Open Challenge to Muslims.

format_quote Originally Posted by cool_jannah

1) None of the Bible’s Writers Believed That Jesus is God:

Christians and Muslims both believe in Jesus, love him, and honor him. They are, however, divided over the question of his divinity.
Fortunately, this difference can be resolved if we refer the question to both the Bible and the Quran, because, both the Bible and the Quran teach that Jesus is not God.
It is clear enough to everyone that the Quran denies the divinity of Jesus, so we do not need to spend much time explaining that.
On the other hand, many people misunderstand the Bible; they feel that the belief in Jesus as God is so widespread that it must have come from the Bible. This article shows quite conclusively that the Bible does not teach that.
The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is not God. In the Bible God is always someone else other than Jesus.
Some will say that something Jesus said or something he did while on the earth proves that he is God. We will show that the disciples never came to the conclusion that Jesus is God. And those are people who lived and walked with Jesus and thus knew first hand what he said and did. Furthermore, we are told in the Acts of the Apostles in the Bible that the disciples were being guided by the Holy Spirit. If Jesus is God, surely they should know it. But they did not. They kept worshipping the one true God who was worshipped by Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (see Acts 3:13).
All of the writers of the Bible believed that God was not Jesus. The idea that Jesus is God did not become part of Christian belief until after the Bible was written, and took many centuries to become part of the faith of Christians.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, authors of the first three Gospels, believed that Jesus was not God (see Mark 10:18 and Matthew 19:17). They believed that he was the son of God in the sense of a righteous person. Many others too, are similarly called sons of God (see Matthew 23:1-9).
Paul, believed to be the author of some thirteen or fourteen letters in the Bible, also believed that Jesus is not God. For Paul, God first created Jesus, then used Jesus as the agent by which to create the rest of creation (see Colossians 1:15 and 1 Corinthians 8:6). Similar ideas are found in the letter to the Hebrews, and also in the Gospel and Letters of John composed some seventy years after Jesus. In all of these writings, however, Jesus is still a creature of God and is therefore forever subservient to God (see 1 Corinthians 15:28).
Now, because Paul, John, and the author of Hebrews believed that Jesus was God’s first creature, some of what they wrote clearly show that Jesus was a pre-existent powerful being. This is often misunderstood to mean that he must have been God. But to say that Jesus was God is to go against what these very authors wrote. Although these authors had this later belief that Jesus is greater than all creatures, they also believed that he was still lesser than God. In fact, John quotes Jesus as saying: “...the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28). And Paul declares that the head of every woman is her husband, the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God (see 1 Corinthians 11:3).
Therefore, to find something in these writings and claim that these teach that Jesus is God is to misuse and misquote what those authors are saying. What they wrote must be understood in the context of their belief that Jesus is a creature of God as they have already clearly said.
So we see then, that some of the later writers had a higher view of Jesus, but none of the writers of the Bible believed that Jesus is God. The Bible clearly teaches that there is only one true God, the one whom Jesus worshipped (see John 17: 3).
In the rest of this article we will explore the Bible in more depth, and deal with the passages which are most often misquoted as proofs of Jesus’ divinity. We will show, with God’s help, that these do not mean what they are so often used to prove.

You are wrongly interpreting scripture, scripture says in its own word by inspiration of God to interpret scripture with scripture. I will prove this to you in the site of my God and my mediator Christ Jesus.

I will answer this question as soon as I can, give me seven days to catch up. Thank You for your patience.

format_quote Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19

I wonder where the person who challenged Islam, Can refute All those Points, And the writers. And thats just that.

Dont get me started with Sciences, I know Gibson would love that!

I will refute, But I ask you to be patient. While I seek and find,I will be in communion with my Heavenly Father on this and he will guide me.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hana_Aku

Ummm, can we please stop all the copy/pasting? There is no dialogue when one person is just posting and posting when no questions have been asked.

Thanks
Hana

I'd have to agree there. What ever happen to communication
sevenxtrust we look forward to your reply. Take you time

:s:
it does't matter
how he post but what he post
jajakAllaah
-+Brother cool_jannah
-+keep collecting & sharing
may Allaah help us to understand better

Who Invented The Trinity?

