Atonement

[*Hana*]

Hello Hana_Aku,

I can tell you are getting aggravated. Please understand that this is not my intention. But I have to tell you that a lot of what you say does not make sense--is not logical...Here you are using a verse of scripture to support your statement that Jesus did not have any eyewitnesses. This was a later statement by you:

Please allow me to ask you once again: If you do not follow the people who authored the Bible; if you do not believe "in that and other verses", then how can you use a verse to support your point of view? It's like saying, "I don't believe this but I will base my argument on it."

Peace POBook:

Actually, I am not at all aggravated. But, the point is that if you can't see the logic in how the Bible is refuted, then what is the point in having dialogue? And, right, I don't have to believe it to base an argument on it, especially when my argument is about contradictions of verses that you claim are both true. When you say, "Everything in this book (any book), is the absolute truth, be assured, there will be people looking at it for untruths and when they find them, they will comment." THAT is logic. When you are referring to a book you say is God's word, there is absolutely NO room for error. If you say this is true because the bible says so here and I am showing you it cannot be true because of the verse I found here...(one contradicting the other), THAT is logic. If I said, "oh, I believe this verse is God's word, but this verse is not, but the Bible is still God's word." THAT is beyond illogical. Either the whole book is God's word or it isn't. It's not rocket science, POBook. If there is ONE error, contradiction, man-made verse, etc., it is no longer the word of God.

This is how the debating of a topic works, POBook....it is not my invention. Again, in clear, simple words: If you claim the Bible is ALL truth, you better be prepared for people to look at it for untruth and when they clearly show you, don't try to say, "your point isn't valid because you don't believe in the bible." That's another way of saying, "I have no answer to explain that error, so I'll side-step the issue with accusations that invalidate the dialogue that was accepted prior." Watch any debate between Christians and Muslims, or any political debate....the process is no different. Sorry, that's a cop out and I feel you are trying to side-step the issue because you can't logically explain the contradictions. For me, it makes no difference if you can explain them or not or whether you choose to believe them even after people have shown you the problem. That choice is yours. I would think no different of you one way or another. The old adage, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." What you hope to do is post any verse you want and have it accepted, blindly and use the scape-goat...."you can't say anything different because you don't believe in the bible." Sorry, again, as Muslims we don't share your blind faith. God has taught us to use our minds and our logic to see the errors in what the People of the Book claim to be His word,He tells us they are there and what to look for, and He goes so far as to challenge anyone to find one error or contradiction in the Qur'an.

So, basically, if you can't understand how the process of refuting statements works, why do you bother engaging in such dialogue? And, no, I don't feel disrespected at all, it's just that you are resorting to typical tactics when you can't explain something, and I would prefer to have you say, "I don't know, but I have faith it's true." It's better than creating a scape goat. We are going off topic here, so if you want to continue, we can just pick up where we left off.

Sincerely and Peace,
Hana

 

[PrIM3]

Hello Hana_Aku Peace.

Hello and Peace PrIM3:

Thank you for the Christian definition of Atonement. Now I will provide the universal definition as per Webster's Dictionary: vi. & vt. expiate; make reparation. And the online dictionary: 1. making of amends: the making of reparation for a sin or a mistake
2. A·tone·mentreconciliation between God and people: in Christian belief, the reconciliation between God and people brought about by the death of Jesus Christ (as you see, a slight variation of the word).

Actually, the definition I gave you was the online definition.

This comes from Paul, not Jesus, pbuh. Can you show me where Jesus, pbuh, is quoted as saying that?

hope you don't mind me quoting from Hebrews
but in Hebrew 1:1-8
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
5For to which of the angels did God ever say,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father"?
Or again,
"I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son"?
6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
"Let all God's angels worship him." 7In speaking of the angels he says,
"He makes his angels winds,
his servants flames of fire." 8But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.

God, doesn't capture, He guides. He sent the same message to all the prophets, "Thy Lord Thy God is ONE God." Do not worship other's beside Allah, swt. It is your first commandment. Don't try to bring God down to our level, this is impossible. Just as it is impossible for us to fully comprehend the greatness of God. God sent the message to you through Jesus...the way to eternal life is to keep the commandments. No need for all these other additions to His message. It's simple and it's clear....Worship God, obey the commandments.

ok well before a guide starts guiding he must first do something to capture your attention.. and it was His love that captured my heart nothing else.

"Thy Lord Thy God is ONE God."
Yes He is one... have you ever read the ONE as plural?
like the us army... the ARMY of ONE... how can so many people be 1?

though they are different they are all one..

may I ask what do the commandments mean to you?


thanks agian,
God bless

 

[PrIM3]

Hello Ansar Al-'Adl-- How are you doing today?

Hello PrIM3,

Does it make sense to say one money?? Is money an object itself that can either be one or two or three, etc. ? Does it make sense to you if I said, "I have three moneys and he has one money" ? No it doesn't. I already pointed out that money is a TYPE of resource. It is not an object itself. Coins are objects and so you can have multiple coins, but money is not an object itself. So for you to say that you have three coins but altogether one money[/i] is a meaningless statement and fails to save the trinity.

Regards

what I am saying even though the dime the nickle and the quoter are all different they are all types of this MONEY

 

[Umar001]

Peace be upon yall

Part of the creator is created? 'being made in human likeness'

This is Justice>>'It's like a judge who hands down a sentence to a criminal. The judge then steps down from his judgement seat and takes the criminal's sentence and serve the sentence he gave to the criminal, on behalf of that criminal.'

A man comits a crime and the man goes free, because someone wants to pay the price for him, for example, we have a killer on death row, imagine justice, a man comes and says 'I will take the place of that killer but let the killer free' interesting idea of justice.

 

[tahir]

Salam, hope you're all ok.

I was reading this thread and there are a couple of things which kind of confuse me and i hope POBook can explain. (sorry i've not used direct quotes etc this is my first post so still getting used to it)

I don't understand how can God be Just if everyone is born a sinner without doing anything wrong? I do not see the justice in that, why should a man have to pay for something that someone did way before his time? For example a man commits robbery but the judge sentences all his family for it, his children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren, i'm sure you catch my drift, where's the logic and justice behind that?

Assuming that everyone was born a sinner then wouldn't God prefer people, His creation, to ask for his forgiveness, don't you agree that God is most Merciful? If so then surely he would forgive everyone for their 'sins'. According to Christianity, if you believe in Jesus (pbuh) then you will go to heaven, does that mean if you're a bad person who commits robbery, rape etc but believe in Jesus (pbuh) you will still go to heaven? Surely God would not like someone who has committed lots of crime to go straight to heaven.

Final point, i don't see the logic behind God coming down into human form to wash away the sins of mankind. Why would God come down to earth and sacrifice Himself to forgive the sins? You gave an analogy earlier on of this being similar to a judge taking the punishment of a criminal. Do you not agree that it would be better for the criminal to serve his punishment so that he learns his lesson instead of letting someone completely innocent having to pay for the criminal's crimes? When Jesus (pbuh) was being sacrificed and he looked up to the sky and said "Father, Father why hast thou forsaken me?" does this mean that the Father part of God has more power than the Son if He can forsake Him? (sorry i don't really seem to be able understand trinity) If He knew this was going to happen all along why did Jesus (pbuh) say this?

It's getting late so i'm going to head off now, hope you can clear up my confusion POBook, thanks.

