The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea

[Grace Seeker]

What was special about Christ's Resurrection? Those you mentioned before did not resurrect eternally. They eventually died again. Christ Resurrected eternally to return to and be One with the Father.

Thank-you Keltoi. And, all of these others were raised following prayers of intercession and supplication. No one offered such prayers for Jesus. No one had hopes of him rising from the dead. No one but God! Jesus' resurrection is a direct consequence not of God interceeding for him, but the reality that God is the author of life and that life is in him because he is himself the incarnation of God.





Also, Imam, your question as to what is extraordinary about Jesus' resurrection strikes me as disingenious. My guess is that even if it was only the family pet who had passed away was to be restored to you from the dead that you would find such an event extraordinary, it certainly isn't seen as an ordinary happening by most people I know.

 

[Imam]

The Gospel accounts are the recollection of Christ's ministry from the viewpoint of different men.
.

realizing the fact that their holy book is full of errors, contradictions, and fallacies,Christians try continuesly to dodge a concept regarding inspiration not only defies reason but also contradict what the Bible itself tells about inspiration.....

the following quote from the NT dashes into pieces the christian dodge that The Gospel accounts are the recollection of Christ's ministry from the viewpoint of different men,and not a verbal direct inspiration ...

2 Peter 1:20".First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Can anyone imagine how it would be at all possible that someone who was "moved by the Holy Spirit" to "speak from God" could say something that contradict another writer who was "moved by the Holy Spirit" too?

If the holy spirit moved the writer of Matthew to write that Mary Magdalene Did meet Jesus at the tomb,
what would he write? he would write exactly what he has been inspired to write......whatever his style of writing,grammatical structure ,the reader will get the point clear (Mary Magdalene Did meet Jesus at the tomb)

If the same holy spirit moved the writer of John to write ,he may use another style in writing,grammatical structure etc........ but the reader will get the same point (Mary Magdalene Did meet Jesus at the tomb)

whoever said that John has to follow the style of Matthew letter by letter !!!!!!?
he is free to use the vocabulary he likes,but he has to to be in accordance with Matthew and other writers in the basics....


you dodge (the viewpoint of the writers) can't help John's gross contradiction with Matthew

Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene Did meet Jesus at the tomb
John 20:1Mary Magdalene Didn't meet Jesus at the tomb

. No two witnesses will recall an event in exactly the same way..

With all due respect.It seems you are suffering under the delusion that such writers were eye-witnesses ,while the bible itself ranks them as inspired directly,verbally from God

you still fancy yourself that Mark,Luke,Matthew;John were a group of eye-witnesses from the disciples who stayed all night long beside the tomb waiting for such group of women (Mary M.etc...) to encounter Jesus and while these women talked to Jesus etc..... the four writers including the disciples John himself(as the church claims) preferred not to participate in it for unknown reasons !!!!!

may be the four eye-witnesses beside the tomb were busy writing what they see?may be the women were more courageous and had encounter with the angels and Jesus ?

my friend,without any reasonable doubt ,their accounts are unverified hearsay ,just take a look at the introduction of the writing according to Luke and you will be sure what kind of a hearsay material your are about to read....

what was the reason for John to disagree with Matthew ?

you argue (he didn't recall this event in exactly the same way as Matthew) .

If so then it would necessarily follow that the Holy Spirit had "moved" this person to say something that was inaccurate,hence violate what the NT teach regarding inspiration

(Peter: First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God..)

What was special about Christ's Resurrection? Those you mentioned before did not resurrect eternally. They eventually died again. .

My original question was why the resurrection of Jesus would be of any consequence(establishing the claims of his deity) when others rose from the dead before him.?
Paul said it's the Resurrection that counts, not the fact that Jesus never died again.
Instead of focusing on the resurrection itself you have chosen to emphasize the supposed results that emanated from that event. But that's not the issue.

but let me go further and apply your reason to other examples:

The father took the soul of Jesus off his body and let it back again to his body and the same body will stay with the soul forever...........


If so let me highlight Biblical miracles the father performed with Enoch and Elijah ,qualify them ,under your line of reasoning,to be more than Gods....

"Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven" (2 Kings 2:11) and "Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him" (Gen. 5:24).


the text obviously indicates that the prophets Elijah and Enoch from the very moment of their birth till forever are living and never taste physical death as Jesus.....


so which one you prefer to be God in flesh? those who never had ,and will never have physical death for a second ,or the one who stayed in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights?


actually,the whole Christian argument is without merit ,due to the fact,and in accordance with the Christian believe, that any human being has a time to die and to be resurrected by the father and stay forever without death again !!!!