By Aisha Brown


The three monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – all purport to share one fundamental concept: belief in God as the Supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Known as "tawhid" in Islam, this concept of the Oneness of God was stressed by Moses in a Biblical passage known as the "Shema", or the Jewish creed of faith: "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 when he said "...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)

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

Christianity has digressed from the concept of the Oneness of God, however, into a vague and mysterious doctrine that was formulated during the fourth century. This doctrine, which continues to be a source of controversy both within and outside the Christian religion, is known as the Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – in one divine being.

If that concept, put in basic terms, sounds confusing, the flowery language in the actual text of the doctrine lends even more mystery to the matter:

"...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity... for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one... they are not three gods, but one God... the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal... he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity..." (excerpts from the Athanasian Creed).

Let's put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father, plus one person, God the Son, plus one person, God the Holy Ghost, equals one person, God the What? Is this English or is this gibberish?

It is said that Athanasius, the bishop who formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it.
How did such a confusing doctrine get its start?

Trinity in the Bible

References in the Bible to a Trinity of divine beings are vague, at best.

In Matthew 28:19, we find Jesus telling his disciples to go out and preach to all nations. While this "Great Commission" does make mention of the three persons who later become components of the Trinity, the phrase "...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is quite clearly an addition to Biblical text – that is, not the actual words of Jesus – as can be seen by two factors:

1) baptism in the early Church, as discussed by Paul in his letters, was done only in the name of Jesus; and

2) the "Great Commission" was found in the first gospel written, that of Mark, bears no mention of Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost – see Mark 16:15.

The only other reference in the Bible to a Trinity can be found in the Epistle of 1 John 5:7. Biblical scholars of today, however, have admitted that the phrase "... there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is definitely a "later addition" to Biblical text, and it is not found in any of today's versions of the Bible.

It can, therefore, be seen that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings was not an idea put forth by Jesus or any other prophet of God. This doctrine, now subscribed to by Christians all over the world, is entirely man-made in origin.

The Doctrine Takes Shape

While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true founder of Christianity, did formulate many of its doctrines, that of the Trinity was not among them. He did, however, lay the groundwork for such when he put forth the idea of Jesus being a "divine Son". After all, a Son does need a Father, and what about a vehicle for God's revelations to man? In essence, Paul named the principal players, but it was the later Church people who put the matter together.

Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third-century Church in Carthage, was the first to use the word "Trinity" when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father.

A Formal Doctrine Is Drawn Up

When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria – Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop – Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray.

Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to him, he did realize that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all.

Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Church Puts Its Foot Down

The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine. Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; "Arianism" became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who didn't hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.

It wasn't until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.

Debate Continues

Brutal punishments and even death did not stop the controversy over the doctrine of the Trinity, however, and the said controversy continues even today.

The majority of Christians, when asked to explain this fundamental doctrine of their faith, can offer nothing more than "I believe it because I was told to do so." It is explained away as "mystery" – yet the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 14:33 that "... God is not the author of confusion ..."

The Unitarian denomination of Christianity has kept alive the teachings of Arius in saying that God is one; they do not believe in the Trinity. As a result, mainstream Christians abhor them, and the National Council of Churches has refused their admittance. In Unitarianism, the hope is kept alive that Christians will someday return to the preachings of Jesus: "... Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." (Luke 4:8)

Islam and the Matter of the Trinity

While Christianity may have a problem defining the essence of God, such is not the case in Islam:

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God" (Qur'an 5:73).

It is worth noting that the Arabic language Bible uses the name "Allah" as the name of God.

Suzanne Haneef, in her book What Everyone Should Know About Islam and Muslims (Library of Islam, 1985), puts the matter quite succinctly when she says,

"But God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being which God is and which Christianity professes to believe in." (pp. 183-184)

Looking at it from another angle, the Trinity designates God as being three separate entities – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical.

Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity – God being Three-in-One – is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don't revere just One God, they revere three.

This is a charge not taken lightly by Christians, however. They, in turn, accuse the Muslims of not even knowing what the Trinity is, pointing out that the Qur'an sets it up as Allah the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary his mother. While veneration of Mary has been a figment of the Catholic Church since 431 when she was given the title "Mother of God" by the Council of Ephesus, a closer examination of the verses in the Qur'an most often cited by Christians in support of their accusation, shows that the designation of Mary by the Qur'an as a "member" of the Trinity, is simply not true.

While the Qur'an does condemn both trinitarianism (the Qur'an 4:171; 5:73) and the worship of Jesus and his mother Mary (the Qur'an 5:116), nowhere does it identify the actual three components of the Christian Trinity. The position of the Qur'an is that WHO or WHAT comprises this doctrine is not important; what is important is that the very notion of a Trinity is an affront against the concept of One God.

In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a concept conceived entirely by man; there is no sanction whatsoever from God to be found regarding the matter simply because the whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism. In the Qur'an, God's Final Revelation to mankind, we find His stand quite clearly stated in a number of eloquent passages,

"... your God is One God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner." (the Qur'an 18:110)

"... take not, with God, another object of worship, lest you should be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected." (the Qur'an 17:39)

– because, as God tells us over and over again in a Message that is echoed throughout ALL His Revealed Scriptures,

"... I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore, serve Me (and no other) ..." (the Qur'an 21:92)

Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by sevenxtrust

I have come with a more expounded explanation.



There are two different explanations to arrive at in the case of Jesus’ baptisms. Either He baptized believers personally, in the beginning, and then delegated the responsibility to His disciples later; or, His disciples had done all of the baptizing “in His name”.

For the former possibility, notice that John 4:2 says “baptized not”, not “never did baptize”, so the matter is uncertain based on this verse.

If He did indeed never baptize anyone personally, then John 4:1 as well will give us more comprehension of that position:

“When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples)” John 4:1-2

In this passage, first it says He baptized, then it says that He Himself didn’t. These statements together infer that to say “Jesus baptized” meant “the disciples of Jesus baptized”. It is somewhat like saying “The U.S. won the war” even though it was specifically won by the individual soldiers operating as part of the military unit.

Taking John 3 in its entirety into consideration, it is highly probable that Jesus Himself at least baptized some people in the beginning of His ministry.

So it's unclear whether Jesus actually did baptise, and the Bible doesn't appear to be able to help us on that question.

I believe it to be seven literal days, I also believe that science is just catching up to the Bible. I do not believe that the earth is billions of years old nor that carbon 14 works. Here is why.

That's really what you believe? Wow! I've never met anyone who actually believed that before.

You think science is just catching up to the Bible? I take it you don't use hospitals or medicine then.

Just out of interest, roughly how old would you say the Earth actually is?

Peace

Actually, Disney does alot of Subliminal messaging, but nonetheless no one knows much about that!.

Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by Hana_Aku

Errrrmmmm, gibson....if you looked at his "reliable" source a little more closely you can see where the line of thinking comes from.

It's from the same evangelist that claims he has a cure for cancer, and that all the Disney movies contained terrible subliminal messages and he "knows" because he went through each one frame by frame. :confused:

Not exactly the most reliable or respected source for scientific information.

I'm fully aware that the source quoted (without being credited by the original poster) is less than reliable. It's just that if sevenxtrust says he believes the following:

I believe it to be seven literal days, I also believe that science is just catching up to the Bible. I do not believe that the earth is billions of years old nor that carbon 14 works. Here is why.

then I believe him. It doesn't matter if he's basing those beliefs on the writings of a person with the distinguished intellectual faculties of a person like Hovind. Just the fact that someone believes anything Hovind says is remarkable enough.

Scarey part for me is....this "source" teaches our children. I did a quick search on this guy and really his line of thinking is way out there.

Is that in America, you mean?

Peace

I am starting to get a little confused here. Anyway I am waiting for sevenxtrust to post the answers to the questions posed. I hope it does not get too off topic by the time he gets here.
Peace.

First question I will answer is question 94.

(94) states: Who killed Goliath?
David (1 Samuel 17:23,50)
Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19)

Answer:
David did (1 Samuel 17:50) - "Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David’s hand."

Elhanan did (2 Sam. 21:19)- "And there was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam."

The answer lies in two areas. 1 Chronicles 20:5 says, "And there was war with the Philistines again, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam." This is the correct answer; namely, that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother.
Second, it appears there was a copyist error in 2 Samuel 21:19. According to Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties on page 179, it says,

The sign of the direct object, which in Chronicles comes just before "Lahmi," was '-t; the copyist mistook it for b-t or b-y-t ("Beth") and thus got Bet hal-Lahmi ("the Bethlehemite") out of it.
He misread the word for "brother" ('-h) as the sign of the direct object ('-t) right before g-l-y-t ("Goliath"). Thus he made "Goliath" the object of "killed" (wayyak), instead of the "brother" of Goliath (as the Chronicles passage does).
The copyist misplaced the word for "weavers" ('-r-g-ym) so as to put it right after "Elhanan" as his patronymic (ben Y-'-r-y'-r--g-ym, or ben ya 'arey 'ore -gim -- "the son of the forests of weavers" -- a most unlikely name for anyone's father!). In Chronicles the 'ore grim ("weavers") comes right after menor ("a beam of ") -- thus making perfectly good sense.
Therefore, we see that 2 Samuel 21:19 had a copyist error and 1 Chronicles 20:5 is the correct information.