(P.S. Is Adam (pbuh) Jesus' (pbuh) brother? Neither had a father and Adam (pbuh) did not even have a human mother! Then that means there are 4 essences to God, right?)

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Ansar Al-'Adl-- How are you doing today?

Praise be to God, I'm fine. Thanks for asking.

what I am saying even though the dime the nickle and the quoter are all different they are all types of this MONEY

I understand that, and I pointed out before that this analogy doesn't work because you believe in ONE God yet there is nothing in your analogy that is only ONE. You can't say that there is ONE money, because money is not an object, it is a type of resource. You have three coins in your analogy, but how are those three coins ONE OBJECT/ENTITY? They aren't. Yes they are all money but that is describing what type of thing they are, not how many things there are.

I hope that makes sense.
Regards

 

[POBook]

Trying to figure out how to post graphics through URL

 

[POBook]

Hello Ansar Al-‘Adl,

Thank YOU for that looooooong post. Thank you too for your patience. Again, I appreciate your continuing dialogue! Thank you for answering the questions I posted earlier. I realize you are pretty busy with this forum. I was able to finally enter the chat room. Those guys are fast in typing!!

I’m going to try another route. I am including three detailed illustrations and I hope I am clear in my communication concerning these. I appreciate what you are saying concerning the use of water as a solid, liquid, gas and it’s “inability” to describe the Trinity. If I may repeat myself: my understanding of what you are saying is that while water can be either one of these three, it cannot be them all at the same time. It is either solid or it is liquid or is gas. Gas is gas, not liquid. Gas cannot be gas and liquid at the same time. So, GOD can be either Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, but He cannot be each of them at the same time. Am I correct in my understanding of what you are saying? If I am correct and while I say this, to me personally, I believe it is an acceptable illustration from the point that I mentioned earlier—that around our globe water is water and can be found in the forms of liquid, solid, and gas all at the same time. So, while GOD may be a solid, He is also a liquid, and He is also a gas—all at the same time. However, allow me to provide further illustrations.

Concerning the illustration you provided: I do not think this illustration is totally accurate.

I agree that the Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. If I am correct in my understanding of this illustration, it says that GOD can be either one of these three, but He cannot be all three of them at the same time. Am I correct? The problem with this illustration is that it separates these three entities from one another, making them each GOD on their own. GOD does not exist in this fashion. I understand your point about this issue not being about measure but about nature. For one thing, however, part of GOD’s nature is His measure. Part of our nature as humans is that we are finite creatures. Part of GOD’s nature is that He is an infinite Creator—we can never truly measure GOD out. I think that to say GOD cannot be all three of these at the same time is to limit Him; is to make Him finite. This is what this illustration does. I am not suggesting that my illustrations are infinite. They are not. They are simply finite illustrations trying to illustrate an infinite GOD.

You said:

“Each of these three has unique characteristics which they do not share. For example, the father is unbegotten where as the son is 'begotten' (or generated) from the father and the spirit proceeds from the father.”

Yes, I agree with the fact that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each have unique characteristics otherwise they would not be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, they do share in some of their characteristics. Yes, the Father is un-begotten and the Son is begotten. However, the Father is perfect and without sin and the Son is perfect and without sin and the Holy Spirit is also perfect and without sin. Yes the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but the Father and the Spirit are both Spirit beings. Yes, there certainly are distinguishing characteristics but there are also identical characteristics.

Allow me to try and illustrate once again (illustrations I’m sure you have already encountered and ones I’m sure await rebuttal). First, I would like to try and use a simple triangle to illustrate the Trinity. A triangle is comprised of three lines. Each of these three while they can be different in some respects (different colors), are identical in other respects (exactly the same length). In order for a triangle to be a triangle, each of the three lines must be present and they must be connected. Consider these next three illustrations:

Allow me to make something clear concerning these three graphics. While the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are GOD, they are not GOD on their own. This would either make three gods or it would not define who GOD truly is. It is impossible for a triangle to be what it is using only one or two lines. The triangle is not one of it’s own lines. I hope you can understand my point. A triangle is not a triangle when there is an attempt to define it for what it is by using only one or two of its identical and differing entities. Either the triangle is the triangle with the yellow line, the red line and the blue, or it is not a triangle. Consider this next illustration:

In the same way, it is impossible for GOD to be who He is with only one or two of His entities.

GOD is not GOD when there is an attempt to define Him for what He is by using only one or two of His identical but also differing entities. Either GOD is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit at the same time, or He is not GOD at all.

Consider this next illustration:

Matthew 16:17: “And Jesus responded, ‘Simon son of Jonah, you are blessed because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven.’”
Matthew 16:16: “Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!"
John 14:16-17: “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever. He is the Spirit of truth. The world is unable to receive Him because it doesn't see Him or know Him. But you do know Him, because He remains with you and will be in you.”

Again, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. There are distinguishing characteristics between these three. The Son is not all-places. The Holy Spirit is not a human being. The Father is un-begotten. However, they each have identical characteristics that they do share. The Father and the Son are all-powerful. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all-knowing. The Father and the Holy Spirit are all-places. The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are all perfect in character. The Father and the Son are Workers of Miracles. The Father and the Holy Spirit are a Comforter and a Counselor. Yes, there are people who are comforters and counselors, but are they all-places? Yes, there are people who are workers of miracles, but are they all-knowing? Yes, their maybe people who are perfect in character (although I have my doubts) but are they all-powerful? The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all share in these characteristics because they are one and they same.

A third illustration in words. Consider the head, the arms, and the legs of a body. The head is not the arm; the arm is not the leg, and the leg is not the head. The head, arm, and leg are each separate entities. Can they survive on their own? Of course not. But that’s not who are what they are. They each have differing attributes. The leg has a foot; the arm has a hand and the head has eyes. However, they each have identical attributes as well. The leg and the arm each have five body parts. The leg and the arm each have nails. The leg, the arm, and the head each have skin; they each have pores. Would the body be what it is without these? Again, this is a limited illustration in the sense that a body can be a body without an arm. But can it be a perfect body without an arm?

I realize that you probably have rebuttals for these illustrations. But please know, born-again followers of Jesus do not believe in three gods. Our GOD is one GOD—the Creator of the universe; the Sustainer of our souls; the Savior of our human spirit.

In my previous message I said:

“We do not maintain only ONE God and the existence of these three ‘persons’. GOD exists as three at the same time He exists as one.”

This was your question:

“What is the difference between these two statements?”

To maintain one GOD and the existence of three ‘persons’, is to say that GOD and these three ‘persons’ are separate entities from one another. The three lines of the triangle cannot be separate entities from one another. They have to be joined together to be a triangle. GOD is not a separate entity from Himself. He is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit joined together. This is who GOD is. In this context, it takes three joined together to make one.

Concerning my question in my last message to you,

“What does this verse of Scripture mean to you: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with GOD and the Word was GOD”? (John 1:1)

Part of your response was the following:

“First of all, it is not Jesus speaking who never claimed to be God.”

Am I correct in assuming then, that if Jesus was the one speaking, you would accept that as truth (My dad always told me assumptions are dangerous!)? What do these words of Jesus mean to you:
“The Father, in fact, judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son, so that all people will honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him” (John 5:22-23)?

