Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Rasul

Jesus 100% Man And 100% God?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salaams,

I wrote this piece a while ago while debating some evangelist Christians. Frankly, I don't see ANY scriptural evidence that vindicates Jesus as God at all. This is a concoction that has crept into Christianity under the Roman pagan influences. Leslie, you speak of Paul as if he were some sort of Saint. The truth is that he was the biggest corrupter of Christianity on the face of the Earth. He was the greatest enemy of the Pharisees, and only claimed that he had been "divinely-inspired" after he lost his position with the High Priest of the Saducees. He knew he could make money by twisting scripture; there is no doubt at all that this notion of the "divinity of Christ" only crept in after his perverted influences. He was an expert in Hellenistic religion, gnosticism, and mythology, and brought what he knew of it into Christianity. He was also hardly at good terms with contemporary Christians. If you want to see the REAL Paul, check out this book, written by a Biblical scholar: http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0062505858 . I can give you a brief synopsis if you want more information. Paul is NOT the saint you think he is. He is no doubt an example of a scholar who twists God's word for personal gain; the Qur'an refers to such people as follows:

Woe unto those who write down with their own hands [what they claim is] divine writ, and then say: “This is from God,” in order to acquire by it a trifling gain; woe, then, unto them for what their hands have written, and woe unto them for all that they may have gained. (2:79).

Anyway, here is my argument for why there is NO Proof at all in the Bible for Jesus' divinity. It's long though, so sit tight:

You stated on many occasions that Jesus is the Son of God/God, and we will now go through to disprove each of his attributes that to you necessitate his being God:


  1. Jesus was born of a virgin without the “aid” of a father.

Objection: What about Adam, who had neither father nor mother? Or Melchizedek, the high priest, who didn’t have neither, as well as no beginning nor end (refer to Hebrews 7:3)? Why aren’t they considered God/from the trinity?!


  1. Jesus raised the dead.

Objection: Many others raised the dead before Jesus: Then he [Elijah] stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried to the LORD, "O LORD my God, let this boy's life return to him!" The LORD heard Elijah's cry, and the boy's life returned to him, and he lived. (1Kings 17:21-22). As well, a dead man who was lowered into a grave and touched the bones of Elisha came back to life (2 Kings 13:21).


  1. Jesus had a “peerless” character.

Objection: Far from it. The Jesus of the Bible had no such thing. In Matthew 5:22, Jesus states: But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. However, in Matthew 23:17, Jesus states, You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?. Indeed, a man who does not heed his own advice cannot be called one of peerless character; rather, he may be called a hypocrite.

In Matthew 15:4, he tells the people to 'Honor your father and mother' and also that 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. However, he violates his own maxim in John 2:4, saying, “Woman, what does that have to do with us?” (NASB) and in Luke 14:26, saying “"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.”. An individual that gives conflicting and contradictory statements is surely not infallible. While we Muslims hold Jesus as an infallible, it's clear that his character as portrayed in the Bible is flawed. In Matthew 5:44, Jesus orders people to love their enemies and bless them that curse them, but in John 10:8 he alleged, “All that came before me are thieves and robbers”. Clearly, the Jesus of the Bible practiced one thing and preached another. Enough said.


  1. Jesus rose from the dead.

Objection: Firstly, Jesus was not the first to be resurrected. Many others that lived before him, contemporaneously, and after were also brought back to life. Numerous examples can be cited, so the verses shall just be listed: 1 Kings 17:21-22 (Elijah resurrected a child), 1 Samuels 28: 7-15 (Samuel raised by Saul’s medium), 2 Kings 4:32-35 (Elisha raised dead son of Shunammite), 2 Kings 13:21 (bones of Elisha touch dead man to resurrect the latter), Luke 9:28-30 (Moses and Elijah come back at the Transfiguration), Matthew 9:18-25 (Jairus’s daughter is resurrected), Acts 9:36-41 (Peter raises Tabitha), Acts 20:9-10 (Paul raises Eutychus). Thus emerging from the dead isn’t unprecedented.

If you remain obstinate, claiming that Jesus arose out of his own will, while others were raised through others and by the will of God (especially 2 Kings 13:21), then keep in mind that Jesus also arose due to God’s will: You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this (Acts 3:15). [Note: don’t presuppose the trinity when we mention this. We are addressing the divinity of Jesus, and thus doing so is circular reasoning.].


  1. Jesus ascended to Heaven.

Objection: Elijah also rose to heaven in a fiery chariot (2 Kings 2:11); surely this is a spectacular feat. Why is he not considered divine?


  1. Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament

Objection: His being prophesized does not necessitate his being God. The word “messiah” is a Hebrew word which means “God’s anointed”. The Jews thought of their kings as “messiahs” in the sense that God had figuratively anointed them. The whole concept of Messiah was Jewish, applied to a national deliverer whom they presumed that, with divine assistance, would save them from the oppression by the Gentiles. It did not bring with it the concept of Divinity.

Even so, there is much contention over this idea. According to the prophecy, the messiah must be an actual physical descendant of David according to the flesh (Romans 1:3, Psalms 132:11, Acts 2:30, 2 Timothy 2:8, 2 Samuel 7:12-13). The physical chain back to David from Joseph in both genealogies (Matthew 1 and Luke 3 [side note: they are contradictory]) was broken because Joseph was not Jesus’ physical father. Therefore, Jesus could not claim messiahship. The virgin birth does not allow the physical connection between Jesus and David.


  1. He is referred to as “Son of God”.

Objection: It is funny how you Christians see this term as proof of Jesus’ being God, when it is used throughout the Bible to apply to various people. In Matthew 5, in the famous sermon of the Mount, Jesus states “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God”. Surely, these “sons of God” are not so in the same sense as Jesus is. Why?! Another example may be cited: Genesis 6:2, where men are referred to as sons of god. Indeed this is interpreted in a more abstract way: since we are all from God’s creation, we are his metaphorical “sons”. But why is an exception made for Jesus? Why is he God incarnate? What necessitates this exception?

The refutations of these reasons make it clear that Jesus was not God incarnate. To finalize this, one may take a look at Genesis 6:3 (Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."). Thus, Jesus could never be the “temple of the spirit”, because God would never enter a man. Obviously the presupposition that Jesus is a god-man is hereby crushed, by this verse and the objections preceding it.

