The Central Flaw of Christianity (another article)

[Hamza Asadullah]

Sol, I am still waiting for those verses where jesus, prophets or god said that human blood must be spilt for atonement

Yes Sol ANSWER DIRECT QUESTIONS. Do NOT avoid them like you keep doing.

You are VERY good at diverting the topic whenever you cannot answer a direct question. Firstly our discussion was regarding the blood atonement of Christ and the fact that it is NOT taught anywhere in the teachings or Words of ANY prophet, Jesus or God.

Then because you could not provide such proof or evidence you then diverted the topic to that of animal sacrifices which were practiced in the temple of Soloman. What does that have to do with the blood atonement of Christ? Why divert a topic away from tha ACTUAL discussion?

Answer the original question and give us proof in the explicit words or teachings of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God of the blood of Christ being the atonement of sin.

You also have to answer the question regarding unborn babies and babys and children who die before being baptised. Your Christian friend Gmcbroom stated that they may well go to Hell FOREVER.

Tell us whether you agree with him or not?

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

This is very interesting and relevant to the discussion:

In Christianity the doctrine of atonement is very diverse unlike the doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation that were precisely defined and agreed upon by the early ecumenical councils. Historically, it was not formulated with that same level of precision, thus having many differing theories, depending on which aspect of the work of Christ is emphasized. There exist four major theories: 1) ransom theory, 2) satisfaction theory, 3) moral influence theory, and 4) penal substitution theory.

Today, an increasing number of Christian theologians argue that none of the existing theories by itself makes sense fully, and that a new approach comprehensive enough to incorporate all the existing theories is needed to understand the whole picture of Christ's atoning work. Interestingly, this new approach tends to argue that Christ's sacrificial death was not absolutely necessary, making Christianity more compatible with other religions at least on two issues: whether or not the priest himself should die; and, more generally, whether or not the way of expiation should involve anyone's death.

So which theory do you follow Sol? Which theory does Grace Seeker follow?

NOTE the word "Theory" because the blood atonement of Christ it is just that - Confusing and does NOT make any sense.

Here we have a fundamental concept of Christianity which is NOT even properly defined as yet and as such Christian scholars agree that this theory is confusing and does not quite make sense.

Obviously this is because is has NO basis in the scriptures or in any of the teachings or words of any Prophet, Jesus or God so it is left for any theorist to edit and change it to make it seem attractive but no matter how one changes such a concept it will NEVER take away the fact that it is NOT taught by ANY Prophet, By Jesus or God and that it is truly disturbing and troubling.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Peace Gene,

I don't want to sidetrack the thread. but just want to point out that Anselm made much more sense than the older belief that God(swt) paid Satan the Ransom of blood atonement through Jesus(as) so that Satan would turn mankind free. (My short condensed version)

I think that fairly well ended the idea of Blood atonement, although that concept seems to have now returned among some Denominations.I don't believe in either, but Anselm made a lot more sense then the old Catholic teaching of the blood Atonement theory.

Very interesting to hear your view on that, because Anselm wrote his theory specifically in answer to question posed by Islam's request for a more logical presentation. I myself value much of what Anselm did and agree it is better than the Ransom Theory, but I'm personally inclined to go back to even before the Ransom Theory to the Christus Victor understanding of the atonement.


One of the things that needs to be understood by all is that none of these theories are actually describing what it was that God had to have done. They are describing ways that we might understand what it was that God was doing and how it worked. But they begin with the Biblical proclaimation that God did indeed do something in Christ that resulted in our atonement. Why and how and for whom are questions that theologians have then tried to piece answers together for from the scriptures and their understanding of the logical implications of the biblical text. They of course can be wrong in their surmising, but that God still did bring about atonement for our sins through Jesus' work on the cross is still proclaimed by the scriptures and we can't change that even if we don't like the theologies that others present to explain it.

 

[gmcbroom]

Hamza81,
If I may say something. The 3 faiths that claim to be Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. To muslims, Judaism, did not practice a blood sacrifice. It may not have been spelled out to word for word exactly as Islam is in the Koranic Hadiths, but that is the muslim understanding and that is final. Muslims, aren't given an option on it, it's believe it or die.

Having said that Christianity takes a different view. Christians see it in the Old Testament so they can see the parallels in Jesus's life, death, and yes to Christians (resurrection). Jesus had a message that was hard to hear and many rejected it then as they do now. What can Christians do about it? Simple. We simply explain why we believe as we do. If the message is accepted then christianity grows and the message is spread. If it is rejected, then christians pray for their conversion, and that is that. Christianity continues the sacrifice that Rabbinic Judaism cannot. The only difference is that Jesus died only once but it was for all time. He was the perfect sacrifice that enabled us to reach God the Father again. When the Divine Liturgy is offered throughout the world, that is the Thanksgiving sacrifice that we were to continue.

Now, It should be noted that the Judaism of today isn't exactly the same Judaism of the Old Testament. The Judaism of today is actually called Rabbinic Judaism. Old Judaism was centered around the Temple and it was there that the sacrifice was made. The Temple was so essential that when the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies he always had a rope tied around one of his feet so incase he was struck down by God the priests could safely remove his body. The Temple was that important. Now, when the Temple was destroyed all sacrifices ceased in Judaism for there was no way for them to continue the thanksgiving sacrifice. Rabbinic Judaism, is the result of the faithful striving to live in a world without Temple worship.

Now I'm curious, if Islam doesn't have the thanksgiving sacrifice how can you say your an Abrahamic faith? What ties you to the faith of Abraham?

Peace be with you

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

Hamza81,
If I may say something. The 3 faiths that claim to be Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. To muslims, Judaism, did not practice a blood sacrifice. It may not have been spelled out to word for word exactly as Islam is in the Koranic Hadiths, but that is the muslim understanding and that is final. Muslims, aren't given an option on it, it's believe it or die.

Having said that Christianity takes a different view. Christians see it in the Old Testament so they can see the parallels in Jesus's life, death, and yes to Christians (resurrection). Jesus had a message that was hard to hear and many rejected it then as they do now. What can Christians do about it? Simple. We simply explain why we believe as we do. If the message is accepted then christianity grows and the message is spread. If it is rejected, then christians pray for their conversion, and that is that. Christianity continues the sacrifice that Rabbinic Judaism cannot. The only difference is that Jesus died only once but it was for all time. He was the perfect sacrifice that enabled us to reach God the Father again. When the Divine Liturgy is offered throughout the world, that is the Thanksgiving sacrifice that we were to continue.

Now, It should be noted that the Judaism of today isn't exactly the same Judaism of the Old Testament. The Judaism of today is actually called Rabbinic Judaism. Old Judaism was centered around the Temple and it was there that the sacrifice was made. The Temple was so essential that when the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies he always had a rope tied around one of his feet so incase he was struck down by God the priests could safely remove his body. The Temple was that important. Now, when the Temple was destroyed all sacrifices ceased in Judaism for there was no way for them to continue the thanksgiving sacrifice. Rabbinic Judaism, is the result of the faithful striving to live in a world without Temple worship.

Now I'm curious, if Islam doesn't have the thanksgiving sacrifice how can you say your an Abrahamic faith? What ties you to the faith of Abraham?

Peace be with you

Greetings Gmcbroom,

The point here is that the discussion between me and Sol was centered around the fact that there is NO such teaching of the blood atonement of CHRIST in ANY word or teaching of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God. Then because Sol was unable to provide an evidence of this teaching he diverted the topic away from the blood atonement of Christ and instead onto animal sacrifices which have NOTHING to do with the blood atonement of Christ.

The previous Jewish animal sacrifice which could ONLY take place in the temple of Soloman which is as you have stated was called the Qorbanot.

As Muslims we also have a thanksgiving sacrifice which commemorates the unparalleled sacrifice offered by the Prophet Ibrahim peace and blessings be upon him. When he, in pursuance to a command of Allah Ta'ala conveyed to him in a dream, prepared himself to slaughter his beloved son Ismail peace and blessings be upon him and actually did so, but Allah Almighty after testing him of his submission, sent down a ram and saved his son from the logical fate of slaughter.