What do these words of Jesus mean to you: “Then the Pharisees asked Jesus, ‘Where is your father?’ ‘You don’t know me or my Father,’ Jesus replied. ‘If you knew me, you would know my Father also’” (John 8:19)?

What do these words of Jesus mean to you: “"We aren't stoning You for a good work," the Jews answered, "but for blasphemy, because You--being a man--make Yourself God (These were not the words of Jesus but those of the Pharisees as quoted by John). Jesus responded, “But if I am doing them and you don't believe Me, believe the works. This way you will know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Father” (John 10:35, 38)?

What do these words of Jesus mean to you, “When he looks at me, he sees the One who sent me” (John 12:45)?

Finally, what do you think about these words of Jesus: “Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you know Me, you will also know My Father. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him." "Lord," said Philip, "show us the Father, and that's enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been among you all this time without your knowing Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I speak to you I do not speak on My own. The Father who lives in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me. Otherwise, believe because of the works themselves” (John 14:6-11)?

Through these verses, Jesus was not simply claiming to be GOD. If He claimed to be GOD, then GOD would not exist. Jesus would exist. Jesus was pointing out that He was GOD--GOD in the flesh.

I will certainly do some research on the commentary by Dr. Ali Ataie and Dr. Lawrence Brown. I will respond to these.

In my previous message I said,

“I do not equate Jesus with GOD.”

This was your response,

“When you say that God is Jesus and Jesus is God, that is equating the two, to me at least.”

I think there is a difference between equating Jesus with GOD and saying that Jesus is GOD. To say that Jesus is GOD is exactly who He is. To equate Jesus with GOD is to suggest that Jesus is one entity and GOD is another entity and these two entities are the same. GOD is not two entities. He is one triangular entity.

“God is also All-knowing. He already knows the consequences of what He will do and He is not a human to have to think them over.”

I agree with you. GOD is not simply a human to have to think over anything. Do you see GOD as One who can change His mind? Do you believe that GOD created man “in His own image” (Genesis 1:27)?

“Why waste time? Just tell everyone, "Hey I'm going to die for your sins because I love you so much" and get it over with.”

My personal understanding here is that Jesus did not want anyone to say that He did not give them a chance to accept who He was and why He came. Jesus was willing to spend time with people to make His message clear, so no one could say, “You didn’t tell us; we had no time to decide; we didn’t understand you.”

“The point was that God just had to die because someone needed to be punished for all these sins.”

GOD did not have to die. The only people who needed and deserved to be punished for their sins were those guilty of committing sins. I know I can be repetitive, but God loved us so much, that He was willing to come to this earth and pay the penalty for the sins we committed against Him. This was a choice He made for our benefit.

”Secondly, there were believers before the time of Prophet Jesus who already had a perfect system of forgiveness in effect.”

This is another thread but for now, there was never a perfect system of forgiveness in effect.

“But He wanted to be killed and seeing as that was the purpose of His vacation on earth, He should have said so immediately.”

First, and again, GOD to not want to be killed. He was willing to come to this earth and pay the price for our sins--He was`willing to die. This is not to say that He wanted to be killed. What He wanted to do was redeem us Himself. His desire for this was sooo great, that He was willing to do what it was going to take. This is not the same as saying He was wanting to be killed. There is a difference between a willingness to die and a wanting to be killed.

Second, GOD did not come to this earth for a vacation. He came to this earth to be the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.

“So from a Christian perspective, there is now no difference between a pious Christian and a mass-murder and rapist. Both will go to paradise because God has paid for their sins. People should have fun and do whatever they like in this world, sinning as much as possible, because God has paid for their sins.”

I keep seeing people respond to me with this form of thinking. I’m not sure where I might be going wrong in my communication. But let me try again. Because GOD has paid the price for our sins does not mean that every person is going to paradise. Before GOD became our sacrificial atonement, there was only one way for us—hell; punishment; retribution. There was no other option. There was no choice. When we chose to sin, we lost the right to choose our eternal destiny. We placed ourselves at the disposal of GOD’s punishment for our sin. When GOD came to this earth and became our sacrificial atonement, what He did was create a road to heaven. He did not have to do this. Because He loves us greatly, He was willing to do what it would take to create this way. Does He instruct us to take the way of forgiveness? No. It's a simple offer that did not exist before. We can choose to reject His forgiveness.

Think about this example again. If a judge hands out a sentence to a law breaker, say, the payment of 100 pounds and then goes with the law breaker to the payment office, takes out the 100 pounds and pays the sentence on behalf of the law breaker, a couple of things have been accomplished. First, the sentence has been paid, has it not? Second, neither the Judge nor anyone else can tell that law breaker they still need to pay the 100 pounds. Third, the law breaker has a choice now: He can willingly acknoweldge from his heart that he was a true law breaker and make a sincere commitment to follow the law and then humbly accept what the Judge has done for him, and leave in freedom, or he can insist on paying the fine so he feels better about himself (if he has any conscience). Sure, he can say sorry for his crime and then leave and carry on a life of crime. This is a choice he has taken to not follow the road of forgivness, but rather the road of sin. True repentance is seen in more than words. It is seen in lifestyle and motives.This is a very small example in that our sin does not cost money; it costs life—and it cost GOD his life on behalf of us. We can acknowledge that by nature we are sinful people, tell GOD we are truly sorry for what we have done wrong and accept that gift of forgiveness that He offers us through the His death on the cross. Or, we can reject the offer of forgiveness and stay on the road leading to hell. The choice is ours. GOD is not going to force this on us. But no one will ever be able to say that GOD did not give them a fair chance.

“What do you mean by destruction? God has paid for their sins so why will they be punished?”

By destruction I mean eternity in hell as opposed to eternity in heaven. People will pay for their sins because they have rejected GOD’s forgiveness. They pay for their sins because that is now their choice. Before the atonement, there was no choice. Now, there is a choice. We simply have to make it.

“So from the crucifixion of Jesus the only difference that it made is that we will no longer be blamed for what Adam did (original sin)? But we still sins and still will be punished for our sins? Seems a little pointless to me.”

We are never blamed for what Adam did. We are blamed for what we do. Every single person on the face of this earth who has ever existed, exists, and ever will exist, has sinned, sins, and will sin. There is no perfect human being. The only human being who was without sin because He was more than simply a human being, was Jesus Christ.

Yes, we still sin. But if we have accepted the forgiveness of GOD through His atonement, He has forgiven us of every sin we committed in the past, every sin we commit in the present and every sin we will commit in the future. Does this mean it’s OK to sin? NO! If it's OK to sin, then we have not truly accepted; we have not truly repented. Many people think that as long as they say sorry to GOD, they will be OK. That's not going to work! But I question someone who says they have taken the road of forgiveness and at the same time are still willingly sin.

“Let me be more specific. What happens to a Christian who rapes and steals and tortures and murders innocent people? God paid for his sins so he is set for paradise, right?”

Wrong. First of all, true Christians—born-again Christians (John 3)—do not continue on in a lifestyle of raping, stealing, torturing, and murdering innocent people. They do not continue on in this lifestyle as it may relate to guilty people. True born-again Christians have a change of lifestyle that intrigues many people. Does this mean that I say are true born-again Christians are perfect people who are better than the rest? NO! But this life and the people and things of this life are no longer our priorities and our senses of identity and happiness. A close and daily walk with Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior becomes our priority. A sinner who has raped, stolen, tortured, or murdered someone and who has come to GOD in sincere repentance for his sin, accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, will receive GOD's forgiveness. This is where many people stumble. They have committed what are in our eyes, terrible sins. They feel that GOD can never forgive them. They fail to realize that GOD sees us all the same--sinners--and loved us sooo much, He was willing to sacrifice Himself on our behalf.