Now, although one may contend that there are verses in which Jesus is equated with God by others (But so is the Devil in 2 Corinthians 4:4. Does that make it true?!!), all the verses that indicate his supposed proclamation of being God can be interpreted in another way. Verses such as John 10:30 (I and My Father are One), John 1:1 (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God), John 1:14 (And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us), John 14:9 (He that hath seen me hath seen the Father), John 17:22, Colossians 2:9, etc. can be interpreted to mean that Jesus and God were one in purpose, not in essence.

Obviously, this would lie in greater conformity with other Bible verses asserting his not being God or God’s equal, such as Matthew 19:17 [Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God], John 5:30 [i seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me], John 6:38 [i came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me], John 14:28 [My Father is greater than I], John 7:16, 1 Peter 3:22, Matthew 27:46, etc.. It would also conform to verses that assert God’s unity, such as Deuteronomy 4:35 (The Lord he is God; there is none else beside him), Deuteronomy 4:39 (The Lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else), Isaiah 45:6 (There is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else), 1 Samuel 2:2, 2 Samuel 7:22, etc. Also remember to take into account Genesis 6:3 that God would never abide in man or the flesh.

In short, there is no need to subscribe to such ridiculous notions as the Trinity or Jesus being the “God-Incarnate”, ideas as ridiculous as a square circle, that contradict pure logic and scripture, as my brother and I have so often tried to inculcate in you during our discussions (logical points include: a son cannot be the same age as his father, Mary would be at the same time Jesus’ daughter, sister, and mother, imperfection and perfection cannot be housed in the same body, the list goes on and on). If you cannot understand this purely reasonable argument, that is sound and lacks contradiction, I don’t know what to tell you. Jehovah’s Witnesses, although you claim that they are “NOT CHRISTIAN” seem to be better in conformity with the facts. Perhaps you think that since I am not Christian, I lack any type of understanding of your religion. I assure you, my goal is not to convert you; rather, it is for you to see theology for what it really is: A beautiful, logical, perfect science that lacks any nonsense which asserts complete impossibilities. In realizing this, you will come to the realization that only God can save us humans from our own sins, not any normal human being, such as Jesus (see Hosea 13:4: Thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no savior beside me). MY FINAL STATEMENT: WHY BELIEVE THESE RIDICULOUS TRINITARIAN BELIEFS, THAT YOU CANNOT EVEN COMPREHEND, WHEN AN ALTERNATIVE THAT BETTER CONFORMS TO YOUR HOLY BIBLE AND LOGIC IS PRESENT?!!!!

Wassalaam,

Hasanayn

Edited by Hasanayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hasanayn,

Just picked up on your thread and wanted to add a couple things. As a non-trinitarian I'll go along with a lot of what you have but...

Jesus had a “peerless” character.



    • Objection: Far from it. The Jesus of the Bible had no such thing. In Matthew 5:22, Jesus states: But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. However, in Matthew 23:17, Jesus states, You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?. Indeed, a man who does not heed his own advice cannot be called one of peerless character; rather, he may be called a hypocrite.

      In Matthew 15:4, he tells the people to 'Honor your father and mother' and also that 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. However, he violates his own maxim in John 2:4, saying, “Woman, what does that have to do with us?” (NASB) and in Luke 14:26, saying “"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.”. An individual that gives conflicting and contradictory statements is surely not infallible. While we Muslims hold Jesus as an infallible, it's clear that his character as portrayed in the Bible is flawed. In Matthew 5:44, Jesus orders people to love their enemies and bless them that curse them, but in John 10:8 he alleged, “All that came before me are thieves and robbers”. Clearly, the Jesus of the Bible practiced one thing and preached another. Enough said.

Too much said. I could splish splash around the Quran and come up with enough carp to sink my boat if I wanted. Context is key and understanding is another key. If you walk around saying "You fool, you fool" t everyone you meet, God may not want you in heaven, simple enough? If Jesus was trying to make a point to those who blindly missed the point is it wrong to point out their foolishness? A fool is a fool afterall, and foolishness is just that.

So your mom has a party, she comes to you and says she's out of wine, what are you going to do? Okay, not a fair question to ask a Muslim. Jews can drink wine. Jesus had obviously done a few miracles around the house to amuse his mom but nothing public, nor was he ready to do so. None the less he did what his mom wanted, just didn't like it.

Never done that? Dishonour would be complaining about it and not doing it.

So Jesus told a story about the Pharisees to the Pharisees who were the thieves and robbers Jesus was talking about. You're making it sound like Jesus said al the Prophets before him were thieves and robbers, what's the chances?

You have to read the context and who Jesus was talking to and when. His disciples had to forsake family and friends in order to follow Him, but not the "sheep". Jesus also said I come not to bring peace but a sword. Ask Muhammad how changing a peoples religion works out.

So my bottom line here is, don't judge Jesus by what critics have said, read it in context for yourself.

Oh yeah, same with Paul. Hyam Maccoby was a Brittish Jew and a Pre Peta vegan with a passion for zionism. You really sure you want to take his side? Just one thing, show me where Paul made Jesus into God. please.

Edited by Son of Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Son of Placid,

Thanks for your input, and you're correct, context and exegesis are very important when reading scripture, whichever religion you may be studying. Thanks for pointing that out, I agree that the first point I made regarding that, about "you fool" was somewhat unsupported. The context is certainly important, but you wouldn't think an infallible (let alone God as some of your trinitarian comrades believe) would say to not call others 'word x' and then call others 'word x' himself now, would you? Regardless, I will accept that this is perhaps an unfair stretch of scripture. I think your argument is unconvincing though, because of the fact that if you look at Matthew 5:23 and its context, you will see that Jesus is not referring to chronic name-callers, running around calling others fools. Rather, he's referring to even the slightest contempt one may have for another as unacceptable ("Raca" is the least powerful word for contempt in Aramaic). If he has contempt for the Pharisee preachers, then does that not in turn implicate him? Nonetheless, I digress; you may have a fair point that I stretched it.

The problem with what you said about him speaking like that to his mother is that his character is NOT impeccable or "peerless," as those who claim Jesus is God would have us believe. In addition, "honoring" your mother would be in the least doing what she asks without even the slightest disdain or grumble, let alone doing extra on top of what she requests. If Jesus had said "obey" your mother and father, then you would be correct, because Jesus did obey his mother, albeit disdainfully. But "honoring" is very different from simply "obeying". By extension, then, the Biblical Jesus was not of "peerless" character. Oh and by the way, comparing me to the Biblical Jesus is a bit too far man, I acknowledge he's a million times better than me :P. But for God incarnate, that type of behavior is a bit out of line don't you think? I know you're non-trinitarian, but my argument is addressed to the more mainstream Christian.

