45:23 and said “I have sworn by myself, the word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear.” Colossians 2:9 States that in Christ dwells all of The Godhead fully. Every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. In Jn. 13:19 Jesus declares himself “ I am” To the Jews he does it again by saying before Abraham was “I am” That is some pretty strong evidence according to the Bible that is inerrant by the hand of the Almighty that Jesus will tear down very imagination that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against spiritual wickness in high places. This is all said according to Scripture and can be backed up as such.

Based on that logic, all Christians must believe the very same things that the Jews do, as Isa(as) was descended from Isaac.

Without going into any need for a debate. I have not seen anything that proves the Bible of Today is the Full uncorrupted Truth of what Allah(as) revaeled to Isa(as) in the Injil. With the exception of the small amount that also appears in the Qur'an.

I know that Jesus(as) was a Great Prophet(PBUH) You believe He is God(swt)

It saddens me deeply to see that you believe in the myth you wish to be true. In doing so you openly lie about Isa(as), Try to lead others to stop Worshiping the one God(swt) and show no Love for Jesus(as) as the Wonderful Prophet(PBUH) he is.

[Umar001]

There are many books that speak of the inerrancy of the Bible (Bibliography available upon request). The Bible also talks about Ishmael the father of the Arab race. God told Hagar to go back from running away from Abraham and Sarah. He said Ishmael was going to be very strong (Donkey of a man) with him against very man and very man against him. That is what I believe we see today - the Arab race against every man and every man against him. That is Biblical prophesy in action today. Jesus comes from the seed of Isaac and Ishmael comes for the seed of Ishmael Jehovah spoke in Isaiah 45:23 and said “I have sworn by myself, the word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear.” Colossians 2:9 States that in Christ dwells all of The Godhead fully. Every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. In Jn. 13:19 Jesus declares himself “ I am” To the Jews he does it again by saying before Abraham was “I am” That is some pretty strong evidence according to the Bible that is inerrant by the hand of the Almighty that Jesus will tear down very imagination that exalts itself against the knowledge of God.

The I Am. I can show you someone else who said I am, it does not prove anything, there are many reasons why it doesn't.

But then again I wonder if you'll be open for discussion.

Eesa.

[Woodrow]

Let us look for a minute at Colossians 2:9

Interesting to note that This comes from Paul and was not said by any of the original Apostles or by Isa(as)

NIV

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Douay-Rheims

2:9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally.
Quia in ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter

KJV

All the fullness of the Godhead is in Him, in bodily form, and we are complete in Him.


NASB

"For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form"

Now let us compare that to what Paul said in Eph 3:19 which was also written by Paul

NASB

19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.

NASB: and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. (NASB ©1995)

GWT: You will know Christ's love, which goes far beyond any knowledge. I am praying this so that you may be completely filled with God. (GOD'S WORD®)

KJV: And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

ASV: and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God.

BBE: And to have knowledge of the love of Christ which is outside all knowledge, so that you may be made complete as God himself is complete.

DBY: and to know the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge; that ye may be filled even to all the fulness of God.

WEY: yes, to attain to a knowledge of the knowledge-surpassing love of Christ, so that you may be made complete in accordance with God's own standard of completeness.

WBS: And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled with all the fullness of God.WEB: and to know Christ's love which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

YLT: to know also the love of the Christ that is exceeding the knowledge, that ye may be filled -- to all the fulness of God;


Now if Paul means that possesing the fullness of God(swt) means Isa(was God(as) Does it not also mean in Ephesians that we are all capable of becoming Gods(swt) As He says we can be filled with the fullness of God(swt)

Unless Paul does not intend the term possessing the fullness of God(swt) to mean divinity and that is a Modern concept.

[Redeemed]

I made a mistake there. I meant to say Muhammad is from the seed of Ishmael, and Jesus from the seed of Isaac. This is an unrefutable fact. I am going to stop writing in the forum for a while, I feel the Lord is calling me to get into His word and prayer. God willing I'll be back. So you can at least thank me for the warning. I pray for you all to come to the knoweldge of truth that is only found in Christ Jesus God's only begotten Son. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Jn. 3:16 I really think that you and this forum should be more tolerable of non-Muslims. As long as someone is not pushing porn of using profane words or disrespectfull, they shoud be allowed to speak without being talked down to.
Sincerely;
AJ

[Redeemed]

By the way, you asked a good question about Paul. You seem to really know the Scriptures. I don't want to answer without looking into this with prayer and study.
Peace
Aj

[جوري]

But you are being disrespectful to Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)... to the Quran, and to Muslims....(Spare us the G-D loves you antics)---I am not sure what to make even of you posting this under the "fun" section...

Someone should move this thread to a more suitable place...

[Redeemed]

I am sorry you feel that way. I haven't disrespected you personally. I can't really see that I have done anything different than you concerning your views about who Jesus is and the Bible being God's word. I am not offended if you attack what I believe or even me as you are appearing to do, because it is written: "Great peace have they which love thy law and nothing shall offend them." I am trying not to write back because I need time to seek the Lord in prayer. I don't want to give you my reply but His. Please don't respond to this, and later you can tell me how I have disrespected the Muslims, which is not what I am about. I respect you very much for your zeal and fire in your faith. The ones I don't respect are those who are neither hot or cold but luke warm. Luke warm Christians and Muslims alike they make me sick.

[جوري]

disrespecting prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and Islam is far much worse to me than disrespecting me personally... I don't know what views of Jesus we have that bother you so? he gets highest honors in Islam... I have never seen a vicious website maligning and character assassinating Jesus (PBUH) by Muslims, the way your missionaries do of Islam and prophet Mohammed PBUH... the worse of it... is none of it is educated... I need only to look at your posts in your latest thread that was recently closed to conclude exactly what hovers in your deep...

peace!

[samah12]

Question. Did Jesus (pbuh) ever claim to be God or the literal son of God?

[Redeemed]

Muslims reduce Jesus who we believe is God to just a prophet. That is quite a demotion, but that doesn't offend me. Jesus lives. He can defend His name and Himself. I am just trying to obey my convictions. I don't see myself any better than the Muslims that bombed the world trade center. They were following their convictions. I would have done exactly the same if I believed that was what God wanted me to do. They were sincere. No doubt about it, but they as you will admit (I hope) sincerely wrong.

[Redeemed]

Yes, He did!

[جوري]

elevating Jesus to G-D is a cardinal sin...
No where in Islam does it say go bomb a building in the name of Allah... and the topic was covered quite extensively here... furthermore a great number of Americans according to Zogby polls believe it was your govt. that was directly involved in the Attacks --not so-called Muslims whose passports survived the fires that brought down two buildings demolition style to allude to their identity... anything else?

[NoName55]

Luke warm Christians and Muslims alike they make me sick.

don't patronize me with all the Psychiatric stuff. I am intense, because it is like seeing someone in a burning building. I want to shout and yell so they can see to flee the danger of not seeing that Jesus is more than a prophet. Why don't you ask Allah to show you who Jesus really was and is?

in order for the Bible to be correct the Qu'ran would have to be false along with Isalm

I don't understand G-D and other acronyms you use

I have had a vision of Jesus and His relationship to Allah and me

It is not my job to convert you. Only Allah can draw you to see who Jesus really is. All things were made by Jesus and for Him. It is important for you to know that what I share with you is spiritually discerned because Allah protects His word in the Bible and it is His will that I write you.

"Muslims are more the spiritual descendants of the slave Hagar (and proud of it) than of Abraham," but I knew this and for the most part agree. "They reject the freedom that God gives through Jesus Christ because they are trapped by the pride of a slave.

Old Testament that describes the split of the descendancy of Abraham into two groups, namely the free and the bound, or in other words the descendants of Isaac and the descendants of Ishmael, scripture is telling us that we are either the slaves of our own passions or we are free by being free from sin

Muslims do not want to acknowledge the freedom that was given to Isaac, but more importantly the freedom given by Christ, the Redeemer of all nations..thus they remain bound to an ancient philosophy (even from before Mohammed) that does not allow them to think freely or act freely.. This is a big reason behind their lack of originality in the realm of science and elsewhere.' This is recoded in the Bible the family feud the world is caught into between Isaac and Ishmael. that is evidence of the Bible's validity.

Ishmael the father of the Arab race. God told Hagar to go back from running away from Abraham and Sarah. He said Ishmael was going to be very strong (Donkey of a man)

I want to study the Qu'ran so that I can understand the Muslim faith more. My purpose is not to be one because I don't like the fruit I see

........ if this rubbish does not qualify as personal attak against the person, Quraan, Islaam and the Prophets, then I don't know what an attack is, I am gobsmacked, dumbfounded.

[samah12]

Yes, He did!

Sorry I was hoping you might quote the bible and tell me what he said about being the son og God.

[Redeemed]

I am sure that I am quilty of lacking wisdom and tact in my approach of sharing I hope you can forgive me for that, but I am learning. I am a work in progress. The work thd Lord began in me He will finish it.

Who being in the very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be gasped, but made himself nothing, taking on the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death- even the death of the cross. PHILLIPIANS 2:5-8

[samah12]

I am sure that I am quilty of lacking wisdom and tact in my approach of sharing I hope you can forgive me for that, but I am learning. I am a work in progress. The work thd Lord began in me He will finish it.

Who being in the very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be gasped, but made himself nothing, taking on the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death- even the death of the cross. PHILLIPIANS 2:5-8

Thank you Alapiana. This was written about Jesus(pbuh) not a quote by Him. Do you know or could you find out if Jesus (pbuh) himself ever stated that He was the son of God?

And don't worry we are all a work in progress :D

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you alapiana1;

I really think that you and this forum should be more tolerable of non-Muslims.

I have been here for two years and found deep respect from my Muslim brothers and sisters. As Christians we have to respect that this is an Islamic forum which is primarily intended to help Muslims with their faith, and the rules say as much. We are guests here and I feel that we should be aware of these facts when discussing our own Christian faith.:)

In the spirit of fostering greater interfaith relations

Eric

[Redeemed]

By the way, Many of those quotes weren't mine they were Fred's, and I mentioned that. And sure I'll be happy to provide those Scriptures for you that allude to Jesus being God and even Jesus Himself did:

Who being in the very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be gasped, but made himself nothing, taking on the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death- even the death of the cross. PHILLIPIANS 2:5-8

He announced Himself to the Jews as the I am of Exodus 3:14 in John 8:58 Jesus quotes "Before Abraham was "I am""

John 1:1 In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God and the word became flesh.

Read Isaiah 53 it gives the whole prophecy of how Jesus was to die and why

Phillipians 2:11 every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord
Jehovah claims He is the Alfal and Omega and that there is no other ALmighty, but Jesus makes the same claims of Himself in Rev: 1;7,8,17,18, 2:8;Mat.24:30; Isaiah 44:6
There are so many more..........
Even Thomas called Him God and Jesus didn't rebuke Him. People that worshipped him weren't rebuked for doing so. When people would try to do so to an angel they were topped from doing so by the angel. Even angels were commanded to worship Him....

[samah12]

Greetings and peace be with you alapiana1;


I have been here for two years and found deep respect from my Muslim brothers and sisters. As Christians we have to respect that this is an Islamic forum which is primarily intended to help Muslims with their faith, and the rules say as much. We are guests here and I feel that we should be aware of these facts when discussing our own Christian faith.:)

In the spirit of fostering greater interfaith relations

Eric

Thank you Eric.

By any chance do you know the answer to my question, did Jesus(pbuh) ever state himself that he was the son of God? If he did where can I find it in the bible?

[samah12]

He announced Himself to the Jews as the I am of Exodus 3:14 in John 8:58 Jesus quotes "Before Abraham was "I am""

....

I put Exodus 3:14 into my search engine and it came back with this - maybe not the best one to quote?

The blessed word "EHEYEH" always means "I WILL BE" and NEVER means "I am" (Hebrew: aniy) as is further confirmed by The holy spirit of YeHVaH Elohiym in Exodus 3:12: "And He said 'Certainly I WILL BE (EHEYEH) with you...".

EVERYONE of the Christ-ian translations CORRECTLY translate "eheyeh" as "I will be" in Exodus 3:12; but DELIERATELY change their translation of the very same word "EHEYEH" in Exodus 3:14 to instead read "I AM" (Exodus 3:14 KJV; NASB; NRSV: DARBY; DOUAY-RHEIMS; WEBSTERS:NIV: CORRUPTIONS).

The diabolical DELIBERATE CORRUPTION of the blessed word "EHEYEH" in Exodus 3:14 by Pauline appointed Christian popes, 'pastors', and professors is shown by their CORRECTLY translating the very same word as "I WILL BE" in EVERY OTHER instance EXCEPT in Exodus 3:14:

from quicksitemaker.com

[Redeemed]

Yes, Samah12 Jesus did allude that he is the Son of God. Please give me time to find were it is. I have it memorized, but I want to give you the source. It is were He (Jesus) said, "Is it not written that ye are gods, then why do you stumble (or marvel) because I said, 'I am the Son of God?"'

[Redeemed]

Yes, but the Jews wanted to stone Jesus after he said before Abraham was I am, they didn't stone people for saying I'll will be with you back than. The Jews understood the implications of what was being said. So do I.

[samah12]

Yes, Samah12 Jesus did allude that he is the Son of God. Please give me time to find were it is. I have it memorized, but I want to give you the source. It is were He (Jesus) said, "Is it not written that ye are gods, then why do you stumble (or marvel) because I said, 'I am the Son of God?"'

Oh that's a wonderful one if you could find that I would be grateful.

[NoName55]

Many people tell us "but the Bible clearly says that Jesus is the Son of God. How can you say that Jesus is not God's only begotten son when Jesus says it so clearly in black and white in the Bible?" Well, first of all, as seen in the previous section (of this book), we first need to know the language of his people, the language of the Jews to whom he was speaking. Let us see how they understood this proclamation.

Let us begin by asking: How many sons does the Bible tell us that God Almighty has?

1. Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22.
2. Solomon is God's son "He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14.
3. Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?).
4. Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God." Luke 3:38.
5. Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12. "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2. "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7. "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6. "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men," Genesis 6:4. "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair" Genesis 6:2

As we can see, the use of the term "son of God" when describing normal human beings was not at all an uncommon practice among Jesus' people.

Well then, was Jesus the only begotten son of God? Read Psalms 2:7
"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (King David, King), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.".

Indeed, the Jews are even referred to as much more than this in the Bible, and this is indeed the very trait which Jesus (pbuh) held against them. When the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus (pbuh) he defended himself with the following words

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, 'I said, Ye are gods?' If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken..."
John 10:34:

(he was referring to Psalms 82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High..") As we can see from these and many other verses like them, "son of God" in the language of the Jews was a very innocent term used to describe a loyal servant of God. Whether the translators and editors chose to write it as "Son of God" (with a capital S) in reference to Jesus and "son of God" (with a small S) in reference to everyone else does not diminish the fact that in the original language, both cases are exactly the same. Are we beginning to see what drove the most learned men of the Anglican Church to recognize the truth? But let us move on.

Grolier's encyclopedia, under the heading "Jesus Christ," says:

"During his earthly life Jesus was addressed as rabbi and was regarded as a prophet. Some of his words, too, place him in the category of sage. A title of respect for a rabbi would be "my Lord." Already before Easter his followers, impressed by his authority, would mean something more than usual when they addressed him as "my Lord.".... it is unlikely that the title "Son of David" was ascribed to him or accepted by him during his earthly ministry. "Son of God," in former times a title of the Hebrew kings (Psalms 2:7), was first adopted in the post-Easter church as an equivalent of Messiah and had no metaphysical connotations (Romans 1:4). Jesus was conscious of a unique filial relationship with God, but it is uncertain whether the Father/Son language (Mark 18:32; Matt. 11:25-27 par.; John passim) goes back to Jesus himself" .

There seems to be only two places in the Bible where Jesus (pbuh) refers to himself as "son of God." They are in John chapters 5 and 11. Hastings in "The dictionary of the Bible" says: "Whether Jesus used it of himself is doubtful." Regardless, we have already seen what is meant by this innocent title. However, Jesus is referred to as the "son of Man" (literally: "Human being") 81 times in the books of the Bible. In the Gospel of Barnabas, we are told that Jesus (pbuh) knew that mankind would make him a god after his departure and severely cautioned his followers from having anything to do with such people.

Jesus was not the son of a human man (according to both the Bible and the Qur'an). However, we find him constantly saying "I am the son of man." Why?. It was because in the language of the Jews, that is how you say "I am a human being."

What was he trying to tell us by constantly repeating and emphasizing to us throughout the New Testament "I am a human being," "I am a human being," "I am a human being"?. What had he foreseen? Think about it!.

Do Christians emphasize this aspect of Jesus? The New Testament Greek word translated as "son" are "pias" and "paida" which mean "servant," or "son in the sense of servant." These are translated to "son" in reference to Jesus and "servant" in reference to all others in some translations of the Bible (see below). As we are beginning to see, one of the most fundamental reasons why Jesus (pbuh) is considered God is due to extensive mistranslation. We shall see more and more examples of this throughout this book.

Islam teaches that Jesus (pbuh) was a human being, not a god. Jesus (pbuh) continually emphasized this to his followers throughout his mission. The Gospel of Barnabas also affirms this fact. Once again, Grolier's encyclopedia says:

"...Most problematical of all is the title "Son of Man." This is the only title used repeatedly by Jesus as a self-designation, and there is no clear evidence that it was used as a title of majesty by the post-Easter church. Hence it is held by many to be authentic, since it passes the criterion of dissimilarity."

Muslim-SA@acsu.buffalo.edu
excerpted from
What Did Jesus Really Say ?

[Redeemed]

Can someone tell me why on this forum I get two different messages regarding my standing. My desk top CP lets me I could post new threads and converse on the forum, but my lap top says I may not???? WHY??

[NoName55]

Oh that's a wonderful one if you could find that I would be grateful.

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, 'I said, Ye are gods?' If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken..."
John 10:34:

[جوري]

check your computer let it enable "cookies"-- if we can read your posts... you are obviousely still here......

[NoName55]

Can someone tell me why on this forum I get two different messages regarding my standing. My desk top CP lets me I could post new threads and converse on the forum, but my lap top says I may not???? WHY??

Ask it

[Redeemed]

Please tell me why you keep repeating that verse see “And if they hear evil, vain, false talk...... I am not being false I am speaking all the truth I know in love even if I lack the tact and wisdom at times. These things are not blunders of the heart they are blunders of the mind. I feel like your using it to judge me. Only God can do that. Let God judge me please, don't you do it if that is the purpose of the verse.

[NoName55]

(1) A Special Relationship
"In Hebrew and Aramaic 'son of' is commonly used to mean 'member of the class of'; hence, 'the sons of god' is a regular way of saying 'the gods,' just as 'the sons of men' (commonly translated 'the children of men') is a regular way of saying 'men'."
- Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? (1978) p. 133
Traditionally, the expression "sons of God" referred to the angelic host.

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them."
- Job 1:6

It also referred to God's special relationship with the Israelites - His chosen people.