In a way, I’m very glad you asked this question. I realize this is also another thread but if I may say this for now: born again Christianity is not some religion about GOD; it’s a personal relationship with GOD. Born-again Christianity is not Crusader in the historical understanding of this word; it is not Roman Catholicism; it is not Baptist (I am a Baptist by denomination), Methodist, Presbyterian, or Pentecostal; it is not Mormonism, Seventh-day-Adventist or Church of Science. These (some more than others) are all religions. Many people who are not Christian by religion or are true born-again Christians are members of these churches and attend church each week. This is not true Christianity by Biblical definition. They are just differing religious people.

Again, thank you for your time and partnership in this dialogue. Thank you for reading through this looooooong message. I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

 

[*Hana*]

Hello PrIM3 and Peace:

Actually, the definition I gave you was the online definition.

Well, I think you must have left off the other definition, because I also gave the online definition and there was a difference, as you could plainly see. Doesn't really matter, as I'm sure you're not trying to imply the word "atonement" was a solely Christian created word. It's simply an english word you use to describe what you believe Jesus did for you.

hope you don't mind me quoting from Hebrews

You can quote whatever you like, but Hebrews wasn't written by Jesus. It is the author's perception and ideas. It has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. There was not ONE word attributed to Jesus in that passage you quoted. So, it proves nothing, except the author has an imagination and wasn't taught by Jesus, as the messages vary greatly. I would like to thank you though. You are proving my point that Jesus never taught what Christians claim but you do follow the doctrine created by Paul.

.. before a guide starts guiding he must first do something to capture your attention.. and it was His love that captured my heart nothing else.

God isn't a tour guide. He sent revelation...that should have been enough to grab your attention, and it worked for a short time, until man decided to destroy what was ordained. Then He sent His last prophet and messenger, Muhammed, pbuh, with the final AND protected revelation to ALL mankind....not just a particular nation. Did He capture your attention and make you stand up and take notice?? Of course He loves His creations, but not those that disobey what He commanded. The first commandment, do not associate partners with God, (not an exact quote, but the meaning). You are breaking the most important commandment of God. Thy Lord Thy God is ONE God. Not one God divided into 3, ONE!!

"Thy Lord Thy God is ONE God."
Yes He is one... have you ever read the ONE as plural?
like the us army... the ARMY of ONE... how can so many people be 1?

First....the word ARMY is singular...ONE army. The plural of army is ARMIES.
And, once again, you have proven what we have been trying to tell you all along. "Army of One", means ONE person that had the abiblity to do everything on his own without the need of others. That one individual was able to perform all functions ALONE, NO PARTNERS, NO ASSISTANT. If you want to use that analogy to compare God, then yes, you are correct in the sense He can do everything on His own without help. He stands ALONE!

But, let me try to look at it from your point of view, One Army, consisting of many men working for the same cause. I assume this is where you were going with this....if not, please correct me. So, you have different platoons within this army, each platoon performing a specific function necessary to maintain the oneness of the army as a whole. But, what happens when you remove one of these platoons, say the artiliary guys?? The army fails to function as a whole....the army becomes less than what it was. So, either way, the analogy still doesn't work the way you would like, but it does prove the ONENESS of God, as taught by all the Prophets.

may I ask what do the commandments mean to you?

It's not what they mean to me....the commandments are not open for interpretation. You are commanded to follow them. As I said, the first one is the most important and you break it by associating others with God. Don't you think God would have made it perfectly clear that He is one, divided into 3, rather than consistently insisting on the ONENESS of God?

I've mentioned to you before that you will never come up with an analogy that will work to explain the trinity for one simple reason....it doesn't exist. Where your salvation is based on this concept, I am confident God would make it perfectly clear and unquestionable...He is not the author of confusion...remember that.

Take care and peace
Hana

 

[POBook]

Salam Tahir,

Thanks for your questions and your interest.

“I don't understand how can God be Just if everyone is born a sinner without doing anything wrong?”

Someone may not be born a sinner by behavior. We are all born sinners by nature. A point comes in all our lives where the first sin of many to come is committed. We all know that none of us is perfect by nature. A point also comes where our conscience convicts us. We know we sin. This is an age when we can make decisions and choices. This is the point at which GOD is going to hold us accountable. Jesus said in Matthew 18:3, “I assure you," He said, "unless you are converted and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” To us, the only way to take on the innocence of childhood through “GOD’s glasses” is to acknowledge we are sinful beings, confess that sin to GOD, telling Him we are truly sorry for our sin and then accept His wonderful forgiveness provided for us through what Jesus did on the cross.

“I do not see the justice in that, why should a man have to pay for something that someone did way before his time?”

We do not pay the price for Adam’s sin. We do not pay the price for any other person’s sin. We only pay the price for our own sin, because we all have the sinful nature of Adam and we all sin, every single one of us sin before a Holy, Righteous, and Mighty GOD who is Sovereign over His creation.

“Don't you agree that God is most Merciful?”

Yes, I agree completely that GOD is most merciful. Is God also most Just? How does GOD combine His great mercy and His great justice?

“According to Christianity, if you believe in Jesus (pbuh) then you will go to heaven, does that mean if you're a bad person who commits robbery, rape etc but believe in Jesus (pbuh) you will still go to heaven?”

This is not according to true Christianity. Many, many people believe in Jesus Christ but this does not make them Christians. To believe in Jesus is to commit your heart and life to Him; to entrust yourself to Him; to make Him your true and personal Lord and Savior. This is true Christianity. You can believe in Jesus in the worldly sense of belief and not go to heaven.

“Surely God would not like someone who has committed lots of crime to go straight to heaven.”

I don’t know all of your beliefs and understanding. The greatest sacrifice any person has to make is truly acknowledging their sinful nature; is truly seeing how they deserve hell and not heaven. This is a major sacrifice. We just do not like to acknowledge that we are sinful. A criminal who recognizes himself for what He is and truly confesses his sin and decides to follow Jesus, will find the path to heaven through Jesus Christ. GOD does not see any of us worse than the other. He sees each of us with a sinful nature. Any sin is sin in GOD’s eyes. He does not measure it—it is sin and dishonors Him greatly.

“Why would God come down to earth and sacrifice Himself to forgive the sins?”

This is a question that so many people ask. Why would GOD do this? Why? He does it because He loves us. He is a just GOD. A price must be paid for our sin. He loves us soooo much that He was willing to come and pay the price for our sins. He is the ultimate Giver of love. Would you step in and be punished on behalf of a friend? How about an enemy? Our sins made us enemies of GOD. In His love for us, He paid the price for our sin.

“Do you not agree that it would be better for the criminal to serve his punishment so that he learns his lesson instead of letting someone completely innocent having to pay for the criminal's crimes?”

What is your definition of mercy? To show this criminal mercy, the judge let him go—but the judge had also been just--the judge gave a penalty that he paid. If someone is guilty of just a very small crime and is forgiven, how much mercy is involved? If someone commits a big crime and is forgiven, how much mercy is involved? I know that as a Muslim you believe GOD is merciful—most merciful. Well, if GOD is most merciful, are we not most sinful then? Many people feel they are pretty good people. In GOD’s eyes, we are all sinful.

