The Central Flaw of Christianity (another article)

[Grace Seeker]

Why did Jesus need to be baptized? Wasn't he, according to christians, already perfect and free from all sins?
makes no sense...



oh well.. I guess you are right

When you begin to post these as actual questions, rather than attempts at mockery, perhaps someone will address it. Until then....

 

[Grace Seeker]

we have more FORMER Christians than we have former Muslims. THAT should tell you something!

cheers

Yes, as you have repeatedly said, it tells me we are on your site, not ours.

 

[M.I.A.]

YusufNoor,
Your right of course it is about opinions. Christians do have a problem with the muslims misrepresenting the trinity and then the same muslims using their trinity misrepresentation as justification of why their right when saying the trinity is flawed. Yet, the trinity to Christians is actually different than what the muslims believe.

In short its ok if you deny christianity. But, if your going to do it then atleast be knowledgable on what your denying. The fact that you have only the Koran saying its wrong as why its wrong and the trinitarian view represented in the Koran isn't even what Christians actually believe the trinity to be just makes the muslim denial more tragic. Note: Christians are not denying whats said in the Koran. We're denying what the Koranic view is concerning christianity. Because if the Koran is from God and the view from the Koran is flawed concerning christianity, that would mean the Koran is a fraud. That's where the problem lies in a nut shell. Its like the whole concept of abrogation. If an angel of God told Mohammed what to write and then later changed his mind concerning an earlier subject that already written concerning the same subject. Simply saying it was abrogated doesn't sound quite right. God wouldn't make that sort of error, humans do though all the time even today. This is the crux of the Christian argument. Especially after being told that there would be no more revelations and that if anyone whether angel or person were to say there was then that person isn't from God. You see the dilemia.

Peace be with you

its a simple case of when you call out to god, what is it exactly you say and where you draw your inspiration from. lol i guess that your way of thinking leads only to separation.

 

[Amigo]

Dear friends

For the original post.

The justice illustrated by the example is indeed silly.
The reason is because it gives a picture of a senseless justice interesed in vengeance.
A better illustration is of someone sacrificing himself to save someone who have fallen into a deep pit. The one who is saving is not falling into the pit for those who diserve it, he is jumping into the pit to save those who have fallen into it.

God is not satisfied by Jesus death, He is satisfied by the salvation of man. This is the satisfaction of God's justice.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

greetings hamza, let's get straight to the point. clearly you don't understand the doctrine of the atonement, personal responsibility is not antithetical to it. for the jews quite clearly believed in blood atonement (unless of course in your bid to prove your inaccurate picture of what the bible actually teaches you will now deny that the jews ever conducted animal sacrifices?). if you claim that personal responsibility could not be had within the system of the atonement, can you please get to explaining this? the fact of the matter is that i have given you a passage in which atonement by blood is expressly taught and yet you merely ignore this and turn the question over to that of personal responsibility. now it is either that you don't understand the matter of atonement through blood or you are being willfully deceiving. could you show us how personal responsibility could not coexist with blood atonement? rather, could you ask your sources for this seeing as i'm not really debating with you in the first place? in hope of elaborating on this point, it must be said that even in the system of the atonement, god reserves the right to hold the individual accountable for their own sin and in fact what we find in the bible is the regular punishment of the individual for their own sins while the concept of blood atonement is also espoused. if your point were indeed correct then this could not be the case. furthermore, we have the very words of christ in which he claims that his death is for the forgiveness of sin and as such your point fails (but i'm still very much interested in how you can misunderstand the concept of blood atonement as denying personal responsibility while the bible is full of personal responsibility and the practise of blood atonement).

Greetings Sol,

Let me also get straight to the point as i have been doing throughout our discussions in this thread - THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF CHRIST IS NOT TAUGHT BY ANY PROPHET, JESUS OR THE BIBLE!

How is is possible that one of the most fundamental teachings of Christianity was not explicitly taught by Jesus or ANYWHERE in the Bible?

Sol the fundamentals of Islam are clearly backed up by the Qur'an and Sunnah and are consitant with what is contained within them but WHY is it that the 3 most fundamental concepts in Christianity being the trinity, the theotokos and the blood atonement of Christ are NOT taught by ANY prophet, nor are they mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible nor are they taught by Jesus Christ himself nor did he EVER even mention them!

Did the Bible and Jesus forget to mention such fundamental concepts?

Would Jesus or the Bible leave their people so confused about such fundamental concepts which are central to the foundations of Christianity? Or was it that these concepts were only created hundreds of years after Jesus created by theologians? Clearly the latter seems to be more consistant with historical referances as well as the fact that the concepts are NOT actually taught by any prophet, Jesus or in the bible.


The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 14:33 that:

“... God is NOT the author of confusion ...”

This verse PROVES that God would NEVER confuse his people or keep such fundamental concepts a mystery only to be created by theologians hundreds of years after Jesus.

Therefore it is clear as can be seen throughout this thread that i have proven to you consistantly by providing you with vast evidences from the Bible and teachings of Jesus that the teaching of the blood atonement is NOT consistant with any of the teachings of the Prophets, Jesus or in the Bible and all you have provided is a single verse that Jesus - in order to take them out of darkness into light,- incurred the wrath of the evildoers and was tortured by them; but it does NOT say or imply that his death was an atonement for the sins of others and that only those who believe in his blood would be forgiven.

Again as i asked you in several of my previous posts - Where does this verse explicitly state that the death of Jesus was necessery for the inherited sins of mankind to be wiped away?

Clearly it does NOT and it never will no matter how hard you try. You cannot create something that is not there. The verses are clear and they do not say what you want them to say.