"And you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the Lord: 'Israel is My son, My firstborn'."
- Exodus 4:22
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son."
- Hosea 11:1
"He [the Lord] said, 'Surely they [house of Israel] are my people, sons who will not be false to me'; and so he became their Savior."
- Isaiah 63:9

As the figure head representing of Israel, the king was decreed to be God's son.

"I [David] will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, 'You are my Son [or son]; today I have become your Father [or have begotten you]'."
- Psalms 2:7

This royal birthright was passed on to Solomon and, by implication, to all future successors of the House of David.

"Behold, a son shall be born to you [David],...his name shall be Solomon....He shall build a house for My Name; he shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever."
- Psalms 2:7

The Hebrew word behind "son" is "servant". This reflects the special status of kingship prevalent in the ancient world. (For example, the ancient Egyptians identified the living Pharoah with Horus, son of the God Osiris, and the deceased Pharoah with Osiris himself.)

"Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness."
- Psalms 72:1

"The king of Israel was declared to be God's vice-regent on earth, precisely the role marked out for Jesus who is God's royal Messiah."
- Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback, p. 44

(2) The Titular "Son of God"
The Son of God (or Son of Elohim) was a messianic figure presaging a return of the rule of the House of David in certain apocryphal literature.
"The most significant development since 1986 in this regard has been the discovery of the title 'Son of God' in one of the Qumran papyri (Dead Sea Scrolls) used in relation to a person other than Jesus.....this simply reinforces the argument made there that to be called the Son of God in a Jewish setting in the first century is not by any means the same as being identical with God Himself."
- Tom Harpur, For Christ's Sake

"[There will be violence and gr]eat [Evils.] Oppression will be upon the earth. [Peoples will make war.] and battles shall multiply among the nations, [until the King of the people of God arises. He will become] the King of Syria and [E]gypt. [All the peoples will serve him,] and he shall become [gre]at upon the earth. [...All w]ill make [peace,] and all will serve [him.] He will be called [son of the Gr]eat [God;] by His Name he shall be designated."
"He shall be called the Son of God; they will call him son of the Most High. Like the shooting stars that you saw, thus will be their Kingdom. They will rule for a given period of year[s] upon the earth and crush everyone. People will crush people, and nation (will crush) nation, until the people of God arises and causes everyone to rest from the sword. His Kingdom will be an Eternal Kingdom, and he will be Righteous in all his Ways."
- "The Son of God" (4Q246 Aramaic - attributed to the prophet Daniel)
"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High."
- Luke 1:32a

"A. Fitzmyer clarified another important aspect of angelology by closely analyzing the terminology for 'son of God' at Qumran. In his opinion, 'son of God' terminology at Qumran has no messianic context. Rather, it is used as a title for angels, as it is throughout the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, Qumran evidences the use of the term 'Lord' (mr') for YHWH, the Tetragrammaton. This suggests that the origin of the church's use of the term 'Lord' for 'Christ' is not to be found in the Hellenistic environment but in the original Hebrew 'church,' as it was a feature of Jewish sectarianism before Christianity.
- Alan F. Segal, "The Risen Christ and the Angelic Mediator Figures in Light of Qumran" in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (James H. Charlesworth, Ed. - 1992), p. 304

"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
- Luke 1:32-33

Notice here that the author of Luke is echoing the promise extended to David in Psalms 2:7. This messianic Son of God can also be found in the Christian Greek addition to 4 Ezra, a 1st c. CE text.

"I, Ezra, saw on Mount Zion a great multitude, which I could not number, and they all were praising the Lord with songs.
In their midst was a young man of great stature, taller than any of the others, and on the head of each of them he placed a crown, but he was more exalted than they. And I was held spellbound.
Then I asked an angel, 'Who are these, my lord?'
He answered and said to me, 'These are they who have put off mortal clothing and have put on the immortal, and they have confessed the name of God; now they are being crowned, and receive palms.'
Then I said to the angel, 'Who is that young man who places crowns on them and puts palms in their hands?'
He answered and said to me, 'He is the Son of God, whom they confessed in the world.' So I began to praise those who had stood valiantly for the name of the Lord.
Then the angel said to me, 'Go, tell my people how great and many are the wonders of the Lord God which you have seen.' "
- 4 Ezra 2:42-48

"When the Hillelite rabbis gained control of the Jewish community, they vociferously argued against the worship of any angel and specifically polemicized against the belief that a heavenly figure other than God can forgive sins (b.Sanh 38b), quoting Exodus 23:21 prominently among other scriptures to prove their point. The heresy itself they call believing that there are 'two powers in heaven.' By this term the rabbis largely (but not exclusively) referred to Christians who, as Paul says, do exactly what the rabbis warn against: they worship the second power."
- Alan F. Segal, "The Risen Christ and the Angelic Mediator Figures in Light of Qumran" in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (James H. Charlesworth, Ed. - 1992), p. 317

(3) The Son and Tenant Farmers

"I will sing for the one I love a song about his vineyard: My loved one had a vineyard on a fertile hillside. He dug it up and cleared it of stones and planted it with the choicest vines. He built a watchtower in it and cut out a winepress as well. Then he looked for a crop of good grapes, but it yielded only bad fruit."
- Isaiah 5:1-2

"The parable of the wicked tenant farmers, despite signs of some editorial reworking by his followers, seems to derive ultimately from Jesus. He then may have referred to himself with the word 'son'; 'He (the 'man who planted a vineyard' = God') sent 'his son' to the tenant farmers 'saying, 'They will respect my son'."
"The fruitful fields are owned by absentee landlords, which describes rural Palestine beginning with the heavy taxations by Herod the Great. It does not so representatively describe Palestine after its devastation by the Romans in 66-70 C.E. The ambiance is that of Palestinian Jews from the time of Herod the Great until 70, when they, like Job, felt unjustly persecuted, and not that of the post-Easter community, which claimed to be justified by Christ's death and resurrection.
"The refusal of the tenant farmers to pay what is owed to the landlord makes adequate sense only in Jesus' time; the land rightfully belonged to the so-called tenant farmers, who believed that their religious and legal right had been unjustly robbed from them. Such history fits precisely both the parable and the Palestinian countryside after 38 B.C.E."
- James H. Charlesworth, "Jesus as 'Son' and the Righteous Teacher as 'Gardener'" in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1992), pp. 142, 153

"He began to speak to them in parables. 'A man planted a vineyard, and set a fence around it, and dug a trough (for the wine press). Then he built a tower (to protect it); finally, he leased it to tenants, and went away. When the time came (for the harvest), he sent a servant to the tenants, to collect from them (his portion) of the fruits of the vineyard. But they took him, beat (him), and sent (him) away empty-handed. Again he sent to them another servant; him they wounded in the head, and treated shamefully. Then he sent another; him they killed; (he even sent) many others; some they beat and some they (even) killed. He had still one other (he could send): a beloved son (huion agapeton). He sent him to them last (of all, escchaton) saying, 'They will respect my ' But those tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours' And seizing (him), they killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. What will the owner (ho kyrios) of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants, and give the vineyard to others.'"
- Mark 12:1-9 (translated by James H. Charlesworth) (Matthew 21:33-39; Luke 20:9-15a; Thomas 65:1-7 colored pink)

"...The reference to the 'son' is impressively undeveloped and ambiguous. This factor accords well with the use of 'son' in early Jewish theology, and especially with the words of some Galilean charismatics contemporaneous with Jesus, notably Honi (m.Ta'an 3:8), or the tradition that one of the Galilean charismatics, namely Hanina, was called 'my son' by God (b.Ber 17b)."
"There is impressive evidence that it once circulated in an Aramaic oral form. Note the undeveloped sentences and the need to supply within parentheses the full meaning. The audience knew the historical setting; it was familiar to them from their daily lives. Note especially the need to supply objective pronouns within parentheses: 'him' must be added for meaningful English not fewer than three times. Recall the following sentence: 'But they took him, beat (him), and sent (him) away empty-handed.' Like English, Greek usually presents these objective pronouns, but Aramaic, Jesus' own language, frequently assumes them in oral and written language."
- James H. Charlesworth, "Jesus as 'Son' and the Righteous Teacher as 'Gardener'" in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1992), pp. 154, 155

(4) God as Father

"[...you will be] to Him like a firstborn son and He will feel for you as a man does for his only child..."
- The Secret of the Way Things Are 4Q416 Frag. 2 2.13

"Many early Jews tended to conceive of God as distant, visiting humanity only through intermediaries such as angels, as we know from studying the Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jesus perceived that God himself was very near, and that he was directly concerned about each person, even (perhaps especially) sinners."
- James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism
"...The Aramaic invocation Abba ('my own dear Father') occurs on the lips of Jesus only once in all four Gospels, yet many critics ascribe it on other grounds to the historical Jesus."
- John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew - Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1.

"Abba, Father,' he said, 'everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.'"
- Mark 14:36

"...It is clear that Jesus chose one particular Aramaic noun to articulate his conception of God. Jesus refers to God by the word 'Abba', which is a determinative Aramaic noun, 'the Father'. It is employed frequently as a vocative form, meaning 'O Father', and, since the pronominal suffix is often omitted in colloquial speech, it also means 'my father'. Occasionally in Jerusalem I hear children call their fathers with the sounds 'Abba, Abba', which is, of course, Hebrew for 'Daddy'."
"Jesus' unique use of 'abba' (Aram.) for God builds upon the Jewish custom to call God 'abinu ' (Heb.) , 'our father'. God is invoked as 'Our father' in a version of the second benediction before the Shema in the morning synagogal service, namely the Ahabah Rabbah. This prayer can be dated with some probability in form and content, but not exact wording, to pre-70 Palestinian Jewish liturgical settings."
- James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism

"Our Father (abinu), merciful Father, thou who are ever compassionate, have pity on us and inspire us to understand and discern, to perceive, learn and teach, to observe, do, and fulfill gladly all the teachings of thy Torah."
- Ahabah Rabbah

".. For Jesus to address God so directly as 'Father' does not necessarily mean he claimed to be his divine son in the Christian sense. Rather it was a form of address often used by the Jewish holy man, the nabi, the hasid or indeed anyone who felt he could enter into a direct dialogue with God."
- Ian Wilson, Jesus, The Evidence
The first time Godd is addresses as Abba in rabinnical literature occurs in the Talmudic account of Honi, the Circle Drawer.

"Thus he says to him, Father [Abba] take me to bathe in warm water [and he does], wash me in cold water [and he does], give me nuts, almonds, peaches, and pomegranates and he gives them unto him."
- Babylonian Talmud, Taanith 23a

"'Abba' as a way of addressing God was certainly used by the grandson of Honi the Circle Drawer."
- Ian Wilson, Jesus, The Evidence

"A. Hana ha-Hehba was the son of the daughter of Honi the Circle-Drawer. When the world was in need of rain, the Rabbis would send him school children and they would take hold of the hem of his garment and say to him, Father, Father [Abba, Abba], give us rain.
B. Thereupon he would plead with the Holy One, Blessed be He, [thus], Master of the Universe, do it for the sake of these who are unable to distinguish between the Father [Abba] who gives rain and the father [abba] who does not."
- Babylonian Talmud, Taanith 23b

"That is also the second and final time that God is addressed as 'Abba' in rabbinical literature. Both cases are in the context of miracle workers and their imperious, childlike control of the divine power."
- John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus, The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant (1991)

(5) A Special Relationship

"Blessed are You, O my God, who has opened to knowledge the mind of Your servant. Establish all of his works in righteousness; raise up the son of Your handmaiden - if it please You - to be among those chosen of humankind, to stand before You forever."
- Charter of a Jewish Sectarian Association 11:16-17

The Gospels not only used the expression "sons of God" (or "children of God" in some translations) in the familial sense but to any one who enjoyed a special relationship with God.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
- Matthew 5:9
"..the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."
- Luke 3:38

Paul and the Gospel of John say that those who believe in Christ would also become Sons [children] of God.

"I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty."
- 2 Corinthians 6:17-18

The meaning of "Son of God", denoting a special relationship with the Divinity, gave way to a new interpretation which resembled the doctrine of the mystery religions wherein any true believer could be reborn and filled with God (the Holy Spirit).

"And to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fulness of God."
- Ephesians 3:19
"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- children born not of natural descent, [Greek 'of bloods'] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God."
- John 1:12-13

(6) The "Son" Secret

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."
- Mark 1:1

Mark "was written a little more than a decade after Paul's letter to the Romans [ca. 53-58 C.E.], and perhaps as long as five years after Paul's death....If Jesus was designated Son of God at the resurrection for Paul, the surely he was also the Son of God during his earthly life, even if no one recognized it."
- John Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels, p. 223
"The pagans (a minority in the Galilean population, but not absent and not to be forgotten) seem to have thought him a god or the son of a god, as did some of the people from whom he cast out demons."
- Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? (1978) p. 57

"Who do you say I am?'
Peter answered, 'You are the Christ.'
Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him. He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again."
- Mark 8:29-31 (Matthew 16:15-20; Luke 9:20-21

"There is some Jewish evidence which suggests the expected Messiah would remain silent about his messiahship until he had completed his task and had been vindicated by God."
- Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback, p. 224
"Numerous Jewish texts, like the Psalms of Solomon and 4 Ezra, indicate that only God can declare who is the Messiah. Any self-designation only proves that the proclaimer cannot be the Messiah. This insight certainly helps clarify the reticence (or refusal) of Jesus to accept Peter's confession according to Mark 8."
- James H. Charlesworth, "Jesus as 'Son' and the Righteous Teacher as 'Gardener'" in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1992), p. 142
"According to Mark's theory of the 'messianic secret' (better: 'the Son secret'), no human being can know and proclaim in faith that Jesus is the Son of God before the ultimate act of mysterious revelation that is Jesus' death on the cross. Only then can a human being - pointedly, an outsider, a Gentile centurion involved in Jesus' execution - proclaim the truth: 'Truly this man was Son of God' (Mark 15:39). Before that, only God, speaking from heaven at Jesus' baptism and transfiguration, and the demons as they are exorcised - hence, only supernatural beings - can voice the truth of Jesus' divine sonship."
- John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew - Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 2.
"...The title 'Son of God'...in the synoptics almost always appears in miraculous contexts. The only exceptions are this passage (Mk. 14.61f. with its parallels) and Mk. 1.1 (the title of the gospel). On the other hand, 'Son of God' very rarely appears in messianic contexts. The likelihood is that the term came from a tradition in which it designated not a messiah, but a supernatural being, both worker and subject of miracles."
- Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? (1978) p. 51
That the "Son of God" has supernatural connotations is also intimated in Hellenistic magical texts.

"I am the Son."
- Papyri graecae magicae IV.535
"I am the Son of the living God."
- The Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden XX.23

"As 'Son of God' Jesus casts out demons (Mk. 3.11; 5.7p; Lk. 4.41), walks on the sea, and knows the Father (Mt. 11.27p.; 14.33). Because he claims to be 'son of God' the devil demands miracles from him (Mt. 4.36p.) and the Jews mock him when he is unable to perform them (Mt. 27.40, 43). Because he was 'a son of god' miracles attended his death (Mk. 15.38f.p.). by contrast, the gospels rarely attribute Jesus' miracles to 'his spirit' or to 'the holy spirit'..."
- Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? (1978) pp. 132-133

(7) Intimations of Divinity
The syoptic gospels, in accord with Jewish tradition, make it clear that the man Jesus and God are not one and the same.
"The recognition of sin, the need for forgiveness, and the perception that God alone can supply absolution is insightfully articulated in the Thanksgiving Hymns (cf. esp. 1QH 4). The author confesses that everyone is in iniquity from birth and remains in sin until death. Then comes the memorable acknowledgment that righteousness is not possible for humans and that 'all the works of righteousness' belong solely to God (1QH 4:31)."
- James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism

"And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, 'Good Teacher [Righteous Rabbi], what must I do to inherit eternal life?' And Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.'"
- Mark 10:17-18; (Matthew 19:16-17; Luke 18:18-19)

"The claim that only God is good could have been made by any Judean or by any Greek influenced by Plato."
- Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels
According to Paul, Jesus did not achieve recognition as the messianic "Son of God", with all its implications of divinity, until after his death and resurrection.

"And who through the Spirit [Or who as to his spirit] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God [or was appointed to be the Son of God with power] by his resurrection from the dead:Jesus Christ our Lord."
- Romans 1:4

&quot...For Paul it was the spirit of God that animated life and that was seen in the analogy of the wind (ruach) and thought to be similar to the breath (nephesh) that God breathed into Adam at the dawn of creation.)"
- John Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels, p. 222
Note also that the root of the Greek word for "spirit", pneumatikoV means "wind" or "breath".
"Instead of referring to Jesus as 'the Christ', which would have been the correct translation of 'Messiah' into Greek, Paul adopted the fashion (he most likely initiated it) of calling Jesus 'Christ' as if this was a proper name, ignoring its political connotations, and also referred to him as theSon of God."
- Ian Wilson, Jesus, The Evidence

"At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God."
- Acts 9:20

The author(s) of John equated the Son of God with the throne of Israel, but also asserted the unity of Jesus and God while Jesus was still alive.

"Then Nathanael declared, 'Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.'"
- John 1:49
The Jews [Sadducees] answered him, 'It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.'
Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your law, "I said, you are gods"? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, "You are blaspheming", because I said, "I am the Son of God"? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.'"
- John 10:32-38

"God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the gods:" "I said, 'You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler."
- - Psalm 82:1, 6

"In this psalm, God (Elohim) is subjugating the congregation of El the mighty, the 'children of the most high', the sons of El, and now they are going to die like men."
- Chris King, "This Day the Scripture is Fulfilled in Your Ears"
"The 'works' of Jesus and his unity with the Father are Johannine themes that have no basis in the aphorisms and parables of the historical Jesus."
- Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels

[NoName55]

Please tell me why you keep repeating that verse see “And if they hear evil, vain, false talk...... I am not being false I am speaking all the truth I know in love even if I lack the tact and wisdom at times. These things are not blunders of the heart they are blunders of the mind. I feel like your using it to judge me. Only God can do that. Let God judge me please, don't you do it if that is the purpose of the verse.

you have already been told about signatures, so stop playing silly burgers and get back to the topic at hand

[Redeemed]

I will deal with this later. I need to go to bed. I am over loaded with info, and I have to work early. I am not trying to evade. Good night, and what do you mean by silly hamburgers? Now you did it - your making hungry - stop it. LOL

[NoName55]

are they yummy?

goodnight

[Woodrow]

Can someone tell me why on this forum I get two different messages regarding my standing. My desk top CP lets me I could post new threads and converse on the forum, but my lap top says I may not???? WHY??

Check your browser settings on both of them. I would suggest clearing the cookie cache. Log out on both and then log back in. They should both be identical then. I would suspect that when you updated to full member on one your browser on the other was turned off and never updated when you went back on line.

[snakelegs]

I wonder why this is under Halal Fun category?:?

this may be why:

I am going to stop writing in the forum for a while, I feel the Lord is calling me to get into His word and prayer.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Thread moved.

[AbuAbdallah]

salaam,

Who do Christians pray to, Jesus, God, Mary, or The Holy Ghost?