“When Jesus (pbuh) was being sacrificed and he looked up to the sky and said "Father, Father why hast thou forsaken me?" does this mean that the Father part of God has more power than the Son if He can forsake Him? (sorry i don't really seem to be able understand trinity) If He knew this was going to happen all along why did Jesus (pbuh) say this?”

The Father part of GOD does not have more power than the Son. As Father, however, He has more authority than the Son. There are many children who, as they grow up, become just as powerful as their Dads. Does this give them authority over their Dads? No. They can choose to disobey or disappoint their Dads, but as a son, you will never have authority over your Father—as long as He lives. Even after his death you will respect your Dad and what he asked you to do. The Father part of GOD has the authority to forsake the Son. That is why so many people do not like to accept the crucifixion of Jesus. God chose to sacrifice Himself—His Son on our behalf. Can you imagine sacrifice yourself—sacrificing your Son for someone else? This would be an enormous step of love. Concerning your second question: If you felt very frustrated, alone, sad, and felt defeated, would you not ask questions to which you already had answers? Would you not want to know why; want to receive explanation? If things were all going well, you probably would not want answers. Jesus was hanging on a cross and felt left all alone. We can never imagine what He had to go through. I’m sure he did feel forsaken by His Father—He was forsaken—for you and for me—for the whole world.

“(P.S. Is Adam (pbuh) Jesus' (pbuh) brother? Neither had a father and Adam (pbuh) did not even have a human mother! Then that means there are 4 essences to God, right?)”

No, Adam is not the brother of Jesus. When GOD created Adam, He created Him from the dust of the earth. When GOD created Jesus, He used a super natural course of pregnancy. Neither GOD nor any person had sex with Mary in order for her to be pregnant with Jesus. GOD, through the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary and she gave natural birth to Jesus. GOD has only three essences—Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I really appreciate your interest and your questions . I look forward to more dialogue.

Sincerely,

 

[POBook]

Hello once again Hana_Aku,

In one of your earlier messages you mentioned something about beating a horse to death. I understand that and I agree with the principle of that statement. I have been known to do that:giggling:. On the other hand, the only way to revive someone is to keep shaking them gently. I hope you understand what I am saying:happy:.

“When you say, "Everything in this book (any book), is the absolute truth," be assured, there will be people looking at it for untruths and when they find them, they will comment. THAT is logic.”

Upon what are these people going to base their assessment of what is truth or untruth? If I may, let’s look at these verses of Scripture again.

Mark 14:50 Then they all deserted Him and ran away.
Mark 14:51 Now a certain young man, having a linen cloth wrapped around his naked body, was following Him. They caught hold of him,
Mark 14:52 but he left the linen cloth behind and ran away naked.
Mark 14:53 They led Jesus away to the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes convened.
Mark 14:54 Peter followed Him at a distance, right into the high priest's courtyard. He was sitting with the temple police, warming himself by the fire.

Now, verse 50 says they all ran away. Verse 54 says that Peter followed Jesus at a distance. Which one of these two verses is the untruth and which one is the truth. How are you going to determine which one is truth and which one is untruth? If you use one of these verses to say the other one is untrue, upon what do you base your assessment? You cannot base an assessment like that on itself. If you could, then someone else can say, “Well, you are not right, because this verse says something different, and this one is right.” Can you understand what I am saying? You cannot use one source of information to say that same source is wrong. You can point out a contradiction but you cannot use the contradiction itself to make a determination of what is right or what is wrong. The logic of that is that you will be basing truth upon falsehood. In order to determine a source of information as truth or untruth, you have to step outside of that information and find an independent source of information and then make a determination. Sometimes that determination may be true; other times it may be wrong. But either way, you can use an independent source to make a determination.

Think about it. How can you use a source of untruth to determine an untruth? You said, “Either the whole book is God's word or it isn't.” If one part of it isn’t, then all of it isn’t. Then there is no authority in GOD’s word that can be used to determine what’s true or false; what’s right or wrong.

If you want to make your point that something is false in the Bible, then you have to look for a source outside of the Bible to prove the point. As I said, you can point out contradictions, but you cannot use the contradiction to determine what’s true and what’s untrue. If you cannot find a source outside of the source, then a better understanding of the source must be developed. I really hope I’ve communicated this clearly.
Sincerely,

 

[tahir]

Thank you for the reply POBook Could you please explain the following verses?

"Think NOT that I am come to send PEACE on earth; I came NOT to send PEACE, but a SWORD."
(Matthew 10:34)

"I am come to send FIRE on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
Suppose ye that I am come to give PEACE on earth? I tell you, NAY; but rather DIVISION."
(Luke 12:49 & 51)

From these verses it seems like Jesus (pbuh) did not want peace on earth but instead wanted violence and division. If he really came down to sacrifice himself then why would he want to cause divisions and violence?

"Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou? - (John 20:15)
"She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him Sir, if you have taken HIM hence, tell me where have you laid HIM . . . "
(John 20:15)

These verses are from after Mary Magdalene found that the Jesus' (pbuh) body was not inside the tomb anymore. If Jesus (pbuh) had really died on the cross then what was the need to disguise himself as a gardner? If he had died then surely there would be no need to disguise himself as the Jews and Romans could not kill him again

". . . it is ordained unto all men ONCE to die, and after that the judgement."
Book of Hebrews 9:27

Also the big stone covering the entrance of Jesus (pbuh) tomb was moved as , surely you will agree that a stone is a barrier to a person still alive and not to a person who is now a spirit as a spirit should be able to pass through anything, so why was the stone moved? Does this mean that Jesus (pbuh) was still alive and did not die on the cross?

"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself handle me and see; for A SPIRIT has no flesh and bones, as you see me have.
. . . And he showed them his hands and his feet."
(Luke 24:39-40)

This means that Jesus (pbuh) is not dead therefore he can not have sacrificed himself for mankind.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello POBook,
Thank you for your post.

I appreciate what you are saying concerning the use of water as a solid, liquid, gas and it’s “inability” to describe the Trinity. If I may repeat myself: my understanding of what you are saying is that while water can be either one of these three, it cannot be them all at the same time. It is either solid or it is liquid or is gas. Gas is gas, not liquid. Gas cannot be gas and liquid at the same time. So, GOD can be either Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, but He cannot be each of them at the same time. Am I correct in my understanding of what you are saying? If I am correct and while I say this, to me personally, I believe it is an acceptable illustration from the point that I mentioned earlier—that around our globe water is water and can be found in the forms of liquid, solid, and gas all at the same time. So, while GOD may be a solid, He is also a liquid, and He is also a gas—all at the same time.

I already answered this, so to avoid repeating myself I will just paste my response from before:

H2O around the world contains all three forms of molecular structure at some point and at some time. They all co-exist.

But here we are not talking about the same substance existing in three different states. The trinity says that ONE God exists in three different persons. By analogy, you need to bring me an example of ONE entity existing as three seperate entities, each being co-equal and equal to the overall entity. Can you bring me molecules of water that exist IN ALL THREE STATES AT THE SAME TIME? Of course not. The closest to this is the triple point of water in thermodynamic equilibrium, but of course here it is different water molecules in different states, not the SAME molecules existing in all three states.