Oh and your last critical point of my scriptural analysis was a misunderstanding of what I wrote/a speculation about how my argument could be perceived. Perhaps this was my fault, because I didn't provide any more context to the verse. But yes you are correct, he was addressing the Pharisees, and saying that all the ones he had encountered were thieves and robbers. He was NOT disparaging his friends (i.e. the Prophets before him), but rather his enemies; nonetheless, my point I was making there still stands. He says to bless your enemies not curse them, but then he goes on to curse them, calling them thieves and robbers!

Addressing your point about Paul, firstly, we should judge what is said not the speaker. You're making an ad-hominem attack on Maccoby that is, quite frankly, a cop-out. Even if my opinion of him is not so hot, that doesn't mean I have to disagree with everything he writes/says. He's a Biblical scholar for crying out loud, he's got the qualifications and has devoted his life to exegesis. I read his book and found it very well-supported, piecing together a lot of apparent incongruities throughout the Bible. That's just my speel on Maccoby.

Regarding Paul, I never said that he made Jesus into God, I only said that it was AFTER his perverted influences that Christians came to believe such a thing about Jesus. I know Paul believed that Jesus was not God, but he set up Jesus as the ultimate savior who could wipe away all the sins of humanity in one fell swoop, regardless of works (an idea he probably derived from his Hellenistic background). Making Jesus the Ultimate Redeemer like that would no doubt inspire Christians to view him as God. Plus, when he corrupts scripture with such things as the following, there is no doubt at all that such misunderstandings as the deity of Christ will creep into Christianity:

"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," (Colossians 2:9)

"While we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (Note: I know these are two separate entities, but it's not perceived as such!), 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good." (Titus 2:13-14)

Anyway, therein lies the problem. By making such strange statements, Paul made it easier for the trinitarian Christian to justify his/her current beliefs. This is just a mere portion of how he twisted Christianity after Jesus. But my point was that only after Paul corrupted the Bible with his new "revolutionary" ideas did it become feasible for Christians to believe in the deity of Christ.

Take care,

Hasanayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Leslie,

I just want to clarify the Scripture in Psalm 2:

6 “Yet I have set My King

On My holy hill of Zion.”

7 “I will declare the decree:

The LORD has said to Me,

‘You are My Son,

Today I have begotten You.

--- This is what is called a Messianic psalm. It was future from then, but God said in 6, “I will set My King on My holy hill of Zion.” --- A prophecy of when the Messiah will take His position as ‘King of kings and Lord of lords,’ under God's Sovereignty.

In 7, God speaks to the coming Messiah and says, “You are My Son, today I have begotten You.”

Though David was given this Psalm, it was not addressed to him, --- but it is verified in Acts 13, that it referred to Jesus, who was the ‘Only Begotten’ or 'Only Unique’ Son of God:

32 “And we declare to you glad tidings—that PROMISE which was made to the fathers.

33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:

‘ You are My Son,

Today I have begotten You.’

The fulfillment of prophecy is the proof of the accuracy of Scripture.

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Placid,

I had a question for you that maybe you might be able to answer, given that you proclaim Jesus (as) as the "Unique [and] Begotten Son of God". Some Christians I have encountered have said that the reason why Jesus (as) is ascribed the aforementioned epithet is that the word used for him in Greek is "monogenes" in a few places in the Bible, which comes from mono- meaning 'only' and -genes meaning 'begotten'. Hence, Jesus is the "only Begotten" of the father.

However, I've come across alternative uses for the word monogenes. For instance, if you look at other Greek usage, Clement of Rome writes about the birth of the Phoenix with the following: "the phoenix is the only one born (monogenes) of its kind" (Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 25). In other words, it seems as though "monogenes" can also be rendered as "uniquely born" Son of God. I don't understand why Christians are so adamant on translating "monogenes" as "only Begotten" instead of "uniquely born". The latter would make more sense, because there is no doubt that Jesus was uniquely born (Virgin Birth). But isn't the jump to "only Begotten" quite unwarranted?

Take care and thanks in advance,

Hasanayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see very little need for this. Don't the phrases in question mean two different things? Doesn't "only begotten" mean the only child of and "uniquely born" refers to something else entirely. For instance my "only begotten daughter Charity" means she is my only daughter and her name is Charity and it has nothing to do with the manner of her birth or her conception other than I fathered her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hasanayn,

Quote from Post 110:

I had a question for you that maybe you might be able to answer, given that you proclaim Jesus as the "Unique [and] Begotten Son of God". Some Christians I have encountered have said that the reason why Jesus is ascribed the aforementioned epithet is that the word used for him in Greek is "monogenes" in a few places in the Bible, which comes from mono- meaning 'only' and -genes meaning 'begotten'. Hence, Jesus is the "only Begotten" of the father.

I don't understand why Christians are so adamant on translating "monogenes" as "only Begotten" instead of "uniquely born". The latter would make more sense, because there is no doubt that Jesus was uniquely born (Virgin Birth). But isn't the jump to "only Begotten" quite unwarranted?

Response: --- In the Codex Siniaticus which was a Greek Manuscript from about 400 AD it is translated as, “only begotten,” so that is all that is necessary to know.

It can mean ‘Unique,’ --- meaning one of a kind.

--- Or, as the Quran says in Surah 3:

45. Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;

46. "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."

47. She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: God createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!

The same angel, Gabriel, appeared to Mary in Luke 1:

30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.

31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS.

32 He will be great, and will be CALLED the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.

33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be CALLED the Son of God.

--- I capitalized the word CALLED in the two places where it says, “He will be CALLED the Son of the Highest,” --- and, “He will be CALLED the Son of God.”

If God said, “Be!” --- and He WAS, --- and had formerly said through Gabriel, that, “He will be CALLED the Son of God, --- I don’t think it matters what words we use to identify it, --- God has spoken.

Jesus was referred to as the Son of God, the same as Jesus CALLED God His Heavenly Father, for 600 years before Muhammad came on the scene.

--- Because I believe it the way it is written, it is no problem to me.