[Redeemed]

Good Afternoon Eric:
You said, "We are all created by the same God even though we have very different beliefs about Jesus. I hope and pray that we are able to find it in our hearts to live in peace with our differences.
In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith friendship"
Eric
Who is Jesus to you?

[Redeemed]

This thread has been moved. I am not sure why or what it means to have it moved. Can anyone explain?

[Redeemed]

:sl:
Thread moved.

For now we see through a glass darkly, but when that which is perfect appears, then we shall know even as we are known!
By the way, cats don't really have nine lives, and it is appointed once unto man to die then comes the judgment.

[NoName55]

For now we see through a glass darkly, but when that which is perfect appears, then we shall know even as we are known!
By the way, cats don't really have nine lives, and it is appointed once unto man to die then comes the judgment.

You were supposed to deal with me.Instead I see you are back up to your old tricks (random rants)

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

This thread has been moved. I am not sure why or what it means to have it moved. Can anyone explain?

I moved the thread into a more appropriate section since originally it was placed in halaal fun.

For now we see through a glass darkly, but when that which is perfect appears, then we shall know even as we are known!
By the way, cats don't really have nine lives, and it is appointed once unto man to die then comes the judgment.

If you would like, you may create an entire thread on that. As for now, perhaps it would be wise to stick to the topic? Just a friendly reminder from your favourite pakistani.:statisfie

[Redeemed]

salaam,

Who do Christians pray to, Jesus, God, Mary, or The Holy Ghost?

I understand why you ask this question. You are trying to get me to use my higher order thinking skills; nevertheless, it is a fair question:
I believe that there is only one God, and Mary has nothing to do with deity. The Bible says that Jesus who being in the very nature God did not claim to be equal to Him, but humble Himself on the cross to die in our place. It was Jesus mission to glorify God and God's to glorify Him. God is a Spirit and those who worship Him must do so in Spirit and in truth. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. God is a Spirit and He is Holy. He is then the Holy Spirit. The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are one. There is only one God... ONE... I don't understand this mystery anymore than I understand how we can have a soul, spirit and we are flesh and blood yet one. Remember very answer has a question, but not very question has an answer. Jesus taught his disciples how to pray to the Father in His name. I know that the Bible has translation errors, but we do not believe there are any mistakes regarding the Word of God in the Bible concerning these points.

Who being in the very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be gasped, but made himself nothing, taking on the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death- even the death of the cross. PHILLIPIANS 2:5-8

[Redeemed]

You were supposed to deal with me.Instead I see you are back up to your old tricks (random rants)

What do you mean I was suppose to deal with you and I am up to my old tricks? Jesus is the one that said, "I am the Way the Life and the Truth" He not me. You said, you honor Jesus (in so many words). Well, you honor him your way, and I honor Him by believing that He is the Way, the truth and the Life. He also said, "That no man can come to the Father but by me." There are no tricks here am trying to pull. I do admit that I lack wisdom and tact at times (sincerely sorry), and I haven't yet learned how to step on toes without messing up the shine, but I am learning, respectfully, and you have been teaching me along with the rest of the brothers in humanity.

[NoName55]

@AbuAbdallah
Simple answer was Christians worship Christ, while majority of catholics pray to Mary.


@alapiana1
I needed your answers to my quetions (asked earlier): e.g How many "Sons" does God have?

but it does not matter anymore since you don't read any refutations (or posts longer than a sentence). Therefore I have decided to act upon my signature verse and leave you in peace with your delusions.

Ma'asalaama

What do you mean I was suppose to deal with you and I am up to my old tricks? Jesus is the one that said, "I am the Way the Life and the Truth" He not me. You said, you honor Jesus (in so many words). Well, you honor him your way, and I honor Him by believing that He is the Way, the truth and the Life. He also said, "That no man can come to the Father but by me." There are no tricks here am trying to pull. I do admit that I lack wisdom and tact at times (sincerely sorry), and I haven't yet learned how to step on toes without messing up the shine, but I am learning, respectfully, and you have been teaching me along with the rest of the brothers in humanity.

look here
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post699296

[Redeemed]

It is written: "But as many as recieved Him, to them gave He the power to be the sons of God." KJV (some translations say the children of God). I guess that Scripture is open for intrepretation.

[Redeemed]

Oh I see, I forgot about that, I was tried last night, but I read it now, and I don't know how to debate all of that stuff you sent. It seems that someone Has gone through a lot of trouble to try to prove that Jesus is not the Son of God. You have a lot of resources and Muslims brothers to support you through this dialogue that I don't have mainly because this is an Islamic forum, but there are books out there that can blow all kinds of holes through that research you sent. Anyway, I have learned that a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. By the way, I am not being cynical of you, but it sounds like you are of me by saying, "I'll leave you to your delusions." You don't have to say that to me. Believe me, I know what you think of me. I am trying to think of you as greater than myself, but when you make statements like that it almost stumbles me.

[Umar001]

As a man who read the bible and tried to follow it to the best of his ways, I cannot say I am bias to a particular extreme.

Whilst I read the Bible I found Jesus to be a great man, unusual man, a man beautiful in many ways, a man with a closeness to God, a reletionship which was ideal. To me I found in the Bible Jesus to be: a man accredited by God to people by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among people through him, as you yourselves know.

As I read, and tried to neutralise myself from any type of predispositions I found that the 'proofs' that some use to say Jesus is God do not actually neccesitate that understanding, unless someone is forcing that into the scripture. Whilst if we go with the whole of the Biblical Text then we see that Jesus not being God would to more justice to logicality and context.

That's my view for all it's worth.

Though it's still yet to be proven that the Bible is an accurate representation of the 3 years and abit of Jesus' life.

Eesa.

[جوري]

Oh I see, I forgot about that, I was tried last night, but I read it now, and I don't know how to debate all of that stuff you sent. It seems that someone Has gone through a lot of trouble to try to prove that Jesus is not the Son of God. You have a lot of resources and Muslims brothers to support you through this dialogue that I don't have mainly because this is an Islamic forum, but there are books out there that can blow all kinds of holes through that research you sent. Anyway, I have learned that a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. By the way, I am not being cynical of you, but it sounds like you are of me by saying, "I'll leave you to your delusions." You don't have to say that to me. Believe me, I know what you think of me. I am trying to think of you as greater than myself, but when you make statements like that it almost stumbles me.

Does it matter who your allies are in a Christian or a Muslim brotherhood? If you know something really well-- it is innate to you it will be easy to refute whatever argument comes your way.....

If I knew all there to know about a strep infection... then it wouldn't matter who attacks me with a question about-- Cellulitis I'll be ready.. if they ask me about Impetigo I'll be ready.. if they take a turn to Ecthyma I'll be ready... if they go on to try to get me on Erysipelas I'll be ready...Scarlet Fever I am ready, Necrotizing Fasciitis --still ready.... why? because I know all there is to know about it inside and out... I wouldn't need a brotherhood...I'd not need to be on a special forum where others share my views... I don't need to sleep on it... I don't need to consult with someone, for then I am the one to be consulted with...

You see, you represent yourself as a cognoscente of theological studies.. but you cut and paste articles.. the worst of it is most of it not just derogatory against Muslims but embarrassingly untrue-- you don't present an argument logically and you don't refute it point by point logically.. and it has nothing to do with who out there can back your opinion up or not. There is always someone out there smarter than you, tougher than you, better than you-- that is just the way G-D created man kind... each having a different talent... But if you'll sit here and present yourself as a devout Christian and preach the book, this is your talent... then know your book's contents and know how to refute an argument against the book's contents logically without so much emotion....
peace!

[Yanal]

Salam i think Jesus is a prophet that got token away in heaven because there is this story that some people were about to hang jesus on a ship or something like that first they were beating him up very badly and allah (Swt) toke him to heaven with all of us blood all over him and people say he will come with the blood to earth and around 40years after he comes back the day of judgment will be here and he will also be blessed with a wife and children and when he dies he will be buried beside prophet Muhammad (saw) grave. And the people who can sense him will be that who pray fajr. Peace :w:

[Yanal]

Salaam again sorry that was to long and forgive me if i made a mistake Peace:w:

[Redeemed]

I only cut and paste that one article by Fred that got you most upset with me if you were upset. I am not so sure of anything. There is a danger for me to be communicating here too. I could be led astray if I am not prayed up and staying in the Scriptures. But please don't confuse my meekness for weakness. I really do respect you all. And I have learned a lot from you and that God has placed a call on the Arab nation which I believe is at the root of Islam or at least through whom the word came. I am broken about all of this. I shouldn't say anything that disrespects your believe. I am sorry to tears. I just can't get my mind of Christ. I also believe there was a call on Israel from whom the seed of Jesus comes, but even they reject Jesus as their King. My words aren't fancy and technical but I believe they are with power in the Holy Spirit as long as my conscious is clear and I trusting and obeying all that I know that God wants me to do.
Sincerely,
AJ

[don532]

As a man who read the bible and tried to follow it to the best of his ways, I cannot say I am bias to a particular extreme.

Whilst I read the Bible I found Jesus to be a great man, unusual man, a man beautiful in many ways, a man with a closeness to God, a reletionship which was ideal. To me I found in the Bible Jesus to be: a man accredited by God to people by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among people through him, as you yourselves know.

As I read, and tried to neutralise myself from any type of predispositions I found that the 'proofs' that some use to say Jesus is God do not actually neccesitate that understanding, unless someone is forcing that into the scripture. Whilst if we go with the whole of the Biblical Text then we see that Jesus not being God would to more justice to logicality and context.

That's my view for all it's worth.

Though it's still yet to be proven that the Bible is an accurate representation of the 3 years and abit of Jesus' life.

Eesa.

Greetings Eesa.
This is probably review for you, but I need to ask. What is your perspective regarding the thought that there is no proof the Bible does NOT represent accurately the three years of Jesus'(pbuh) life. We do not have scripture from God's mouth or Jesus' pen.
Please give it to me one issue at a time if you can. I tend to get lost in the long, multiparagraph replies I sometimes get.
Most here are greater sources of knowledge than I am, and I have difficulty following it seems.

Thank you for your patience and peace.

[Redeemed]

I don't know, and I don't see any account for Jesus as a teenager either. Where was He before He fullifilled the purpose He came for. Do you know. No Christians know. I can only tell you that my spirit bears witness with Jesus that He has my heart safely in His hand and no one can tear me away.

[NoName55]

http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/l...say/ch1.2.html


"Hear, O Israel The Lord our God is one Lord"
Deuteronomy 6:4

It was repeated word-for-word approximately 1500 years later by Jesus (pbuh) when he said
"...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord."
Mark 12:29

Muhammad (pbuh) came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the same message again:
"And your God is One God: there is no god but He"
The noble Qur'an, al-Bakarah(2):163

were we to study the religion known today as "Christ"ianity, we would find that it is the interpretation of St. Paul of what he personally believed to be the religion of Jesus(pbuh). Christianity as it stands today has been reduced to an interpretation of the words of Jesus (pbuh) within the context of what Paul taught rather than the other way around which is the way it should be. We would expect Christianity to be the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and that the words of Paul and everyone else would be accepted or rejected according to their conformity to these "Jesuit" teachings. However, we will notice in what follows that Jesus (pbuh) never in his lifetime mentioned an original sin, or an atonement. He never asked anyone to worship him, neither did he ever claim to be part of a Trinity. His words and actions are those of a loyal messenger of God who faithfully and faultlessly followed the commands of his Lord and only told his followers to do the same and to worship God alone (John 4:21, John 4:23, Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8 ...etc.).

Just one of the countless examples of this placement of the words of Paul above the words of Jesus can be seen in the following analysis: Jesus (pbuh) is claimed to have been prepared for his sacrifice on the cross from the beginning of time and was a willing victim (otherwise we would have to claim that God is a sadistic and torturous God who forced Jesus into such a savage end). However, whenever Jesus (pbuh) was asked about the path to "eternal life" he consistently told his followers to only "keep the commandments" and nothing more (Matthew 19:16-21, John 14:15, John 15:10). Not once did he himself ever mention an original sin or a redemption. Even when pressed for the path to "PERFECTION" he only told his followers to sell their belongings. He departed this earth leaving his
followers with the very dire threat: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilledJesus, Fulfillment of Law of Moses. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:18-19.

Obviously, heaven and earth have not yet passed. The fact that you are reading this book bears witness to this very simple fact. So Jesus (pbuh) is telling us that so long as creation exists, the commandments will be required from his followers. Anyone who will dare to say otherwise, until the end of time, will be called "the least in the kingdom of heaven." Jesus (pbuh) had foreseen mankind's attempt to distort and annul his commandments, the commandments of Moses (pbuh), which he had taught his followers to keep and himself had kept faithfully till the crucifixion, and was warning his followers in no uncertain terms to be wary of all those who would attempt to do so

Not long after, Jesus departs. Now Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul), a man who never met Jesus (pbuh), a man who by his own admission persecuted the followers of Jesus (pbuh) by every means within his power and presided over their execution (see below), comes along. Suddenly one day St. Paul receives a vision from Jesus (pbuh), and his whole life is turned around. He now takes it upon himself through the authority of his visions to spread the word of Jesus to the whole world and to explain what Jesus really meant. Paul claims that the law of God through Moses (pbuh) is worthless, decaying and ready to vanish away and faith in the crucifixion is the only requirement for a Christian to enter heaven (Romans 3:28, Hebrews 8:13...etc.). Who do Christians listen to, Jesus or Paul? They listen to Paul. They take the words of Paul literally and then "interpret" the words of Jesus (pbuh) within the context of the words of Paul. No one takes the words of Jesus (pbuh) literally and explains the words of Paul within the context
of Jesus' words.

According to this system of explaining the words of Jesus within the context of Paul's teachings, Jesus never actually means what he says but is constantly speaking in riddles (parables) which are not to be taken literally. Even when people attempt to cite the words of Jesus as confirming the teachings of Paul with regard to the original sin, the atonement, ...etc. they never bring clear and decisive words where Jesus actually confirms these things. Instead, they say such things as "When Jesus spoke of the exodus he was really speaking of the atonement" or so forth. Are we to believe that Paul is the only one who can say what is on his mind clearly and decisively while Jesus (pbuh) is not capable of articulating what he means clearly and decisively but requires interpreters to explain the "true" meaning of what he said, and to explain how, when he spoke of the commandments, he was not talking of "the commandments" but of a spiritual commandment and that they will now tell you what this spiritual commandment is that Jesus never managed to talk clearly about?.

It is interesting to note that Jesus was not talking in riddles when he commanded his followers to keep the commandments but was talking of the actual physical commandments of Moses. This can be clearly seen by reading for instance Luke 18:20 where Jesus spells out in no uncertain terms what he means by "keep the commandments." "And I (Jesus) have come confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful for you part of that which was forbidden upon you. And I have come to you with a sign from your Lord so seek refuge in Allah and obey me" The noble Qur'an, Aal-Umran(3):50 In the past, I have searched for a logical answer to this puzzle by posing the following questions to respected Christian clergy:

1. According to you, Jesus is supposed to have been prepared for the "atonement" from the beginning of time. He should know that it is coming.
2. Whenever he was asked about the path to "eternal life" (i.e. Matthew 19:16-22 ..etc.) he consistently told his followers to only "keep the commandments" just as he had "kept my father's commandments" ..etc.
3. Even when he was pressed for more, he only told his followers that in order to be PERFECT they needed only to sell their belongings.
4. Not once did he mention an "atonement" or and "original sin."
5. The commandments he spoke about were the commandments of Moses and not some "spiritual" commandments. This can be seen in the text itself where Jesus (pbuh) explicitly spells out some of the commandments of Moses one by one.
6. St. Paul, a disciple of a disciple, is the one who is followed by Christianity and not Jesus. Jesus' teachings are explained within the context of Paul's teachings and not vice versa.

Whenever this question would be presented to a respected member of the Christian clergy the response would always be the same: "Well, don't take Jesus' words literally. St. Paul has told us in Romans ...," or "Yes, but St. Paul tells us in Galatians ....," or "St. Paul tells us in Corinthians .." Yet my question remains: where did JESUS ever say it? Where does the RED ink say it? Doesn't St. Paul's authority come from Jesus? I simply want a single clear statement from Jesus himself where he endorsed Paul's claims and then it would be possible to accept Paul's claim that he was indeed preaching the "commands of Jesus." If Jesus were only to say it once then I can accept Paul repeating it a thousand times. However, as we shall soon see, never, not even once in his whole lifetime did Jesus (pbuh) endorse the
preachings of Paul.

Getting back to the matter at hand, the reader will notice in Mr. J's response a surprising absence of certain very fundamental verses usually quoted by any Christian man or woman off the street in defense of the "Trinity" and other issues. The reader may further surmise that Mr. J might not be well versed enough in the Bible to have referred to these verses. This is far from the case. His occupation requires that he know those verses. The fact of the matter is that I have had an ongoing correspondence with Mr. J for a number of months now which he has now asked be publicized. In this correspondence, many of these fundamental verses were dealt with in detail and refuted for various reasons. This is why he did not quote them here. However, in order that all may benefit from this information we will quote these same verses that he has elected not to. We will also study the other verses he has presented.

[جوري]

I only cut and paste that one article by Fred that got you most upset with me if you were upset.

Not upset... surprised you'd post something without verfying it least of which as a presentation to Muslims.... Don't you think spreading lies can only be a testament to weakness and inferiority of the one who is prepetuating such rumors?

I am not so sure of anything.

No one is born a scholar

There is a danger for me to be communicating here too.

Why is that?

I could be led astray if I am not prayed up and staying in the Scriptures.

or a whole other world in a different light-- more clearely...

But please don't confuse my meekness for weakness.

I don't think you are either of those

I really do respect you all. And I have learned a lot from you and that God has placed a call on the Arab nation which I believe is at the root of Islam or at least through whom the word came.

All the messangers came from the middle east... G-D makes no distinction between an Arab or a non-Arab save for piety... A great many Arabs were awful as evidenced in some of the verses in the Quran...

[9.97]"The Arabs of the desert are the worst in unbelief and Hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down to His Messenger but Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. "

I am broken about all of this. I shouldn't say anything that disrespects your believe. I am sorry to tears.

Well... I really can't understand why?

I just can't get my mind of Christ. I also believe there was a call on Israel from whom the seed of Jesus comes, but even they reject Jesus as their King. My words aren't fancy and technical but I believe they are with power in the Holy Spirit as long as my conscious is clear and I trusting and obeying all that I know that God wants me to do.
Sincerely,
AJ

well--- maybe G-D has led you here for a reason... if the one you were trying to accomplish has failed, maybe there is another one? You should search your soul!
besides, No Muslim has given up Moses, Jesus or any of the other messangers of Allah... and we certainly don't go around maligning them or the scriptures to make Islam seem more correct or appealing... ..[Pickthal 2:285] The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) believers. Each one believeth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers - We make no distinction between any of His messengers - and they say: We hear, and we obey. (Grant us) Thy forgiveness, our Lord. Unto Thee is the journeying.

[don532]

It's been a long day. Time for bed as I have another long day tomorrow.
No, Jesus(pbuh) never says in the Bible "worship me". I have read much for and against the concept of the trinity. Good points are made on all sides. As I was closing up for the evening, I found this passage in John 5:39 and 40.