GOD is the H2O.

H2O is the molecular formula for a TYPE OF MOLECULE. It is not an entity in itself. God, on the other hand is a SINGLE ENTITY. 'God' is not the name of a type of entity for which there are many entities. There is only ONE God. But there is a immeasurable quantity of water molecules. The two are not analogous. The former is a single entity, the latter is the chemical classification of a number of entities.

We do not maintain only ONE God and the existence of these three ‘persons’.
GOD exists as three at the same time He exists as one.

What is the difference between these two statements?

If you have H20 liquid on the continent of Africa; H20 solid on the continent of Asia; and H20 gas on the continent of South America, do you not have the three distinct entities co-existing? While distinct entities, are they not all H20?

If this analogy works, then it means that you believe in three gods. Because there are three seperate entities, and they are all God. Can you show me how you get ONE God from the above analogy? You don't because there is not a single thing mentioned in your analogy that is only one. There are three different things mentioned that are the same type of thing. It is only comparable to three Gods - three different things, but all the same type of thing.

Concerning the illustration you provided: I do not think this illustration is totally accurate.

Well, its not my illustration, it was made by trinitarian Christians themselves, but I'm willing to take your explanation.

I agree that the Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. If I am correct in my understanding of this illustration, it says that GOD can be either one of these three, but He cannot be all three of them at the same time.

The illustartion does not imply that.

Part of GOD’s nature is that He is an infinite Creator—we can never truly measure GOD out. I think that to say GOD cannot be all three of these at the same time is to limit Him; is to make Him finite. This is what this illustration does. I am not suggesting that my illustrations are infinite. They are not. They are simply finite illustrations trying to illustrate an infinite GOD.

Again from my last post:

I am not asking you to illustrate for me the measure of God's attributes, which are of course infinite. I am asking you to explain to me the nature of those attributes, specifically the trinity, which I find to be logically incoherent.

Yes, I agree with the fact that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each have unique characteristics otherwise they would not be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, they do share in some of their characteristics. Yes, the Father is un-begotten and the Son is begotten. However, the Father is perfect and without sin and the Son is perfect and without sin and the Holy Spirit is also perfect and without sin. Yes the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but the Father and the Spirit are both Spirit beings.

I understand that, but I meant that they do not share in their essence. i.e. they are distinct independent entities.

Allow me to try and illustrate once again (illustrations I’m sure you have already encountered and ones I’m sure await rebuttal).

I am familiar with the triangle illustrations. It reminds me of Dr. Ali Ataie's comments:

Geisler and Saleeb state: “Only if one and the same person, who is God and man, dies on the cross for our sin can we be saved. For unless Jesus is both God and man he cannot reconcile God and man” (page 268). Despite having a divine nature as God, Jesus also has a human nature as man. Geisler explains this dualism: “Did Christ die? In his human nature, he did die. But in his divine nature he did not die. The person who died was the Godman, but his Godness did not die.”

Confused yet? It is little wonder why nearly all Christian apologists who have tried to explain the Trinity find themselves reduced to drawing triangles and scribbling grade-school level equations. So to recap: Christ died as God in his person, he died as man in his nature, but not as God in his nature. In other words, he was two-thirds dead, but the one-third that really counted, the divine nature, survived and resurrected him on the third day. Therefore, Jesus has the unique honor of being of two natures, God and man in one person. (Ataie, pp. 41-42)​

First, I would like to try and use a simple triangle to illustrate the Trinity. A triangle is comprised of three lines. Each of these three while they can be different in some respects (different colors), are identical in other respects (exactly the same length). In order for a triangle to be a triangle, each of the three lines must be present and they must be connected. Allow me to make something clear concerning these three graphics. While the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are GOD, they are not GOD on their own. This would either make three gods or it would not define who GOD truly is. It is impossible for a triangle to be what it is using only one or two lines. The triangle is not one of it’s own lines. I hope you can understand my point. A triangle is not a triangle when there is an attempt to define it for what it is by using only one or two of its identical and differing entities. Either the triangle is the triangle with the yellow line, the red line and the blue, or it is not a triangle.

True. So how can the triangle be an adequate analogy for the trinity when you say "Jesus IS God", yet you will never find even the most mentally challenged of people claiming "the red line IS the triangle"!

Actually what you have given me is no different that the parts-of-a-whole analogy that Christians used to offer, but then they realized its problems and moved on to another analogies like time, water, etc. The problem with the parts-of-a-whole analogy is that we would never say that any one of the parts IS the whole, yet Christians maintain that each of the three persons IS God. If Christians really want to make their concept of God analogous to parts-of-a-whole, they need to say that the father is 1/3 of God, and the Son is 1/3 of God and the Spirit is 1/3 of God, and they need to admit that they split their God into thirds and gave each third its own qualities and personaility (or identity, if you will).

Thanks for the diagrams by the way.

A third illustration in words. Consider the head, the arms, and the legs of a body.

Parts-of-a-whole analogy, once again. We don't say that the head IS the body, yet you claim that Jesus IS God, not just 1/3 of God.

I realize that you probably have rebuttals for these illustrations. But please know, born-again followers of Jesus do not believe in three gods.

I am aware that Christians claim that they only believe in One God and I would love to believe them, but I find it impossible to reconcile trinity with monotheism (and maintain one's sanity at the same time).

To maintain one GOD and the existence of three ‘persons’, is to say that GOD and these three ‘persons’ are separate entities from one another.

Not necessarily, it is just like maintaining one triangle and the existence of three lines. I think you're nitpicking here.

Am I correct in assuming then, that if Jesus was the one speaking, you would accept that as truth

I wouldn't necessarily accept it as the truth because the Qur'an is my criterion in determining the truth, but it would certainly damage my claim that the Christian notion of Christ's divinity has no support even from the present day form of the Bible. You've given me a list of quotes from the Bible. I could paste Muslim commentary of these verses but I think it would be more beneficial if you picked one that you felt strongly supported the divinity of Christ and then we analyzed that specific verse.

I think there is a difference between equating Jesus with GOD and saying that Jesus is GOD. To say that Jesus is GOD is exactly who He is. To equate Jesus with GOD is to suggest that Jesus is one entity and GOD is another entity and these two entities are the same.

This is not correct. 'Equate' means to say that the two are the same, and it is the mathematical equivalent of the english word 'IS'. Saying Jesus is God is to equate Jesus with God. Once again, I think you are nitpicking with words.

I agree with you. GOD is not simply a human to have to think over anything. Do you see GOD as One who can change His mind? Do you believe that GOD created man “in His own image” (Genesis 1:27)?

No I do not believe God changes His mind, nor do I believe that man was created in the image of God.

My personal understanding here is that Jesus did not want anyone to say that He did not give them a chance to accept who He was and why He came. Jesus was willing to spend time with people to make His message clear, so no one could say, “You didn’t tell us; we had no time to decide; we didn’t understand you.”

Why would they say that? Weren't they supposed to kill Jesus? Wasn't that the purpose of his coming to earth? What do you mean they would say, "we had no time to decide" ? Decide about what?

GOD did not have to die.

But God had to die in order to forgive His creation?

This is another thread but for now, there was never a perfect system of forgiveness in effect.

Another thread it is.