In sum and substance ,while arguing , What did jesus do according to the New Testament in order to proves that he is a true incarnated version of God ,the Resurrection fells short ....................

 

[Grace Seeker]

realizing the fact that their holy book is full of errors, contradictions, and fallacies,Christians try continuesly to dodge a concept regarding inspiration not only defies reason but also contradict what the Bible itself tells about inspiration.....

the following quote from the NT dashes into pieces the christian dodge that The Gospel accounts are the recollection of Christ's ministry from the viewpoint of different men,and not a verbal direct inspiration ...

2 Peter 1:20".First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Can anyone imagine how it would be at all possible that someone who was "moved by the Holy Spirit" to "speak from God" could say something that contradict another writer who was "moved by the Holy Spirit" too?

Again you show that you simply are capable of only thinking form an Islamic perspective. While there are prophecies included in the Bible, Christianity makes no claim that the entirety of the Bible is prophecy. This is not what Peter was referring to, and to apply it that way is to show one's unfamiliarity with the basic concepts of the Christian faith yet again.

With all due respect.

It's OK. You can drop the pretense. I haven't seen much evidence of respect in your posts for some time now.

It seems you are suffering under the delusion that such writers were eye-witnesses ,while the bible itself ranks them as inspired directly,verbally from God

you still fancy yourself that Mark,Luke,Matthew;John were a group of eye-witnesses from the disciples who stayed all night long beside the tomb waiting for such group of women (Mary M.etc...) to encounter Jesus and while these women talked to Jesus etc..... the four writers including the disciples John himself(as the church claims) preferred not to participate in it for unknown reasons !!!!!

Keltoi showed no such delusions in his posts. As with many other of your ideas with respect to Christian beliefs, you have read such thing into his posts that are not actually present and ignored what he has actually said. Having read many of Keltoi's posts, both past and present, he presents himself as one who is well aware that not only were the Gospel writers not themselves present at the initial finding of the empty tomb, but that Luke and Mark are not even numbered among the disciples of Jesus.

but let me go further and apply your reason to other examples:

The father took the soul of Jesus off his body and let it back again to his body and the same body will stay with the soul forever...........


If so let me highlight Biblical miracles the father performed with Enoch and Elijah ,qualify them ,under your line of reasoning,to be more than Gods....

"Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven" (2 Kings 2:11) and "Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him" (Gen. 5:24).


the text obviously indicates that the prophets Elijah and Enoch from the very moment of their birth till forever are living and never taste physical death as Jesus.....


so which one you prefer to be God in flesh? those who never had ,and will never have physical death for a second ,or the one who stayed in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights?


actually,the whole Christian argument is without merit ,due to the fact,and in accordance with the Christian believe, that any human being has a time to die and to be resurrected by the father and stay forever without death again !!!!


In sum and substance ,while arguing , What did jesus do according to the New Testament in order to proves that he is a true incarnated version of God ,the Resurrection fells short ....................

Again, you miss the big picture. Jesus was not made God by the Father. He is God.

In a previous post you stated:

"Prove all things..." (1 Thess. 5:12
Proverb 14:15"The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going."

The extraordinary claim, requires extraordinary proof.



as for a claim of deity ,cheap words are not enough to make his claims convincing

again The extraordinary claim, requires extraordinary proof.

To which I cited the resurrection as being extraordinary. But do not mistake this for saying that I agree that any proof is needed for Jesus as God. There are many extraordinary things that one could testify to with regard to Jesus, but Jesus is not dependent on such things to "prove" that he is God, and certainly not to make him God. How ludicrous a concept!

Nothing made Jesus God. He simply is God and has always been so. To put it in your own context, what makes Allah God? Again, nothing. Allah simply is God. That's all there is to that.

 

[Imam]

Again you show that you simply are capable of only thinking form an Islamic perspective. While there are prophecies included in the Bible, Christianity makes no claim that the entirety of the Bible is prophecy. .

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Having read many of Keltoi's posts, both past and present, he presents himself as one who is well aware that not only were the Gospel writers not themselves present at the initial finding of the empty tomb, but that Luke and Mark are not even numbered among the disciples of Jesus.

take a look again ,Seeker

They were witnesses. These "contradictions" you posted actually lend more credence to the Gospel record from the Christian standpoint.