The words of Jesus, according to John: "39You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."

I'm sure some will say that he never said eternal life in the last part of verse 40, so that's not what he meant. From my view, if the scriptures testified about Him, the meaning is eternal life.

Maybe I'll have some more time Sunday to check back. Good night all and peace.

[Redeemed]

You can't see why am sorry to tears, and you don't see me as meek. Well, maybe you have a point there, but I am sorry for attacking the authority of what you believe. I couldn't see why it was wrong at first, but I feel that God has taught me something even through you (You have been the hardest on me) in that respect. If I should fall into it again that would be because I am learning to walk away from it. As far as my being meek, I would like to be like Jesus who was a lamb to His sheep and a lion to the wolves.

I believe that God the Holy Spirit is our comforter the bearer of truth and direction in our lives. He is the very breath of the Word of God. He walks along side of us, and tells us this is the right way walk in it.

Peter was saying that he knows that you know these things of spiritual truth. In where we are living in a hamburger (tent) that we will one day lay aside to be with the Lord, because that’s what was going to happen to him soon and he wants us to rejoice in the fact that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

I believe that God gave Abraham the grace to follow through on the mission of sacrificing his son. I think the 3-day journey was allowing Abraham to deliberated on the death sentence of His son and his son also, in spite of the fact that he latter asked his father where is the lamb (Although not mentioned) knew that he was supposed to be the sacrifice even before they arrived on Mt. Moriah. I really believe that as Abraham was about to sacrifice his son and the son laid dumb in total trust represented the perfect picture of what God did to his son and Abraham saw that in the spirit some 2000 years before the actual event took place with the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

The son (Isaac) carried the wood for the burned offering much like Jesus carried the wood for His cross.

Abraham had the instrument that was going to pierce his son's flesh to shed his blood as a sin offering

I look at it like life isn't fair and a lot of things go wrong, and it even seems like life isn't worth living. In fact, it isn't worth living apart from God. I see that we will all suffer regardless of what we believe or do in life. I simply have made a choice to suffer for Christ, because I believe that He can turn my life of death to the flesh into eternal life of the spirit. He said those that lose their life for my sake and the gospel will save it, but if we try to save it, we will lose it.

Although Moses was great and even a god like savior to the children of Israel and Elijah was the greatest of Old Testament fiery prophets. All attention in heaven and earth was to be focused on Jesus. Peter seemed to have missed that, and if I were God, I would have found it insulting to put God on equal footing to that of His mere servants. That was when Jesus was trasnfigured before Peter standing there withMoses and Elijah. Peter wanted to build and alter for all three, but I voice from heaven spoke and Moses and Elijah disappeared with only Jesus there. The voice said "This is my beloved Son hear ye Him"
We can even look at the hidden lessons in the story of Joseph. Yes, Joseph was his father's only begotten son (term of endearment) even though he had other children. Just like Jesus was and is His father's only begotten Son. Joseph's brothers hated him because he had God's favor, and that is like the chosen people of God rejecting Christ because He was the anointed one.

Jesus' life matches that of Joseph in more ways than I mentioned above. For instance, as Mike states, "Joseph was greatly loved by his father, but hated by his brothers.

His father sent Joseph to his brothers (who were lost), on a mission of mercy.

When Joseph’s brothers saw him coming, they plotted his death.

Joseph’s brothers sold him into the hands of Gentiles for pieces of silver.

Joseph was falsely accused and sent to a dungeon, where he was numbered with the transgressors, and placed between two criminals.

Joseph then rose out of the dungeon and was exalted to the right hand of Pharaoh, becoming savior and provider to those who needed bread, and was ‘lord of all.’" This is awesome stuff here. It is absolutely note worthy and remarkable. Good night
Peace
AJ

[Redeemed]

Some things we can infer from the Bible. Everything doesn't always have to be spelled out. The Bible says that he that has the Son has life; he that has not the Son as not life. From that, we don't need to infer nothing. It is explicit. People may choose that not to mean eternal life. I don't want to take the chance to find out. Not having life sounds pretty ugly to me.

[Redeemed]

Sorry double negative nothing/ anything

[NoName55]

Some things we can infer from the Bible. Everything doesn't always have to be spelled out. The Bible says that he that has the Son has life; he that has not the Son as not life. From that, we don't need to infer nothing. It is explicit. People may choose that not to mean eternal life. I don't want to take the chance to find out. Not having life sounds pretty ugly to me.

since you never stick to the point, this really is the last post addressed to you.

Henceforth only posts I make are going to be refutations to any rubbish I notice here No more, no less![until I'm deleted (only need 1 more post that is offensive to a mod)].

:w:

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you alapiana1;

Eric
Who is Jesus to you?

Jesus is the Only Son of God who was crucified for my sins, and he rose again on the third day. Jesus has been given all authority and power over heaven and Earth.

These are my beliefs, and I use the word beliefs because I cannot prove it to anyone else who does not want to believe. We may have passionate beliefs about our own faith, but we must learn to accept that others will also be passionate about their opposing beliefs.

In the spirit of praying to a loving and forgiving God,

Eric

[Umar001]

Greetings Eesa.
This is probably review for you, but I need to ask. What is your perspective regarding the thought that there is no proof the Bible does NOT represent accurately the three years of Jesus'(pbuh) life. We do not have scripture from God's mouth or Jesus' pen.
Please give it to me one issue at a time if you can. I tend to get lost in the long, multiparagraph replies I sometimes get.
Most here are greater sources of knowledge than I am, and I have difficulty following it seems.

Thank you for your patience and peace.

Howdy Don, Hope you aite.

Let me 'rephrase' your questions, so I can see if I understood your questions right, correct me if I have now.

1. What's your view on the position of some who say that there is no proof that the Bible does not represent accuratly the three years of Jesus, peace be upon him's, life?

Am confused if you then are just telling me, is it because 'We do not have scripture from God's mouth or Jesus' pen.'?

Am alittle baffled there. Sorry please be patient with me.


Eesa.

[don532]

Howdy Don, Hope you aite.

Let me 'rephrase' your questions, so I can see if I understood your questions right, correct me if I have now.

1. What's your view on the position of some who say that there is no proof that the Bible does not represent accuratly the three years of Jesus, peace be upon him's, life?

Am confused if you then are just telling me, is it because 'We do not have scripture from God's mouth or Jesus' pen.'?

Am alittle baffled there. Sorry please be patient with me.


Eesa.

I'm fine, thank you. Just got back from day with my son.
You're patient with me so much, the least I can do is clarify to return the favor of being patient.

What I mean is, there's no version of scripture that says Jesus lived three years claiming only to be a prophet. There's no existing old scriptures that when translated change any basic messages in the Bible. What proof is there that it's been changed? The list of 101 contradictions I've seen just doesn't wash with me. There's 101 refutations also.

Even the idea that Paul went about changing the gospel to fit his needs. I'm sure the other 11 would have reigned him in once they saw he was not representing the three years they all spent with Jesus.

Your thoughts?

Thanks once again.

[Woodrow]

I'm fine, thank you. Just got back from day with my son.
You're patient with me so much, the least I can do is clarify to return the favor of being patient.

What I mean is, there's no version of scripture that says Jesus lived three years claiming only to be a prophet. There's no existing old scriptures that when translated change any basic messages in the Bible. What proof is there that it's been changed? The list of 101 contradictions I've seen just doesn't wash with me. There's 101 refutations also.

Even the idea that Paul went about changing the gospel to fit his needs. I'm sure the other 11 would have reigned him in once they saw he was not representing the three years they all spent with Jesus.

Your thoughts?

Thanks once again.

Just poking my nose in and adding my 2 cents. All I know of Paul in the NT is from the letters he wrote to the various church heads. so I know that by the time of Paul, Christianity had taken on the role of an organized religion separate from Judaism. It does look like Paul was very instrumental in bringing about this change.

I could be wrong, but I can not find any reply that any Bishop, Apostle or whatever had ever written back to Paul. Can you point to one sentence where a single Apostle acknowledged agreeing with Paul?

[don532]

Just poking my nose in and adding my 2 cents. All I know of Paul in the NT is from the letters he wrote to the various church heads. so I know that by the time of Paul, Christianity had taken on the role of an organized religion separate from Judaism. It does look like Paul was very instrumental in bringing about this change.

I could be wrong, but I can not find any reply that any Bishop, Apostle or whatever had ever written back to Paul. Can you point to one sentence where a single Apostle acknowledged agreeing with Paul?

Greetings Woodrow. Thank you for the reply.

By the same token, can anyone produce any replies from that time where any of the other apostles refuted his writings? Paul wasn't the only apostle travelling about.

If Paul was communicating correctly, why would there necessarily be letters of agreement? If he was twisting what the other apostles all thought to be the truth, there should have been activity to reign him in from the people that were also familiar with Jesus'(pbuh) message.

Peace.

[Woodrow]

Would it not be logical that any refutations would have "disappeared" if the Church that Paul formed had become stronger than Christianity?

[Woodrow]

A challange, Seperate the letters of Paul from the NT, compare those letters with what the Apostles wrote, is the Christianity of today more like the letters of Paul or like the writings of the apostles.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Woodrow;

A challange, Seperate the letters of Paul from the NT, compare those letters with what the Apostles wrote, is the Christianity of today more like the letters of Paul or like the writings of the apostles

It depends what influence God has on Paul’s letters and I do not believe that Paul's letters are in conflict with the rest of the Bible
Also I believe that Pauls writings help me to understand in a broader sense many of the things Jesus taught. These are my beliefs.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Woodrow]

Peace Eric,

I have problems with equating Paul with Christianity. to me it appears that Paul formed a whole new denomination separate from the Christianity practiced by the Apostles.

All that I see about Paul in the NT are the words written by Paul Himself. So what we know about Paul and what authority he had is based on the words of Paul alone.

Seems odd that the NT felt it necessary to have 4 witnesses to explain what they believe about Isa(as), yet accept Paul on the basis of his own word.

Outside of Paul himself, there is nobody that can verify he even had any authority to speak for the Christians of the era, Much less become one of the major forces in establishing Christianity to become what it has become.

If you were to take the letters of Paul as stand alone doctrine of today's Christian, There would be no Change in the beliefs of todays Christians. However, if you would take the words of the Apostles and try to have them stand alone, Christianity would be much different today, it would be a sect of Judaism and not even be called Christianity. You would be eating Kosher Food and Circumcision would be required. That is just for starts.

So although Paul does not discredit the teachings of the apostles, his teachings contain much that was not taught by the apostles and the early Christians. Yet, the only basis to accept his authority is his own words. The NT does not even provide any witnesses to even verify he was even a Christian. Sort of like he had found a copy of the writings of John, Mark, Matthew and Luke and founded a church based upon his interpretation.

[don532]

Would it not be logical that any refutations would have "disappeared" if the Church that Paul formed had become stronger than Christianity?

Would it not also seem logical the other apostles would have a lot to say if this guy Paul was running about misguiding people about the teachings they spent three years being a witness to?

Perhaps any writing from the other apostles could have disappeared if he could have orchestrated such a wide effort in that part of the world by himself, or with the help of conspirators.

In the reformation and enlightenment periods we still have writings of the Wesleys, Whitefield and others where they debated doctrinal issues. Much later in history true, but I think that would be representative of a situation in which one man would differ so greatly from the other Christians of the time.

I think a more likely scenario if Paul was that out of control, is his deceptive writings would have caused division and the formation of a denomination apart from what the other apostles believed.

[Woodrow]

I think a more likely scenario if Paul was that out of control, is his deceptive writings would have caused division and the formation of a denomination apart from what the other apostles believed.

And that is what I believe happened. Check out some of the other apostolic religions that did not go with Paul. The Sabiens are basicaly Apostolic Christians that did not accept Paul. If I recall correctly so are the Coptics. But, I may be wrong about the Coptics. Most of what I know about them is they have retained much of the Aramaic scriptures.

[Umar001]

I'm fine, thank you. Just got back from day with my son.

Hope your day was fruitiful.

What I mean is, there's no version of scripture that says Jesus lived three years claiming only to be a prophet.

What we do have in the Bible is passages and writings there are the writings that clearly indicate Jesus was a human being like me and you, this is why most people would say 100% Man.. but then they say 100% God. This second 100% is, or seems to be based on verses which could have many interpretations, some logical and some not. What I say is, those verses if taken within context of scripture show us that yes Jesus was a man like you and me, which most would agree on, but they do not show he is almighty God, those verses, if taken in context, do not neccesitate a God Jesus. Rather can mean a Man who was accredited by God to the Israel Men and through whom God done many wonders.

There's no existing old scriptures that when translated change any basic messages in the Bible.

Are you sure? There are manuscripts which have verses which provide evidence for the Trinity, or verses of the resurrection in some Gospels which were not there before. I'll answer this within the next part:

What proof is there that it's been changed? The list of 101 contradictions I've seen just doesn't wash with me. There's 101 refutations also.

With regards to the contradictions, if you have seen the refutation, which we I think could discuss but I don't see a need. If you have seen it then you agree that there are some genuine mistakes in the Bible. I will play along, and even if they are only copiest errors, then you'll agree that the Bible is not infallible, mistakes can creep in there.

As for the proof of it's changing, what we do have is proof of changes made, we have manuscripts which show us verses which were not in older manuscripts. We have places where the copier might have felt he needed to change the image of Jesus so he added a word or so to make Jesus look better. What does this show us? It shows us that people in charge, if they felt they needed to could make amendments to the scripture.

Furthermore, we have the fact that within the gospels, the 3 which are on common grounds, themselves the stories change and Jesus is made to look better with the later the gospel. This is again another strong sign of manupilation.

Even the idea that Paul went about changing the gospel to fit his needs. I'm sure the other 11 would have reigned him in once they saw he was not representing the three years they all spent with Jesus.

Your thoughts?

Thanks once again.

I don't think, or rather, I don't have a view on Paul alot of people blame him for things, but I'll keep quiet as for now. The history of Paul and the rest is something which in my view needs more study for me, I have not focoused on it alot.

What I will say is with regards to your statement 'I'm sure the other 11 would have reigned him in once they saw he was not representing the three years they all spent with Jesus.'

What makes you think they did not? Rather I have heard some did try, rather that there were confrontations.

But when you read the bible now, we read it as one book, as a book of men who all commonly shared a belief who all regarded each other as family. Rather, when one takes an objective look, he might find evidences for a difference.

But as I said this again is something which someone will need to dedicate time to study.

Please give me your thoughts.

[Redeemed]

Greetings and peace be with you alapiana1;

Jesus is the Only Son of God who was crucified for my sins, and he rose again on the third day. Jesus has been given all authority and power over heaven and Earth.

These are my beliefs, and I use the word beliefs because I cannot prove it to anyone else who does not want to believe. We may have passionate beliefs about our own faith, but we must learn to accept that others will also be passionate about their opposing beliefs.

In the spirit of praying to a loving and forgiving God,

Eric

Your confession for Christ matches mine. It is trut that we cannot prove our beliefs to those who don't want believe; we can't prove them even if they want to believe. It is only each persons' individual faith that is the proof for them. And that faith comes by hearing the Word. I have accepted that others will be just as passionate about their belief as I am about mine, but it doesn't hurt to be reminded. Thanks,
Paul said, "Woe unto me if I don't preach the gospel." I feel this same Woe. However, I am also trying to respect forum rules and sticking to the
topic. Please be patient with me; this is a learning process me.
Blessings
aj

[NoName55]

If God and Jesus are one, then who do you suggest was the Sovereign Preserver of all things seen and unseen, during the two days and nights the Bible alleges He was allegedly dead and buried?

http://www.islamicboard.com/701140-post104.html

If God and Jesus are one, then who do you suggest was the Sovereign Preserver of all things seen and unseen, during the two days and nights the Bible alleges He was allegedly dead and buried? how did the universe continue to exist? the driver is dead but the juggernaut keeps travelling, pilot has snuffed it the aircraft keeps flying. yeah right! very logical

:w:

[Redeemed]

http://www.islamicboard.com/701140-post104.html

If God and Jesus are one, then who do you suggest was the Sovereign Preserver of all things seen and unseen, during the two days and nights the Bible alleges He was allegedly dead and buried? how did the universe continue to exist? the driver is dead but the juggernaut keeps travelling, pilot has snuffed it the aircraft keeps flying. yeah right! very logical

I need to pray before i answer you. I will get back to the question.
Thanks aj

[NoName55]

Jesus is the Only Son of God

How many "only Sons" does God have?

How many "only begotten Sons" does God have?

How many "firstborn Sons" does God have?

1. Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22.
2. Solomon is God's son "He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14.
3. Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?).
4. Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God." Luke 3:38.
5. Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12. "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2. "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7. "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6. "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men," Genesis 6:4. "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair" Genesis 6:2

:w:
http://www.islamicboard.com/699271-post34.html

[Woodrow]

In the early days of Christianity there were several separate groups that differed in there belief as to what the Bible said. There were many books being used. it was not until 393 that the strongest of the groups set the rules as to what the NT should be..

The New Testament Canon
-----------------------
When the Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393 listed the twenty-seven books of the New
Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already
possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity. The
ruling of the Synod of Hippo was repromulgated four years later by the Third
Synod of Carthag.

By then the teachings of Paul and the Early Roman Catholics had become dominate, so it was the writings that supported them that were established as being true. This was a case of establishing a belief and then selecting that which will support it and toss aside that which did not support it.

It is like picking out blue prints for a house after the house is built and only keeping those that have the most resemblance with what they built.

But, there were those who disagreed with the Authority of Paul and those who did not agree with what was accepted as authentic.

In the words of Ambrose Bierce it appears that Christianity is:"A group of people who sat down together 2,000 years ago for dinner, and have been arguing about what it was they ate ever since"

It seems nobody bothered to write down the menu until after the fact and each person who wrote the menu remembered it differently. It is going to be difficult to find any menus that does disagree with what has been preserved as they have long been destroyed.

I think it is interesting to see that over the centuries there have been several synods readjusting what does not agree with what is taught at any given time.

[don532]

In the early days of Christianity there were several separate groups that differed in there belief as to what the Bible said. There were many books being used. it was not until 393 that the strongest of the groups set the rules as to what the NT should be..




By then the teachings of Paul and the Early Roman Catholics had become dominate, so it was the writings that supported them that were established as being true. This was a case of establishing a belief and then selecting that which will support it and toss aside that which did not support it.

It is like picking out blue prints for a house after the house is built and only keeping those that have the most resemblance with what they built.

But, there were those who disagreed with the Authority of Paul and those who did not agree with what was accepted as authentic.

In the words of Ambrose Bierce it appears that Christianity is:"A group of people who sat down together 2,000 years ago for dinner, and have been arguing about what it was they ate ever since"

It seems nobody bothered to write down the menu until after the fact and each person who wrote the menu remembered it differently. It is going to be difficult to find any menus that does disagree with what has been preserved as they have long been destroyed.

I think it is interesting to see that over the centuries there have been several synods readjusting what does not agree with what is taught at any given time.