First, and again, GOD to not want to be killed. He was willing to come to this earth and pay the price for our sins--He was`willing to die. This is not to say that He wanted to be killed. What He wanted to do was redeem us Himself. His desire for this was sooo great, that He was willing to do what it was going to take. This is not the same as saying He was wanting to be killed. There is a difference between a willingness to die and a wanting to be killed.

Once again, you're nitpicking with words. By saying that God wanted to die, I'm not saying that He desired death, but that He intended to die.

Before GOD became our sacrificial atonement, there was only one way for us—hell; punishment; retribution. There was no other option.

No forgiveness? Numbers 14:20 seems to disagree with you.

Unfortunately, you still did not answer my question. My question is, once again:

So from a Christian perspective, there is now no difference between a pious Christian and a mass-murder and rapist. Both will go to paradise because God has paid for their sins. People should have fun and do whatever they like in this world, sinning as much as possible, because God has paid for their sins.”

Please specifically tell me what will be the fate of a mass-murderer and rapist in the afterlife. How can you say 'Hell' when God has already paid for his sin? it means that God did not really pay for his sins because now he has to be punished for them again.

People will pay for their sins because they have rejected GOD’s forgiveness.

What do you mean "they rejected God's forgiveness" ? After God died He forgave everyone, right? That was the whole purpose of Him allowing His creation to kill Him, right? Now you're telling me that He still won't forgive a sinner. Why not? What is it about this criminal that makes you say he has rejected God's forgiveness? What constitutes a rejection and what constitutes an acceptance of His forgiveness?

We are never blamed for what Adam did. We are blamed for what we do. Every single person on the face of this earth who has ever existed, exists, and ever will exist, has sinned, sins, and will sin.

Tell me about the innocent human babies who were murdered throughout history - what sin did they do?

Yes, we still sin. But if we have accepted the forgiveness of GOD through His atonement, He has forgiven us of every sin we committed in the past, every sin we commit in the present and every sin we will commit in the future. Does this mean it’s OK to sin? NO! If it's OK to sin, then we have not truly accepted; we have not truly repented.

Why is that? If God has forgiven every single sin you did and will do in your life, and has even punished himself for it, then He cannot reasonably hold you accountable for it. It does not make sense for him to punish you after He has already died for your sins. What about those Christians who murdered and slaughtered innocent people (like the Crusaders) yet still accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. According to Christianity, these people will not be punished for the tremendous atrocities they committed because God already died for their sins.

If God paid for future sins as well, as you believe, then there should be no blame on the Christian who decides to lead a sinful life.

Wrong. First of all, true Christians—born-again Christians (John 3)—do not continue on in a lifestyle of raping, stealing, torturing, and murdering innocent people.

So which sins are they allowed to do and which sins are they not allowed to do?

True born-again Christians have a change of lifestyle that intrigues many people.

Why could God not give people this change of lifestyle without having to die Himself?

Regards

 

[Abu Zakariya]

I have a question concerning this statement:

By destruction I mean eternity in hell as opposed to eternity in heaven. People will pay for their sins because they have rejected GOD’s forgiveness.

I assume that by "rejecting God's forgiveness", you mean that one doesn't believe that God died for the sins of human beings and refuses to accept that.
Well, my question is:

Isn't rejecting this gift of God a sin?
If God already died for the sins, why would humans be punished for the sin of rejecting Him?
I guess there's a loop-hole?
All sins were forgiven when God died, except the sin of not believing He died?

 

[*Hana*]

Hello and Peace POBook:

Now, verse 50 says they all ran away. Verse 54 says that Peter followed Jesus at a distance. Which one of these two verses is the untruth and which one is the truth. How are you going to determine which one is truth and which one is untruth? If you use one of these verses to say the other one is untrue, upon what do you base your assessment? You cannot base an assessment like that on itself. If you could, then someone else can say, “Well, you are not right, because this verse says something different, and this one is right.”

You don't seem to understand something here, POBook. That statement you just made proves my point exactly!! One thing is for CERTAIN!! One statement is NOT correct, the other possibility is that NEITHER are correct. It doesn't matter if one is right or if I believe one over the other.....IT IS A CONTRADICTION!!!! God does not make contradictions!! Your book of absolute truth is NOT absolute truth. The other thing we know with absolute certainty is that God does NOT make mistakes....man makes mistakes. So, who is wrong here? God or the man that wrote the verse claiming it came from God? Your book is not God's word and you've just proven it yourself. Now that you have seen the bible contains contradictions and errors, you need to ask yourself how many more are there? In my opinion, ONE error/contradiction is enough to dismiss the entire book. It is obviously not from God. You are following a man....that man is Paul and unknown others who took liberties writing the other books and changing the true teachings of Jesus, pbuh, and the true message from Allah, swt.

Stop insisting one statement must be true....it doesn't. It only needs to contradict what you claim is truth....then we know one is wrong or both are wrong....but both are definitely NOT correct.

May Allah, swt, continue to guide you ever closer to the truth. Ameen

Regards and peace,
Hana

 

[PrIM3]

Hello PrIM3 and Peace:




God isn't a tour guide. He sent revelation...that should have been enough to grab your attention, and it worked for a short time, until man decided to destroy what was ordained. Then He sent His last prophet and messenger, Muhammed, pbuh, with the final AND protected revelation to ALL mankind....not just a particular nation. Did He capture your attention and make you stand up and take notice?? Of course He loves His creations, but not those that disobey what He commanded. The first commandment, do not associate partners with God, (not an exact quote, but the meaning). You are breaking the most important commandment of God. Thy Lord Thy God is ONE God. Not one God divided into 3, ONE!!

Army of One means they work together--- again notice the plurallity of this word ONE
when one person isn't able to do a job by himself.

It's not what they mean to me....the commandments are not open for interpretation. You are commanded to follow them. As I said, the first one is the most important and you break it by associating others with God. Don't you think God would have made it perfectly clear that He is one, divided into 3, rather than consistently insisting on the ONENESS of God?

Yes actually it does matter what you belief of them.. are they Laws of Love or are they Laws of Restrictions?

pick.

I've mentioned to you before that you will never come up with an analogy that will work to explain the trinity for one simple reason....it doesn't exist. Where your salvation is based on this concept, I am confident God would make it perfectly clear and unquestionable...He is not the author of confusion...remember that.

I've just have... made one that will work. of course if you want me to make another one I will.. but I don't want to sit here and fill this whole page with analogy of the trinity. since this is about atonement rather than the TRINITY.

 

[PrIM3]

Hana Peace
Ps.. I am so sorry if I sounded rude.. I am going through stress lately..
God bless you

 

[POBook]

Hello once again Tahir,

I appreciate your questions and thank you for your interest!