Placid

Edited by placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hasanayn,

I would like to respond to the OBJECTIONS of Post 106:

--- But first, I have said that the ‘Trinity doctrine’ is faulty, and some of your assessment of it is quite good.

I don’t argue with those who believe it because that is the way we all learned it. --- But in your first OBJECTION you come into the realm that I have studied, and you may recognize a slightly different explanation.

1 John 5:7 says, “For there are three that bear record in heaven: The Father, the Word. And the Holy Spirit.

The same John had written previously in John 1:14. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” --- ‘Us’ means John and the other disciples who were there when it happened.

It is well documented that Jesus was born of Mary, so her DNA would be in His human body, would it not?

--- But if God sent the Word (Logos) from Heaven to indwell the human body of Jesus for thirty three and one half years, while Jesus was on earth, --- then the Word was the Divinity of God, indwelling the human body.

It says in 2 Corinthians 5:19. “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.”

So Jesus had a human body, but a Divine Spirit.

We can say, ‘A bird is in the air, and the air is in the bird.’

--- Also, ‘A fish is in the water, and the water is in the fish.’

(The 100% and 100% are what someone said, --- but these words are not in the NT.)

There is nowhere in the NT where Jesus said, “I am God,” --- nor do the Scriptures say that “Jesus was God.”

But if God, who can in no way approach earth, sent a Manifestation of Himself in the Personage of the Word, to indwell Jesus, who was CALLED the Son of God, ---then, God was in Christ in the Personage of the Word.

The argument often used to say that ‘Jesus was God’ comes from the fact that ‘God spoke through Jesus.’ There was this exchange with the Jews in John 8:

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”

57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”

58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

--- The term I AM is used for ALMIGHTY GOD, the AGELESS ONE, --- and only One who was with God from the beginning could use it. --- However, the Word (Logos) predated Abraham and could say through Jesus, “Before Abraham was, I AM.”

--- Another question arises, --- When did Abraham see the Word?

In Genesis 18, the LORD and two angels appeared to Abraham. The angels went on to Sodom and Gomorrah to bring Lot and his family out before they destroyed it, and the LORD remained and talked with Abraham.

17 And the LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing,

18 since Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?

19 “For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.”

--- If this was an appearance of the Word (Logos) to Abraham, then he revealed to Abraham the plan of redemption for the world, the ‘Good News,’ ---which was the fulfillment of the promises made to him, through which, “All the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him.”

(Hang onto your hat for a minute while you concentrate on this.}

The Scripture proves that God’s wisdom was given to the Apostles. It says this in Galatians 3:

6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.

8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”[d]

9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

--- Notice the footnote, [d], --- the cross reference is to Gen 18.

So, If the Word (Logos) revealed the Gospel (good news) to Abraham in Gen 18, --- and the Word (indwelling Jesus) was again in the land that was promised to Abraham, --- then the Word was ‘fulfilling’ that promise to Abraham that all the nations would be blessed through him,’ --- but only those ‘who are of Faith are sons of Abraham.’

So the Word could say to the Jews, through Jesus, “Before Abraham was, I AM.”

Placid

Edited by placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hasanayn,

Sorry I'm so long between posts. Real life keeps getting in the way. I often get time to read, but not enough time to answer.

I can see where you're coming from when it comes to name calling etc. I guess the basic question would be, can you call a fool a fool? Can you call thieves and robbers, thieves and robbers? I'm of a mind that to call a spade a spade is not to curse it but to expose it for what it is. Jesus didn't say bless your enemies, He said love your enemies. Never said anything about liking them which would seem like a twisted theory but it's a love the sinner, hate the sin thing. It's not always easy to separate the two, like anger and hate. I've been in a situation where I was convicted to take a step back and forgive the most detestable person I've ever met. He was my boss for a while. Most of my career limiting moves were keeping him from stealing from the company. I tried to understand why he was what he was, (never did figure him out) and never really got to the point of loving him, but had to accept him for what he was in order to deal with him. Best I could do. It has made life with the less detestable easier tho.

I believe that Jesus was human. As my Father explains the spirit that indwelled Him was impeccable and peerles but even with Christians who have the Holy Spirit with them, it does not control human emotions nor actions. We are all bound by the same human senses. Like the time in Matthew 21, and again in Mark 11 when Jesus saw a fig tree far off. From what I understand a fig tree bears fruit, then leaves, this tree was an oddity. Jesus seeing this and being hungry, (as humans get) went up to the tree looking for food. If Jesus was all-knowing, or His Spirit was, He would have known there was no fruit. Upon seeing there was no fruit Jesus cursed it. Now was this a human reaction, impulse, or to save others from being fooled by this tree? Some scholars equate it to the demise of the nation Isreal (explaining away the humanity of Jesus) but without stretching it Jesus seems to have human reactions to dissappointment. I guess it depends on how we judge the situation.

I realize your post was aimed at the more mainstream Christian, it's just I felt there was too much read into it. Maybe I should have let you continue, ;).

Regarding Paul,

This should probably be in the Saul to Paul thread but I'm still confused about what Paul had said that was so twisted. I think the biggest thing is that when explaining Jesus it's difficult to give credit to the Spirit that lived within Jesus when everyone saw the man, not the spirit. Of course those wanting to read more into Paul's words (without this insight) would come up with their theories, but it doesn't exactly make Paul wrong in what he preached.

And again, off and running.

Good posts, take care, God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is it guesswork? ...<snip>...The premise is that God is omniscient. You claim that Jesus is 100% God. But Jesus doesn't know something. Therefore Jesus isn't omniscient, and therefore can't be God. If you want to say the whole issue is complicated by Jesus also being a man, then we can apply the same argument to the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I think I do want to say that. But to point out that the relationship between The Father and The Son is not the relationship between The Father and The Holy Spirit. When we're talking about the transcendent God, some things are going to be unclear, and anyone who suggests otherwise has failed to understand the concept of transcendence.

So I have no problem with “God made flesh” having limitations, such as not having omniscience. After all, we've ruled out omnipresence!

The two are absolutely mutually exclusive. You can't be finite and infinite at the same time. Like I said, if Jesus were part-man and part-God, then you could see how this makes sense. He would be able to do some Godly things, but not others, and some human things but not others.

Temporary, not finite. We're running up against the limitations of language here, but the Christian belief is that Jesus was part of the process of creation, and will be part of the process of judgement, and is infinite. The 'on earth' bit was temporary.