I must respectfully disagree with some things here.
Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight new testament books in a letter in 95AD. Ignatius of Antioch also acknowledged seven books in 115. Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books in 108. Hippolytus (170-235AD) recognized 22 books. The Muratorian Canon (170AD), was a compilation of books except Hebrews, James and one epistle of John. Athenasius wrote in 367 AD and cited the 27 books now present in the new testament as being the only true books. The same 27 were recognized at the councils of Laodicea, Hippo, and Carthage. History does not indicate there was large scale disagreement with Paul that was settled by throwing out writings that did not agree with him.
The tests of Canon gathered from early Christian writings were apostolicity, read in the churches, doctrinal contents of a book that was a recording of the oral creeds passed on by the apostles, recognition and use by the early church fathers, the ability of the book to edity, witness of the spirit.

I found much of this in a book I am reading about some of the early history of the church entitled "The Church and Western Culture, an introduction to church history" by Tom Streeter.

[Woodrow]

Peace Don, no problem with us disagreeing. It is very much appreciated that your disagreements are with dignity and respect.

I must state that Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Hippolytus were all Popes and used Papal Infallibility to establish those as being true. Were the Popes Infallible?

[don532]

Hope your day was fruitiful.



What we do have in the Bible is passages and writings there are the writings that clearly indicate Jesus was a human being like me and you, this is why most people would say 100% Man.. but then they say 100% God. This second 100% is, or seems to be based on verses which could have many interpretations, some logical and some not. What I say is, those verses if taken within context of scripture show us that yes Jesus was a man like you and me, which most would agree on, but they do not show he is almighty God, those verses, if taken in context, do not neccesitate a God Jesus. Rather can mean a Man who was accredited by God to the Israel Men and through whom God done many wonders.




Are you sure? There are manuscripts which have verses which provide evidence for the Trinity, or verses of the resurrection in some Gospels which were not there before. I'll answer this within the next part:



With regards to the contradictions, if you have seen the refutation, which we I think could discuss but I don't see a need. If you have seen it then you agree that there are some genuine mistakes in the Bible. I will play along, and even if they are only copiest errors, then you'll agree that the Bible is not infallible, mistakes can creep in there.

As for the proof of it's changing, what we do have is proof of changes made, we have manuscripts which show us verses which were not in older manuscripts. We have places where the copier might have felt he needed to change the image of Jesus so he added a word or so to make Jesus look better. What does this show us? It shows us that people in charge, if they felt they needed to could make amendments to the scripture.

Furthermore, we have the fact that within the gospels, the 3 which are on common grounds, themselves the stories change and Jesus is made to look better with the later the gospel. This is again another strong sign of manupilation.





I don't think, or rather, I don't have a view on Paul alot of people blame him for things, but I'll keep quiet as for now. The history of Paul and the rest is something which in my view needs more study for me, I have not focoused on it alot.

What I will say is with regards to your statement 'I'm sure the other 11 would have reigned him in once they saw he was not representing the three years they all spent with Jesus.'

What makes you think they did not? Rather I have heard some did try, rather that there were confrontations.

But when you read the bible now, we read it as one book, as a book of men who all commonly shared a belief who all regarded each other as family. Rather, when one takes an objective look, he might find evidences for a difference.

But as I said this again is something which someone will need to dedicate time to study.

Please give me your thoughts.

Yes, I do not question the notion of some errors in the Bible.

I have looked at the gospels without the writings of Paul. Sure seems to me the same message is there. For example in Luke 24, it is recorded Jesus opened their minds to the scriptures and told them It is written Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins would be preached in his name.....

Now I know there are answering Christianity websites out there that insist the forgiveness of sins was something God delegated to Jesus.......and Islam teaches Jesus didn't really die.....Perhaps we are in a circle here. I do not mean to waste your time. I also should study this more.

[Woodrow]

It is very difficult to compare Islam and Christianity. The biggest problem is we do not have a common source to present our arguments from and we both believe the other's source is in error.

No matter what we say here, it always comes back to our individual responsibility. We need to do all we can to verify to ourselves that what we believe is the truth and then be willing to accept the rewards or consequences of what we believe.

[NoName55]

If God and Jesus are one, then who do you suggest was the Sovereign Preserver of all things seen and unseen, during the two days and nights the Bible alleges He was dead and buried? how did the universe continue to exist? the driver is dead but the juggernaut keeps travelling forward without squishing any and everything in its path, pilot has snuffed it the aircraft keeps flying.

P.S this is the last repitition I'm making since I'm/my posts are invisible

[don532]

It is very difficult to compare Islam and Christianity. The biggest problem is we do not have a common source to present our arguments from and we both believe the other's source is in error.

No matter what we say here, it always comes back to our individual responsibility. We need to do all we can to verify to ourselves that what we believe is the truth and then be willing to accept the rewards or consequences of what we believe.

Well said. Not that you need it, but you certainly have my respect.

[Redeemed]

How many "only Sons" does God have?

How many "only begotten Sons" does God have?

How many "firstborn Sons" does God have?

1. Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22.
2. Solomon is God's son "He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14.
3. Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?).
4. Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God." Luke 3:38.
5. Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12. "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2. "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7. "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6. "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men," Genesis 6:4. "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair" Genesis 6:2

:w:
http://www.islamicboard.com/699271-post34.html

Jacob was considered the firstborn, but he wasn't really the first born - Essau was. If you do a lexical study on the word firstborn / only begotten in most of these contexts you quoted - it is referring to the one that is dearest and the one with God;s blessing. Essau did not get the blessing but sold it. Ishmael was first born, but the blessing of the firstborn rested on Isaac. I also believe that is the way the term was and is used for Jesus. Lets look at what is written in Isaiah 53 which clearly lines up with everything about Jesus: Who hath believed our report and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed...

[Redeemed]

Jacob was considered the firstborn, but he wasn't really the first born - Essau was. If you do a lexical study on the word firstborn / only begotten in most of these contexts you quoted - it is referring to the one that is dearest and the one with God;s blessing. Essau did not get the blessing but sold it. Ishmael was first born, but the blessing of the firstborn rested on Isaac. I also believe that is the way the term was and is used for Jesus. Lets look at what is written in Isaiah 53 which clearly lines up with everything about Jesus: Who hath believed our report and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed...

Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b]

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ;
by his knowledge [f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

[Redeemed]

Well said. Not that you need it, but you certainly have my respect.

Whether we are willing or not we are not free from the consquences of our choices, but we are free to choose what we believe and do. If there is a prophet greater than Jesus may God reveal that in my heart today. If Jesus is not my creator or if He shouldn't be the object of my worship, then may the Almighty God shine in my heart today to displace the darkness of deception. However, If Jesus should be the object of our worship may He shine like the bright morning sun on all Muslims.

[Redeemed]

If God and Jesus are one, then who do you suggest was the Sovereign Preserver of all things seen and unseen, during the two days and nights the Bible alleges He was dead and buried? how did the universe continue to exist? the driver is dead but the juggernaut keeps travelling forward without squishing any and everything in its path, pilot has snuffed it the aircraft keeps flying.

P.S this is the last repitition I'm making since I'm/my posts are invisible

We cannot understand how God can always exisit with no beginning; we cannot understand were the wind is coming from or where it is going; we cannot understand how Jesus could raise the dead. We cannot explain the eternal things of God with the finite ways of man. God is a spirit not flesh and blood. It is written that all things were made by Jesus and for Him and all things are held together by the Word of God - that is Jesus according to the Bible. I will glading accept the responsibility for believing such things.

[NoName55]

why is is that when people are unable to come up with a halfway decent reply they either resort to preaching or start rambling?

[dougmusr]

Here's a question for thought which I feel is related to this topic. Two people are near death. One has a healthy brain but needs a body to survive, and the other a healthy body but needs a brain to survive. If the healthy body is given the healthy brain, what would be the identity of the transplant survivor, that of the one who donated the body, or of the one that donated the brain?

[Umar001]

Yes, I do not question the notion of some errors in the Bible.

Question, how do you now distinguish the truth from the error?

I have looked at the gospels without the writings of Paul. Sure seems to me the same message is there. For example in Luke 24, it is recorded Jesus opened their minds to the scriptures and told them It is written Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins would be preached in his name.....

You do know the writings of Paul in some cases are earlier than the Gospels, so I don't understand what you mean in the above caption.

Now I know there are answering Christianity websites out there that insist the forgiveness of sins was something God delegated to Jesus.......and Islam teaches Jesus didn't really die.....Perhaps we are in a circle here. I do not mean to waste your time. I also should study this more.

I don't see what circle we are in, I have not as of yet even spoken about Islam or even touched on Islam, all I have said is stuff that non Muslims have said before, it has nothing to do with Islam.

The idea of questioning the integrity of the Bible does not stem from Islam Don.

P.s. for anyone interested, when someone does not speak to me directly and you happen to see me not reply to someone's claim or keeping silent, it neither means I am doing so out of agreement nor out of the fact I cannot refute it, rather I am saving my time, for those who would like to speak then no probs.

Regards

Eesa. :)

Pps The above does not mean I can refute everyone lol.

[جوري]

why is is that when people are unable to come up with a halfway decent reply they either resort to preaching or start rambling?

I used to ask that same Q... then I decided to concede my surrender-- it is like a battle between iggy pop and correggio.... not even on the same planet let alone same platform-- now when I read the same recycled rhetoric I just shrug my shoulders shake my head and move on to the next post of interest!

[Umar001]

Lets look at what is written in Isaiah 53 which clearly lines up with everything about Jesus: Who hath believed our report and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed...

What a great presumption that Isaiah 53 is even talking about Jesus. Glory be to Almighty God.

[snakelegs]

[QUOTE=alapiana1;701438] If Jesus is not my creator QUOTE]

i don't know why, because i know christians consider jesus to be god, but somehow jesus as creator is an entirely new concept to me. hmmm....
so jesus created the world?

[NoName55]

Here's a question for thought which I feel is related to this topic. Two people are near death. One has a healthy brain but needs a body to survive, and the other a healthy body but needs a brain to survive. If the healthy body is given the healthy brain, what would be the identity of the transplant survivor, that of the one who donated the body, or of the one that donated the brain?

My question still remains unanswered.

Who was running the universe while the God was playing brain surgeon or donating one to himself and was dead for over 2 days?

[Redeemed]

Here's a question for thought which I feel is related to this topic. Two people are near death. One has a healthy brain but needs a body to survive, and the other a healthy body but needs a brain to survive. If the healthy body is given the healthy brain, what would be the identity of the transplant survivor, that of the one who donated the body, or of the one that donated the brain?

I would think the identity would go to the one who donated the brain or the head. In the New Testament The Bible says that Christ is the head of the church and we make up the body and every part of the body has a different function. That is why the eye cannot say to the ear I don't need you or the hand to foot I don't need you, because if the whole body were an eye where would the hearing be? I can see through this Bibilical model how the church and Christ who is the head according to the Bible function as one yet there are many that make up the Body. Therefore, we inherit the identiy from Christ who is the head should you choose to except him as the head of the church and your life. We are according to the Scriptures being conformed to His image on a daily basis, and it is He who will complete what He started in us. I know that Muslims do not see it this way, but I thought you might be interested to see it from a Christians perspective even as I am interest in seeing a Muslims' views.

[NoName55]

Originally Posted by NoName55

If God and Jesus are one, then who do you suggest was the Sovereign Preserver of all things seen and unseen, during the two days and nights the Bible alleges He was dead and buried? how did the universe continue to exist? the driver is dead but the juggernaut keeps travelling forward without squishing any and everything in its path, pilot has snuffed it the aircraft keeps flying.

P.S this is the last repitition I'm making since I'm/my posts are invisible

We cannot understand how God can always exisit with no beginning; we cannot understand were the wind is coming from or where it is going; we cannot understand how Jesus could raise the dead. We cannot explain the eternal things of God with the finite ways of man. God is a spirit not flesh and blood. It is written that all things were made by Jesus and for Him and all things are held together by the Word of God - that is Jesus according to the Bible. I will glading accept the responsibility for believing such things.

from all this in your posts and bible study I can only assume that there is actually a large Zues type family of gods unless the following verses are made up by me and are not from you bible

1. Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22.
2. Solomon is God's son "He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14.
3. Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?).
4. Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God." Luke 3:38.
5. Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1.
6. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14.
7. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12.
8. "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15.
9. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2.
10. "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7.
11. "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1.
12. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6.
13. "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men," Genesis 6:4.
14. "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair" Genesis 6:2

deal with these 1 by 1 or do not post, in an ideal world you would be required to deal with questions and answers as they are presented to you. since it is not happening I shall keep out until such time as someone takes charge of the thread and forces paticipants to stop being devious, and going off in all directions

[don532]

Question, how do you now distinguish the truth from the error?



You do know the writings of Paul in some cases are earlier than the Gospels, so I don't understand what you mean in the above caption.



I don't see what circle we are in, I have not as of yet even spoken about Islam or even touched on Islam, all I have said is stuff that non Muslims have said before, it has nothing to do with Islam.

The idea of questioning the integrity of the Bible does not stem from Islam Don.

P.s. for anyone interested, when someone does not speak to me directly and you happen to see me not reply to someone's claim or keeping silent, it neither means I am doing so out of agreement nor out of the fact I cannot refute it, rather I am saving my time, for those who would like to speak then no probs.

Regards

Eesa. :)

Pps The above does not mean I can refute everyone lol.

I haven't figured out yet how to quote a reply in parts.

The errors I concede are not in opposition to the main message which is woven through the Bible. The Word was with God, the law came, Jesus(pbuh) fulfilled the law.

What I meant was I have read the New Testament without Paul's books.

I think I was in a circle with my last comment. No reflection on you or our discussion.

Now I have to learn that quote in pieces thing....

[Redeemed]

There is no point in correcting you; no point in saying root is Adam (taught by Allah). No more any point in you being allowed to remain a member here, but that is too much to hope for, for I'll be deleted from here long before you. Wa-salaam alaikum

I believe that Adam is root. I'm sharing what I believe a majority of Christians believe. And what the Bible is saying regarding certain areas in discussion. Adam was the first (root) but Jesus according to the Bible is the Last Adam - not the second so as to suggest their could be a third. This is not meant as an attack on you or what you believe. Our beliefs will be tried by the only one and true God who is both our creator making us brothers in humanity. There is a lot we don't see clearly now but we will know soon even as we are known. Till than, we owe love to eachother, because without Love there can be no peace.
Peace
aj

[dougmusr]

My question still remains unanswered.

Who was running the universe while the God was playing brain surgeon or donating one to himself and was dead for over 2 days?

When the body of Christ died, the spirit of Christ did not die. Since Christians believe in the Diety of Christ, then God's Spirit did not die. The Bible clearly teaches that while Christ was in the grave, God did not die.

Jn 2:19 Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

So does Islam believe that a person's spirit and soul dies at physical death?

[Umar001]

The errors I concede are not in opposition to the main message which is woven through the Bible. The Word was with God, the law came, Jesus(pbuh) fulfilled the law.

Am confused bro. Rephrase that for me please.

What I meant was I have read the New Testament without Paul's books.

Yes, but the Gospels having been written after the some of paul's letters can have the influence of his works. You see what I mean?

[NoName55]

When the body of Christ died, the spirit of Christ did not die. Since Christians believe in the Diety of Christ, then God's Spirit did not die. The Bible clearly teaches that while Christ was in the grave, God did not die.

Jn 2:19 Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

So does Islam believe that a person's spirit and soul dies at physical death?

while Christ was in the grave, God did not die.

So they are two distinct personages, Thank you very much :thumbs_up :)

[Keltoi]

So they are two distinct personages, I rest my case! Thank you very much :thumbs_up :)

They are distinct, but inseparable. The human body of Christ died, not His spirit. It seems many Muslims get caught up in the supposed "personages" in the Trinity without including the most basic concept of the Trinity as a whole, which is three elements of the One.

[dougmusr]

So they are two distinct personages, Thank you very much :thumbs_up :)

I knew you wanted this answer, so I posted it to get your reply. Notice that Christ said while He was in the grave ("Destroy this temple"), He was capable of bringing His body back to life ("and in three days I will raise it up").

I find it interesting that Muslims acknowledge that God can do miracles and that He is beyond our understanding, but when it comes to Jesus being the Son of God, God's actions must be within human understanding to be acceptable.

[don532]

Peace Don, no problem with us disagreeing. It is very much appreciated that your disagreements are with dignity and respect.

I must state that Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Hippolytus were all Popes and used Papal Infallibility to establish those as being true. Were the Popes Infallible?

These men are considered some of the fathers of the church in the period before the council of Nicea.

Polycarp was a bishop of Smyrna, a disciple of John and was martyred.

Clement of Rome was a prominent leader in the church at Rome, but I don't know he carried the title of pope.

Ignatius of Antioch was martyred in Rome, so I don't think he was a pope, either.

Hippolytus, was also a bishop in a church, and was martyred also.

Peace

[don532]

Am confused bro. Rephrase that for me please.



Yes, but the Gospels having been written after the some of paul's letters can have the influence of his works. You see what I mean?

I do see what you mean. I understand the point, but I maintain the other apostles saw and heard from Jesus(pbuh) himself as witnesses. He was their source, not Paul. I also think the concept of the trinity causes a big stumbling block here. Let's forget the trinity concept for a moment. I still see the message as Jesus being the ultimate sacrifice in the writings in the gospels and elsewhere in the Bible.

I have read much about the errors in the Bible and the refutations. My understanding and belief is the errors are not things that change the basic message. That's probably the circle I was referring to that could be debated endlessly.

[Woodrow]

These men are considered some of the fathers of the church in the period before the council of Nicea.

Polycarp was a bishop of Smyrna, a disciple of John and was martyred.

Clement of Rome was a prominent leader in the church at Rome, but I don't know he carried the title of pope.

Ignatius of Antioch was martyred in Rome, so I don't think he was a pope, either.

Hippolytus, was also a bishop in a church, and was martyred also.

Peace

I'm going to have to hang my head in shame and stand corrected. Apparantly I did not pay much attention in Catechism class during my Catholic years


Here is a listing of the first few popes.


1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)

The only one I had right was Clement.

[don532]

I'm going to have to hang my head in shame and stand corrected. Apparantly I did not pay much attention in Catechism class during my Catholic years


Here is a listing of the first few popes.


1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)

The only one I had right was Clement.

Well at least I'm not the only one that hangs his head occasionally. LOL

Peace.

[NoName55]

I knew you wanted this answer, so I posted it to get your reply. Notice that Christ said while He was in the grave ("Destroy this temple"), He was capable of bringing His body back to life ("and in three days I will raise it up").

I find it interesting that Muslims acknowledge that God can do miracles and that He is beyond our understanding, but when it comes to Jesus being the Son of God, God's actions must be within human understanding to be acceptable.

I knew you wanted this answer, so I posted it to get your reply.

You mean you were being devious and lied to get my reply. its okay dont worry you did not do anything wrong within the context of you religion for it is part of Paulean creed to be duplicitous (if you need any reference don't hesitate to ask and I'll provide them).

Ma'asalaama

[dougmusr]

You mean you were being devious and lied to get my reply. its okay dont worry you did not do anything wrong within the context of you religion for it is part of Paulean creed to be duplicitous (if you need any reference don't hesitate to ask and I'll provide them).

