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
thegoodman81

What happened to the other warnings?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

@Cool those verses only matter if they are true. And I'm asserting that they're not. That is not an accurate record of Jesus or his message.

I mean this with all due respect for you, of course. I'd rather not get into general proofs for or against the Qur'an on this thread, but if you want to message me maybe we could talk that out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, thegoodman81 said:

Cool those verses only matter if they are true.

You prove me the trinity otherwise. How God the father created himself & took a virgin birth? And how He become the holy spirit which too is a created being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The beginning was word.

2. The word was with God

3. And the word was God.

How can the beginning is word while it was with another entity mentioned as God? 

Appropriate sequence must have mentioned God as the beginning who has the word.

Secondly, why God has one single word? Why not He has words?

Thirdly, lets apply the meaning of word mentioned in 3rd place to 1st & 2nd place. See what would happen:

1. The beginning was with God.

2. And the God was with God

3. And the God was God.

Doesn't make sense at all!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Cool said:

1. The beginning was word.

2. The word was with God

3. And the word was God.

How can the beginning is word while it was with another entity mentioned as God? 

Appropriate sequence must have mentioned God as the beginning who has the word.

Secondly, why God has one single word? Why not He has words?

Thirdly, lets apply the meaning of word mentioned in 3rd place to 1st & 2nd place. See what would happen:

1. The beginning was with God.

2. And the God was with God

3. And the God was God.

Doesn't make sense at all!!

If it's okay with you I'd rather not address the Trinity on this particular thread. But if you start a new one and tag me I'd be happy to! I think conversations tend to be better when they stay focused on the topic (and this is already getting somewhat distant from the topic)...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thegoodman81 said:

@hasanhh, I didn't see your earlier post with the bold text.
 

Often, for the sake of christology, the word meaning 'bride' has virgin substituted in. Check your library.
Sure, but it can be used for both, and when it regards Jesus, it obviously means virgin; saying that "the bride shall conceive and be with child" isn't all that impressive, LOL. Brides do that all the time. BTW, if you don't believe Jesus was born of a virgin that's fine but obviously you're not a Muslim, because the Qur'an even acknowledges this (19:16-22 and elsewhere). 

Christological B.S.  A bride will have a child, it will grow eating curds, and (about age 5) being to learn to reject 'the bad' and 'chose the good'. It is the time it will take for the land to "be deserted". That is the prophecy, Not some future birth.

Immanuel--:hahaha: it is a Jewish name with a jewish meaning, as for example 'Levi' means associate/associated with. 
Yes, but sometimes, as you know, words are applied with specific meanings and purposes. Like how you can have a recitation of a poem in Arabic, but that recitation is not the same thing as the Qur'an. Like the name Yeshua; it means savior, and some people have this as a name. But only Jesus actually merited the name, hence angels came to proclaim his conception and birth, etc.
Re-read Matty Chapter 1: if his name is 'jesus' then why was it changed from 'emmanuel'? Because the bible committee in the 4th Century(CC) had 10 versions of Matthew to pick through -reference, Eusebius. And choosing OT verses doesn't mean much. At the end of Chapter 2, it claims "he shall be called a Nazarene" and NO SUCH thing is in the OT. The Catholic Church also acknowledges this. Additionally, at what point does something "not really mean" becomes "meaningless" ?  And, except for an opening salutation, the name 'jesus' does not appear until his baptism from John(Yahya -(عليه السلام).) in any gospel. And, 'jesus' is not our saviour -a couple of OT references 2Sam10:19 and Isaiah 43:3, 11.
(theophanies) -- You are referring to the wrestling match?
Yes, that would be one example. Many others, some already mentioned.

Besides, what does Matt3:9 and Luke3:8 have?   Not sure what you're getting at, you'll need to explain that.

That there is nothing unique about birthing or creation in general as the Command is with the God of Noah -(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Adam was formed out of the dirt (OT idiom), the Sunamitress' son, "out of a rib", or could be out of stone. Qur'an reads as the conception-to-birth of Isa -(عليه السلام). is a single day event -not a wandering un-wed mother as in the N.T.

:angry:What is this 'commune with creation' cwap? Re-read Genesis Chapter 1. What does it reveal throughout? "God seeth that". And there is also 1Kings 19:11-12.
It's not cwap! :D the Biblical message is that we (humanity) need to be made pure of our sins so that we can be in God's presence once again. In the Garden, Adam and Eve could be in his presence (before the fall). In the end-times prophecies, we see that humanity will be in God's presence once again, after restoration. God's plan is for us to be with him, because true satisfaction only comes by being in his presence. \

.When you combine "communing with nature" into your religion without any authority, it is blasphemous cwap!

If people are supposed to be "pure" (whatever that means?), then why ain't they created that way to begin with. Malachi 2:17 and 3:18.

You are contradicting your own Bible.


And there is also 1Kings 19:11-12.
Yes, that would be another one.

As for the Magi, yeah, it's wild! :hahaha:Compare 1Kings 18:38 But correct me if I'm wrong -- don't youu believe God can send revelations to every culture (as per the Qur'an verses in the OP)?"Can" and "DID" are two distinct, unrelated verbs. And prompt pagans to seek him in truth? I believe that he can and does. That's what I see here. Every culture sees Signs.
I don't understand why you would doubt that God would reveal things to pagans. Muhammad was a pagan before his prophethood, right? So was Abraham (he was from a culture which worshipped the moon). Plus, haven't you already asserted on this very thread that God did send warners to every culture with messages, and they distorted or erased those messages? I don't understand your views if you think that's true but, then you also don't think that God might reveal to these Magi that he is doing something really important in Israel, and they need to go meet the Messiah. 

Where is there any proof that any revelation was sent to anyone outside western Asia and Egypt ? ? ?

:book:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cool said:

1. The beginning was word.

2. The word was with God

3. And the word was God.

How can the beginning is word while it was with another entity mentioned as God? 

Appropriate sequence must have mentioned God as the beginning who has the word.

Secondly, why God has one single word? Why not He has words?

Thirdly, lets apply the meaning of word mentioned in 3rd place to 1st & 2nd place. See what would happen:

1. The beginning was with God.

2. And the God was with God

3. And the God was God.

Doesn't make sense at all!!

Doesn't make sense, but it did have a purpose.

The notes handy at my desk here do not have the source philosophy for this.

The purpose for it is to confound the listener who tries to grasp some element of meaning -which is designed to be verse 1:12: that if you conform to this 'chirp and mutter' (OT idiom in Douay translation)  they can self-divinize into a 'son of g.od'. A self-damning thing to do, but is also another reason evilgelicals push the trinity/triplety --allowing the emotional leap into sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to get back to you tomorrow night, I am going to bed and spending most of tomorrow in Chicago.

May God bless you all this evening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2019 at 1:30 AM, thegoodman81 said:

Jesus was born in the first few years of the first century AD. He ascended to Heaven sometime around 30-34 AD. Most of the 27 books were written after that, but before 65 AD. So that is still within Jesus' 'lifetime,' even though he was no longer physically present.

Hello Friend!! 

Isn't it strange that you don't know how before 65 AD those 27 books were written, Jesus ascended to Heaven around 30-34 AD yet you are saying that these books were written in his lifetime. To me, this statement looks contradicting. I therefore would like to request you to elaborate for me what do you mean by "Jesus ascension & his physical absence". As per our belief He is alive so this 2019 AD is still his life time even though he is not physically present among us. 

On 8/24/2019 at 1:30 AM, thegoodman81 said:

That's another good question! I have a few things I want to explain regarding that. 
First, we don't believe Jesus was the final messenger. We don't think of him merely as a Prophet. We worship him as God. So when he speaks God's wisdom, he isn't prophesying; he's speaking from his own wisdom and knowledge). We think that calling him a Prophet does not acknowledge his true greatness, so we don't call him that. 

Hmmm, I will take your time here on these points specifically.  

Ok, first please clear it to me that from Adam (عليه السلام) to Mosa (عليه السلام), you believe all of these were Prophets?  
Is it you who don't think of him merely as a Prophet & started worshiping him as God or was it Jesus who commanded you to worship him as God? And what do you think God actually is? Is it the acknowledgement of God's greatness to claim that He took a virgin birth? 

Please excuse me if you find my questions offensive because being a Muslim, we have a totally different view of God's Oneness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We don't think of him merely as a Prophet. We worship him as God. 

How can you worship anyone "as God" except the God? I really don't understand this assertion while the Bible have verses like:

“that the LORD Himself is God in heaven above and on the Earth beneath; there is no other,” (Deuteronomy 4:39)
He is the one “Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done,” (Isaiah 46:10)
God states “I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God,” (Isaiah 44:6)
“I made the Earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host,” (Isaiah 45:12)

How can you declare anyone "as God" while the scripture itself declares that God is eternal one and there is none like Him? 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^ @Logic1234  A general answer to your question: You are trying to understand a convoluted model jumbled together with agendas and New Testament citations and christology.  "Triplety/Trinity", "g.od on Earth", "son of g.od" , "lamb"[which Biblically, has a double meaning], and other conjectures.

There are also contradictions that are not answered in their dogma.

For example: Using the KJV(King James Version) Ephesians 3:9 "...God, who created all things by Jesus Christ." BUT Mark 10:6 God create them male and female.  :ko:

For an example of how they can 'justify' their christology: Luke 24:27 beginning with Moses he(Jesus) explained how everything had to do with himself(Jesus) ----to make this more clear, everything everywhere is about Jesus.

See the mess this junk is?

Please note: l Ieft out the 'shockers'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

Hello Friend!! 

Isn't it strange that you don't know how before 65 AD those 27 books were written, Jesus ascended to Heaven around 30-34 AD yet you are saying that these books were written in his lifetime. To me, this statement looks contradicting...

Hello! Let me try to be clearer. :)

So, what I tried to say was that the books were written within Jesus' lifeSPAN, not his earthly lifetime.  Meaning, within 70 to 100 years from the time he was born. This is really important because it means that all of the authors were contemporaries of Jesus.

His ascension happened around 34 AD, and that event moved the disciples to start sharing the gospel verbally as well as writing their accounts. This all must have happened very quickly, because we know that at least the synoptic gospels (Matthew,  Mark,  Luke) and the works of Paul were written prior to Paul's death in 64AD, which is within the natural lifespan of someone born around year zero. Make sense?

7 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

elaborate for me what do you mean by "Jesus ascension & his physical absence". As per our belief He is alive so this 2019 AD is still his life time even though he is not physically present among us. 

Sure. Jesus was about 33 or 34 when he was crucified. Then he resurrected from the dead, and visited his followers for a brief time before he was raised to Heaven. You can read about it in Acts 1:1-11. So from that point and until now, Jesus is not physically present on the Earth, though he is alive in Heaven.

3 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

How can you declare anyone "as God" while the scripture itself declares that God is eternal one and there is none like Him? 

Another very good question, you live up to your handle. :)

simply put, we are not talking about a separate God. We are talking about the same God. Jesus is him! We worship him as God because that is who he is. Jesus himself said:  “I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades." (Revelation 1:17-18)

Jesus also accepted worship,  told people to pray to him, claimed to forgive sins, and claimed equality with God. 

So you are correct, there is no one like God. But Jesus isn't like God... he is God. 

btw, @hasanhh I haven't forgotten about you, it's just been a busy weekend. I'll try to respond to you later today. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hasanhh said:

Then how do explain "not yet fifty" John 8:57 ?

Are you joking? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hasanhh said:

No.

They said "not yet fifty" and not "barely thirty".

Look at my profile pic. How old do you think I am there?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, thegoodman81 said:

We worship him as God because that is who he is. Jesus himself said:  “I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades." (Revelation 1:17-18)

How can you call him eternal one while the above verse mentioning him dead at some point of time.

3 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

How can you declare anyone "as God" while the scripture itself declares that God is eternal one and there is none like Him? 

One who taste death cannot be a God. Look at the words of Jesus "I was dead".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cool said:

How can you call him eternal one while the above verse mentioning him dead at some point of time.

One who taste death cannot be a God. Look at the words of Jesus "I was dead".

Because in his physical, human body, Jesus experienced physical death. This did not take away from his divinity. 

When a light bulb burns out or shatters, the electricity isn't damaged. Neither was God damaged when the physical body of Jesus was crucified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hasanhh said:

Twenty something.

I wish! I was 35 when that was taken three years ago. And last week, someone thought I was 25. Someone else thought I was 45 a few months ago (that one hurt, LOL)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Twenty something.

My point is, it's not always easy to tell. So they were capping their estimate, like saying "you can't be more than 50 years old." Make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thegoodman81 said:

I wish! I was 35 when that was taken three years ago. And last week, someone thought I was 25. Someone else thought I was 45 a few months ago (that one hurt, LOL)!

The point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thegoodman81 said:

My point is, it's not always easy to tell. So they were capping their estimate, like saying "you can't be more than 50 years old." Make sense?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thegoodman81 said:

Because in his physical, human body, Jesus experienced physical death

You have made the God who changes forms. You made him father, son & spirit at the same time. You have made your God, a drama, who send Himself in the form of holy spirit to Mary to inform her His own virgin birth. 

You have invented the likeness!!! That is a serious error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thegoodman81 said:

My point is, it's not always easy to tell. So they were capping their estimate, like saying "you can't be more than 50 years old." Make sense?

:hahaha: "These are people who knew him or have come to know of him. His unique birth, rabbinical school, his preaching, feeding 5000 . . .and now you allege they are guessing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cool said:

You have made the God who changes forms. You made him father, son & spirit at the same time. You have made your God, a drama, who send Himself in the form of holy spirit to Mary to inform her His own virgin birth. 

You have invented the likeness!!! That is a serious error.

Not me my friend. I'm just telling you what's in the scripture which the Qur'an says is valid. Sura 10:94. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, thegoodman81 said:

When a light bulb burns out or shatters, the electricity isn't damaged.

lol, but the bulb is not the electricity :D.

You are saying bulb is electricity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

:hahaha: "These are people who knew him or have come to know of him. His unique birth, rabbinical school, his preaching, feeding 5000 . . .and now you allege they are guessing?

Incorrect again, these Jews were not from his hometown. They thought he was from Samaria. Read the whole chapter, its inc. 48they didn't know him.

Edited by thegoodman81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thegoodman81 said:

I'm just telling you what's in the scripture which the Qur'an says is valid. Sura 10:94. :)

Qur'an says "lam yalid walam yulad" (he begets not nor is he begotten).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thegoodman81 said:

Not me my friend. I'm just telling you what's in the scripture which the Qur'an says is valid. Sura 10:94. :)

The "Book" referred to in Ayat 10:94 is the Book given to Moses -(عليه السلام).

NOT the New Testament which is several "books", letters, and mystery stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hasanhh said:

The "Book" referred to in Ayat 10:94 is the Book given to Moses -(عليه السلام).

NOT the New Testament which is several "books", letters, and mystery stories.

It refers Muhammad to the people who read the prior scriptures. That includes Jews but also Christian's, and the only scriptures we have ever had are the books of the new Testament. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thegoodman81 said:

these Jews were not from his hometown

lsrael is a small place. You can walk from Bethlehem to the Temple Mount in twenty minutes or less.

The modern state of Israel is only 70 miles long from Aquaba to Lebanon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cool said:

Qur'an says "lam yalid walam yulad" (he begets not nor is he begotten).

Yes, there was no sexuality involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thegoodman81 said:

Yes, there was no sexuality involved.

 

2 minutes ago, thegoodman81 said:

Yes, there was no sexuality involved.

Who wrote/said there was?

Was there sex involved in the creation of Adam . . . or any of the beasts of the field?

Edited by hasanhh

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.


×
×
  • Create New...