Again, you miss the big picture. Jesus was not made God by the Father. He is God.

and again you miss the simple questions.....we have dozens of Greek and Roman ordinary men being or becoming gods. As to the idea of a "sweating, stinking, defecating" mortal who dies and then becomes a god, there are so many examples in Greco-Roman religion .

they all claimed to be God,but they offered nothing to establish it other than claims by themselves or the zealous followers around them.......


Jesus needed to prove he is God?

with full mouth I answer yes,He had to prove,he is a true incarnated version of God,different from the other Greek and Roman pagan version in his time....

what makes Allah God? Again, nothing. Allah simply is God. That's all there is to that.

Seeker,You just are not with it

Allah never been incarnated ,in order to ask him are you God?

though we never seen him,he sent us a miraculous book ,offering both the muslims and non-muslims alike with a living proof of his existence ...

Dr. Moore ,former President of the Canadian Association of Anatomists,the author of several medical textbooks, including Clinically Oriented Anatomy (3rd Edition) and The Developing Human (5th Edition, with T.V.N. Persaud).

"It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Qur'an about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, or Allah, because most of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God, or Allah."

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/scientists.html

 

[Grace Seeker]

Jesus claimed that he was God. You claim that Allah is God. Both are claims.


Now, I don't wish to go dinegrating Islam, as I do respect it and most Muslims. I believe Jesus and you believe you. That is pretty much what it all boils down to.

I believe also the record that I have received passed down to me through the church that bears witness to these claims of Jesus. I see in the lfe, death, and resurrection of Jesus substantiation for these claims. You may think me a foolish person for so trusting, but I do so trust.

But as for your understanding of Christians ways and thought, I am sorry to say, it is still glaringly lacking. All scripture is inspired. That is true. But it does not mean more than that. That does not mean that all scripture is prophecy. Inspired men and women have even been known to make mistakes, though I do not believe that scriptures contain mistakes regarding the nature and character of God. And while most of the Biblical writers may have had the gift of prophecy, that also doesn't make all scripture prophecy.

Christians (save for a few that I happen to disagree with) do not mean that God dictated scripture to the biblical writers when they claim that the scriptures are inspired. It was God who inspired them to write, in the same way another man might be inspired to write a poem because of observing a sunset. Of course I think with scripture that there is more depth to it, but I am not among those who hold that to a literal inerrancy, nor do I think that the lack thereof implies the scriptures to therefore be untrustworthy.

You don't like my theology, fine. That's probably why I'm a Christian and you're not. But I do tire of you trying to tell me what my theology is or should be, which is what it seems you continue to insist on doing. Hence why I said in my last post, that I haven't seen any respect in your posts for some time now.



You said to take a look again at what Keltoi said. I have. Here is his quote:

The Gospel accounts are the recollection of Christ's ministry from the viewpoint of different men. They did not sit down together and compare notes. They wrote their accounts from the standpoint of their own recollections and, and yes, inspiration. They were witnesses.

I can see how you might think that Keltoi is refering to the Gospel writers as witnesses. But again, having read more than just this single post by Keltoi, as I already said above, I know that he knows the difference. First, to be a witness is to be a person who gives testimony. I am a witness for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, though I was not present at the time. Second, John was indeed a witness not of the resurrection event, but of the resurrected Christ, and I believe that Matthew was as well. Mark and Luke were passing along the testimony of those that had themselves experienced the same and it is not beyound the realm of possibility that they too had personally met Christ following the rsurrection as among the over 500 brethern that scripture mentions who did see him. But Keltoi does know, and you would know he knows if you had read more of his posts, that none of these Gospel writers were present at the Resurrection itself. Those who report it, do so based on their own personal post-resurrection experiences with Jesus or from having been under the tutelage of those who themselves had that experience.

I hope this can bring an end to this unwarranted side-track from the topic and we can return to discussing the Nature of Christ rather than a discussion of one's belief in the testimony of the New Testament. If one wishes to make it about that, we might as well recognize that we are of different minds that are not going to change, and thus there is no common ground from which to discuss anything.

 

[Imam]

All scripture is inspired. That is true. Inspired men and women have even been known to make mistakes.

If they made mistakes with the narratives of the cornerstone of Christianity(the resurrection),who ever bother calling them inspired?!!

though I do not believe that scriptures contain mistakes regarding the nature and character of God.