So therefore the one verse you keep using to try and prove your position has failed EVERYTIME as has been proven consistantly and therefore it CANNOT be used to prove your point at all for the verse does NOT state nor does it even imply that Jesus taught or said anything about the fact that his blood was necessery for the atonement of the "inherited sin of mankind".


But the verse along with the vast amount of proof i have provided from the Bible CONFIRMS without a shadow of a doubt that sin can ONLY to be forgiven by the mercy of God alone and NOT by God slaughtering his son by the hands of his own creations just to forgiven a sin that mankind never committed in the first place.



In regards to sin being a personal responsibility then Allah the Almighty explicitly emphasizes that one’s own sin is his sole responsibility, and should not be borne by another. The Holy Qur’an states:

“Say: ‘Shall I seek for (my) Cherisher other than Allah, when He is the Cherisher of all things (that exist)? Every soul draws the need of its acts on none but itself. No bearer of burdens call bear the burden of another. Your goal in the end is towards God: He will tell you the truth of the things wherein you disputed.” (Qur’an 6:164)

You talk about personal responsibility co-existing with the atonement of Christ then tell us Sol how is it possible that an unborn baby that was not baptized before it's death is destined to Hell FOREVER just because it had a "default stain of sin" upon it from the first man on earth? What did the unborn baby do to deserve having such a "stain" upon it that had caused it to be destined to burn in Hell forever?

Surely every soul is responsible for their OWN sin then what did the unborn baby do to deserve such a cruel destiny when it had not done ANYTHING to deserve it? It had not even been given a chance to be born let alone having to suffer a cruel destiny of eternal torture just because its father thousands of years before committed a sin which it "inherited by default". In what way was it responsible for this "default stain of sin which it inherited"?


If we are all responsible for our own sins then WHY does an unborn baby have to suffer for a sin it was NOT responsible for?

You cannot move away from the argument of the original sin no matter how hard you try because your argument will ALWAYS fall into that of the blood atonement and original sin which are clearly the most disturbing and troubling concepts that one can possibly imagine and BOTH ARE NOT TAUGHT BY JESUS OR THE BIBLE so NO one can accuse me of attacking the Bible or the teachings of Jesus but i am only attacking the theologians who created this concept hundreds of years after Jesus!

According to the Bible:

“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)

Therefore my position is that Jesus and the Bible ONLY teach personal responsibility for our own sins and do NOT even mention ANYTHING about the blood atonement of Christ being necessery for the atonement of the inherited sin of mankind, which i have consistantly proved to you time and time again throughout this thread.


So the Bible along with the Qur'an teaches that we are responsible for our OWN sins and it certainly does NOT teach ANYTHING about Christ's blood being necessery for the atonement of the original sin which has been inherited by the whole of mankind and that baptizing is the ONLY way to get rid of such a sin.


I have already proven this to you with VAST evidences from the Bible and the teachings of Christ and you have NOT provided a single shred of evidence from the teachings of Christ or the Bible to prove your position which has failed miserabley once again and anyone reading this will be able to see this for sure.

as to the individuals whom you quote in hopes of somehow proving your point, i would say that you have accomplished very little. i certainly could also quote various muslim individuals (so-called moderates and reformists) whom have a gripe with certain fundamentals of muslim teaching and yet you would not find this as adding any weight to my points. the hypocrisy is astounding.

I only quoted those statements because they summed up the fact that the teachings of the blood atonement are truly troubling, disturbing and cruel and have absolutley NO basis in any of the teachings of Jesus or the Bible. Therefore the statements are not attacking any teaching of the Bible or Christ but they are in fact attacking the very theologians and heretics who created the concept of the blood atonement of Christ in the first place.

The bible describes sin as a debt whose method of payment and price is death (Romans 6:23, Hebrews 9:22) and God, since he is infinitely holy and just, requires that sin be punished; that all debts be paid. Now the nature of a debt is as such that he who has no debt can pay the debt of another. This is because a debt (in a manner of speaking) is extraneous to the individual and hence the individual is not levied for something that is absolutely inherent to his self but rather he is levied for a property that is wholly contingent to his being. In just the same way, while everyone is born with sin, sin itself is not absolutely inherent to the human being and thus is not a non-contingent property that the human would possess in every possible world (ie. we can imagine a possible world where humans do not sin such as heaven or pre-fall Eden). Therefore, given that sin is an extrinsic quality, it is possible and perfectly logical for a third party to pay the debt of sin belonging to another. Hence the feasibility of animal sacrifices in the Old Testament (Leviticus 5:11, Leviticus 17:11).

The above is the first part of your argument in post 95 in which the crux of your argument being that "sin is a debt whose only method of payment is death".

This is CLEARLY pointing towards the fact that the death of Christ is necessery for the atonement of the original sin.

So firstly before we can start discussing this topic and then go on to the rest of your argument in post 95, can you please tell us all:

WHERE in the teachings of Jesus and the Bible does it state that the death of Christ was "necessery" in order for the "inherited debt" of mankind to be wiped away?

This is because we are not wanting your own opinions on this matter but proof from the teachings of Christ and the biblical scriptures that the death of Christ was necessery in order for the atonement of the original sin and the inherited debt of mankind to be wiped away.

Where does Jesus and the Bible teach of this debt? and how it can be wiped away? Where does it teach that this "inherited sin can ONLY be wiped away by the sacrifice of God himself who slaughtered himself in order to forgive the sin of his very own creations? After you have provided me proof of your position then we can take things from there.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Greetings Sol,

Let me also get straight to the point as i have been doing throughout our discussions in this thread. THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF CHRIST IS NOT TAUGHT BY ANY PROPHET, JESUS OR THE BIBLE!