The Burning Bush example is bit weak. God can choose to speak through a bush, or a human. There is no problem with that. However, the caim with Jesus was that he actually was God (100% God and 100% man to be exact). Are you saying the bush was 100% God and 100% bush? Was the bush an incarnation of one of the divine persons?

Perhaps I could ask you the same question. In Surah 28:30, was the tree 100% God and 100% tree? I suspect our answers would be along the same lines. (Incidentally, I have no idea why the burning bush should be 'weak' as an example, compared to the others.)

I think you are missing the point. If you were simply to say that being divine and human at the same time were not mutually exclusive, then maybe (and I really stress the maybe), you could defend that position, but to claim that Jesus was fully, 100% God, as in you couldn't be more God than Jesus, and then to say he was also 100% man doesn't make any sense. Just list all the qualities God must have, and all the ones humans have, and you will see the contradictions.

We could do exactly the same exercise with the tree of Surah 28:30. God communicates to humanity in a variety of ways, and this sort of thing happens under those circumstances.

I'm not saying the ideas are easy, but that doesn't mean they're not true (much like higher Maths...!)

We know how exactly? Because it says so in Acts, a book nobody can say for sure who wrote (since the author doesn't indentify himself)? Even if we take it to be Luke, he was a companion of Paul, so hardly an unbiased source. Acts also indicates that not all was rosy between the Church in Jerusalem and the version of Christianity Paul was spreading. Additionally, many of the passages that are used to support the divinity of Jesus are from Hebrews, that even conservative Christian scholars admit we don't know who wrote, and it was unlikely to have been Paul.

There's a lot of issues here, so in brief-

All historical documents are subjective, most are biased, that doesn't mean historical analysis can't be done to very high levels of probability (Caesar's Gallic Wars).

The arguments between Paul and the Jerusalem church prove the point. The arguments were about Torah application. The NT is very transparent about their existence, which means the complete lack of argument about Jesus' status in the NT tells us there was little disagreement on the subject.

Hebrews is an extra source of historical information about the beliefs of the early church. Like I said, all historical signs point in the same direction.

The parable of the Prodigal Son seems to contradict the Christian understanding of atonement. Why couldn't God forgive his people as the father in the parable forgave his son?

He does. His People (as defined by obedience to Jesus) are forgiven. (As an aside, it's a fascinating parable with hugely significant meanings additional to the usual church readings.)

I'm not going to argue that if you accept all the books of the Bible to be the word of God, then you may be forced into the mainstream Christian position. So let's assume for a fact that taking everything in the Bible to be true implies the doctrine of the Trinity, just for argument's sake. The problem is that the conlusion is absurd, which is probably why even many Christians are not happy with it. Therefore, it must be that the premise, i.e. that everything in the Bible is correct, was wrong.

Only if you think the conclusion absurd. I don't for a minute.

I don't think you have considered all the shreds of evidence, because unbiased researchers do not at all support this conclusion. It also doesn't make sense why the desciples would all have concluded that Jesus was God as a human, but then the first three authoritative accounts of his life leave that aspect out completely. Only by the time the Gospel according to John was written (many decades after Mark) do we get all this evidence for the divinity of Jesus. Can you not understand how that might seem a bit suspicious?

The idea that there is such a thing as an unbiased observer has largely been abandoned these days.

I have already quoted the parable of the wicked husbandmen, and the meta-narrative embedded throughout the gospels of the return of God to Zion (see parable of talents); I can throw in a complementary embedded throughout meta-narrative- that Jesus is shown as explaining that the Kingdom of God was coming in and through His work; and then John the Baptist is preparing the “Way of the Lord” associating Jesus with the OT God, and...

Well I would genuinely like go on, but this post is already too long!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why you all continue to debate this matter. You are not going to find empirical evidence for any of it

The only empirical evidence about Jesus is that he existed.

There is no empirical evidence that any book is God's word, least of all being those books who say they are. All that's needed is faith in the "truth” they express though not literally.

This is all a matter of faith, believing in the unseen, for me and many Christians, Muslims and others that is all we need, faith and what we feel in our hearts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hasanayn,

Quote from Post 106:

• Jesus was born of a virgin without the “aid” of a father.

Objection (1): What about Adam, who had neither father nor mother? Or Melchizedek, the high priest, who didn’t have neither, as well as no beginning nor end (refer to Hebrews 7:3)? Why aren’t they considered God/from the trinity?!

Response: --- When you start out with the word OBJECTION, it seems like you disagree, --- however, you might disagree with my responses, but that is when discussion can begin.

Adam was created perfect in a perfect environment, --- more like the angels.

When you mention Melchizedek, you come into a realm that I have studied.

There were various appearances in the OT from the ‘burning bush’ and the appearance to Abraham in Genesis 18, --- the Commander of the LORD’s army in Joshua 5, --- the fourth Man in the fiery furnace in Daniel, --- the LORD of hosts, whose role terminated in Malachi, and (if you will) --- the same Personage that indwelt Jesus in the NT.

Each of these appearances could have been the Word (Logos), --- and especially the king and high priest, Melchizedek.

Genesis 14:

18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem (first identification of Jeru-salem) brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High.

19 And he blessed him and said:

“Blessed be Abram of God Most High,

Possessor of heaven and earth;

20 And blessed be God Most High,

Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.”

(It seemed that Melchizedek introduced God’s Government as King, and a pattern of worship, including tithing, as Priest of God Most High, --- before the laws were given.)

In Hebrews 7, it gives added information:

1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham

2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,”

3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

5:5. So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him:

“You are My Son,

Today I have begotten You.”

6 As He also says in another place:

“You are a priest forever

According to the order of Melchizedek”;

4:14. Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

8:1. Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,

2. a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.

--- I believe that Melchizedek was the same Personage, and he came as King and Priest of the Most High God, in Genesis, --- and Jesus, the Christ, after His ascension sat down at the right hand of God, as the High Priest of Heaven, to remain a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek

The difference is that Melchizedek, “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.".

--- And Jesus was born in a human body so He had a beginning, but the Word that ‘indwelt’ Him was the Personage that appeared as Melchizodek, who was --- “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” --- So when Christ ascended to the right hand of God, He took the role of High Priest, and will remain forever.