It is from that time onwards that the sacrifice of an animal became an obligatory duty to be performed by every well to do Muslim. Concerning this incident the Glorious Quran says:

"And when he attained the age of running with him (Ibrahim peace and blessings be upon him), he said: "O my son verily I have seen in a dream that I am slaughtering thee, so look, considerest thou?" He said: "O my father! Do that which thou art commanded, thou shalt find me, Allah willing, of the patients."

"Then when the two submitted themselves and had prostrated him on his temple."

"We cried unto him: "O Ibrahim! Of a surety thou hast fulfilled the vision. Verily We! That was a trial manifest. And We ransomed him with a mighty victim. And We left for him among the posterity. Peace be unto Ibrahim. Verily We! Thus we compense the well doers. Verily he was one of Our believing bondsmen." (37:102-111)

Here is information on the Qurbani for you to look it up for yourself:

The Fiqh of Ritual Slaughter (Udhiya/Qurbani)

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=656&CATE=115

 

[Ramadhan]

but that God still did bring about atonement for our sins through Jesus' work on the cross is still proclaimed by the scriptures and we can't change that even if we don't like the theologies that others present to explain it.

technically, you are right. saul proclaimed that in romans.
But if the scriptures is only limited to the words of jesus, prophets (pbut), and god, then there's no foundation and support for jesus spilling blood on the cross to atone the sins.

So it's truly the words of saul, who was enemy of jesus and never met jesus, versus the words of Jesus, prophets (pbut) and god.

And we just have to accept that christians rather follow saul.

 

[Ramadhan]

Now, It should be noted that the Judaism of today isn't exactly the same Judaism of the Old Testament. The Judaism of today is actually called Rabbinic Judaism. Old Judaism was centered around the Temple and it was there that the sacrifice was made. The Temple was so essential that when the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies he always had a rope tied around one of his feet so incase he was struck down by God the priests could safely remove his body. The Temple was that important. Now, when the Temple was destroyed all sacrifices ceased in Judaism for there was no way for them to continue the thanksgiving sacrifice. Rabbinic Judaism, is the result of the faithful striving to live in a world without Temple worship.

I'm not sure if you are that naive or pretend to be.

Among the three religions, it is now only muslims that continue the thanksgiving sacrifice of abraham: we sacrifice goats/sheep/cows/camels during the days of eid and we fast for a month, continuing the religious practices of prophets Abraham, Musa, David and Jesus (pbuh).

As for christians, there is almost nothing that christians are doing now that resemble the practices of Jesus (pbuh), almost of your religious practices were invented after Jesus (pbuh) departed.

Hence, anyone who has tiny braincells left could see that Islam is the only true abrahamic religion, along with orthodox judaism probably.

 

[Ramadhan]

gmcbroom,

I see that you keep repeating your accusations of Islam, eventhough I remember you have written almost exactly the same thing twice before (about Islam not being an abrahaimic faith), and I have corrected you on each occasion. There were also other issues such the conversions of priests and nuns which you repeatedly denied and which I have corrected you with evidence muttiple times. And each time you had nothing to respond and could not contest my explanations.

There is a clear line between ignorance (which I don't mind because then I can explain to you) and intentional deceits (which I really have no time for) when the same exact ignorance are posed again and again.
Remember, even if some of us forget, there's always search features which I can easily use to show you the evidence again.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

There is just NO basis for Christs blood atonement of sin in ANY teaching or word of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God and that is something that NO Christian can claim because the teachings are just NOT there. Even though you may not want to accept it the fact is you cannot imply something is there when it is not. There is NO doubt that Paul brought about this concept and today this concept is still not properly defined as asserted by Christian scholars themselves. It is still up for editing and revision that is why the concept has so many differing theories depending on which denomination one is.

How can such a concept be one of the fundamentals of Christianity when it has NO basis in ANY teaching of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God?

How can such a concept be one of the fundamentals of Christianity when it is NOT even agreed upon or even properly defined as yet and as such Christian scholars agree that this theory is confusing and does not quite make sense.

Therefore there is NO doubt that this concept is NOT from God or certainly NOT from the teachings of Christ but that of Paul.