Ma'asalaama

Would you say that when you posted the question you were sincerely asking to gain knowledge, or were you asking because you allready are convinced that Christians are misguided about the Trinity and you were seeking an opportunity to make your point? That is, was the question as devious as the you percieve the answer to be?

[Redeemed]

I find it note worthy too that Muslims acknowledge that God has no limitations in the way of super natural wonders and miracles and that He and His way are beyond our understanding even has stated in the Bible: "Your ways are not my ways and your thoughts are not mine" but when it comes to Jesus being the Son of God, "God's actions must be within human understanding to be acceptable." This is something I would lke to hear a comment too. Jesus said that except we become like a child we shall not enter the kingdom of God. It takes child like faith to believe He is who He says. If He isn't why should He even be honored as a prophet? And if He is, HE is not being honored at all just as a prophet!

[Woodrow]

I am a little confused about the last 3 sentences.

It takes child like faith to believe He is who He says. If He isn't why should He even be honored as a prophet? And if He is, HE is not being honored at all just as a prophet!

It is very possible I am not grasping the connotation you intend. I am trying to understand what you mean that we are not Honoring Isa(as) as a prophet?

The reason we view him as a Prophet is because Allah(as) Revealed a Message to him to be shared with Mankind. The fact that Mankind has lost the message does not make him any less of a Prophet.

Now, as far as honoring the Prophets, do not honor any Prophet with any fanfair, special days etc. All of the prophets were Human. However, by their signs we are made aware that their sins, if any were forgiven and that they are sin free.

[Woodrow]

Now to address the first part:

I find it note worthy too that Muslims acknowledge that God has no limitations in the way of super natural wonders and miracles and that He and His way are beyond our understanding even has stated in the Bible: "Your ways are not my ways and your thoughts are not mine" but when it comes to Jesus being the Son of God, "God's actions must be within human understanding to be acceptable."

One of the reasons we do not believe Isa(as) is also Allah(as) is because Isa(as) himself has said he is not. There is no doubt that Allah(swt) is not bound to do things in manners we understand. But, with Isa(as) there is nothing to indicate that neither He nor those closest to him have attempted to show him as being God(swt)

[Redeemed]

Now to address the first part:



One of the reasons we do not believe Isa(as) is also Allah(as) is because Isa(as) himself has said he is not. There is no doubt that Allah(swt) is not bound to do things in manners we understand. But, with Isa(as) there is nothing to indicate that neither He nor those closest to him have attempted to show him as being God(swt)

How about when one one the disciples asked him show us the Father (God) and we'll be satisfied. In other word, he was asking that Jesus make it clear who the Father God is that Jesus is referring to. Jesus response to that question hungering to know who God is -- "I have been with you so long and still you don't know me. He that has seen me as seen the Father for the Father is in me and I in Him. What is the difference if I had a glass and I put the plastic bag inside it or put the glass inside the bag? It would still be equal in mass. The arrangement is just different. Remember, It is written who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? There are many other places where Jesus alludes to who He is. He didn't stop the woman from worshipping Him as she was wiping asd kissing His feet with her tears. Angels have stop people from bowing in their presence. Someone is going through a lot of trouble to cover up who Jesus really is. He claims of Himself that He is the only way to God. Why would He be declared a prophet if His claims of Himself aren't true. And why would an Almighty God in His soverngty allow Bibilical distortions such as these? God protects is Word just like we both believe. Yes, there are translation errors and some differences in the way the gospel was presented, but the Bible is a very coherent unit in regards to Jesus being the in center of all that God has done is doing and will do.

[Keltoi]

How about when one one the disciples asked him show us the Father (God) and we'll be satisfied. In other word, he was asking that Jesus make it clear who the Father God is that Jesus is referring to. Jesus response to that question hungering to know who God is -- "I have been with you so long and still you don't know me. He that has seen me as seen the Father for the Father is in me and I in Him. What is the difference if I had a glass and I put the plastic bag inside it or put the glass inside the bag? It would still be equal in mass. The arrangement is just different. Remember, It is written who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? There are many other places where Jesus alludes to who He is. He didn't stop the woman from worshipping Him as she was wiping asd kissing His feet with her tears. Angels have stop people from bowing in their presence. Someone is going through a lot of trouble to cover up who Jesus really is. He claims of Himself that He is the only way to God. Why would He be declared a prophet if His claims of Himself aren't true. And why would an Almighty God in His soverngty allow Bibilical distortions such as these? God protects is Word just like we both believe. Yes, there are translation errors and some differences in the way the gospel was presented, but the Bible is a very coherent unit in regards to Jesus being the in center of all that God has done is doing and will do.

You didn't mention the most obvious evidence, which is that He was threatened with stoning for claiming that relationship with God. Those who suggest there is nothing in the New Testament that points to Christ's divinity are playing a charade.

[Woodrow]

Here is were the biggest dificulty exists. It all comes down to which book is God's (swt) word. To accept the Qur'an as Truth is sufficient proof to show that Isa(as) is not Allah(swt).

Surah 5:: 116;117

وَإِذْ قَالَ اللّهُ يَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ أَأَنتَ قُلتَ لِلنَّاسِ اتَّخِذُونِي وَأُمِّيَ إِلَـهَيْنِ مِن دُونِ اللّهِ قَالَ سُبْحَانَكَ مَا يَكُونُ لِي أَنْ أَقُولَ مَا لَيْسَ لِي بِحَقٍّ إِن كُنتُ قُلْتُهُ فَقَدْ عَلِمْتَهُ تَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِي وَلاَ أَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِكَ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ عَلاَّمُ الْغُيُوبِ
116:
Pickthal: And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?

Transliteration: Wa-ith qala Allahu yaAAeesa ibna maryama aanta qulta linnasiittakhithoonee waommiya ilahayni min dooni Allahiqala subhanaka ma yakoonu lee an aqoola malaysa lee bihaqqin in kuntu qultuhu faqad AAalimtahutaAAlamu ma fee nafsee wala aAAlamu ma feenafsika innaka anta AAallamu alghuyoob


مَا قُلْتُ لَهُمْ إِلاَّ مَا أَمَرْتَنِي بِهِ أَنِ اعْبُدُواْ اللّهَ رَبِّي وَرَبَّكُمْ وَكُنتُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيداً مَّا دُمْتُ فِيهِمْ فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّيْتَنِي كُنتَ أَنتَ الرَّقِيبَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَنتَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ
117:
Pickthal: I spake unto them only that which Thou commandedst me, (saying): Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness of them while I dwelt among them, and when Thou tookest me Thou wast the Watcher over them. Thou art Witness over all things.

Transliteration: Ma qultu lahum illa maamartanee bihi ani oAAbudoo Allaha rabbee warabbakumwakuntu AAalayhim shaheedan ma dumtu feehim falammatawaffaytanee kunta anta arraqeeba AAalayhim waanta AAalakulli shay-in shaheed

I know that the Qur'an is the True word of Allah(swt) and I know that in the Qur'an Isa(as) emphatically says he never did claim to be God(swt)

I know that in accordance with God's(swt) word Isa(as) is not God(swt)

[Keltoi]

Here is were the biggest dificulty exists. It all comes down to which book is God's (swt) word. To accept the Qur'an as Truth is sufficient proof to show that Isa(as) is not Allah(swt).

Surah 5:: 116;117

وَإِذْ قَالَ اللّهُ يَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ أَأَنتَ قُلتَ لِلنَّاسِ اتَّخِذُونِي وَأُمِّيَ إِلَـهَيْنِ مِن دُونِ اللّهِ قَالَ سُبْحَانَكَ مَا يَكُونُ لِي أَنْ أَقُولَ مَا لَيْسَ لِي بِحَقٍّ إِن كُنتُ قُلْتُهُ فَقَدْ عَلِمْتَهُ تَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِي وَلاَ أَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِكَ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ عَلاَّمُ الْغُيُوبِ
116:
Pickthal: And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?

Transliteration: Wa-ith qala Allahu yaAAeesa ibna maryama aanta qulta linnasiittakhithoonee waommiya ilahayni min dooni Allahiqala subhanaka ma yakoonu lee an aqoola malaysa lee bihaqqin in kuntu qultuhu faqad AAalimtahutaAAlamu ma fee nafsee wala aAAlamu ma feenafsika innaka anta AAallamu alghuyoob


مَا قُلْتُ لَهُمْ إِلاَّ مَا أَمَرْتَنِي بِهِ أَنِ اعْبُدُواْ اللّهَ رَبِّي وَرَبَّكُمْ وَكُنتُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيداً مَّا دُمْتُ فِيهِمْ فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّيْتَنِي كُنتَ أَنتَ الرَّقِيبَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَنتَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ
117:
Pickthal: I spake unto them only that which Thou commandedst me, (saying): Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness of them while I dwelt among them, and when Thou tookest me Thou wast the Watcher over them. Thou art Witness over all things.

Transliteration: Ma qultu lahum illa maamartanee bihi ani oAAbudoo Allaha rabbee warabbakumwakuntu AAalayhim shaheedan ma dumtu feehim falammatawaffaytanee kunta anta arraqeeba AAalayhim waanta AAalakulli shay-in shaheed

I know that the Qur'an is the True word of Allah(swt) and I know that in the Qur'an Isa(as) emphatically says he never did claim to be God(swt)

I know that in accordance with God's(swt) word Isa(as) is not God(swt)

Exactly, it is based on faith. That is why I find these arguments rather dubious. I realize that in order for Islam to be the truth, Christianity must be wrong. I just find it perplexing the lengths some Muslims will go to in an attempt to undermine the faith of Christianity. I understand the motivation, and I suppose it shouldn't surprise me, but it does.

[NoName55]

Exactly, it is based on faith. That is why I find these arguments rather dubious. I realize that in order for Islam to be the truth, Christianity must be wrong. I just find it perplexing the lengths some Muslims will go to in an attempt to undermine the faith of Christianity. I understand the motivation, and I suppose it shouldn't surprise me, but it does.

That would be true if we were going around Christian forums doing that, since this is supposed to be a muslim forum, I think we can be forgiven for trying to portray Islaamic view of Christ rather than the inovation of Paulean crew aka constantine the sun god and his worshippers aka council of Nicea

:w:

[Redeemed]

You didn't mention the most obvious evidence, which is that He was threatened with stoning for claiming that relationship with God. Those who suggest there is nothing in the New Testament that points to Christ's divinity are playing a charade.

I had mentioned that in an earlier thread. They don't just stone you for no reason. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was I am"
The Scribes who were very with it when it comes to the Scriptures knew what the implications of Jesus saying that. Muslims say they believe that Jesus is a prophet. If He is that to them, then why aren't we both making the same connection in regards to who Jesus is? The Scriptures say He is coming back in the clouds and every eye shall see Him.

[Woodrow]

The Qur'an also states He(as) will return. That we agree on.

The reason we do not believe He(as) is not God(swt) or the Son of God(swt) is because He(as) has adamantly said he didn't say that and that those who say He(as) said that spoke falsely If those words are in the Bible, we know that portion of the Bible is false and was not part of the original words.

[NoName55]

"Before Abraham was I am"

answer (by a christian)

Peter wrote:

I’m still waiting to hear from someone why the Pharisees picked up stones to stone Jesus if it wasn’t for this kind of blasphemous self-identification in John 8:59.

Now here’s an offer I can’t refuse! I assume by this that you are taking the standard line on John 8:58, that Jesus was claiming to be the God of Exodus 3:14. This assertion is based on a kind of ‘translation theology’, which isn’t borne out in the original language.
In the LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible), at Exodus 3.14, Yahweh declares "ego eimi o ohn". “I am he that exists”. The addition of ‘o ohn’ is needed to reflect the fact that it is the word ‘ehyeh’ here in the original Hebrew as opposed to ‘ani hu’. In John 8:58 Jesus only says "ego eimi" (I am he). On this basis it isn’t really fair to the text to force an unambiguous reference to Exodus 3:14.
Instead anyone could say ‘I am’ or ‘I am he’ without any allusion to a claim of divinity. Current Reebok adverts quote stars saying “I am what I am”. Another more Biblical example of this is found in John 9:9 where the man born blind says ‘ego eimi’. I am he. None of these individuals are claiming to be the Exodus God.

So ‘ego eimi’ is neither God’s name nor an exclusively divine title.
But all this begs the question you originally raised: ‘If Jesus isn’t claiming to be God, what was he understood to have said that caused such offence?’ The answer lies in the dialogue leading up to his statement. In the verses immediately preceding John 8:45 we see is that this isn’t the first time Jesus has said ‘ego eimi’ in this exchange. He has already said it in v.24.

(This calls into further question the widely asserted notion that the words ‘ego eimi’ were understood by Jesus’ hearers to be a claim of ‘divinity’. Instead of seizing upon this as the long awaited and much sought after grounds to accuse him, they respond by asking ‘who are you?’ (v.25). Obviously Jesus has not identified himself sufficiently by this statement for them to know what the ‘he’ referred to is.)
Reading on from v.25, the discourse moves to Abraham. "How can you claim to offer the life of the age to come?" they ask Jesus, "even Abraham himself is dead, surely you’re not claiming to be greater than him!" (v.51-53)
Next, they misunderstand Jesus’ statement in v.56 (Abraham rejoiced to see my day) by reading too much into it, because in v.57 they accuse Jesus of claiming to have seen Abraham! He never said that. Neither did he say that Abraham had seen him. Only that Abraham had rejoiced to see his day.

Abraham, having believed the gospel preached to him by God (Gal 3.8) rejoiced in hope, looking forward to the ‘day of Christ’ in the same way we do.

It is in response to this misunderstanding that Jesus makes his statement "Before Abraham was, I am he". Notice however that he did not say "I was before Abraham" or "before Abraham was, I was". The present tense ‘I am’ in reference to the past (before Abraham was) simply does not work as a stand-alone sentence.
It only makes sense if Jesus is referring back to some statement he has made previously about his present status with respect to the patriarch. I would suggest that Jesus is expanding on his statement in verse 56 by explaining how, in spite of his not being 50 years old, Abraham could still have rejoiced to see his day.

Bringing the two together what we get is: "Before Abraham was, I am he… whose day Abraham rejoiced to see".
This is a clear identification by Jesus of himself as the seed promised to Abraham by Yahweh and through whom all the families of the earth would be blessed.

Abraham’s greatness was based on his belief in the promise God made to him about his seed and the fact that, in so doing, he became the means through which God would bring his word to pass.
Jesus is greater than Abraham because he is the embodiment of God’s end purpose and the subject of the promise which Abraham rejoiced in. This is the staggering claim which so offended the Jews that they attempted to stone him.

In conclusion…

Though 1st Century Judaism regularly made us of poetic personification with regards to God’s attributes, they had no expectation that God himself would become a man. A heavy burden of proof therefore lies upon anyone who would suggest that the apostles preached any such revolutionary thing.

With regards to John’s gospel, I thought you would be interested in the statement below, expressed by respected scholar Colin Brown, himself a Trinitarian.

“The crux of the matter lies in how we understand the term Son of God… the title Son of God is not in itself an expression of personal Deity or the expression of metaphysical distinctions within the Godhead. Indeed, to be a ‘Son of God’ one has to be a being who is not God! It is a designation for a creature indicating a special relationship with God. In particular, it denotes God’s representative, God’s vice-regent. It is a designation of kingship, identifying the king as God’s Son… In my view the term ‘Son of God’ ultimately converges on the term ‘image of God’ which is to be understood as God’s representative, the one in whom God’s spirit dwells, and who is given stewardship and authority to act on God’s behalf… It seems to me to be a fundamental mistake to treat statements in the Fourth Gospel about the Son and his relationship with the Father as expressions of inner-Trinitarian relationships. But this kind of systematic misreading of the fourth Gospel seems to underlie much of social Trinitarian thinking… It is a common but patent misreading of the opening of John’s Gospel to read it as if it said, ‘In the beginning was the Son, and Son was with God, and the Son was God’ (John 1:1). What has happened here is the substitution of Son for Word (Gk. logos) and thereby the Son is made a member of the Godhead which existed from the beginning.”

Trinity and incarnation: towards a contemporary Orthodoxy Ex Auditu, 7, 1991, pp.87-89.

opensourcetheology.net

[Woodrow]

To simplify things and answer the original post. Here is what we believe about Isa(as)

3: 1. A. L. M. S P C
3: 2. Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal. S P C
3: 3. It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong). S P C

Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation


33: 6. The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers. Blood-relations among each other have closer personal ties, in the Decree of Allah. Than (the Brotherhood of) Believers and Muhajirs: nevertheless do ye what is just to your closest friends: such is the writing in the Decree (of Allah). S P C

33: 7. And remember We took from the prophets their covenant: As (We did) from thee: from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn covenant: S P C
33: 8. That (Allah) may question the (custodians) of Truth concerning the Truth they (were charged with): And He has prepared for the Unbelievers a grievous Penalty. S P C

33: 9. O ye who believe! Remember the Grace of Allah, (bestowed) on you, when there came down on you hosts (to overwhelm you): But We sent against them a hurricane and forces that ye saw not: but Allah sees (clearly) all that ye do. S P C


Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation

6:83. That was the reasoning about Us, which We gave to Abraham (to use) against his people: We raise whom We will, degree after degree: for thy Lord is full of wisdom and knowledge. S P C

6:84. We gave him Isaac and Jacob: all (three) guided: and before him, We guided Noah, and among his progeny, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron: thus do We reward those who do good: S P C
6:85. And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous: S P C
6:86. And Isma'il and Elisha, and Jonas, and Lot: and to all We gave favour above the nations: S P C

6:87. (To them) and to their fathers, and progeny and brethren: We chose them, and we guided them to a straight way. S P C
6:88. This is the guidance of Allah: He giveth that guidance to whom He pleaseth, of His worshippers. If they were to join other gods with Him, all that they did would be vain for them. S P


Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation

2:136. Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)." S P

Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation

2:252. These are the Signs of Allah: we rehearse them to thee in truth: verily Thou art one of the messengers. S P
2:253. Those messengers We endowed with gifts, some above others: To one of them Allah spoke; others He raised to degrees (of honour); to Jesus the son of Mary We gave clear (Signs), and strengthened him with the holy spirit. If Allah had so willed, succeeding generations would not have fought among each other, after clear (Signs) had come to them, but they (chose) to wrangle, some believing and others rejecting. If Allah had so willed, they would not have fought each other; but Allah Fulfilleth His plan. S P C

2:254. O ye who believe! Spend out of (the bounties) We have provided for you, before the Day comes when no bargaining (Will avail), nor friendship nor intercession. Those who reject Faith they are the wrong-doers. S P C


Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation

57:26. And We sent Noah and Abraham, and established in their line Prophethood and Revelation: and some of them were on right guidance. But many of them became rebellious transgressors. S P C
57:27. Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our messengers: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them: (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of Allah; but that they did not foster as they should have done. Yet We bestowed, on those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are rebellious transgressors. S P C

Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation

5:45. We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers. S P C
5:46. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. S P C

5:47. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. S P C


Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation

4:156. That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge; S P C
4:157. 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:- S P C

Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation

4:163. We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms. S P C


Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation

4:171. O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. S P C

Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation

61: 6. And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!" S P C


Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation

61:14. O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed. S P C

Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation

42:13. The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah - the which We have sent by inspiration to thee - and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should remain steadfast in religion, and make no divisions therein: to those who worship other things than Allah, hard is the (way) to which thou callest them. Allah chooses to Himself those whom He pleases, and guides to Himself those who turn (to Him). S P C

Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation

43:56. And We made them (a people) of the Past and an Example to later ages. S P C
43:57. When (Jesus) the son of Mary is held up as an example, behold, thy people raise a clamour thereat (in ridicule)! S P C

43:58. And they say, "Are our gods best, or he?" This they set forth to thee, only by way of disputation: yea, they are a contentious people. S P
43:59. He was no more than a servant: We granted Our favour to him, and We made him an example to the Children of Israel. S P C
43:60. And if it were Our Will, We could make angels from amongst you, succeeding each other on the earth. S P C

43:61. And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way. S P C


Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation

19:33. "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"! S P C

19:34. Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. S P C
19:35. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. S P C


Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation


Gospel as mentioned above is in reference to the Injil which was revealed to Jesus(as) It is not the books of Mark, Matthew, John and Luke, although it is possible they may have some words of the Injil in them.

[Redeemed]

So they are two distinct personages, Thank you very much :thumbs_up :)

They are two distinct personages yet they are one not only in purposes but also in esences. Can you answer the following question: Do you believe when a person dies their spirit dies as well?

[Keltoi]

That would be true if we were going around Christian forums doing that, since this is supposed to be a muslim forum, I think we can be forgiven for trying to portray Islaamic view of Christ rather than the inovation of Paulean crew aka constantine the sun god and his worshippers aka council of Nicea

:w:

This kind of post is exactly what I'm talking about. As I stated, I understand the motivation. I don't mind at all that Muslims share their views of Christ, that is the point of comparitive religion, but there are a large number of posts directed at Christians in this forum dedicated not for understanding or comparison, but simply attack threads. I understand this is a Muslim forum, but if you want respect you should also give respect.

[NoName55]

They are two distinct personages yet they are one not only in purposes but also in esences. Can you answer the following question: Do you believe when a person dies their spirit dies as well?

Do you believe when a person dies their spirit dies as well?

I don't but trinitarians do,

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life ... "

"Since our dead, condemned condition is a result of Adam's disobediance, then this truth is universal. Regardless, of one's race, religion, or socioeconomic status"

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"
Romans 3:23

Because EVERY human being is born a descendant of Adam and, thereby, a dead, condemned, sinner, they ALL, EVERYONE, fall short of God's expectation.

how wicked is god that punishes all mankind for sin of Adam, commited many millenia ago?

unless ofcourse I believe in a god that creates a copy of himself, then commits harakiri to be able to be able to forgive me for sin of Adam

Not my sins but Adams sin,I am free to do any evil I desire so long as I believe in christ being the god and go to a priest and confess, I am absolved

[Woodrow]

They are two distinct personages yet they are one not only in purposes but also in esences. Can you answer the following question: Do you believe when a person dies their spirit dies as well?

Interesting question.

I believe that the spirit separates from the body at death Astragfirullah.

But, if that is the Case with the Christian concept of Isa(as) then you have advanced from a Trinity to a Quartet.

The Father
The Holy Spirit
The Physical Son (Which died)
The Spirit Son (Which corresponds to the Father)

Now if I understand the Christian concept Isa(as) was True God and true Man
were The parts separable or was one part god and one part man and which was which?

Now if the Spirit of Isa(swt) was True God at the time of His Baptism, why did the father have to send the Holy spirit to descend upon him at the time of his Baptism? With him being God already, why would he descend upon himself. Would it not make more sense to have the spirit descend upon a man and not upon a god?

[NoName55]

This kind of post is exactly what I'm talking about. As I stated, I understand the motivation. I don't mind at all that Muslims share their views of Christ, that is the point of comparitive religion, but there are a large number of posts directed at Christians in this forum dedicated not for understanding or comparison, but simply attack threads. I understand this is a Muslim forum, but if you want respect you should also give respect.

I would not mind a discussion with persons who actually know about Bible, its contents, its history. but those who just believe in the "truth" of paulism (blindly) have no clue as to what it is. do you remember you and I, in a thread that was talking about concept of original sin? where you claimed a certain person denied the concept of original sin and I had to remind you that far from denying it, he actually was the one who made it officially a part of catholic creed.

leaving aside mutual appreciation/praise or lack thereof , since majority of members here are muslim and many are impressionable young people, I have no choice but to rebut any blatant or subliminal attempt that is made by our resident trinitarians to sow doubt regarding our belief in True and historical Christ. I shall keep doing that for as long as I remain a member or am allowed to remain so.

:w:

[Keltoi]

I would not mind a discussion with persons who actually know about Bible, its contents, its history. but those who just believe in the "truth" of paulism (blindly) have no clue as to what it is. do you remember you and I, in a thread that was talking about concept of original sin? where you claimed a certain person denied the concept of original sin and I had to remind you that far from denying it, he actually was the one who made it officially a part of catholic creed.

leaving aside mutual appreciation/praise or lack thereof , since majority of members here are muslim and many are impressionable young people, I have no choice but to rebut any blatant or subliminal attempt that is made by our resident trinitarians to sow doubt regarding our belief in True and historical Christ. I shall keep doing that for as long as I remain a member or am allowed to remain so.

:w:

I have no idea what you are referring to with the orignal sin issue, do you remember what thread that was?

Far from believing in my faith "blindly", I have explored my religion from many directions. If you want to have an honest discussion about what we believe and why we believe it, then by all means ask away. I'm more than happy to discuss why I am a Christian and where that belief comes from. However, I will not waste my time engaging in pointless arguments over whose faith is "wrong". I am secure enough in my own faith that I don't feel the need to attack another to prop up my own. The words of Jesus Christ are enough for me.

[NoName55]

I have no idea what you are referring to with the orignal sin issue, do you remember what thread that was?

Far from believing in my faith "blindly", I have explored my religion from many directions. If you want to have an honest discussion about what we believe and why we believe it, then by all means ask away. I'm more than happy to discuss why I am a Christian and where that belief comes from. However, I will not waste my time engaging in pointless arguments over whose faith is "wrong". I am secure enough in my own faith that I don't feel the need to attack another to prop up my own. The words of Jesus Christ are enough for me.

Originally Posted by Keltoi

Many Christians do believe that the sins of Adam have left a permanent hereditary stain on mankind. You will be hard pressed to find any agreement on what this means in terms of salvation and the coming of Jesus Christ. I think St. Augustine rejected the notion altogether, but I'm not certain.

Hello again, Brother Keltoi

St. Augustine invented the concept of Original Sin as we have it today.



From the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia (on Original Sin) Original Sin, in Christian theology, the universal sinfulness of the human race, traditionally ascribed to the first sin committed by Adam. Theologians advocating original sin argue that the concept is strongly implied by the apostle Paul, the apostle John, and even by Jesus himself. Late Jewish apocalyptic writings attribute the world's corruption to a prehistoric fall of Satan, the temptation of Adam and Eve, and the resulting disorder, disobedience, and pain of human history. Saint Augustine appealed to the Pauline-apocalyptic understanding of the forgiveness of sin, but he also included the notion that sin is transmitted from generation to generation by the act of procreation. He took this idea from 2nd-century theologian Tertullian, who actually coined the phrase original sin. Medieval theologians retained the idea of original sin, and it was asserted by 16th-century Protestant reformers, primarily Martin Luther and John Calvin. Liberal Protestant theologians later developed an optimistic view of human nature incompatible with the idea of original sin.


Peace

:w:

[Keltoi]

:w:

Yes, I was uncertain about St. Augustine, I just knew his name was important on the topic. Not sure why that is so important to this discussion though.

[Redeemed]

Woodrow, I appreciate the way in which you share your views. You do it with respect and maturity; I wish I could say that of all the brothers in humanity. I think the underlying difference between to two faiths is that we are believing in different books as being the word of God. In other words, we are dancing to the beat of a different drummer. The only thing it seems that can be accomplished here on this forum is that we learn why we think and believe the way we do. I understand how you see Jesus as just a messenger and nothing more. This view of Jesus is a natural one considering the contents of the Qur'an. We see
Him as more than a prophet. I would, however, like to see a Muslim give us Christians the satisfaction that they can understand how we could believe that Jesus is in the very nature God from a Bibilical perspective. This is what frustrates me. I will explain my last three sentences you didn't understand. This is according to the Bible. We must honor the Son the same as the Father (Allah). For he that honors not the Son honors not the Father who sent Him. The key word here is "the same." In other words, if we don't honor Jesus the same as we honor Allah we are not honoring Allah or the Father.

[Umar001]

I do see what you mean. I understand the point, but I maintain the other apostles saw and heard from Jesus(pbuh) himself as witnesses. He was their source, not Paul.

I don't know if you mean apostoles as the 12 disciples, if so then you are assuming that they wrote the books we have now.

And if you just mean other apostoles, that we dont know the identity of who authored the books, then I fail to see how you come to such a conclusion that they were not effected by Paul, what evidence draws you to this?

I also think the concept of the trinity causes a big stumbling block here. Let's forget the trinity concept for a moment. I still see the message as Jesus being the ultimate sacrifice in the writings in the gospels and elsewhere in the Bible.

I have read much about the errors in the Bible and the refutations. My understanding and belief is the errors are not things that change the basic message. That's probably the circle I was referring to that could be debated endlessly.

Well, break it down for me, what errors do you see? Maybe we are talking about different errors.

Eesa

[YusufNoor]

I had mentioned that in an earlier thread. They don't just stone you for no reason. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was I am"
The Scribes who were very with it when it comes to the Scriptures knew what the implications of Jesus saying that. Muslims say they believe that Jesus is a prophet. If He is that to them, then why aren't we both making the same connection in regards to who Jesus is? The Scriptures say He is coming back in the clouds and every eye shall see Him.

A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu,

that's right, and when he does come back, he can explain the theory of monotheism to Christians! :D

:w:

[Keltoi]

A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu,

that's right, and when he does come back, he can explain the theory of monotheism to Christians! :D

:w:

...and then perhaps he can explain the truth of His Message to Muslims. :D

[don532]

I don't know if you mean apostoles as the 12 disciples, if so then you are assuming that they wrote the books we have now.

And if you just mean other apostoles, that we dont know the identity of who authored the books, then I fail to see how you come to such a conclusion that they were not effected by Paul, what evidence draws you to this?

I was not clear. My point is some of the other books in the NT were written by people other than Paul. I still see Jesus' message in those books.

Here are the authors of the books of the New Testament according to my understanding:
Matthew = Matthew - 55 A.D.
Mark = John Mark - 50 A.D.
Luke = Luke - 60 A.D.
John = John - 90 A.D.
Acts = Luke - 65 A.D.
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon = Paul - 50-70 A.D.
Hebrews = unknown, best guesses are Paul, Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos - 65 A.D.
James = James - 45 A.D.
1 Peter, 2 Peter = Peter - 60 A.D.
1 John, 2 John, 3 John = John - 90 A.D.
Jude = Jude - 60 A.D.
Revelation = John - 90 A.D.

I don't see how Paul could have hijacked the message of Jesus all those other people heard and saw, without them reacting. In II Peter 3:15, 16 Peter even describes Paul's writings as scriptures. I'm not trying to change your mind or convince you of anything at this point. I'm just sharing my perspective.

Peace.

[Redeemed]

I was not clear. My point is some of the other books in the NT were written by people other than Paul. I still see Jesus' message in those books.

Here are the authors of the books of the New Testament according to my understanding:
Matthew = Matthew - 55 A.D.
Mark = John Mark - 50 A.D.
Luke = Luke - 60 A.D.
John = John - 90 A.D.
Acts = Luke - 65 A.D.
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon = Paul - 50-70 A.D.
Hebrews = unknown, best guesses are Paul, Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos - 65 A.D.
James = James - 45 A.D.
1 Peter, 2 Peter = Peter - 60 A.D.
1 John, 2 John, 3 John = John - 90 A.D.
Jude = Jude - 60 A.D.
Revelation = John - 90 A.D.

I don't see how Paul could have hijacked the message of Jesus all those other people heard and saw, without them reacting. In II Peter 3:15, 16 Peter even describes Paul's writings as scriptures. I'm not trying to change your mind or convince you of anything at this point. I'm just sharing my perspective.

Peace.

What makes you think Paul is off? Paul had a heavenly vision. Just as you believe in the vision Mohammed had, we believe Paul's vision was directed by God as well. His mission was to reaach the gentiles and Peter's was to minister to his own.

[Redeemed]

What makes you think Paul is off? Paul had a heavenly vision. Just as you believe in the vision Mohammed had, we believe Paul's vision was directed by God as well. His mission was to reaach the gentiles and Peter's was to minister to his own.

[don532]

What makes you think Paul is off? Paul had a heavenly vision. Just as you believe in the vision Mohammed had, we believe Paul's vision was directed by God as well. His mission was to reaach the gentiles and Peter's was to minister to his own.

I may not get this exactly right, but I believe the Muslim perspective on this is that Paul's writings are the ones where the concepts of the trinity and Jesus being equal to God are mentioned most. Having anyone else equal to God is blasphemy in Islam. Perhaps some Muslim members here can better or further explain this for alapiana. This is most likely also covered in previous posts if you care to do some searching here.

[snakelegs]

muslims can never agree with christians on this issue - they are very strict monotheists - it is probably the strongest thing in islam.

[Keltoi]

Christians would also consider themselves to be monotheists, the problem is the word "Trinity", which many Muslims and non-Christians seem to believe points to three separate entities. Christians do not believe these elements to be separate, but parts of a the whole that is God.

[Woodrow]

I may not get this exactly right, but I believe the Muslim perspective on this is that Paul's writings are the ones where the concepts of the trinity and Jesus being equal to God are mentioned most. Having anyone else equal to God is blasphemy in Islam. Perhaps some Muslim members here can better or further explain this for alapiana. This is most likely also covered in previous posts if you care to do some searching here.

Not just Muslim Members but if we have some Arabic speaking non-Muslims their input would be appreciated. In the Arabic speaking countries I lived in the phrase "Son of God" was considered a very vulgar repulsive term even when said among non-Muslim Arabs. It went beyond blasphemy to being strong profanity in the local connotations.

Getting back to Paul. I have so much doubt about the validity of Paul primarily I can find no other person in the NY mention Pauls name. The validity of a person's authority based on the person's own writings leave much room for Doubt.

Now, it is true there is know indication that any of the apostles wrote anything deragatory about Paul. But, they did not right a single word about Paul. No Apostle has indicated they ever met or even knew anything about Paul.

I am certain Paul existed from historical records. However, I do not believe he had much contact with many Christians and went along and formed his own sect, independent of Christianity and that sect is what people now accept as Christianity. the other churches except for the one founded by Mark and the one founded by Peter. It appears that at one of the Nicene counsels the churches founded by them agreed upon what would be acceptable beliefs and solidified what became modern catholochism.

[Woodrow]

the other early churches founded by the apostles did not have the support of Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria, so they were basicaly swept under the carpet and never as much as a wimper was heard from them again.

[snakelegs]

Christians would also consider themselves to be monotheists, the problem is the word "Trinity", which many Muslims and non-Christians seem to believe points to three separate entities. Christians do not believe these elements to be separate, but parts of a the whole that is God.

this seems to only be comprhensible to christians. i must admit, i do not understand it either and long ago gave up trying.

[Keltoi]

Not just Muslim Members but if we have some Arabic speaking non-Muslims their input would be appreciated. In the Arabic speaking countries I lived in the phrase "Son of God" was considered a very vulgar repulsive term even when said among non-Muslim Arabs. It went beyond blasphemy to being strong profanity in the local connotations.

Getting back to Paul. I have so much doubt about the validity of Paul primarily I can find no other person in the NY mention Pauls name. The validity of a person's authority based on the person's own writings leave much room for Doubt.

Now, it is true there is know indication that any of the apostles wrote anything deragatory about Paul. But, they did not right a single word about Paul. No Apostle has indicated they ever met or even knew anything about Paul.


I am certain Paul existed from historical records. However, I do not believe he had much contact with many Christians and went along and formed his own sect, independent of Christianity and that sect is what people now accept as Christianity. the other churches except for the one founded by Mark and the one founded by Peter. It appears that at one of the Nicene counsels the churches founded by them agreed upon what would be acceptable beliefs and solidified what became modern catholochism.

That theory doesn't really makes sense whe you take into account the level of persecution being inflicted upon the early Christian church. Paul himself was a part of this early persecution. Why would early church leaders, people who were willing to die for their faith, allow an upstart to change the entire doctrine of Christianity? It doesn't even make sense. The Council of Nicaea were forced to create an overall church doctrine because of the various sects sprouting up teaching ideas that were not considered by the majority of early church leaders to be Christian in nature.

[Keltoi]

the other early churches founded by the apostles did not have the support of Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria, so they were basicaly swept under the carpet and never as much as a wimper was heard from them again.

At the time of the Council of Nicaea, Christianity was not the official religion of Constantinople. The majorty of Byzantine citizens were still pagan, and were very much against conversion.

[Keltoi]

this seems to only be comprhensible to christians. i must admit, i do not understand it either and long ago gave up trying.

As important and serious as this concept is, I don't understand the supposed "complexity" that should render it incomprehensible. God, the Holy Spirt, and Jesus Christ are elements of how the Almighty God manifested and manifests His will. Unlike in Islam, Christianity does not believe that the Holy Spirit is the Angel Gabriel.

[Woodrow]

That theory doesn't really makes sense whe you take into account the level of persecution being inflicted upon the early Christian church. Paul himself was a part of this early persecution. Why would early church leaders, people who were willing to die for their faith, allow an upstart to change the entire doctrine of Christianity? It doesn't even make sense. The Council of Nicaea were forced to create an overall church doctrine because of the various sects sprouting up teaching ideas that were not considered by the majority of early church leaders to be Christian in nature.

Why would early church leaders, people who were willing to die for their faith, allow an upstart to change the entire doctrine of Christianity? It doesn't even make sense.

i really believe they would have put up a big squak and would have been very verbal over the errors they saw. However, They could not stand up to the power of Rome and Greece and this is was what happened to them:

The Council of Nicaea were forced to create an overall church doctrine because of the various sects sprouting up teaching ideas that were not considered by the majority of early church leaders to be Christian in nature.

[Keltoi]

i really believe they would have put up a big squak and would have been very verbal over the errors they saw. However, They could not stand up to the power of Rome and Greece and this is was what happened to them:

So you believe Arianism is the "true" Christianity? You are putting forward a conspiracy theory. That is all it is. Which I thought was against forum rules?

[Redeemed]

I may not get this exactly right, but I believe the Muslim perspective on this is that Paul's writings are the ones where the concepts of the trinity and Jesus being equal to God are mentioned most. Having anyone else equal to God is blasphemy in Islam. Perhaps some Muslim members here can better or further explain this for alapiana. This is most likely also covered in previous posts if you care to do some searching here.