--- (I know, a little complicated, but God has dealt with mankind all through the OT under the Old Covenant, before the New Covenant began, so there was a ‘transition’ which is revealed in Malachi 3:1.)

Placid

Edited by placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^ You not only twist the Holy Quran to propel your missionary agenda. You also twist the Jewish Scripture the TaNaKh (Old Testament) to do the same.

Where would you stop.

You would stop at nothing to propel your missionary agenda!

Edited by aladdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aladdin:

I don't know about "missionary agenda", after seeing many of his posts but not reading them all because they are routinely tooooooo loooonnnnng I haven't seen evidence of it. He is well prepsred to respond though as a missionary would be, but he wants to keep his presence here and not cross a line and be banned.

When he says things like:

"--- I believe that Melchizedek was the same Personage, and he came as King and Priest of the Most High God, in Genesis, --- and Jesus, the Christ, after His ascension sat down at the right hand of God, as the High Priest of Heaven, to remain a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek

The difference is that Melchizedek, “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.".

--- And Jesus was born in a human body so He had a beginning, but the Word that ‘indwelt’ Him was the Personage that appeared as Melchizodek, who was --- “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” --- So when Christ ascended to the right hand of God, He took the role of High Priest, and will remain forever.

--- (I know, a little complicated, but God has dealt with mankind all through the OT under the Old Covenant, before the New Covenant began, so there was a ‘transition’ which is revealed in Malachi 3:1.)"

It illustrates he believes what is written in his scriptures to be literally true with no myth or metaphor, I do not. My faith has great epics that are not literally true but carry knowledge in their mythology and metaphors. Lessons that are greater than the literal story.

Edited by satyaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TaNaKh is a Jewish Scripture, which the Christians claim it as their own by intentional mistranslations and twisting the Scripture. They call it Old Testament under the Old Covenant. Ask a Jew what these two terms mean:

1. Old Testament

2. Old Covenant

The Jewish person will look at you in belligerent and will tell you that the Christians hijacked their religion and persecuted them throughout the centuries so that they remain silent. The killing of six million Jews by Christians in WW2 is a prime example of this.

Their religion has been hijacked, their Scripture twisted, terms like Old Testament, New Testament, Old Covenant, New Covenant have been created and they have been persecuted to make them remain silent.

Ask a Jew what does the "word" mean in Genesis. He will tell you that the message was in the begining with God and God sent the message to mankind. This is what the Quran tells us.

I have intentionally written the "word" above with a small letter "w". There are no capital letters in both Hebrew and Arabic. Now the same "word" in Old Testament is written as "Word" with a capital "W".

Ask a Jew, if the "word" means Jesus and he will laugh at your face, if he is not scared of being persecuted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on a minute Buddy:

"The Jewish person will look at you in belligerent and will tell you that the Christians hijacked their religion and persecuted them throughout the centuries so that they remain silent. The killing of six million Jews by Christians in WW2 is a prime example of this."

Jews have suffered discrimination for hundreds of years before the N.T. and to this day it has had nothing to do with their being silent about what I could not guess. The holocaust was not a Christian pogrom but a Nazi "final solution" perpetrated by the Nazis and their collaborators. To say the Christians hijacked Judaism would be to say Shias or any other sect hijacked Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on a minute Buddy:

"The Jewish person will look at you in belligerent and will tell you that the Christians hijacked their religion and persecuted them throughout the centuries so that they remain silent. The killing of six million Jews by Christians in WW2 is a prime example of this."

Jews have suffered discrimination for hundreds of years before the N.T. and to this day it has had nothing to do with their being silent about what I could not guess. The holocaust was not a Christian pogrom but a Nazi "final solution" perpetrated by the Nazis and their collaborators. To say the Christians hijacked Judaism would be to say Shias or any other sect hijacked Islam.

What you have given above is a Christian's perspective. Do some research and see what happened to the Jews and the their Rabbis in the first century A.D. when they spoke against the Christians, who hijaced their Religion and their Scripture. TaNaKh is a Jewish Scripture and not Christian Scripture, no matter how the Christians mistransalte and twist the TaNaKh. Christians calling the TaNaKh, Old Testament doesn't make it their own Scripture.

Hitler was not one person. The German nation in WW2 and till today is a majority Christian nation. The Christians did the killing and no one else.

As far as saying, "to say the Christians hijacked Judaism would be to say Shias or any other sect hijacked Islam." you are mistaken here. Christianity is not a sect of Judaism. The Gentles didn't have their own religion, their religion was Zuesism, so they hijacked Judaism, inserted Zuesism into it and called it Christianity.

The Gentiles don't even know and/or speak the language of the TaNaKh. And, Jesus said that he only came for the Jews and not for the Gentiles. He compared the Gentiles to the dogs.

Edited by aladdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What you have given above is a Christian's perspective"

I am not a Christian.

"Do some research and see what happened to the Jews and the their Rabbis in the first century A.D. when they spoke against the Christians, who hijaced their Religion and their Scripture"

I am not going to take the time to educate you but take your own advice and do some most simple research and then add some common sense to that. There was no hijacking or perversion of Jewish scripture. The people who were to become known as Christians were Jews, Jesus was a Jew and the whole lot of them, and they kept the Jewish holy days and the Torah was their scripture. The Jews who continued to follow Jesus were often brutalized and discriminated against and who do you think instigated it and this continued until Constantine’s conversion.

"Hitler was not one person. The German nation in WW2 and till today is a majority Christian nation. The Christians did the killing and no one else."

The gravest error you can make is to associate the Christians in Germany to the Nazis in Germany in the 30's and 40's, that many Nazis were Christians was coincidence. Well over 90% of the terrorists today are Muslims is terrorism a Muslim function?

"As far as saying, "to say the Christians hijacked Judaism would be to say Shias or any other sect hijacked Islam." you are mistaken here. Christianity is not a sect of Judaism. The Gentles didn't have their own religion, their religion was Zuesism, so they hijacked Judaism, inserted Zuesism into it and called it Christianity.

The Gentiles don't even know and/or speak the language of the TaNaKh. And, Jesus said that he only came for the Jews and not for the Gentiles. He compared the Gentiles to the dogs."

You better look around this site there are Shias who don't consider Sunnis Muslims and finding Sunnis who do not consider Shias to be Muslims are not hard to find either. As I said before Jesus was a Jew as were his followers. Jesus was a practicing Jew who began teaching something a little different than the norm and it became a Jewish sect. You are rather hung up on the language of the Jewish priests at the temple. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. You insist on being different by calling the Torah by a name Jews don't even use, why is that?

Lastly you just can't make a statement that Jesus compared gentiles to dogs.

Edited by satyaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you have given blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah their own Scripture.

Hitler was not one person. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah and no one else.

As far as saying, "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah inserted Zuesism into it and called it Christianity.

The Gentiles don't even blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah to the dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What you have given above is a Christian's perspective"

I am not a Christian.

I know you are not a Christian, but you gave a Christian's perspective.

I am not going to take the time to educate you but take your own advice and do some most simple research and than add some common sense to that. There was no hijacking or [Edited Out]zation of Jewish scripture. The people who were to become known as Christians were Jews, Jesus was a Jew and the whole lot of them, and they kept the Jewish holy days and the Torah was their scripture. The Jews who continued to follow Jesus were often brutalized and discriminated against and who do you think instigated it and this continued until Constantines conversion.

The Gentiles don't even know and/or speak the language of the TaNaKh. And, Jesus said that he only came for the Jews and not for the Gentiles. He compared the Gentiles to the dogs."

You better look around this site there are Shias who don't consider Sunnis Muslims. As I said before Jesus was a Jew as were his followers. Jesus was a practicing Jew who began teaching something a little different than the norm and it became a Jewish sect. You are rather hung up on the language of the Jewish priests at the temple. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Yes, Jesus was a Jew, but he didn't have many Jewish followers. He and his disciples didn't speak Hebrew to each other. Hebrew was a dead language, many many years even before Jesus was conceived. They were hardly any Jews in Palestine then. Christianity is a religion of Gentiles, and not Jews. You have few Jews in the West, who hardly know Hebrew and read mistranslated OT, and consider themselves as "Jews for Jesus".

Christianity is mostly from Hinduism and Zuesism. Nothing new here.

Even the concept of Trinity and that the Word was with God (non-Trinity, but Trinity) is from Hinduism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you are not a Christian, but you gave a Christian's perspective.

Yes, Jesus was a Jew, but he didn't have many Jewish followers. He and his disciples didn't speak Hebrew to each other. Hebrew was a dead language, many many years even before Jesus was conceived. They were hardly any Jews in Palestine then. Christianity is a religion of Gentiles, and not Jews. You have few Jews in the West, who hardly know Hebrew and read mistranslated OT, and consider themselves as "Jews for Jesus".

Christianity is mostly from Hinduism and Zuesism. Nothing new here.

Even the concept of Trinity and that the Word was with God (non-Trinity, but Trinity) is from Hinduism.

I am sorry but there is much you don't know and remember what I said "A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing." It is a difficult task to teach someone who thinks he knows. I have always found that the more I learn the more I learn what I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry but there is much you don't know and remember what I said "A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing." It is a difficult task to teach someone who thinks he knows. I have always found that the more I learn the more I learn what I don't know.

Remember you posted the video called, "wasta". How did you get the subtitles in English to show with the video?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Satyaban,

I see you have read one of my Posts. --- Thank you.

The King of Salem (Jerusalem) and Priest of the Most High God, named Melchizedek (meaning king of righteousness) is a most interesting Person who came from ‘nowhere’ and apparently went back to the same place.

However, the Book of Hebrews also calls Him the king of peace.

And Jesus was called the Prince of Peace, and, an identification was made between the two, though separated by hundreds of years.

--- It shows how God can intervene in our world, does it not?

As this is a Muslim, Christian, Jewish forum I appreciate the privilege of presenting what the Scriptures say.

It doesn’t bother me that you and others don’t believe what I write, but as long as Posters take a “one liner” out of a verse and say, “Jesus said this,” or “Paul said this,” --- I feel it is important to give the rest of the verse, or the ‘context’ of the verse.

---I don’t know all the answers, but I try to find what is written on the subject.

This forum should be for discussion but most of the topics gravitate to Jesus.

He is still the central Figure in the world. Even legal documents have been written, “In the Year of our Lord.”

The Muslim (and other) Posters say what is wrong with Christ and Christianity, and the Christians simply explain their misunderstanding about what they have heard, and try to ‘tell it like it is.’

I know that ‘this is the age of the half read page,’ --- But people will read what they are interested in.

I always read your posts (unless it is a long ‘copy and paste’ which isn’t really you writing your own thoughts).

--- But, lest this get tooooo loooonnnggg, I will stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hasanayn,

Quote from Post 106 --- Responding to objections:

• Jesus raised the dead.

Objection (2): Many others raised the dead before Jesus: Then he [Elijah] stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried to the LORD, "O LORD my God, let this boy's life return to him!" The LORD heard Elijah's cry, and the boy's life returned to him, and he lived. (1Kings 17:21-22). As well, a dead man who was lowered into a grave and touched the bones of Elisha came back to life (2 Kings 13:21).

Response: --- It proves that Jesus had the power of God, to heal the sick and raise the dead, as did others before Him.

• Jesus had a “peerless” character.

Objection (3 A): Far from it. The Jesus of the Bible had no such thing. In Matthew 5:22, Jesus states: But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. However, in Matthew 23:17, Jesus states, You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?. Indeed, a man who does not heed his own advice cannot be called one of peerless character; rather, he may be called a hypocrite.

Response: --- to call someone a “fool” implies that they are lacking in Spiritual knowledge, or are spiritually blind.

Psalm 1:14: “The fool has said in his heart there is no God.”

Quote from the Bible Dictionary: Solomon in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes used the word fool some 80 times to describe their emptiness, conceit and pride, boasting and self-confidence. --- Jesus called the Scribes and Pharisees fools, not implying intellectual stupidity, but spiritual blindness. --- End of quote.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:

20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

If you read Matthew 17 you will see that He was talking to the Scribes and Pharisee, who were hypocrites. He starts like this:

1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,

2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.

3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

5 But all their works they do to be seen by men.

--- Jesus acknowledged that when they spoke the law, it was to be listened to, but they were Spiritually ‘dead.’ --- He said, “Woe to you.” And He called them hypocrites fools and blind guides. --- They were supposed to be God’s representatives to the Jewish people, and they were spiritually ‘dead.’

Jesus said, “If the blind lead the blind they will both fall into the ditch.”

Placid

Edited by placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To continue:

(3B)

In Matthew 15:4, he tells the people to 'Honor your father and mother' and also that 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. However, he violates his own maxim in John 2:4, saying, “Woman, what does that have to do with us?” (NASB)

Response: --- Oops, you need to continue the verses.

4 Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”

5 His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”

--- This was a kind of a ‘mother - son’ thing. --- He said, ‘My time has not come to go public.’ --- Was she offended with His reply? --- No, --- she promptly told the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.” --- And He did.

11 This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him.

--- As soon as fame went out about Jesus’ healings and miracles, there were few ‘quiet times’ with His disciples because they were constantly coming, or bringing people, to be healed.

Also addressing His mother as ‘Woman’ was not disrespectful as He used the same term when He spoke to her from the cross in John 19:

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. --- (This was the Apostle John.)

(3C)

--- and in Luke 14:26, saying “"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.”

Response: --- The meaning of the word here is, ‘to love less’

Jesus had just finished giving a parable about a great feast, and the invited guests made excuses not to come. --- they treated it as a casual thing, whether to come, or not to come.

This is from the Amplified Bible, Luke 14:

25 Now huge crowds were going along with [Jesus], and He turned and said to them,

26 If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his [own] father and mother [iin the sense of indifference to or relative disregard for them in comparison with his attitude toward God] and [likewise] his wife and children and brothers and sisters--[yes] and even his own life also--he cannot be My disciple.

27 Whoever does not persevere and carry his own cross and come after (follow) Me cannot be My disciple.

--- The first commandment is, “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength and with all your mind.”

The first commitment must be to God, --- and if the first love is to God, --- it means, loving all others less.

Placid

Edited by placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This forum should be for discussion but most of the topics gravitate to Jesus.

The problem lies with the Christians that they never talk about GOD. They talk about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, but not GOD.

No wonder they are called Christians.

Talk about GOD, and not Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember you posted the video called, "wasta". How did you get the subtitles in English to show with the video?

They were already there.

The problem lies with the Christians that they never talk about GOD. They talk about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, but not GOD.

No wonder they are called Christians.

Talk about GOD, and not Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.

That is how they practice their faith surely you would not begrudge another's faith?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is how they practice their faith surely you would not begrudge another's faith?

No, I wouldn't. But where is GOD. Just worship of a creation. Not the worship of The Creator.

This forum should be for discussion but most of the topics gravitate to Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Placid claims that he doesn't believe in Trinity. Have you seen Placid talk about GOD. Only thing he talks about is Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.

Been to many Christians' services, all they talk about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.

Where is the meat. Where is the GOD.

Or, it is just Jesus, Jesus, Jesus and worship of Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.

Where is worship of GOD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hasanayn,

Objection (3D): . In Matthew 5:44, Jesus orders people to love their enemies and bless them that curse them, but in John 10:8 he alleged, “All that came before me are thieves and robbers”. Clearly, the Jesus of the Bible practiced one thing and preached another. Enough said.

Response: --- These are two different things. Matthew 5:

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.

The commandment said, “Love your neighbor as yourself” --- but there was no commandment that said ‘hate your enemy,’ --- however, this seems to be what the Pharisees taught, thus it gave people the license to hate others. So Jesus taught in the update of the commandments, “Love your enemies.”

However, John 10 is a different subject. It is a parable about good and evil, so you have to see it all:

1 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

3 To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.

4 And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.

5 Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.”

6 Jesus used this illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them.

7 Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.

8 All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.

9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

11. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.

--- There were false Messiahs in those days as there are in most generations, that are controlled by Satan, --- but the true believers don’t follow them,

Verse 10 says, ‘The thief (Satan) does not come except to steal, and to kill and to destroy. --- I (Jesus) have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

I don’t see the word “hate” there, --- but Jesus, who said, “Love your enemies,” also said, “I am the Good Shepherd, --- follow Me.” --- Or as it says in Surah 3:

50. "(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear God, and obey me.

51. It is God Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight."

--- Can there be a straighter way?

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

” --- Or as it says in Surah 3:

50. "(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear God, and obey me.

51. It is God Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight."

--- Can there be a straighter way?

Placid

Well said.

The Muslims' daily worship:

In the name of Allah, the Unconditional Mercy, the Eternal Mercy. Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds; Unconditional Mercy, Eternal Mercy; Master of the Day of Judgment.

Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek. Show us the straight way, the way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.

Ameen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hasanayn,

• Jesus rose from the dead.

Objection (4): Firstly, Jesus was not the first to be resurrected. Many others that lived before him, contemporaneously, and after were also brought back to life.

Response: All of those raised from the dead were raised by men of faith. God has given His power and guidance to men that they would do His will.

According to your ‘reasoning’ this ‘raising from the dead’ is unnatural and could be beyond what you would believe, but God has raised the dead in various generations as a Sign to the people of His Sovereignty.

God raised Jesus from the dead, but there was not another human that prayed for Him as there was in the other cases.

Jesus did everything according to God’s will. --- And He had said in John 10:

17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.

18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

In Luke 23 it says:

46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.” Having said this, He breathed His last.

Jesus gave up His spirit and died. --- He didn’t die from the crucifixion, but He willed His spirit to go out of His body. --- This was the mystery of 4:157. --- The Jews didn’t kill Him, The Romans didn’t kill Him. --- but He gave up His spirit, to go through death as a natural man, but to be resurrected in a Spiritual body, by God’s will. --- as you quoted from Acts 3:

15. “You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.”

--- Believers believe it, and unbelievers likely never will.

Edited by placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus gave up His spirit and died. --- He didn’t die from the crucifixion, but He willed His spirit to go out of His body. --- This was the mystery of 4:157. --- The Jews didn’t kill Him, The Romans didn’t kill Him. --- but He gave up His spirit, to go through death as a natural man, but to be resurrected in a Spiritual body, by God’s will. --- as you quoted from Acts 3:

15. “You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.”

--- Believers believe it, and unbelievers likely never will.

The Muslims don't believe that Jesus died on the cross. Nor they believe in that he gave up his spirit and was resurrected in Spiritual body. They believe that he is still alive.

This is in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of Mohammad (pbuh)

Are you calling all the Muslims unbelievers?

BTW, why are you referring to Jesus as "He, His or Him". Is Jesus God to you?

Edited by aladdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...