 

[Amigo]

Actually the story of Abraham, his son, and the ram illustrates and explain the story of Christ. The story of Christ is hidden there and it explains it more fully.
Christ faith, suffering, death, and resurrection is played out by in the event by the three charachters of Abraham, his son, and the ram.
In it we see that God is loving and merciful. But we also see that his mercy does not mean cancelation of his justice. If someone deserve death, death will certainly occur.
God's mercy does not mean that God goes back to his word and cancel out his justice, the decrees he had released. It means that God gives the ram as a gift for ransom. So both his justice and his mercy are met, because they can not contradict each other, in fact they are really the same thing. His justice and his mercy are the samething which is that man be fully alive. Only the just as Abraham/son/ram story did not illustrate the perfect picture. It was an imperfect faith, imperfect death, imperfect resurrection, imperfect sacrifice, and imperfect life risen to. Yet, with all the imperfection, it pointed out to the perfect story which is that of the real Messaih/King/Sacrifice/Priest/Prophet. Notice that Christ embodies in himself all the event of Abraham/son and all the charachters. He also embodies and illustrate the unity of God's justice and his mercy as well as the unity of God's plan for humanity.

 

[Ramadhan]

Actually the story of Abraham, his son, and the ram illustrates and explain the story of Christ. The story of Christ is hidden there and it explains it more fully. Christ faith, suffering, death, and resurrection is played out by in the event by the three charachters of Abraham, his son, and the ram.

Ugh... God didnt allow Abraham (pbuh) to sacrfice his son, Ishmael (pbuh).

Do you also not remember verses from your bible where God clearly hate and disallow human sacrifices:


Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Eternal thy God: for every abomination to the Eternal, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. [Deuteronomy 12:30-31]

Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Eternal, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but The Valley of Slaughter. [Jeremiah 19:4-6]

Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. [Psalm 106:37-38]

Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy W-h-oredoms a small matter? [Ezekiel 16:20]

 

[Ramadhan]

God's mercy does not mean that God goes back to his word and cancel out his justice, the decrees he had released. It means that God gives the ram as a gift for ransom. So both his justice and his mercy are met, because they can not contradict each other, in fact they are really the same thing. His justice and his mercy are the samething which is that man be fully alive. Only the just as Abraham/son/ram story did not illustrate the perfect picture. It was an imperfect faith, imperfect death, imperfect resurrection, imperfect sacrifice, and imperfect life risen to. Yet, with all the imperfection, it pointed out to the perfect story which is that of the real Messaih/King/Sacrifice/Priest/Prophet. Notice that Christ embodies in himself all the event of Abraham/son and all the charachters. He also embodies and illustrate the unity of God's justice and his mercy as well as the unity of God's plan for humanity.

nice words.

But can you back up your own opinion with ACTUAL verses from the words of prophets, Jesus (pbut) and God?

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

Actually the story of Abraham, his son, and the ram illustrates and explain the story of Christ. The story of Christ is hidden there and it explains it more fully.

Is the story of Christ being slaughtered by God's own creations in order for the blood atonement of sin so hidden that it is to be found NOWHERE in ANY teaching of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God?

Christ faith, suffering, death, and resurrection is played out by in the event by the three charachters of Abraham, his son, and the ram.

So now Abraham is a character? I thought he was a revered Prophet? Well he certainly is to Muslims

In it we see that God is loving and merciful. But we also see that his mercy does not mean cancelation of his justice. If someone deserve death, death will certainly occur.

We see mercy in a God who slaughters his only begotten son? What would the "mother of God" Mary think of such a thing?

God's mercy does not mean that God goes back to his word and cancel out his justice, the decrees he had released. It means that God gives the ram as a gift for ransom. So both his justice and his mercy are met, because they can not contradict each other, in fact they are really the same thing. His justice and his mercy are the samething which is that man be fully alive. Only the just as Abraham/son/ram story did not illustrate the perfect picture. It was an imperfect faith, imperfect death, imperfect resurrection, imperfect sacrifice, and imperfect life risen to. Yet, with all the imperfection, it pointed out to the perfect story which is that of the real Messaih/King/Sacrifice/Priest/Prophet. Notice that Christ embodies in himself all the event of Abraham/son and all the charachters. He also embodies and illustrate the unity of God's justice and his mercy as well as the unity of God's plan for humanity.