How do you know which parts are true if you admit some parts are false?

the religious reformer, John Wesley, said:

"If there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth."




In other words, if the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested. As a witness for God, the Bible would be discredited as untrustworthy. What solid truth it may contain would be left as a matter of mere conjecture, subject to the intuition or canons of likelihood of each individual. An attitude of sentimental attachment to traditional religion may incline one person to accept nearly all the substantive teachings of Scripture as probably true. But someone else with equal justification may pick and chose whatever teachings in the Bible happen to appeal to him and lay equal claim to legitimacy. One opinion is as good as another. All things are possible, but nothing is certain if indeed the Bible contains mistakes or errors of any kind (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties pp. 23-24, ).

You don't like my theology, fine. That's probably why I'm a Christian and you're not. Hence why I said in my last post, that I haven't seen any respect in your posts for some time now.

Seeker ....you may think so..that I don't respect you..........

for me objecting to theology doesn't mean lacking respect to the one who is convinced to...

you can never imagine how much respect and affection I have with the Christians lived and living around me in real life.....

 

[Keltoi]

Another John Wesley quote: "I do not love God. I never did. Therefore I never believed, in the Christian sense of the word. Therefore I am only an honest heathen..."

Since we are throwing around quotes like they mean something profound.

It also appears that your (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties) source is also quite mistaken in its understanding of how Christians view the Scripture. This is the most striking difference between Christianity and Islam. Christians do not believe God writes books, or that He sends one of His angels to do so. When a Christian reads the Gospel record, he or she understands(in most cases) that it was written by the hands of men. So that author's personality, writing style, thought process, etc, are all a part of that narrative. That doesn't equate to infallibility, nor does it equate to fallibility. It is simply the affect of a human mind putting thoughts to paper. Where those thoughts come from is the question. You as a Muslim believe something different, and we as Christians have a much different understanding.

Now, I hope this thread can return to the original point as well.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Seeker ....you may think so..that I don't respect you..........

for me objecting to theology doesn't mean lacking respect to the one who is convinced to...

you can never imagine how much respect and affection I have with the Christians lived and living around me in real life.....

Objecting to theology isn't why I said what I said regarding respect either. But take a look at what you quoted and what you did not from what I said:

You don't like my theology, fine. That's probably why I'm a Christian and you're not. But I do tire of you trying to tell me what my theology is or should be, which is what it seems you continue to insist on doing. Hence why I said in my last post, that I haven't seen any respect in your posts for some time now.

The bold part, a sentence which you completely omitted is why I said that I feel that you do not show respect, hence the word "hence" with which I started the subsequent sentence. And glossing over that important statement sort of highlights exactly what I was referring to.


P.S. I'm glad you read John Wesley. He was a better theologian than I can ever hope to be. But even though I am a United Methodist, I still don't agree with all things that he said, and you have landed upon one of them.

 

[NoName55]

if you do not stop accusing Br. Imam of insults/disrespect, some suck-up kiddie mod will come along and evaporate most of his posts (as they are well known for doing)

2 so-called experts including a pastor trying to overwhelm 1 person, then playing at being martyrs!

 

[Keltoi]

if you do not stop accusing Br. Imam of insults/disrespect, some suck-up kiddie mod will come along and evaporate most of his posts (as they are well known for doing)

2 so-called experts including a pastor trying to overwhelm 1 person, then playing at being martyrs!

I don't remember anybody claiming to be an expert, but I would say I do understand the doctrine of my faith and it does get tiresome to repeat answers to the same questions time and time again. It isn't the questions that bother me, it is the context in which they are asked.

As for playing at being "martyrs", I'm not sure where that even comes from.

 

[MustafaMc]

Unless one accepts Christ was crucified and rose from the dead, and unless one accepts the reasons for this, the other theological questions are simply filler. To believing Christians like myself and Grace Seeker, who accept Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, the larger theological questions fall right into place.

I find it extremely interesting that the Qur'an addresses this very issue about the death of Jesus (as) on the cross. The whole of Christianity pivots on this very event. If Jesus (as) was not killed by crucifixion as the Qur'an clearly claims, then there is no foundation for the Christian religion. GraceSeeker has stated that this denial of crucifixion is the very reason that he rejects the Qur'an as the Word of Allah and the prophethood of Muhammad (saaws). Interesting, as Ahmad Deedat once said, "Crucifixion or cruci-fiction?"