How is is possible that one of the most fundamental teachings of Christianity was not explicitly taught by Jesus or ANYWHERE in the Bible?

You present as fact, what is actually a fallacy.

"God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith." (Romans 3:25)

"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:10)

That Jesus is called "the Lamb of God" (John 1:29) specfically refers to his role as the perfect Passover lamb whose blood causes the spirit of death to bypass all under its protection, and we are told that as this lamb he "takes away the sin of the world" (again John 1:29). This act sets us right with God, which is exactly what atonement is all about.

So, not only is blood atonement repeatedly taught in the Old Testament, but it is then specifically understood to be applied to interpret the significance of Jesus' death in the New Testament: "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross" (Colossians 1:19-20). And this interpretation was provided by none other than Christ himself when he instituted the sacrament declaring, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 28:28).

 

[Grace Seeker]

Therefore my position is that Jesus and the Bible ONLY teach personal responsibility for our own sins and do NOT even mention ANYTHING about the blood atonement of Christ being necessery for the atonement of the inherited sin of mankind, which i have consistantly proved to you time and time again throughout this thread.

And because such an erroneous view, despite correction, continues to be your position only proves that you neither listen nor understand what you are talking about.

"Sin entered the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned [in Adam] (Romans 5:12)— death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not [personally] sin by breaking a command (Romans 5:14). The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation (Romans 5:16a); [so that] by the trespass of the one man, death reigned (Romans 5:17a), [for] through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners (Romans 5:19a).


"While we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son" (Romans 5:10). This reconciliation is by means of being "justified by his blood" (Roman 5:9). "Since the children have flesh and blood, he [Jesus] too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death — that is, the devil — and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death" (Hebrews 2:14-15).

"For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world." (1 Peter 1:18-20a)
"Through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering." (Romans 8:2-3)
"For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God." (Romans 6:9-10)

Yes, there is personal responsibility for sins. But only the self-blinded would fail to see that the Bible teaches that there is also a corporate dimension to sin. The old covenants recorded in the Tanakh allow for an atonement for the sins of the people (again not just individually, but also corporately) by the sacrifice of animals. However, it is something that needs to be repeated because sin itself is not done away with: "those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebrews 10:3-4).
But in Christ a new covenant with God has been made. The need for continual sacrifices is no more, for rather than dealing with individual sins, Christ's sacrifice deals with sin itself, not the acts, but the disposition of the heart focused on the self will and redirects it back to God, thus making reconciliation between God and humanity possible. This is all spelled out in the following passage for those with eyes to see:

Hebrews 10

5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’”

8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

16 “This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”

17 Then he adds:

“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”

18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

 

[gmcbroom]

Hamza, I believe Grace Seeker gave you your answer concerning corporate sin and individual sin. You can either accept it or reject it. The only problem I see is you don't seem to like Paul. Why? I have no idea.

 

[Woodrow]

The only problem I see is you don't seem to like Paul. Why? I have no idea.

That can be said of nearly all of us. We see the Christians of today as being far from Christianity and instead of following the Injil given to Jesus(as) they follow Paul and are Paulists and not Christians.

 

[Ramadhan]

When you begin to post these as actual questions, rather than attempts at mockery, perhaps someone will address it. Until then....

I understand that the issue of whether baby Jesus is God is too difficult for you to reconcile.

 

[Ramadhan]

As for The baby Jesus question the answer is yes he was already God. The are a few New Testament scripture that point to it.

So baby Jesus created the universe and everything in it, is that what you are saying?

First as the most obvious is of course John Chapter 1 (1-5) where there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God.

Excuse me, I didn't read any part where it says "baby" in your sentence, even if we pretend that the sentence is authentic saying of Jesus (pbuh), which is stretching facts by a lot, since there is no way Jesus (p) spoke in modern english, and most certainly he spoke first century aramaic or ancient hebrew to his disciples.
The rest of your post follows these premise.

Now my question is: I understand that some catholics worship baby Jesus, but why is it that not all catholics worship baby Jesus if he was god?
I've seen plenty christians (catholics, protestants, etc) worship and pray to crucified Jesus, but why do you guys not worship and pray to baby Jesus?
Isn't this ageism towards God?
Why do you prefer to worship adult God and neglect baby God?

 

[M.I.A.]

And because such an erroneous view, despite correction, continues to be your position only proves that you neither listen nor understand what you are talking about.

"Sin entered the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned [in Adam] (Romans 5:12)— death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not [personally] sin by breaking a command (Romans 5:14). The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation (Romans 5:16a); [so that] by the trespass of the one man, death reigned (Romans 5:17a), [for] through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners (Romans 5:19a).


"While we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son" (Romans 5:10). This reconciliation is by means of being "justified by his blood" (Roman 5:9). "Since the children have flesh and blood, he [Jesus] too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death — that is, the devil — and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death" (Hebrews 2:14-15).

"For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world." (1 Peter 1:18-20a)
"Through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering." (Romans 8:2-3)
"For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God." (Romans 6:9-10)

Yes, there is personal responsibility for sins. But only the self-blinded would fail to see that the Bible teaches that there is also a corporate dimension to sin. The old covenants recorded in the Tanakh allow for an atonement for the sins of the people (again not just individually, but also corporately) by the sacrifice of animals. However, it is something that needs to be repeated because sin itself is not done away with: "those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebrews 10:3-4).
But in Christ a new covenant with God has been made. The need for continual sacrifices is no more, for rather than dealing with individual sins, Christ's sacrifice deals with sin itself, not the acts, but the disposition of the heart focused on the self will and redirects it back to God, thus making reconciliation between God and humanity possible. This is all spelled out in the following passage for those with eyes to see:

there is a question here, on the day of judgement does not a trumpet get blown and we all die?
also we differ that you think that death began with Adam pbuh.. quite unfair in my opinion as the dinosaurs were long dead (scientifically speaking) islamically speaking, there was creation before mankind and some of them are still open to death.

i think your concept of sin stems from the belief that the kingdom will be established on earth, is that not how you reached your view?
i cannot imagine the wonders of heaven but if this is it... we really are gonna need to cut back on fossil fuel use.

 

[Grace Seeker]

So baby Jesus created the universe and everything in it, is that what you are saying?



Excuse me, I didn't read any part where it says “baby” in your sentence, even if we pretend that the sentence is authentic saying of Jesus (pbuh), which is stretching facts by a lot, since there is no way Jesus (p) spoke in modern english, and most certainly he spoke first century aramaic or ancient hebrew to his disciples.
The rest of your post follows these premise.

Now my question is: I understand that some catholics worship baby Jesus, but why is it that not all catholics worship baby Jesus if he was god?
I've seen plenty christians (catholics, protestants, etc) worship and pray to crucified Jesus, but why do you guys not worship and pray to baby Jesus?
Isn't this ageism towards God?
Why do you prefer to worship adult God and neglect baby God?

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Honestly, I think so. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and walk through this. But as I am doing this, and am treating this as a serious question, I expect you to take it seriously. Smart aleck remarks such as have recently appeared in this thread simply show a side of your behavior that is completely contrary to the teachings of Islam's declaration to respect the people of the Book. If such is our treatment, there really is no reason for us to respect the mocker and render him any answer whatsoever, even if he has makes a valid point or has a sincere question in the future, for he is proven to behave without charity or justice toward others and instead demonstrates an inability or even an unwillingness to listen when people have tried to respond to him:

Have you not turned your attention to one who disputed with Abraham about his Guardian-Lord, because God had granted him power? Abraham said, "My Guardian Lord is one who gives life and death." [The king] replied, "I give life and death. " Said Abraham, "But it is God that causes the sun to rise from the East, can you then cause it to rise from the West? Thus the rejecter of faith was confounded, for God does not grant guidance to unjust people.

Let us begin with the nature of God in his eternal state. This would be to seek to understand God's nature outside of time and space, completely unrelated to any aspect of creation. In this state, which would include the conditions before the creation of the world, before the creation of time, before the creation of anything, God exists. But even then, God exists (in the Christian view, no need to argue that you believe or the Qur'an teachers otherwise, for you have asked clarification with regard to understand Christian teachings) as a tri-personal being: Father, Son, and Spirit. Using technical language the three persons exist in a perichoresis in which while they are distinguishable from one another, they are inseperable and are one being. So we speak of just one God, not three. Thus when one says that God is eternal, one is saying that God the Father is eternal and uncreated, God the Son is eternal and uncreated, and God the Spirit is eternal and uncreated. But internal to their relationship with one another there is a generation of the Son by the Father and the Spirit proceeds from this relationship between the two of them.

I know that may be a hard concept for several reasons. One has to do with the term "monogenes," frequently translated as "only begotten." As I have explained multiple times in other threads, I personally don't like the "begetting" language because it causes people to think in terms of animal biology. In reality, we are not speaking of anything to do with biology or anatomy or any other sort of procreation. The biblical term which was translated into English as "only begotten Son" about 400 years ago had a completely different concept behind it and would best be translated today as "unique Son." But it has been used so much and for so long, I fear we are stuck with it, even though it can make it difficult to grasp the nature of what is being said. So, quite naturally, we turn to the very properly translated "Father" and "Son" language to help understand what is trying to be communicated. Now, in my life, when I think of a human father generating a human, I quite naturally begin to think in terms of the father having existed in history prior to the son. And that would be true. However, remember, we are not speaking of humans who live within history and for whom the arrow of time is relevant. When we Christians speak of Jesus being the only begotten Son of God, we are NOT speaking of anything that has to do with the virgin birth. In fact, we are not even speaking of anything that has to do with the earthly or physical person we come to know as Jesus. We are speaking of his pre-incarnate self, prior to his conception and being placed in Mary's womb. So, we certainly aren't thinking of a little baby who would eventually appear in the course of time. For we are thinking about something that happened before Nature was created at all, before time began.

Just as there never was a time when the Father was not, so there never was a time when the Son was not. This really is not unreasonable at all. If God's nature is immutable and never changes, and if Jesus did indeed teach his disciples that in praying to God that among the ways it was appropriate to address God including calling him "abba," or Father. Then Jesus is communicating to us something about the nature of God. But for God to be called "Father" it implies that he is a father. And, by definition, one cannot be a father and childless at the same time. So, if God is a father, and his nature is immutable, then he has always been a father since before the beginning of time. And if in speaking of God there has always been the Father to speak of, it is appropriate to conceive that there must always have been the Son. So, the Father is not before the Son, for both Father and Son are co-eternal, meaning that the Son is himself eternal even though the physical earthly body of Jesus would not be created until nature itself had been created and he would be born occupying a particular point in historical time.

As to the generation of the Son from the Father, this is not an act of creation. Again, because creation implies a beginning point, and the Son being eternal in nature has neither beginning nor end. In fact, Scripture affirms that Christ is himself the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end -- meaning that these beginning and ending points of creation are found within him, rather than he being found within it. So, that too speaks to the Son being outside of time. And passages that speak of the Christ being the "firstborn of all creation" need to be read in the context of understanding the usage of the term "firstborn" in the Jewish culture which did not necessarily actually mean the first child (nor even the first son) to pass through the birth canal, rather the term "firstborn" referred to the one who was to receive the inheritance of the father. This is most certainly true of the Christ.



So, if not procreation or an aspect of time, how then is generation to be understood?
I would like you, for the moment, to get a picture of something in your mind. I would like you to think of two books lying on a table, one on top of the other. Obviously the bottom book is keeping the top book up -- supporting it. It is because of the underneath book that the top book is resting, say, two inches above the surface of the table instead of touching the table. Let's call the underneath book A and the top one B. The position of A is causing the position of B. That is if A was not present, B would no longer exist in the space 2 inches above the table that B presently occupies. Now, imagine that these two books have always been in exactly the positions in which they now are. In such a case, B's position would have always been the result of A's position. But all the same, A's position would not have existed before B's position. IN other words, the result of B's position does not timewise come after the cause, that A exists in its supportive position.

So, while A's position may be the cause generating, as it were, B's position. There is no temporal relationship necessary for A to generate B.

But, perhaps an even better way to conceive of this is to reflect on my request to have you imagine two books. I don't know what your books looked like, but I suspect you actually had a picture in your mind. Quite obviously, then, your act of imaging was the cause generating the resultant mental picture. But that does not mean that your first did the imagining and then got the picture. The moment you did it, the picture was there. Your will was keeping the picture before you all the time. Yet the act of the will and the picture began at exactly the same moment and ended at the same moment. If there were a Being who had always existed and had been imagining one thing, his act would always have been producing a mental picture, but the picture would be just as eternal as the act.

In the same way we must think of the Son always, so to speak, streaming forth from the Father, like light from a lamp or thoughts from a mind. He, the Son, is the self-expression of the Father--the Word the Father has to say. And there never was a time when the Father was not saying it. And since this whole time we have been talking about God, when the Bible speaks of the Word it declares that the Word is with God and the Word was God. And further, in perfect concert with Genesis 1, it declares that all things are created through this eternal divine Word (John 1:1-3). Note: we are not referring to the historical Jesus at all, but to the pre-incarnate Son who in time (meaning entering into time and nature) becomes flesh and dwells among humanity. This Son comes from the Father and is himself God (John 1:14 & 18).

How does God the Son enter into created nature? He incarnates himself. That word means that he puts on flesh. He makes himself into a human. His human body is not begotten. It is created in the same way that all other aspects of creation are created by God (I believe probably spoken into being), only it is created within Mary's womb.

Now remember I spoke earlier of the perichoresis of God's tri-personal being. The literal meaning of the term is “dancing around”. I find that it creates a helpful picture in my mind of a dance in which the partners are distinct individuals but the dance itself can only exist as long as they partners are one. The moment they quit being partners and become individuals, the dance is no more. While not a perfect analogy for the interpenetrating relations that exist within God’s own internal being, I do believe it helpful reminds us that we far too often speak of the persons as if they can be separated from one another, when in fact they exist within one another precisely because they are one and not three.
C.S. Lewis, when writing about the nature of God wrote something along these lines as well:

All sorts of people are fond of repeating All sorts of people are fond of repeating the Christian statement that ‘God is love’. But they seem not to notice that the words ‘God is love’ have no real meaning unless God contains at least two Persons. Love is something that one person has for another person. If God was a single person, then before the world was made, He was not love…. [Christians] believe that the living, dynamic activity of love has been going on in God for ever and has created everything else. And that, by the way, is perhaps the most important difference between Christianity and all other religions: that in Christianity God is not a static thing … but a dynamic, pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of drama. Almost, if you will not think me irreverent, a kind of dance.

The union between the Father and Son is such a live concrete thing that this union itself is also a Person. I know this is almost inconceivable, but look at it thus. You know that among human beings, when they get together in a family, or a club, or a trade union, people talk about the "spirit" of that family, or club, or trade union. They talk about its "spirit" because the individual members, when they are together, do really develop particular ways of talking and behaving which they would not have if they were apart. It is as if a sort of communal personality came into existence. Of course, it is not a real person: it is only rather like a person. But that is just one of the differences between God and us. What grows out of the joint life of the Father and Son is a real Person, is in fact the Third of the three Persons who are God.

And now, what does it all matter? It matters more than anything else in the world. The whole dance, or drama, or pattern of this three-Personal life is to be played out in each one of us: or (putting it the other way round) each one of us has got to enter that pattern, take his place in that dance. There is no other way to the happiness for which we were made. Good things as well as bad, you know, are caught by a kind of infection. If you want to get warm you must stand near the fire: if you want to be wet you must get into the water. If you want joy, power, peace, eternal life, you must get close to, or even into, the thing that has them. They are not a sort of prizes which God could, if He chose, just hand out to anyone. They are a great fountain of energy and beauty spurting up at the very centre of reality. If you are dose to it, the spray will wet you: if you are not, you will remain dry. Once a man is united to God, how could he not live forever? Once a man is separated from God, what can he do but wither and die?

And so it is that God in Christ speaks and, even more importantly, acts in ways that serve to unite humankind with God. By incarnating himself God becomes one of us. By being baptized by John he identifies himself with sinful humanity --even though he himself never sinned—and joins in announcing John’s message of a need to live out the ethic of God’s divine kingdom even on earth. In so doing, Jesus proclaims that one does not have to wait any longer for the hoped for parousia, but that we could experience God’s future coming kingdom in the here and now. By dying on the cross he does what no human before him had done, he lives to completion a life perfectly submitted to the will of the Father. And because he is the divinely anointed (i.e. the Messiah) representative of God among humanity, he not takes on completes the human task of living the life we were created for, he offers to let us share in his life. Thus, just as he is in the Father and the Father is in him, he makes possible that we too can be one with them. This means that incredibly we become (in the words of scripture) “new creations” in Christ. By letting God have his way in our life and being submissive to the Father’s will just as Christ was, we come to share in the life of Christ. If we do, we shall then be sharing a life which was begotten, not made, which always has existed and always will exist Christ is the Son of God. If we share in this kind of life we also shall be sons of God. We shall love the Father as the Son does and the Holy Spirit will arise in us. God the Son came to this world and became a man in order to spread to other men the kind of life He has—by what Lewis calls "good infection." Every Christian is to become a little Christ. The whole purpose of becoming a Christian is simply nothing else.

And when we Christians worship, be we Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or Coptic, we worship God revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ. We worship Father, Son, AND Holy Spirit. And with respect to Jesus, it isn’t just on the cross or any other particular setting that we worship him. We worship him as Lord of heaven and earth, reigning from the right hand of the Father. The use of the cross/crucifix is just a mnemonic device to remind us of that particular event in Jesus’ life. But that is not the only event we remember. We do in fact also use other tableaus to help remind us of the events of his life including those you asked about such as his birth – also his resurrection, his ascension, and his anticipated return among others. But we don’t worship any of those events or tableaus, including the crucifixion; we simply worship Jesus’ divine essence.



And before someone asks that oft repeated question about where was God when Jesus was on the cross and dead in the tomb, let me address that as well. He was in those places AND he was in heaven, AND he was preaching to the dead in the grave, AND he was creating the world, AND he was bringing in the eschaton, and he was sitting right beside you just as he is now pricking your conscience to awaken to his presence.

Remember, God exists outside of human history, outside of time and space and all of nature. All of these things exist within him and he holds them together. The problem our human minds have is that we try to conceive of him being in all these places and doing all of these things in the same moment. But that is once again thinking in human terms, rather than divine ones.

Our life comes to us one moment at a time. God’s does not. He experiences all moments as present. God is not hurried along in the Time-stream of this universe. He has infinite attention to spare for each one of us.

So we are actually asking amiss when we ask questions such as “How did the whole universe keep going while He was a baby, or while He was asleep?” “How could He at the same time be God who knows everything and also a man asking his disciples ‘Who touched me?’ " Or, “Who ran the universe while God was in the tomb?”

You will notice that the sting lay in the time words: "While He was a baby"—"How could He at the same time”—“While God was." In other words in asking the question we assume that Christ's life as God was in time, and that His life as the man Jesus in Palestine was a shorter period taken out of that time—just as my time doing any given activity is a period of time taken out of my total life. We picture God living through a period when His human life was still in the future: then coming to a period when it was present: then going on to a period when He could look back on it as something in the past. But these ideas correspond to nothing congruent with the factual nature of God’s eternal being. We cannot fit Christ's earthly life in Palestine into any fixed sort of time-relationship with His life as God the Son who exists beyond all space and time.

Though from our point of view, Jesus’ earthly life fills a particular period in the history of our world, we cannot therefore conclude it is also a period in the history of God's own existence. In truth, God has no history. He is too completely and utterly real to have one. For, of course, to have a history means losing part of your reality (because it had already slipped away into the past) and not yet having another part (because it is still in the future): in fact having nothing but the tiny little present, which has gone before you can speak about it. God forbid we should think God was like that. Even we are promised that our lives shall not always be rationed out that way.

 

[Grace Seeker]

there is a question here, on the day of judgement does not a trumpet get blown and we all die?

No. On that day the dead in Christ are raised to new life, and those who are alive are joined with Christ and all the saints of heaven. But we don't die on that occassion.

also we differ that you think that death began with Adam pbuh.. quite unfair in my opinion as the dinosaurs were long dead (scientifically speaking) islamically speaking, there was creation before mankind and some of them are still open to death.

The Bible speaks of God creating the world in 6 days and then resting on the 7th. I suspect that a majority of Christians don't take that to be a literal verbatium of the historical events. Many would agree that there were millions of years of evolution that God used to accomplish what is described in Hebrew poetry as occuring in a week's time. But they would not think of that as disharmony between the Bible and science, but rather that the Bible was not trying to teach a science lesson and was asserting matters of faith, that God is the creator who brought order out of chaos, sees what he has created a good, and has a purpose for this world and our place in it.

i think your concept of sin stems from the belief that the kingdom will be established on earth, is that not how you reached your view?

No. I do believe that the kingdom will one day be established on earth, but my view on sin is not related to that future. It is based on what has taken place in the past.

i cannot imagine the wonders of heaven but if this is it... we really are gonna need to cut back on fossil fuel use.

Actually, the scriptures declare: "The city [New Jerusalem] does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there" (Revelation 21:23-25). So, I don't think there is going to be the need for fossil fuels or any other sort of energy source outside of God himself.

 

[Ramadhan]

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Honestly, I think so. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and walk through this...etc..etc..

Funnily, and expected of course, knowing how fundies always obfuscate the matter when it comes to identity of God, for all the words that you wrote there, you didn't give me not one single answer to my simple questions. Actually from what I read, you re-define a lot of the meanings of words and you turn logic upside down.

Ok, let me ask you again in simple sentences:

1. Was baby Jesus already God?

2. Why do you not worship baby Jesus if it was already God? I've seen plenty of half naked crucified Jesus, the Last Supper Jesus in your churches, but never baby Jesus being worshiped.

 

[M.I.A.]

i can understand the trinity but to say that god is and always was a tri-personal being makes me question it on another level.
i cant believe that, im sorry..
its like using the monogenes argument to remove doubt about the worldly definition of trinity and then imposing misinterpretation on another level.

if i can ask a question,

is the preincarnate self of jesus pbuh the same as the character of the man jesus pbuh?

if yes, then are we not all our preincarnate self's?

it would show the majesty of the power of god.. the creator of all things.
it would allow god to remain external to the system.
it would further reduce the human concept of time to exactly that, something imposed upon creation.

and most noteworthy, it would reinforce the teachings of the quran as exactly the truth.
better to have achieved sincerity and faithfulness to god before you realise who you are.

maybe that last line applies to all the prophets pbut.

..some of whom have been rejected

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

You present as fact, what is actually a fallacy.

"God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith." (Romans 3:25)

"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:10)

That Jesus is called "the Lamb of God" (John 1:29) specfically refers to his role as the perfect Passover lamb whose blood causes the spirit of death to bypass all under its protection, and we are told that as this lamb he "takes away the sin of the world" (again John 1:29). This act sets us right with God, which is exactly what atonement is all about.

So, not only is blood atonement repeatedly taught in the Old Testament, but it is then specifically understood to be applied to interpret the significance of Jesus' death in the New Testament: "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross" (Colossians 1:19-20). And this interpretation was provided by none other than Christ himself when he instituted the sacrament declaring, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 28:28).

Greetings Grace Seeker,

I am glad you joined the discussion seeing as Sol was clearly out of his depth and really needed some help in order to prove his position in accordance with the teachings of God and Christ as he kept failing to do so and his frustration was quite apparent.

Looking at both of your posts what is apparent for ALL to see is that you have NOT proved your position in the slightest but actually weakened it further.

You have NOT quoted a single word or teaching from ANY previous Prophet, the Christian deity, Jesus or God but what you have done to desperatley try and prove your weak position is to quote the one person who actually brought in this false concept in the first place - PAUL.

It is Paul who had CLEARLY abrogated and contradicted MANY of the teachings of Jesus and the laws of Moses.

In any society, where justice is one of the highest valued morals, killing an innocent man (Jesus) to wash away the sins of the guilty would be condemned as immoral, yet billions of people rejoice over this "gift" of injustice! Once again, the source of conflict is Paul and not Jesus. Jesus never talked about atonement or a "free-ride" through the blood of an innocent man.

On the contrary he said, "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17). It was Paul who brought the concept of the Original Sin into Christianity as you have proven by your posts.

Jesus CLEARLY contradicts Paul. Not only that, the Old Testament ALSO contradicts Paul as well:


Ezekiel 18:20-22

[20] The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

[21] "But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

[22] None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live. 2 Chronicles 25:4

[4] But he did not put their children to death, according to what is written in the law, in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, or the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin."

It is Paul who actually transformed the strict monotheism that Jesus proclaimed into a religion that is closer to Greek mythology, than it is towards either Judaism or Islam. Things like the "only begotten son", atonement for the sins of humanity etc. were all alien to the strict monotheism of Abraham, Jesus, Muhammad and ALL the prophets of Israel (Peace be upon them all).

The great theologian Soren Kierkegaard says regarding Paul: "In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther. in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down. making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"

Paul is claiming that this ideology is supported by the scriptures, and in this case he is making reference to the Hebrew Scriptures, or The Tanach. However, one will find that this idea of an innocent man, in this case Jesus, having to pay for the sins of others is NOWHERE to be found in the Hebrew Bible. In actuality, it is the exact opposite that is found in the Hebrew Scriptures;



“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. “But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statuses and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him; in his righteousness that he hath done, he shall live.” Ezekiel 18:20-22

Without question, this passage runs in direct contrast with what we find in the teachings of Paul, and it also proves that Paul’s claim that his teachings are in accordance with the scriptures is TOTALLY FALSE.

The spilling of innocent blood for the redemption of mankind is a belief that has its roots in paganism and was adopted into Christianity by none other than Paul himself which was then solidified as dogma at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Blood atonement was NEVER a teaching of Jesus, nor did he EVER make mention of it.


the Bible is quite clear on the issue of sins being forgiven at the spilling of blood;


“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifice unto Me?, saith the Lord. I am full of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks or of lamb or of he-goats.” Isaiah 1:11



The Bible itself actually makes it quite clear that forgiveness from sins comes from one’s sincerity in seeking forgiveness from Almighty God and from obedience to Him;


“Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High” Psalms 50:13-14

“I desired not sacrifices; I commanded not your fathers, when I stretched forth my hand to bring them out of Egypt, to offer burnt -- offerings to me, but only to obey my voice.” Jeremiah 7:21-22

And as for the innocent being made to pay for the sins of others, the Bible is also quite clear in that respect as well;


“And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, ‘Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.’ And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, ‘Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if Thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of Thy book which Thou hast written.’ And the LORD said unto Moses, ‘Whosoever hath sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book.’” Exodus 32:30-33


And from the words of Jesus himself one can also conclude that his true teachings where in perfect harmony with these mentioned passages;


“For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” Matthew 5:20


“For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” Matthew 6:14-15


SO MANY examples can be used from the Bible that one is hard pressed in understanding how a Christian can claim to adhere to the Bible, and yet follow a totally opposite course. Here is yet further examples of what the Bible says;


“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children; neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” Deuteronomy 24:16


“But the children of the murderers he put not to death; according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, as the Lord commanded, saying, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin.’” 2 Kings 14:6


“But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.” Jeremiah 31:30


Again, the Bible states clearly how salvation can be achieved;


“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14


“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Isaiah 55:7


Therefore what you have just done is further weakened Sol's position instead of trying to help him and you have proven now WITHOUT doubt that the teaching of the blood atonement of Christ is not found ANYWHERE in the teachings of ANY Prophet of God, nor did Jesus EVER teach it and nor did God even utter a single word regarding it.


I have also proven with proof from the teachings of Jesus himself that Jesus taught repentance, forgiveness and love to the Children of Israel only, and certainly NOT of blood atonement and original sin.

 

[JPR]

Funnily, and expected of course, knowing how fundies always obfuscate the matter when it comes to identity of God, for all the words that you wrote there, you didn't give me not one single answer to my simple questions. Actually from what I read, you re-define a lot of the meanings of words and you turn logic upside down.

Ok, let me ask you again in simple sentences:

1. Was baby Jesus already God?

2. Why do you not worship baby Jesus if it was already God? I've seen plenty of half naked crucified Jesus, the Last Supper Jesus in your churches, but never baby Jesus being worshiped.

Grace Seeker is now in my top 5 poster. Tick in the box for that.

Now, for your benefit Grace, I don't think he read any of your post otherwise he would see that his two questions have already been answered, he's just being silly, or in denial. Your post was superbly detailed expressed in an easy manner to understand. Now if people don't have the intellectual courtesy of acknowledging that what you wrote was at least well written and brought some valid points and interesting food for thought, then I say they are in denial and not willing to argue with you but instead only want to push their own opinion with no regard to the opposing view, which makes for a rather boring monologue instead of a constructive dialogue.

I tip my hat off to you sir, well done!

I will take two minutes of my time to answer question #1 and #2 from Naidamar using your own material which I hope won't cause you any copyrighted kind of grief:

1. Was baby Jesus already God? (I put in Bold, Italics AND Underlined the relevant parts just so you wouldn't miss them)

Remember, God exists outside of human history, outside of time and space and all of nature. All of these things exist within him and he holds them together. The problem our human minds have is that we try to conceive of him being in all these places and doing all of these things in the same moment. But that is once again thinking in human terms, rather than divine ones. Our life comes to us one moment at a time. God’s does not. He experiences all moments as present. God is not hurried along in the Time-stream of this universe. He has infinite attention to spare for each one of us. So we are actually asking amiss when we ask questions such as “How did the whole universe keep going while He was a baby, or while He was asleep?” “How could He at the same time be God who knows everything and also a man asking his disciples ‘Who touched me?’ " Or, “Who ran the universe while God was in the tomb?”

You will notice that the sting lay in the time words: "While He was a baby"—"How could He at the same time”—“While God was." In other words in asking the question we assume that Christ's life as God was in time, and that His life as the man Jesus in Palestine was a shorter period taken out of that time—just as my time doing any given activity is a period of time taken out of my total life. We picture God living through a period when His human life was still in the future: then coming to a period when it was present: then going on to a period when He could look back on it as something in the past. But these ideas correspond to nothing congruent with the factual nature of God’s eternal being. We cannot fit Christ's earthly life in Palestine into any fixed sort of time-relationship with His life as God the Son who exists beyond all space and time.

2. Why do you not worship baby Jesus if it was already God? I've seen plenty of half naked crucified Jesus, the Last Supper Jesus in your churches, but never baby Jesus being worshiped.

Just the same you remember the highlights of Muhammad's life. What more important point in Jesus' life, mostly ours for that matter, than the crucifixion? No cross, no christianism, no cross, no salvation, no cross, no new covenant, no cross, New Testament. I would even say that the single most important point in the whole human history (aside from creation itself) is the crucifixion of Jesus. You can also watch Tallageda Nights with Will Farrell, he prays to little baby Jesus and although it's a comedy and not to be taken seriously in any theological sense whatsoever, it's just a good movie to watch.

Peace out!

 

[Ramadhan]

1. Was baby Jesus already God? (I put in Bold, Italics AND Underlined the relevant parts just so you wouldn't miss them)

umm no.. Grace was talking about a lot of things, but those words did not answer my question. Surely it would be a simple "yes" or "no".

Just the same you remember the highlights of Muhammad's life

Wrong. We do not worship Muhammad SAW. You, however, worship adult Jesus, but as far as I know do not worship baby Jesus, hence my questions.
You claimed in the other thread that you studied Islam before deciding on christianity, this statement alone by you shows that you do not even have the basic knowledge about Islam.

So, my two simple questions have not been answered.

 

[JPR]

umm no.. Grace was talking about a lot of things, but those words did not answer my question. Surely it would be a simple "yes" or "no".



Wrong. We do not worship Muhammad SAW. You, however, worship adult Jesus, but as far as I know do not worship baby Jesus, hence my questions.
You claimed in the other thread that you studied Islam before deciding on christianity, this statement alone by you shows that you do not even have the basic knowledge about Islam.

So, my two simple questions have not been answered.

Wow, Grace was right in asking the question "are you being obtuse?". The question was answered but apparently you really can't understand a full and detailed answer which I even highlighted the most relevant point.

It's a lost cause.

Peace out

P.S.: I know you don't worship Muhammad but you do know the highlights of his life. Stop putting words in my mouth as you seem to like it. We worship God, not Jesus, but we do acknowledge the works and life of Jesus. Stop making assumptions.