It is not historically correct to say that Jesus had come to die willingly and deliberately for the sins of men. We read in the Bible that he did NOT wish to die on the cross. For, when he knew that his enemies were plotting against his life, he declared that his "soul was exceedingly sorrowful unto death", he asked his disciples to keep watch over him to protect him from his enemies and he prayed to God, "Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee; take away this cup from me; nevertheless not what 1 will, but what Thou wilt." (Mark 14:36)

Secondly, we fail to see how the suffering and death of one man can wipe out the sins of others. It sounds something like the physician breaking his own head to cure the headache of his patients. The idea of substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice is illogical, meaningless and unjust.

Thirdly, the idea that shedding of blood is necessary to appease the Wrath of God has come into Christianity from the primitive man's image of God as an all-powerful demon. We see NO connection at all between sin and blood. What is necessary to wash away sin is not blood but repentance, remorse, persistent struggle against evil inclinations, development of greater sympathy for mankind and determination to carry out the Will of God as revealed to us through the prophets. The Qur'an says:

"To God does not reach the flesh or the blood I of animals they sacrifice), but unto Him is acceptable righteousness on your part" (22:37)

The doctrine of the Atonement makes the First Person of Godhead into a blood-thirsty tyrant in order to demonstrate the self-sacrificing love of the Second Person. To a dispassionate critic, the sacrifice of the Second Person appears as much misplaced and meaningless as the demand of the First Person is cruel and sadistic.

Why would God have his own begotten son slaughtered by his own creations in order to abolish the sin of his own creations? No matter which way you put it, this is clearly a very troubling concept to say the least.

Arthur Weigall makes the following significant comment on the doctrine of the Atonement:

"We can no longer accept the appalling theological doctrine that for some mystic reason a propitiatory sacrifice was necessary. It outrages either our conception of God as Almighty or else our conception of Him as All-Loving. The famous Dr. Cruden believed that for the : purpose of this sacrifice 'Christ suffered dreadful pains inflicted by God', and this of course, is a standpoint which nauseates the modem mind and which may well be termed a hideous doctrine, not unconnected with the sadistic tendencies of primitive human nature. Actually, it is of pagan origin, being, indeed, perhaps the most obvious relic of heathendom in the Faith."

The Christian scheme of salvation is not only morally and rationally unsound, but it also has NO support of the words or teachings of Jesus. Jesus may be said to have suffered for the sins of men as you have quoted in a verse above in the sense that, in order to take them out of darkness into light, he incurred the wrath of the evildoers and was tortured by them; but that does NOT mean that his death was an atonement for the sins of others and that only those who believe in his blood would be forgiven. Where does the verse state that? Clearly it does NOT.

So therefore those verses that you quoted CANNOT be used to prove your point because they do not prove 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 verses and proof i have provided explicitly proves that sin is 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.

Jesus had come to rescue men from sin by his teaching and the example of his religiously devoted life to the commands of God, and not by deliberately dying for them on the cross and offering his blood as a propitiation for their sins. When a young man came and asked him "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" he mentioned NOTHING about his atoning sacrifice and the redeeming power of Iris blood. His reply was the same as that of every other prophet. For he said: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:17)

"Keep the commandments" that, according to Jesus, was the way to eternal life. Salvation could be gained by believing in God, eschewing evil and doing good, and not by accepting Jesus as the redeemer and believing in his blood atonement.

So the three points are that the dogma of the Atonement is unsound, for (1) man is not born in sin. (2) God does not require a price to forgive the sinners, and (3) the idea of substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice is unjust and cruel. By sinning we do NOT harm God, but ourselves.

The stain of sin on our souls CAN be removed, not by the suffering or death of any other person, whether the latter be willing or unwilling, but by our own repentance, turning away from evil and doing good. And so, when Adam, after the act of disobedience, repented and submitted himself completely to God, his sin was forgiven. Neither is the sin of Adam inherited by the children of Adam, nor did it require the suffering and death of Jesus Christ to be forgiven.