That question wasn't meant for you about why Paul was off, but thanks for explaining what the Muslim view is of Paul. Nevertheless, I am sure you agree that Paul had a heavenly vision. Just as they believe in the vision Mohammed had, we believe Paul's vision was directed by God as well. His mission was to reach the gentiles and Peter's was to minister to his own (Jews).

[snakelegs]

As important and serious as this concept is, I don't understand the supposed "complexity" that should render it incomprehensible. God, the Holy Spirt, and Jesus Christ are elements of how the Almighty God manifested and manifests His will. Unlike in Islam, Christianity does not believe that the Holy Spirit is the Angel Gabriel.

you may be right, but i make no sense out of it.
btw, i didn't know islam regards the holy spirit as the angel gabriel. i never really understood the holy spirit either.

[Woodrow]

So you believe Arianism is the "true" Christianity? You are putting forward a conspiracy theory. That is all it is. Which I thought was against forum rules?

I know Arianism was one of the upstart sects that was removed. but I also believe that the original churches founded by the other apostles were pushed aside and there beliefs ignored.

We do know that Mark Started a Church in Alexandria, which is the coptic Christians. However, they do have a different view of Isa(as) and their beliefs were some of the books excluded, however that was at an earlier council. We do know that the Church started by Peter in Rome survived and is todays Roman Catholic. The Church founded in Greece by Paul in Greece became the Othodox Church which later split from Rome.

Now to show that the Church in Constantinople was quite strong. Most of the Christian Writings can only be traced back to the Greek from them.

The Othodox Church was Established in Constantinople at an early date and well before the Nicene council. The Basilica de Santa Sophia was completed in 537

Santa Sophia: AD 537

In Santa Sophia in Constantinople (completed astonishingly in only five years) the architects working for Justinian achieve with triumphant skill a new and difficult feat of technology - that of placing a vast circular dome on top of a square formed of four arches.

The link between the curves of two arches (diverging from a shared supporting pillar) and the curve round the base of the dome is made by a complex triangular shape known as a pendentive. Santa Sophia (or Hagia Sophia, the two being Latin and Greek for 'Holy Wisdom'), is not the first building in which a pendentive is used. But it is by far the most impressive.

Source: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/...HistoryID=ab27

[Keltoi]

I know Arianism was one of the upstart sects that was removed. but I also believe that the original churches founded by the other apostles were pushed aside and there beliefs ignored.

We do know that Mark Started a Church in Alexandria, which is the coptic Christians. However, they do have a different view of Isa(as) and their beliefs were some of the books excluded, however that was at an earlier council. We do know that the Church started by Peter in Rome survived and is todays Roman Catholic. The Church founded in Greece by Paul in Greece became the Othodox Church which later split from Rome.

Now to show that the Church in Constantinople was quite strong. Most of the Christian Writings can only be traced back to the Greek from them.

The Othodox Church was Established in Constantinople at an early date and well before the Nicene council. The Basilica de Santa Sophia was completed in 537




Source: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/...HistoryID=ab27

You have applied much circumstantial "evidence" that can be used to shape your conclusion, but it still dodges the most obvious point, which is why? I know you will suggest it was because Paul wanted to make the Christian faith more attractive to the pagans in Constantinople and Rome, but that logic still seems flawed to me. To accept that you would have to accept that no Christian in the hierarchy of the church was a true believer. You would have to accept that Paul was beheaded and martyred, not to mention the countless others who were martryed, and were willing to die for a faith they knew was false. That doesn't seem logical to me. I respect your opinion, but these arguments are rather weak when placed into the context of the Christian faith and the historical challenges they faced.

[YusufNoor]

this seems to only be comprhensible to christians. i must admit, i do not understand it either and long ago gave up trying.

A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

i'm not sure they "comprehend" it either. it seems more like a mantra!
[just keep repeating it until you believe it; there's no place like home, there's no place like home, etc...]:omg:

:w:

[Redeemed]

I know Arianism was one of the upstart sects that was removed. but I also believe that the original churches founded by the other apostles were pushed aside and there beliefs ignored.

Arianism was a doctrine that accepted Jesus as the Son of God, but they did not believe that Jesus was in the very nature God. They believe He was a created being; in fact, that doctrine is still alive amongst cults like JW's and other sects. To the Christian these typs of teachings are heresies. We feel that any attack on the deity of Christ is really the devil at work regardless of what form it comes in.

We do know that Mark Started a Church in Alexandria, which is the coptic Christians. However, they do have a different view of Isa(as) and their beliefs were some of the books excluded, however that was at an earlier council. We do know that the Church started by Peter in Rome survived and is todays Roman Catholic. The Church founded in Greece by Paul in Greece became the Othodox Church which later split from Rome.

Now to show that the Church in Constantinople was quite strong. Most of the Christian Writings can only be traced back to the Greek from them.

The Othodox Church was Established in Constantinople at an early date and well before the Nicene council. The Basilica de Santa Sophia was completed in 537






Source: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/...HistoryID=ab27

Arianism was a doctrine that accepted Jesus as the Son of God, but they did not believe that Jesus was in the very nature God. They believe He was a created being; in fact, that doctrine is still alive amongst cults like JW's and other sects. To the Christian these typs of teachings are heresies. We feel that any attack on the deity of Christ is really the devil at work regardless of what form it comes in.

[Woodrow]

You have applied much circumstantial "evidence" that can be used to shape your conclusion, but it still dodges the most obvious point, which is why? I know you will suggest it was because Paul wanted to make the Christian faith more attractive to the pagans in Constantinople and Rome, but that logic still seems flawed to me. To accept that you would have to accept that no Christian in the hierarchy of the church was a true believer. You would have to accept that Paul was beheaded and martyred, not to mention the countless others who were martryed, and were willing to die for a faith they knew was false. That doesn't seem logical to me. I respect your opinion, but these arguments are rather weak when placed into the context of the Christian faith and the historical challenges they faced.

You have applied much circumstantial "evidence" that can be used to shape your conclusion, but it still dodges the most obvious point, which is why?

At the moment I am going to take a cop out on that. Circumstantial is in the eye of the beholder.

I know you will suggest it was because Paul wanted to make the Christian faith more attractive to the pagans in Constantinople and Rome, but that logic still seems flawed to me.

I thought about going in that direction. But, I can agree that for what ever reason Paul thought he was right.

To accept that you would have to accept that no Christian in the hierarchy of the church was a true believer. You would have to accept that Paul was beheaded and martyred, not to mention the countless others who were martryed, and were willing to die for a faith they knew was false. That doesn't seem logical to me.

That would be illogical. I do believe they were very sincere in their beliefs. But, I also believe they did not know the truth.

I respect your opinion, but these arguments are rather weak when placed into the context of the Christian faith and the historical challenges they faced.

Likewise your opinion is accepted. But, I suspect we are looking at the world through different windows.

Strength of an argument is only as strong as your proof appears to your adversary.

[cool_jannah]

Alapiana, if you feel that it is not worth burning yourself forever in the hell fire, please accept the religion of the Lord of Jesus, peace be upon him, sent for this period of time till the day of reckoning. One of the worst crimes is to associate God with partners or sons or daughters and there is no forgiveness for that. Free yourself by accepting the truth and be sincere in your struggle.

[don532]

Now, it is true there is know indication that any of the apostles wrote anything deragatory about Paul. But, they did not right a single word about Paul. No Apostle has indicated they ever met or even knew anything about Paul.

I think Peter does mention Paul. Here's II Peter 3:15, 16. Peter mentions Paul and his writings, equating them with scripture.
15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

[Redeemed]

Alapiana, if you feel that it is not worth burning yourself forever in the hell fire, please accept the religion of the Lord of Jesus, peace be upon him, sent for this period of time till the day of reckoning. One of the worst crimes is to associate God with partners or sons or daughters and there is no forgiveness for that. Free yourself by accepting the truth and be sincere in your struggle.

You advice is coming across as critical, judgmental and condescending to boot. I would never say your not sincere about what you believe. Even if you gave me some credit by saying something like I know your sincere - sincerely wrong though, that wouldn't have been so bad. When I write on this forum I try to pray all the time so that I am not leaning to my on understanding. I believe that we wrestle not against flesh and blood but spiritual wickness in high places.

[Redeemed]

If any man lacks wisdom, let him ask God for it and it will be given.

[جوري]

If any man lacks wisdom, let him ask God for it and it will be given.

How is that working out for you?

[Redeemed]

How is that working out for you?

That verse was a general statement (advice) not meant to be directed at anyone, but it is something that both Muslim and Christian can benefit by doing. No need to ask me how it is working for me, you can find out for yourself.

[جوري]

I know how it is working out for you... how do you think you think it is working out for you?

[Keltoi]

I know how it is working out for you... how do you think you think it is working out for you?

Why be arrogant about it? There is no reason to be insulting.

[جوري]

I am not insulting at all... I am actually turning the table around...
There is usually one underlying meaning to most of his posts.... And I wanted to see if the advise he passes out to us Muslims has in fact worked for him!

[Redeemed]

I am not insulting at all... I am actually turning the table around...
There is usually one underlying meaning to most of his posts.... And I wanted to see if the advise he passes out to us Muslims has in fact worked for him!

Yes, you are. Let's call a spade a spade. What is the underlying meaning, and why are you singling me out? I know I came on strong in the beginning, but I have already apologized to you and others. Can't you forgive and forget? I don't have anything against you. I pray that God leads you into his perfect will and makes it clear to you.

[Umar001]

I was not clear. My point is some of the other books in the NT were written by people other than Paul. I still see Jesus' message in those books.

'I still see Jesus' message in those books'

How do you know what Jesus' message was? What is supposed to happen is that from those books you then understand what Jesus' Message was. Not that you have a picture in your head and then say 'I still see his message in those books' where did you get his message from for you to recognise it?

Here are the authors of the books of the New Testament according to my understanding:
Matthew = Matthew - 55 A.D.
Mark = John Mark - 50 A.D.
Luke = Luke - 60 A.D.
John = John - 90 A.D.
Acts = Luke - 65 A.D.
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon = Paul - 50-70 A.D.
Hebrews = unknown, best guesses are Paul, Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos - 65 A.D.
James = James - 45 A.D.
1 Peter, 2 Peter = Peter - 60 A.D.
1 John, 2 John, 3 John = John - 90 A.D.
Jude = Jude - 60 A.D.
Revelation = John - 90 A.D.

Are you going to tell us how you derived to this conclusion? I mean just throwing names and dates is something anyone can do.

I don't see how Paul could have hijacked the message of Jesus all those other people heard and saw, without them reacting. In II Peter 3:15, 16 Peter even describes Paul's writings as scriptures. I'm not trying to change your mind or convince you of anything at this point. I'm just sharing my perspective.

Peace.

And do you know what some scholars say about 2nd Peter? I.e. with regards to the author ship?

This is what I mean, looking at the Bible without historical background is futile. Anyone can do it and come out with what they want to come out with.

What your also assuming is that let's say, FOR EXAMPLE, Paul did hijack the true message of Jesus, you claim the others who opposed would have spoken out, how do you know they didnt? it could be possible that they were small in numbers, and actually if you do read into things you'll find that this could be possible.

I wonder if we're going to proceed forward here.

I may not get this exactly right, but I believe the Muslim perspective on this is that Paul's writings are the ones where the concepts of the trinity and Jesus being equal to God are mentioned most. Having anyone else equal to God is blasphemy in Islam. Perhaps some Muslim members here can better or further explain this for alapiana. This is most likely also covered in previous posts if you care to do some searching here.

Well Muslims can give their opinions but I have yet to see the Islamic breakdown on this.

[don532]

How do you know what Jesus' message was? What is supposed to happen is that from those books you then understand what Jesus' Message was. Not that you have a picture in your head and then say 'I still see his message in those books' where did you get his message from for you to recognise it?

The basic message I read is Jesus died and rose again, fulfilling the old law.

Are you going to tell us how you derived to this conclusion? I mean just throwing names and dates is something anyone can do.

The names and dates of the authorship of the books of the new testament is available from many sources. Here is one: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-authors.html

And do you know what some scholars say about 2nd Peter? I.e. with regards to the author ship?

This is what I mean, looking at the Bible without historical background is futile. Anyone can do it and come out with what they want to come out with.

What your also assuming is that let's say, FOR EXAMPLE, Paul did hijack the true message of Jesus, you claim the others who opposed would have spoken out, how do you know they didnt? it could be possible that they were small in numbers, and actually if you do read into things you'll find that this could be possible.

I guess one must evaluate the qualifications and possibly the motivations, of scholars to be listened to and believed.

I wonder if we're going to proceed forward here.

Probably not.

Well Muslims can give their opinions but I have yet to see the Islamic breakdown on this.

I am a little surprised at this. I thought the Muslim perspective on Paul's writings and his supposed corruption of Jesus' message was one of the common and well known pieces of reasoning in Islam.

[Redeemed]

I am not insulting at all... I am actually turning the table around...
There is usually one underlying meaning to most of his posts.... And I wanted to see if the advise he passes out to us Muslims has in fact worked for him!

A brother had pointed out to me that what I said may have come acrosss as an insult. If Muslims believe they are walking in the perfect will of God and His path is already clear to them; then, I could see how what I said is an insult. Please note that this was not intentional. This is something that I would pray for with any Christian brother and one would pray for me. If you know the way a Christian thinks on this matter, I hope that you can understand that I was just trying to wish you the best.
Peace
aj

[snakelegs]

I don't mind at all that Muslims share their views of Christ, that is the point of comparitive religion, but there are a large number of posts directed at Christians in this forum dedicated not for understanding or comparison, but simply attack threads. I understand this is a Muslim forum, but if you want respect you should also give respect.

i am neither christian or muslim but i would have to agree with the above.
however, i also see christians crossing the line between informing and answering and promoting. (never you, keltoi and not most of the regulars). this is a problem because it is a grey area.
i would hope when muslims (and christians) ask questions they would check their motives first and make sure that their motive is to seek information.
it would do much to promote mutual understanding.

[Umar001]

The basic message I read is Jesus died and rose again, fulfilling the old law.

I think maybe I misunderstood you, I thought we were talking about how do we know Jesus' message was preserved, and i think now you meant that you see the same message in the Gospels even without pauls writings.

The names and dates of the authorship of the books of the new testament is available from many sources. Here is one: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-authors.html

The mere fact that they quote 2 Timothy 3:16 in such a manner shows flaws in their writing.

I guess one must evaluate the qualifications and possibly the motivations, of scholars to be listened to and believed.

Do you know of Bruce Metzger?

With regards to your website, do you know what evidences they give for listing authors and dates?

[don532]

I think maybe I misunderstood you, I thought we were talking about how do we know Jesus' message was preserved, and i think now you meant that you see the same message in the Gospels even without pauls writings.

Yes, that was what I meant.

With regards to your website, do you know what evidences they give for listing authors and dates?

That is only a website I found that conveniently listed the authors. I know there is and has been for a long time debate over the exact dates. I also realize there is some debate about some authorships. If you have a resource you could share that could show me what some of that debate is that you accept as accurate, I would like to understand more about that perspective.

I know who Bruce Metzger is, but I haven't read any of his books. I remember he was an authority on Greek and helped with translation of the RSV bible and a couple of others.

[Redeemed]

this seems to only be comprhensible to christians. i must admit, i do not understand it either and long ago gave up trying.

To be honest with you, I am not sure I understand it either. I kind of look at it like we have a body that is us; we have a spirit and that is us, or like water and the different forms it can come into - ice, gas and liquid. I think this is a poor analogy, but it is the only thing I can think of to relate it too. I for one just don't think it is wise to reject some concept just beacause I can't understand it. I don't understand related tech, but that doesn't stop me from turning on the light so I could see. I just take it by faith and not by what I can reason on. I believe walking by faith is better than a know way.

[snakelegs]

To be honest with you, I am not sure I understand it either. I kind of look at it like we have a body that is us; we have a spirit and that is us, or like water and the different forms it can come into - ice, gas and liquid. I think this is a poor analogy, but it is the only thing I can think of to relate it too. I for one just don't think it is wise to reject some concept just beacause I can't understand it. I don't understand related tech, but that doesn't stop me from turning on the light so I could see. I just take it by faith and not by what I can reason on. I believe walking by faith is better than a know way.

i agree that faith is very different than knowing.
as i said before, i haven't really tried to grasp it - i can't because i don't believe in it. it isn't even a matter of accepting or rejecting.
personally, i reject all religions, though some are more interesting to me than others.

[Redeemed]

A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

i'm not sure they "comprehend" it either. it seems more like a mantra!
[just keep repeating it until you believe it; there's no place like home, there's no place like home, etc...]:omg:

:w:

To be honest with you, I am not sure I understand it either, but it is not a mantra. As I have mentioned, I kind of look at it like we have a body that is us; we have a spirit and that is us, or like water and the different forms it can come into - ice, gas and liquid. I think this is a poor analogy, but it is the only thing I can think of to relate it too. I for one just don't think it is wise to reject some concept just beacause I can't understand it. I don't understand related tech, but that doesn't stop me from turning on the light so I could see. I just take it by faith and not by what I can reason on. I believe walking by faith is better than a know way.

[Umar001]

That is only a website I found that conveniently listed the authors. I know there is and has been for a long time debate over the exact dates. I also realize there is some debate about some authorships. If you have a resource you could share that could show me what some of that debate is that you accept as accurate, I would like to understand more about that perspective.

Well from what I have seen the debates area mainly stipulation with no concrete evidences.

So you don't know if that site is right? I dont see any internal evidence to say the least that the authors of at least the 3 Sypnotic Gospels are first hand witnesses.

Anyhow, it'd be interesting to see how people can back up authorship and time claims.

I know who Bruce Metzger is, but I haven't read any of his books. I remember he was an authority on Greek and helped with translation of the RSV bible and a couple of others.

If I am not mistaken he was a leader of a group who translted and revised the Good News Bible? I think, I saw it at my families church which kind of made me want to read and see what it said.

I've been trying to get a book of his for a while, but the Christian bookshop dont think sell the book, :X

[Redeemed]

i agree that faith is very different than knowing.
as i said before, i haven't really tried to grasp it - i can't because i don't believe in it. it isn't even a matter of accepting or rejecting.
personally, i reject all religions, though some are more interesting to me than others.

As I ws trying to say I just take it by faith and not by what I can reason on. There is a way that seems right to a man, but that way leads to death. I believe walking by faith is better than a known way. I believe that it is impossible to please God without faith Those that come to Him must believe that He is and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Just cause you don't believe doesn't mean it is not true for you. Look around man the heavens declare God's glory. It is appointed onto man once to die then comes the judgment.

[Balthasar21]

According to Islam Muslims says he a prophet some christians says he the son of god and some call him god himself .

[azc]

Could The Prophet Jesus AS Create Everything Out Of Nothing ?

No, He couldn't anything...

[Eric H]

i agree that faith is very different than knowing.
as i said before, i haven't really tried to grasp it - i can't because i don't believe in it. it isn't even a matter of accepting or rejecting.
personally, i reject all religions, though some are more interesting to me than others.

I remember snakelegs with fondness, since she passed away.

blessings
Eric

[space]

[azc]

https://shabirally.wordpress.com/201...s-claim-deity/