My response to question 95.

Question:

95. Who killed Saul?
"Saul took his own sword and fell upon it.....Thus Saul died....(1 Samuel 31:4-6)
An Amelekite slew him (2 Samuel 1:1-16)

Answer:

Saul did (1 Samuel 31:4) - "Then Saul said to his armor bearer, "Draw your sword and pierce me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and pierce me through and make sport of me." But his armor bearer would not, for he was greatly afraid. So Saul took his sword and fell on it."
The Amalekite did (2 Samuel 1:8-10) - "And he said to me, ‘Who are you?’ And I answered him, ‘I am an Amalekite.’ 9"Then he said to me, ‘Please stand beside me and kill me; for agony has seized me because my life still lingers in me.’ 10"So I stood beside him and killed him, because I knew that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown which was on his head and the bracelet which was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord."
1 Samuel 31:4 gives what actually happened while 2 Samuel 1:8-10 only gives what the Amalekite said happened. Most probably, the Amalekite took the opportunity to benefit from the King's death, gathered his crown and bracelet and then brought them to David. Unfortunately for the Amalekite, David said in 2 Samuel 1:13-16, "And David said to the young man who told him, "Where are you from?" And he answered, "I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite." 14Then David said to him, "How is it you were not afraid to stretch out your hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?" 15And David called one of the young men and said, "Go, cut him down." So he struck him and he died. 16And David said to him, "Your blood is on your head, for your mouth has testified against you, saying, ‘I have killed the Lord’s anointed.'"
The Amalekite probably thought he'd benefit from bringing the King's possessions to David, but his plan backfired.

Well do you not see something wrong here? I mean the fact that the bible was written by man is what caused these mistakes and misunderstandings. In fact the more time that passes the further it is from the truth. It just keeps changing. Why do you not see a flaw in that? Humans are not perfect, God is.

Now I will answer question 99.

Question:

99: Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

After his baptism, "the spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days....(Mark 1:12-13)

Next day after the baptism, Jesus selected two disciples. Second day: Jesus went to Galilee-two more disciples. Third day: Jesus was at a wedding feast in Cana in Galilee ( see John 1:35, 1:43, 2:1-11

Answer:

I would suggest that the question has not read John 1 carefully enough. Indeed, in Mark 1 we have an account of Jesus' baptism recorded, and in verse 12, Jesus was "...immediately..." taken "...into the wilderness..." The questioner has assumed that the account of His baptism in the book of John is in the present tense, as it is in Mark. Let us note a few things from John 1.

Verse 19 sets the context. The things which are present are John the baptist's testimony regarding who he is (19-25) and of the One who is among them who is greater than he (26-27).

Verse 28 identifies the location where this conversation took place, and where John had been baptizing.

Verse 29, on "...the next day..." John sees Jesus and bears witness that He is "...the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" He says that this is the One that he was speaking about on the previous day (30).

Verse 31-33, John tells us how Jesus was revealed to him (and to Israel). It was by His baptism. Notice, John's words do not necessarily infer that Jesus had been baptized that day. In fact, he makes no mention of when he had baptized Him.

Verse 34, having seen, John testifies that Jesus "...is the Son of God."

Verse 35-36, on "...the next day..." John again bears witness to Jesus, directing his own disciples to the Lord.

The questioner devises a contradiction by inferring something the text does not. Since verse 35 speaks of John seeing Jesus the day after he spoke of baptizing him, and further in the context ("...on the third day...", 2:1) Jesus is going to a wedding in Cana, and not the wilderness, it ought to be understood that John is speaking of Jesus' baptism at least 40 days after the fact. I might see a woman, and point out to someone, 'That woman is a Christian, I baptized her into Christ.' Does that necessarily infer that she was baptized that same day? Of course not, and neither do John's words reveal anything about the time of Jesus' baptism.

There is no contradiction.