"Think NOT that I am come to send PEACE on earth; I came NOT to send PEACE, but a SWORD." (Matthew 10:34)

People have often struggled to understand this verse, yet it is not very difficult to understand. The context of this verse involves Jesus sending out his disciples to share the following message, “The Kingdom of heaven is near” (vs 7). Jesus pointed out to his disciples in vs. 16, “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves.” In vs 17 Jesus said, “Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues.” In vs 19 Jesus tells these disciples they can be “arrested”. In vs 21 Jesus talks about families betraying other members and having them put to death. In vs 22, Jesus says to His disciples, “All men will hate you because of me.” Jesus makes reference to the His disciples’ persecution in vs 23. In vs 28 Jesus says, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.” Then in vs 32 and 33 Jesus says the following, “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.” Then Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

Jesus was not talking about carrying a physical sword. He was not promoting violence. He was using this as an illustration to portray the effect His message would have on the people. As you have seen in the context of this verse, the message of Jesus struck a very sore spot in the lives of many people—His message was His sword. The message of Jesus makes most people very uncomfortable; it makes people feel attacked—this is the sword. The result for the disciples was not going to be words used in return, but rather physical arrest and beating. The sword and lack of peace that Jesus’ message brought to the hearts of the Jewish people of His day, was so powerful, that they eventually arrested Him and crucified Him. Many people today, view Jesus’ message as a sword—and it is. It pierces the conscience and the moral and ethical standards of people. I hope this helps you better understand this verse.

"I am come to send FIRE on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? Suppose ye that I am come to give PEACE on earth? I tell you, NAY; but rather DIVISION." (Luke 12:49 & 51)”

This verse is spoken in the same context and means the same as the verse above. When people accept Jesus and His message, families are divided; fires of family feud are ignited.

“From these verses it seems like Jesus (pbuh) did not want peace on earth but instead wanted violence and division. If he really came down to sacrifice himself then why would he want to cause divisions and violence?”

I know these verses seem like this, but I hope my explanation of these verses helps you understand what they are about. Jesus wanted eternal peace between GOD and man. That is the whole reason He came to the earth. Jesus did not propagate violence. If He did, many of his enemies would have been killed when they came to crucify Him. One of his disciples used his sword to cut of the ear of a servant who was part of a crowd arresting Jesus. Jesus rebuked this disciple and said, “Am I leading a rebellion that you came out with swords and clubs to capture me (Matthew 26:55). The message of Jesus was going to be like a sword to people, bringing much division. I think that is still evident today.

"Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou?” She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, “Sir, if you have taken HIM hence, tell me where have you laid HIM . . . " (John 20:15).

These verses are from after Mary Magdalene found that the Jesus' (pbuh) body was not inside the tomb anymore. If Jesus (pbuh) had really died on the cross then what was the need to disguise himself as a gardner? If he had died then surely there would be no need to disguise himself as the Jews and Romans could not kill him again.

Jesus had not disguised Himself as the gardner. Try to put yourself in the shoes of Mary Magdelene. She was an avid follower of Jesus and loved Jesus very much. Jesus meant everything to Mary. His death was a major loss to her and brought about a lot of sadness and weeping (John 20:11). Mary thought that somebody had taken away the body of Jesus, and she focused on one thing only—finding the body of Jesus. Mary had to have been in some form of panic; not very relaxed; not very focused. In some ways, I’m sure she had slightly blurry eyes from all her weeping. John 10:16 says, “Jesus said to her, ‘Mary.’ She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, ‘Rabboni!’” If she turned toward Jesus, she was obviously not looking at Him the whole time. Her mind was not on identifying the people around her; it was on wanting to know where Jesus was. Only when Jesus got her attention and called her by name, did she look at him long enough to recognize him. Keep also in mind, that in Mary’s mind, Jesus was dead. She was not expecting to see Him again. When he was there it’s no wonder she did not recognize Him initially for who He was.

". . . it is ordained unto all men ONCE to die, and after that the judgement."
Book of Hebrews 9:27”

You included this verse with no question. Do you have a question regarding this verse?

“Also the big stone covering the entrance of Jesus (pbuh) tomb was moved as , surely you will agree that a stone is a barrier to a person still alive and not to a person who is now a spirit as a spirit should be able to pass through anything, so why was the stone moved? Does this mean that Jesus (pbuh) was still alive and did not die on the cross?”

No, this does not mean that Jesus did not die on the cross. He died on the cross and was buried in this tomb. If I may ask you, read through these verses carefully:

“The next day, which followed the preparation day, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, "Sir, we remember that while this deceiver was still alive, He said, 'After three days I will rise again.' Therefore give orders that the tomb be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, His disciples may come, steal Him, and tell the people, 'He has been raised from the dead.' Then the last deception will be worse than the first." "You have a guard of soldiers," Pilate told them. "Go and make it as secure as you know how." Then they went and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone and setting the guard”(Matthew 27:62-66).

The stone was moved so that people could understand that Jesus was truly raised from the dead. If the stone was never put in place, people could say that someone stole his body. If the stone was never moved out of place, people would not be able to go into that tomb and see for themselves that the body of Jesus was no longer there. Jesus was crucified; He died on the cross; He was taken off that cross and buried in a tomb; that tomb was closed and sealed; an angel came and opened that tomb once again (Matthew 28:1-4); Jesus got up and left the tomb on the third day after He was placed in it.

"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself handle me and see; for A SPIRIT has no flesh and bones, as you see me have. . . . And he showed them his hands and his feet" (Luke 24:39-40).
“This means that Jesus (pbuh) is not dead therefore he can not have sacrificed himself for mankind.”

Yes—Jesus was no longer dead. But these words do not mean that he did not sacrifice Himself for mankind. Read these words of Jesus in Luke 24:46: “Then Jesus told them, ‘This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem.’” Jesus showed people his living body and tried to help them understand that He was raised from the dead—He was not some spirit. Jesus showed them His hands and feet so they could see the wounds inflicted on his body through the crucifixion.

Again let me say thank you for your questions and your willingness to research information and come to a better understanding of it.

Blessings to you,

 

[POBook]

Hello again Abu Zakariya:

It is good to hear from you once again.

You addressed the following statement that I had made:

“By destruction I mean eternity in hell as opposed to eternity in heaven. People will pay for their sins because they have rejected GOD’s forgiveness.”

You said:

“I assume that by "rejecting God's forgiveness", you mean that one doesn't believe that God died for the sins of human beings and refuses to accept that.”

You are partially right here. Many people do actually believe that GOD died for the sins of human beings, but like you said, they refuse to accept that; they refuse to accept the whole Gospel message. They do not truly seek to honor and glorify GOD with their lives.

“Isn't rejecting this gift of God a sin?”

If your parents offered you a gift and you chose not to take it, would they consider that a sin or an act of wrongdoing on your part and punish you for it? However, if they instructed you to take something and you refused, would that not be a sin? Gifts are offered to be accepted or rejected. It is not sinful to reject something offered free of charge. It is sinful to reject an instruction given.

“If God already died for the sins, why would humans be punished for the sin of rejecting Him?”

Again, rejecting God’s gift is not a sin. If GOD instructed us with a command, “You will take this; you will accept this,” and we chose to ignore that command, we would be committing a sin. GOD does not instruct us to accept Him and His gift. He freely offers it. If we choose not to take it, we bear the consequences of our sins. If we choose to accept that gift, we experience the security of eternal life. How do you accept this gift: “For God loved the world so much, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in His Son, will never perish, but have everlasting life.”

“All sins were forgiven when God died, except the sin of not believing He died?”

Again, believing He did not die is not a sin. That’s a choice people make. Believing GOD did not die is rejecting his gift. It’s like saying to the judge who paid the fine, “You didn’t pay it. You are lying.”

Again, thanks for your feedback. I hope I’ve been able to answer your questions. I look forward to hearing from you again.

Sincerely,

 

[Abu Zakariya]

Oh, okay.

I was assuming that it was a sin, hence the question.
Thanks for the explanation.