The truth is that Jesus did NOT die on the cross at all. The doctrine of the Atonement is an absolute denial of the Justice and Mercy of God. As i have already mentioned in my previous posts Islam TOTALLY rejects this dogma and declares that the forgiveness of sins cannot be obtained by the suffering and sacrifice of any other person, human or divine, but by the Grace of God and our own sincere and persistent efforts to fight against evil and do good:

(that no laden one shall bear another's load, and that man hath only that for which he maketh effort, and that his effort will be seen) (The Glorious Qur'un 53:38,40)

(Whosoever goeth right, it is only for the good of his own soul that he goeth right, and whosoever erreth, erreth only to its hurt. No laden soul can bear another's load) (17:15)

So therefore the fact that you assert that Jesus was sacrificed as a blood atonement for the sin of humanity is NOT consistant with or found in ANY words or teachings of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God but came from none other than Paul.

 

[Amigo]

Hello brothers,

I still have to read the long message, but as a note: I have long time Muslim friends who we like to discuss religion. One think I have learned is that Islam consider the Bible corrupt for this reason, I don't go into heave scripture because there is no point if you are the one who decide what is corrupt or not according to your understanding. Nevertheless I will try my best on known common points.

God bless you

 

[Ramadhan]

Hello brothers,

I still have to read the long message, but as a note: I have long time Muslim friends who we like to discuss religion. One think I have learned is that Islam consider the Bible corrupt for this reason, I don't go into heave scripture because there is no point if you are the one who decide what is corrupt or not according to your understanding. Nevertheless I will try my best on known common points.

God bless you

Amigo,

It seems you also have very little knowledge about bible.

1. Please go and study history of your bible, and then come here and tell me, what language did Jesus (pbuh) speak with his disciples? and what year was Jesus (p) living, and what is the oldest surviving bible and in what language and was written in what century and who wrote them?

2. Even your bible scholars state that bible is corrupted. The most obvious fact: Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53 - 8:11) which was never in ALL oldest bibles (codex sinaiticus, vaticanus, alexandrinus, hebrew bible), but sudenly appeared in the latin vulgate bible (600 AD), which all bible scholars have agreed as fabrication.

Corrpted means: addition, deletion, reduction, editing, etc which change the originals.

So, we have established the your bible is indeed corrupted, using YOUR OWN criteria (as confirmed by bible scholars).

Maybe you christians have no problem in fabricating such lies against Jesus (who you worship as God), that is your choice, we will see during the judgement day whether it is okay to attributing lies against God.

 

[Amigo]

My friend, God is not imprisoned in Books. God is far larger than them. However, just as a seed is small and yet contains a whole mighty tree, so is the Word of God in the Bible. I will not tell you whether I know the answer to those questions, I will only tell you that you don't need to be a schoolar to go to Heaven. All you need is the Word of God in your heart empowering you into life. The same God is here who was here before humanity existed, who was here before any man knew how to write, and who will be here when perhaps technology will have changed man's ways of keeping records. God is the essential, and He is here, no need to look for him in records in the past as if God is archived

God bless

 

[Ramadhan]

I will only tell you that you don't need to be a schoolar to go to Heaven

Well, it seems that in christianity you need to be scholars to understand the concept of God.

In Islam, EVERYONE from a theoretical physicist in Princeton to a illiterate subsistence farmer in the remote area of Indonesia fully understand the concept of God and are able to fully explain to non-muslims. Even an athiest understand concept of God in Islam.

Compared that to christian 3-in-1 deity, it seems only christians seminary cholars who claim to understand it.


Also, you were the one who brought up the issue that only muslims think bible is corrupted, and when I gave you evidence that not only muslims,. but bible scholars also think bible is corrupted, you suddenly shifted to talk non-sense as above.

This what happens in EVERY discussion with christian. Everytime evidence is asked from you or evidence presented to you, you suddenly talk nonsensical babbles for paragraphs.

Here, read again what your bible schiolars, christians conservative priests say about bible:

The Pericope Adulterae or the Woman taken in Adultery is found in John 7:53-8:11 in most manuscripts of John’s Gospel but is almost certainly not original there. The pericope is missing from most early manuscripts of John and is in a non-Johannine style. Quite apart from the question of the original location of this passage there is the problem of its original form. The pericope is highly variable among NT manuscripts and is regarded by some form critics as a hybrid narrative.http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2007/06/origins-of-the-pericope-adulterae.html

Biblical scholars are nearly all agreed that the Story of the Adulteress (also known as the Pericope Adulterae or the Pericope de Adultera) usually printed in Bibles as John 7:53-8:11 is a later addition to the Gospel. On this page I present some extended quotations from scholarly works that explain the reasons for this judgment. On another page I give an extract from one of the few scholarly defenders of the passage. To give my own opinion, it seems clear to me that the story does not belong in the Bible. If despite its absence from the early manuscripts this passage is thought to be so edifying that it is worthy of being treated as Holy Scripture, we might with equal justice add any number of edifying ancient stories to the Bible. The Quo Vadis legend about Peter's martyrdom, for instance, might just as well be added to the canonical book of Acts. For more on this, see my essay, Quo Vadis?http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html

Official Bible translations already recognize that the passage is not authentic. Yet why is it increasingly taught anyway? Because it has an unmistakable liberal spin to it. Let's point out the obvious.--Aschlafly 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT) http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Essay:Adulteress_Story

Do you want more proof that your bible is corrupted, mangled, where lies are attributed to Jesus, lies are attributed to God?

 

[Ramadhan]

ll you need is the Word of God in your heart empowering you into life. The same God is here who was here before humanity existed, who was here before any man knew how to write, and who will be here when perhaps technology will have changed man's ways of keeping records. God is the essential, and He is here, no need to look for him in records in the past as if God is archived

This is so meaningless.

You might as well believe any book is the word of God.

is there a christian who speaks with evidence?

 

[Amigo]

Sorry friends, I had written a reply about Abraham/son/ram. But I just lost it perhaps it was corrupt and God decided it was not good for posting. I will summarize for now what I was saying:

The ram ransomed the son of Abraham from the type of death it could die. Even then, it was not perfect sacrifice because God does not love bloody sacrifice, even that of animals. A (innocent) creature should not die for an other, especially as forced to. The lesson was that God's mercy does not cancel out his justice. If a sin deserve a particular punishment, that punishment will occur, for God does not go back on his own word; God is faithful. So what kind of 'ram' would ransom men from eternal death? God is Holy and his Justice is Holy, and his Mercy is Holy. He does not force people or creatures into sacrifice for others. Beside, no creature can ransom from eternal death. So How will we be saved. The ram was sent to the altar to ransom the son of Abraham. For those who are lost and are heading for eternal ****ation, is there anyone to be sent, is there anyone who can even reach there? No. Only God can. But nothing can contain God. God enterining created reality means the destruction of this reality. Prophets considered the goodness of God and his holiness realised that God himself was going to come into creation to restore it. But considering his majesty, they also realised that Creation will be destroyed in the proccess. So they prophetized about a suffering servant who will go about restoring all brokenness and who will have power over everything. Who will die only to enter death and destroy it. Who will restore Creation but making even more glorious than it ever was, for it will be God himself in Creation. So Jesus had to die precisely because humanity can not contain God, his death will destroy death itself because death can not contain God. At the end all sin, all suffering, all corruptions will be destroyed, and Creation renewed and even glorified.
God is not aggressive and non-violent. He came into our nature invited by the holy prayers of our ancenstors. Even death was destroyed because it attempted to swallow him according to its custom of swallowing the living. An ancient Christian wrote:
God can not die by himself, and man can not live by himself. So God in his great love, became man, so that sharing man's death, He may destroy it and give man His life. God who is eternal, became man to destroy all corruption and death, and purify humanity giving it eternal life.

God bless

 

[Amigo]

Naidama,

I can not quote, so I will be attempting to refer to what I am replying to.

About evidence. You are the greatest evidence you can believe in. Then all things around you. Holy Scriptures were meant to underline the evidence which is already here, the signs of God. In fact, you can tell about their true inspiration by the fact of whethere they confirm what God is showing you arlready here, or whethere they are contradicting it. So no, not all scriptures come from God, because not all scripture confirm us in the truth of God.