 

[Keltoi]

I find it extremely interesting that the Qur'an addresses this very issue about the death of Jesus (as) on the cross. The whole of Christianity pivots on this very event. If Jesus (as) was not killed by crucifixion as the Qur'an clearly claims, then there is no foundation for the Christian religion. GraceSeeker has stated that this denial of crucifixion is the very reason that he rejects the Qur'an as the Word of Allah and the prophethood of Muhammad (saaws). Interesting, as Ahmad Deedat once said, "Crucifixion or cruci-fiction?"

Yes, and Ahmad Deedat has no basis for that belief other than his faith in Islam.

You are correct in one sense. If there was no resurrection then the foundation of the Christian faith is in error. That being said, my faith tells me that Christ was indeed crucified and was indeed resurrected. My faith and your faith differ. It is as simple as that.

 

[MustafaMc]

If there was no resurrection then the foundation of the Christian faith is in error. That being said, my faith tells me that Christ was indeed crucified and was indeed resurrected. My faith and your faith differ. It is as simple as that.

I find it also interesting that Paul himself pointed out this crucial issue for the Christian faith. For if there is no death, how can there be a resurrection from the dead.

I Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised:
14 and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain.
15 Yea, we are found false witnesses of God; because we witnessed of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised.
16 For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised:
17 and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19 If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable.

...and yes of course my faith is different from yours. It seems that our differences can be boiled down to:

1) the Divinity of Jesus (as)
2) the death of Jesus (as) on the cross and his subsequent resurrection from the dead
3) the prophethood of Muhammad (saaws)

If we agreed on these three major points, would there be any reason for us to have different religions? If so, what additional major points of difference do you see?

 

[Keltoi]

I find it also interesting that Paul himself pointed out this crucial issue for the Christian faith. For if there is no death, how can there be a resurrection from the dead.

I Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised:
14 and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain.
15 Yea, we are found false witnesses of God; because we witnessed of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised.
16 For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised:
17 and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19 If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable.

...and yes of course my faith is different from yours. It seems that our differences can be boiled down to:

1) the Divinity of Jesus (as)
2) the death of Jesus (as) on the cross and his subsequent resurrection from the dead
3) the prophethood of Muhammad (saaws)

If we agreed on these three major points, would there be any reason for us to have different religions? If so, what additional major points of difference do you see?

The divinity and resurrection of Christ and the promise of salvation through Him are THE foundation of Christianity. Those are crucial points, and outside of divine interference will always separate Christianity and Islam.

 

[MustafaMc]

The divinity and resurrection of Christ and the promise of salvation through Him are THE foundation of Christianity. Those are crucial points, and outside of divine interference will always separate Christianity and Islam.

There is a hadith that speaks of the return of Jesus (as) in Bukhari 3:425 Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims who are in the protection of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.

If this hadith is a true prophesy (as I believe), then Jesus himself will bring Christians and Muslims together by exposing the foundation of Christianity to be sinking sand.

 

[Keltoi]

There is a hadith that speaks of the return of Jesus (as) in Bukhari 3:425 Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims who are in the protection of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.

If this hadith is a true prophesy (as I believe), then Jesus himself will bring Christians and Muslims together by exposing the foundation of Christianity to be sinking sand.

That is a big "if" in my book obviously.

 

[MustafaMc]

That is a big "if" in my book obviously.

Yes, I understand your perspective. I suppose that interfaith dialog has some value, but in order to find some "middle ground" it seems that each would have to compromise their respective faiths. I certainly don't see that for me to compromise on the Divinity of Jesus (as) would be a good thing as I am certain that you would agree. I see a perpetual struggle until the end of days with one triumphing over the other as the Truth is made known to all. I also see that tolerance of the other and allowing him to practice his faith, as long as it does not interfere with his own practice, is the best that we can achieve until then. Allah (Holy Spirit according to you) will guide to the Truth whomsoever He wills.

 

[Grace Seeker]

That is a big "if" in my book obviously.

hahaha


I doubt if you meant it as a pun, but I'm thinking about the literal book(s) that we are talking about here, and that really does seem to be the difference maker.

 

[MustafaMc]

I doubt if you meant it as a pun, but I'm think about the literal book(s) that we are talking about here, and that really does seem to be the difference maker.

Chapter and verse?

 

[doorster]

:bump1: